Why Do You Keep Saying Christians Want to Hurt Homosexuals?
A person who has written some comments to this blog has said that I want to hurt homosexuals. It seems to be a common reaction--anyone who does not agree with the homosexual agenda is a homophobe who hates and wants to hurt homosexuals. What I hear them really saying is, "If you don't agree with me, you are afraid of me and hate me." How absurd that is. It's like a child saying to his parents,
"If you don’t give me what I want, then you don't love me."
Christians don't want to hurt homosexuals. I sorry that if you feel our saying, "No, we don't want you to distort marriage into something it is not." hurts you. What's interesting is that I think (and I think most polls show) that most Christians would be willing to give homosexuals everything they want, if what they really wanted was what they say they want.
What was that again?
Homosexuals say they want to be able to legally marry so they can have the benefits for their partners--insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation rights--that come with marriage. This can easily be done. Call it gayiage instead of marriage. One simple law giving the same rights and privileges as the government gives to married couples, would all that would be needed. That's what homosexuals say they want. Why not ask for what you say you want?
I don't agree that something such as gayiage is right. I don't think homosexuality is right, so something established on the basis of homosexuality can not be right. I also know that recognizing homosexual unions will cause more harm to homosexuals than good. For example, look at domestic violence among homosexual partners for example. 48% of lesbians and 38% of homosexual men report being physically abused by their partners. Psychological abuse is report by 73% to 90% of lesbians (depending on which study you look at). At least three quarters of women in a homosexual relationship will be abused in one way or another. Isn't it more loving to help people avoid being abused?
However, if legislators so chose, they can create gayiage and that would be a civil issue. But that would not be satisfactory to the homosexual community. What they want is to have their relationships recognized as being moral and right. They are doing this by attempting to hijack marriage and make it into something it is not. The basic purpose of constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman is not to oppose homosexual marriage, but to protect marriage itself. Homosexual marriage happens to be the immediate threat to marriage.
The commenter asked: "Who cares? If gays want to get married who cares? If they want to live in sin - who cares?"
I care. I care because by redefining marriage homosexuals are taking marriage away from everyone else. Marriage will then be just something people do to get government benefits (which is what homosexuals say they want), instead of a lifelong commitment between a man and woman. Marriage will then be about the people getting married (that's called selfishness), instead of being about providing the best family structure possible for raising children. Homosexuals are trying to steal marriage, and that is wrong.
"If you don’t give me what I want, then you don't love me."
Christians don't want to hurt homosexuals. I sorry that if you feel our saying, "No, we don't want you to distort marriage into something it is not." hurts you. What's interesting is that I think (and I think most polls show) that most Christians would be willing to give homosexuals everything they want, if what they really wanted was what they say they want.
What was that again?
Homosexuals say they want to be able to legally marry so they can have the benefits for their partners--insurance, inheritance, hospital visitation rights--that come with marriage. This can easily be done. Call it gayiage instead of marriage. One simple law giving the same rights and privileges as the government gives to married couples, would all that would be needed. That's what homosexuals say they want. Why not ask for what you say you want?
I don't agree that something such as gayiage is right. I don't think homosexuality is right, so something established on the basis of homosexuality can not be right. I also know that recognizing homosexual unions will cause more harm to homosexuals than good. For example, look at domestic violence among homosexual partners for example. 48% of lesbians and 38% of homosexual men report being physically abused by their partners. Psychological abuse is report by 73% to 90% of lesbians (depending on which study you look at). At least three quarters of women in a homosexual relationship will be abused in one way or another. Isn't it more loving to help people avoid being abused?
However, if legislators so chose, they can create gayiage and that would be a civil issue. But that would not be satisfactory to the homosexual community. What they want is to have their relationships recognized as being moral and right. They are doing this by attempting to hijack marriage and make it into something it is not. The basic purpose of constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between one man and one woman is not to oppose homosexual marriage, but to protect marriage itself. Homosexual marriage happens to be the immediate threat to marriage.
The commenter asked: "Who cares? If gays want to get married who cares? If they want to live in sin - who cares?"
I care. I care because by redefining marriage homosexuals are taking marriage away from everyone else. Marriage will then be just something people do to get government benefits (which is what homosexuals say they want), instead of a lifelong commitment between a man and woman. Marriage will then be about the people getting married (that's called selfishness), instead of being about providing the best family structure possible for raising children. Homosexuals are trying to steal marriage, and that is wrong.
posted by BrickBalloon
Read This Post In Our: Christianity in America Blog Archive
7 Comments:
There is a fundamental difference between disagreement and counter-action. You campaign for laws to be enacted against gay marriage. That is a big step beyond disagreement.
You believe your active involvement in this issue is simply 'voicing opinion' and 'free speech', and so do not understand active responses which are in contradiction to yours. I'm not making judgements of right or wrong, legitimacy or anything else about your signs and the fact that people keep tearing them down.
What I see is someone who has erected inflammatory signs, and professes surprise, lack of understanding and hurt when they're torn down. I'd bet that you're not as dumb as you pretend to be, that it's part of your game plan. Your passive-agression is a tactic like any other, and if you want to play that way then go for it.
However, explicitly provoking retaliation and then playing hapless victim has no more or less credibility to me than tearing your signs down - they're both stupid, misguided actions that need to be thought through some more.
If you think that martyring yourself through your signs has merit then you just carry on sacrificing your time and effort to putting them up again.
What I take issue with is the fact that you have decided to use your victim status to lay blame at the door of homos everywhere.
Don't agree with gay marriage - fine.
Campaign to supress the gay population - fine.
Have a whinge about it when people counter-act - grow up.
Gay people say they are discriminated against because their relationships do not get the same benefits as married people do. Then why are they not asking for civil unions--which would give them everything they want without destroying marriage? Why must it be marriage?
I don't understand this.
I have a question to help me understand what is okay to do and what is not okay to do. If vandalism and destruction of private property is an acceptable response, where in the following list do acceptable counter-actions end, and unaccepable counter-actions (under any and all circumstances) begin. We both do understand, of course, that all of the following counter-actions are illegal:
1. Vandalism and destruction of Pro Marriage (one man one woman) signs. (You've said this is okay).
2. Vandalism and destruction of Anti Marriage (pro homosexual marriage) signs.
3. Destruction ofthe camera set up to monitor the signs (signs cost $40, the camera cost $250 - so the value of the damage has increased).
4. Distracting the security guards hired to watch the signs while the signs are destroyed.
5. Using pepper spray to disable the security guards hired to watch the signs, and then destroying the signs.
6. Beating the security guards with clubs so they can not stop the destruction of the signs.
7. Shooting the security guards and then destroying the signs.
What criteria are you using to determine what actions are acceptable? My understanding of what you wrote is that if something makes a person angry (inflammatory), it is acceptable to respound with destructive counter-action. Is this correct?
How do you define inflammatory? It seems to me that what may make one person angry may have no effect on another person.
Please answer this question in particular: There is a union hall/training facility around the corner from where I am right now. They have four very large political signs up that I find VERY OFFENSIVE. Is it acceptable for me to go destroy those signs this evening?
I said both the erection of those signs and tearing them down were stupid and misguided actions. Does that indicate that I find them acceptable? I didn't think so; perhaps I should've been clearer.
Now to answer your questions.
1. No, although apparently i did say this was ok
2. No, ditto
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. Yes (just kidding - shooting security guards is wrong! kids)
My criteria are those that the law applies. Your understanding is not correct. I accept blame for that on my part - apparently "stupid and misguided" are positive terms to you, and indicate approval. I will endeavour to avoid using them in future.
I use inflammatory in the following sense: those signs spur people to counter-action. Obviously not everybody - good job pointing that out.
In answer to your particular question: No, I would not see that as acceptable. But I also wouldn't use your destruction of the signs as motivation to try and stop every heterosexual from getting married. Furthermore, I wouldn't take your counter-action as indicative of the moral state of all heterosexuals. I'd just think you were a upset by the signs, and nutty enough to go and destroy them. Lucky for america you have the self-control to restrain yourself to using upper-case to indicate the strength of your disagreement.
Ah, we've reached agreement.
I doubt it. You still think gays shouldn't have the right to marry. I still think they should have that right.
I also agree with that statement, that we disagree. And that's fine.
All I was saying here is that it seems we agree that in political debate, the law should be obeyed.
Without wanting to open a new topic I'd add: excluding, of course, civil disobedience, which does not involve running away and hiding from the law, but standing up and facing the law with a willingness to accept the full consequences of breaking the law should that be necessary.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home