by Dr. Fred
As we drove through Lexington KY last week, I picked up a copy of the Herald-Leader newspaper. One of the headlines was, "State's Voters Soften View on Gay Marriage." One of the reasons stated for this softening view of same-sex marriage was given as "federal judges' decisions likely affecting opinions."
There are bigger reasons for the softening of voters' views on gay marriage and it has to do with two things:
- society is being bombarded with the view that to oppose gay marriage is "hateful," and
- views are being changed due to emotional virtue
Emotional virtue is really just another name for being politically correct. Emotional virtue essentially implies that there are no absolutes at all and because of that, a particular view on something is reliant on the specific circumstances of a particular issue.
This is why pro-abortion is so widely accepted today and those who are pro-life are panned as "haters" and wanting to exercise control over a woman's body. In point of fact, most abortions are repeat and simply prove that the woman has little to no control over her own body in spite of what she might argue to the contrary. If she really had control over her body and did not want to become pregnant, she would do everything she could to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. The fact that many women have multiple abortions (some up to four or five) proves that no precautions are taken by the woman to ensure that she does not become pregnant in the first place.
But back to gay marriage. Yes, it "helps" when society continues to hear from federal judges that say that opposing same-sex unions is unconstitutional. Eventually, people whose decisions are based not on truth but on circumstances, will give into these decisions and accept those decisions as "truth." They will then adopt the position that if it's unconstitutional to oppose or block same-sex unions, then it must be okay. This is in spite of any view that says the opposite, as for instance, the Bible teaches.
Interestingly enough, gay marriage proponents will tell you that they do not want to destroy marriage at all, but simply want to enjoy the benefits of it as heterosexuals have done for centuries. However, as we go back through history, there has never been a time or culture in which homosexual unions were legally recognized. One would think that this would have been the case, especially in a society such as Ancient Rome.
During the Roman Empire, it was not only acceptable to marry your sister, cousin, niece, or what have you, but enjoying homosexual liaisons on the side was in no way considered to be a taboo. (I would contend that those among today's globalists still live like this in order to keep their fortunes in the family).
The people of Rome saw sex as sex, something that was to be enjoyed and found pleasurable. For instance, under Hadrian, a law was passed that forbid men and women to use the public baths at the same time. Hadrian was concerned that the baths might become hotbeds of sexual activity, therefore he made the law that men and women could use the baths but at different times.
This did not stop sexual activity. Prostitutes (both male and female) would still go to the baths and ply their trade, men with men and women with women. It was simply another way to let off steam so to speak. It wasn't looked down upon in Roman society. The only type of relationship that was seriously frowned upon was when the woman married to the emperor had an affair and didn't even try to hide it.
Yet, with all the homosexuality being practiced during the Roman Empire, homosexual unions were never recognized by the state as being equal to heterosexual unions. It simply was not done and with Rome being Rome, one would think that with the acceptance of homosexual liaisons as they were, same-sex unions would have been legalized. This was not the case.
Again though, with homosexuals and gay activists saying that they do not want to destroy marriage, the reality is that it is seriously being redefined. What has always been recognized as a union between one man and one woman is now being widened to include in that definition a union between one human being and another human being.
What's wrong with that one might ask? The problem is that since the definition of marriage is being redefined, where is the stop gap? If we now say that marriage is between a man and man or woman and woman, as well as between one man and one woman, how is it possible to say that transgenders cannot marry? Or, how can someone rightfully say that polygamy should not be recognized? How about if a man really loves his horse? Who is to say that he is not allowed to marry his horse? Oh, it's because the horse is not human? But all that needs to occur is for those who love their animals enough to keep pushing and pushing and pushing so that in time, people's views on humans marrying animals will soften as well. Another decision made on emotional virtue.
The point is that whether gay activists are willing to admit it or not, the decision to recognize same-sex unions does destroy traditional marriage and it opens a huge can of worms so that eventually, marriage will not exist. That is the end result and it is so because of emotional virtue.
Recently, Amy Grant did an interview with a website catering to the gay community. She unfortunately narrowed things down to two views: judgment or compassion. In other words, in her view, to oppose gay marriage is to be judgmental, according to her. To simply accept gays as they are is compassionate.
The difficulty is that Grant separates the two responses into two completely separate categories as though they are automatically opposed. One can have compassion on someone while still knowing that their lifestyle, activities, or what have you is wrong, according to God's Word.
Alcoholism - as a for instance - is often related to genetics, but certainly not always. For the individual who is predisposed to becoming an alcoholic, the only sure way to avoid becoming an alcoholic is to avoid any and all alcohol. Once they begin drinking, chances are very good that they will eventually become a full-blown alcoholic.
To judge alcoholism as bad is obvious. We know it's bad because of the lives that it destroys. Anytime anyone is addicted to a substance that eventually controls them, that's bad. However, we can still have compassion for that person to want to help them, to want them to be free of their addiction. The idea that judging alcoholism as bad is the same as being judgmental and without compassion is absurd. This seems to me to be what Amy Grant is saying about the gay lifestyle (and yes, she uses the word "lifestyle").
Then again, how can Amy "judge" anyone since her first marriage ended in failure and divorce, prior to marrying her current husband, Vince Gill? For Amy Grant, as well as many others in society, the decision to simply have compassion on people does not help them at all. We can have compassion on the alcoholic or drug addict all we want, but in the end, compassion is merely a feeling that makes us believe we are concerned about an individual for what they are going through.
The real question is what does our compassion motivate us to do for them? Sometimes, tough love is required and there are many examples of Jesus doing just that in Scripture. It doesn't mean He loved less or had no compassion on those individuals. It was because of His compassion that He was forced to tell them the truth.
Truth today is flexible for many. It is so because it stems from emotional virtue and that stems from a political correctness that refuses to allow ourselves to go out on a limb for others. The important thing is to be accepted by all and for that to happen, there can be no absolute rights or absolute wrongs.
Gay marriage is an issue that is destroying traditional marriage. If taken to the extreme, it will completely eliminate marriage, something that has never been the case in any portion of history before. That is not something to celebrate at all. While we must have compassion on all people who are lost and not living in accordance with God's just will, we must also be willing to do as Christ did and tell people when they are going down the wrong path.
It will mean being hated, vilified, and castigated by those who choose emotional virtue as their source for truth. In the end though, that shouldn't matter at all. The only thing that matters is loving people enough to tell them there may be a problem that is keeping them from God and they need to address it.
(This has been reblogged from For Truth's Sake!)
No comments:
Post a Comment