Gay Rage Part III: Fact, Fantasy, Faithfulness, and Futility

Do a Google, Slate, Salon, New Republic, or any mainstream media website search for “gay riots” and you won’t find much or even anything about the thuggish response of the gay community to the will of the people. In fact, Google has finally admitted what some have suspected for quite some time–its staff will “pick and choose” search results.

Despite the fact liberals have been pushing “America the Democracy” in place of “America the Constitutional Republic” for years, suddenly, and without warning, liberals find it outlandish that California voters should have the right to pass Proposition 8 in accordance with the California Constitution. Instead, liberals believe it is perfectly permissible to deny California voters their right in order to create special rights for an “invented” minority group.

Slate even published an article titled The Gay Fray that states, “The civil-rights analogy…allows gay-rights advocates to avoid mentioning homosexuality.” Shortly thereafter, the same article posits the “special rights” complaint of many Americans is logically flawed because “…our civil-rights laws are entirely about special categories such as race…” This is blatantly false and misleading. The Civil Rights movement was focused on establishing equal rights for minorities historically denied equality throughout the American legal system and American society as a whole. The minority groups in question were categorically unequal because of their skin color, not as a result of what they preferred to do in the bedroom (“sexual preference”).

This type of disingenuous spinning of history does not aid the gay agenda, for it underscores what does and doesn’t matter to gays and their supporters. It doesn’t matter what the historical facts of the Civil Rights movement were. It doesn’t matter that a black or latino or Native American doesn’t have a preference for a particular skin color. It doesn’t matter that they were beaten, lynched, raped, tortured, and exploited as sub-citizens of the country they lived in. And it really doesn’t matter if a conservative stumbles in making the counter arguments that the gay agenda is a constantly evolving political machine that is fueled by the very money gays have, that those aided by the Civil Rights movement did not.

No. What matters to liberals is a new “cause,” regardless of how flawed the arguments of the “cause” may be, because liberals see the potential of one more special interest group to donate money to their political war chests.

A glaring example of flawed arguments can be found in a Salon article titled, “Why Churches Fear Gay Marriage.” Its author, Jeanne Carstensen, relies heavily on the comments and opinions of Richard Rodriguez, a homosexual who attends a Roman Catholic church that neither subscribes to the tenets of Christian orthodoxy or is willing to discipline its members, as evidenced by the joint attendance of Rodriguez and his homosexual lover.

Ignoring all the causative reasons for the problems within American Christian churches, Rodriguez opines that “the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.”

To a group of predominately unchurched people or people who have left the church due to its hypocrisy (in direct disobedience to God’s Word), this sounds plausible. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. The church is in disarray because of numerous factors that have nothing to do with the rise of women, for the rise of women in traditionally male leadership roles within the church is but a symptom with multiple causes. For Rodriguez to opine that a symptom is the basis for pro-Proposition 8 support is logically and intellectually flawed, and it ignores the cause and effect for the rise of women.

In the same article, Rodriguez makes another leap that is equally problematic. “If the Hispanic Catholic and evangelical churches really wanted to protect the family, they should address the issue of wife beating in Hispanic families and the misbehaviors of the father against the mother. But no, they go after gay marriage. It doesn’t take any brilliance to notice that this is hypocrisy of such magnitude that you blame the gay couple living next door for the fact that you’ve just beaten your wife.” (emphasis mine)

First, the acceptance of wife beating within the Hispanic community is a cultural issue, not a church issue. Secondly, there is no Catholic Priest or evangelical pastor who is going to condone wife beating. Third, because wife beating is a cultural issue, much of the abuse is never surfaced with local church leadership. Fourth, an expectation that pastors and priests intrude into the family home to root out wife beating should be just as offensive to homosexuals as the intrusion into their bedrooms. Why isn’t it?

Because, despite his intellectual credentials, the systematic violation of a heterosexual’s “right to privacy,” shouldn’t be protected–only the homosexual’s “right to privacy” is sacrosanct.

From a political standpoint, this attitude is part and parcel to liberal thinking, since liberals are “the best and the brightest” and, therefore, should not have their illogic or own hypocrisy scrutinized. When it is, the liberal political spin machine goes into full-speed-ahead mode, with the resulting ad hominem attacks being a staple of liberal (and gay rights activists’) response.

In essence, regardless of any argument advanced by those supporting gay rights, the arguments are logically and factually flawed. And though the majority of Americans may not be able to intellectualize and then state the specific problems with the gay rights arguments, they instinctively sense there is something wrong with the thinking that supports the proffered arguments. And they are correct, because the pro-gay marriage arguments are fanciful at best.

This is also true from a theological perspective.

Again, we can read the pro-gay arguments that the Bible supports gay marriage until the cows come home. Newsweek has even gone so far as to twist what the Bible has to say about love to advance the argument for gay marriage. Yet, once again, the mainstream media–one of the most theologically ignorant institutions in America–ignores biblical fact and demonstrates its own faithlessness in its application of parsing Holy Scripture. When we return to basic biblical hermeneutics and the clear language of the Bible, we are left with the following: (1) God authored the Bible through His chosen writers, (2) Christ is God, (3) the New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament and, therefore, God does not have to speak to the same issue, even though He sometimes does, (4) homosexuality is a capital crime in the Old Testament, (5) homosexuality is identified in the New Testament as one of the aberrant behaviors signaling end times, (6) God is perfectly loving and perfectly just, which is why Christ had to die, (7) God’s perfect justice requires a perfect sacrifice, and that justice did not end with Christ’s crucifixion, (8) the blood covering of Christ’s atoning work is ongoing, otherwise mankind would have no hope of reconciliation with a perfectly Holy God. Thus, no matter how bastardized gays and their supporters wish to pervert Holy Scripture, the Bible makes it clear there must be a turning away from those behaviors the Bible identifies as sinful. Without true repentance (turning away) for sin, no one is reconciled to God, and homosexuality is clearly delineated by God as sin worthy of the death penalty.

Thus, it is this very set of biblical facts that debunks Newsweek’s, gay-marriage supporters’, and the liberals’ advancement of biblical support for gay marriage and renders the arguments devoid of biblical support for gay marriage. Sin is sin. Homosexual practice is sin. Gay “marriage” is sin. Supporting gay marriage is sin. And we cannot point to the sin of others (adultery, abortion, unbiblical divorce, assisted suicide, Abraham’s faithlessness, Obama’s stimulus “plan”) or hypocrisy on the part of others to justify sin. It is futile rationalization and nothing else. And though the Bible makes it clear that love covers a multitude of sin, one does not have to be a biblical scholar, pastor, or priest to know that homosexual practice in any form is contrary to God’s will for mankind and, just like any other sinful behavior, a failure to turn from sin is not covered by the blood of Christ.

Previous posts in this series:

California “burning” explained

Gay Rage: So Who Gets the Kids?

Gay “Marriage”: Stop the Madness!

Gay Rage Part II: “Die, Christian”