Gay Marriage
Both sides of this argument have missed the point.
First, while most gay citizens simply want equal rights, a few gay activists stir anger by labeling disagreement with their lifestyle as "hate." How ridiculous. Disagreement is just that - disagreement. For instance, many homosexuals would disagree with the practices of Evangelical Christians, but that disagreement is far from "hating." It is just honest disagreement.
Equally bad are the bigots who use anti-gay slurs. Flinging labels to intimidate dissenting voices, they're no better than the extreme gay activists. The rest of us, gay or straight, lie trapped between these bomb-throwers, wondering what happened to free expression.
Let's focus, okay? Whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, the decision to marry is undoubtedly a choice. And for Christians, how does the Biblical standard treat choices? Impose nothing; inform on everything. Let everyone choose their own trees, so to speak.
Everyone should be free to state their views on any lifestyle and it's wrong to make religious groups support practices that violate their beliefs. But banning choices? God didn't do it in the Garden, the Apostles didn't do it outside the church, and we shouldn't do it today. Besides, why should others have to follow your religious convictions?
Some only argue against gay people using the term, "marriage." They have a point. We already have different terms, such as "gay or straight" and "heterosexual or homosexual," so why not "marriage or legal unions" - especially since the term "marriage" has long been a heterosexual institution? If the goal is not to offend, but rather to secure equal rights, then continuing to use different terms sounds like a good option.
I hear people on both sides saying, "I don't hate the other side. We just disagree." My answer? Prove it. If you don't hate gay people, then find a way to give them equal rights. Or if you don't hate religious people, find a way to protect their freedoms and preserve their cherished institutions. Meet in the middle. Hammer out a deal. Get it done.
Talk is cheap, people. If you won't lift a finger to help someone, then don't say you care about them. If you want churches punished or gay people's rights limited because they don't agree with you, then you want your preferences or traditions to be their laws.
That's not good enough. Look again at the Party Of Choice belief:
First, while most gay citizens simply want equal rights, a few gay activists stir anger by labeling disagreement with their lifestyle as "hate." How ridiculous. Disagreement is just that - disagreement. For instance, many homosexuals would disagree with the practices of Evangelical Christians, but that disagreement is far from "hating." It is just honest disagreement.
Equally bad are the bigots who use anti-gay slurs. Flinging labels to intimidate dissenting voices, they're no better than the extreme gay activists. The rest of us, gay or straight, lie trapped between these bomb-throwers, wondering what happened to free expression.
Let's focus, okay? Whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, the decision to marry is undoubtedly a choice. And for Christians, how does the Biblical standard treat choices? Impose nothing; inform on everything. Let everyone choose their own trees, so to speak.
Everyone should be free to state their views on any lifestyle and it's wrong to make religious groups support practices that violate their beliefs. But banning choices? God didn't do it in the Garden, the Apostles didn't do it outside the church, and we shouldn't do it today. Besides, why should others have to follow your religious convictions?
Some only argue against gay people using the term, "marriage." They have a point. We already have different terms, such as "gay or straight" and "heterosexual or homosexual," so why not "marriage or legal unions" - especially since the term "marriage" has long been a heterosexual institution? If the goal is not to offend, but rather to secure equal rights, then continuing to use different terms sounds like a good option.
I hear people on both sides saying, "I don't hate the other side. We just disagree." My answer? Prove it. If you don't hate gay people, then find a way to give them equal rights. Or if you don't hate religious people, find a way to protect their freedoms and preserve their cherished institutions. Meet in the middle. Hammer out a deal. Get it done.
Talk is cheap, people. If you won't lift a finger to help someone, then don't say you care about them. If you want churches punished or gay people's rights limited because they don't agree with you, then you want your preferences or traditions to be their laws.
That's not good enough. Look again at the Party Of Choice belief:
"The Party Of Choice supports every individual choice that does not directly limit the choices of others."
Legal unions do not limit straight marriage. Likewise, preserving the heterosexual marriage institution does not limit gay freedoms.
Ask any married heterosexual this question: "What makes your marriage special - the quality of your spouse, or the fact that homosexuals can't unite for life?" Invariably, the straight community will answer with praise for their spouses.
Then, ask any homosexual this question: "If I support your freedom to openly speak your views and legally unite for life, would you support my freedom to speak my views and preserve my cherished institutions?"
The usual answer would be, "Of course!"
Sadly, the current war between bomb-throwers makes resolution tough. Anti-gay slurs are offensive. Labeling disagreement as "hate" is offensive. If you keep offending people, they'll turn on you. They'll vote against your rights. Attacking your freedoms of speech and religion, they'll shove their views down your throat - and you'll have no room to complain. Why? Because no one who provokes anger should complain when those they provoke try to limit their rights. Bomb-throwers get what they deserve.
Ultimately, this whole issue comes down to valuing people. Both sides should remember this statement: If we only value people who agree with us, then we aren't valuing people at all. We're just valuing their agreement with us. And if we only value their agreement with us, then what we really value is us.
The Party Of Choice challenges all Americans to value all Americans - not just those with whom they agree. Don't silence people, don't threaten their institutions, and don't deny their choices. Let everyone speak freely, but any choice that doesn't directly limit the choices of others should remain as free as the speech that discusses it.
Hey, it's a free country - or it should be.
Ask any married heterosexual this question: "What makes your marriage special - the quality of your spouse, or the fact that homosexuals can't unite for life?" Invariably, the straight community will answer with praise for their spouses.
Then, ask any homosexual this question: "If I support your freedom to openly speak your views and legally unite for life, would you support my freedom to speak my views and preserve my cherished institutions?"
The usual answer would be, "Of course!"
Sadly, the current war between bomb-throwers makes resolution tough. Anti-gay slurs are offensive. Labeling disagreement as "hate" is offensive. If you keep offending people, they'll turn on you. They'll vote against your rights. Attacking your freedoms of speech and religion, they'll shove their views down your throat - and you'll have no room to complain. Why? Because no one who provokes anger should complain when those they provoke try to limit their rights. Bomb-throwers get what they deserve.
Ultimately, this whole issue comes down to valuing people. Both sides should remember this statement: If we only value people who agree with us, then we aren't valuing people at all. We're just valuing their agreement with us. And if we only value their agreement with us, then what we really value is us.
The Party Of Choice challenges all Americans to value all Americans - not just those with whom they agree. Don't silence people, don't threaten their institutions, and don't deny their choices. Let everyone speak freely, but any choice that doesn't directly limit the choices of others should remain as free as the speech that discusses it.
Hey, it's a free country - or it should be.