This Chick-Fil-A Thing Getting A Little Carried Away. This Is My Response To Jackson A Pearce And Her Chick-Fil-A Rants.
In just a short span of time, homosexual and atheist America are seeking to subvert the morales, and traditions that have long since existed in cities all across this nation. The black becomes white, the white black, and then they all are bled with a copious amount of gray; so much gray that we don't realize where black is, nor where white. You turn your head at the fork left or right, seemingly the landscape has been changed. America likes the gray perspective. We shirk from integrity, or responsibility or even community. We are independent and proud. Independently failing, and proudly sexual.
The world likes the idea that all morality is subjective too. Its a call from the bowls of our ID. Subjective morality, and a distaste for morality in general have brought about ideas that we can just exist, without morality, we can overcome morality with deception and rationalization. We can get our cake and eat it with everyone having their own version of their own morality; or even those with no morality at all. For some reason the people who vote for no morality, don't end up living in that world. They are protected by the heros who give their lives for morality. They are protected by the laws that were created for a morale community.
As we talk about these powerfully philosophical quandaries, there is a harsh resentment and a ever present need to vocalize our own views on the subject. We want to be distinguished and heard! Sometimes, we want this, even when we don't know what we are talking about. And so goes the morale debate, into the scourge with a group of people who do not generally speak about morales, or philosophy, but who feel like there is wrong doing occurring.
Now, we are being told that if you don't believe a certain way - if you don't support gay marriage you are a bigot. You are a bad person. You, sir, are on the wrong side of history; whatever THAT means. History, has shown that gay people have come and gone. There are even gay people in the Bible. Christians are not "afraid of gay people" they are against the sin of homosexuality, and the You may not believe that homosexuals existed in Sodom and Gomorrah, since you of the secular world seem to want to refute the Bible for everything that it stands for, historical accuracies and otherwise; but they were there. We use the Bible to prove things, and then when it's hard to argue against the words of the Bible - when other things we want to do don't jive with what God wants us to do, we try and use secular "science" to disprove the Bible. It's a timeless tradition of pushing a non-Biblical vision of morality.
So we are left with this: Science is lacking integrity. We know this from the FDAA. We know this because if you look to science for anything these days, you also have to look at who funded that science. Science as told from those who would have history scourged of the positivity of Christianity, and replaced with a cold and hard theocracy whose members have become child molesters and killers. And a science that says that Gay people are not a race of people, but that there are people with a predisposition to homosexuality; the nature vs nurture finds someone with deep pockets to come down on the side of homosexual nature.
The third gender card is played. Homosexuals are not a gender, but quick posturing from the gay rights movement and associations with other liberal media groups attempt to put them parallel with one. They are merely human men and women, who have chosen a different path for their sexual gratification. We used to call it an alternative lifestyle - and people all over the world were okay with that because "alternative" was a cool word back then. We used to just not talk about gay people, or kind of give them their space. I mean sure there, were jocks and bullies who targeted them for their hate crimes, and i don't think anyone is for that kind behavior. Certainly, these hate crimes were treated with appropriate justice whenever possible, and if they weren't well then maybe we should re-open up some of those cases - because they should have been.
But then there started to become a change in the way that liberals, and more specifically those who support gay rights talked about those who didn't. Hate started being used to coin a group - those who were against the institution of marriage being redefined to include homosexual relationships. Hate started being a word people threw out when discussing the Christian religion, and its belief system. Hate became a word that was used to include anyone that didn't side with the LGBT community.
People would use the words, "my gay friends" and "i support gay's rights". We would argue that gay people have the same rights as single people, and the LGBT community and those who support gay rights would respond with: "yes, but single people are allowed to marry." Well, that is and it isn't true. And sometimes, it isn't true because single people include a subset which includes the LGBT community. Because, when you choose an alternative lifestyle, you are choosing to live alternatively; and you are not counted amongst the record books in that now coveted group of people called "married people." What is it about marriage that is now coveted by the LGBT community? Before they were well convinced to stay within the shadows and not divulge their beliefs, or to modify their belief systems sporadically to suit their own benefit. Before you wouldn't have homosexuals boldly trying to become part of the diocese, but would stay away from religion entirely - marking it as an institution that didn't accept them, or claimed that they were wrong in some way; that they were sinners because they chose to sex the one's they were attracted to.
What's odd, is that in the march to claim their rights, the gay community is doing the exact same thing that they are accusing the "Christian Right" of doing. They are exerting pressure to position the laws to suit their agenda; their way of life. They want to be mainstream. And whether they are there or not, is not the point. The point is that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that they have the right to marry. They have not had their 3rd gender suffrage. And so, because of this, they are hiding amongst single people; claiming a spot of not-married. But is this right? Is this just?
Jackson A Pearce will say that this is not about chicken, and that this is not about Christianity, except she uses Christianity, and chicken as talking points to get at her point. Gay people rock, straight people who oppose gay marriage are bigots. What we are talking about here isn't a life or death matter. It's not a hate crime, and it's not something that needs this much hate thrown out there. But the gay people want their way, and the people who think homosexuality is a sin, don't want to redefine the traditional definition of marriage. A lot of times the word HOMOPHOBIA is thrown out there, almost as a curse word against those who don't support homosexuality and it's endeavors.
A Quick Point on the Crimes of Christianity
Invariably when having a discussion about Christianity there are the plot points that are brought up that show Christianity to be oppressive, and war-mongering. Christianity, if you actually dive into the faith promotes a meek, and humble existence of love and respect. We as Christians are called to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I know, some of you have qualms with some of the teachings. I just want to say that when we discuss this that much of what I have heard in the negative against the teachings of Jesus Christ, has been about the followers of Jesus Christ - those persons who have claimed to be Christ-like, while not actually being Christ like - i'm not interested in those people. We can, for the sake of this conversation consider them to be neo-atheists shadowing as Christian scholars. Are there people who followed Jesus Christ's teachings who broke the law - of course. Do i think that they did anything wrong - no. Paul went to jail. Stephen was stoned. Being a Christian back in the day meant almost certain death. You followed because you were compelled to honor the most high God.
Nowadays, things are twisted. If you say that you believe that we should live one way, the other side, the secular person, will say that it conflicts with another part of our society which is generally accepted. They do this, because they know that while trying to build a utopia, you will upset a few people who have gotten used to the way things are currently. Sometimes, we talk about how the world ought to be, and how we ought to behave. And those thoughts are juxtaposed against ideas which are prevalent in modern contemporary America, or which have become very commonplace in the world we live in. To this point, I would like to state that in the greater picture there is a loving and lasting relationship between family and earth, between God, and person which exists within the faith that is called Christianity, and it is in that direction where I push those who bring up the ill-fated deaths, the ecumenical trials, the creeds, the theocracy, and other dodgy parts in history which weren't very shiny for the faith.
One of the things that homosexuality asserts is their "right" God-given or not to be their own person, to live their own way; to love whomever they want to love, in whichever way they want to love them. They don't have to be married to do this. DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] was something that took the rising support for gay unions, and put it in the hands of the sates. A good move I thought, being that we have for too long tried to make a more powerful Federal government, while moving far away from the states power to make their own decisions on issues.
There are many things which are misdefined in the dictionary. Our court system is littered with definitions that are restructured, or redefined to include or preclude certain actions, or participants.
Homo + Phobia
"Homosexual" is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it. It is, however, convenient, and now widely used. "Homogenic" has been suggested as a substitute. [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]
Sexual inversion (1883) was an earlier clinical term for it in English. The noun is recorded by 1895. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929.Homophobia is a misnomer. Homosexuals think that there is this fear, or everyone becoming homosexual, or this idea that it will thwart their way of life. What people are concerned with is this growing idea that homosexuals can do whatever they like, and that there is no structure or cadence to the world that can oppose it. You can't say that homosexuality is a sin anymore, without getting people who support homosexuality all riled up. Because now, homosexuality is not seen as a choice, it's an inevitability. It is no longer seen by a great many people as a sin, but a "lifestyle". And that lifestyle is positioned in a way so that it is parallel to a race of people. Add to that that the LGBT community adds to their ranks not only persons who are having sexual encounters with the same gender, but those who have decided that they are the 3rd gender - a notion that there is a transexual or misappropriated gender whose decisions to chop or pop testosterone & estrogen levels towards their goal of becoming the other gender is categorized as something that is also an inevitability for some.
This is a dangerous ball game, because it eliminates choice, and it deteriorates at morale consistency. Many of these people will side with Nihilism, or quite often will take up Zen Buddhism because there within these belief patterns there is a lack of accountability to a god. Also, we see Neo-Atheists, these nasty I will bludgeon you with my words sort of Evangelists for what they call SCIENCE. They will use "science" as their rationale for acting in all sorts of dis-repecful ways towards Christians, and other faith based religions. Generally, they don't get too preachy against the Eastern religions, because at this point it's still kinda cool to have gravitated this way with your faith. The Neo-Athiests abhor the idea that laws, or government or anyone in power is associated with the Christian faith at all. Many times, they will assert that a persons beliefs are wrong, simply because they come with, from, or have some sort of association with a faith based background.
Antoine Dodson has an interesting point: he will eat at Chick-Fil-A because he likes Chick-Fil-A. He doesn't need you to approve his way of life, but just respect it.
Antoine Dodson has an interesting point: he will eat at Chick-Fil-A because he likes Chick-Fil-A. He doesn't need you to approve his way of life, but just respect it.
It's interesting that Neo-Atheists are more upset with God than Christians are, or of any other faith based religion for that matter. They have unusually high hatred towards a being that they don't even believe to exist. They then turn this hatred, into resentment, and point it directly at those who believe in a higher power.
I'm not saying that it's not cool to be gay, and i'm not saying that I don't have gay friends. What I am saying is that there are HUGE inconsistencies when it comes to gay people trying to get respect, but while not giving respect in kind. I am against the idea that someone is a bigot simply because he or she does not believe in redefining the traditional definition of marriage. I also don't like it when people who support gay marriage like to act coy, like they don't know what the traditional definition of marriage is - like gays haven't increasingly come out of the closet like the True Blood vampires, and taken center stage in recent years amongst the media circuits, hollywood television and movies and even within the conversations we have that touch on religious issues. Or like to throw out some random and spurious comment about a certain history or plot point within history which doesn't really seem to have relevance. I see the gay movement. I see how it is gaining speed like a giant avalanche, that started from the snow ball.
Initially, I was pro-gay marriage. I thought hey, why not? They are people too. And even still I side on the "give them the right to be married" side of the issue - begrudgingly, wishing internally that we could honestly just use a different word. But the longer this gay rights thing progresses, and the more that i look at how gay people are reacting towards this - like they deserve to be married. Get married. Nobody is saying that you can't go off into your park, or your favorite hall and have a ceremony. Just don't expect me to put my stamp of approval on it. What happened to human rights movements that moved with respect and dignity. What happened to leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who triumphed alongside respect and dignity? Why is there so much hate and resentment in the gay camps?
Another thing that happens is that in the wings, after the gay marriage debate is another debate: The Gay Adoption Debate. In this debate we have people who are stating that there are children who need a loving home, who have been abused, neglected, or who seem unwanted because they are coming from "traditional families." Let the LGBT community step in and give them a home, give them a family, and give them a life.
On the onset of this, it sounds like an easy YES. But when you look at the grand scheme of things, I think that you open this debate up, and there are much more factors to consider. I know, if you are gay, you're probably steaming mad right now, because i don't believe like you do. And you wished i did, and you hate me because i don't. But what did i really say? Honestly? I said that you were not a race of people. I stated that I didn't agree with the methods of using counter culture / now often just referred to as culture to position yourselves as if you are a race. I think that being gay is a choice. I think that being straight is a choice. I think that choosing not to be sexual is a choice. Sexuality is a choice. We choose to be sexual. You can live your whole life, and not be sexual. it's possible. It's been done before.
So buck up. The world is a big place. Have your gay revolution. Stick out this whole Chick-Fil-A thing with the people you disagree with. Maybe take them to Chick-Fil-A, and have a conversation about it. But tell it like it is. Don't force them to think like you, and then accuse their religion of forcing you to think like them. Don't try and usurp science, like there is only one voice and he/she has unanimously decided one way. Don't try and eliminate Christianity; or any other religion for that matter.
And stop being so pissed off all the time. You guys get to have gay sex! Why are you trying to get married anyways? On the real: you should check out the Bible. There is really good stuff in there. Maybe if you could curb some of the angst you have with Jesus, you might actually grow to have a much better relationship with Him when you hear what He has to say. It's always a NY Times Bestseller - go pick up a Bible when you get a chance. It will change your paradigm.
And stop being so pissed off all the time. You guys get to have gay sex! Why are you trying to get married anyways? On the real: you should check out the Bible. There is really good stuff in there. Maybe if you could curb some of the angst you have with Jesus, you might actually grow to have a much better relationship with Him when you hear what He has to say. It's always a NY Times Bestseller - go pick up a Bible when you get a chance. It will change your paradigm.
Comments
Post a Comment