One of the hot topics in media today is the topic of homosexual marriage. It's a loaded topic that generally causes people to loudly proclaim their point of view with no thoughts of compromise.
Before I continue, let me be clear on my beliefs regarding law and religion (I'm using the word religion loosely for those who understand that religion means rules and Christianity is a lifestyle).
My view of homosexuality from a religious standpoint:
1)Homosexuality is a sin
2)Homosexual actions mean you deserve hell (To be clear, so do liars, cheats, thieves, idolaters, etc.)
3)The only way to heaven is through Jesus
4)Jesus' blood is enough to cover ANY sin
5)Paul says we are held to a higher standard as Christians and we shouldn't judge non-christians
I don't know that all homosexuals will go to hell because I believe Jesus' blood is enough to cover all sin. People say that because you choose homosexuality that it's a choice over Jesus, but how many of us choose to lie or eat too much every single day? Gluttony also sends you to hell. Is His precious blood not enough to cover every sin? Is it up to us to judge people for their sins or to lovingly show them Christ and help them "return to the fold"? Paul said that we are supposed to hold one another accountable privately and that it is not for us to judge non-believers. Jesus confirms this when he said that the world already stood condemned before He came. So why should we condemn a condemned man/woman further? We shouldn't. We should love them and show them Christ and let his light shine before men.
My view of homosexuality from a legal standpoint:
1)All people are created equal
2)There is no proof that you are born either straight or gay
3)Marriage is a word largely associated with various religions
4)Currently homosexual couples are not allowed the same rights as heterosexual couples
I personally feel like the label of "marriage" should be removed from the political arena in general simply because of its religious affiliations. The government should not be ascribing any kind of terminology to a union for a union unless it serves more purpose than ascribing benefits. The benefits of being "married" in the governments eyes should simply be offered to all unions, and all unions labeled a "Union." So when my wife and I file taxes we would be a "Union," and so would any homosexually unified couple - placing us all on equal footing with equal rights from our government. For the government to associate a word that as a Christian represents a sacred vow to God with something that in every dialect of translation from the original text the Bible says is wrong, is similar to our country using a painting of Mohammed for public materials. It shouldn't be done. No Christians do not hold a patent to "Marriage" and Islamists do not hold the rights to the image of "Mohammed" or any other deity or prophet. You do this out of respect. Similar to the way that I do not defame other races or genders with derogatory terms or utilize certain words as a euphemism in regards to homosexual people.
If homosexual groups in and of themselves want to refer to their ceremony as marriage - see the first amendment. The government shouldn't be deciding on the terminology of a union, they should simply govern the benefits that go along with it.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER (NOT NECESSARILY AGREED WITH) :
1) If all unions are acceptable and the government only acknowledges unions, what other unions will need to be considered equal? Multiple unions? Unions with minors? Unions with animals?
2) Previously many homosexual couples had Commitment Ceremonies. If our government extended benefits to these ceremonies and acknowledged them as unions would there still be a fight?
3) What about single people? If everyone in America is equal, then why are special benefits extended to couples? Why cannot individual people simply be allowed into hospitals for the people they care about or have rights equal to couples? If my best friend is a guy and he is single but I am married and his family is deceased, shouldn't he have the right to give me the ability to say what to do if he is on life support? Shouldn't he be able to insure me if he wants to or vice-versa (even if at a higher cost)?
4) If the government can tell you who you can and cannot unify with and can label it in a way that offends certain groups, why can they not tell you what kinds of guns you can or cannot carry and label those guns how they like?
5) If all love is equal - then how come some people break up and others don't? If love was equal in all respects, shouldn't the least amount be just as potent as the largest amount? And if it is strong enough to keep some people together without cheating for whole life spans why is it that there is a significantly higher infidelity rate among homosexuals?
No comments:
Post a Comment