I’ve been following this who Miss California Gay Marriage debate and I’ve been formulating my opinion in the mean time. I’ve been kind of going back and forth before coming to this conclusion.
Disclaimers:
I support Gay Marriage. If you read this blog, you’ll know that I’ve posted some pretty strong opinions regarding Gay Marriage and the relationship (or lack of) between Christians and the Homosexual community. http://mypalal.com/efme/index.cfm
I’m an extremely casual follower of Perez Hilton. Basically I follow him on Twitter, but I really don’t go to his website. I’m not much on the tabloid gossip. I accept him for who he is. His life is publishing celebrity gossip and he happens to be gay.
I basically feel that Miss California got the raw end of the deal, but at the same time, I don’t think it cost her the title.
The question and answer portion of the pageant is not meant to see if a contestant can be politically correct. The Q&A portion of the competition is about whether a contestant can form and opinion and express that opinion, whether you agree with it or not. Each contestant should be allowed to hold her own beliefs and should be awarded for being able to express those beliefs. This is what sets Miss California apart from Miss Teen USA North Carolina two years ago.
Also, the question from Perez was without a doubt a loaded question. It was meant to say, if you want to win my vote, believe the way I do. Does this mean that Miss USA must be Pro Gay Marriage, Pro Choice and Anti Gun in order to win? I would admire a Miss USA who was politically incorrect. It might make things more exciting.
Unfortunately, the line has been drawn. In the future, contestants are now going to be force to have their beliefs told to them and they will have to defend them whether they believe it or not. This will make the women’s movement proud. You can be a female robot as long as you’re our robot.
Finally, I don’t think this hurt Miss California chance of winning, because Perez was only one of 12 judges.
Related Links.
9 comments:
Please do some more reading on the issue of same-sex marriage. Here are some repercussions of legitimizing same-sex marriage.
If homosexual "marriages" are recognized by federal and state governments, there will be no principled reason to oppose new federal laws forbidding discrimination in hiring based on sexual orientation. Churches, synagogues, mosques, religious schools, and faith-based charities, as well as secular organizations of every kind, would be subject to a new kind of government scrutiny.
The legalization of homosexual "marriage" would invite an ongoing assault on individuals and organizations that uphold traditional marriage or have moral or religious objections to the practice of homosexuality. By definition, all dissenters will find themselves at odds with the new political ethos and are likely to be stigmatized as prejudiced and discriminatory. Such characterizations already have been made by activists, politicians, and judges who are sympathetic to the arguments for same-sex "marriage." The legalization of homosexual "marriage" will greatly accelerate these pressures to marginalize the nation's religious communities and the values that define them. In some countries, speaking publicly against homosexuality has been criminalized.
The deconstruction of marriage will affect what children are taught in virtually every subject at public schools. Students will be instructed that marriage, like slavery before it, is a vestige of America's discriminatory past that was overcome by the latest step forward in the advancement of civil rights. At the very least, heterosexual and homosexual relations will be presented in public schools as fundamentally equivalent expressions of individual autonomy.
Quotes are taken from this article:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/bg1759.cfm
Please also consider the original intent of the definition of marriage and the repercussions when that original definition is destroyed.
"The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization."
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3769
You are proposing that we disband a a scriptural (biblical) basis for morality. Please consider what this proposes. You are offering in its place a relativistic worldview in which morals are governed by either consensus or subjectivity. This issue is clearly wider than just being merely about a redefinition of marriage.
Thanks for your comments.
You said a lot and I can address your issues. I'll probably do it in another blog, just to keep this clean.
I've mentioned this before to others, the Bible clearly states that all people are God's children. All in need of a savior. My goal is to bring all people to Christ, even homosexuals.
You know that when its all said and done, God is not going to pat you on the back and say thanks for saving the family. He's more interested in the souls you brought to Christ.
Thanks, Yes the goal is to bring everyone to salvation.
It's not just about preserving the family. Think about the next generation who will be taught that homosexuality is moral. There is the danger of losing them (In terms of numbers, the next generation vastly outnumbers the homosexual population).
Also Romans 1 suggests that homosexuals are set in their ways, since they have willingly suppressed the truth and their knowledge of God.
I highly doubt that homosexuals will turn to Christ if same-sex marriage is legalized. If you have any hard evidence otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Your method is loving, no doubt, but what about the other crucial component, i.e., truth? Jesus was both loving and truthful; and we ought to follow His example. As a result we ought to love homosexuals but speak the truth to them about the wrongfulness of homosexuality in a loving way. The loving truth is that same-sex marriage is not appropriate in the eyes of God.
http://www.pal-item.com/article/20090503/NEWS0302/905030327
A couple paragraphs for your consideration:
Replacing the objective standard of one man-one woman to define a marriage with the subjective qualification of "loving relationship" opens the door to anyone who makes that claim. The end result will be utter moral chaos.
Canadian courts are now wrestling with the issue brought by polygamists. Why should a "loving relationship" be confined to two people? Numbers will soon be gone. What about brother-sister or father-daughter? Incest is gone. Why should anyone be limited to one spouse? Adultery is gone. What if a 40-year-old has a consenting "loving relationship" with an 11-year-old girl? Age is gone. The end result is that marriage will cease to have any meaning at all.
***By attempting to save homosexuals, you are losing the souls of a multitude of others.***
Another adverse affect is that the witness of the Christian community as a whole gets diminished. Not all Christians are as thoughtful & intellectual as you. Many Christians will potentially be affected so that they will become to believe that same-sex marriage is biblical. As a result, their spiritual lives are affected negatively with this falsehood.
At the end of the day, we really do not know if homosexuals will come to Christ if we agree to legalize same-sex marriage. I don't think it's likely. Besides only God knows. But our duty as His representatives is to never compromise on the truth, and to do so in a loving manner.
One must ask, "Did Jesus ever compromise the truth for the sake of winning souls?"
When Jesus confronted the hypocritical Pharisees (and others), he never compromised the truth. He kept fast to the teachings of God, yet He did so with a heart of love.
It's not "what" you say; it's "how" you say it.
We must always stand for truth; we must always do so in a loving manner.
Post a Comment