Sunday, April 12, 2015

Losing the Plot

How the Rule of Law is undermined by  Gay Religion

   The Supreme Court will have totally lost credibility if it rules in favor of gay 'rituals' akin to marriage as a national anti-discrimination mandate.

We can discriminate legally in a variety of areas. We discriminate when we treat anyone who is a sex offender differently by putting their name on a registry to warn people. I will discriminate against anyone I believe to be drunk by not giving them car keys. I will discriminate against anyone I think will have sex in the back of the car by not giving them car keys- and whether or not you approve of sex in the back of the car, I reserve the right not to do it in my car and few people would have a problem with that. People's morality in matters of their enterprise or private life should be honored.

   Gay rituals they want to call marriage cannot be analogized to inter-racial dating or marriage and it is a borrowed shoe that does not fit. The conflation or confusion of the two as discrimination issues is what is motivating people like Obama to insist that the entire world has to accept gays together ritualized for so long as they both shall want it until their gay divorce.

   The distinction is in conscious behavior, compulsions coupled with actions versus something that is a physiological trait. Gay is both an identity and an action. Being Gay and Acting Gay are two different things. We don't know enough to say that Being Gay is completely immutably an identity trait or not, and there are notable examples of people who once self-identified as gay and now are married to opposite sex people with children, so we know that it can change. Ellen DeGeneres' First Wife, the Mayor of New York's wife and Angelina Jolie all once were in gay relationships and are now happily married with children. They trained their minds not to go there. It is hubris to suggest that because the loudest contingent of gays thinks they were 'born that way' immutably that all gays are like them. Who is to say that gay is the same for everyone who at one time self identified that way?

    What makes gay discrimination more like the example of not condoning having sex in the back of the car with not discriminating against inter-racial marriage? The difference is in what you allow yourself to think is moral or not. Is it a behavior that has been universally condemned by most major world religions and their scholars as a behavior that is not only not productive for social progress but against what is perceived to be the will of God? Inter-racial  marriage never had this condemnation, but to the contrary scripture supports it. In Numbers 22 when Moses married someone of another race (we assume darker) his sister Miriam scoffed and was put out of the camp for a few weeks to chill out as punishment for her racism. God doesn't like racists-he made them all beautifully in his image. On the other hand, God wiped out two towns for flagrant homosexual debauchery and there are warnings after warnings in scripture regarding how sexual immorality of the same gender kind is an automatic bar from the kingdom of heaven. One of the defining features of early Christianity was that it separated itself from the greek pagan homo-erotic sexually exploring neighbors who were indifferent to homosexuality and in fact had pagan temple same sex temple prostitutes whom one could sleep with in order to get to pagan heaven. Don't you know, Paul and others warned that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. This category is put right up there with drunkards in that regard.
So scripture is clear. Homosexuality for Christians and Jews  was such a no-starter that it didn't have to be expounded upon much. "Don't you know" means- what! have you people been living under a rock?? Have you lost your minds? Don't you know that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom! How do you not know this?

    So there are religions- ones that have been operable for thousands of years, who maintain as an intrinsic part of their moral code that homosexuality is not something that should be humored. It existed in the pagan world during Jesus' time. We don't have to guess about these things-scripture is clear enough.

   So in modern America where the Supreme Court has to balance First Amendment interests of freedom of religion with individual liberties on equal protection grounds, how should it rule? First, it has to recognize that the gay rights movement is a religion also. The (non) establishment clause prohibits the imposition of one religion over another which is what the gay rights movement seeks to impose. A religion is a belief structure coupled with a behavioral code. The gay rights movement and agenda is a religion that is one hundred percent at odds with traditional Christianity and some say Orthodox Judaism.

    Second the discrimination framework should be rejected as an equal protection matter because clearly some discrimination of immorality is permitted. All of law is predicated on moral norms that give preference to moral behavior over immoral behavior. To do what the gay religion is asking is tantamount to the Supreme Court declaring that homosexuality is not immoral. The Supreme Court would be thus institutionalizing a moral structure one hundred percent against what 80 percent of the country believes-that there is a moral law outside one's preferences or desire and this moral structure has spoken on the issue of homosexuality as dictated by the scriptures that guide their religion.

    To nullify a moral code is nihilistic. In this case it seeks to favor the religion of hedonism and fleshly compulsion over the religion that says a mind can be renewed and regenerated into righteousness and that righteousness has a meaning ascertainable not merely by self referentially looking at one's carnal desires but exists as an objective moral code of behavior and such righteousness prohibits carnal acts of a same sex type.  The religion that says self-restraint in fleshly matters is a fruit of the Spirit is something that has guided people trying to live righteously in this country since its puritan founding and that religion would be discriminated against if the court were to rule that all the demands of the gay ritualists prevail on equal protection grounds.

  All laws are based on morality. When looking to say whose is more valid or should be preserved in legal codes, it is not wise to jettison two to three thousand years of wisdom of the sages.



No comments: