Sometimes, regardless of whether you are interested in a cultural civil war flash-point, that flash-point is interested in you. Especially, when one is being willfully branded with the false accusation of the moral equivalent to racism.
It is in that context that a response by Atty Shirley Richards in the Jamaica Gleaner (tellingly, published in the notoriously low circulation Saturday issue) came to my attention, e.g.:
Same-sex 'marriage' requires changing the male-female prerequisite, which goes to the very core of marriage. In the first case, an unreasonable limitation - which in the Loving case [of banning inter-racial marriage] was racist in nature - is placed on the man and woman who can enter the institution of marriage, but in this case, the very nature of marriage itself is being changed.In this context it is not insignificant that Mrs Richards' support for marriage in accord with the naturally evident Creation Order was re-labelled by the Gleaner's Editor as advocacy of "opposite-sex marriage." By their Orwellian new-speak shall ye know them.
The reference to the Loving case prompts a comparison between the civil-rights struggles of African-Americans and the homosexual debate. However, there are differences between the two. One such difference is that race is immutable, while being homosexual is not immutable. [cf here] Ask Donnie McClurkin, Dennis Jernigan and others who have left the homosexual lifestyle. As others have said, "Being gay is not the new black." . . . .
In another incident, Fox News reported in 2014 that "the city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city's first openly lesbian mayor. Those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court." (LINK provided. Note, this is a case of blatant censorship.)
Describing same-sex 'family life' as "a life which harms no one else" is like ignoring an elephant in plain sight. How does one explain the fact that this "life which harms no one else" is reordering society in its image? What about harm to the individuals themselves? Shouldn't the society be concerned about undeniable medical statistics on the consequences of high-risk sexual behaviour for the participants?
It should be clear to all that the homosexual lifestyle is not a harmless one, neither to the individual nor to society. Furthermore, it is not a lifestyle that is prepared to stay in the bedroom but, instead, insists on forcing itself into the centre of the public square
I should add a comment I had to make overnight at UD when the issue was again raised:
. . . the notion that complex human behaviours above things like reflexes and breathing are genetically or otherwise programmed beyond choice is quite problematic, especially when implications for responsible rational freedom are brought to bear. I suggest a comparison of the 12-step addiction recovery methods and movements is helpful (noting that vulnerability to alcohol may have a genetic component), as would be this text. We should be very wary indeed of any scheme, notion, ideology or movement — whether or not it is dressed in a lab coat — that would undermine human responsibility and the point and hope that conscience-guided reason linked to supported moral discipline and recovery methods sustained across several years can lead us to walk in a better way. There are many, many, many cases of successful transformation of people in bondage to all sorts of addictions, dependencies, and destructive lifestyles. A truth that seems to be very politically incorrect and widely suppressed today. Let me just say finally for now that 60+ years ago Alcoholics Anonymous was mocked and derided by the experts and media, especially when a co-founder backslid. But now, its approach, on long significant success, has become a widely respected and adopted model. Teen Challenge is similar. Though of course if you don’t want to have to fight for your life to get off the barbed hook, don’t bite on the seemingly tasty fly floating by.
Further to all this, noted Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias, answering a question, provides food for thought:
We would do well to ponder where our civilisation is headed:
Then, we need to ponder also, what we should do. END
