.
.

What Are Gay Rights?


51Rfo3rFaRL._SX310_BO1,204,203,200_So, here’s the question: What are gay rights and how are they different than heterosexual rights or any other human rights?

Here’s the dilemma: If you ask the wrong questions, you inevitably arrive at the wrong conclusions.

Homosexuality, like so many other issues that dominate cultural conversations, are cloaked in noble sounding verbiage in order to veil the fact that the underlying controversy isn’t about rights as much as it’s about Absolutes.

A person’s right to be happy is subordinate to their responsibility to be moral. If the behavior in question is revealed as being immoral, then the person’s “right” to act out what is defined as reprehensible is an obvious exercise in futility. A person may have the “right” to speed the wrong way down a one way street, but not without having to contend with the consequences.

The campaign to legalize gay marriage and to promote things like “gay pride” and the recent legislation that’s being entertained in different parts of the country to enforce the use of preferred pronouns is nothing more than a desperate attempt to take down any signs that define the moral road that we’re on as being “one way.” In other words, there are no moral Absolutes save those that we’re willing to establish for ourselves.

There’s so much more to this that what might appear to be nothing more than an innocent reach for happiness and fulfillment.

The “Gay Agenda” has been in place since the late eighties and, despite it being a monumental task, those that would champion the demise of moral absolutes in favor of the LGBT mantra have done a fabulous job. “The Overhaul of Straight American” and “After the Ball” are two of the principal publications that detail the strategy that is now more than three decades old (click here to learn more about “The Gay Agenda” – an informative book by Alan Sears and Craig Osten). Authored by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in 1987 and 1989 respectively, the primary task was, and has always been, the destruction of the traditional moral paradigm in the way it condemns homosexuality according to a very well thought out and very well financed strategy – part of which includes legislation founded on the idea that there are “victims” out there being “oppressed” and some kind of legal measure is needed in order to accommodate them appropriately. We’re no longer asking “Is it right,” rather we’re asking, “Is it Constitutional?” And it’s in the context of amending the Constitution and editing the legal code that what was and is morally perverse is now being accepted as a legal, and therefore acceptable, sexual orientation.  

But here’s the thing:

While most of what undergirds the foundation upon which the concept of moral absolutes is based is a Judeo-Christian philosophy, it can be supported with something that is entirely pragmatic – at least from the standpoint that there must be a transcendent moral absolute in place in order to prevent societal chaos. (“It’s Not About Injustice”)

In short, the whole conversation about “rights” is an intentional sidestepping of what represents the real question which is “Are there Moral Absolutes?”

Short answer: Yes.

There are Absolutes and the Author of those Absolutes, according to our own Declaration of Independence is our “Creator.” And our Creator, according to the collective mindset represented by the signatures on that document, is the God of the Bible. Your right to be happy, therefore, is possible only in the context of your resolve to be moral. That’s the morality as articulated by Scripture. That’s the essence of the philosophy we founded our appeal for independence upon and that’s the Divine Substance that backs our legislative conscience and cultural norms. To suggest otherwise is to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to history, common sense psychology and practical theology. And should you insist that none of that is relevant let alone Authoritative, you reveal your argument to be rooted more in metaphysical baggage then it is in responsible thought processes.

You do have the right to live however you want, but you do not have the right to define moral absolutes and until that issue is acknowledged and addressed appropriately, keep your petitions and your agendas to yourself.

 

 

 



Related articles

Leave a Reply