When it comes down to it, the real problem is not which side people take on an issue, but how they go about doing it. You oppose the idea of two men or two women marrying each other. This is your prerogative and you don't have to accept it or participate in it.
I personally don't like smoking pot or being around people who do, simply because it inhibits my ability to think clearly and makes users think that mundane observations are profound. Stupified people annoy me. This is my personal choice.
The problem in both is when either of us decide to use the government to make those things illegal. In the case of drug prohibition, millions of dollars are spent and countless lives are ruined and countless others are murdered all because of the war -- meanwhile pot use is on the rise. In the case of outlawing gay marriage, gays (which make less than 5% of the population) still want to get married and will attempt to live together as best they can even without all the legal rights that come with civil marriage. Banning gay marriage only makes people rally to support equal rights.
Both of us would be incredibly morally wrong to impose our moral choices onto others. It would be wrong to penalize non-believers and have them pay taxes to a church. It would be wrong to force churches to hold marriage ceremonies for gay couples. It would be wrong for you to hang crosses on the walls of my house and it would be wrong for me to put an atheist bumper-sticker on your car. It would be just as wrong to use government as a middleman to do all these things for us.
Society cannot be changed through force. And voting our morals onto all people -- or voting away the rights of everyone else is a form of force. The only way ideas can be properly spread is through persuasion. The only way society can truly be moral is if they can make their decisions without government subsidizing their choices for them.
Does that mean all ideas win in the end? No, some ideas are false and ignorant... but good ideas win in the end. However, in this case, there are no losers. Because while an idea might become well accepted on the basis of it's soundness -- you as an individual can reject it without legal consequence. Even though the KKK is socially ostracized in this country, they can still practice hate speech freely. They can still vote and enjoy all the rights that you enjoy. Meanwhile gays still can't get married, still can't adopt, and still can't visit their spouse in the hospital.
One reason why Christians aren't finding many allies who support their free speech rights and their freedom to express their religious views is because a lot of non-believers know that fundamentalists, if given the opportunity, would use the government to force their values onto everyone else.
I for one support Westboro Baptist's right to free speech, despite the fact that I hate what they're telling people. I know a lot of people would like to outlaw their hate speech and lock them up, but I don't want that to happen. Part of the reason I support their free speech rights is out of principle, and part of it is because I know their ideas will never catch on.
But I know for a fact that if it were the other way around... if most people thought like these guys, no one would come to support my right to speak freely. No, my head would be on a chopping block.
noshameinChrist wrote:
The US Constitution was created to be flexible, as it was a document created primarily to undergird the will of the people.
Wrong, the Constitution was created to restrain the power of government, not to enforce the majority's will.
noshameinChrist wrote:In this democratic-republic system in which I live I understand that legal change may take place ultimately based on the will of the people.
This is a constitutional republic, not a democratic one. Without the constitution to constrain the powers of government, and by extension preserve the rights of persons, then this would be a dog-eat-dog democracy, and all the laws would be based on mob rule.
noshameinChrist wrote:I was recently asked if I support homosexual marriage. My response was no.
The question isn't really clear. Was the question mean to be:
Do you support equal rights under the law for all consenting persons, or was it meant to be
Do you think gay marriage is a sin?
Alcohol, worship of other gods, love of money, sex outside of marriage, divorce, the consumption of pork -- all horrible sins -- all legal. When's the last time you heard secularists rail against the church for its positions on these issues? They don't because they're all legal and the church isn't trying to use the government to penalize or imprison anyone for their choices in regards to these matters.
noshameinChrist wrote:However, and again, I see and understand the shift that is taking place in our society. The evidence clearly suggests that homosexual relationships are becoming more than a tolerated lifestyle in our country, they are (and in many locals already have) becoming an accepted lifestyle.
I disagree with your use of the term "lifestyle." Is your marriage a "lifestyle?" Never mind that, the point is: Yes you are seeing many people begin to support equal rights in this part of the world, despite of the laws. Isn't that interesting... how laws don't really change behavior and beliefs, especially when they are... dare I say
immoral?
noshameinChrist wrote:I strongly believe, as this effort moves forward, Christians will be faced with a hard line decision - Either accept the homosexual lifestyle without challenge or be economically, socially, and/or politically isolated and labeled by terms historically applied to deplorable groups such as the Klu Klux Klan. As a person of color, with a deep understanding of this country’s history leading up to the civil rights struggles of the 60s, I am disgusted by this prospect. Nevertheless (and using a phrase borrowed from scripture) “the writing is on the wall�. I wonder if others see this. How many Christians, committed to the teachings of scripture, have considered what is taking place?
By accept "the homosexual lifestyle" -- do you mean acknowledge the rights of other persons despite opposing the "sin" or do you mean "forced to hire gay preachers and have gay weddings"?
The latter will not happen, at least not in the United States. As it stands now around the world, we have gay people getting death sentences in Uganda -- that's more of a problem to worry about than persecution complexes of modern day first world Christians.
But in terms of popularity.... Christianity was never supposed to be a popularity contest in the first place was it? How could the church become that much more irrelevant than it already is -- since it already opposes drinking and condemns natural sexual relationships and seeks to make gays second class citizens -- I mean it's not winning a popularity contest even today.
If you look at the historical trend, Christianity supported government sanctioned slavery; they supported government sanctioned segregation and mandatory public school education that brought up a generation of lil racists in the south. They supported banning interracial marriage and now they support banning gay marriage on a national level. Mainstream popular forms of Christianity that exist today rejected most of those things. And if Christianity wants to stay relevant it will have to embrace the idea that moral choices can only be made in the absence of legal threats.
Do you think that if fundamentalists succeed that they will be loved in any way shape or form? Do you think people will flock to the churches because of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that overrides previous ones that stress equality under the law for all? No, they will become hated even more.
The choice Christians have in the age of the internet is become irrelevant and be left alone to believe whatever they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else via government or any other way -- or to become despised when their doctrines become the law of the land.
noshameinChrist wrote:Although I am a Christian (the “fundamentalist� label has been attached to me, and while I only self-proclaim to being a Christian, I am not offended by the term) I have no plans to fight what this country decides to do on a “legal� basis with regard to the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. As a Christian, however, I plan to always oppose sin.
Should Christians be concerned who hold the same position? 
You can be morally opposed to sex before marriage, smoking, drinking, eating sugary foods, eating pork, working on Sunday, etc. and no one will care. When you make those illegal by encouraging Christians to vote the will of the majority onto everyone else -- then that's when you get attention... unwanted attention.
The Amish seem to be a happy irrelevant lot; last time I checked, they had no desire to make their neighbors beholden to their beliefs by way of the state.
