Tuesday, November 18, 2008

11/18/08 - Gay Right Movement

Every since California voted yes on Prop 8 there have been protests all over the US from gay activists.

We live in a country where we have the freedom of speech, so although I would have voted yes on Prop 8, I believe the movement has the right to protest where they'd like.

But I think a group of protesters went too far at Mount Hope Church in Michigan. Here is an expert from the church's official press release:

"On Sunday, November 9, 2008 at the 11:30 AM services the people of Mount Hope Church were shocked by an unwelcome violent demonstration by a homosexual/transgender anarchist group based in Chicago, IL. The group threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted sentiments such as, “It’s okay to be gay” and “Jesus was a homo” during a Sunday morning service. The Eaton County Sheriff’s office was called and the illegal demonstration ceased."

Can you imagine being at church and be so violated? There were rights and laws broken and I think this is too far!

Just imagine what would happen if a radical pro-life group entered into an abortion clinic yelling, "Abortion is murder" and "You're a murderer" while throwing fliers at scared young women! You'd hear about it on every main media station and there would be jail time for sure!

We as Christians, have the right to have our views and apparently there are pockets of people in the gay movement who have no tolerance for us Christians. They don't just want tolerance, they want complete acceptance.

There is a difference! You can be tolerant of someone, but not have to accept their lifestyle. I recently told a gay friend, "If everyone I hung out with had to agree with all my convictions, I'd have no friends!" We as believers are called to be in the world, not of the world.

This goes along with the latest posts I've made on some of the battles this generation of Christians are up against!


Ben said...

I appreciate the respect for the first amendment and obviously no reasonable person thinks disrupting a church is OK. The only point I would dispute is that the protests are actually not just by "gay activists." I was at one of the nationwide protests against prop 8 Saturday and I can tell you there were a lot of straight people present, including myself, who weren't there because we believe in the importance of marriage and equal rights and we don't want to live in a society where bigotry is codified into a state constitution because 52% of people approve.

ben said...

I mean we WERE there because we believe in the important of marriage and equal rights, etc., obviously

Julie said...

Why not call a legally recognised and binding same-sex relationship a civil union (as in NZ) or civil partnership (as in Britain)? What should matter for same-sex couples is the substance of the institution, not the name. This leads me to believe that the controversy is more about gays trying to conquer one of the last bastions of heterosexuality - marriage - than it is about equal rights.

Heather Paulsen said...


From my understanding Civil Unions are legal in California.

So yes, there is a much deeper issue here.


Ben said...

How about straight people can have "civil unions" and gay people can get "married?" If the substance of the institution is what matters, not the name, what's the difference?

Gina@Chats With An "Old Lady" said...

Thank you for stopping by today, and for your encouraging comment! I always love hearing from you!!!!

Julie said...

I think the important distinction between marriage and any equivalent same-sex union is that a man and a woman can naturally produce children together, whereas a male/male or female/female couple cannot. Marriage, in its traditional sense, leads to the creation of nuclear families and wider kinship networks.

In New Zealand, civil union is also available to mixed-sex couples, and gay couples often informally refer to registering a civil union as "getting married".

See here for further details:

Anonymous said...

From my understanding, marriage is a sacred spiritual union between one man and one woman, and a new human being can be created naturally from that. Of course many straight people get married without the spiritual aspect and many couples can't have children. But that is the premise to what I understand. This simply isn't possible between two men, for example. Firstly, they can't have children naturally, their bodies are not made that way, and secondly I do not believe such a union is sanctioned by God so spiritually it would not be a complete marriage. Therefore in 'equal society' a civil / legal partnership has been sanctioned. Marriage, however, is different. I am fully aware that many people would disagree with me, but the people of California have spoken and I think that should also be respected. That's why there is democracy.

MInTheGap said...

Ben, it's not as simple as you'd like it to be. It'd be one thing if we were defining "marriage" now. We're not. The definition has been around forever.

It's like saying that we're going to call the United States by some other name, and the European Union the United States. It just wouldn't make any sense.

Words have meaning, and marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman. Nothing else. To say that it's a civil rights issue is like saying that I should have the right to be called a cow when I'm really a human. It's silly on its face.

The problem is the emotions involved in this thing-- which is directly to the point Heather is making where people have taken speech to a violent level-- rather than being rational about it.

It's about more than a term, it's about acceptance. And that's the key issue here.