Why Are We The Ones Who Should Change?

I’ve ignited a firestorm of fully anticipated and predictably expected name-calling and hissy-fits from homosexuals, et al. and those who believe I should abandon my theological personal beliefs to accommodate debauchery.

Which brings me to a question that those who are upset by my adherence to my core values will never themselves answer. Why am I expected to exchange what I am convinced without a hesitation of doubt is right in order to accommodate that which I unequivocally know is wrong? Here’s another question. Homosexuals want me to change my opinion to accept their chosen lifestyle — how about they change their opinion, and say, they are wrong and that sex is between a man and woman, and marriage is between a man and a woman? Why am I and those who believe as I do the only ones of whom change of mind is mandated?

[adsanity id=8311 align=alignleft /]

I choose to believe according to the tenets of my system of beliefs and core values. Why should society that has believed in heterosexuality since the creation of life now be forced to accept mandated addendums to same?

I find it interesting that it is habitually the Christian and/or conservative who is expected to change. Why are we the ones who are expected to capitulate?

America has had the good sense and decency to change that which needed to be changed, e.g., slavery, women’s suffrage, and Jim Crow. Fighting to legislate acceptance of men having sex with men, women having sex with women, men and little boys having sex (i.e., the North American Man Boy Love Association), and to have the definition of marriage and family changed to accommodate that which has ultimately always resulted in the decline of society is asinine and self-destructive.

It should here be noted that it is not just the moral destruction of society, but the destruction of society as a whole. It is one of the worst decisions (read: judgments) a people can make. It was the ancient Chinese general, Sun Tzu who said, “There are some roads not to follow; some troops not to strike; some cities not to assault; and some ground which should not be contested.”

There is a reason the scriptures I believe in say “the wages of sin are death.” Put another way, following that road leads to death as in eternal damnation after the physical death. I’m not saying homosexuals have to believe that or agree with it. I am saying that I choose to both believe and agree with it, and accordingly there is no flexibility in my posture which unlike some is not lordotic from shouldering the weight of capitulation.

Abortion is a choice and sodomy under the guise of affection is a choice. But it seems that to be faithful to one’s theological tenets and core values is somehow unworthy of choice.

Those given over to said aberrant behavioral practices are quick to attempt to obfuscate the condemnation of the act of homosexuality as attacking the person. I state here for the record that I separate the person from their act, which is one reason you will never hear me using pejorative names and/or engaging in ad hominem personal attacks (such as they engage in). Specific to that point, homosexuals and their sympathizers are quick to attack any condemnation of their perverse lifestyle as being judgmental of them. It is an argument they use to deflect attention away from the act of a man having sex with another man, etc.

If homosexuality and perversions were socially acceptable and proper then history would reflect same, the anecdotal occurrences of same notwithstanding.

There are those of us who refuse to buckle under the pressure to change to fit some perverse, so-called norm perceived to be sophisticated opinion. As a friend said to me: “Right and wrong are not debatable. The truth is not found by taking a poll. Mark Twain talks of a man who shouted down a lynch mob and made it go home. Twain asked, ‘Where is the moral man today?’ Indeed, where is he?”

Homosexuals can change the meaning of scripture in an attempt to have their lifestyle accepted, and they can use the courts and legislation to mandate acceptance. But in the final analysis they cannot force us to abide their chosen lifestyle.

No one, and certainly not me, is calling for them to be beaten, killed, publicly humiliated (apart from Muslims at any rate), or any such thing. I/we are saying that we have a code of values that we are not going to violate to accommodate perhaps one percent of society (the inflated numbers of two-four percent notwithstanding).

They can choose to be treated civilly like everyone else, or they can choose to attempt to redefine that which has always been. It’s another choice they will have to make. I and countless others have made our choice, and we choose not to accept aberrant behavior as normal.

[adsanity id=8320 align=alignleft /]