In the online version of the Guardian is a story about the fight to defend traditional marriage. What caught my eye (and raised my ire) was the quote made by a "Gay marriage" activist:
"It is increasingly clear that the church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society," said Tom French, policy co-ordinator of the Equality Network. "We urge the Scottish government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people."
Funny sort of imposition here. The Scottish government is trying to make these "gay marriage ceremonies" available by 2015. The Catholic Church is opposing this change. Yet, it is the Catholic Church which is accused of imposing an agenda.
It would be more accurate to say that it is the Scottish government which is trying to impose an agenda – the agenda being to deny there are any differences between the heterosexual marriage and a homosexual relationship.
Look at the sequence:
- Christian moral teaching on sexuality exists
- In the early 21st century, certain activists attempt to pass laws which attack the long existing Christian moral teaching
- The Christians are accused of imposing their pre-existing views because they try to defend their views
Unfortunately this sequence is ignored when there is a dispute over moral issues. The faction which is attempting to impose a change declares their own position is the "neutral" position, and the one who opposes it is the "extremist." This is an ad hominem attack, using a label to vilify the opponent rather than refute the challenge.
It also is a dishonest attack that attempts to cast the faction attempting to impose the change as the referee instead of one of the combatants. It is claimed, without proof, that the belief in favor of "gay marriage" or abortion or the contraception mandate is "right" and the opposition is extremist or homophobic or anti-woman.
But the claim that these changes are right is what needs to be proven to begin with! To prove the point, the premise needs to be have a source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth other than the conclusion of the argument.
Being aware of the Slavery and Racism counter-arguments and why they are not relevant
Now, it is true that in some cultures, vicious custom and corrupt habit (see Summa Theologica I-IIa Q94. A 6) which have been long accepted do need to be opposed because they are contrary to the natural law. Slavery and other forms of racism are valid examples of this. However, it would be wrong to automatically assume that anything which is challenged is automatically in the wrong while the faction challenging it is automatically right.
Unfortunately this is the basic assumption when it comes to attacking Christian morality. It is argued that opposition to "gay marriage" is based on homophobia in the same way as favoring slavery is based on racism. The problem is, again, this has to be proved. It is not proven.
(Christian teaching appeared at a time when slavery was already existing and accepted. I'm not going to derail the topic by people slinging Bible verses in an attempt to argue Christianity was to the right of the KKK. Colossians 3:22-4:1 was dealing with how converts who were slaves or slave owners were obligated to be loving to each other. It never gave approval to to the existence of slavery. Galatians 3:26-29 is needed to put the Paul's statement into context).
It is a sad fact that many Christians did keep slaves (as did many non Christians), but that was a vicious custom kept by some Christians and not a tenet of Christianity itself. However, it does not follow that Christians following a vicious custom in the case of slavery means that Christians follow a vicious custom in the case of calling homosexual acts sinful.
Again, we have people who make that claim assuming as proven exactly what they need to prove.
Conclusion
This is a common tactic in the modern culture struggle. Those who are attacking are accusing the Christians of being on the attack, when in fact the Christians are who are defending their beliefs. Unfortunately all too many people are falling for the propaganda. Men and women of good faith need to recognize this propaganda and to reject it. They need to realize that these activists are using their rhetoric to impose their beliefs without establishing that they are true.
We need to realize that far from Christians being dispensers of that which is hateful and intolerant, it is their opponents who are using deceptive arguments and propaganda to distort what the actual issue is. They need to justify to the world why their case is TRUE, and not merely label us as "homophobic" and declare their position as proven.
No comments:
Post a Comment