Dear Editor, Bakersfield Californian Newspaper – Community Voices

In response to the article “Lincoln’s anti-slavery ‘evolution’ has modern corollary” dated May 21, 2012.

Apart from the broader goal of legitimizing homosexuality, the alleged aim of all “gay rights” initiatives, is to protect homosexuals from discrimination based solely on their “sexual orientation.” Too often, “gay rights’ are presented and promoted as an issue of civil rights with the gay community likening themselves to African-Americans or other minorities who have suffered under discriminatory laws and social policies. Is such an argument and analogy really justified? Have homosexuals really been the object of prejudice and discrimination in the same way as African-Americans?

The color of one’ skin is not a matter of choice; that is genetically determined. However, homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Therefore, it is one thing to say that we believe in civil rights for all regardless of one’s skin color. It is quite another matter to say that we believe in civil rights for all regardless of one’s behavior.

Homosexuals frequently speak of themselves as if their being “gay” is fundamental to who they are as persons and as a community. Ultimately, they are in effect defining themselves by their gayness. As a result they set themselves off as a separate class, a group needing, if not demanding, special attention and deference.

Are we as a society really being asked to connect and equate ‘civil rights’ and homosexual rights as the same? As a member of the gay community for 17 years, I was never denied the right to vote, own property, or attend the college or university of my choice. History clearly dictates and reflects that African-Americans cannot say the same. Therefore, comparing homosexual rights to the civil rights of African-Americans is shallow and ultimately insulting. Homosexuals, as a class, have not suffered discrimination as African-Americans.

The attempt to blur the lines that homosexual practice is clearly about morals by comparing a ‘behavior’ to an issue of civil rights is dishonest and misleading. A significant number of homosexuals do not suffer from economic or other key forms of discrimination as do African-Americans.

As citizens of the United States, homosexuals have all the afforded rights extended to every citizen. These fundamental rights include: the right to vote, the First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, and freedom of religion.

Ultimately, there is no socially compelling reason to grant special status to homosexuals and there should be no comparison to the history and present day of African-Americans.

Pastor Phillip Lee
Executive Director
His Way Out Ministries

Dear Editor, Bakersfield Californian Newspaper – Community Voices

Presently, America is undergoing what I believe is a radical social experiment, the redefining of marriage. Ultimately, it’’s not about whether or not gays and lesbians are nice people or good citizens. Frankly, some are and some aren’t, just like heterosexuals. It’’s not about whether gays and lesbians can be good, nurturing, loving parents. It’’s not even about whether or not gays and lesbians should be treated with respect and dignity. Every person deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.

If we redefine marriage to include same-sex marriage, is there any logical reason for us not to redefine marriage in other ways? There are those that are already “demanding” equality that promote polygamy or group marriage. If marriage can be redefined to include two men or two women, why not allow marriage between a man and four women, or a group of six or seven adults and their various children?

Today, a popular error that has been made and continues to be made by many, is the attempt to blur the lines with regard to Christian ethics making “love” an omnipotent spiritual quality which has the power to validate anything that is done in its name. Under this particular line of thinking, one could justify any type of relationship, including those considered unacceptable and incompatible with Christian teaching and conduct.

Is the perceived or even real presence of love the criterion for all relationships? Indeed, God is love – absolutely. But true love has boundaries that protect, guide and show concern for its recipients. Ultimately, showing support for, and more importantly, standing upon The Authority of Scripture “for marriage between one man and one woman” is not intolerant. If so, then nature itself would be intolerant. Marriage was established by God Himself and as a result cannot be redefined by each new generation.

Within the same-sex marriage ‘experiment,’ lesbian mothers are saying that a father is irrelevant to parenting; homosexual fathers say that a mother is irrelevant to parenting. But God says both a mother and a father are relevant to parenting. Is anyone truly serious in suggesting that two men can take the place of a mother’’s love, or two women can equal a dad?

Today, especially in America, the words “intolerant” and “discrimination” are powerful words and often used to squash any opinion about moral behavior. In fact, not only is the demand today to keep our opinions to ourselves as to what people do, the equal demand is to affirm a long list of various lifestyles no matter how questionable or experimental.

Compassion, communication, and care must be exercised with regard to the same-sex marriage experiment. The enormous problem in American society is the frequent usage of our experience as a basis to interpret reality. Far too many think, “I’m having this experience and enjoying it, so God Himself in particular and society as a whole had better jump on-board, get used to it and fit in around with what I’m doing.” Do we as a society really have the right to redefine marriage so it is elastic enough to include any grouping of adults?

In the face of what is arguably one of the most damaging social experiments to ever be attempted in this country, the notion of a family with a father, mother and children, all living under the same roof, appears to be becoming a relic of a bygone era, at least in some quarters.

Gay marriage advocates will tell you that what children really need is “two loving adults in their lives” and that the sex of those adults doesn’t matter – the assumption being that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and optional. Our ultimate preference should always be a family comprised of one father and one mother. We cannot, we must not wrest children from the God-given format of family relationship without considering the possibilities of serious consequences.

Admittedly, a society, a compassionate society should always come to the aid of motherless and fatherless families. That said, a compassionate society should never, ever, intentionally create motherless and fatherless families. And that’’s exactly what the experiment of same-sex marriage does.

Pastor Phillip Lee
Executive Director
His Way Out Ministries

UPDATE 2012.05.14: Published at Opinion > Community Voices > PHILLIP LEE: America’s radical same-sex marriage social experiment