I think you may need to proofread my original post. Never did I say abnormal or taboo. I said "different". Why you are getting taboo and abnormal out of different is beyond me. The definitions of taboo and abnormal vs different are distinctly unalike.
You've implied that society will "eventually" come to perceive heterosexuality in a different light in spite of an utter lack of any justification as to why. My choice of diction is entirely appropriate, as well; "abnormal" denotes a deviation from what's considered normal or typical, and connotes a tone of concern. "Taboo" is a more extreme manifestation of abnormality, and perhaps in retrospect was an exaggeration. Nevertheless, to assert that society will eventually come to perceive heterosexuality in a different light from a point of view clearly opposed to the civil rights and liberties of LGBT individuals is to clearly and explicitly imply the textbook denotation of the term "abnormal." Otherwise, what purpose would you possibly have in speculating, to begin with? If you'll admit that the perception of heterosexuality as "different" is benign, and I suspect you won't, then accept my apology for misinterpreting your intent -- although I'd still be left curious as to why you'd bother to speculate on the matter.
With that being said I think it's rather short sighted to assume that heterosexuality will always be viewed in the same light. It was not long ago that a large majority of people considered homosexuality to be morally wrong. Those numbers are dwindling now though, and homosexual couples receive a far greater amount of attention than ever before, and they are glorified by the news makers.
To say that something cannot happen or be a certain way because there is a lack of evidence for it, is rather a baseless and groundless assumption to make. I don't think there was any reason to believe the Berlin Wall would collapse when it did. But, it happened. It did because freaks of nature in our universe occur, and sudden dramatic changes certainly can take place without there necessarily being a primary catalyst to trigger such a drastic change.
I think given enough time, if homosexuality is continued to be embraced and glorified the way it is now in the United States, it will be considered a normal aspect of our society. And where that leaves the heterosexual couples at, who knows.
An analogy concerning the Berlin Wall is utterly non sequitur, here. To clarify something of a misconception you've made, and to enlighten you, events culminating into the collapse of the iron curtain and its physical symbol, the Berlin Wall, were well publicized months before the wall's actual destruction through consistently successful escapes into Western Europe alongside massive protests in East Germany. It was altogether fairly obvious that the wall wouldn't last under the duress of the Soviet Union's tenuous, failing socioeconomic and political infrastructure, and its demolition was really only a further verification of Western suspicion concerning the USSR's dubious political grip over its satellite territories. Overall, the Berlin Wall's collapse was remarkable, but it wasn't altogether unexpected -- although the speed in which events culminating into its collapse occurred did, in your defense, initially catch Western civilization somewhat by surprise. Nevertheless, the evidence was clear, even if it wasn't readily apparent until less than a year before its demolition. It was, in retrospect, difficult to gauge the extent to which the Soviet Union's political power existed in territories like East Germany -- but only because the Soviet Union's propaganda machine and stringent restrictions of press freedom severely inhibited widespread evidence until the near end.
I digress. To reiterate, I posit that there's no logical reason to believe that heterosexuality will be perceived in a "different light" simply because our society is merely choosing to tolerate, accept, and welcome the legitimacy of different sexual orientations. The burden of proof lies
strictly on your shoulders to discredit this, and in the absence of any evidence, your frivolous Berlin Wall analogy is unacceptable and insufficient. To dismiss the value of evidence on the basis of an
analogy is a grievous disservice to your point of view. Furthermore, you'd do well to abstain as much as reasonably possibly from analogies in general in attempting to defend a given point of view in a rational debate. Analogical reasoning is a prime conduit for false attributions in that it often fails to account for contingent variables, such as those concerning homosexuality and its occurrence alongside human nature's tendency within the context of civilization to stigmatize minorities while accepting overwhelming majorities. How in the
world does the Berlin Wall have anything at all to do with this?
There are so many things wrong with this statement, I'm not quite sure where to begin.
Christians are "hardly" being persecuted. That's the most untrue statement I've heard in a long time. I don't need to scientifically prove that Christians most certainly are being persecuted in this Country. Open your eyes, look around sometime. Observation should be enough to see that Christians are persecuted. I can think of countless scenarios where grade-school aged children would bring a Bible to school to read for the allotted time they are given during the day, only to be told by their teacher or instructor that a Bible is inappropriate material for the classroom setting.
I think if you've been on this website for long enough, you would know that your statement is untrue, as Christian Chat has come under attack many times in the past by various groups of people who are mad at the world for reasons unknown.
The American Atheist organization continually posts billboards around the nation to defame or discredit Christianity, in the most bold and brazen manner possible.
Many Legal challenges have been made to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations.
A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.
In each case, the Christian(s) involved were not attempting to impose their religious views on others. They simply didn’t want to be forced to participate or offer tacit support for something they felt was in violation of their religious conscience.
And yet Christians in this Country are not being persecuted? Sure they aren't.
Nothing you've pointed out even
remotely implies the kind of systematic, widespread persecution aimed specifically at Christians that you're attempting to imply. I sincerely doubt you're capable of citing "countless" instances in which "grade-school children" haven't been allowed to read their own Bibles during their free time, although to your credit, the prohibition of a student's own religious book in a school setting during free time
solely on the basis of the book's status as religious material (assuming the Bible isn't invalid for a given project, for instance) is an unjustifiable infringement on religious freedom. It's certainly not persecution aimed specifically at Christianity with hostility as an intent, however, and it's thus not altogether accurate to refer to it as "persecution."
The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with God. It's little more than another patriotic ensemble, and "Under God" was, as you're probably well aware, only established in the Pledge to further differentiate the United States from the officially irreligious Soviet Union. The origins and nature of the phrase are predominantly political, and to imply that it can be construed as persecution either to atheists that want it removed or to Christians that perceive these atheists as persecutors is a disservice to this fact. Ultimately, it's an
utterly trivial issue, and it certainly isn't a credible instance of persecution toward anyone.
A handful of atheist billboards do present varying degrees of hostility toward the Bible, but you've failed to recognize that the reverse is true in reference to Christian organizations and websites, such as Pull the Plug on Atheism and In God We Trust USA, that advertise defamatory material through roadside billboards in response. These billboards are generally very uncommon in the United States, however, and aren't state-sanctioned. They're ultimately another trivial and generally benign extension of free speech, and shouldn't be misconstrued as evidence of widespread Christian persecution of any kind in the US.
The court clerk you've cited is a direct extension of the law, which is a crucial fact to take into consideration. His religious convictions are irrelevant to his duties in civil service, and if those duties extend to granting marriage licenses, his objection is unjustifiable from the perspective of the law. If he were to hypothetically hold a religious conviction against granting marriage licenses to a Muslim couple, his objection would be equally unjustifiable in the eyes of the law. This is
not persecution; it's an attempt by the government to fairly, equitably administer privileges under the law. The fact that clerks in New York are obligated to grant marriage licenses isn't a result of a persecutory disposition toward Christians at all, and the fact that you're attempting to construe it as such comes across as little more than a superficial manifestation of your ignorance of the nation's legal infrastructure.
Finally, the photographer you've cited is a more defensible instance of undue suppression of religious freedom, although this (I'll assume you're referencing Elane Photography v. Willock) is a veritable anomaly. Again, this isn't credible evidence of the sort of widespread persecution you've implied.
From a neutral point of view, there are actually MANY reasons to oppose it. For example:
1.) Same sex marriages always deny a child either a father or a mother.
2.) Same sex marriage violates natural law, and it turns a moral wrong into a civil right. Sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
3.) Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
4.) Same sex marriage also imposes it's acceptance on all of society. By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.
In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.
In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.
5.) It's the cutting edge of the sexual revolution
In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”
If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.
1.) To "deny both a mother and father" is an altogether inadequate and unsubstantiated justification for the prohibition of marriage equality. It fails to recognize same-sex couples that don't wish to have children and won't ever have children, and above all, it arbitrarily assumes that same-sex couples aren't capable of raising children in a manner acceptable by contemporary civilization's social standards. No evidence, furthermore, would suggest that children raised by same-sex couples are generally markedly different or otherwise socially inferior to children raised by heterosexual couples. Love, care, and attention alongside stability and the presence of both parents is, as far as we're currently able to ascertain through the available evidence, far more important than mere sexual orientation.
2 / 3.) "Natural law"? No evidence suggests that sexual orientation is an "insurmountable obstacle" to marriage, and there
certainly and demonstrably isn't a "natural law" from a neutral point of view to substantiate such a belief. Homosexuality exists and persists throughout the animal kingdom, and in spite of however rare it may be, it's nevertheless readily apparent as a staple of many organisms. To assert that monogamous couplings are a "requirement of nature" is utterly asinine. There is no "natural requirement" concerning sexual couplings, since sexual orientation generally occurs on a spectrum -- and, to reiterate, since homosexuality demonstrably exists and persists throughout the animal kingdom. You readily appear to lack even a fundamental understanding of the principles and nature of sexual orientation as depicted by contemporary biology.
4.) The legalization of marriage equality is more appropriately construed as advocating civil liberties irrespective of religious preferences to the contrary, since one of the the state's predominant purposes within the context of the legal arena is to support and protect the rights and liberties of its citizens through the elimination or mitigation of legal justifications to the contrary that lack a compellingly secular basis. The individual preferences of civil servants, as explained above, are
irrelevant in light of the fact that these servants are direct extensions of the law, and are representatives of the state. Their religious justifications are as irrelevant as their moral justifications; in the end, they're acting as representatives with an obligation to fulfill the law, regardless of personal convictions.
5.) Again, you're demonstrating an aptitude for false attributions. Incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and the like are all separate issues that require separate attention, and vary too widely to be of any truly comparative status to homosexuality, which isn't abnormal and doesn't demonstrably cause general harm to society at large. It's a heavily flawed justification for opposition to marriage equality and LGBT tolerance, furthermore, in that it fails to address homosexuality itself -- if anything, it comes across as a poorly-conceived attempt to change the subject while simultaneously providing no real justification as to why our legal infrastructure is incapable of discerning each issue on each issue's own merits.
