I have to admit that I was a bit confused by a recent letter to the editor that bashed the Marietta Times for allowing a local minister quote scripture and express his dismay about the issue of homosexual marriages. Yet this same writer encouraged the minister to "live and let live." So which is it? Shouldn't someone who promotes tolerance of everything be tolerant of a newspaper that prints an opposing viewpoint? Shouldn't someone that demands tolerance be tolerant of someone else speaking their mind (even Bible believing Christians)? Are Bible believing Christians the only ones that need to be tolerant?
Since the writer seems to express a desire to totally abandon the biblical moorings of our great nation, it would be interesting to know where they would draw the line with the redefinition of marriage. Should we redefine legal marriage to include the fantasies of pedophiles or necromancers? What should be the standard by which we make such decisions? Or should we just do what we feel is right in the moment? Remember the 911 bombers thought they were doing the right thing.
There is a false assumption that what happens between consenting adults in private doesn't hurt anyone else. Proverbs 14:34 says that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to every people." When citizens choose to follow a way that is contrary to scriptural righteousness the whole nation suffers because of it. Natural calamity, financial hardships, and general unrest have historically followed times when the righteous were driven underground by the unrighteous vocal minority. Kind of sounds like what we're dealing with today doesn't it?