When I wrote that article about Louie Giglio, I centered it around the issue of moral priorities and sex trafficking. Due to his years of dedication to end sex trafficking, Giglio was originally scheduled to deliver the benediction at Obama's inauguration. When some gay liberals discovered a 20-year-old sermon in which he called gay sex a sin, there was a massive outcry and protest that compelled Giglio to withdraw from the inauguration.
The issue was not about gays and lesbians, although the secularists do want it to be about the gays and lesbians. The issue was about moral priorities and sex trafficking. Please note as well, that Lady Gaga, who romanticizes and idealizes sexual enslavement and various types of rape, sang her songs as a special celebration for the Obama family. So, Obama removed someone who dedicated a generation's worth of time to end slavery; Obama then invited over someone who considers rape and sexual enslavement to be ideal. This alone shows that the issue goes beyond gays and includes a wide range.
One reason for this must be because the secularists consider sex so empowering and fulfilling that they cannot comprehend any type of sex as damaging or wrong. This is the only possible explanation for what happened unless a person happens to have a rape fetish and binges on Law&Order:SVU marathons. I have heard people start to make obscene jokes after watching this series. Not good.
The issue, therefore, is about moral priorities and sex trafficking - not about gays. . In the article, I never discussed gay sex as a sin because that was not the issue. Even so, some commenters sought to justify gay sex and to convince me that gay sex was normal and acceptable. Their comments were entirely beside the point of the article, but they reveal their priorities. Likewise, Obama revealed his priorities when he preached about equality for all Americans, all the while ignoring and disregarding the plight of enslaved women and children. Are they not equal, or not deserving of equality?
In response to my article, two main comment threads emerged, both started by commenters who ignored sex trafficking and sought to redirect the focus. One person called God a "bigot" for opposing gay marriage to which I responded that there can never be any bigotry because heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. The conversation digressed from there to whether sexuality is genetic or environmental. A biological explanation fails to explain the diversity of sexual behaviors and beliefs throughout human history and across numerous cultures. The second thread was simply a person wanting to feel justified in Giglio's removal from the inauguration.
Eventually, this commenter asked "do you think that a person is immune from criticism as long as the good he/she does is greater than the harm?"
Feeling a bit irritated with the conversation, I replied quite honestly, "it is about knowing when to speak up and when to keep quiet" on the basis of what is most important in a given situation. Which do the seculars consider more important? Gay sex or freedom from sexual bondage? That women get free abortions, or that women are liberated from being sex slaves?
In the article, I never condemned gay sex as a sin because the topic was moral priorities and sex trafficking. I had explained the difference between the two within the article to help readers understand what the real moral priorities should be. Slaves have no freedom to consent, so their bodies are violated against their will. Gay sex is consensual. I kept quiet about gay sex as a sin in that article because I understood that sex trafficking was a much more serious matter than the moral issue of gay sex. In the comments, I even cited 1 Corinthians 5:1 as a reference to moral priorities. Instead of talking about sex slavery, the commenters sought to defend gay sex - why since I never attacked it in the article? - and ignored the topic of sex trafficking. Thus, the commenters showed their priorities by defending gay sex in an article that never attacked it and was instead an article against sex trafficking and misplaced priorities.
The issue remains NOT about gays and lesbians. The attitude of the commenters toward sex trafficking was "yes, that's wrong, but what about me?" It was a selfish attitude. It is the same attitude with which the seculars championed the "War on Women" for women to have free birth control and abortion. This secularist War on Women likewise ignored the plight of women and children trapped in the sex trafficking industry. It is the same attitude that toddlers display when they scream shrilly at the top of their lungs to hold an item and refuse to let it be bagged at the check-out aisle.
The secularists want us to think of it as a gay issue. Obama made his inaugural speech all about gays and lesbians, but the issue is not about them. The lack of moral priorities indicate a much wider and more pervasive problem. The selfish disregard also indicates a wider and more pervasive problem. And this goes beyond gays and includes heterosexuals as well.
Which is more important in the secular viewpoint? That women get free abortions, or that women are liberated from being sex slaves? Obviously, the free abortions are more important. If anyone opposes abortion, that person is labeled a misogynist warring against women. Any efforts to end sex trafficking would be irrelevant. The secularists ignored sex trafficking when they claimed to be on the side of women in this "war." It is pure selfishness.
Selfishness is not restricted to any particular group. Heterosexuals can be just as selfish as homosexuals. The demand for free abortion and birth control proves this. Therefore, this is still not a gay issue. This is a selfish issue.
Selfishness is simply an attitude, a worldview, a way of thinking.
The struggles we face are not against flesh and blood. The struggles we face are against the wrong attitudes, the wrong worldviews, and the wrong ways of thinking. Beliefs and attitudes result in certain behaviors. When the beliefs and attitudes change, the behaviors change. It is a standard cognitive-behavioral principle, and it also appears in scripture (Mathew 15:19-20). A simple example: if you have a bad mood, then you might be rude and snappish, and you certainly will neither smile nor greet people.
Because our goal is to change their ways of thinking, readers, we do not and cannot fight against flesh and blood human beings. If we think of this as flesh and blood warfare, then we end up labeling one group as the Enemy group to embody sin. And this, readers, is a clear violation of Biblical principles.
For one thing, flesh and blood warfare will lead us into the sin of Pharisaical legalism, which also leads to selfishness, pride, hypocrisy, and egotism. The legalistic Pharisee thinks there is nothing to repent of, all the while displaying plenty for repentance. (Luke 18:10-14) Pharisees liked to think of other groups as embodiment of sin and of themselves as morally and spiritually pure.
For another thing, flesh and blood warfare in which we label a group to embody sin will lead us to violate the commandment of love (Luke 10:30-37, 1 John 4:20-21). Because we are to hate sin, if a group embodies sin, then the result is to hate that group. Flesh and blood warfare will lead us to violate the commandment of love.
Please note that for this reason, Christians must stop defining people by their sexual desires. One reason why many Christians have such difficulties ministering to gays or are hateful toward them is because many Christians believe in the social constructs that define people according to the flesh. In order to reach these people, Christians need to abandon these concepts and start defining people according to spiritual matters. These social constructs never existed in the ancient world, and especially absent from the Bible. God never defines people by their sexual desires.
Finally, apostle Paul states that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). If we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, then there must be something else we wrestle against. There is the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner." In other words, wrestle against the sin and support the sinner. This means we must convince sinners to stop sinning.
I know there are some people obsessed with combating the "gay agenda" as if there is some conspiracy led by homosexuals to destroy society. There is no evil conspiracy. Society will be destroyed because society simply refuses to understand what is good for it, and society needs an education. There are also people who believe the Catholic church will take over the world to become the one world anti-christ church. This conspiracy likewise has no basis in reality. The height of Catholic power was from 1000-1300 AD, and it has been declining ever since. Catholics are just as marginalized as all the other Christians. There is no conspiracy threatening our society. The real threat to society is a simple lack of moral bearing and a lack of moral understanding.
People enjoy using the slippery slope argument against gay sex and gay marriage. The slippery slope is a valid argument and an appropriate argument, especially when we acknowledge that the slippery slope began with heterosexuals. Citing that heterosexuals gave the slope its push is our greatest evidence that a slippery slope actually exists. And we need this evidence to counter claims of mongering and to counter claims that gays don't want the slope to reach a certain point. Yes, they never want certain things to happen, but the straight people who gave the slope its push never imagined we would be in this moral predicament today, so look at what the slippery slope has led us to. First, the heterosexuals moved sex outside of marriage: "we don't need marriage to love each other!" When sex/love was approved outside of marriage and gays love each other, then accepting their sexual activity became the next step. If sex/love is acceptable outside of marriage, then any sex/love is acceptable.
And all this comes down to the false belief of sex as empowering or fulfilling. This belief explains why Lady Gaga who romanticizes rape and bondage sang at Obama's party. This belief explains why there was the demand for free birth control and abortions. This false belief explains why there is so much sex outside of marriage and why our culture has confused love and sex. This false belief includes all people within society - heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. This false belief is the reason sexual sin has become so prevalent.
Teaching chastity and celibacy are the best ways to counter the false belief of empowering or fulfilling sex. And what exactly is this love? If marriage is all about love, then what does that mean for all other relationships such as love for your neighbor? Is not everything we do supposed to be all about love (1 Corinthians 13)?
"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Corinthians 16:14)
Readers, we also need to teach the true nature of love, and the difference between love and sex. Teaching chastity and celibacy - not just to any particular group but to all people - are the best ways to stop the slippery slope at every angle of the slope. Teaching the difference between love and sex will enable people to make proper and well-informed decisions about their souls and their bodies for their entire life.