We’re interrupting our regular Trinity series to talk about an event that has been the discussion on a number of blogs today and that’s the story of Perez Hilton and Miss California. Miss California was given a question from Perez Hilton on Vermont’s recent approval of same-sex “marriage.” In speaking of this he asked “Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
Miss California’s answer was that she was raised that a marriage was to be between a man and a woman. She did not want to offend, but that is how she was raised.
A video of that can be seen here:
First off, congratulations to this girl for standing up and truly saying what she believes in. Some might be tempted to say she it would be seen as highly unpopular, but it seems the audience didn’t think so. It seems even a liberal state like California in their recent elections don’t think so either. Perez may say she got booed, but I sure heard a lot of applause.
Perez Hilton put up a reply. I will warn you all. It has profanity in it so if the kiddies are around, don’t listen.
What was his answer? His answer was that she is a dumb….well…I won’t say that next word here. Perez described her as someone with half a brain. Now he may say it’s not because of her answer on the topic of homosexual marriage. Personally, I’m not buying it.
I have also heard that Perez has since apologized for what he said about her, but I wonder why? Did he apologize because he doesn’t think that’s what she is? Does he think then that it could be that she really does have a brain?
There’s something about this that amazes me. This is always the crowd that we’re told we should be tolerant of. Strangely enough, when you disagree with the tolerance crowd, they’re not so tolerant. If you present an idea that is contrary to theirs, they no longer want to listen to you.
Indeed, the comments I see about this lady on Hilton’s blog are hardly flattering. (To be fair, some from our side are saying a number of things about Hilton that I wouldn’t recommend. Biblically, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin and one the Bible mentions in saying that those who practice it will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, but I don’t think telling him he’s going to Hell or calling him terminology other than homosexual is really going to make a difference.) I’m sitting here watching this and wondering “Where is the tolerance?”
True tolerance is not like this. In biblical tolerance, you disagree with the idea and you defend the person’s right to say it. You accept the person in fact as a person without accepting their behavior or ideas. Here’s a novel approach for the debate. If you disagree with your opponent, tell them why they’re wrong and then have them discuss why they disagree with you.
Some people might think some people are only against homosexuality for religious reasons. In fact, this is usually the assumption that is given today. However, does this excuse really work? For one thing, if the religion is true and it really does come from God, then I would say if he condemns homosexuality, we really ought to listen. It won’t work to write off the religion entirely just because it disagrees with you.
Second, while I do agree the Bible condemns homosexuality, I don’t think homosexuality is immoral because the Bible condemns it. I think the Bible condemns it because it is immoral and there’s all the difference in the world between those ideas. When I argue against it, I argue from natural law.
Perez also speaks of how he thinks Miss California should have answered. No Perez. Here’s how Miss California should have answered. She should have answered with her opinion like she did. She should not have given an answer you wanted to hear just because it would be PC or something you wanted to hear. When you ask someone for their opinion on something, you should expect to get their opinion on it and you should accept that it’s their opinion. Now you can debate them on that opinion, but it’s childish to ask their opinion and then whine because that’s what you got.
Perez has said that it should be left to the states to decide. Okay. Does that include California? The state recently spoke. Does that mean the homosexual activists are going to drop the idea of going to the courts instead? If you think it should be legal, then accept it for now and argue in the public square and maybe you can get another election on the topic.
However, that is also not the point. The question was asked if states SHOULD follow suit. It’s a moral question. Even if every state does follow suit, does that mean that every state should follow suit? The only reason they should allow it is if the people believe it to be moral or at least morally neutral. The only reason to disallow it is because it is immoral.
Miss California spoke her opinion. It’s what she was asked for. The homosexual community wants me to believe that I should be tolerant, but by their own definition of tolerance, many of them don’t follow suit. Now I hope there are some out there who are homosexual who while they disagree with Miss California, they have a greater problem with Perez Hilton for his response.
Now some may ask if I’m tolerant. You bet I am. I just am not accepting of immorality. I will not look at immorality and call it morality just to please some people. If I think something is immoral, I will call it immoral. Now you have all right to debate me on that issue which is the way the system works, but I will still call it such. However, it won’t stop me from viewing the person as one who holds the image of God and someone Christ died for and who God loves and who I should also.
Do I expect the homosexual community to agree with my opinion on marriage? No. Of course, if some do and want out, great. There are a number of Christian groups out there who are delighted to help out. However, until then, we simply come together and discuss the issues. Perez may think Miss California is bringing division. She is not at all. It is those who refuse to go to the public square who are divisive.
Furthermore, let’s suppose she is causing division. So what? What is she causing division over? I would rather be divided with someone over the truth than united with them in lies. Is the idea of the unity one where all accept homosexual marriage as legitimate? If that’s the case, then count me out. I will be as divisionary as I can.
For Miss California, I say that I applaud her for not only saying her opinion, but also for saying one I believe to be right and one that she had to know would not be popular with some in the crowd. Cheers to you Miss California. I believe that in reality, most of America is on your side as well.