Here is a challenging and responsible excerpt from kairocfocusblogspot.com re Ms.g irresponsible, and ignorant post May 16, 2012 at 2;02am.

Friday, May 25, 2012Rom 1 reply, 7: “A revealing comment at a popular bajan blog, that ties hostility to the Scriptures to the idea that “people do not have any right to tell others who they can marry or be in a relationship with . . . ”

“A few days ago, at the popular Barbadian blog, Barbados Underground, a Ms G posted the following remarks; which reveal an increasingly common attitude that we now need to address, whether on the streets, on verandahs, on campus, by the workplace water cooler, or on the Internet:. . .

“…the bottom line is people do not have any right to tell others who they can marry or be in a relationship with and then to back up their bigotry and hatred use the Bible as a way to enforce their feelings.”

“The Bible was written by man how many dongs ago. I have never in all my life heard that God himself wrote the Bible therefore we are controlled by whomever wrote the Bible. It is funny how the Bible states that you should not take counsel from mediums etc however the Bible is full of prophets…..I personally feel many parts of the Bible are misconstrued”

“The first, most tellingly revealing problem, here, is that biblical morality is casually equated with bigotry, hatred and busybody-ness.”

“Evidently, Mrs G does not understand just how serious it is to so casually accuse a great many people of bigotry and hate. And, it should be plain to a more fair minded onlooker, that there is a lot of turn-about projection at work here, that serves to justify the hostility to the Christian faith and its adherents that is here revealed.”

“In short, we can see the polarising civilisational divide at work, just as was intended by those who have been promoting the homosexualisation of marriage.”

“This sort of toxic talking point usually points to an underlying contempt for the Christian faith — typically, with roots in scientism: roughly, the notion that “science” delimits “real” knowledge so that which cuts across evolutionary materialist beliefs or agendas connected to such is necessarily irrational. Such closed-minded contempt as a rule does not trouble to seriously inquire whether there may be warrant for the moral views in question, or regarding how rights may be grounded, or for the Gospel and the Christian faith. To such minds, it is enough that the views are “religion,” and on this they can be dismissed without further consideration.”

“We will turn to the issues on the Christian faith later, but first let us focus on the homosexualised marriage talking point.”

“Alan Keyes, in responding to former US First Lady Barbara Bush, remarks:”

“. . . isn’t love the foundation of marriage? Why should some loving couples enjoy legal recognition and privileges that are denied to others?”

“But the plausible conviction that loving homosexual couples “ought to have…the same sort of rights that everyone has” immediately runs afoul of the simple fact that homosexuals are not the only loving couples without the legal right to marry. Parents and their children don’t have it. Siblings don’t have it. Children not yet of legal age don’t have it; and so on. In principle, all such people are capable of forming loving, committed relationships. By the logic Mrs. Bush relies on, “they ought to have… the same sort of rights that everyone has.”

“In short, once we see obvious exceptions to a suggested “rule” like that, something is fundamentally wrong with the rule. What is it? Keyes continues:”

“Why are parents and their children forbidden to marry one another? Cut to the chase and the answer is simple. The right to marry includes legal recognition (legitimization) of the married couple’s right to have sexual relations with one another. But it is wrong for parents to have sexual relations with their children. It’s wrong for siblings to have sexual relations with each other. It’s wrong for adults to have sexual relations with underage children. Obviously, unless Mrs. Bush means to argue that these restrictions are unjustified, a committed loving relationship is not enough to establish that people “ought to have” the right to marry.”

“He then digs in further, addressing the pivotal term, “ought”:
Mrs. Bush’s use of the word “ought” deserves further attention. The difference between what people do and what people ought to do is a matter of moral judgment. The word “ought” implies the application of a moral standard, a rule or principle that distinguishes right from wrong. People ought to do what is right. They ought not to do what is wrong. When people do what is right, they have the right to act (i.e., have right on their side as they act.) But can the same be said of those who do what is wrong?”

“He then points to a key breakdown triggered by the modern confusion of liberty and license — the abuse of freedom:”

“In everyday parlance these days, we use the term “right” as though it is synonymous with the freedom to act as we choose. But if the choice is wrong, it makes no sense to assert that the chooser has the right to act on it (i.e., has right on his side as he does so.) What someone can do (has the physical capacity or opportunity to do) differs from what they ought to do. This is in fact the rationale for all criminal laws. It’s what allows us to recognize that simply having the opportunity and power to take someone’s life or goods does not grant the right to do so, does not make it right.”

“In short, until the moral legitimacy of homosexual conduct is solidly grounded (and until the harmlessness of such a legislative — or, these days, often, a judicial — act is sufficiently shown), we have a perfect right to question the notion that our civilisation’s states should take the step of legitimising homosexual relationships as marriages under the law. Which of course is a very big question indeed, and one on which all serious voices have a right to be heard. Including, those who look to the truly great religious teachers of mankind, as proved moral instructors.”

“So, why is it that Mrs G and others of like ilk are so busily and broadly imputing that those who, on moral grounds, object to homosexual behaviour and legitimisation of such relationships, are bigoted and hateful?”

“Precisely, because, they cannot ground the legitimacy of such behaviour — much of which is warning label dangerous, and all of which is objectively disordered and counter to the naturally evident creation-order complementarity of man and woman, and the requisites of sound child bearing and nurture (as well as being notoriously counter to the teachings of ALL major religions) — on sound reasoning. So, we are seeing a cheap tactic of appealing to the all too common prejudice against Bible-believing Christians, to promote an agenda that is itself questionable. That is irresponsible and itself a manifestation of a further immoral act: spite.”

“Perhaps, with faint hints of what the Russians call: nekulturny. (Please, please, please, think again before deriding and branding those who are following the principles and concerns raised by some of the greatest teachers of our race, ever.)”

“Now, why do I point out that these cannot ground the legitimacy of such behaviour?”

“Because of the problem of grounding OUGHT in IS.”
http://kairosfocusblogspot.com