Wrong-ophobia

The previous post ended with some updates about the "heat" that President-elect Obama has been taking for two weeks since his announcement that Dr. Rick Warren will be praying at his inauguration. This is a ceremonial honor performed most often by Billy Graham in his day (who prayed at eight such events).

But this op-ed piece by Frank Rich accused both Warren and President Bush of promoting homophobia, which if taken literally, means a fear of homosexuals. Why is it that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are said to have a "phobia" about it?

I think cutting in line is wrong, but I don't have "cut-in-line-ophobia." I just think it's wrong. Cutting in lines either reflects or leads to a break-down in the way things work best (the ideal). Likewise, I am not a homophobic just because I think homosexuality is wrong, not ideal, to be avoided. It both reflects and leads to a break down in the way things work best.

I think it is more accurate to say that the homosexual activists (those forcing their private lives into the public arena) are "wrong-ophobes."

They are afraid to think that they share the planet with people who still believe some things are wrong, that they should not be done, that if the desire to do them meets opportunity... it's wise to flee from the temptation. They find in unsettling that a majority of Christians believe that God created us to be shaped by intimacy and pleasure. He intended the most intimate, most pleasurable act to create a bond, "one flesh" He called it. There are many deviations from this design. They fall short. They are not the ideal. When we deliberately deviate from God's ideal... it's wrong. People who bristle at the thought that something they've chosen to do will be called "wrong" by some are wrong-ophobes.

"But you have to respect my opinion," they say.

No, I don't have to respect your opinion. I can respect your right to hold an opinion while considering the opinion totally wrong.

"But you have to respect my lifestyle," they say.

No, I don't have to respect it. I can respect your right to choose a lifestyle while considering it a very bad choice--bad for you; bad for society.

When everyone does "that which is right in his own eyes" those who choose to do or "be" something that has been considered wrong through Judeo-Christian history become "wrong-ophobes" in that they are afraid to learn that the majority of society considers what they are doing to be wrong. They then make it their goal to shift the burden of proof...

"Who are you to say it's wrong for me to do this with the same gender? Who are you to say this confuses social norms? Who are you to say what a 'norm' is? Who are you to say that allowing two men (or women) to marry is not a good idea? Or that allowing them to adopt a baby would deprive that baby's natural need for both a mother and a father? Who are you to say that is a natural need? I'm turning the table on you. I think you are wrong for saying I am wrong. You are intolerant. I tolerate nearly everything. I say nothing is wrong between consenting adults. If it feels good do it. You must tolerate me, but I refuse to tolerate you because of your intolerance. I do not wish to share the planet with you or anyone whose "moral code" says my lifestyle is not what God had in mind when he created man and woman. I will dismiss your moral compass as a relic of a past. I will scorn the exclusivity of "one man one woman" (though it is that union that brought me into this world). I denounce the time-honored definition of marriage and those who wish to preserve it. I will denounce their 'norms.' I will boycott their businesses. I will extend my political energies to also promote tolerance of men who like to dress up as ladies and use public ladies rooms. I will fight for the right to cross-dress. I'll fight for the right of Ms. Smith, a second-grade teacher to return after Christmas Break as Mr. Smith. It will help teach tolerance to those second-graders. And when deep inside, I fear you may be right, when I look around at the pathetic, sad-and-searching lives most homosexuals lead, when that awful feeling of "wrong" puts a knot in my stomach, I will remind myself that it's all their fault for saying this is wrong, and I'll reject the intolerance of the homophobes. And then I'll feel good again."

To which I say, "It's your life but it's God's world. I do not fear you. I do not hate you... "neither do I condemn you," as Christ said in John 8:11, but let's not forget he added "go, and sin no more." He was speaking to an adulterous woman. Was Jesus an "adultery-ophobe"? No. But He knew adultery is a deviation from God's ideal, a violation of God's law, and He called it wrong. He called it sin. Consenting adults has nothing to do with it. We do not know whether the woman accepted his counsel, but we do know she did not rally all the other adulterers to begin a march insisting that their behavior be considered "un-wrong" and good for society. Since Christ showed "tolerance" by saying "neither do I condemn you," I can do that, too, but that exchange also confirms that we need not call wrong right... even if it upsets the wrong-ophobes.

Never has wrong-ophobia been more openly displayed by one subculture in society than what we are seeing today in the tantrums of the homosexual activists frustrated in a world that, when stripped of political correctness, is repulsed at the thought of their wooing. That is not a phobia; it is a visceral rejection of a deviation from God's ideal: "male and female created He them...and "they shall be one flesh."

Update: January 8, 2009: Here is an interesting debate on Obama's choice between to homosexuals. The one in favor of including Rick Warren had this to say:

“Even if you suspect the whole "unity" thing is really just about politics, the selection of Warren still makes good sense, including for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. It is a stroke of political brilliance to recruit a conservative megapastor in support of a president-elect who is arguably the most pro-gay, pro-choice and progressive in our history….” [emphasis added]

Notice his use of the letters LGBT. The "T" was added just a couple years ago. If you have any question about the direction and legal implications of these issues google two words , "transgender agenda," and you'll see the kind of politics and cultural change the homosexuals want. What other letters will need to be added to those four in the future?