Bud Wright: Anti-gay legislation not religious freedom, it’s bigotry

By Bud Wright

The Daily Advance

12 Comments | Leave a Comment

Having written often about gay rights during the North Carolina General Assembly’s assault on same-sex marriage (and by extension, gay rights in general) I have rather deliberately avoided the subject of late. Not because I’m any less convinced of the tenacity of the anti-gay rights movement, but because I didn’t wish to become a one-note columnist.

Dear Reader,
This content is only available to subscribers of The Daily Advance print and/or e-edition. If you are a current subscriber and have established a user name and password, you can log in. If you have not established your user name and passwords, click here to set up your information.
To become a subscriber, click here.

Comments

huh

huh

No fan no more

I'm surprised no one has taken Bud to task over his hateful attack on "old white people." I used to be a tolerant fan of Mr. Wright, appreciating his style and occasional sharp wit. But this latest craziness has erased any positive feelings I had for him.

That so Bud?

I suppose those who are agenst smoking are "bigoted" toward smokers? They also must be full of hate to make spaces where smoking is not allowed. How about AA? Are they being "bigotory" or discriminating" agenst drinkers with their meetings? Answer those questions.

Spot on

You are spot on. The very same "religious" arguments were used to support segregation back in the day. They are no more valid now then they were then.

Ethnicity not the same as preference

If by "spot on" you mean "way off in left field", then you are absolutely right. However, I doubt that your assertion is the same as mine. To equate one's ethnicity to being similar to sexual preference is at the least offensive and at the most ignorant. I know the arguments for "I was born this way" and have read, listened, and watched them blasted over the media outlets for years. But if one is born with a certain sexual proclivity to which they cannot resist, they should no more be able to change that inclination than one change their ethnic origins. At least that is how you assert it. Yet, many who have lived as homosexuals for years and often decades do change their sexual preference. Some are now heterosexual, others bisexual, and others become celibate. So let's drop the whole strawman argument of equating sexual choice with "race" and actually stick to the issue. The issue that Mr. Wright speaks to here is honestly not even worth the ink it was printed with in the paper. This is not an issue of fair treatment but another example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. When the government forces business owners to violate their religious freedom then they are paving the way for real hate groups to emerge and force businesses to provide services regardless of how horrific their teachings really are. Let's see how this is applied when another neo-Nazi group invades our town and wants to lease a space downtown to promote their agenda. If applied consistently with what Mr. Wright and you propose, the only thing you could do is smile and ask them to sign the lease agreement. Only then will you realize that the bed you lie in is the one you have made for yourself. All mankind is created in the image of God and therefore should be treated equally. But their choices to sin against God violate His commands cannot be glossed over. No man or woman should be treated unfairly because of their ethnic origin and even those who do not submit to God are still blessed to live in His general grace and in a country where their right to believe what they wish is protected. But no man or woman should ever ask for endorsement of their sinful lifestyle as though it were anything more than a personal choice.

Choice

If you believe that sexual preference is a choice, at what point did you choose to be heterosexual, Adam? Close your mouth; your ignorance is showing.

Simple answer...despite the ad hominem

Your poor ad hominem attack aside, the answer is multi-faceted. I choose to do as God commands because my desire is to honor and glorify Him. I choose to be a heterosexual because it is the natural design which God prescribes for healthy, loving, biblical relationships between a husband and a wife that reflect the His character and nature. Are you saying you have no personal choice? I guess that means you did not choose to use an ad hominem attack rather than a logically consistent argument. Therefore this means you should not be called out for your fallacy because you could not resist it since it is just “who you are”. How then does this apply to everyday life? How can anyone be held accountable for anything if they have no choice in the matter because it is just “who they are”? Please stop posting, your inconsistency is showing.

Let me get this straight....

...you "choose" to be a heterosexual because of your "desire to honor and glorify God." Does this mean that you would otherwise choose to be gay? Just curious, -JP

Choice

Without Christ, and left up to the bondage of my sinful nature, I would choose sin. How that sin would be manifest is not important since any form of sin is an afront to God. Any sexual sin outside the confines of God's ordination of marriage is simply rebellion against the Creator which in any form requires a contrite heart of repentance. If we are back to the "you can't choose" issue then we again must face the accountability problem in regards to all other areas of human proclivity. Replace the issue at hand with any other choice and the logical conclusion must be applied across the spectrum.

good reply Adam

This is about behavior. There are many who are trying --very hard--to make it a civil rights issue when it is not. No one is deniing marriage to anyone. Any man may become a husband as well as any woman can become a wife.

You poor fellow.

-JP

John Parker

Why? what do you mean "poor" ?

Add comment

Login or register to post comments