For example, last January, Louis Giglio was suddenly disqualified from speaking at the inaugural benediction because of a message Giglio had shared on homosexuality nearly 15 years ago.
Some, specifically at public universities, have felt their position to be threatened after even breathing support for natural marriage. There are also the labels of "bigot" and "homophobia" tossed at supporters of natural marriage. Last year I read an editorial from our local editor who said he felt sorry for those who were offended by same-sex "marriage." Those who oppose same-sex "marriage" must be feeling insecure in their own union, he seemed to assert. Seriously, such a claim is completely full of air!
Yet despite these hindrances, it's even more important to keep talking!
Robert Oscar Lopez has survived his share of persecution, and he keeps talking. See his testimony shared before Minnesota legislators, or read his blogs here and here. "I have been met with vicious attacks and something far worse than viciousness: a massive nationwide cold shoulder," Lopez wrote on American Thinker. He described how he has been rejected for interviews and editorial publishing by several news organizations. (But we won't tune him out at Delight Media.)
In his article with American Thinker, he briefly addressed the hinderances that have come his way. But he also honestly assessed where natural marriage supporters can begin gaining ground, despite these hindrances:
Academics: I can testify that during my college days faculty used the classroom as their political soapbox, and often the LGBT issue was raised with heightened emotions that clouded sound discussion. It's easy for the natural marriage supporter to leave the classroom feeling blackened. This is not all that is surprising when you consider where our teachers come from and which ideologies they are trained under. Yet many of these up-and-coming teachers are being sent to the classrooms of our children. Yikes!
Academics have also been the source of LGBT research. Lopez claims that studies supporting same-sex families were pushed through otherwise reputable journals. "A central principle of research is that studies cannot be trusted if it is clear that certain findings would result in reprisals against the researchers," Lopez wrote. "We know now that all the studies conducted prior to 2012 were carried out by researchers who knew that if they found non-LGBTffirming data, they would face professional ostracism and possibly lose their livelihood."
Media: The media have failed to report on LGBT issues accurately and fairly. "If (all colleagues) seem to be quoting people who say the same thing, then that must be the only thing worth reporting," Lopez wrote of American journalists. In other words, if every other reporter is reporting on the glories of the gay lifestyle, then the fact must be that the gay lifestyle is glorious. Why report differently? Surely ostracism would follow.
See, the media not only has power in WHAT they report, but in HOW they report it. My local news announcer described the Minnesota for Marriage RV as a group which fights to oppose those who want to legalize same-sex marriage. With three kids making noise in the back of our minivan, I had to hear this ad twice before I understood what side of the argument this RV was on. Why cast natural marriage supporters in a negative light? What would have been wrong with describing the group as "supporters of natural marriage" instead of a group "fighting to oppose" (negative) those who want to "legalize same-sex marriage" (positive)?
Riding Political Waves: We need not ride on one party. Both Democrats and Republicans have reasons to support natural marriage. Lopez has determined that each party needs to be addressed differently regarding gay issues and children. "I met with Democrats and sought to persuade them based on their commitment to social justice. I met with Republicans and sought to persuade them based on their traditional values," Lopez wrote about his time with the Minnesota legislature.
Lopez cited other imperatives to this debate for the natural marriage side: sponsor researchers and studies that are willing to look at new ideas and build momentum for an alternative press (you're looking at one). Also, watch this argument in the courts. Lopez claims the courts are going to be left with cleaning up the mess LGBT relationships leave regarding children. Already at least one state is willing to list more than two parents on a birth certificate. "…you can conceive a child with a spouse of the opposite sex and then raise the child without much judicial interference," Lopez wrote. "if you want exclusive custody of a child with a same-sex spouse, you will have to rely upon lawyers, judges, social workers, and deputies to enforce contractual rights."
Lopez wrote that the press has filled LGBT minds with unrealistic hopes for parenthood. But is this right for children? They have no voice, no vote, yet they are likely to suffer the most.
Through solid research and discussion, we may come to understand more fully the Biblical understanding of marriage as a sacred representation of Jesus Christ and the church. We may be able to rattle off a list of benefits for a society that promotes and supports only natural marriage. All this is valuable insight, but discussing the impact of unnatural marriage on children may be the route that begins to turn heads in our culture.
Despite the hindrances, let's keep talking.