~ My Green Room ~: I'm responsible for what I say, not for what you understand.

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression must not be a privilege given to certain people and be denied to some others. And if we are just going to use intellect more than ego (feelings), we will be a little less harsh with the description we give the man. Too many seem to be taking advantage of the said freedom to voice their dismay to the extent they explicitly give him names such as bigot, false prophet, hypocrite and many others. In fact, even before the issue came up, he and his family have already been used as laughing stocks by stand up comediennes who bring home moolah for doing so. Yet, nobody dared defend their rights as humans. Their dignity have been trampled on. Now it can be excused as simply comedy?! How convenient is that? While the dude only gave an innocent, honest and bold answer to a question using an analogy. It's a surprise that the ones who've been calling him names don't seem to understand and accept logical rationalization, yet demand theirs be heard and received.

I have not been writing in defense of him. If truth be told, I am not a fan. I was never a supporter. I didn't even like him. He is overrated in my opinion. But, I am standing by him because he courageously drinks from the cup given him. The man speaks not to impress nor to be famous. He speaks what most would be careful to announce in fear of people's judgment. I write not to applaud him but with the intent to try put things into perspective.

Truth of the matter is, too many a number just got it all wrong. No one was compared to anything. Should we just go back to the question and focus on the NOUN, the topic is clearly "Same-Sex Marriage". The question is NOT "how do you regard homosexuals?" but "what is your take on Same-Sex Marriage? "Group of people" as opposed to "Behavior/Preference".

And to emphasize further, his opinion was SOLICITED. He did not come around shouting, "you people should repent of your promiscuous ways or you will all go to hell!" Nor did he say, "you guys are animals." Let us all please understand the difference and his circumstance.

It took me a few views of the interview to make sure I was not missing a point. But, whichever angle I look at it, twas a general statement emphasizing basic logic―an animal's natural instinct is to find the opposite gender to mate. And if animals know this basic actuality, then they're better creatures than those who were endowed with moral judgment. Is this not sound analogy? Did he make mention of names? For everyone's convenience here's the video and watch it once again without any biases.

Another way of saying what he said would be, "No, I am not for Same-Sex Marriage. Common Sense tells me that we don't see male-to-male or female-to-female animals mating. If animals instinctively find the opposite gender to mate (given that they have no sense of right and wrong), then humans are worse than animals."

Let us try to break it down...

His position: "I am not for Same-Sex Marriage"

His justification: Common Sense tells me that we don't see male-to-male or female-to-female animals mating. If animals instinctively find the opposite gender to mate (given that they have no sense of right and wrong), then humans are worse than animals."

*Note: "Humans", as general, was what he said.

Considering that he is coming from his personal standpoint, his statement sounds rather like―"I am not for Same-Sex Marriage because my judgment tells me that it would make me lower than animals if I'd be for it." As listeners, we take one's opinion as applied to the one giving his or her opinion and not as if addressed to us. Had the question been, "what do you think of the LGBT group?" and his answer was what he answered, it would've been totally foul.

Can't emphasize it enough that he was asked and he gave his opinion (belief, conviction) and he did not do so with the intention to shove it down anyone's throat. He did not do so to earn money. He plainly answered the question. Yes, he is running for office. Yes, he should've known separation of Church and State. Still, it is his conviction expressed because it was called for. Nobody has any right to demand a person to set aside his values (or religious belief) to tolerate another's, nor dictate to him to speak apart from what he believes in only because he is running for a position in government. Don't we all plead for freedom? Why do we detain him within what we believe should be his answer? If others can freely and deliberately satirize another for the sake of entertainment and laughter, why is an innocent remark worthy of reproach?

His response was without judgment nor condemnation with it. No hidden agenda. Plain honesty. Won't we rather have an individual speaking truth instead of lie?

I am not being insensitive to the feelings of those protesting by saying these things. Please slow down in making judgments. I have loved ones and friends who are queers. I love them and I respect their preferences. They're given their rightful freedom without being judged.

Yes, a large number may have been hurt, this fact is not put aside. Did he not quickly apologize, though? Let us in stead aim for understanding and be open to reasons. See from all angles. Acknowledge the innocence of his ground.

Know when an opinion is being shoved down another's throat against an opinion simply stated. When an opinion is being forced on anyone, the manner it's said is completely different. It's suggestive or manipulative, while an opinion simply stated only provides justification. He did not preach his religion then demand for viewers to yield.

It is just unfair that when Christians talk about the Word, they're accused of many things. They're called religious freaks and whatever. Don't we all lie everyday? But, just because we're all liars none of us must point out that it is wrong to steal? Are we all just going to keep shut cause none of us have any right to tell when something is wrong because that is considered judging? But, don't we all make judgment on a daily basis―others' looks, behavior, manners? ...and our basis mostly comes from preference/opinion...we think some people are dressed oddly or some others talk in a manner that we find annoying. It is our predisposition to have opinion and express it.

We (Christians) do not proclaim God's Word because we are perfect. We are imperfect humans who are working hard to obey God. We do fail every single day. We don't claim to be righteous when we speak of what the Bible says. Our struggle to do good and to fight what's evil is not a joke. When we say sin as it is, it does not come from our own biases or opinion (nor do we impose it on anyone). It is Written. But when we are persecuted as bigot, what is the world's basis? Christians are collectively tyrannized. We are prevented from speaking our hearts and minds out or else we will be severely castigated. Where is equality and freedom, then? We're being bullied to shy away only because our weapon is the Truth. Now who is intolerant?

Saying that "it is a sin to commit murder" makes no one self-righteous nor religious fanatic―It's a statement. Telling someone that it is wrong to gossip does not make one judgmental―Another statement. Telling a person (s)he is a "slanderer" IS judging―It's conclusion. One does not condemn a person by quoting the Bible, unless it is spoken with a certain tone―"You are gonna burn in hell because you are this and that" versus "it is said in the Scriptures that it is against God to do this and that..." please clearly see the difference. One's behavior toward others is another story, of course. We, Christians, bully no one.

Saying that an ACT is wrong is NOT judging. DEFINING a person BECAUSE of his or her act IS judging. We don't go telling people they're bigot. We can rather communicate properly if we find their assertion offensive. Then we can all meet halfway. This is the freedom of expression that is fair to all.

Finally, speaking the Truth in love does not have to equate to exchanging the Truth for tolerance. We are not told to withhold the Truth from anyone because we do not want to offend. The Word Itself is offensive to those who do not want to submit to it. The challenge to Christians is not loving people, but loving God above all. Jesus offended many when He overturned the tables and this scene became one solid reason for certain people to question the truth that He is without sin. But was hate His motivation for doing what He did? Twas His zealousness for the House of the Lord that brought Him to act that way. When it comes to the Truth, the challenge to Christians is to either save their own lives or lose it. The choice who to offend. Jesus said, "I did not come to bring peace, but sword." [Matthew 10:34]

God commands us to love our neighbors, yes. This requires us to accept everyone and treat them as He would treat them with great love, with so much grace and compassion. But, we are commanded to love Him more than His creations. When the topic of God's Law comes to picture, it becomes a completely different cause. Our loyalty is then tested.

Oh, and before I end this post...I encourage everyone to watch the unedited video of the interview.