i have a few comments about this whole situation:
1. everyone has the right to their own opinion. don't ask someone a question about what they think and get mad when they respond with their opinion. the fact is, the homosexual gossip columnist who asked the question seemed to be digging for an affirmation to back his beliefs. sorry, buddy, but you didn't get it because some people in this world find that there is a worldview that trumps the fads of culture.
plus, this is america. if you tell someone they are wrong, it is discrimination, which, ironically, is the very thing you are fighting against. it is ridiculous that we have over-defined freedom to the point that there is no freedom.
2. it is amazing to me that people who are fighting for something, which they identify as 'love', can be so hateful. the class of one individual in this situation prevailed, while others went to their blogs, called names, and threw temper-tantrum cheap shots. that is just inappropriate, tacky, and childish.
further, shame on those of you who abandoned someone you called a friend because you discovered this person didn't believe the same things that you do, especially when this person called you a friend even though she already knew you held different beliefs than her. but this is how things seem to work, isn't it? let me suggest that true love and friendship go beyond even the deepest beliefs. i think some individuals have revealed their true color in all of this and should take time to reflect on it.
3. i am just flabbergasted that people who want to argue that people are intolerant are themselves so intolerant. if you want to live in a relativist world where everyone is entitled to their belief, then you must honor everyone's belief. i have just one thing to say - welcome to your self-created catch-22. by the way, honoring someone's beliefs means that you shouldn't expect the rest of us to tell you that we agree with you. we don't.
4. by the way, just in case you were wondering (since one news report stated otherwise) - miss california does not hold views which are in the minority among her age group, nor even for her liberal state. i am pretty sure that california voted to uphold true marriage. this statement was a media-created myth to try to trick people into being like-minded by making the majority feel like outcasts. we will not be marginalized by your lies.
5. thank you, miss california, for reminding us of something. we should never read culture onto scripture. instead, scripture should inform our understandings of culture. and based on scripture's nature of Truth, it has some hard teachings. this inherently means that scripture will rub us the wrong way sometimes. if it doesn't, then we aren't reading it correctly. how many times did people walk away from Jesus because they couldn't adhere to His teachings because it challenged them to live their lives differently... it forced them out of their strongly held incorrect beliefs?
6. i have realized two things from all of this...
a. this is all a power struggle. a minority wants to do something that a majority thinks is wrong, so the minority does anything possible to flip the situation on its head. as much as our post-modern world hates power (which is interesting because this is exactly what the minority wants), power properly used is not necessarily a bad thing. power is not meant to dominant and oppress, but it creates boundaries that protect (which in this case are called oppressive in order to look like it is awful... pretty soon inmates will be suing the government for imprisoning them).
at some point we must all face it, we were created finite beings, which necessarily means we are limited. why? because God loves limits. He loves limits because He loves us, and He uses limits to keep us safe. this is the same way a parent places limits on children to protect them from a world that they do not fully understand. in doing this, they are not being oppressive but loving. there were limits from the beginning in the garden (think the tree of good and evil). God created things good, but anything good used improperly can be dangerous (just look at electricity!). He knows our tendency to pervert His good creation for evil. thus the reason God ushered adam and eve out of the garden after the fall - because otherwise they would have been able to eat from the tree of life, allowing them to live indefinitely and keeping them in their sin. once again, God created limits (death in this case by cutting them off from the fountain of youth... which provided God a way to ultimately redeem them from sin).
sexual matters definitely fall into this category. i watched as a young couple, both of whom were fourteen-years-old, sit on the oprah show last week and announce to the world that they were ready to have sex with each other. it is interesting that we don't think these children are mature enough to operate a motor vehicle, but we do think that they are old enough to have sex, which always comes with the potential to create life (when asked, the girl admitted that she didn't want to think about this consequence because it "scared her to death"). wrong! sex is something God placed boundaries on, not because it is sinful or evil (although, as all else, it is when used wrongly), but because it is so wonderful that when improperly used it can be extremely destructive. it is not meant to be an outlet for lust but an opportunity for a special intimacy reserved for married couples to bring them together as one flesh. used otherwise, it becomes people using other people as objects to fulfill their desire. it is literally dehumanizing! this is the antithesis of love.
i enjoy candy. it brings joy to my life, but there has to be limits. otherwise, i end up with diabetes or overweight. something that could have been enjoyable ends up destroying me. you see, this is what sin is. it is the crossing of boundaries created for our good. it is using things that God created good in capacities that they were not created for. the problem is, secular culture, which worships a god it created, thinks it can now define how creation should be used, which obviously suits its own sinful desires. we are just not having any of it.
b. from this, i have concluded...
one side has dominated this whole argument for a long time. it has been controlled with language about rights and love. this is not an issue of rights and love, though - mainly because this has nothing to do with rights or love. marriage is a privilege and an institution that was created by God, which is defined in Genesis 3. culture, you have no right to define this because God has taken that liberty, as it is His creation. while i am not ignorant and recognize that marriage is also a social institution, it is a social institution explicitly for purposes of procreation. as homosexual relationships are incapable of this, marriage is an absurd demand (other than trying to claim something that is not your own for "romantic" reasons). further, since God is love and has created marriage (the place for eros, intimate, love) solely between a man and a woman, i think it is a safe bet that eros love has been perverted in any other capacity.
so i would like to suggest this: people who oppose homosexual relationships have been said to be unloving, uncompassionate, out of touch, biased, and a list of other things. these are incorrect assessments, though. i admit that some people are homophobic and hateful, but the rest of us recognize that we love people too much to give in to someone's beliefs (and thus falsely confirm them) when we know these beliefs to be destructive. we struggle against culture... not to maintain or get power, but to uphold the divinely created boundaries... not out of hate, but out of love.
cheers,
jw <><
3 comments:
The Civil Rights Movement was born out of a minority fighting for equal rights.
Some blacks were jailed for marrying whites, and some marriages went unrecognized by the government after being cited as "unholy."
You are correct--everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Similarly, Miss California could have said that she believes in segregation, because that's how she was "raised." But the fact remains that her answer is unpopular, because it promotes discrimination.
If you cannot see the similarity between the fight for racial equality and the fight for gay marriage rights, perhaps you should speak with some homosexuals who have felt the brutality of discrimination.
And most shocking of all is the fact that "Christ's followers" openly condemn homosexuals as wrong and sinful, even though Jesus was quoted as saying, "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone." It is not up to Christians to judge the people of the world, it is up to their God.
And as for gay marriage advocates being hateful: the homophobes played the hatred and violence card long before any gay rights were established. Talk to the family of Matthew Shepherd if you are uncertain of this.
erin –
thank you for your response to my post. i understand that you are concerned with this matter, so please allow me to respond to these issues that you have raised, as they are common arguments against the christian position. i pray that you and my readers will take my response into consideration.
first, the commonality between homosexuality and the civil rights movement (usually argued from a slavery perspective, since that is found in scripture), while seeming to be analogous, is actually a very flawed comparison. it simply does not hold up. this analogy, created by the homosexual “rights” movement, has been very effective at winning people to their argument, as who is going to argue for slavery (or in this case, the civil rights movement). it is deceptive; although, a working biblical knowledge and a look at the logic of this comparison reveal its problems. dr. robert gagnon has laid bare the inappropriateness of this argument in an article against Jack Rogers, who naively tried to argue the similarities (http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/RogersUseAnalogies.pdf). He writes:
"The bottom line is that alleged analogies from slavery and women’s roles are
inferior analogies. As regards slavery, (1) the Bible nowhere endorses theories of
racial inferiority of African persons, while the New Testament rejects distinctions
based fundamentally on ethnicity. Although Rogers repeatedly tries to lump together
ethnicity and sexual impulses as equally benign—a homosexual 'orientation' is nothing
more than a sexual impulse—the New Testament categorically rejects such an equation
by scrupulously maintaining distinctions between different kinds of sexual impulses.
(2) The biblical witness also offers no compelling witness for preserving the
institution of slavery. Yet it does clearly show a strong vested interest in preserving a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions. Indeed, there is a great deal of material in the Bible that is critical toward slavery, in both Testaments—and this toward a form of slavery that was in many respects less pernicious than the race-based institution of slavery of the pre-Civil War American South. But there is no indication anywhere in Scripture of the slightest hesitation in rejecting homosexual practice. The two-sex prerequisite for marriage is presented in Genesis 1-2 as a pre-Fall structure; slavery is at best a post-Fall structure. Slavery is a penultimate evil tolerated in ancient societies that lack both a welfare net for the impoverished and long-term prison facilities for criminal offenders. It is not lifted up in Scripture as a wonderful institution. In short, the Bible doesn’t provide the kind of witness for slavery that it shows against same-sex intercourse.
Rather, the Bible’s countercultural witness on slavery moves in the direction of greater
critique than what prevails generally in the ancient world—the same direction in which
Scripture’s countercultural critique of homosexual practice moves. Both when we reject
slavery and when we reject homosexual practice we follow Scripture’s
countercultural trend. This is where the analogy should take us—not a rejection of
slavery and an endorsement of homosexual marriage (contra Rogers). Endorsement of
homosexual practice, not its rejection, is actually closer to an endorsement of slavery in
that it supports the continued enslavement of persons with homosexual desire to passions
that run counter to God’s clearly expressed will in Scripture (cf. 1 Cor 7:23: 'You were
bought with a price; don’t become slaves of human beings'). Romans 6:16-21 makes this
very point:
'Don’t you know that . . . you are slaves of that which you obey, whether of sin
leading to death or of obedience [to God] leading to a verdict of acquittal? . . .
Having been freed from sin you were enslaved to righteousness. . . . For just as
you once presented your members as enslaved to sexual impurity [akatharsia, the
term Paul uses to describe same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:24-27] and to [other
forms of] lawlessness [cf. Rom 1:29-31] leading to lawless behavior, so now
present your members as enslaved to righteousness that leads to holiness. For
when you were slaves of sin . . . you bore as fruit . . . things of which you are
now ashamed [cf. Rom 1:27], for the outcome of those deeds is death'."
dr. gagnon points out that scripture argues for the same treatment of all, especially women and minorities. this does not mean that sinfulness should be overlooked, however. i do not deny that homosexuals have been treated very poorly as a result of their lifestyle choices, but i am confused as to where you thought that i was condoning anything other than loving treatment of them. you can ask any of my homosexual friends if i have been anything but loving to them, even though i have been honest with them about the sinfulness of their activities when asked about it. for some reason, you (and others) equate discrimination with disagreement. this is a false correlation. am i discriminating against you for disagreeing with you?
second, you are right that christians should not judge; however, you are very wrong in your interpretation of the implications of that passage about throwing the first stone. as i recall, i never pronounced a verdict about where homosexuals would spend eternity. you see, this is being judgmental. this is not for us to decide. i only commented that scripture specially calls homosexuality sinful, which is a distinction required by scripture for christians to hold one another accountable and lift each other up in love. actually, scripture repeatedly instructs that we should rebuke someone who is sinning (requiring us to be able to recognize sin). what you have failed to pick up is what Jesus tells the woman who was caught sinning… he says, “go and sin no more.” he doesn’t say that they were wrong for saying she sinned. he says they are wrong for thinking they have the power to end her life. so, he stops them from killing her, but he doesn’t let her get away without correcting her behavior.
what good comes if we do not help people in their sinfulness? let me illustrate. if I see a child sticking something in an electrical socket, am i to let the child do this because they have the “right” to do it or because i am “judging” that something bad is going to happen to them? no! that is ridiculous. i am going to stop them in the name of love. according to your logic, we should not hold people accountable for murder and stealing. these things are wrong and hurtful to society, so we do stop them. we never make a judgment about where these criminals are spending eternity, though. in fact, we should be praying that they are beside us in the kingdom of heaven, for hope never fails. this whole attitude about not “judging” people comes from a lack of scriptural knowledge about what this means and from a society obsessed with individuality and relativism. it is very simply taking scripture out of context and misusing it.
third, perhaps i did not make myself clear about what i was saying about those homosexual advocates being hateful. if i recall, i called out the so-called christians who were being hateful, as well. i do not deny that christians have done some awful things in the name of Jesus. anything that is not congruent with the message of Jesus is wrong, though. my comments were attempting to make the point that any one who is arguing for what they call “love” in a hateful manner is severely misguided. further, i was saying, since God alone is King over all creation as Creator, that He alone can define love. the problem is that we have removed God as love and created an idol called love to put in His place to fill the void left by God’s absence. the idol of love we have created is just a distortion of what God intended, though. this is what homosexuality has done, for God has defined committed love in marriage solely between a man and a woman. as God, Jesus reaffirms this multiple times.
finally, i would strongly encourage you, erin, as well as any one else reading this to do a few things.
first, do not simply believe what people tell you (this includes all that i have just written). we must investigate arguments, in order to have a full understanding of the situation. if we only listen to things that convince us of what we believe, we get nowhere. Perhaps we should be better about honestly attempting to find truth instead of just buying in to what the world tells us and what we want to hear. the world is a deceitful place, and if we believe everything we hear, we will end up living wrongly.
second, we must have a good understanding of scripture. proof-texting does not work, as I have shown. one must have a full understanding of what scripture says, for it is very easy to pull things out of context and get them wrong. it is essential in reading scripture to not try to make it conform to your beliefs, rather you should be conformed to it. the fact is that God stands over and above our sinful culture and is, thus, countercultural much of the time. what scripture teaches is tough, but it is the only Truth we have.
all of this has not been an attempt to change your mind, but perhaps you will investigate further why you believe what you do, as you are obviously vehement about it.
all the best.
in Christ,
jsw <><
Erin -
Instead of posting your last comment, I have just quoted it below and offered my own responses to make it easier for the readers and to save space.
“The Civil Rights Movement was fought primarily on the basis of discrimination by skin color. Slavery was a precursor to that conflict, not the basis.”
Please go back and read the quote from Dr. Gagnon that I posted in my last response. You are making the same point that I am. Slavery and racial discrimination are precisely based on skin color, thus the Bible’s rejection of it. Sexuality is a completely different topic because it is based on impulses (someone’s skin color is not!), so please stop comparing the two because they are not “equally benign.” Someone is not being discriminated against when society tells them what they are doing is wrong. This is a misuse of linguistics.
“Also, Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, because [of the mechanics associated with homosexual sex]. Heterosexual couples do the very same things in the privacy of their own homes.”
You are fundamentally incorrect about why Christian’s object to homosexual sex. It really has nothing to do with the mechanics of it; although, the awkwardness of the mechanics reveal why it is wrong. Our objection lies in the very fact that God did not create us to be in these relationships. God subdued the primordial chaos and created an ordered world. We see this order all around us in the natural laws, whether we want to see it as a creation of God or not. Our sin is a return to this chaos. Homosexuality is very clearly a step a way from order into disorder (or as Augustine stated that sin, being a return to chaos, is a return to nothingness, since there was nothing before the creation of the universe). Scripture shows us the created order of our gender and sexuality. Genesis 2 reveals a very beautiful picture of how woman came from man (actually, it would seem that the picture that is portrayed in the Hebrew is really an asexual being that is broken in half to create man and woman), revealing that they were meant to come back together as “one flesh.” The same is not true about homosexual couples. What is the end of homosexual sex in the created order? There isn’t one outside of a satisfaction of an impulse, which is a very low understanding of the purpose of sex. Even atheist philosophers say this. Further, the mechanics of the act itself reveal its unnaturalness.
As far as what heterosexual couples do in their homes, you should read Song of Solomon. It is actually very graphic about what is permitted, exposing that sex is a gift of God in the covenant of marriage. Couples’ bodies have been given to one another to enjoy, but only in the context that God has created as “good”. Therefore, your comparison does not work.
“I feel very sorry for those who believe taking pleasure in sex is sinful, so much joy can be lost in such a brainwashed belief. Additionally, I believe that as long as sexual acts take place between two consenting adults, it is no one else's business.”
I feel sorry for people who feel that taking pleasure in sex is sinful, too. I feel even more sorry for those take it out of its context and lose the tremendous pleasure that was intended for it. Look at the statistics. Who are most satisfied with their sexual lives? Heterosexual couples in married relationships! Once again, it is sinful out of its correct context, just as all things that are misused are sinful. Take eating for example, which has been heavily compared to sex philosophically. Do you not think that eating is pleasurable but when misused becomes very harmful? This is actually a mortal sin in the Church… it is called gluttony. The same with sex… it is called lust.
I disagree with you about it being no one’s business. This is a very typical argument about privacy, which is a modern construct. Scripture, however, tells us that we should be transparent with each other. This is the whole theme that runs through the Bible that sinfulness happens in dark places because we don’t want other people to see what we are up to. Instead, we are called to live in the light. While people do not need to know the details of our sexual lives, we should not be ashamed of sharing that we are sexually active.
“Furthermore, I am a married, heterosexual woman who sees absolutely no reason why gay marriage would be destructive to marriage as an institution. If someone would be able to give me ONE good reason, I would be more than happy to entertain it.”
Please explain to me what you believe the institution of marriage to be, in order that I may see why you have no problem with it. For, if you simply see it as a way to remain monogamous, this should be able to happen without marriage, especially when no children are involved. I think anyone would admit it is wrong to cheat, even if you are dating. If you see it as a social institution, then what is the point of homosexual marriage, as the practical social function of heterosexual marriage is to reproduce and care for children? If you see it as a religious institution, as it was created to be, then homosexual marriage is a desecration of this.
“Homosexuality is not destructive, and I do not see any way that it could possibly be seen as destructive.”
It is destructive as any sin is destructive, as it moves us away from God and enslaves us to itself. Please refer back to my previous posts. I am sorry, but I am not in the business of encouraging people into slavery, rather I pray that all of my efforts are directed at helping them find true freedom in Christ. If you do not recognize it as a sin, then there is no way you can see its destructive force as such. If you want to know this from a secular perspective, however, please look at statistics of sexually transmitted diseases and bodily injury caused by sex acts. I think (rather know) you will find your evidence.
“Furthermore, legalizing gay marriage would promote more monogamous relationships among the gay community--a lack of which many homophobes believe needs to be corrected.”
This is an interesting argument but very speculative. In fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction. Statistics show that promiscuity is much more rampant among homosexuals than it is heterosexuals. People are either committed to a single person or not. If they are unfaithful in a dating relationship, then they will probably be unfaithful in marriage. None of us need to look too far to see this truth. I think that it is naïve to think that marriage could fix this, as marriage was not created as a fix to infidelity. The fact is that homosexuals are far more promiscuous because they are unfulfilled, as they are looking for love in the wrong way.
“And this is just a short list of ideas I have reached on my own, through my own life experience. I don't believe everything I'm told. Perhaps if you familiarized yourself with the trials and tribulations homosexuals have been through, you would be more sympathetic to their fight for equal rights. Equal rights they deserve just because they are human, not because they were born the same or different from you.”
I am not sure why you do not think that I am unfamiliar with the hardships of being homosexual anymore than you are. As both of us of heterosexual, I hardly think that you have a better grasp of this than I do. As the old saying goes, “You don’t know until you have walked a mile in another’s shoes.” I watch the news every day; I know what is happening in the world. Plus, I have homosexual friends and live next to homosexuals. Do you?
Further, I am not against equal rights for everyone. What I think we need to be careful of is distinguishing rights and privileges. These are two very different things. Are things like tax breaks really rights? If so, why aren’t we fighting for all people to have them?
“And if someone wants to tell me that homosexuality is a choice, I will have a very hard time believing it. The many homosexuals I've met in my life have unanimously told me their sexuality was something they were very ashamed of and wished they could change. They also remember favoring the same sex from a very early age.”
I am sorry, but I do not buy this argument about it not being a choice. Would you deny that a heterosexual’s ability to control his or her sexual impulses is a choice? I do not deny that one may not have a choice of which sex they are attracted to, but acting on these impulses is a completely different matter. We have what seem to be “natural” impulses to do things that are wrong all the time. This is part of our fallen state.
I would suggest you see your homosexual acquaintances’ shame from a different perspective. Guilt is a psychological response to tell us something is wrong. It is to the soul what pain is to the body. If something in our body hurts, it is because we are sick or injured. We have to attend to the things in order to heal. We Christians call the feeling of guilt the conscience. It lets us know when we are soul-sick. Perhaps society should stop telling homosexuals that everything is fine because this only furthers the problem. The only way to heal is to recognize the problem and treat it.
“For some reason, God has created homosexuals, and I see no need to dislike this fact. There are homosexual animals that exist in nature, so homosexuality IS natural.”
I do not have the time to get into a doctrine of creation, but let me simply state this: We live in a fallen world. The things in this world are no longer as they were created but have become distorted images of their original intent. I need not point to all the suffering that happens in the world as evidence. We are wrong when we say, “That is just how God created me.” No! God did not created us to be impatient, hurtful, mean, selfish, or anything else that is not congruent with the Person of God. Logically from your argument, I could say, “Well, some people have impulses to kill, so that must be the way God created them. Some people have impulses to molest young children, so that must be the way God created them.” This is not only incorrect from a Christian standpoint, but it is very bad logic.
As far as the animals go, I think it is demeaning to compare humans to animals. It is clear in Scripture that humans have been set apart from the rest of creation. But I will not avoid this statement. Some animals also eat their children. Should humans do this as well, since it is found in nature? Further, I think you would find that homosexual relationships found in nature have to do with dominance, not sexual satisfaction as humans experience it. If you have evidence otherwise, I would love to see it.
“If someone approached you, told you that God had spoken to him, and that he was directed to add another passage to the Bible, you would have a difficult time believing him. Why, then, do you so readily believe a book written by so long ago by people you do not know? Because a lot of other people do.”
You are missing the mark on this one. I do not believe in the Bible because a lot of other people do; although, tradition plays a necessary role in interpretation. What you have expressed is a very incorrect hermeneutical understanding. The correct question is, “Why do so many people believe the Bible?” Perhaps it is because the power in Scripture lies in the living God that transforms the static words into something that gives life. This can be understood only from someone that has experienced this power and has been transformed by it.
In conclusion, let me say, Erin, that if you wish to continue this conversation, I would really appreciate it if you would actually read my response and carefully consider it. I have had to reiterate my points several times. If you did not understand something I said, please let me know so I can clear it up. Further, if you are trying to change my mind, it isn’t going to work, so you should probably not waste your time. I have had plenty of time to consider all arguments surrounding this issue, as my job depends on it, and know very well what I believe. Further, I study theology for a living (literally) and know well what Scripture and tradition says. Therefore, if you are curious about what Scripture says, please ask, but do not think you are going to trump my Scriptural knowledge. I do not say this to be arrogant, but I just do not think it is a fair fight. Finally, we need to be on the same page with our arguments. If you are going to argue a secular viewpoint, do it. I am assuming that you are not Christian based on the things you have said. I do not think it is fruitful for us to titter-totter between a sacred and a secular understanding of the issue, unless you are just trying to grasp the Christian viewpoint. I would be more than happy to discuss either side with you; although, I will be unapologetic that I will come from a Christian standpoint. I would also be very interested in discussing what is going on within you to create such a passion about this issue that would lead you to get on a stranger's blog and post comments. Do you think that this is your contribution to making a just society?
All the best.
In Christ,
jw <><
Post a Comment