Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Homosexuality and the United States

 I've been seeing on American News Channels lately, where Pastors from protestant congregations in the United States are going hard against homosexuality and marriage unions between same sex couples.
For over thirty years I've attended Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist congregations (I think we're in our fifth community) and not once have I ever heard a sermon speaking against homosexuality. Certainly not any sermon denouncing homosexuality nor encouraging people to kill or imprison homosexuals.
On the other hand, I've heard many, many sermons on the importance of maintaining Christ-like love within a God ordained marriage, while preserving sexual purity (both in thought and deed) outside of marriage. The emphasis has always been on what we should be doing versus what we should not be doing. It's simply understood that if you are a Christian, if you claim to be a follower of Jesus the Christ, then the expectation for expressing ourselves sexually is within the safety of a loving male / female monogamous marriage. Anything outside of that is against the plan of God - according to Jesus. That paradigm is not something that needs to be upheld by attacking those who wish to live otherwise.
It's also understood that if you are secular, pagan or atheist, then you are free to go and do what you want. It is not our job as Christians to tell those who oppose God or who simply wish to ignore God how they should be living. It's understood that if you are not in a healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus, then what you do, think, or say, sexually or otherwise, is the least of your problems.

15 comments:

  1. Right on point.
    Now consider that homosexuals want us to validate their behavior choices by changing laws that will first be taught in public schools to all ages of children.
    In cultures where this is already practice our children are already thinking of friends of both sexes as possible sex partners without regard to gender.
    Homosexual validation will always result in childhood indoctrination.
    But even that will not salve the conscience of the homosexual.
    They have yet to discover this fact.
    C.C.T.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What I like about this post:
    Focusing on the positive is an excellent approach imo. The emphasis should always be put on promoting safe, healthy and respectful behaviors.

    What I dislike about this post:
    Homosexuality is not a choice.

    Regarding Anonymous...

    Right on point.
    I thought I agreed with this person after one sentence...

    Now consider that homosexuals want us to validate their behavior choices

    ...it's not a choice... but anyway...

    by changing laws

    What laws? You mean that they want equal rights when it comes to... well, anything that homosexuals could be discriminated against?

    ...that will first be taught in public schools to all ages of children.

    First taught in schools?
    To children of all ages?
    What paranoia non-sense is this?

    In cultures where this is already practice our children are already thinking of friends of both sexes as possible sex partners without regard to gender.

    What the "$?!"$ is wrong with you? Get an education on sexuality please. You are completely incapable of discussing the subject. You don't understand what a sexual orientation is.

    I will give the 12-year-old version, because you're a grown up I suppose.

    - Some boys like girls
    - Some boys like boys
    - Some boys like both girls and boys

    They don't CHOOSE to do so. They choose it as much as you choose to like partners of the other sex. They choose it as much as you choose to use your left or right hand. They choose it as much as you choose vanilla over chocolate.

    Homosexual validation will always result in childhood indoctrination.
    But even that will not salve the conscience of the homosexual.
    They have yet to discover this fact.


    Again, paranoia, incomprehension, ignorance... funny and sad at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Hugo
    "What I dislike about this post:
    Homosexuality is not a choice."

    Do I suggest in the post that I think our sexual orientation IS a choice? And are you suggesting that if a certain way of being isn't a choice - if we're born a certain way - it must be something good? Because I've got to tell you that every single paedophile with whom I've work says exactly the same thing, "This is how I've always been. I've never been attracted to anyone except children. I've never known a different way of thinking."

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, being born a certain way does not make it good. You oversimplify and miss the point, be it on purpose or not I don't know...

    Is fucking children a "safe, healthy and respectful behavior" ?

    I am pretty sure is none of these for the kid...

    Now compare to homosexuality, is it "safe, healthy and respectful"?

    Yes, just as much as any heterosexual behavior. That's the point.

    You have to summon a God, or other religious beliefs, into the conversation to consider homosexuality as being wrong. There is no other way you can justify condoning it.

    I gave the example of being a lefty in my previous comment. It's really the same thing. I've heard a few people talking about how the nuns were beating their hand or tying it being their back when they were kids, because they wanted to force them to use their right hand...

    Forcing homosexuals to not be homosexuals is the same AND forcing pedophiles to not be pedophiles is the same. The difference is that there are good reasons to prevent pedophiles from fucking children, but there are no good reasons to prevent gays from fucking each other.

    I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand for very religious people so I don't expect to discuss that further...

    ReplyDelete
  5. “Is fucking children a "safe, healthy and respectful behavior" ?

    The answer seems to depend on the perspective of the culture from which you're answering.

    The Romans didn't think it harmful, nor do some current Islamic sects and nor, I dare say, will North American culture in the not too distant future.
    =====

    “You have to summon a God, or other religious beliefs, into the conversation to consider homosexuality as being wrong. There is no other way you can justify condoning it.”

    Well, I think I say that in the post, Hugo. If you don't claim to be a follower of Jesus, go fuck whomever you please. I'm certainly not going to try to stop you. If however you do claim to be a follower of Jesus, then I think you're going to have a problem (ie. you'll have to do some serious rationalizing) ignoring His command that sexual intimacy is to be reserved for a monogamous male / female marriage, a marriage that is not to be disrupted by divorce.
    =====

    “The difference is that there are good reasons to prevent pedophiles from fucking children,”

    Saz who? They disagree. The only reason that they're considered wrong at this point in history is because currently the majority of people consider it to be wrong. Slavery was considered right until the tide of opinion changed. Divorce and remarriage was considered wrong until the tide of opinion changed. "there were good reasons" for people to not live together prior to marriage, until the tide of opinion changed. It was the same with homosexuality and it will be the same with man/boy love as it is known in those circles (whose numbers are increasing every year) that feel fine about that sort of thing. When you're an old man you're going to be accused of being a prude because of this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No matter what moral issue we are talking about, your comment shows clearly why we disagree because you say things like these:

    "...the answer seems to depend on the perspective of the culture..."

    and

    "...the only reason that they're considered wrong at this point in history is because currently the majority of people consider it to be wrong..."

    This tells me that you are missing the point. The point is that as an Atheist, I have justifications for my beliefs and moral decisions. If you ask me 'why' after I voice my opinion on a moral issue, I will be able to answer, in great length if needed.

    You, on the other hand, will not be able to do so for several issues. The only thing you can say against homosexuality is 'Jesus says so'.

    Note one important thing: I blame you, and only you, for that kind of behavior (well and other fundamentalists I suppose...). Most theists I interacted with throughout my life never resort to 'Jesus says so' to justify their moral choices, and I thus never need to even indicate that I am an Atheist.

    Religion is irrelevant when it comes to moral decisions, but very few people are aware of it. They go with their own personal feelings and reason, thinking it agrees with their religion, regardless of it being the case or not. That's exactly what you wrote in this post actually, except that you spin it around saying that they refuse to follow Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you ask me 'why' after I voice my opinion on a moral issue, I will be able to answer, in great length if needed."

    Please do. Now would be a good place. How about something that appears black and white to us - say, the stoning to death of a woman for adultery - in an Islamic country where that type of thing is mandated. Why, on Hugo, is that behaviour wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, I forgot, "Most theists I interacted with throughout my life never resort to 'Jesus says so' to justify their moral choices."

    Well, we agree on that. Most theists could not legitimately call themselves "a follower of Jesus" either. They are simply religious people who attend a Protestant congregation.

    "And I will say to many of those who claim that I am their Lord, "Get away from Me, for I never knew you."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Very few things are black and white... but anyway.

    Adultery is the violation of a monogamous agreement between two consenting adults (hence I consider it immoral). However, nobody else but the two people involved should deal with it. There should be only 2 outcomes: forgiveness or not, which leads to separation. Interfering, in any way, is wrong. Obviously, killing the person is not just wrong but completely over the top and exaggerated; I consider it completely immoral for it to be mandated.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, we agree on that. Most theists could not legitimately call themselves "a follower of Jesus" either. They are simply religious people who attend a Protestant congregation.

    ...or are not Christians ;-)

    Anyway, yes, we agree but not for the same reason. You understood that right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, were either of those posts your, "in great length" answer to why killing a woman for adultery in Iran is wrong?

    Is the answer "I (Hugo)consider it immoral?"

    I'd ask you to give me more than that but on atheism, there is not more than that, even less if one takes determinism into account.

    Tell me Hugo, what do you think of Nietzsche's comment, “When one gives up Christian belief, one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. were either of those posts your, "in great length"

    What more do you want to know? What detail is missing? I am more than happy to give more reasons as to why I think like that. The answer was not just 'I consider it immoral'. I explained WHY.

    “When one gives up Christian belief, one thereby deprives oneself of the right to Christian morality.”

    Completely disagree. Christian morality is a smoke screen. There is no such thing as Christian morality. There are Christians who have a certain sense of morality, like everyone else. Nothing special about Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Even if we extend your explanation of why adultery is wrong to “it's the breaking of one's promise,” it still comes down to Hugo says.

    Well, guess what Hugo, a lot of people disagree with you and in a secular world they're just as correct as you are. If in a secular world, someone who falls into attraction with someone other than h/her spouse, that person has no reason to say “no” to oneself and the deep desires that drive us, and this reality is proven millions of times a year in North America. You yourself say it's nobody else's business but their own. Your moral code can extend no further than your own life.

    You may disagree with Nietzsche but he was probably the last atheist to correctly interpret what the adoption of atheism truly means for one's life specifically, and for society in general. This willingness of atheists such as yourself to give even a fleeting glance at our inherent moral obligations drove Nietzsche crazy. He practically frothed at the mouth as he saw the idiotic tendency of those who cling to atheism who “have got rid of the Christian God, and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality [to prove they don't need God in order to be good people]. You say breaking an agreement is wrong, your neighbour says it isn't wrong. On atheism, your neighbour is just as correct as you are.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Even if we extend your explanation of why adultery is wrong to “it's the breaking of one's promise,” it still comes down to Hugo says.

    Yes, no matter how long we discuss morality, it's always a matter of opinion in the end; that's why it's a morality issue, a subjective opinion. However, the more we talk about a moral issue, the more facts should be included to be as objective as possible.

    Well, guess what Hugo, a lot of people disagree with you and in a secular world they're just as correct as you are.

    They are entitled to their opinion, but if we were to try to convince a neutral person, then just saying 'that's what I think' would not be enough. They are not 'as correct' just because they have an opinion. Some opinions are more valuable than others when they are supported by facts.

    If in a secular world, someone who falls into attraction with someone other than h/her spouse, that person has no reason to say “no” to oneself and the deep desires that drive us, and this reality is proven millions of times a year in North America.

    Actually they do have multiple reasons to say 'no'. Being part of a secular society has nothing to do with this. Being religious or not has nothing to do with this either.

    You yourself say it's nobody else's business but their own.

    In the case of adultery you are correct; it's their own business. I personally think it's morally wrong and would never want to be with someone who does not share that opinion, as I would not be able to trust and be trusted.

    Your moral code can extend no further than your own life.

    Depends what we are talking about...

    You may disagree with Nietzsche but he was probably the last atheist to correctly interpret what the adoption of atheism truly means for one's life specifically, and for society in general [...]

    Paranoia and disconnection from the real world; from both yourself and him I would say. People don't always fall back to their religious stance to make moral judgment...

    ReplyDelete