It makes no sense...
So I saw this thing on one of the morning shows as I was getting ready for work today at the gym about one of the Christian programs that seeks to “reform” gay teens and adults. They had two program “graduates” who ended up on opposite spectrums of thinking in terms of the validity, and in fact safety, of the program. This one guy, who had decided that the program was wrong and dangerous (and chooses to embrace his homosexuality), said that is was so because 1) the program preaches exclusion whereas Christ preached inclusion, 2) the program deconstructs the participant’s life and leads them to self-hatred, 3) the program doesn’t achieve true results, merely behavior modification, if anything, that leads to more self-denial and self-hatred, and other such arguments of this type.
The other guy now works for the program. The host asked if his attraction to men had changed because of the program. The guys said that, no, his attraction had not changed but his behavior had, because of his faith. And the host quoted him as saying that he now has “guardrails” in place that will allow him to marry a woman. The guy said that, yes, he now had “guardrails” to help him keep his behavior in check. The host asked if he would be forthcoming with this information to a girlfriend or a wife, to which he responded, “Absolutely.” The lady then went back to talking to the other guy about how he thinks the program is dangerous...and that's when I had to jump in the shower.
Here’s what I don’t get----the common defense for homosexuality (that it is what certain people are attracted to and therefore they should be allowed to embrace that) makes NO sense in a broader context. Just because a person is “attracted” to something, does this mean that they need to act on that attraction? I mean, come on. Pedophiles are “attracted” to children. Does that mean that we let them “be who they really are”, or do we recognize their behavior as deviant and expect them to modify it (whether the actual attraction ever changes or not)? Many kids are “attracted” to violence and fire and other dangerous obsessions, but do we not teach them that these things are wrong and deviant and need to be controlled? Alcoholics (or even people born with a physiological or mental propensity to addictive behavior such as drinking) are extremely “attracted” to alcohol, does that mean that it’s okay for them to drink? I mean, it’s just so crazy to justify this one type of deviant and unnatural behavior JUST because it is what the person is “attracted” to!!!
Not to mention the fact that there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, natural about homosexuality at all, especially as an alternate sexuality. A human embryo requires both male and female chromosomes in order to develop. The structure of male and female genitalia provide a compatible and complementary structure, something that does not occur intra-gender. I mean, it just makes NO sense how our society can rationalize this as anything other than deviant behavior. Don’t they think that people with other types of unhealthy “attractions” are “born that way”? Why don’t we let them remain as they are and live out their “true selves”?
posted by Lorie @ 11:57 AM
11 Comments:
The larger issue is the damage caused by moral relativism. Gay activists would say that gay sex is not a crime because there is no victim, unlike child pornography or pedophilia. They would say no one has the right to claim that they are, in effect, victims of themselves, and their own lusts.
As far as the fact that they can't procreate with each other, many of them would say, "Who cares."
We can't reason with those who refuse to honor our standard -- God's Word. We can pray that God will open their eyes.
As to Christian gays and those who say things like "Jesus was inclusive" ... well, that is frustrating. Someone who willfully misinteprets the gospel or is, himself, exclusionary when it comes to which parts of the gospel he'll accept, is hard to reach. And again, it goes back to relativism: "I'll pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. I'll create God in my own image."
I disagree. I don't think that the irrationality of homosexuality is exclusively a Christian response. Many non-believers see it as deviant as well.
Alcoholism is not a crime, neither is a mere "attraction" to many other unhealthy things, like necrophilia, or eating paint chips, or self-inflicted pain. But those things are still seen as deviant. Even though there are (in an exclusively technical sense---especially in the case of alcoholism) no victims being harmed other than the person in question. So there are plenty of types of behavior that it can be compared to that would not fall under the "victim" logic.
I didn't say it was exclusively a Christian response; I said it was a response that cannot be supported if one doesn't believe in absolutes. Of course many nonChristians still believe in absolutes.
For those who hold to a relativistic view (and there are more and more in this camp each year) it doesn't do any good to talk about rationality. What is rational? Who says? Why is your rationality better than my irrationality?
Do you see what I'm saying? Have you ever tried to talk to someone who champions relativism? It is very frustrating. And appeals to reason largely fall short.
So to say "It's not rational" will not stop the behavior or support of the behavior among people with a wildly popular mindset. We must go deeper, and show them that there are absolutes, and that without upholding absolutes, society will eventually crumble.
I just responded to your first objection and now I find you have posted again. Don't make me take this hat off and get down to business.
When I say that gays "would say" such-and-such, I'm not saying I agree. Obviously. I'm trying to sharpen your arguments by seeing the other side.
It can more easily be shown that alcohol is not a victimless activity than homosexual acts because alcholism exhibits very harmful effects on the body -- plus it impairs judgment and makes it more likely that the alcoholic will trample someone else's body or property.
Gays don't always get STD's. We can't always show that they are victims of their activity. We can say they are spiritually killing themselves, but that is not something we can prove in this life, in the same way that we can prove that alcohol packs on pounds, damages the liver, and impairs judgment.
Oh, no, I see what you're saying.
And I don't think one talks to many people these days who aren't influenced by relativity. That is the norm. I do think that it is important to point out the faulty logic of relativism. Faulty because relativism is a misnomer in and of itself. Idealogical relativism is proposed in a contextual reality of absolutes. We ALL think in absolutes, no matter what we say our how well we can utter an idealogical argument.
It is totally irrational and contextually (this is the operative word) to argue that homosexuality should be allowed, and in fact encouraged, because it is a person's natural "attraction" or proclivity. Because people are attracted to all kinds of deviant things and that doesn't mean that it should be allowed or encouraged.
It should have been:
"It is totally and contextually (this is the operative word) irrational..."
Of course. The argument "I was born this way" or "this is just how I am" makes no logical sense. If we all acted as we naturally would act if we had grown up without any instruction, there would be chaos.
From what I have seen its a much broader issue, wide range....OK for the benefit of the doubt let's just say yes there are "homosexual" genes.
Now from what we have read and learn from God's word we are not to engage in these acts. So what if God made someone gay? they are still commanded as such to not engage in these acts.
No more than hetrosexuals are to engage in premarital sex. I don't think attacking the issue as a "homosexual" issue, rather attack this is a liberal or "the power of me, the power of now" issue.
Ok so what let's take things furhter let's give everyone the right to have same sex relations....does that manke it right to do? We may have the right or ability to but it is no more right than the person who murders.
Yes it's bad, but I think there are some underlying issues that need to be addressed first.
Homeschooling is one of the biggest sins of Christians today.
How so?
Post a Comment
<< Home