I have to tell you, there is nothing that gains my respect more than seeing people stand by their convictions, especially under extreme stress circumstances. People like that stand out, like one of the elders at my Mom's church who once took a big job demotion and a severe pay cut rather than compromise his integrity in the area of honesty in the workplace. I've known other folks who have stood up for what is right and have been chastized. I guess that comes with the territory of doing what's right, which seems to be a lost art nowadays, as well as bucking societal and politically correct pressure.
I really do not follow celebrity stuff at all - I don't care what they do, who they date, what they eat, etc. So I deliberately try to avoid the parts of the newspaper that have to do with "entertainment" or TV shows which are geared towards celebrity gossip (I don't have cable anyway, so it's not like I get these channels). However, I have to say that a recent story took my interest. Have a look at the YouTube video:
Carrie Prejean Interviewed During the Miss USA Pageant
I am not a fan of beauty contests, but this contestant, Miss California Carrie Prejean, shared her convictions, to the chagrin of celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, who posed the question. Hilton, who is gay, probably had no idea that a contestant from the liberal state of California, would give a radically different answer than he expected. And good for Carrie Prejean, I say. It takes a lot of guts to be able to not say the politically correct answer, and to speak her convictions. I found out afterwards that she is a born again Christian (what she is doing in a beauty contest wearing swimsuits and such is a bit puzzling to me, but I digress), and it took a lot of courage for her to share what she did. However, as you can tell, she did get some applause for her answer. After the pageant was over, Hilton, the weasel that he is, let loose in an expletive tirade against Prejean, calling her a "dumb bitch" and superimposing a picture of a man's genitals with a picture of Prejean. He said that he really wanted to call her the "c" word. Really obscene stuff. Honestly, I don't know how this guy manages to keep a job.
Hilton is the epitome of a real waste of skin. Honestly, if someone decided to take him out, I doubt that there would be many tears (probably some reward). Of course, he would save his venomous comments for afterwards when he wasn't facing Prejean. What a coward! What a douchebag! You ever notice that it is these politically correct types who never have a backbone, yet chide people with convictions because they choose to not accept the politically correct answer? It's like the old adage, why bother asking someone else a question when all you are expecting is your own answer?
I really do comment Prejean for standing up for what she believes. It is hard to stand in front of all those people and give an answer that you probably know is not going to be well received. But isn't it interesting, for all the cynics who say that beauty pageants generally tend to be all style and no substance, and that no one thinks that the contestants have anything substantive to say, that on an occasion that one does say something intelligent and not expected, that she should be commended, not criticized. And what is really wrong with what she said, anyway? She believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how we were designed. It's not popular to suggest this, but I know that there are a lot of closet supporters out there who, while not having the guts to publicly proclaim that homosexual relationships are not only far from the ideal, but are inherently sinful (which, by the way, goes true for gluttony, lying/gossiping, and a host of other behaviours). I am not one to simply rail on homosexuality but not on people who gorge while they are eating or who backstab others with their words. Sin is sin - there are different consequences of various sins, but isn't really anything such as degrees of sin, no matter what Southern Baptists and the Catholic church will have you believe.
I find it funny that the liberals who are at the forefront of the Prejean criticism by and large voted in Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both of whom have stated unequivocally that they do not support gay marriage, and in fact, support the traditional definition of marriage, between a man and a woman. I could be wrong, but don't Bill and Hillary Clinton say the same, in terms of their personal views on the issue. Yet, I don't see too many arrows flung at them, historically or otherwise. I guess their pandering to left-wing causes washes away any indigestion on that issue.
We need more Carrie Prejeans in the world. Let's hope that the exposure she gets will give her other opportunities to share her faith and beliefs with others. People in general hate to hear that these days and will say that doing so is being "intolerant" or "bigoted". Yet, when we stop valuing the highest stanards of moral behaviour, and strive towards the same, we become a complacent society which accepts everything as valid even if it does not have the wider picture in mind, in terms of society and the family unit.
I also appreciated how respectful she was in her response, simply stating belief, but obviously realizing that it may not go over well with certain segments of the population. I can definitely respect that, since I don't always exercise expressive discretion myself. My hat's off to Carrie Prejean.
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexual. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Never-Ending Adventures of Sen. Larry Craig
This will be a short and sweet entry, as we are getting ready to take our son for his first day of school in the next hour - literally.
As a conservative, it may seem relatively un-kosher to bash other purported conservatives, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it is hypocrisy amongst those who claim to have some moral high ground - particularly in public officials like lawmakers/politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. It is not really the scope of this short entry to discuss why I am not endeared to these folks - I have written a much more lengthier blog entry detailing that. I do want to quickly focus my attention to the latest high-profile case which has busted a public official, and a conservative at that.
If you don't know who Sen. Larry Craig is, look him up on Wikipedia for more details. Anyhow, the gist of the case against him is that he, as a grandfather of nine, and a supposed conservative who has backed "family values" and anti-gay legislation, was busted in a Minneapolis washroom by a cop (who was assigned to look for these exact things at that exact location since there have been repeated instances there). He had allegedly signalled to the cop that he was looking to engage in some sexual activity while he was in one stall and the cop was in the other.
I heard the interview that the cop who arrested him had. The cop was so upset with him when he started denying the incident happened like how the cop described (the officer said that he is disappointed that he doesn't just admit how the incident happened like the others). The officer was visibly annoyed and disgusted at how Sen. Craig would not tell the truth. You should check out the interview, available on CNN.com - the officer was very specific in describing the incident in great details and he saw all this first-hand - otherwise, why arrest him? Anyway, subsequently, Craig did enter a guilty plea (which since the time this has been made public, he has backtracked on saying he was confused and he will fight to reverse the plea). He has also resigned from his job as Senator.
What i find laughable in all this is the lame-brain excuses Craig makes. He was accused of making two body language moves while he was in the stall directly to the left of the arresting officer. One was sliding his hand underneath the stall wall, while the other was touching his right foot with the arresting officer's left foot and then tapping it. Apparently, these two signs are common for those who want a sexual favour.
Craig claims that he did not put his hand under the stall, but reached down to grab a piece of toilet paper on the floor. Honestly...who the hell picks up a piece of toilet paper on the dirty ground of a public men's washroom? Craig also admits that his foot touched the officer's foot, but it was an accident...since he sits in a "wide stance". I don't believe this one either since even if he was a...uh...plus-sized individual, he would have to really reach over to touch the other person's foot. Case in point - there is this fella at work, who works for our client, who is, um...quite plump. If anyone has an excuse to sit in a wide stance, he does. However, as I sat beside several times in the past in the stall, his foot was not even once close to coming over to my stall (and this dude is about 6' 3", 400lbs.) He would have had to deliberately reached in with his foot.
The officer also claimed that he used his left hand to slide underneath the stall (which would mean he would have had to reach over), since the cop saw his wedding ring (which Craig says he only wears on his left hand).
Craig has denied that he is a closet homosexual. He has denied that the whole incident happened as the officer indicated. Generally, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but something about his whole story stinks.
As a conservative, it may seem relatively un-kosher to bash other purported conservatives, but if there is one thing I can't stand, it is hypocrisy amongst those who claim to have some moral high ground - particularly in public officials like lawmakers/politicians, clergy, teachers, etc. It is not really the scope of this short entry to discuss why I am not endeared to these folks - I have written a much more lengthier blog entry detailing that. I do want to quickly focus my attention to the latest high-profile case which has busted a public official, and a conservative at that.
If you don't know who Sen. Larry Craig is, look him up on Wikipedia for more details. Anyhow, the gist of the case against him is that he, as a grandfather of nine, and a supposed conservative who has backed "family values" and anti-gay legislation, was busted in a Minneapolis washroom by a cop (who was assigned to look for these exact things at that exact location since there have been repeated instances there). He had allegedly signalled to the cop that he was looking to engage in some sexual activity while he was in one stall and the cop was in the other.
I heard the interview that the cop who arrested him had. The cop was so upset with him when he started denying the incident happened like how the cop described (the officer said that he is disappointed that he doesn't just admit how the incident happened like the others). The officer was visibly annoyed and disgusted at how Sen. Craig would not tell the truth. You should check out the interview, available on CNN.com - the officer was very specific in describing the incident in great details and he saw all this first-hand - otherwise, why arrest him? Anyway, subsequently, Craig did enter a guilty plea (which since the time this has been made public, he has backtracked on saying he was confused and he will fight to reverse the plea). He has also resigned from his job as Senator.
What i find laughable in all this is the lame-brain excuses Craig makes. He was accused of making two body language moves while he was in the stall directly to the left of the arresting officer. One was sliding his hand underneath the stall wall, while the other was touching his right foot with the arresting officer's left foot and then tapping it. Apparently, these two signs are common for those who want a sexual favour.
Craig claims that he did not put his hand under the stall, but reached down to grab a piece of toilet paper on the floor. Honestly...who the hell picks up a piece of toilet paper on the dirty ground of a public men's washroom? Craig also admits that his foot touched the officer's foot, but it was an accident...since he sits in a "wide stance". I don't believe this one either since even if he was a...uh...plus-sized individual, he would have to really reach over to touch the other person's foot. Case in point - there is this fella at work, who works for our client, who is, um...quite plump. If anyone has an excuse to sit in a wide stance, he does. However, as I sat beside several times in the past in the stall, his foot was not even once close to coming over to my stall (and this dude is about 6' 3", 400lbs.) He would have had to deliberately reached in with his foot.
The officer also claimed that he used his left hand to slide underneath the stall (which would mean he would have had to reach over), since the cop saw his wedding ring (which Craig says he only wears on his left hand).
Craig has denied that he is a closet homosexual. He has denied that the whole incident happened as the officer indicated. Generally, I give people the benefit of the doubt, but something about his whole story stinks.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Homosexuality and the Church
Well, I've been doing this for a few months and have readers in both Canada and the U.S. (and who knows where else). I see that my blogs are not searchable over Google, so I must be getting the word out. I've talked about both current issues and my own experiences, but what I really started this blog for, was to give opinion. I've decided that I'm going to start slapping down my views on several issues that, even in evangelical Christian circles, people generally try not to touch with a 10-foot javelin. One of these issues is the whole issue of homosexuality. Many people in today's left-leaning society would take me to task and tell me that there is no issue, and I'm just fanning the flames of intolerance (one of the favourite catch-all phrases of the liberal left). Worse, I would be labelled the infamous "homophobic" label for my views, which I suppose is supposed to somehow be on par with being called a racist.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Let me deal with this one first. Homophobic, is, by definition to mean that one is afraid of homosexuals. I am not afraid of homosexuals, just like I am not afraid of heterosexuals. So let's state that first. I know people who are gay, and I work with people who are gay, and hell, I found out that my old college roommate was gay - I still talk to him. I am not afraid of homosexuals. The problem these days is that if people somehow disagree with some the beliefs or behaviour of another group, they will get labels placed on them (sort of like people who point out that there is a problem with crime in black communities in urban areas - they then get labelled a racist...I tell you, there is no better way to create future racists than to alienate people to voice valid opinions (and yes, I agree, how they voice it matters). Go ahead, throw your darts at me - I'll be happy to absorb them. I've always called a spade a spade, to the chagrin of others, and that ain't going to change any time soon.
Where I draw the line on this issue is that I absolutely, unequivocally do not support what people call the gay "lifestyle". What does this mean? It means that I do not believe in gay romance, gay marriage, gay adoption - in other words, anything that would start eating away at what God has placed as His model of life-long marriage relationships between a man and a woman. Despite what many folks who choose not to have children will say, the fact of the matter is, married people do have a responsibility (obligation is too strong of a word) to procreate and continue to fill the earth. I think that is why God intended to put a woman and man together in marriage (also to satisfy each other, but as we're not doing a study on Song of Solomon, that will have to wait till another time). That is God's design. Men and men and women and women cannot biologically procreate. Men and women also complement each other in terms of personality, able to meet needs mutually (ie. women crave love, men crave respect). I don't believe such a balance can be achieved in a homosexual relationship.
Notice I did not discuss much in terms of sexuality, but I will now (THE NEXT PARTS ARE A BIT EXPLICIT SO USE DISCRETION)...some people will use the silly smokescreen that they don't believe in gay relationships because of the gay sex part - so let's be quite frank here. Gay sex can only be constituted mainly in two ways: oral sex and anal sex. The problem with using those two sex acts as the determining factor as to why the lifestyle is not acceptable, is that heterosexuals can and do engage in both, yet I don't hear incriminations raining down on straight folks. Now, it is very true that the Bible calls for a man not to lie with a man as with a woman. So basically, men should not be having sexual relations with one another. How it manifests itself is irrelevant, in my opinion. Now, if you want to know my opinion of anal sex, I can tell you - I would probably classify it as not being as "natural" as penile-vaginal intercourse. The anus is not really a naturally lubricated area, and since there is far greater chance of infection and bacteria, it's probably not the greatest place to be (and that is a generalization for men and women).
All that being said, let me generally state that I believe that many churches in North America have not handled this issue properly (with both sides of the coin). I want to focus on this, since much of the opposition to homosexuality is coming out of the evangelical Christian church. I think that churches have not thought this issue through and simply say "it is wrong!" (what is wrong?) and "that is disgusting" (which I can agree with, but I think there's a much more intelligent and logical way to discuss issues rather than name calling and belittling. Conversely, some churches have approached the issue in an effort to not offend and be compassionate and inclusive. I think this is more catering to today's "accept everyone and don't offend anyone" climate. These churches, I believe, are not looking at what Scripture is teaching.
Let me publicly state that I do agree with some homosexuals and lesbians who said that Christians oftentimes are guilty of having a double-standard for themselves and others. They say that homosexuality is wrong, yet they don't condemn gambling (yes, lottery tickets or being in the office lottery pool counts as gambling, folks!), don't condemn as strongly pre-marital sex, don't condemn relationships/marriage between Christians and non-Christians (which Scripture clearly warns against), don't condemn drunkenness, foul language amongst Christians, or even not showing compassion to the less fortunate, as Jesus taught). The same churches which would elevate homosexuality to the gravest of sins will have no problem raising their kids not to marry black people or using the "n" word freely in their social circles. All are great points, and I would absolutely agree that it is hard to take a Christian seriously who condemns homosexuality, yet has their own sins that they seem to place on a different sliding scale.
Here's how I believe churches need to handle the issue: 1) since Scripture clearly indicates that homosexual sexual relations is wrong, churches need to ensure that those who are in such relationships are rebuked (just as they should rebuke common-law relationships between men and women or pre-marital sexual relationships between men and women). 2) Churches need to distinguish that there is a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. What am I talking about here? I do not believe it is wrong to be tempted or struggle with certain things, including homosexual thoughts. Either acting on them or entertaining them is where it becomes sinful. In this vein, 3) I would have no problems welcoming a person who struggles with homosexual thoughts as a member of my church, so long as they remain chaste (ie. do not engage in homosexual relations or sexual relations), and they recognize that Scripture teaches that homosexual behaviour is sinful). It's no different than welcoming a straight person who struggles with lust, but has it under control). Ordaining a minister who is has leanings toward homosexuality, yet chaste and recognizes that homosexual sex is sinful, is another issue, one on which I haven't come to exact conclusions, but of course, I should let you know that I do not support women in minister positions and I generally believe that senior ministers for churches should ideally be married, so I guess I probably would not support a single man who has struggled with homosexuality, as a church leader, for the same reason that I would not support a married man who struggles with undressing women with his eyes).
Some other items. One, is that the argument is made that so many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and there are so many heterosexual relationships where the woman is being abused or beaten - surely give homosexual relationships a chance. I can, of course, never conclusively say that it is not better for a woman who is in a relationship where she gets the shit kicked out of her every night, to be in a loving relationship with another woman who doesn't abuse her. But I think we are comparing apples to oranges here. No one in their right mind would support a marriage where the husband constantly physically beats the wife (unless you are from the part of the world known for suicide bombers). But I find the problem in using this argument is you are using emotions in favour of the argument, rather than thinking things through. Agree, the woman should get out of the physically abusive relationship. She can always find another man. But let's say she wants kids and as a father, I know how important it is for my son to have both a mother AND a father. My wife brings stuff to my son which I cannot bring, and I bring stuff to my son that my wife cannot bring. That is God's design. But if you are a Christian, it is good to consider what the Bible says as well, not just your own feelings. Otherwise, what's to prevent a married man who is not happy with his sex life, to go over to the other lady at church who is having marriage problems and getting it on after Sunday service, at a local hotel? Certainly, he is feeling better and is getting his sexual needs met, but is what he is doing RIGHT? Unfortunately, that is the question many Christians are not asking themselves.
There is another argument regarding monogamy, that I find is easier to address. The adherents of this argument claim that it is better to have a monogamous homosexual relationship rather than a promiscuous heterosexual one. I don't accept the premise that this has to be an either/or scenario, since I believe the Bible is clear on the fact that homosexual sexual relations is wrong - and yes, I am assuming that there is homosexual sex involved in my above example - otherwise, it can be constituted as two roommates, nothing more). I agree that being in any monogamous relationship greatly reduces chance of contracting an STD or infectious disease, but again, because I believe that homosexual sexual relations is condemned in the Bible, and I also believe that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is condemned in the Bible - the question for me is akin to asking a police officer, "what is better, me driving 160KM in a 50KM zone, or shooting my pellet rifle at pedestrians from a bell tower?" Both are wrong under the standard by which the police officer enforces, so it's a sham argument, in my opinion.
Another question that people ask that is just a set-you-up-and-knock-you-down question is whether gays or homosexuals can be saved (the questions usually comes out like "can gays go to heaven." Here's my answer on this one, and it applies to anyone in the world - and this is right from the Bible - anyone who confesses Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour, repents of their sins, and commits to live their life from that point forward as a follower of Jesus Christ, will be saved. End of discussion.
Just last week, there was the Pride Parade in Toronto (and around the world). I notice that they have since dropped the "Gay" part out of the equation. Anyway, if you watched coverage of it (I didn't choose to, but it's in the paper nonetheless, even in the more conservative ones), you would have seen many people flaunting sexuality. For anyone to say that there is no sexual focus in the gay and lesbian community is blowing smoke in my face. If it were a heterosexual parade, there wouldn't be as crazy of a display of people in various states of undress and flaunting certain body parts. The straight community do not have bath houses and cottages where men can meet for sex very casually. Yes, there are brothels and what not, but even those are under wraps. I was downtown in the gay district years ago (passing through while doing some shopping) and I went into some bookstore to use their washroom. I'm not kidding you - there was this hole in between stalls and I was like, "what the heck is that"? Thought it was something like some toilet paper dispenser that fell out of the wall. I was mentioning this in a casual conversation with someone a few months later and they said that it was blowjob hole, and I'm sitting there thinking, "you've got to be kidding!" Whether it was or not, I haven't seen one of those anywhere else. Anyway, if you don't think that sex is paramount to the gay community, just check out gay discussion online forums - it is loaded with more sexual stuff than many straight discussion forums. I am mentioning all this to emphasize that it is this whole gay sexualization that I find abhorrent and it is this that I believe the Bible condemns. I work with a gay man, who is one of the nicest guys I know, a very gentle person who I'd be happy to hire to work on my team anyday. He is not one of those "flaunt my sexuality" gay people. It's sad to see that Christians in the past have tossed him aside since he's gay. I am angered by the self-righteousness of certain Christians who seem to think that gays are less-human than anyone else. I think it's important to note how Jesus treats people, and I will leave you with this example, which is often used, but used incompletely.
Jesus found a woman who was caught in an adulterous situation. The crowds, no doubt comprised of a fair amount of "religious" people at the time, wanted her to be stoned, as it said in the law. Jesus simply indicated that the persons who are without their own sin in their lives should cast the first stone. People dropped their stones, realizing that they have their own sinful hangups. Now, don't stop reading here!!! Oftentimes, people will use the above example to cite that we should never judge people and that we should always be compassionate, etc. The story is not done yet! Jesus then turns to the woman and his final words are important, "Go, and sin no more!" Notice that? Jesus did not turn a blind eye to her sin, even though he made the crowds realize they can't simply condemn her. Jesus command her to stop sinning. So I think this is important in how we as Christians minister to our homosexual neighbours, colleagues, friends and family. People oftentimes will say, "love the sinner, hate the sin." (which is a Biblical principle). Let's not forget that there are two parts of that equation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)