Right and Wrong
I've decided to post on the main page a rebuttal that I wrote in the "comments" section of the "Stop All the Inaugural Whining" post. I feel it is important, and you can read the whole thread in its entirety by clicking on "comments" just below that particular post.
What you have stated is just how it is with Christianity. I understand the knee-jerk reaction. This is not something particular to homosexuals......no matter who you share the message of Christ with, there is often a knee-jerk reaction. You see, for a person to know Christ at all, they must first realize they NEED to know Him. This means that we must all first see that we have "all sinned and fall short of the glory of God." This "gets all over" some people because they think it is so judgmental. However, this is the nature of the message and we have to be faithful to it. I realize that there are even "Christian Homosexuals." Let me tell you, I would even get sharp disagreement from many Christians on this very point. Often, we, as Christians, think that the opposite of homosexuality is heterosexuality.....and try to expend our energy forcing you to be heterosexual. I would say that this is not necessarily the case. I would say that the opposite of homosexuality is holiness. As a Christian Homosexual, I believe that your homosexuality would "bother" you, and you would have to allow God to deal with it and be willing to give it up just as an alcoholic Christian would struggle with his sin, or a Christian who is an habitual adulterer would struggle with his sin. As I've said before, sin is sin. If a heterosexual is having sex before or outside the bonds of marriage, it is the same as a homosexual having sex outside the bonds of marriage. (This brings up another point that I will have to cover later at length).
I am curious as to your thoughts on the following....Let's say we embrace homosexuality as a society....we accept it wholeheartedly and proclaim that once and for all, homosexuality is morally acceptable. Then, where do we draw the line? Would it be okay for brothers to marry? If there is a segment of society that thinks it is okay to have relations with animals are we to just accept that as well since there is a group of people that think this is okay? It is the logic (or lack of) in this argument that has always troubled me. You, as a homosexual are basing your feeling of being "mistreated" on a standard of right and wrong. What is this based upon? What law do you appeal to that tells you that to be mistreated is wrong? And if there is a law that tells you this...where did it come from? What is it based upon? It makes no sense, from a logic standpoint, that you can on one hand appeal to a sense of right and wrong, or a "law," if you will, of right and wrong, and on the other hand try to make something "morally acceptable" that has been viewed as wrong for thousands of years. You might as well be trying to convince the world that 2 + 2 no longer equals 4. You may believe it wholeheartedly and give your very life in the pursuit to make the world see that 2 + 2 does not equal 4 any longer....no matter what you think, there is still a standard of right and wrong, and despite your best effort, 2 + 2 will ALWAYS equal 4. I realize this is a crude illustration, but perhaps you understand a little better where I am coming from. Is it hate speech to say to a child, "I'm sorry Johnny, but 2 + 2 does, in fact equal 4?" There is obviously a point of contention, but there is also a standard in math that tells us definite answers. In the same way, there is a standard of right and wrong that gives us definite answers, and to try and erode and mutate this simply defies logic.
But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations. Psalm 33:11
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. I Samuel 15:29
posted by Mike at 2/02/2005 09:43:00 AM
15 Comments:
Why can't the question be answered? The conversation is not degrading in a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality....that is a cop-out. Bestiality has been practiced for thousands of years as well....what makes your "right and wrong" morally superior to my "right and wrong?" Don't misunderstand and miss what I'm getting at...it's not so much a comparison between homosexuality and bestiality as it is a question as to what you base your belief of right and wrong upon? I've never had this question answered......
So am I to understand that in your point of view, right and wrong began when the Constitution was written? There was no right and wrong prior to 1787?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think Blogger ate my last comment...
But why does there need to be a "superior" sense of right and wrong? Is it something we can compare? I think Kerry was the "right" candidate while you, I believe, thought Bush was the "right" candidate. Your sense of "right and wrong" wasn't superior to mine, they are just different.
I base my actions partially upon the Constitution of the United States and other laws, because I am a citizen. I base my actions also upon my own self-interest (to an extent) and upon my compassion for my fellow men and women. I wish for them to live peaceful lives and to allow others to do the same.
Homosexuals like me can live peaceful lives and share a love that has no ill will towards anyone not in the relationship. I don't expect you to understand the feelings I have for my boyfriend, or my inability to feel those same feelings towards a member of the opposite sex. Of course, if the relationship should turn sour or if abuse becomes part of the relationship, it should end.
My sense of right and wrong didn't develop from a 1787 set of rules, but by living in this country I abide by those rules. I reserve the right to challenge those laws when I think they conflict with my belief in compassion for other people. Currently, some of these laws do conflict with my sense of compassion, as they do not allow some couples the same rights as others have. These laws are therefore "wrong" to me, although I abide by them.
Christianity can't claim a monopoly on such human rights as "love thy neighbor". I love my neighbors not because Jesus told me so, but because doing so is a basic human right that we all should have. I think it's haughty to believe that the moral code we live by came solely from Jesus, as similar codes come from societies who have never heard of Jesus and ones that existed long before his time.
See, now this is progress.....what you view as "haughty" is also based on a sense of what is right and what is wrong.....wouldn't you agree that for a "law" to be given that there had to be a "giver" in the first place? Please understand, I'm not saying that "right and wrong" came from Christianity...but came from God Himself. He had written these "laws" and a sense of "right and wrong" on the hearts of all men. From where do you think the framers of our Constitution gleaned their ideas for the laws of Western Civilization? One needs only to visit Washington D.C. to see the role that God has played in the forming of our nation. The Washington Monument with it's "Laus Deo" on the capstone (Praise Be to God)...On the 12th floor, the prayer offered by the city of Baltimore...on the 20th a memorial presented by Chinese Christians, ont he 24th a presentation made by Sunday Schools from New York and Philadelphia quoting Proverbs 10:7, Luke 18:16 and Proverbs 22:6....the "perfect cross" formed in the landscape of the city with the White House to the North, the Jefferson Memorial to the South, the Capitol to the East and the Lincoln Memorial to the West....I could go on and on with other monuments in our nation's capital! What we always "beat around the bush" about is where "Right and Wrong" come from....there is no other logical conclusion but to see that if there is a "law for all mankind" that, in turn, there must be a law-giver for all mankind....When truth or right or wrong become subjective, then how can we continue to call them by these names? They become mere opinions......Promoting something that is wrong and elevating it to "acceptable status" in society will do nothing but continue to erode the moral fabric of our society.....
Now, I have another question....Why do you want homosexual marriage legalized? It is widely documented that monogamy is nearly non-existent between homosexual males...in fact, just months after Massachusetts allowed all the homosexual marriages, the divorces came trickling in. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. It is something upon which our society has relied and been built upon since time itself began. Since you don't live your life according to the Bible...and since what society thinks is right and wrong doesn't really matter to you, then, why marriage? Just curious....
What you might call the sense of right and wrong as coming from god another person might call evolutionary imprinting on the instincts of humans. We know why it's not right to kill people not because some being imprinted it on our hearts, but because we fear repudiation and diminishing our own families on whom we rely.
I'm not denying that Christianity had a role in creating our country, nor do I desire the removal of all things refering to Christianity or god from our public places. Many of the founders were Christians or believers in a god, just as many were not. Hence their reasons for including the first amendment to the Constitution.
We who dare question the moral fabric of this country are simply continuing in the next steps of human understanding and compassion. 150 years ago, slavery was considered a part of our moral fabric. 100 years ago, denying women the right to vote was another part of that moral fabric. 50 years ago, it was interracial marriage. You'd think there would be nothing left of the moral fabric, had we listened to the naysayers when those fights were fought...and ultimately won by the "progressive" side. If you are afraid of losing what's left of your own moral fabric, I'm not stopping you from repairing it from living your life monogamously. But you have no right to influence my moral fabric through your discriminatory laws.
I'm not in the position right now to want to get married. It's not marriage, per se, that I want, it's the same status and rights that all other "married" couples have in this country. Being treated as an equal is "right" to me. I'm not looking for your god's approval of my relationship.
How can you be certain that the lack of the ability to get married isn't preventing more homosexual men from being monogamous? With no social construct available to homosexual couples, there is nothing in society holding these relationships together, and the homophobia of our culture underlies these relationships. With the marriage construct and a formal contract between them, wouldn't this help more same-sex couples stay together? Wouldn't this in fact be a solution to the monogamy problem?
I know many monogamous homosexual couples even without the opportunity to be married. I know many monogamous heterosexual couples. But, monogamy is as nearly non-existent in thousands of homosexual couples as in millions of heterosexual ones. This is no excuse, and is in fact a reason to offer this contract and these rights to homosexual couples.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How you're going to argue homosexuality along "evolutionary" lines will be interesting to see. What you imply is that we, as a society, are "evolving" to accept more and more and that homosexuality is simply "evolution at work." So, in this brand of evolution, how would the homosexual fare in Darwin's Natural Selection Process? You cannot procreate, the average lifespan of the gay is considerably shorter even without disease and much shorter when disease occurs (which is also experienced at a much higher rate than heterosexuality) than the average heterosexual, so how could you, how would you survive? This is the complete opposite of how Darwin's theory even purports to work! Studies have proven that children are at greater risk when reared in a home with homosexuals; violence is 2 to 3 times more likely in the home. (See these and many more eye-opening statistics here). It seems to me that if homosexuality is genetic (which, contrary to your prior posts has been proven false, as well as primarily based upon Kinsey's studies which have also been proven to be drastically flawed) that you would eventually die off. . . . where does the gene argument come from? Are you quoting the same doctor who now also laughably says there is a "God Gene" that predetermines/predisposes us to believe in God?
It has been said by some from your "side" that we are ridiculously afraid of recruitment of our children. While this may pose some concern it is not the real issue. I'm much more worried about the post-modernist interpretation that right and wrong are subjective (even you stated that your "truth" is based on your "experience"). When something is "wrong" it is always wrong. When something is "right" it is always right.
You can keep bringing up slavery and women voting, etc, but these were completely different issues. These were truly about oppression, people assuming that they were substandard humans. There is no way for an African-American to change his race...there is no way for a woman to become a man (not even surgery can truly do this). These are genetic traits (before you get on the genetic "kick," read this).
The monogamy question for homosexuals is not something I want to risk the erosion and degradation of truth and our society (crawling through a sewer to get a biscuit) to find out about. Monogamy is not the issue. Homosexuality is the issue. I'm not using the monogamy question to keep gays from marrying, I'm asking why, since the homosexual monogamy rate is so low in the first place, do you want marriage? What "status" or "rights" do you NOT currently have that I do have? Is this all about benefits and money? Are these the noble traits of your cause? I've always wondered about this....
Mike, I'm not saying that homosexuals are perfect examples of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Please don't confuse my earlier statement on the evolutionary basis of the human moral code with my justification for acceptance of homosexuals in our culture. But evolution shows that homosexuality is not normal, if it isn't the perfect way to procreate. We don't disallow straight couples who can't procreate to adopt children, why should gay couples be any different?
I can trade study for study with you on the incidence of violence and abuse when children are raised by homosexuals. Most, not all, of the studies I've seen have stated that there is no real difference between children raised by homosexual parents and children raised by heterosexual parents. Do you have any personal experience with children raised by gays or lesbians? I do, and find them on the whole to be more tolerant and understanding, two things that I'm sure you wouldn't be opposed to.
If we are to base our parenting decisions solely on statistics, we are traveling down a slippery slope to eugenics, which I'm sure you object. Are we to not allow single women to raise children, given their statistical proclivity for economic difficulties? How about people with disabilities? To use statistics to determine who is and is not suitable to be a parent is ludicrous. If we were to use statistics to evaluate the institution of marriage in general, we would shut it down, as half of them end in divorce anyway.
Please, find me a reason why I or any of my gay friends is gay, if it's not genetic. Any of us. It's not fun being gay. We are scapegoats in society who are threatened with physical violence and verbal harrassment on a daily basis. Why would we choose such a lifestyle?
Exodus has been proven to be a scam. As effective as your side claims it to be, I personally know a half dozen gay men who were in the program who encountered verbal abuse while in the program and who developed self-hatred far worse than living in the closet ever was. Only after they accepted the reality of their homosexuality was their depression cured and their normal lives begun.
Watch the movie Saved! too. It's not that far from reality.
I fail to understand how my getting married and getting the same benefits that you get in your marriage contributes to the degradation of our society. Married gay couples already exist and would taint your childrens' minds if such a thing was possible. We will probably never run into each other on the street, and you'll probably never have the misfortune of seeing my boyfriend or future husband and I holding hands, or, heaven forbid, ever witness what we do in our bedroom. What is it about us getting the same benefits that straight couples get that disturbs you so much? We're not looking for your approval, just equality in the eyes of the law. Gay couples in this country already number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions; thousands of them have been legally married and the world hasn't ended, nor has your marriage been harmed by it.
There are 1,049 federal rights that are dependent on marital status. They range from retirement and Medicare benefits to veterans' benefits, tax policies, serving in the armed forces, employment health coverage, immigration laws, financial disclosure laws, family violence laws, and property rights. Not to mention the thousands of companies who still don't offer benefits to children of same-sex couples or same-sex partners.
See here:
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
Many of these are financial in nature, but it's not about money. It's about respect in the eyes of the government. I don't expect you to understand my capability for developing love for another man like you did for your wife. But you can't deny that the feelings I have aren't "real" or capable of garnering respect from my government, nor are they able to be satisfied with a crash course in being straight run by evangelical Christians. Put yourself in my shoes...would you want to go to boot camp to learn how to be gay?
There are gay couples in every county in the United States. You know the ones who are brave enough to come out. It's time to stop persecuting us all and shaming them into silence and to allow them to have the same rights and respect that straight couples have. We share love just as you do.
There is no intention on my part of trying to make people think that you don't have valid feelings for members of the same sex. I don't question that. I know they are real. You say, "if it is not genetic, why would we choose to live this way?" Is that really a question to be asked? This question reeks of post-modernism! Why do crack addicts continue to take drugs? Why do smokers with Emphysema continue to use tobacco? Why do alcoholics continue to drink? Why do anorexics continue to starve themselves? This is a total "I feel it so it must be valid and right" type of argument. I'm not even questioning the fact that there may be a predisposition to certain activities, but are we to accept things as right simply because there are people who choose to do these things? Do you see the "pandora's box" this opens?
Listen, I will be the first to admit (and have done so already) that people "in my camp" are quick to hate even though the Bible tells us to be slow to wrath. I also realize that there are a lot of homosexuals out there that are quite hateful as well, and I would not begin to hold you personally accountable for their actions. I realize that gays face hatred and I'm not condoning that whatsoever. You are as valuable to society and to God as I am. This is not my point.
I will say this, it really, at least for me, isn't so much a "hetero vs. homo" thing as it is a "philosophy" thing. I blame most of our "problems" on the "post-modern" philosophy and even evolution. I believe evolution encourages the belittlement of certain groups of people and has been used often in the past as a case for racism and hatred. It has also affected the value that we place on human life as a whole. I also realize that arguing about philosophy rarely results in a change of one's philosophy. So, really, I suppose, even one's philosophy isn't at the root of the problem. It really all can be traced back to the "sin" issue.(all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God) Despite what you think, my philosophy really isn't politically or hate motivated, but is a natural outpouring of my relationship with Jesus Christ. He really does change you! I wasn't really raised this way...and in fact did not become a Christian until I was 17 years old. I went to public schools all my life...have heard the evolution thing all my life, but I guess I always saw the evolution vs. creationism debate (even before I was 17) as a choice between 2 faiths....meaning that it takes an amount of faith to "buy in" to either system of belief. As I've grown in the Lord since age 17, logic began to prevail. Even from a simple logic standpoint, creationism just makes more sense. As you see these things begin to unfold, then your view of who God is is raised even more. The existence of God and His intervention in history explains so much. (perhaps I'll post more on this at a later time)
You bring up another interesting point....I would like to ask about these half dozen or so gay men you say took part in Exodus.....why did they go in the first place? Exodus doesn't force people into their program...what is it that drove them to seek "help" to begin with?
Yes, I think the "why would we live this way?" question is to be asked. You imply that the reasons why I'm gay aren't genetic, yet refuse to give me another reason why.
The horrendous and offensive comparisons between homosexuals and drug addicts aside, the reasons why smokers continue to smoke are because of the addictive qualities of cigarettes and the ease of continuing their habits. Yet of the groups you mention, all of their afflictions are negative. Why do we not ask why caffeine addicts drink coffee? Or why healthy people seem to be addicted to exercise? Because these are cases that have no inherent negative effects...much like, as I would argue, homosexuality. I'm not claiming anorexia is right, but I'm not claiming it's terrible to be addicted to exercise, either.
This debate is boiling down to a difference in philosophy, like you mentioned. You, I assume, receive your sense of right and wrong from god, whereas I believe there are many things to take into account when basing moral decisions. Call it postmodernism, but I don't think a book which mentions not eating shellfish in the same breath as loving thy neighbor has complete rational basis in modern society.
I admire your faith, but question when you assume you must share it with everyone else. As good as you feel about Jesus, I feel as good about sharing the word of acceptance and love that comes in a world where we recognize that homosexuals exist and they shouldn't be treated differently...regardless of their religion.
Unfortunately, "faith" just doesn't cut it, and with hundreds of thousands of Christian scientists and others working on an answer to the age-old question of the origin of the universe, I must accept their findings that evolution is the most probable theory for our creation. Until I am proved otherwise by means other than blind faith, I probably won't be swayed.
The men who I know who have gone to Exodus have gone there in large part due to their families who wanted to find a "cure" for homosexuality. Their families paid for Exodus and withheld contact in some cases until the program was "complete". These were friends of mine who were shamed into going, and once in the program, were subjected to false "reasons" for their homosexuality and then opportunities to be "saved" from it, which were ineffective and demeaning. Once these friends realized that there was nothing physically or mentally wrong with them, they started enjoying "normal" lives as gay men. Most of them are still involved in the Christian Church, but in different, more accepting and tolerant branches.
Okay, let's get down to brass tacks. Time for some personal questions, which, you can refuse to answer, of course.....Ryan, are you saying that your homosexual lifestyle has had no negative side-effects on you emotionally or physically? Would you also state that you had no "emotional or physical trauma" in your childhood? Would you deem your "home-life" as normal growing up? Can you not at least admit that your homosexual lifestyle has an addictive nature to it? I mean, you are asking to be defined completely and totally by your sexual-preference when you obviously have a lot to offer society..so why choose your sexuality to define you? Why not your intelligence? Or your personality? I think if we were intellectually honest here and not just spouting "the company line" you would have some negative things to say about your lifestyle....or, is everything just perfect? And I'm not talking about the way people treat you, or blaming society, I mean direct effects of the lifestyle you've chosen.....Again, just curious.....don't read into my questions, just sincerely wanting to know....
Mike, I admire your honesty. It's obvious you want to know more instead of immediately casting me aside, and I truly appreciate it.
But first, a question for you. What, exactly, is a "homosexual lifestyle"? To me, a lifestyle would include everything I do and the reasons for them, not just sex. I go to gay bars, but I also participate in activities that aren't exclusively gay. I'm in a monogamous relationship.
I honestly think my childhood was not different or abnormal in any way. I was a gifted student, and my parents raised me to respect myself and other people. I have a sister who is not a lesbian. I was never intimate with women, they never attracted me, but I still have great friendships with friends from high school.
I don't think my homosexual tendencies have any more addictive nature than having heterosexual tendencies. To me, being with another man feels as addictive as being with a woman does to you, I'd imagine.
I'm not asking to be completely defined by my being gay. I'm not going to deny that my life is different because of it, but I dream of the days when my being gay is as important to everyone else as my having green eyes.
I don't live a perfect life, and I don't recommend that anyone "try" the homosexual lifestyle, as if that were possible. But being gay has as many negative things as being straight, I'd imagine.
Sometimes I feel uncomfortable in gay neighborhoods, because I feel as if instead of valuing intelligence or personality, the men there value me by my sexuality or physical attributes, and the lustful glares I get would confirm that. But I can imagine the same would be said for attractive women walking in other neighborhoods in the same city.
In fact, I hope I'm not defined by my sexuality. But I'm not going to hide it. By being honest about who I am, I hope I am improving the attitudes of others who stereotype gay people.
So, then, no (I know this sounds stereotypical) "incidents" with an uncle or another man? Or anything out of the (what most would deem) ordinary? I only ask, because, at least in my experience, something fairly traumatic or an incident with an abusive adult has occured during childhood in the reports and stories that have been related to me as it pertains to gay men.
Nope, unless you call wrestling with the neighbor kids as "incidents".
I know my friends pretty well, and I'm sure that not too many of them were abused in that way.
Post a Comment
<< Home