Staving off The Gay
I was reading this post at the Gay Christian Movement Watch (I know. Who knew there was a Gay Christian Movement Watch?) and ended up scrolling down to the comments because I was curious what the Christian reaction to this would be. Amongst the appalling (but not remotely surprising) comments, I was struck by this line contributed by Sarah:
“To them sexual feelings justify behavior and in turn behavior becomes accepetd (sic) as an idenity (sic).”
Really? Who says? I know, I know. There’s an interpretation of the Bible that God says homosexuality is an abomination, or something to that effect. I always wonder, if it’s such an abomination, why did God give people these desires? Why didn’t he just make men into plaid-adorned lumberjacks and women into dainty, parasol-holding belles who say “Lawdy” and faint a lot? Why would God feel the need to test about 20% of his “children” in this manner? He made sexual desires so incredibly strong and difficult to resist, and then he tied sin and abomination into it. It seems like a pretty devious scheme … if, well, ya know, the Christians haven’t bastardized his message into something he didn’t mean. They wouldn’t do that. Would they? Hmmmmmm …..
But let’s take this from a logical standpoint, and here’s something I’ve thought for awhile now. Why would sexuality seemingly be the one preference in human existence where there’s just one right choice, and it’s black or white? Humans are complex creatures. Our preferences for foods, drinks, friends, TV shows, movies and even, yes, blogs are pretty fluid. They change over time; they aren’t usually extreme (”That new Ben Affleck movie sucked, but it didn’t suck quite as much as his previous movie”). Our minds don’t tend to think of preferences in black/white terms. It’s all shades of constant grays.
So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. And if there are other reasons for sex, there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other.
Everyone has tendencies to be more attracted to one sex or another, mostly for the same reason they gravitate to blondes or brunettes or tall people or midgets or people with goiters. It’s a preference, and there is no right answer, regardless of what Christians spout from their high horse. If homosexuality is a sin, so is liking Diet Coke. NutraSweet, now there’s an abomination.
The thing I don’t understand is that several things are listed as being an abomination in the bible, from homosexuality to eating shellfish.
Yet I have not once heard about anyone protesting outside seafood restaurants.
It is nothing more than ignorant people using religion to disguise their own bigotry.
Try again, Matt.
Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain at least two categories of moral behaviors. The first is Jewish ceremonial law, which is what your shellfish example would fit. The second would be universal moral precepts. It is the second category that interests the Christian. The first has historical value and is interesting to dive into, but it has no relevance today.
Before you ask me “How do you know the difference?” I’ll reply: ceremonial law was focused on diets, ritual, feast days and festivals, priestly garments, and what sacrifices to make and when. The universal moral precepts described things like sexual purity and even had primitive building codes. In other words, if you just read it, it is pretty easy to know the difference.
Universal moral precepts form a guidebook for how we should live today. Obviously, due to progressive revelation and increasing technology levels, they aren’t absolute but can be used as a guide. I can’t see why sexual purity laws should change just because we want them to, but I would see why, for example, we would no longer put a fence around our rooftops–we don’t use the roof as another room in the house the way the Israelites did!
Now, I agree with Jeff’s reasoning but not his conclusion. Sexuality seems more fluid than most people want to admit. It is based more on circumstance than on a genetic disposition. No reasonable person can conclude that sex was intended only for making babies–it must have been intended for fun as well. But, from that it doesn’t follow that no restrictions should be placed on who can have sex with each other. There are general etiquette rules for everything else that we do, why not something as important and as special as sex?
Unless, of course, you look at it from the logic of evolution. Well, we evolved from lower forms of life. Lower forms of life have sex with whoever they want. There’s no marriage, there’s no monogamy (except for certain birds). Dolphins have sex just for fun out there in the ocean. Since we’re all animals anyway…
Before you attack me and tell me, for the umpteenth millionth time, that that is NOT the way evolutionists think, re-read this post, pay attention to the statement “there is no reason to restrict which consenting adults can have sex with each other” and tell me why I shouldn’t conclude what I do about the evolutionary mindset.
[...] So why would we think sexuality is different? It’s one of a very few acts that connects us with our most distant ancestors. Every human who has ever lived past the age of about 8 has experienced some sort of sexual desire (And some earlier than that … shout out to my Kindergarten girlfriend, Melissa. Rawr!). I believe these desires are just as fluid and gray as any others. The ideas of heterosexuality and homosexuality are created by humans in a society that would prefer to label people in this manner. In the human mind, those labels don’t exist. It’s all situational. It’s all genetics. Even Christians can’t seriously claim humans should have sex only for procreation. (source) [...]
I will not stand by and let you crap on Diet Coke, the nectar of the gods!
Also, shout-out to my Kindergarten boyfriend, Brian Hutchens!
I find that remarkably odd.
Divine will hands down some laws. Don’t eat shellfish. Harass people who don’t share your life style. Stone to death those who work on the sabbath … or wear different threads … or touch the skin of a dead pig … or disrespect their parents.
You get the general idea.
Then a particular sect/denomination/whatever decides that it will cherry pick which supposedly divine mandates apply to them or not. Here was me thinking Divine instructions were there to be obeyed if you followed that particular god.
Silly me.
Wow, Matt, you are amazingly ignorant!
I’m sorry to be so blunt, but you have the air of someone who has either skimmed the Bible, or gotten most of it second hand from people/websites/blogs/etc. that are out to malign religion and make fun of its adherents.
Now, I wrote this on what to do with Old Testament law. I wrote it a while ago, and so it probably needs some updating, but it should serve as a primer for your specific hang-up. As for other objections that are common to skeptics, try taking this quiz. It is meant tongue-in-cheek, but all of the links provided give well-researched answers to the questions that they ask.
Good luck!
Oh, how I feel the love.
No, I have studied the bible a fair bit. Had a religious upbringing, went to two religious schools, etc.
Logically, however, there is still no difference between those mandates made, supposedly, by god. You can not pick and choose which laws handed down you choose to follow if you are a follower of that god. The point stands: If christians wants to start trying to impose their own rules on society then they should be trying to impose ALL of them.
But that wouldn’t look good, since most of said rules/mandates/conditions are quite insane and anyone trying to impose them would be laughed at.
As for your own ignorance, the final three paragraphs of this very article of yours betrays your own. Morality evolved as human kind learned more about life and society, developing codes which bettered their own chances of survival until what we have today. Morality does not come from a magical sky father figure or any sort of divine will.
Isn’t the gospel all about a “new kind of humanity” revealed in Jesus? The desires of the “flesh” and “nature” are part of the “old man”, that is in constant struggle against the loving rule of Jesus. It’s funny to see how much this issue comes up into debate, considering very little to those who are actually struggling with homosexuality … because there are so many men and women leaving the gay lifestyle, mostly due to a need of integrity between their beliefs and actual actions … I know many, as I am one of them. But often our voices and paths are mis valued by enlightened thinkers.