Saturday, June 19, 2010

Response To Comments on Homosexuality Part II

First of all I want to thank all of you who have responded and have respected the boundaries of healthy debate. Living in the greatest country in the history of civilization (in my humble opinion) we sometimes forget that one of the things that astonishes our admirers and enemies alike is our ability to live peacefully among those we, sometimes vehemently, disagree with.

Having said this I want to say, particularly to the homosexuals who have responded to my blog, that I in no way condone violence towards those who choose that lifestyle and your welcome at my Church (not just my words, our Pastor's words). As a born again Christian I am called by Jesus to love the sinner (and that can't be just lip service, in needs to be action) and rightfully so; I am a sinner and I have no trouble loving myself.

The debate here is whether the act of homosexuality is a morally acceptable one. What is not in question here is whether Jesus or myself love homosexuals. He does and as he is my master so shall I. It is interesting that many of the commentators responded to my philosophical arguments with spiritual ones which is what I was trying to avoid in Part II; Part I explains where the Bible stands on homosexuality. Part II was from the view point of secular moral view point and not the Biblical truth.

There were some very, very good arguments presented that we could go around and around on till the second coming and not convince or change each others view points. (My best friend and I have argued consistently for the last ten years if 'Time' actually exists.) There were some arguments I could systematically dismantle but do not have the time or inclination. However, there is one that needs to be addressed.

It was articulated extremely well and I will quote the part I want to address verbatim:
I love my boyfriend. My lesbian friend loves her girlfriend.
I look at us both, and I think "What is different? We both kiss our partner, we both hold hands with our partner, we both talk to our partner, we both take pictures with our partner, and we both look at our partner's in the eye. What is society's problem?"
This is an excellent question and deserves an answer. I may have the left the impression that homosexuals are incapable of any resemblance of a healthy relationship and I want you to understand that is not what I believe. I've seen, unfortunately, many marriages dysfunctional to their very core. Marriage does not guarantee a healthy relationship and being homosexual does not guarantee (although I believe it does lend itself) to promiscuity. Then why should it matter?

Because marriage is not based on relationships. Now I know this is very contrary to what many of you have been taught. Many of you have been indoctrinated that someday when you are young and beautiful you will be walking along minding your own business when you will look up and see the most beautiful person in the entire world and your eyes will lock simultaneously with your hearts and you will instantly understand each other and hang on every word of your beloved and they will understand you in such a complete way they will meet your every need and you will have healthy beautiful well behaved children and grow old and happy with each other.

And it is utter hogwash. The reason that the divorce rate in the United States is approaching 50% is because people (especially young people) really believe the aforementioned love scenario and after about six months of marriage they figure out that the reality falls far, far, far, short of expectations.

Marriage to society is a contractual agreement that guarantees the survival of the society and its culture and it the raising of children who will further that society. There is really no other point of marriage. The concept that it should be based on love or relationship is a very recent idea. Now I know this sounds foreign to many of you but what may shock you even further is that modern studies indicate that arranged marriages are happier overall than Western marriages and India has the lowest divorce rate of any democracy, hands down. There are many misconceptions about arranged marriages (that they are forced for instance) but I have always thought that cultures that participate in these types of relationships always have a healthier attitude towards marriage than than Western culture. (Yes, I am sure there are abuses of arranged marriages just as there are abuses of dating in Western culture. Also, I am not advocating the approach in the USA but it would probably be healthier if young adults allowed their parents more input in the selection of their spouse). Whether there is a true correlation or not it is interesting to note that cultures that have the lowest divorce rates have the lowest toleration for adultery, sex outside of marriage and homosexuality.

I heard Ellen DeGeneres (I personally think her show is hilarious) once say how people on the far right always say that if you allow homosexuals to marry then you would have people marrying cats and dogs. Why do they always say that, she quipped, its always straight to bestiality. With this very funny statement though Ellen actually makes the argument I am presenting.

What she is saying is that homosexuality should be accepted but of course bestiality should not be. What she is saying is that just because people are homosexuals doesn't mean they are not moral and doesn't meant they don't have standards. That allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't meant that you should allow people to sleep with animals as there are still things that people should not be allowed to do.

But that is exactly the problem. The moment we say that marriage is no longer a contractual agreement between a man and a woman and society but based upon relationships and feelings we have now opened Pandora's box. If a man has feelings for two women why should he not marry both? If a man has feelings for a man and a woman why not all three of them marry? If a man has feelings for his daughter, why can they not legitimately marry. If a woman has feelings for her son why can she not legitimately marry him? If men have feelings for boys why should they not be able to have sex with them?

What your saying is that sex should no longer be allowed exclusively between a man and a woman in a marriage contract only but with whomever and whatever one has feelings for. Many are confused in western culture because we have already destroyed the first line of resistance which is sex outside of marriage which was not tolerated in Western culture as recently as 150 years ago. Marriage has become an option if one is having sex, not the only option for having sex. In Western culture sex is now based on feelings and emotions, not on marriage so of course it now makes perfect sense for people to sleep with the same sex.

The issue here is not really whether homosexuality is moral but whether sex outside of marriage is moral. Either it is not and we in the West have been very bad (and I think the destroyed marriages and children show the fruit of our behavior) or anything goes and we need to drop all the pretenses. Now some of you homosexuals are going to tell me that we cannot allow incest or sex with children but my question is where does your moral standard come from? Yourself? What tells you that you have the right to sleep with the same sex but a man does not have that right with his daughter?

If the moral decadence in our society continues and I was a dog or cat I would start looking for places to hide.

1 comment:

  1. Homosexuality: two consenting, non-familial adults of the same sex engaging in a relationship. What the hell does this have to do with incest and bestiality?

    You neglected to address more challenging arguments against your opinions and chose, instead, to bring up illogical counterpoints.

    The fact that you claim love in a relationship is a "fairly recent concept" is also extremely misguided and untrue. As I've stated on the comment to your previous post, you really ought to pick up a book and do some research because your arguments are sincerely flawed. Stop reading commentary from the religious right and start opening your mind to broader horizons.