Gay doesn’t fit in science or theology.
Ok, so I am conservative, religious, and so I have been concerned and paying somewhat attention to this whole gay marriage thing in California. Ellen getting married doesn’t help because as a human being, I love Ellen, and I want her to be happy…but I don’t think it’s good for society. And I would risk her happiness for society’s well being. So I was thinking about it the other day and homosexuality doesn’t make sense if you are secular and scientific or if you are religious.
Any species that was homosexual, or mated with it’s own gender would soon die out. You need to be able to repopulate. If you are religious, at least if you are Christian, then the bible and religious leaders condemn homosexual activity. So…why is it so accepted, especially when it is such a minority? It must be that there is a gene that is tied to homosexuality and those attributes that lead to Hollywood stars, or maybe the Hollywood lifestyle leads to homosexual tendencies. Who knows.
I hope hope hope I don’t sound like a bigot because I really don’t consider myself one. I really love and respect other people, cultures etc. With that said, to me it is similar to black people being over-represented in commercials. You know, having a token black guy or guys in there, just so you’re not excluding anyone. But it doesn’t always hold true to the populations’ demographic. (Like I said, I have nothing against black people) It is also true of homosexuals/gays/lesbians whatever. There are not that many gay people in the United States for them to be in every group, like they are portrayed as being in the media. They are over represented and so we are risking major societal upheaval in the near future for a very small minority. It would not be good if the population of homosexuals grew as before mentioned, because we need to replenish our population. But giving the title of marriage and representing them as so common in the media normalizes an anomaly.
Ok, I am gonna probably offend a few people here, but I do not wish to. I wish to express a point of view. I have talked to a few gay people about being gay. One guy asked me, “how would you feel if you never got to touch a guy, even though that’s what you’re attracted to.” Well, it would suck. Another person told me, “It’s not my fault, I never chose to be gay. When did you decide you liked guys?” Yeah, true, I just am attracted to guys. Now, here comes the hard part. Brace yourself. Pedophiles are people who are attracted to children. Sometimes it’s due to abuse and sometimes it is just the way they are. At what point do we draw the line? They didn’t choose to be attracted to children. They didn’t choose to be abused. They don’t get to touch who they are attracted to. Not fair? What if we called them Pedosexual? Would that make it ok?
I think it is a difficult thing to be attracted to a type of person you aren’t “supposed” to be. That is a trial. So 2% of the population doesn’t get to have the title “married.” You know, I know people in wheelchairs who will never get to be married, who will never get to be intimate with the opposite sex. It is a part of life. It sucks, but that doesn’t make a person’s actions socially responsible or moral because it would be “unfair.”
supercynic said,
August 21, 2008 at 5:20 am
A sincere congratulations on stating your opposition to homosexuality without coming across as a mean-spirited bigot. I once would have agreed with you. I now do not, but I say that with the same politeness with which you wrote your post. Full disclosure: I’m a heterosexual and father of 2 children.
First, while it’s true that homosexuals can’t reproduce, I don’t think that means it is therefore immoral. If we all followed the example of the Apostle Paul (celibacy), we wouldn’t reproduce. That doesn’t make celibacy immoral, against nature, or otherwise wrong. Further, there are religious groups that don’t condemn homosexuality. The Anglican Communion is struggling with it right now b/c of the actions of numerous Episcopal churches. There are Methodist churches struggling with this issue as well as more and more of their clergy support gay marriage, or at least don’t condemn it.
Second, none of the homosexuals that I know are Hollywood stars; quite the opposite. They are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and, yes, hair stylists.
Third, I think we’re replenishing our population almost too well. We’re at 6 billion and counting. The earth will only sustain so much. I’m not saying we’re on the verge of extinction from overcrowding. I’m simply saying we’re heeding the whole “go forth and multiply” command quite well.
Fourth, comparing a homosexual’s desire for someone of the opposite sex with a pedophile is not a fair or accurate comparison. For example, using that logic, heterosexuals should also be banned from having sexual relations with people of the opposite sex. Just b/c you want to doesn’t make it right — that sort of thing. If two consenting adults want to enter into a homosexual relationship, I don’t feel comfortable telling them they can’t. This is the slippery slope argument. If we allow this, then why not that? We don’t allow pedophilia b/c children are not old enough to make informed choices. And you’ll notice that pedophilia is unlawful even if it’s heterosexual pedophilia. In other words, inappropriate behavior with children is unlawful regardless of what sex you are.
I don’t expect you to be won over by what I’ve written. I just felt like throwing out my 2 cents. Sorry for the long comment.
makeshiftpulpit said,
August 21, 2008 at 6:53 am
I appreciate the comment, I would like to respond to each of your points. In reponse to the first: I am not saying the inability to procreate makes homosexuality immoral. I am saying that based on a scientific standpoint it doesn’t make sense for society to go in that direction. As far as different religions struggling with it, I don’t know each specific struggle as well as you seemed to know, but I find it strange that their theology would change because it is now a bigger issue. I don’t think God changed His mind. I think it has always been morally wrong regardless of what different denominations are doing about it to satisfy their patrons. Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed because of homosexuality.
To the second: I was being slightly facetious, just saying homosexuality is over-represented in the entertainment industry.
To the third: I believe it is our responsibility, each of us, to multiply and replenish the earth and take it upon ourselves to decide we are done with that commandment. Of course we don’t all need to have 20 children in order to do so, but I believe there is enough and to spare on this earth.
To the fourth: I do believe my comparison is quite accurate. You can’t be attracted to someone because of age, or gender, single attributes. Doesn’t make the plight of either person any easier. I don’t feel comfortable limiting the rights of others either, but I don’t believe a homosexual lifestyle is moral. I don’t believe in enforcing my beliefs on other people, but I do believe in condoning and condemning according to what I believe is right.
Marriage is established of God and it is to be entered in by a man and a woman. I also don’t believe in having sex before you are married. So I am not unfamiliar with being peculiar as far as society is concerned. As far as pedophilia being unlawful, there was a time where it was against the law to have an affair, to have sex outside of your marriage. There was even a time not that long ago that being gay was illegal. Laws are subject to what society believes. Society changes but right/wrong doesn’t. I believe that our laws should reflect our moral beliefs. That is what our nation was built on. We believe it’s wrong to steal, so it’s against the law, etc. I think marriage between homosexuals should be against the law for the good of society. Hard for me to even type, honestly, but it is what I believe.
supercynic said,
August 21, 2008 at 7:42 pm
You would then agree with me that, from a scientific standpoint, celibacy is also not the way in which we should go, correct?
I don’t think the mind of God has changed either. I think that it takes us time to catch up with the mind of God. It wasn’t until the late 20th century that most churches allowed women into the clergy. In fact, I don’t know of a Southern Baptist female minister today.
So, just because churches are now allowing women to serve as ministers does not mean that the mind of God changed on that issue. It just took US forever to change — and I’m glad we did.
Therefore, just because churches are now recognizing that perhaps homosexuality is not a sin doesn’t mean that those churches are saying the mind of God changed on the issue. Further, relatively recent biblical scholarship supports the theory that many of the Apostle Paul’s progressive writings were watered down by his followers so he wouldn’t appear so radical. That’s why we read such wonderful language in Romans about how we’re all one in Jesus and there is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, etc., and then we read his letters to the Corinthians and wonder if perhaps an old scrooge has taken over his pen.
I think that making laws based on “our moral beliefs” is very dangerous. That is a theocracy if not in fact then in essence. We don’t agree on all things moral. We can agree on the obvious, e.g., murder, theft, etc., but much beyond that and we really do start down that slippery slope.
Tamlynn said,
August 22, 2008 at 4:46 pm
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage
Have you read this article?
supercynic said,
August 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I just read that article. Is there a particular argument that you wanted to emphasize? The article is basically a longer iteration of the arguments above.