Category Archives: Text

who cares

Sexual Orientation Makes No Difference (Part 1)

Nearly all reasons for same-sex marriage (SSM) can also be equally applied to other marriage relationships by analogy that LBGT people do not advocate for. For example, proponents of SSM argue that same-sex couples deserve the rights and benefits of legal marriage. What about polygamous families? Do they deserve the rights and benefits of legal marriage? Proponents of SSM commonly say “no” because polygamy is not a sexual orientation.

The following are reasons why sexual orientation makes no difference regarding SSM:

  1. It makes no difference to gay and lesbian people. Before 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) classified homosexuality as a disorder. Homosexuals determined the APA was wrong and campaigned for the APA to declassified homosexuality as a disorder, which it did in 1973. The point: if gays and lesbians do not determine their view of homosexuality based on the APA’s view, why should anyone else?
  2. The APA classified being transgendered as a disorder until 2013 when it was changed to the term dysphoria. Yet gays and lesbians have been advocating for transgendered laws and/or acceptance despite the APA’s disorder classification for decades. The APA’s disorder classification has been irrelevant to LGBT supporters.
  3. If the APA were hypothetically taken over by social conservatives (it’s currently nearly all social liberals) and reversed the classification of homosexuality back to a disorder, it would make no difference to gays and lesbians. They would undoubtedly conclude the APA is wrong just as they did before 1973 due to bias and continue pressing for SSM and social acceptance.
  4. Sexual orientation is primarily a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Science does not make moral judgments – scientist do. Professors of Ethics work in the philosophy department, not the science department. It is well known that most social scientist are socially liberal. A recent survey of psychologist at a conference revealed that 90% were socially liberal and 4% were socially conservative. From social liberals comes liberal sexual ethics. But there is no more obligation for social conservatives to abide by ethics of socially liberal mental health professionals than is for social liberals to abide by the sexual ethics of socially conservative doctors.

The bottom line is that gays and lesbians do not and should not determine the morality of homosexuality based solely upon the moral judgments of a mental health organization. The APA can provide helpful information as part of an informed moral conclusion, but each person comes to that conclusion themselves. For most religious people, gay or straight, it would actually be hypocritical to favor the moral pronouncements of a metal health organization over their own faith.

Part 2 of this subject entitled “Born Gay Makes It OK” will deal with the idea that because people are born with their sexual orientation, therefore that makes it morally acceptable.

Tim_Cook

Apple CEO Tim Cook Announces – #iGay

Apple CEO Tim Cook announced on October 29th in Bloomberg Businessweek what had been widely suspected and known by some within the company – he’s gay. News commentator Dave Rubin tweeted that he should have just sent out a blank email with the subject #iGay. In this post I’d to address two paragraphs of his statement.

While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now. So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.

Being gay has given me a deeper understanding of what it means to be in the minority and provided a window into the challenges that people in other minority groups deal with every day. It’s made me more empathetic, which has led to a richer life. It’s been tough and uncomfortable at times, but it has given me the confidence to be myself, to follow my own path, and to rise above adversity and bigotry. It’s also given me the skin of a rhinoceros, which comes in handy when you’re the CEO of Apple.

Regarding the second paragraph, I won’t quibble too much. It can be argued that the benefits listed are available to all people, regardless of sexual orientation. I just wanted to include it so you, the reader, could get an idea why he considers being gay a gift.

Regarding the first paragraph, here are some things to consider if Tim Cook is coming from a Christian perspective. (Note: I don’t know Tim Cook’s spiritual beliefs or if Christianity applies to them).

First, God did not make Tim Cook. His biological parents made him. If there is a biological etiology to sexuality, it came from his parents – not God.

Second, God has only made three human bodies – Adam, Eve, and Jesus. I say “human bodies” because Jesus existed before He incarnated into His human body.

Third, God designed heterosexual sex. This is obvious from Adam and Eve and the reproductive necessity of heterosexuality. Jesus confirmed this kind of sexuality is God’s design (Matthew 19:8).

Fourth, all are born in sin (Pslam 51:5). Our nature is to misuse the good things God designed. To act contrary God’s design is sin. Sin is a curse, not a gift.

Tim Cook must be a very gifted man to be the CEO of Apple and blessed with success that few people on the planet have ever experienced. But Jesus asked in Matthew 16:26, “what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” Jesus said in Luke 13:3 that we must all repent or we will perish. Repent of what? Repent of what God says is a sin. When we truly repent and trust in Him for forgiveness because of His death and resurrection, we will receive the free gift of God [which] is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Pray for Tim Cook.

Bishop_Gene_Robinson_portrait_2005

A Response to Rev. Gene Robinson’s Article “Meet the Young, Evangelical, Pro-Gay Movement”

Rev. Gene Robinson, now retired, was the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. He is a popular religious figure and regular columnist for the Daily Beast. This blog post is a response to his most recent article.

“the LGBT movement has been picking the “low fruit” of religious people”

An interesting and accurate way of putting it. When ones biases supersede God’s Word one it is easily picked off.

“these religious people, who had been taught by their religion to condemn LGBT people, came to know someone gay, and realized that all the bad things said about them simply were not true.”

My religion teaches me to condemn all sin, not to condone it. It also teaches me sinners can be redeemed and forgiven if they will repent of what God calls sin and trust in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

While getting to know gay people does help one realize not all the bad things said about them are true, this does not mean there are no bad things in God’s sight. These “bad things” in God’s sight require repentance, not affirmation.

“And so they came to believe that their religion—and the Bible on which it is based—is simply wrong on this issue, outdated, and locked in the past. They felt uncomfortable with those few passages of scripture that seemed to condemn same sex behavior, and dismissed them as a product of their times, and inappropriately applied to what we know today about sexual orientation.”

A candid view into the mind of a liberal Christian – easily dismissive. Perhaps liberal Christians need to engage in more “rigorous study of the scripture” as he encourages conservative Christians to do later in his article.

“Merely calling these religious conservatives “bigots” seems to me not to be very loving, because it fails to acknowledge and honor the beliefs these people hold dear.”

You’d think those who think merely disagreeing with them is hateful would understand that ridiculing others is not loving but Rev. Robinson is the first one I’ve heard that realizes this.

“And the serious work of meeting these conservative evangelicals on their own terms, with the accompanying difficult task of explaining those offending passages of scripture, has not been done. Until now.”

“The Reformation Project seems to have two goals: to engage conservative Christians in rigorous study of the scripture that has been used to condemn homosexuality and its expression, and to equip those whose minds have been changed with the tools to engage other conservative religious people in this endeavor. It is not easy work, but it calls the bluff of those who would say “we have to take scripture seriously.”

Things are not as they “seem.” I contacted the guys from the first Reformation conference to dialogue and after seeing my response to Danny Cortez’s sermon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-exfiGfSCug), much of which he based on James Brownson’s and Matthew Vines ideas, none where willing to “call my bluff” and talk on my terms. Only if I met them on their terms were some of them willing to dialogue.

“For evangelicals, the way forward is not around scripture, but directly through it. The Reformation Project offers the way.”

This is a problem as Matthew Vines and his Reformation Project try to work around the Scripture and conservatives are dealing directly with it, which does not lead to a affirming LGBT position.