The Rants of Issachar
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Commenting on the comments...
I finally got around to answering Lisa's comment about Christianity being under attack by the state. Surprise, surprise, I disagree with someone's comments on my blog. I guess I'm a contrarian person. :)
Or maybe I just don't bother trying to rephrase things people say that I agree with because they're already said so well. Who knows... :P
Or maybe I just don't bother trying to rephrase things people say that I agree with because they're already said so well. Who knows... :P
10 Comments:
Posted by: 
CarlaInteresting!
Lisa notes in her comment that the Canadian government allowing homosexuals to marry is an example of the state attacking Christianity. Surprise, surprise I disagree.
Such laws were not created to spite Christianity, but rather create equality for individuals.
Besides, (Gorms you obviously know far more than I on this matter) aren't there Christians who accept homosexuals?
CarlaInteresting!Lisa notes in her comment that the Canadian government allowing homosexuals to marry is an example of the state attacking Christianity. Surprise, surprise I disagree.
Such laws were not created to spite Christianity, but rather create equality for individuals.
Besides, (Gorms you obviously know far more than I on this matter) aren't there Christians who accept homosexuals?
Posted by: pasivirtaall Christians ought to accept any person.
but, because acting on gay feelings is not the christian thing to do, to have the state sanctify it with laws ends up being a subconcious education of morality. the state teaches people what is right by example, and if the state is a moral guide, which in this case it is by its actions, the church is scandalized by the moral stance that is taken because it opposes the church.
marriage will remain marriage regardless, but those who are undecided on this issue will be subverted by the government etc because it becomes an assumption of public discourse that homosexuality is a completely normal thing. it is statistically an abnormal thing. a small percentage of the population is gay. (are gay?)
peace out
pasivirtaall Christians ought to accept any person. but, because acting on gay feelings is not the christian thing to do, to have the state sanctify it with laws ends up being a subconcious education of morality. the state teaches people what is right by example, and if the state is a moral guide, which in this case it is by its actions, the church is scandalized by the moral stance that is taken because it opposes the church.
marriage will remain marriage regardless, but those who are undecided on this issue will be subverted by the government etc because it becomes an assumption of public discourse that homosexuality is a completely normal thing. it is statistically an abnormal thing. a small percentage of the population is gay. (are gay?)
peace out
Posted by: SarahA small proportion of the population are redheads too. That doesn't make it abnormal. Be very careful how you use those words!
In fact we don't have any idea what proportion of the population is homosexual - we only know how many people are openly homosexual.
SarahA small proportion of the population are redheads too. That doesn't make it abnormal. Be very careful how you use those words!In fact we don't have any idea what proportion of the population is homosexual - we only know how many people are openly homosexual.
Posted by: issacharOkay...
I figured I'd gather my thoughts for a bit before I posted a response, (I first read Carla's comment fairly late at night), and then as usual, I never got around to actually posting...
I do not want this to turn into an argument about the morality of homosexuality, but Carla asked me a factual question, so I will answer her.
But first...
Homosexuality is abnormal in the sense that the majority of people are heterosexual. It is not abnormal in the sense of being irregularly. It does occur regularly. (Regularity does not imply that it's common). Of course "abnormal" is often used as a pejorative, so I'm guessing that's where Sarah's coming from. (Yes, I AM that pedantic about vocabulary). It would be more accurate to say that homosexuality is not typical. Pasiverta... Do you really think the fact that homosexuality is atypical has any bearing whatsoever on the morality of homosexual activity? I didn't think so. :P
In point of fact Sarah, we do have some idea of how much of the population is gay. We just don't know exactly how much.
Now to add my answer to the Carla's question...
I agree that the gay marriage laws weren't created to spite Christians. So are there Christians who "accept" homosexuals?
Pasiverta is absolutely right that all Christians ought to accept any person. All people were created in the image of God. If you sit back and think about it, that's a very serious thing. It makes every human being incredibly valuable. It's the transcendent place that human rights come from.
Of course, acceptance does not mean that you accept everything about a person. I think we all know this. Parents accept their children, but no one should say that parents should accept as legitimate anything their children do. Similarly, Christ accepts us, but he most certainly does not accept everything we do.
Since Christians are supposed to emulate Christ in all things, if a Christian fails to accept a person created in the image of God then they are not following Christ's teaching. The flip side is that a Christian accepting homosexual behaviour as "moral" isn't following Christ's teaching either. It's a tough thing to do, and many fail, but it is what Christ tells us to do. It's like some of the Christ's (soon to be former) disciples said: "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (Granted Christ wasn't teaching on this issue at the time, but I think the disciples response is still illuminating).
Since "gayness" is such a hot-button topic in our society, I find that it's useful to use a parallel example. Say pre-marital heterosexual sex. The same statements apply. Christians should accept people who engage in such practices, but they should not accept the behaviour.
Sorry for the long-winded answer. I like to be specific.
issacharOkay...I figured I'd gather my thoughts for a bit before I posted a response, (I first read Carla's comment fairly late at night), and then as usual, I never got around to actually posting...
I do not want this to turn into an argument about the morality of homosexuality, but Carla asked me a factual question, so I will answer her.
But first...
Homosexuality is abnormal in the sense that the majority of people are heterosexual. It is not abnormal in the sense of being irregularly. It does occur regularly. (Regularity does not imply that it's common). Of course "abnormal" is often used as a pejorative, so I'm guessing that's where Sarah's coming from. (Yes, I AM that pedantic about vocabulary). It would be more accurate to say that homosexuality is not typical. Pasiverta... Do you really think the fact that homosexuality is atypical has any bearing whatsoever on the morality of homosexual activity? I didn't think so. :P
In point of fact Sarah, we do have some idea of how much of the population is gay. We just don't know exactly how much.
Now to add my answer to the Carla's question...
I agree that the gay marriage laws weren't created to spite Christians. So are there Christians who "accept" homosexuals?
Pasiverta is absolutely right that all Christians ought to accept any person. All people were created in the image of God. If you sit back and think about it, that's a very serious thing. It makes every human being incredibly valuable. It's the transcendent place that human rights come from.
Of course, acceptance does not mean that you accept everything about a person. I think we all know this. Parents accept their children, but no one should say that parents should accept as legitimate anything their children do. Similarly, Christ accepts us, but he most certainly does not accept everything we do.
Since Christians are supposed to emulate Christ in all things, if a Christian fails to accept a person created in the image of God then they are not following Christ's teaching. The flip side is that a Christian accepting homosexual behaviour as "moral" isn't following Christ's teaching either. It's a tough thing to do, and many fail, but it is what Christ tells us to do. It's like some of the Christ's (soon to be former) disciples said: "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (Granted Christ wasn't teaching on this issue at the time, but I think the disciples response is still illuminating).
Since "gayness" is such a hot-button topic in our society, I find that it's useful to use a parallel example. Say pre-marital heterosexual sex. The same statements apply. Christians should accept people who engage in such practices, but they should not accept the behaviour.
Sorry for the long-winded answer. I like to be specific.
Posted by: SarahMy issue with the words normal and abnormal are that people have a tendency to infer biological implications from so-called "statistical abnormality". I don't think anyone was using the words in an intentionally derogatory sense.
As any good biologist knows (that's the way I approach all of these issues), there are no perfect systems of classification, because nature simply isn't that organised; the labels of normal and abnormal (or any other dichotomous system for than matter, even male and female) are purely an artefact of human convenience, and are meaningless in the biological sense.
Issachar, you said, "Homosexuality is abnormal in the sense that the majority of people are heterosexual"; something isn't abnormal just because it is less common than something else, or because people are reluctant to consider it to be "normal", for whatever reason. I think that you are trying to apply convenient labels to people's sexual orientation, when these things are simply not that cut and dry. I also strongly dispute that sexual orientation can be dismissed as merely a behaviour or practice.
That's all I'm saying on this issue because I have no expectations that anyone in this forum will agree with me. But if anyone is interested, in my field of research it was recently discovered that fungi of the same species and sex (or mating-type, as it is more correctly phrased) can not only mate with each other, but can produce viable offspring. This makes homosexuality in this species not only "normal", but biologically more successful than heterosexuality. This was published in Nature last year.
SarahMy issue with the words normal and abnormal are that people have a tendency to infer biological implications from so-called "statistical abnormality". I don't think anyone was using the words in an intentionally derogatory sense.As any good biologist knows (that's the way I approach all of these issues), there are no perfect systems of classification, because nature simply isn't that organised; the labels of normal and abnormal (or any other dichotomous system for than matter, even male and female) are purely an artefact of human convenience, and are meaningless in the biological sense.
Issachar, you said, "Homosexuality is abnormal in the sense that the majority of people are heterosexual"; something isn't abnormal just because it is less common than something else, or because people are reluctant to consider it to be "normal", for whatever reason. I think that you are trying to apply convenient labels to people's sexual orientation, when these things are simply not that cut and dry. I also strongly dispute that sexual orientation can be dismissed as merely a behaviour or practice.
That's all I'm saying on this issue because I have no expectations that anyone in this forum will agree with me. But if anyone is interested, in my field of research it was recently discovered that fungi of the same species and sex (or mating-type, as it is more correctly phrased) can not only mate with each other, but can produce viable offspring. This makes homosexuality in this species not only "normal", but biologically more successful than heterosexuality. This was published in Nature last year.
Posted by: Carlapasivirta said:
>"...but those who are undecided on this issue will be subverted by the government..."
Subversion by the government of *undecided* thinkers into believing 'being gay is okay'. ????
'Conspiracy Theory' much?
Carlapasivirta said: >"...but those who are undecided on this issue will be subverted by the government..."
Subversion by the government of *undecided* thinkers into believing 'being gay is okay'. ????
'Conspiracy Theory' much?
Posted by: MarcoGovernment legislation concerning gay marriage doesn't really qualify as discrimination against Christians unless they also force Christian clergy to perform the marriages.
As a Christian, I don't really see why many Christians consider government legislation on gay marriage such a moral threat. I don't need my country's government to agree with my faith. I'm not going to lobby that laws be passed which forbid adultery or premarital sex, either. And the church doesn't have a very good track record of doing politics.
I think Carla meant that some Christians "accept homosexuals" as in "do not consider homosexual behavior sinful", which is true. Some churches perform gay marriages.
Something being "rare" obviously does not make it "abnormal", but in most cases (Sarah can correct me here) you would talk of "aberrant sexual behavior" when homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. For example, they talk about homosexual activity among rats increasing after the population density of the rat community has reached a certain level, and they'll call it "aberrant sexual behavior" -- i. e. not the way rats would (or should?) normally behave. There may be fungi in which "homosexuality" is biologically useful -- just like there are lifeforms which are hermaphrodites and can actually obey if you tell them to "go screw yourself" -- but among humans there is no real biological purpose in homosexuality. If I'm not mistaken, the reasons why homosexuality in humans is not called "aberrant sexual behavior" or even a "psychological disorder" are mostly political reasons. I do know that many times homosexuality does in fact have all the attributes of a psychological disorder (and many have been "cured" from homosexuality through therapy), but many would insist that that is only a small minority of the gay population. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on that.
But this is such a sensitive topic. I think it is very important for Christians to start really LOVING gay people AS IS. This doesn't mean (though some will take it to mean) that the church would have to start performing gay marriages. And it would also help if the gay community could change its rallying cry from "PRIDE" to "humility".
Sorry if that sounds too much like fluffy pseudo-spiritual hippiedom. And sorry this reply is so long.
MarcoGovernment legislation concerning gay marriage doesn't really qualify as discrimination against Christians unless they also force Christian clergy to perform the marriages. As a Christian, I don't really see why many Christians consider government legislation on gay marriage such a moral threat. I don't need my country's government to agree with my faith. I'm not going to lobby that laws be passed which forbid adultery or premarital sex, either. And the church doesn't have a very good track record of doing politics.
I think Carla meant that some Christians "accept homosexuals" as in "do not consider homosexual behavior sinful", which is true. Some churches perform gay marriages.
Something being "rare" obviously does not make it "abnormal", but in most cases (Sarah can correct me here) you would talk of "aberrant sexual behavior" when homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. For example, they talk about homosexual activity among rats increasing after the population density of the rat community has reached a certain level, and they'll call it "aberrant sexual behavior" -- i. e. not the way rats would (or should?) normally behave. There may be fungi in which "homosexuality" is biologically useful -- just like there are lifeforms which are hermaphrodites and can actually obey if you tell them to "go screw yourself" -- but among humans there is no real biological purpose in homosexuality. If I'm not mistaken, the reasons why homosexuality in humans is not called "aberrant sexual behavior" or even a "psychological disorder" are mostly political reasons. I do know that many times homosexuality does in fact have all the attributes of a psychological disorder (and many have been "cured" from homosexuality through therapy), but many would insist that that is only a small minority of the gay population. I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion on that.
But this is such a sensitive topic. I think it is very important for Christians to start really LOVING gay people AS IS. This doesn't mean (though some will take it to mean) that the church would have to start performing gay marriages. And it would also help if the gay community could change its rallying cry from "PRIDE" to "humility".
Sorry if that sounds too much like fluffy pseudo-spiritual hippiedom. And sorry this reply is so long.
Posted by: Carla'hippiedom' is one of my favourite words.
Carla'hippiedom' is one of my favourite words.
Posted by: westcoastloonI haven't gathered the rest of my thoughts on this yet but Issachar, I thought your initial comment was particularly welll worded. Nicely done.
westcoastloonI haven't gathered the rest of my thoughts on this yet but Issachar, I thought your initial comment was particularly welll worded. Nicely done.
