Archive | Homosexuality and Gay Marriage RSS feed for this section

Disclaimer: I Don’t Watch “Duck Dynasty” but I Do Support the Free Exchange of Ideas

19 Dec

Disclaimer: I Don’t Watch “Duck Dynasty” but I Do Support the Free Exchange of Ideas

This post contains the Phil Robertson quote about homosexuality. It is not nearly as graphic as I thought. It is actually Biblically accurate with the first three chapters of Genesis, in which God created us male and female.

It’s the kind of thing you would say to friends, not in a national interview. So, for that reason, it is just a bit tactless.

And . . . maybe it is a bit insensitive in not acknowledging the obvious fact that gays don’t automatically feel the same desires that heterosexuals feel. But is it now a requirement for heterosexuals to always present that disclaimer when talking about the sex act? I don’t necessarily think so. God clearly created us male and female, in a complementarian way (including sexually). Again, see Genesis 1-3. I think it might be up to those who don’t live by that model to present the disclaimers. It is nice when a heterosexual remembers to do so, but I don’t see it as a requirement.

Phil Robertson’s remark was certainly acceptable within the realm of the free exchange of ideas.

The quote on the races is more disturbing to me. I can see the insensitivity there. Saying he worked with blacks in the field because he was “white trash” . . . Sounds like something out of “To Kill a Mockingbird” (and that may very well have been the culture and era in which he grew up, but he could have said what he did with more tact, as it is now 2013).

Still, should A&E have fired the lead on their most lucrative show? Only time will tell. They have the right, under free enterprise, to hire and fire whomever they want. They definitely exercised viewpoint discrimination, but that is not protected under the labor laws. You very much can be fired if the boss doesn’t like your viewpoint. It isn’t right, but it is what it is. And there are many petty people around who only want to work with people who agree with them on issues. Sometimes they are the boss.

I think maybe Paula Deen and Phil Robertson should start their own network for fallen people who realize that not everything in this world operates according to what we regard as ideal . . .


A Believer Who Struggles with Same Sex Attraction Speaks Out

29 Nov

A Believer Who Struggles with Same Sex Attraction Speaks Out

We need to listen to our brothers and sisters in Christ who self-identify as gay–remember, temptation is not a sin. Giving in to temptation is a sin.

There is no more reason to be standoffish from someone who has been tempted with gay sexuality than there is to be standoffish with a heterosexual who has been tempted by an extramarital affair and walked away from temptation.

All sexual sin is disordered, in its own way. Saying no to it is a step toward the Saviour, no matter what that temptation was.

When we say Christ’s blood breaks the power of all sin, we have to say that with conviction. All sin!

The First Gay Legislator to Vote Against Gay Marriage

13 Nov

Jo Jordan explains her no vote on gay marriage in Hawaii.

Interestingly, it was important to her that people listen to each other on this issue and one side consistently shut down dialogue with her. They had an attitude that they already knew they were right on every aspect of the legislation so she should just vote yes, with no questioning.

The same side that usually says fundamentalist Christians always believe they are right in every situation and won’t listen to anyone else . . .

Maybe they have learned from us, after all.

Nobody but God is always right!

Five Reasons Society May Return to Traditional Marriage

12 Nov

A compelling post.

It seems that gay marriage will become the law of the land in the U.S. The only question is when it will be federally recognized.

Some of us believe things will go farther and, as foreshadowed on Sesame Street more than twenty years ago, a family will become “a group of people who love each other.” Which sounds great until we contemplate the temporary nature of love in our generation.

However, history is not over yet. This post presents five reasons why society, as a whole, could later make a U-turn back to the “narrow” (but life-giving) definition of marriage that Christ gave.


What We Can Learn From a Lesbian Visitor to our Church . . .

6 Oct

What We Can Learn From a Lesbian Visitor to our Church . . .

I had an interesting discussion with a friend a couple of weeks ago.

You see, our Pastor had said just about the same thing that this post says. God doesn’t differentiate levels of sin. One sin will keep us out of heaven. That is why we need Jesus. That is why Jesus is such good news for us.

But my friend walked out when my Pastor said that Romans 1 is not just about the sin of homosexuality. He was not prepared to hear that the other sins in that chapter are just as odious to God.

He told me he thought Pastor was “minimizing” the sin of homosexuality, by implying it is not all that serious.

I said I thought the opposite–that when we pick on homosexuality as our favorite sin to hate, we are minimizing our own favorite sins and implying that they are not all that serious.

My friend and I did not see eye to eye that day. There is lots of ground to cover here before we understand that we all stand condemned before God, but for His mercy in Christ!!!


8 Jul

I have never seen my title word used, nor defined.  I don’t think it exists.  And it is curious that it does not . . .

This will not be a gay-bashing post.  My God does not teach bashing anyone made in His image.  There are times His image is distorted in people, but that is another issue and requires compassion, not the attack mode.

Let’s break down the word:  “hetero” means “other” and “phobia” means “fear.”

If homophobia means fear of people who are homosexuals, heterophobia would mean fear of people who are heterosexuals.

I submit that either one actually indicates revulsion, not fear.

I don’t know of anyone who is afraid of homosexuals or heterosexuals; I do know people who are revolted by the way homosexuals have sex.  By projection, I can understand that some homosexual people may be revolted by the way heterosexuals have sex (particularly the ones of opposite gender whom they don’t find attractive at all).  

It happens, and the point of my post is not to try to figure out why but just to acknowledge that a lot of things happen in a fallen world for which explanations do not come easily.   

I don’t believe all homosexuals would have heterophobia, but I have known a few who probably did.  

A college professor of mine fit the stereotype of the “flamer” perfectly.  He had studied to be a Catholic priest, then left the profession for some reason.  He was still unmarried.  He would fawn all over the men in our class, particularly the tall, blue-eyed blonde who sat across the aisle from me.  He would come over to my friend’s desk, hanging on his every word and batting his eyelashes at him.

Yet, when his female students spoke up, he would go into attack mode and tear apart everything we said.  There was a definite aspect of humiliation to the way he treated us.  As outgoing as I am, I soon learned to shut up in that class.  It just wasn’t worth it . . .

My papers were another reminder of his revulsion or contempt.  They would come back with more red ink on them than black ink.  And he wrote smaller than anyone I have ever known!

I was shocked when my first semester with him ended and I got an “A.”  I soon learned that I just had to play the game with him.  I would put up with his abuse for a semester and go home with an “A.”  Since everything split perfectly along gender lines, I learned to not take the situation personally.  It was one of my first examples of not being universally liked.  It was probably good for me to learn that.    

It was years later that I realized there probably was an element of fear behind his revulsion because he seemed to apply it to every female, without exception.  But I would still say that he is the perfect example of what I would call heterophobia, and that the defining aspect of heterophobia appears to be revulsion, not fear.

Another professor during that period used to remind us that, while there is nothing new under the sun, our job as scholars (which is the word he used for us) was to “analyze and synthesize” everything in order to come up with a new way of combining old things.  He was a crusty old guy who was dying of cancer at the time, but I learned more from my one semester with him than I did from two years with the other professor.  

Thus my use of the word “heterophobia” and my observation that I have never heard it before.  I am sure someone, somewhere has used it.  As my beloved professor used to say, there is no completely original idea anywhere.  It has all been thought before.  But it is the way we combine a series of thoughts into new patterns that is original to us.  

I will just bet there is not another writer on the face of this earth who could have written this piece on heterophobia exactly the way I just did!!!


Welcome to Rome, Part II!

5 Jul

Welcome to Rome, Part II!

I love it! I wrote a post called “Welcome to Rome” last year and now the Southern Baptist Conference has so many posts on that issue that the writer of this one calls it “cliche.”

I promise you the phrase was from my own brain, after much reading, when I posted it last year. Obviously, nobody who is a thinker thinks in a vacuum, so I probably took data points from the SBC as well as from other voices when I made my assessment.

But the phrase “Welcome to Rome” was original to me.

Great minds think alike, or our blogs crossed paths and someone over there saw my post . . . one or the other.

Very cool. Since I am not paid for this blog, it is not important to know whether I was the first to use the phrase. But neat that I found it on my own, in the midst of others coming to the same conclusion.

%d bloggers like this: