Discussing Homosexuality
From WorldNetDaily . . .
What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," is what the substitute teacher told eighth-grade students at Ashburn Community Elementary School after showing the R-rated movie [Brokeback Mountain], according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court.
“I wish I knew how to quit you.”
And I wish I knew how to quit seeing this movie pop-up everywhere. It certainly seems that we, and now our pre-teen children, haven’t seen the last of this film. For that reason, and because of other controversies regarding same-sex relationships, I’d thought that I’d put aside my outrage (remember when schools were a place of education, not indoctrination?) and offer some advice for discussing this issue with those in the market place.
Advice
My advice has to do with terminology. The terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are modern terms (being about 60 years old) that have taken on a meaning that is foreign to preceding generations and civilizations—that being, homosexuals are regarded as a special class of human being.
This designation gives homosexuals carte blanch when it comes to their behavior. After all, it’s genetic. For them not to act in a way consistent with their nature would be, well, unnatural, or so the argument goes.
Terms
Here’s my advice: steer clear of the terms “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” Instead, use “homosexual desires” and “Homosexual activity.” Using these terms makes irrelevant the claim that “they are born that way.” (By the way, they aren’t born that way. Refer to the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality [NARTH] Web site for the evidence.) Here’s how:
I was born with certain heterosexual desires. These desires are good when exercised properly (i.e., for my wife, and for her alone). However, if I misdirect these desires (i.e., lust towards another woman), they are bad (immoral). When confronted with these misdirected desires, what should I do? Should I say, “Hey, it’s natural; I was born with these desires,” and then act upon them? No. I’m expected to realize that these desires are misdirected (sinful) and to restrain myself.
Likewise, those with homosexual desires should show the same restraint. The moral aspect aside for a moment, isn’t it obvious that their desires are misdirected? If “nature” intended for a man to have relations with another man, wouldn’t “nature” have provided the compatible equipment? It seems obvious that the proper direction for the desires should be towards those of the opposite sex.
Conclusion
Speaking of desires moves the conversation beyond the question of genetics—it doesn’t matter why I have these desires; what matters is how I respond to them. Engaging in homosexual activity is both unnatural (which a quick survey of the equipment reveals), and immoral (this is where a discussion of worldviews comes in). Speaking of desires also avoids the modern notion that “homosexuals” are a special class of humans. Instead, it reveals that they are like anyone else, just with different immoral desires.
Labels: Ethics, Homosexuality, Tactics
posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 1:59 PM
2 Comments:
Youre darn skippy they need to show some 'restraint'. I do. Why can't they? Nobody said life was easy.
Keep up the good work kiddo ;-)
Much appreciated, JD. Skippy is what I was shooting for!
Post a Comment
<< Home