Friday, September 17, 2004
Homosexuality
I was writing about the difference between satirical sites and serious sites when I dragged out a link to Jim Kress' "christian" site. I put "christian" in quotes because I am not being a Christian about this. Reading a site like Jim Kress' simply pisses me off. It's hard to reconcile the anger I feel with the love of Christ and feeling the Holy Spirit.
I had to check Kress' site to see if was still up and that the link was valid. Then I made the mistake of looking at his Religion pages and I think that there are two sentences on the entire page that I can agree with. When he spouts off against homosexuality I get really pissed. The argument against homosexuals seems to be the following argument:
1. _______ is a sin.
2. People who are __________ are sinners
3. Sinners should not be allowed in church (or, in a milder form, to take communion)
4. Therefore, _____ people should not be allowed in church (or take communion)
Of course this is valid in that one thing follows from another. It doesn't really work as an argument. Insert "Lefthandedness," "lefthanded", and "lefthanded" in the three blanks and it fails immediately. Today nobody would think that God wants us to deny lefthanded people from participating in church. Granted, the Church used to think that, and so did society. Lefthandedness was considered a sign of the devil and lefthanded children were taught to write with their right hands. Thankfully this no longer happens.
This counter argument relies on the fact that homosexuality is natural. Sexuality is a born trait. Most people are born heterosexual, some homosexual, just like most people are born right handed and some left handed. This fact is something that those who oppose the rights of homosexuals reject. They believe that homosexuality is a choice. In that case, fill in "dyeing your hair" or "wearing earrings" in the argument and see how you feel.
It still doesn't work. The worst part of the argument is the third item. Sinners should not be banned from participation. Unrepentant sinners should not be banned. Jesus did not teach to the riteous, as He said: A doctor tends the sick, not the healthy. I think that third line also points to an inconsistency in belief: We are all sinners, sinners should be banned from church, but I should participate while they should not be allowed to participate. Does this make sense?
Perhaps I am biased towards my own beliefs too much. Many of us are. It happens naturally. I don't think I have the energy to be a Progressive Firebrand like Bishop Spong. I don't think I'm called to become a soldier of challenging rhetoric to bring people to God. I am only one small voice here. ¶ 8:39 AM
I had to check Kress' site to see if was still up and that the link was valid. Then I made the mistake of looking at his Religion pages and I think that there are two sentences on the entire page that I can agree with. When he spouts off against homosexuality I get really pissed. The argument against homosexuals seems to be the following argument:
1. _______ is a sin.
2. People who are __________ are sinners
3. Sinners should not be allowed in church (or, in a milder form, to take communion)
4. Therefore, _____ people should not be allowed in church (or take communion)
Of course this is valid in that one thing follows from another. It doesn't really work as an argument. Insert "Lefthandedness," "lefthanded", and "lefthanded" in the three blanks and it fails immediately. Today nobody would think that God wants us to deny lefthanded people from participating in church. Granted, the Church used to think that, and so did society. Lefthandedness was considered a sign of the devil and lefthanded children were taught to write with their right hands. Thankfully this no longer happens.
This counter argument relies on the fact that homosexuality is natural. Sexuality is a born trait. Most people are born heterosexual, some homosexual, just like most people are born right handed and some left handed. This fact is something that those who oppose the rights of homosexuals reject. They believe that homosexuality is a choice. In that case, fill in "dyeing your hair" or "wearing earrings" in the argument and see how you feel.
It still doesn't work. The worst part of the argument is the third item. Sinners should not be banned from participation. Unrepentant sinners should not be banned. Jesus did not teach to the riteous, as He said: A doctor tends the sick, not the healthy. I think that third line also points to an inconsistency in belief: We are all sinners, sinners should be banned from church, but I should participate while they should not be allowed to participate. Does this make sense?
Perhaps I am biased towards my own beliefs too much. Many of us are. It happens naturally. I don't think I have the energy to be a Progressive Firebrand like Bishop Spong. I don't think I'm called to become a soldier of challenging rhetoric to bring people to God. I am only one small voice here. ¶ 8:39 AM
