Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Conflating Gays To Pedophiles
Today I listened to Edmund White, a famous Gay writer, on Fresh Air. He has an autobiograpghy about his life. He talked about lusting over older men as a 14 year old and his seeking professional counselling at the time to change his sexuality. How did he know he was gay? He lusted after men.
There it is. According to White and many enlightened, educated people, our sexuality is defined by our desire. And according to White and others, a person is not being true to himself unless they obey their sexual desires. So why is it wrong to compare or conflate gay sex with pedophilia? Or beastiality? If there is not any other method of determining one's sexuality, then a man who desires sex with a dog or a child has no more choice of his sexuality than a gay person does. Fortunately, most civilized countries condemn pedophilia and - at the very least-look down on beastiality.
As humans, we are born with a sense of right and wrong. It means we have a choice about whether we obey our desires or not. CS Lewis puts it this way:
"Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature,'they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had this law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it."
So a man or woman may have all sorts of physical desires, but he or she is never without a choice whether to or not to act on that desire. The question becomes, what is right and what is wrong?
The New Testament tells us that believers in Christ must put to death the desires of the flesh- and replace them with the Spirit of Christ. The Bible is clear about any sex outside the bounds of marraige, including gay sex, beastiality, pedophilia and other sexual preferences. It is all sinful. (Sin is defined here as rebellion against God.)
While I'm here, I think it is important to point out that sex is a much smaller part of our life than our culture suggests. Sex is awesome, powerful, mysterious and more. But anybody who suggest it is essential is lying.
So what does a young man who believes in Christ do if he desires sex with another man? There are many in the world who will tell him to be true to his desire. They even say Christians who believe gay sex is sinful actually hate gays. (The Bible says God hates sin, but loves the sinner.) The Bible tells the Christian gay man (and woman) the same thing it says to all believers-to deny his desire and seek to be fullfilled by Christ.
To my brothers and sisters in Christ who desire gay sex, or any sex outside the bounds of marraige, I urge you to deny those desires. You are not alone. All of us struggle with sin- and we need each other to fight against the sin within us.
There it is. According to White and many enlightened, educated people, our sexuality is defined by our desire. And according to White and others, a person is not being true to himself unless they obey their sexual desires. So why is it wrong to compare or conflate gay sex with pedophilia? Or beastiality? If there is not any other method of determining one's sexuality, then a man who desires sex with a dog or a child has no more choice of his sexuality than a gay person does. Fortunately, most civilized countries condemn pedophilia and - at the very least-look down on beastiality.
As humans, we are born with a sense of right and wrong. It means we have a choice about whether we obey our desires or not. CS Lewis puts it this way:
"Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the 'laws of nature' we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong 'the Law of Nature,'they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation, and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had this law - with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it."
So a man or woman may have all sorts of physical desires, but he or she is never without a choice whether to or not to act on that desire. The question becomes, what is right and what is wrong?
The New Testament tells us that believers in Christ must put to death the desires of the flesh- and replace them with the Spirit of Christ. The Bible is clear about any sex outside the bounds of marraige, including gay sex, beastiality, pedophilia and other sexual preferences. It is all sinful. (Sin is defined here as rebellion against God.)
While I'm here, I think it is important to point out that sex is a much smaller part of our life than our culture suggests. Sex is awesome, powerful, mysterious and more. But anybody who suggest it is essential is lying.
So what does a young man who believes in Christ do if he desires sex with another man? There are many in the world who will tell him to be true to his desire. They even say Christians who believe gay sex is sinful actually hate gays. (The Bible says God hates sin, but loves the sinner.) The Bible tells the Christian gay man (and woman) the same thing it says to all believers-to deny his desire and seek to be fullfilled by Christ.
To my brothers and sisters in Christ who desire gay sex, or any sex outside the bounds of marraige, I urge you to deny those desires. You are not alone. All of us struggle with sin- and we need each other to fight against the sin within us.
Comments:
<< Home
According to White and many enlightened, educated people, our sexuality is defined by our desire. And according to White and others, a person is not being true to himself unless they obey their sexual desires.
Would that I were able to obey my desire for multiple supermodels.
Would that I were able to obey my desire for multiple supermodels.
# posted by 
: 7/12/2006 08:32:00 AM
: 7/12/2006 08:32:00 AM
" our sexuality is defined by our desire."
That is always your starting place for discussions of this issue, but I think you are starting with an error. People aren't saying that their desires shape their sexuality, but that their sexuality defines their desires. I'm sure you can understand the difference and if you'd listen to what people are really saying, instead of what you want to hear, your subsequent line of of reasoning will not stand.
I've put this question to you before, if your experience is that your sexuality did not dictate your desire, then you must have, at some point, made a decision --the decision that you say we all have-- to be straight. That implies that sexual attraction to women, men, dogs, children, trees and watermelon were all options for you. Do you remember making such a decision? Did you look at all your options and say, "I have a variety of sexual desires, but I think I'll go with women?"
That is always your starting place for discussions of this issue, but I think you are starting with an error. People aren't saying that their desires shape their sexuality, but that their sexuality defines their desires. I'm sure you can understand the difference and if you'd listen to what people are really saying, instead of what you want to hear, your subsequent line of of reasoning will not stand.
I've put this question to you before, if your experience is that your sexuality did not dictate your desire, then you must have, at some point, made a decision --the decision that you say we all have-- to be straight. That implies that sexual attraction to women, men, dogs, children, trees and watermelon were all options for you. Do you remember making such a decision? Did you look at all your options and say, "I have a variety of sexual desires, but I think I'll go with women?"
Roch-How does sexual preference present itself, if not by desire? I have no sexual desire for children, men or dogs, but according to you those that do desire those things were born with that inclination.
Is it impossible for you, being straight, to have sex with a man? Of course not. I see attractive women all the time, (and I work hard at denying any impulse that would lead to my lusting after them),but I only have sex with my wife. You are arguing that we have no choice over our sexuality based on your experience of always being attracted to women. The Bible acknoweleges every sexual desire- but regards any sex outside of marraige as sinful.
Is it impossible for you, being straight, to have sex with a man? Of course not. I see attractive women all the time, (and I work hard at denying any impulse that would lead to my lusting after them),but I only have sex with my wife. You are arguing that we have no choice over our sexuality based on your experience of always being attracted to women. The Bible acknoweleges every sexual desire- but regards any sex outside of marraige as sinful.
Chip:
Your post was a well put attempt to join the fray. I admire your courage.
I heard a nearly 90-year-old Baptist preacher this weekend preach about God's tolerance. He based his sermon from Isaiah 55:7-12.
He then went on to say that Baptist should listen for God's will and not use their own judgments to guide the church. He said that men have created too many schisms in the body of Christ.
As an example, he said he was certain they could get a majority vote to kick all the gays out of the church (this is a 90-y/o pastor with 7 Ph. D's, remember) but that they could also get a majority vote to kick out all the greedy people. He said he hoped they wouldn't do that because "I like being part of this church."
He closed by saying, much as you did, that the Gospel lists a good number of sins, but that God does not differentiate between sins. Sin is sin.
I relate that story because his sermon made a significant impression on me, and not being a Baptist, I was shocked, I dare say, to hear such a venerable preacher criticize the church in a round about way for focusing on one sin over so many others.
What the solution in our society is to the issue of justification of homosexuality remains unclear.
What is clear is that active homosexuals are sinners, just like I am a sinner. We both should seek solutions in God's word and look inward to edify ourselves.
That's my humble opinion.
Your post was a well put attempt to join the fray. I admire your courage.
I heard a nearly 90-year-old Baptist preacher this weekend preach about God's tolerance. He based his sermon from Isaiah 55:7-12.
He then went on to say that Baptist should listen for God's will and not use their own judgments to guide the church. He said that men have created too many schisms in the body of Christ.
As an example, he said he was certain they could get a majority vote to kick all the gays out of the church (this is a 90-y/o pastor with 7 Ph. D's, remember) but that they could also get a majority vote to kick out all the greedy people. He said he hoped they wouldn't do that because "I like being part of this church."
He closed by saying, much as you did, that the Gospel lists a good number of sins, but that God does not differentiate between sins. Sin is sin.
I relate that story because his sermon made a significant impression on me, and not being a Baptist, I was shocked, I dare say, to hear such a venerable preacher criticize the church in a round about way for focusing on one sin over so many others.
What the solution in our society is to the issue of justification of homosexuality remains unclear.
What is clear is that active homosexuals are sinners, just like I am a sinner. We both should seek solutions in God's word and look inward to edify ourselves.
That's my humble opinion.
# posted by : 7/12/2006 10:51:00 AM
: 7/12/2006 10:51:00 AM
Chip, Thanks for the reply. I'll refrain from answering your questions though, until you asnwer mine.
Jeff wrote: "What is clear is that active homosexuals are sinners, just like I am a sinner."
A legitimate perspective for Christians. The point that the 90 year-old precaher was making, which is sadly overlooked, is that other sinners don't get the scorn and denial of equal protection under the law as homosexuals do. We don't hear people equating divorcees with pedophiles or those who charge interest on loans being kicked out of church.
A legitimate perspective for Christians. The point that the 90 year-old precaher was making, which is sadly overlooked, is that other sinners don't get the scorn and denial of equal protection under the law as homosexuals do. We don't hear people equating divorcees with pedophiles or those who charge interest on loans being kicked out of church.
Roch- I have always been straight, but as a teenager I was approached on several occasions by gay men- and I was never tempted to try it. Does that answer your question? If so, answer mine.
JS- a person who commits the sin of greed- and refuses to repent of his greed- would be kicked out of a church. A person who is having gay sex an refuses to repent about having gay sex would be ejected.
However, if a person acknowleges his behavior is sinful and repents, he is forgiven and restored over and over again.
However, if a person acknowleges his behavior is sinful and repents, he is forgiven and restored over and over again.
"I have always been straight..." -- Chip
Well, there you go Chip. You assert that sexuality does not dictate desire, but you've "always been straight" and therefore only a desire toward women. You had opportunities to have sex with men, but you didn't desire it because you are straight. For you, your sexuality dictated your desires -- something you say doesn't happen.
Despite your experiences, you imagine that for other people, sexual identity happens differently than it did for you. You didn't have to make a choice because you were "always" the way you are. You imagine that for other people, they couldn't possibly have come to their sexuality the way you did--"always" having been that way. Because their sexuality is different from yours, they must have made a choice--a wrong choice. Do you not see the arrogance? The hypocrisy?
What reason do you have to believe that homosexual's sexuality developed any differently than yours? We hear homosexuals describe having "always" been gay. We hear of homosexuals who had opportunities to go with members of the opposite sex, yet they tell us that they had no desire for the opposite sex because their sexual orientation was towards the same sex. That is identical to the way you describe your sexuality. How can you come to the conclusion then, that their sexuality was a matter of choice?
Well, there you go Chip. You assert that sexuality does not dictate desire, but you've "always been straight" and therefore only a desire toward women. You had opportunities to have sex with men, but you didn't desire it because you are straight. For you, your sexuality dictated your desires -- something you say doesn't happen.
Despite your experiences, you imagine that for other people, sexual identity happens differently than it did for you. You didn't have to make a choice because you were "always" the way you are. You imagine that for other people, they couldn't possibly have come to their sexuality the way you did--"always" having been that way. Because their sexuality is different from yours, they must have made a choice--a wrong choice. Do you not see the arrogance? The hypocrisy?
What reason do you have to believe that homosexual's sexuality developed any differently than yours? We hear homosexuals describe having "always" been gay. We hear of homosexuals who had opportunities to go with members of the opposite sex, yet they tell us that they had no desire for the opposite sex because their sexual orientation was towards the same sex. That is identical to the way you describe your sexuality. How can you come to the conclusion then, that their sexuality was a matter of choice?
"How does sexual preference present itself, if not by desire?"
Desire is a reflection of sexual preference.
"I have no sexual desire for children, men or dogs, but according to you those that do desire those things were born with that inclination."
No, I did not say that. I'm saying that homosexuals came to their sexual orientation as honestly as you and I came to ours. What makes someone want to have sex with animals? I really don't know enough about it to say.
"Is it impossible for you, being straight, to have sex with a man? Of course not."
Impossible? Probably not. If someone I loved were being held at gun point only to be released upon me having sex with a man. I'd do it. Wouldn't you? But that hardly has any bearing on a discussion of sexual orientation or desire.
Desire is a reflection of sexual preference.
"I have no sexual desire for children, men or dogs, but according to you those that do desire those things were born with that inclination."
No, I did not say that. I'm saying that homosexuals came to their sexual orientation as honestly as you and I came to ours. What makes someone want to have sex with animals? I really don't know enough about it to say.
"Is it impossible for you, being straight, to have sex with a man? Of course not."
Impossible? Probably not. If someone I loved were being held at gun point only to be released upon me having sex with a man. I'd do it. Wouldn't you? But that hardly has any bearing on a discussion of sexual orientation or desire.
Sexuality determines desire....Desire determines sexuality...Words...What is sexuality (unless we're talking about gender confusion) if it does not include “desire” as a most fundamental component? To say that desire comes out of sexuality is to say that desire comes out of desire. It says nothing at all.
Everyone makes decisions all the time whether to be true to their "desire" or not. I happen to believe that most heterosexual men are inclined or "bent" to "spread their seed" far and wide. Most men have an insatiable desire for sexual variety. Every day involves decisions whether to act on those inclinations (in thought or deed) or not. Thus, as to our common experience of "heterosexual male sexuality," having many or multiple partners is a defining aspect of our "sexuality." Whether we act on that in mind, heart, or deed, is a choice involving whether we go against our base level "sexuality."
Add to this the fact two common experiences I have come up against on many occasions in counseling others.
First, many men because of having been abused sexually by males as children, have a confused libido. They have a base level sexuality whereas they "get up" by anal and oral intercourse. They are fundamentally heterosexual, but it is hard for them to have appropriate non confused libido when it comes to sex with women. It is hard for them to “get up” for normal intercourse.
Second, many people who have "let fly" sexually, and have let down the walls and barriers through all kinds of group sexual encounters, find that any kind of sex will do just fine. Their desires are spread all over the map. Often this has been enhanced by pornography. Acting on sexual impulses even "against one's normal grain" actually changes that grain, changes one's "sexuality." Again, choice is always there, impacting desire, just as desire impacts choice.
The bottom like in that the arguments for homosexual sex based on "desire" or some vague notion of sexuality eventually become arguments for all kinds of sex. Ultimately individually we have to draw lines based on some sort of moral compass. and, corporately, as to laws, on some sort of moral consensus. The argument rooted in "desire" takes away all such compasses. It is a bad argument for homosexuals because it takes away the dignity of their choices and opens them up to the very kind of arguments as being made here. It also makes them out to be children, non grown-ups, people who cannot counter or act against their desires. Much better to say one chooses to be homosexual in terms of one’s way of life. More dignity there. It is a bad argument culturally because it leads quickly to moral and sexual anarchy, including, eventually, some forms of pedophilia.
Post a Comment
Everyone makes decisions all the time whether to be true to their "desire" or not. I happen to believe that most heterosexual men are inclined or "bent" to "spread their seed" far and wide. Most men have an insatiable desire for sexual variety. Every day involves decisions whether to act on those inclinations (in thought or deed) or not. Thus, as to our common experience of "heterosexual male sexuality," having many or multiple partners is a defining aspect of our "sexuality." Whether we act on that in mind, heart, or deed, is a choice involving whether we go against our base level "sexuality."
Add to this the fact two common experiences I have come up against on many occasions in counseling others.
First, many men because of having been abused sexually by males as children, have a confused libido. They have a base level sexuality whereas they "get up" by anal and oral intercourse. They are fundamentally heterosexual, but it is hard for them to have appropriate non confused libido when it comes to sex with women. It is hard for them to “get up” for normal intercourse.
Second, many people who have "let fly" sexually, and have let down the walls and barriers through all kinds of group sexual encounters, find that any kind of sex will do just fine. Their desires are spread all over the map. Often this has been enhanced by pornography. Acting on sexual impulses even "against one's normal grain" actually changes that grain, changes one's "sexuality." Again, choice is always there, impacting desire, just as desire impacts choice.
The bottom like in that the arguments for homosexual sex based on "desire" or some vague notion of sexuality eventually become arguments for all kinds of sex. Ultimately individually we have to draw lines based on some sort of moral compass. and, corporately, as to laws, on some sort of moral consensus. The argument rooted in "desire" takes away all such compasses. It is a bad argument for homosexuals because it takes away the dignity of their choices and opens them up to the very kind of arguments as being made here. It also makes them out to be children, non grown-ups, people who cannot counter or act against their desires. Much better to say one chooses to be homosexual in terms of one’s way of life. More dignity there. It is a bad argument culturally because it leads quickly to moral and sexual anarchy, including, eventually, some forms of pedophilia.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]