I Dunno Why, But This Is Entertaining

Booyah!

Way Of The Master: How To Witness To Gays

Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort of the Way Of The Master visit San Francisco and make some excellent points which each Christian should hear regarding Homosexuality.

Of particular interest is there advice that you are to witness to a person with homosexual desires the same way you witness to anybody else. To God all sin is the same. There are physical, emotional, psychological, and most importantly, spiritual consequences to all sin.

The solution is the same for all sin too.

So why should our tactics change?

On Abortion

“If morality is the point here, and if it’s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can’t have 50 different versions of what’s right and what’s wrong” Mike Huckabee

Going to a humanistic but practical definition of the Moral Good outlined by a Philosophy professor I took a class with:

Moral good is a quality of the action or intention of a free and knowing agent, which action/intention adds/preserves the physical i.e.biological, psychological, economic, etc–whatever is “natural”(to the object) good of some natural whole such as humans and other species in some rational subordination to human and with keeping in mind the distinction between essential goods and incidental (trivial) goods.

In the issue of Abortion, are there some benefits which are essential and some which are trivial? In a relative scale, a continuum, are there some benefits which are better than others?

What are the benefits of Abortion as defined by it’s supporters?

• Health of the mother.
• Protection of the victim in cases of rape and/or incest.
• Protection from abuse of the mother and/or an unwanted child.
• Protection of those who are going to abort anyways by providing safe/legal environment to have it performed.
• Preventing deformed and handicapped children from having a less worthwhile life.
• Quality of life of the rest of the family.
• Happiness.

To these I would add protection of the perpetrators of rape and incest.

What are a few of the problems with Abortion? The anti-goods. This list is very short. I wanted general categories rather than specifics.

• Abortion kills human life.
• Abortion causes physical and emotional issues in the mothers.
• Abortion destroys potential.

Now, compare any other these items in these two lists, the “goods” against the “bads”, and is there a case where the “goods” are morally superior to the “bads”? For the sake of our discussion, how do the list of “goods” and “bads” line up on the continuum from essential to trivial?

In the extreme case, perhaps the strongest, most emotionally charged arguments for Abortion are those involving rape and incest and the life of the mother. How do these cases compare in the essential to trivial continuum with those against Abortion?

I would submit that killing a human to resolve an ugly, evil situation such as rape or incest does not mitigate the evil of the original situation nor the lasting consequences of it. If anything, adding the guilt of murder to an already traumatized victim cannot be a safe course of action.

And what of the child? The child has no say in the circumstances of it’s conception. The child could well be a prodigy, it could be special needs, it could be normal and unique like all other children. With special needs children, any person who can look at such a child and not be struck both the intense love such a child needs and is capable of reciprocating, is sorely lacking in humanity. The point is, to unjustly cut off the potential of any child at any point is a grave mistake and a crime with few equals.

Therefore, comparing the competing cases, we see that on the continuum, any benefit to the mother to be attained by killing her child would be trivial compared to the essential goods to be attained in the potential of that child.

And what of the idea that another child could rob the older children of some of their owed love from their parents? Is love a zero-sum game, where there is a set and finite amount of love contained in this world, that to add to those who need love we subtract from the total available to any other? To believe that is to believe a lie, an obvious and tawdry lie. A child both receives love and gives love, adding to the total love in a family. Love is not, cannot be, selfish. We experience love when we are not even the direct or intended recipients of it. To witness love is to feel love and experience it. As older children observe their parents giving of themselves, selflessly, to a new and dependent child, they can understand true love as it is modeled for them.

Finally, what of happiness? Is a smaller family a happier family? Are children likely to be aborted more likely to experience unhappy lives? It is true that abortion primarily appeals to poor and minority families (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a documented White Supremacist and supported eugenics and abortion as methods of controlling what she deemed to be unworthy aspects of society), but are these necessarily unhappy families? If even one of the children may experience a happy family, basic decency demands we give that child the chance to experience that life. And not every child who experiences an unhappy child will necessarily experience an unhappy adulthood. We are not automatons completely dependent on our situations and histories. Instead, we have choice in how we respond and react to each of our situations. To deny the chance that child may grow up to use their troubled history as a springboard to launch them into the far reaches of achievement in society and culture. Or do you have so little faith in humanity?

Abortion is wrong, evil, hateful, arrogant, stupid, and blind.

More Gender Roles Musings

My English critical thinking class seems to be in the full swing of the gender roles discussion; it is our first essay! This follows a rhetorical analysis paper we did on an excerpt (from “Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality) about what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’ in North America and the social schemas of man and woman; authored by Aaron Devor (published 1989). I honestly have no issues with his writing because it is well organized with an introduction, arguments, body defining ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ and a conclusion. He makes real observations and sound contrasting between the gender roles but it is with his conclusion that I have issue as it is far too short. He takes all of time to set the reader up properly and he concludes that the gender schemes are a matter of, “systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.” While I can tolerate his lack of articulation with such a huge idea, and agree with him, I believe I better sum it up with (keep in mind I’m writing it to context):

“In conclusion America was originally established as a patriarchal system in which male attributes were valued more than women attributes and because of this women have been wrongfully discriminated against. Still to this day in the 21st century America witnesses to the discrimination of women in the workplace, politics, civil rights and religion because of the gender schema placed on each sex. While there is still more work to be done in releasing ourselves from these gender schemes we must appreciate how far America, and even the world, has come and it is important to look back over the past to see what successes have been made.”

With that said I will jump to the classes’ interaction on this topic. As the except was analyzed in groups you got the feeling that people were mostly in agreeance with Devor but couldn’t quite seem to associate with what he was stating. For example, we could all agree that ‘masculine’ was being powerful, of prowess, forthright and ‘feminine’ was subdued, polite, and reserved but we couldn’t agree to how that actually applied to today. Devor’s writing would have us believe that the sexes are still in competition to one another versus both sexes complimenting one another. The teacher seemed a little concerned we weren’t getting the message as each student spoke up and explicitly or implicitly stated the gender roles have been blended and blurred. Followed was a student’s comment on how old the except was, “Near twenty years,” and how old Devor’s references were, some thirty years old which was agreed makes a big difference in context. I could see the light shining through slowly that everyone wasn’t buying the line. And then it finally hit me and I put in my voice.

“It isn’t that what is ‘feminine’ and what is ‘masculine’ has changed, as if that was the problem all along, it that’s as a society we value both gender roles more equally. Rather than these roles being in competition for value they are viewed today as complimenting one another and thus more equally valued.”

With this you could tell the final nail was sunk into the coffin of any hopes to bemoan the fact that there is such a thing as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. Many of the students followed with agreeance in their own ways. The African man piped up and said in his thick accent, “Yes, because with my parents my mom stayed home and cared for the children while my dad worked and fed the family. But it is not like that anymore, because in my family at the end of the month I ask my wife, ‘What bills are you paying and what bills am I paying’?” The teacher voiced her opinion that she was unsure of this fact and readmitted the question testing to see if we were sure the gender roles are more equally valued. Again more students reaffirmed what everyone and myself had been saying. I brought up the example of the show, “Queer Eye For The Sight Guy,” in which men favorably take on ‘feminine’ traits of manners, communication, thoughtfulness, etc and this is far more accepted today. It is also far more acceptable for women to reject men forthright and state their opinions.

Class was coming to a close and our teacher had to hand out the essay one topic. As I packed my items away I listened to her describe the coming writing task. We are to take Devor’s writing and compare it to one of today’s TV shows and see if his observations have remained true. Immediately this took me as very odd. I’d think an honest essay would examine whether or not Devor’s except is applicable at all to today, not some TV show. So I said my thoughts, “That seems a little odd in that Devor’s except is an honest examination of the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ genders in real life in North America but TV shows are purely an exaggeration of life. This assumes that TV shows actually represent real life today, which is not true as they take the highlights and make a show about it; like Seinfeld.” She replied quickly, “But that’s a comedy what about ‘Gray’s Anatomy’?” Hoping I’d think that was more real. However, I rejected that and replied, “When I was becoming an EMT I was in an ER room and it was extremely boring and the coolest thing that happened that night was a kid came in with a broken arm,” the classroom laughed as I continued, “and there was no such thing as adulterous affairs, arguments, gun shot wounds all in one shift. It is exaggerated and so are ‘reality shows’.” She couldn’t reply to this as we in a previous class discussed how fantastical shows such as Survivor were because of all the editing.

Luckily for the teacher time was up and we were all ready to leave and she dismissed us with the promise to continue this in the next session. Nevertheless, I believe I made a sound argument for not using TV in such an analytical essay. So we shall see, if she will not change her mind I will use such shows as, “Sex In The City” and “Will And Grace” to illustrate how much American has changed. Therefore, in conclusion it is not about the wiping away of what is ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ the argument that we should be discussing is how each is valued. The fact is there is male and there is female and they are both different and similar and both are needed to complete the circle of life within a family and community. I believe America and other societies, should be more dynamic in their blending of the genders but still respect the fact that we are man and woman. An example of this is in my own house, I often will do the house chores while my wife will tend to her business. I have no problem with it and nor does she. I don’t feel any less masculine nor does she feel any less feminine. There are many example of this in our marriage yet I remain the husband and she remains the wife with love and respect.

Political Blog Comment Spammers

Behind the scenes, every day, a plugin on this blog protects against comment spam. As of this writing there have been over 550 spam comments caught and deleted by Akismet. My blog, being as it is a little ways off the high-traffic areas of the information super highway, gets relatively little spam, but still 142 legitimate comments compared with 553 spam… Let’s just say I really appreciate Akismet, and you should too.

But there are times when apparently legitimate sites use comment spam to attempt to drive traffic to themselves illegitimately and under false pretense. Consider this comment posted under my review of the movie Flushed Away:

Faction 3 | faction3.us
You cant imagine how much money they spend trying to silence good people who will put their lives on the line to fight for change.

I think you can agree this has nothing to do with the movie I was reviewing here. This comment was not flagged as spam and the only thing that caught my attention was the fact that it really had nothing to do with the article. I checked out faction3.us and found they had a prominent article on Net Neutrality, on which I had written. So I proceeded to look through my site for the article I’d written on Net Neutrality, assuming the poster had just mistakenly posted on the wrong article. So then I checked my spam list in the admin section and found two other posts were caught as spam, one from Faction3.us and one from congresscheck.com. Both these posts are in the form of raps filled with both lingual and mental ignorance, vulgarity, and evil. I’ve included them here, edited only for lingual vulgarity. Please proceed at your own discretion.

NOTE: I decided to post these to illustrate that it is not just mental slavery we battle politically but spiritual slavery at the heart of that mental slavery. The heart is full of sin and deception and the lips speak out of the fullness of that lost heart.

Congress Check | congresscheck.com

I see a message from the government, like every day
I watch it, and listen, and call em all suckas
They warnin me about Osama or whatever
Picture me buyin this scam I said never
You in tune to a Hard Truth soldier spittin
I stay committed gives a f*** to die or lose commission
Its all a part of fightin devil state mind control
And all about the battle for your body, mind and soul
And now Im hopin you dont close ya mind - so they shape ya
Dont forget they made us slaves, gave us AIDS and raped us
Another Bush season mean another war for profit
All in secret so the public never think to stop it
The Illuminati triple six all connected
Stolen votes they control the race and take elections
Its the Skull and Bones Freemason kill committee
See the Dragon gettin s*****er in every city

www.congresscheck.com

And the other from Faction3.us:

 Faction 3 | faction3.us

Now ask yourself whos the people with the most to gain (Bush)
fore 911 motherf****s couldnt stand his name (Bush)
Now even n****s wavin flags like they lost they mind
Everybody got opinions but dont know the time
Cause Amerikkkas been took - its plain to see
The oldest trick in the book is make an enemy
A phony evil so the government can do its dirt
And take away ya freedom lock and load, beat and search
Aint nothin changed but more colored people locked in prison
These pigs still beat us, but it seem we forgettin
But I remember fore September how these devils do it
F*** Giuliani ask Diallo how he doin
We in the streets holla jail to the thief follow
F*** wavin flags bring these dragons to they knees
Oil blood money makes these killers ride cold
Suspicious suicides people dyin never told
Its all a part of playin God so ya think we need em
While Bin Ashcroft take away ya rights to freedom
Bear witness to the sickness of these dictators
Hope you understand the time brother cause its major

www.faction3.us

I was sobered when I first read these in their repugnant glory. Not only is it sad that there are those who believe such terrible falsehoods and are deceived in such astounding ways, but it is sad that they are able to make those beliefs so public on their own blogs. The internet is free and the truth is more than capable of standing up on its own in the face of even the most devious lies and assaults, so I have no fear there. But it gives an importance to my own small efforts here to spread the truth, shining the light to dispel the demons of ignorance.

You better believe I think I’m a crusader!

A Great Cloud Of Witnesses

Christians are again the most persecuted people group on earth.

There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith - more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision.

Anthony Brown, Europe Correspondent for the Times, calls himself a Liberal Democrat Atheist and claims that fighting persecution against Christians will lessen the rise of what he calls “Christian Fundamentalism”. This is an intriguing claim considering that it is during times and in areas of severe persecution that the Christian church thrives most heartily. God is apparently using this persecution to bring about an awakening. I say bring on the persecution, I hate pain and loss and persecution as much as the next person, but if that is what it takes for Christians to reclaim their identity not as some club to attend on Sunday, but as the chosen of God tasked with being representatives of His Glory here on earth, then bring it on.

A Second Bill Of Rights?

In his Annual Message to Congress, delivered on January 11, 1944, FDR proposed a second bill of rights. He acknowledged the roll the first Bill of Rights played in the founding of the nation and bringing it successfully to that day:

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.”

But he also believed “these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” Therefore, in his mind, a second bill of rights was necessary.

Why did FDR believe the first Bill of Rights were inadequate? Simply because it permitted people to fail.

FDR, and the rest of the world witnessed how failure in Germany through the 20’s and 30’s, a byproduct of European leaders desire to make Germany pay for WWI (reparations), gave rise to Hitler and his fascism.

To FDR, “People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” Therefore, to avoid WWIII, he believed that the U.S. should fight against poverty, and nothing could fight it better than create a second Bill of Rights guaranteeing jobs, food, a home, medical care, education. In FDR’s words, “All of these rights spell security.”

But can a nation’s constitution guarantee a “right to success” in the same breath as it guarantees a “right to free speech”? Should a nation guarantee a “right to security” in the same line as it guarantees a “right to equal protection”?

No. To do so is impractical (there are as many definitions of “success” and “security” as there are people because we are all unique individuals) and strikes at the heart of the sovereignty of God and the inherent choice God has given man to determine his own destiny.

The Undesigned Designer

Following is an article by a Professor Stanislau Dundon, of California State University Sacramento. I took Business and Computer Ethics under him and found him to be thoughtful and thought-provoking. He held several principled and unpopular public opinions on campus and remained a respected and important member of that community of higher learning. I do not agree with everything he says or teaches, but his beliefs have merit if only to serve to cause us to look harder at our own beliefs. The article is long, beginning with a note specifically addressed to teachers using this article in their classrooms, and ending with quite an extensive list of endnotes and a bibliography. Professor Dundon, when I asked his permission in posting his article here, wished me to convey that he

“would be delighted to speak to any audience on why so many biologists think, without justification, that Darwin cancels God when all that evolution does is place incredible weight on the power of the non-living universe to form the background potential for biological evolution. Which is why so many prominent physicists, including Nobelists, are convinced theists.”

Read the article on the following pages. Read more »

Merely Christian

::This is an incomplete article I first wrote two years ago to present at a discussion group I was then participating in. I hope to continue it and finish it as I finish Mere Christianity, Lewis’ seminal work.::

Merely Christian: A simple analysis of the life and teachings of Clive Staples Lewis

Lewis was an example of the equality of all men before God: His self-assessment as “a very ordinary layman of the Church…, not especially ‘high’, nor especially ‘low’, nor especially anything else.” Though he may have personally felt that God called certain people to a ‘higher life’ of religious leadership, he lived his life to its fullest fulfilling Gods highest calling, that of a sanctified life for Him.

Some people decry Lewis’ mantra of “mere Christianity” charging that he believed that Christians must accept and even relish vast differences in major sections of belief so long as the basic tenets were agreed upon. And yet I believe that whatever Lewis’ aim, the idea of a root to which all Christians can cling in unity is important. The Bible entreats us as Christians to “with all of your might, live at peace with all men.” The instruction does not include any qualification allowing for strife among Christians who have legitimate commonality. In fact, Christians are instructed only infrequently to disassociate with those with whom we disagree, and only then when they are in direct disobedience of Biblical mandate, and even then, only in cases where the Ten Commandments have been directly and grossly violated with no admission of wrong and no intent to repent and change. So Lewis’ cry for unity among the brethren is well founded. Lewis seems to echo and provide depth to the American reformer White’s dream of heaven, in which he saw not Catholics, Methodists, Baptists or any other group in Heaven, but Christians. Lovers of God and Christ His Son are who we are first and foremost, all else is secondary.

Lewis holds this view of unity and simplicity of faith with good purpose as well. “Ever since I became a Christian I have though that the best, perhaps the only , service I could do for my unbelieving neighbors was to explain and defend the belief that has been common to nearly all Christians at all times. …I think we must admit that the discussion of …disputed points has no tendency at all to bring an outsider into the Christian fold. Admittedly Lewis actions belie his beliefs in that he holds that the deep issues of Christianity are only of profit to the “real experts” however, he is correct in his belief that us holding to those ideas with such vehemence causes the focus to be on us, and not on Christ and the sinners He’s given us to witness to. If the church is too busy bickering amongst itself, it will not have time to show love to its neighbor.

Lewis also came upon his calling in a simple and effective way from which we may learn. After getting the “impression that far more, and more talented, authors were already engaged in such controversial (the branching tenets of particular sects and denominations) matters than in the defense of … ‘mere’ Christianity. That part of the line where I thought I could serve best was also the part that seemed to be thinnest. And to it I naturally went.” Lewis saw a need, and saw that his perception of that need was the same as God calling him to fulfill that need, and to fill that need he willingly went. In the Christian church I see (and I myself do as well) people saying “such and such needs to be done” and “so and so has needs and we should do something about it” little noticing that God has either given them abilities or resources to fill that need or do that thing. An interesting point I read recently had to do with our callings and the idea was that God has given us these ideas as callings and if we refuse to do our callings, God will not necessarily call another to do what we’ve failed to do. If the kingdom of heaven is formed by the souls of those trusting in Christ, saved and sealed. Then our work is made of the ideas and perceptions of the needs immediately surrounding us.

And then there is the singleness of purpose with which Lewis composed Mere Christianity. In explaining briefly why it was that he would not debate certain (as he saw them, secondary) issues or even address them in any way, he takes the example of an extremely divisive issue which is legitimately a major dividing point between protestant and catholic faiths, that of the worship of the virgin Mary. Showing the various perspectives of the adherents of the various faiths, he shows how having taken a stand on that would have made his book a thesis meant for the church, and not for the sinner. Keep in mind that the book was first delivered in the form of radio addresses given during successive years of World War 2 to the people of the British Isles and were strictly evangelical in nature. Lewis’ argument is that “If any topic could be relied upon to wreck a book about ‘mere’ Christianity – if any topic makes utterly unprofitable reading for those who do not yet believe that the Virgin’s son is God – surely this is it.” While we of the protestant Christian faith do take issue with the severity of this issue, and may question the validity of the salvation of many Catholics, we can apply Lewis’ ideas to other issues such eschatology or predestination/predeterminism. These issues are important, but we only sound like fools arguing over such issues before someone who does not even know Christ yet.

You Will Get Very Mad

So I’m going to make a lot of people mad. People who generally agree with me as well as people who generally don’t agree with me will be very mad. In fact, I’m only sure of one person who will not be mad with me after they get through reading this. So, be forewarned, and consider anger to be a warning that something might not be right with your worldview, because I am certain that while my worldview is by no means perfect, when it comes to this it is the only sensible view.

So major disclaimer aside, here’s what I want to discuss: Homosexuals. Not homosexuality, but the people who practice it. So, laser focus with me on the people, not the action.

First, they are people. Duh, says you. So then I ask what are the implications of being ‘people’? From the Judeo-Christian perspective, that means several things. The pertinent things to this discussion being that people are fallen and people are loved. Fallen from God and loved by Him. If you are not from the Judeo-Christian perspective, I recommend that you get that bit sorted out soon. You may still proceed with this discussion, but there are parts you may not understand completely.

A basic fact of sin is that is it an all-or-nothing state of being. You either are a sinner or you’re lying to yourself and everybody else, and that means you’re sinning. Jesus is the only human able to truly claim perfection. God is also sinless but as He is the creator of humans, he falls outside the category being discussed. There are no grades in sin, no degrees or permutations. This will fly in the face of catholics who believe that they must do things here on earth to shorten their time in purgatory, and that they must spend time in purgatory working off the penalties for sins they’d committed. Also, Muslims will be offended by this because they believe that they need to be as good as possible and follow the demands of Allah and hope Allah is in a good mood when they die so they can get their virgins or whatever a Muslim woman gets in heaven. And even among the Protestant category there are people who argue that there are degrees of sin due to there being differences of apparent punishment. This is ludicrous on its face. The particular gentleman I talked with who espoused this view claimed that because homosexuality resulted in various forms of deadly diseases not generally found in the general population, the homosexuals were damned by God to two punishments, one here on earth and another in the hereafter. To follow this logic one must ignore the plethora of mental illnesses, stress disorders, and various maladies which can be traced back to the most ‘mundane’ of sins. Who has ever refused to forgive someone and found themselves grinding their teeth at night? Stress disorders are common and becoming more common and they can be attributed to or exacerbated by any number of simple sins committed daily by each one of us. Also, if sins were not equal, the payment would not be equal. This is refusing the grace found in the propitiatory act of Christ on the Cross, or at least denying its efficacy. If STDs such as AIDS were punishment, the homosexual, even if they came to Christ and rejected their former ways, would still be under Gods punishment, and we know that there is “no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,” none. Sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners and equally deserving of the same punishment, an eternity of torment and separation from God (I would submit that the torment is not in addition to separation but rather a result of it, but that is a totally different discussion for a totally different day). We are also all equally invited to forgiveness, and offered the same chance at a new life, a clean slate so to speak.

A friend of mine, in a recent conversation, clarified what I see among Christians in general. We are so abhorred by the very idea of homosexuality that we cannot see the sinner for the sin. So quick to judge the person with the action. So eager to condemn a soul because we cannot see their pain. I do not excuse the actions of homosexuals, but neither do I excuse the actions of a child stealing a candy-bar, they’re both sin. I believe that most of the vitriol that exists in this debate results from the knee-jerk reaction that is felt by both sides of this issue whenever they encounter the other. I cannot speak to the pro-homosexual side because they have no reason to believe I have their best interests at heart. Personally, I cannot witness to anybody until they know that I love them unconditionally, and then that very love is what will draw them to me and then to Christ. This is not to say that I will not do what I can to prevent society from accepting and normalizing homosexual ideals and behaviors, and even this is a result of my love for those who practice homosexuality. However, I will not, extenuating circumstances excepting, engage in head-to-head arguments full of misunderstanding and hate for the person on the other side.

Socially, I cannot allow a ‘redefinition’ of marriage. This is a totally separate issue from accepting homosexuals as humans with all the rights embodied therein. The homosexual lifestyle is not safe, in fact far from that it is destructive, primarily to those actively engaged in it, but also, secondarily, to those around. The average lifespan of a homosexual is significantly lower than that of a heterosexual. This is not propaganda or lies, it is verifiable and true. Just as the shortness of life has never been a result of the backwardness of medicine, homosexual lifespan is not a result of poor medical knowledge. Better medical knowledge improves life expectancy and quality, but that is not a proof of causation, merely correlation. The homosexual is many times more likely to have been sexually victimized by someone in their youth, and also many times more likely to sexually victimize someone else. I will do my best to prevent such a destructive relationship from ever being legitimized and normalized by any society of which I am a member. I do not celebrate the ruination of peoples’ lives.

Why do we agree to call homosexual people gay? Gay is a beautiful word that has been co-opted to identify those who are homosexual. We all abide by those descriptions that define us, as long as they define us accurately, and note there is a difference between accurately and completely. A homosexual might very well be classified by any number of other terms each showing us a small portion of who they are. Just as I can be classified as ‘conservative’, ‘musical,’ ‘dull,’ ‘blonde,’ ‘Christian,’ student,’ and so on, Homosexual is only one aspect of the identity they have chosen for themselves. Just as I can change any number of my descriptors, any one else can too. The word homosexual is a statement of fact, defining those who practice homosexuality, or sexual relations between those of the same gender. Gay means happy, and a person who is gay may very well be a homosexual, but they may very well not be as well.

But the homosexual is a person, first and foremost. They are humans with all the beauty built in them by God and with all the struggles and problems inbred by the fall.

Now I have made everyone mad. If not, wow, send a comment and add any thoughts I believe I missed. This topic could easily fill a large book and I feel as though it is woefully incomplete.

Just remember, words mean things and ideas have consequences. What have your words meant (what you meant to say does not matter), and what consequences result from your ideas?