RANDOM THOUGHTS

I think a good name for an art store would be Axis of Easel.

Wouldn't it be funny on a sitcom if there were two characters named Jack and Chuck, and a third character came on the set greeting them with, "Hi, Jack. What's up, Chuck?" OK, so maybe it's not that funny. More punny than funny. What if the third guy's name was Matt, and maybe Jack says to him, "Get the door, Matt." Still not funny.

GREAT ARTICLE ON GENETICS AND HOMOSEXUALITY

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/findings.htm

Being black or white, male or female-- these are clearly genetic. But according to this research, being gay is definitely not.

THIS JUST PROVES MY POINT...

I didn't even have to look very hard for this one. It was on the MSN home page:

The more major sports leagues educate their players on this issue [homosexuality], the more likely it is that a gay athlete will emerge from the closet as eagerly as Jackie Robinson pushed through the Dodgers' clubhouse door.

There's that civil rights language again. Just substitute Jackie Robinson for Rosa Parks. Next, Sheryl Swoopes will be likened to Corretta Scott King. Believe me, there are some blacks that are upset about this kind of rhetoric. It really cheapens their struggle for equal rights.

Blacks during their fight said, "We're black, we can't help that fact, and we want to be treated as regular human beings." Gays are saying, "We're gay, we can't change, we're proud of it, and we want to be able to do anything we want and not only have you tolerate it, but to approve of it."

Which brings to mind a question: if you are tolerating what someone is doing, doesn't that imply that you disagree with their behavior?

HOMOSEXUALITY: MORALITY VS. CIVIL RIGHTS

This topic is probably one of the main reasons that I chose the title for my blog that I did. I know that it is indeed Pop Culture Heresy to say that homosexual acts are immoral. But, this is the teaching of ancient Christianity, and one, I think, that makes intuitive sense to those with a sensitive moral compass.

I will talk more later (I hope) about the moral issues surrounding homosexuality, but in this post, I want to focus more on whether homosexuals have civil rights as homosexuals. You probably hear pro-gay activists use this type of argument quite often. In fact, I hope that after reading this, you are more aware of just how often pro-homosexual forces use this Civil Rights language to attempt to sway hearts and minds in their favor.

Fictitious example rhetoric: "It's about time that homosexuals move to the front of the bus." (Maybe somebody said this or something like it, but I'm just making it up.) Of course, there's a reference to Rosa Parks' famous defiance, after which she became a Civil Rights heroine. She's all the talk right now, what with her recent death and with her body lying in state at the US Capitol, a much deserved tribute to her courage and character.

But is the fight for gay rights like gay marriage, partner benefits, etc. really akin to the fight that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. and others fought for equal rights of blacks? There are two points I'd like to make on this. The first has to do with the difference between the categories of race and of sexual orientation, and the other has to do with what "rights" gay activists are fighting for.

On the first point, is sexual orientation a neutral characteristic like race, gender and nationality? (I must give credit where credit is due: much of the following thoughts are things that I'm borrowing from a great site headed up by Greg Koukl and Stand to Reason, namely, www.str.org). Race, gender, and national origin are stats about a person that said person has no control over. I can't do anything about the fact that I'm a white male, so I reject the guilt that I might take on if I listened to the intimations of our culture that I'm of a class that is responsible for all of the evils of society. Rosa Parks had no choice in the matter when she was born a black American female, either.

Homosexuality is not of the same nature. Don't get me wrong: I don't believe that being gay is a choice like one goes to a buffet and chooses roast beef over chicken. I mean, if given an out and out choice, who would choose a lifestyle of pain, loneliness, lower life expectancy, chronic health problems, and being misunderstood over being in the mainstream? I assume many homosexuals enjoy life quite a bit, but it's just got to be more difficult in general than being straight. I'm sure we all concede this point.

But I do believe that there are choices that a person can make that can lead him down the path towards a homosexual lifestyle. Some factors that seem to play a part in being gay are foisted upon a person, for example, sexual abuse. But if someone who has been so abused then chooses to pursue sin, then he is still responsible for his actions. Ultimately, a homosexual is defined by what he or she does sexually, not what his or her DNA says. It's an issue of behavior. How one got to doing that behavior, well, it's really complex, and I don't want to oversimplify it and say that it was a beef-or-chicken choice. Cause it ain't. But if one never sleeps with the same sex, he cannot be a practicing homosexual. You can choose who you sleep with tonight. Having urges doesn't define you; your response to your urges ultimately will define your life, though. You may have heard the adage:

Sow a thought, reap an action;

Sow an action, reap a habit;

Sow a habit, reap a character;

Sow a character, reap a destiny.

The language that many activists have gotten us all using is a big part of the efforts to couch homosexuality as a neutral trait. The whole notion of "sexual orientation" (which I use elsewhere without scare quotes begrudgingly) is verbal trickery to get us to think that gayness is a category like maleness or brown-skinnedness. Don't fall for it! There have even been attempts to introduce words like heterosexism, which, I guess, is just as bad as racism or sexism. Providentially, that one hasn't made the Oxford English Dictionary, to my knowledge. And Homer Simpson's d'oh has, as a point of reference.

Here's an easy way to lead us out of the cave with respect to the categories of race vs. sexual urges: there are no former blacks or Hispanics or women or men (DNA-wise, anyway), but there are thousands of former homosexuals. It can be changed (www.exodus-international.org). Heresy!

The second issue here has to do with the definition of "rights." We're talking about human rights. Civil rights. The Declaration of Independence enumerates three of possibly more rights given to us by our Creator: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which of those rights are gays not presently afforded? Matthew Shepard was brutally deprived of his life by those who hated him and the lifestyle he represented, but those murderers are just as guilty as if they had slain any other human being. They are not more or less culpable because Shepard was gay. Matthew was a human being, and he was wrongly killed. His unalienable right to life was tragically stolen from him. But these killers were prosecuted, were they not? Just as they should have been. So gays are not deprived of their right to life without penalty to those who would deprive them of that right-- the same as straight folks.

How about liberty? Are not gays just as free as the rest of us to peaceably assemble, to vote, to speak freely, to publish and print unfettered? Just as free as any of the rest of us. Now, the sleight of hand comes in when marriage is construed as one of those unalienable rights, that gays are not truly "free" unless they can do what straight people are free to do, which is to marry someone they love. Since when is this a right, though? There are no double standards: as a straight guy, I still can't marry another dude, though I wouldn't want to. Eww. Plus, my wife would be a little miffed. No American is yet allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

The whole gay marriage argument is a redefinition of the word marriage to mean "have a commitment ceremony with someone you love." Like the guys at www.str.org say, "You can't marry your canary." I mean, if it can be "someone you love", why can't it be "something you love"? An animal, vegetable, or mineral? There's no end to the absurdity that results when marriage means whatever you want it to mean. God invented it, and we should take his definition and leave it be.

(The only thing I can think of that gays are not free to do in America is to serve and the military while advertising their sexual leanings).

Pursuit of happiness? Well, gays are presently free to live in whatever housing situation they choose, to seek any sort of occupation, to have any sorts of hobbies, all within the limits of decency and harmlessness that all of us are under. (This is sort of mingled with the right of Liberty.) In what way are gays not free to pursue happiness? Gays are not free to make me approve of what they do; if that's their idea of happiness, their rights end where they infringe on mine to hold my ideas and speak freely. I think, like many fellow social conservatives, that the gay marriage debate has more to do with homosexuals wanting society's stamp of approval more than they really wish to get hitched. In European countries where gays can "marry", only a very small percentage of gay couples actually exercise their priveledge.

I don't hate homosexuals, I simply disagree with their moral choices. I have that right as an American, just as they have the right to pursue their immorality. I don't think they're too hedonistic; actually, I think they're settling for slop. As C.S. Lewis put it, they're "making mudpies in a slum because [they] cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea." God offers the ultimate pleasure and happiness, and pursuit of sex (and drugs, and well, rock 'n roll) cannot possibly satisfy nearly as much. As Pascal said, we have a God-shaped vacuum in us. That hunger is too strong, too peculiar, and too big for anything but God to fill.


P.S.-- I wish folks would stop calling me and people like me homophobic. The Fab Five don't scare me. Their behavior disgusts me at times, but fear doesn't enter into the equation. I don't know Greek well enough to coin a more appropriate term, but I'm not a homophobe.

This is the inaugural post of my new blog.

I've been having this idea stewing in my head for a little while; I find myself having "imaginary conversations"-- that is, talking to myself, in the car, in the shower, anywhere I think I'm alone-- and I thought, hopefully not with arrogance, that some other people might want to hear what I'm talking with myself about.

I'm naturally a thinker, so this should be fun.

And rather than give you a huge bio of me now, I'll just let my character reveal itself as I post more chapters to the novel that you see here.