Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Pet peeves in the homosexuality debate

Christian (Definition) One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ insofar as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin. --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
It's difficult for me to read much of the debate over homosexuality without becoming annoyed at both sides, despite the fact that one of the sides is "my" side. And it's not just the extremists throwing used condoms at priests on the left or picketing funerals on the right. Here are my pet peeves that you see often enough even among reasonable people.

For the traditional family camp:
  • If you're really that worried about marriage, why aren't you launching anti-adultery campaigns too? How much more prevalent is that?
  • How about some "continuity of marriage" campaigns to drop the divorce rate, if marriage is your big issue?
  • If the thought of what two men might be doing creeps you out, could you kindly just count to ten before you say something? "Eeeww" isn't the most persuasive argument in the world.
  • Come on now, all the anti-homosexual rhetoric: aren't you just glad you've finally found a sexual sin that you *aren't* tempted to? Do you pick on that one because it's the only one you feel you can speak against without being a hypocrite?
For the homosexual legitimization camp:
  • Would you kindly drop the sanctimonious routine where you lecture other people about the morality of love? "Sanctimonious" never comes across well, even from those with impeccable moral credentials.
  • Would you please not argue from Scriptures supporting agape-love and press them into service to support erotic love? It does not impress people with your deep understanding of Scripture.
  • Please don't resort to demonizing people who hold a more conservative view of Scripture. Especially right after you just gave a lecture about how much more Christ-like and loving you are than those evil morons who disagree with you.
  • If you reject certain Scriptures just say so. Can we skip playing the shell-game with words till the meaning of the verses gets lost in the shuffle? That approach just doesn't impress people with its forthrightness.
For us all:
  • "Take the log out of your own eye first" is always good advice for both sides in a long and heated debate. Really, not just "their" side but "our" side also, whichever side that is.
  • Please let's all skip the "your sin is worse than mine" argument. When people draw their own moral lines, they arrange for the other team to come off worse, shocking as that may seem. Morality is not a game of spiritual one-upmanship and the proper use of morality is not scoring points against your opponents. That's an immoral use of morality. And the immoral use of morality is one of the key reasons morality itself has fallen into disrespect.
Someone may read this and feel the need to say that they don't do those kinds of things. That's terrific. But lots of people do.

Take care & God bless

10 comments:

D. P. said...

Thanks, I needed that!

LutherPunk said...

Good points indeed. Thanks.

SingingOwl said...

Wow! I couldn't have said that even half as well as you did.

LOUD APPLAUSE from my section of the audience...

Maggie Rose said...

excellent blog!!

I'm here visiting after reading proclaiming softly's blog today where she referenced your blog on the "immoral use of morality" and just had to pipe in and say well done.

Maggie

Diane said...

Great post! Thanks...:)

Kyle said...

This is good. Thank you for it.

Funky Dung said...

Trackback:

Ales Rarus: Poor Argumentation in the Homosexuality Debate

"Those following the exchange between this blog and Ambivablog should read this post at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength."

Weekend Fisher said...

And I didn't even know I had seven readers ...

;)

Advogado de Diabo said...

Excellent guidelines

Wray Davis said...

Great post!