thinktoomuch.net

Pondering the South African Memesphere – Looking for the Good in Everything

thinktoomuch.net header image 2

Homosexuality and Broken Families

December 18th, 2007 · Posted by Hugo · 7 Comments

I may drop back down to one post per day, I have a little “consulting” job that has a steep deadline.

Today I heard a story of a family that was torn apart. Kids still in school, the father left the mother for another man. Apparently the one child heard at school that her “daddy now has a boyfriend”.

Now your “conservatives” will moan about the evils of homosexuality and complain that the father was “sinful” in being unable to exercise “self-discipline” to stick to the marriage. As much as I agree with them on how sad it is when families are torn apart, I have a slightly different take on the matter. In fact, the key element here is this:

Homosexuality is not a choice.

There are enough studies on the matter, I have enough friends that can confirm that fact. I can’t believe there is still any argument about this. How about this then: Former leaders of ex-gay ministry in U.S. apologize for “bringing harm”. Some more information on that can be found at BeyondExGay.com. I could even be politically incorrect and point out that sexual orientation apparently ‘affects map reading skills’ (I must skeptically wonder if this study was published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal).

So back to the point: I agree broken families is bad. But what is the cause of this brokenness? In my opinion, the greatest evil is society expecting of individuals to live against their own nature. (And I can quote Paul on this, you must realise.) The thing that split this family apart, in my opinion, was most likely the social pressure that forced a gay person into a straight marriage, forced him to live a lie. Yes, leaving your marriage is an ugly thing to do, especially when you have young children that needs a secure environment to grow up healthy, but I want to know, why was he in that marriage in the first place? All those people pointing the finger and saying “gay! evil!”, I blame those people.

With regards to Christian doctrine, I can lend you books by Christian theologians that disagree strongly with the anti-gay perspective, and argue their case from serious study of scripture. If that blows your hair back. I could argue from values such as compassion, which is what Jesus taught. I could point you at Another Look at Homosexuality and Christianity, on de-conversion.com, a site for people driven to apostasy by the wrongs committed and silliness claimed in the name of Christianity. Or I can sit back, throw my hands in the air and just call you hypocrites. What would be the most effective course of action? (And yes, I’m also a hypocrite. Please point out my hypocrisy to me, as you might be able to see it more easily than I.)

Furthermore, I could point you at a study performed on fruit flies, where they were able to turn homosexuality on and off at will, through use of a drug. (This was a study in Nature Neuroscience. Here is a summary.) This opens a can of worms: if you could choose your orientation through use of drugs or something like “gene therapy” or genetic engineering, would you or should you? Meddling with your own nature, um, “as ordained by God”, some would say? Of course, there is a huge difference between fruit flies and humans (with creationists even claiming they don’t share a common ancestor, grmph), and similar scientific advances on humans might be a very, very far way off, but it is thought provoking and potentially worthwhile to ponder. Has any Sci-Fi investigated this idea yet?

Let’s end off on a more humorous note (or it would be humorous if it wasn’t so sad): 12 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society.

Categories: Culture · Religion and Science
Tags: · ·

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Johan Swarts // Dec 19, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    interessante brokkie inligting oor die vrugtevlieë…

  • 2 Repent! Repent! No, not you, me! // Dec 29, 2007 at 10:14 am

    [...] Homosexuality and Broken Families, I made the following statement: Or I can sit back, throw my hands in the air and just call you [...]

  • 3 Al Lovejoy // Dec 29, 2007 at 11:17 am

    This is something I wrote some time back but does seem relevant here:

    Lovejoy on gay civil marriages and the church

    In December 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled that section 30 (1) of the Marriage Act was unconstitutional because the wording only allowed for marriages between men and women and gave parliament 12 months to include the words “or spouse” after the words wife or husband.

    If not done in time, the relevant section of the act would automatically be read to include those words, which take away the legal requirement that a marriage be between a man and a woman.

    The home affairs portfolio committee has proposed a Civil Unions Bill that would complement the existing Marriage Act. According to the proposed Bill the union cannot be called a “marriage”, is open only to same-sex couples and marriage officers can refuse to perform the ceremony.

    MPs will vote on the legislation on October 20.

    News24 invited Glenn de Swardt of the gay and lesbian association Triangle Project and a proponent of same-sex marriage, and Pastor Errol Naidoo, spokesperson for the For Marriage Alliance, to debate the issue. Their exchange, carried out by e-mail is here on News24.

    This is an uninvited response to that debate

    As the childhood survivor of two homosexual rapes in a single day and as an adult heterosexual and – a Christian by believing in unconditional love by the will of God through the perfect work of Christ: It is my duty, my ability and my right to stand on the other side of this debate from my somewhat unreasoning, and somewhat compassionless brother – Pastor Errol Naidoo.

    Any debate needs to be voided of premises that could steer the didactic course of reasoning in that discussion into channels fundamentally immaterial to the primary argument. And this pointless debate is a classic example.

    If the Bible is to be used to extract an argument opposing homosexual couples committing to legal civil marriages, then the Bible has to be subjected to rigid exegesis by its propounding students first. As Christians we are clearly told by Christ to: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind…and your neighbour…”

    The point of contention raised and quoted from the Bible by Pastor Errol Naidoo concerns sodomy, which has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Sodomy is generally recognised by disciplined Biblical scholars as the sin of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah – and recorded by the writer of Genesis in the story of God’s attempt to save those cities from what seems (intelligently) – like an impending meteor strike into an area of desert so rich in fossil fuels that they literally bubbled from the ground in the form of tar pits. Boom! Yet, as a normal, rational human being – the only crime against humanity or direct sin against God that I can see being recorded in that bizarre story, no matter which way I look at it, or attempt to interpret it otherwise is: the attempted gang rape of two angelic entities – travelling with a Christlike figure to caution those cities of the impending incendiary disaster about to befall them.

    The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was very, very clearly sexual assault. The way I reason it there is a Greek word for “sodomy” in the context of the Sodomites – Pederasty or Paedophilia in children and in adults – Rape.

    In Matthew 18 Christ speaks of this: “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my father who is in heaven.”.

    Doesn’t that seem closer to a clearer metaphor and an understandably very serious warning against permitting sexual attack on the spiritually innocent?

    Let us deconstruct the prejudicial, semantic-iconography of the biblical word sodomy further shall we. Can we possibly agree, to establish a logical constant – that a fully practising adult homosexual is biologically incapable of producing children?

    Outside of the rare medical possibility of a spontaneous pregnancy in a lesbian woman – I can obviously assume yes, although semantically the word is understood be used in relation to non-heterosexual men. So, yes – I will assume yes.

    Would this then make such a person the biological equivalent of what is also known as a eunuch? Someone who’s biological ability to procreate children is permanently impaired either physically, or psychologically?

    Once again, clear reasoning would assume so, although I am fairly sure, based on his track record of reasoning – that Mr. Naidoo might take exception to the inclusion of non-biological sexual-psychology within the framework of the concept.

    Be that as it may – what did Christ have to say about eunuchs?

    More so, what did Christ have to say about children in the context of marriage, divorce and eunuchs? This seems to be the point of the debate and conversations Christ had with his disciples and the Pharisees concerning the sanctity of marriage and the victims of divorce in Matthew 18 and 19. Both chapters need to read in entirety and in context and I am not going to reproduce them here. However:

    “But He said to them, ‘All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He, who is able to accept it, let him accept it.’ Then little children were brought to him that he might put his hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to Me and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.’”

    Sexual drives are the end product of chromosomal signatures. As modern scientists we know that generally an adult male or female human being has a purely male or female neuro-physiology and co-related functioning sexual organs. But if that was the hard and fast rule then there would also only be: right-handed people and no colour-blindness in the world. Medical science clearly tells us to hold that thought, because that is not the reality of known empirical medicine. There are adult men with male sexual organs and clearly feminine neuro-physiology. There are people with both male and female sexual organs whose neuro-physiology is contradictingly female or male due to variances in embryonic hormone production both then and/or during puberty. These people, when experiencing ordinary adult sexual urges – experience them as homosexual. And only in rare instances is medical science able to help bring closer physical and psychological gender balance to such tormented people through cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy. Even so, they too are an exception because many other homosexuals choose to be comfortable with both their physical and psycho-sexuality. That sounds very much like they were born eunuchs.

    Social and psychological studies have also proven that a secondary psychological cause of homosexuality among men is the physical or emotional absence of a father figure compounded by an abusive or psychologically domineering mother during the boy’s early developmental-psychology phase. A great many lesbian women state that they chose homosexuality because they associate heterosexuality too closely emotionally with sexual attacks and paedophilic molestation or incest they mostly managed to survive as young girls. These sound like emotionally damaged people who were made psychological eunuchs by the hands of men. They deserve deeper compassion and understanding – not summary judgement based on ad hoc Biblical misconcepts. Christ said to the priests who wanted Him to pronounce a death sentence on the woman caught in adultery, “He who is without [this] sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.”

    Then of course there is straight, irreversible genital castration. And no matter the horrible damage to their bodies – these are children of God who also need to love and need to know they too are loved – exactly like Mr. Naidoo does.

    The real pointless question to ask is: Does any of this affect such a human being’s ability to understand and affect the hard trials of unconditional love and sworn commitment that face two spiritual beings in a marriage? To fulfil the higher spiritual responsibility of that relationship and possibly become parents to a child and thereby allow that sacred relationship to reach its true purpose and evolve into a mirror of the Trinity? Are you saying two gay people cannot be legally permitted to love each other as a committed couple and be allowed to raise children as a family?

    “And the two shall become one flesh” is, to my mind, a metaphor that we understand as the combination of male and female DNA re-spliced and re-produced in a living child. And the real point of contention and the reason for every sexual law concerning marriage and divorce in the Bible is that the child is then the primary spiritual responsibility of the male who sired it.

    The biblical laws of marriage in the Bible were put there to protect the rights of children produced in a marriage and force moral responsibility onto the father’s who sired them by pain of death. And children were only supposed to be produced in a marriage to ensure this. Even in the time of Christ this was not so, because those laws would have been utterly unnecessary.

    There are both homosexual and heterosexual predators in this world – and they, according to my interpretation, are the violent sodomites the Bible warns society not to tolerate without any exception. They are usually all men and they all take sexual self-satisfaction from their victims and damage them spiritually. And according to Christ, our society would be far healthier if we executed such evil men. It was the only immutable death sentence that Jesus Christ ever openly pronounced and he never gave us the choice not to love their victims – even as sexually damaged adults.

    The church would be far better concerned with tackling the problems of child abuse, especially those problems emanating directly from the pulpit through apathy, blind neglect or corporate rejection – than showing how weak and intellectually uninformed it is by attempting to oppose political decisions designed to make our society freer and fairer for all its citizens. It might also be wise to stop corporately defrauding Christians out of their finances by fraudulently enforcing unbiblical Christian tithing, and rather teach the flock to be responsible for everything, and everyone – especially the national widows and orphans who are the direct responsibility of the church. And the church would do better political right by lobbying the government to re-instate the death penalty to execute, without exception – all child sex-offenders and murderers. And make sure that the harshest statutes on the books are the punishments meted out to people who abuse children.

    That would fix the church and South Africa, very – very quickly…

    The more orphans, the more abuse. The more abuse, the more eunuchs made by the hands of men. And if you carry a religious title or rank, then those children who are being abandoned and damaged right this very second are your immediate, direct, God given responsibility. And absolutely nothing else is. And clearly this has absolutely nothing to do with gay people choosing to commit in civil marriages and start adopted families.

    Remember, we were all adopted by the will of the Father. That includes eunuchs and families of all types too. I will accept that a civil gay marriage is unbiblical the day that South Africa no longer has stupidly rich, white or the new breed of oreo-cookie (black onna outside all wanna be-white onna inside) pastors while 1 in 5 people alive in sub-Saharan Africa are desperate child orphans – usually because their parents died of AIDS.

  • 4 Hugo // Dec 29, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    Hear hear! (I’ve seen some people write “here here”… does that make any sense?)

    I wish it was easier to cite sources. I’m curious about some of the studies you mentioned. Of course, as this isn’t a scholarly paper, the effort of citing sources is typically not worth it. (Which is why I wish it was easier to cite sources.)

  • 5 Al Lovejoy // Dec 30, 2007 at 7:33 am

    Try “The Red Queen” – I found it rather informative, but it’s better to go all the way back to the Masters and Johnson Report and work your way forward through to more contemporary surveys and sexual studies making up your own mind as you go along, because they all made small mistakes – thank goodness.

    The Bible study and conclusions are all entirely my own, although there must be other theologians out there who can read and who have come to the same conclusions. See, the basic premise stands and that is all that counts. Sodomy is violent sexual assault. It is recorded twice in the Bible and in the second account the crowd demanding sex got hold of a victim and ganged raped a woman to death. The rest of Israel retaliated and near committed total genocide on the clan of Benjamin.

    And Ja china, it’s only an essay – not a paper, else I’d have tossed in a bibliography. http://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0140245480

  • 6 Hugo // Dec 30, 2007 at 9:16 am

    Thanks! I have found that asking for citations can go down badly sometimes, as some people think that’s like saying “I don’t trust you”. I hope you did not come to that conclusion, that is not at all the case. (Actually, I learned this from a good friend that’s always asking me for citations, it took some getting used to. Hehe.)

  • 7 Dutch-Reformed Homosexuality // Jan 14, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    [...] you are straight, as couples are discouraged from kissing, or being physical, until wedding day. That is when the icky brown stuff meets the spinning thingy, and I start calling “foul!”, or “evil!” even. But I digress… let us [...]

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>