Tag: homosexuality

Who We Are

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

WORLD Magazine columnist Janie B. Cheaney is a good writer. I enjoy reading her columns, and I often find them to be well thought out and even thought-provoking. I have also found, however, that I seem to disagree with her at least as often as not. Such is the case again with her column entitled “The heart of the matter” in the June 1, 2013 issue. The subtitle of her column is “Homosexuals and the rest of us sinners are who we are, and that is the problem.” Unfortunately, Cheaney’s premise is wrong, and she makes several assertions throughout her column that are wrong.

Cheaney begins her piece with a quick rundown of some of the more prominent conservatives to have endorsed same-sex marriage. But then she starts the second paragraph with this: “So-called gay rights (for lack of a better term) is the third great civil-rights movement of the last 60 years, and the most vexed. Here’s why: Racism challenged society, feminism challenged the family, but sexual identity challenges our very being.”

I have argued in this space on numerous previous occasions that gay rights is not a civil rights issue, and I was disappointed to say the least that Cheaney has jumped on board with those who say that it is. And the reason that it is not is because the conclusion of Cheaney’s explanation is exactly wrong. Sexual identity does not challenge our “very being.” Our “very being” is that we are human beings created in the image of God. If you want to go further than that we are male and female human beings. But that is the extent of our “very being.” The identities that have been created in recent years, neatly summed up in the letters “LGBTQ” are man-made labels to describe chosen behaviors and preferences, but they are not identities. Cheaney calls them “a range of identities with unfixed borders,” but that is wrong. The unfixed borders part of the statement may be accurate; after all, the Q stands for, depending on who you ask or where you look, “queer” or “questioning,” but means, in either instance, someone who is uncertain of which label fits them.

Still, labels is all they are, not identities. For one thing, identities do not change; the very beginning of the definition of “identity” is “the state or fact of remaining the same one or ones, as under varying aspects or conditions.” They are further not identities because those behaviors abbreviated by LGBTQ describe personal preferences and possibly personal behaviors, but not who a person is. The same is just as true of a heterosexual as a homosexual, by the way. Heterosexuality is defined as, “sexual feeling or behavior directed toward a person or persons of the opposite sex.” Neither feelings nor behaviors are identities. I am certainly not identifiable by my feelings–and thank God for that, by the way! Nor am I identified by my behaviors. You may be able to learn a lot about me by what I do, but none of those things are me. Many labels can be applied accurately to me–husband, father, son, brother, teacher, friend, fan, reader, writer, colleague, employee, and on and on I could go. But if you took away each and every one of those things you would not eliminate me; I would still exist if none of those labels were still applicable, and therefore none of those things are my identity.

Cheaney uses a man named Christopher Yuan as an example of her point. Of Yuan she writes, “His identity was inseparable from his sexuality, and by his early twenties he knew he couldn’t change it. He was and always would be gay.” Therein lies the problem, though; his sexuality is separable from his identity.

Cheaney goes on to explain that sin is a matter of who we are. She writes, “‘This is who I am’ unwittingly bears the human soul. Sin is not primarily a matter of what we do but who we are. We are liars, idolators, adulterers, hypocrites, perverts. That is why we lie (to ourselves especially), worship the creature rather than the Creator, stray from our true lover, pretend righteousness we don’t have, and misuse God’s gifts to our own selfish ends. But most of those sins can be hidden, even within the church. The homosexual’s peculiar burden is that his sin can’t be hidden.”

Let’s take that apart a bit. First of all, yes, we are sinners–all of us. Scripture makes it clear that every human is a sinner, and that every human is born a sinner. Sinner, therefore, could accurately be included as part of our identities. And while Scripture also makes it clear that to be guilty of any part of the law is to be guilty of all, that does not mean that every person has actually committed each act. James 2 makes it clear that when we break God’s law in any way we are guilty of it all. James 2:10-11 reads, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (ESV). That does not mean, though, that if I have committed adultery I might as well also commit murder. It does not mean that if I have lied I might as well also steal. It simply means that it does not matter which of God’s laws I break, by breaking them I fall short of the glory of God and am therefore unworthy to spend eternity in His presence (Romans 3:23).

However–and this is a very important however–the fact that I am a sinner does not mean I have free license to sin. By God’s grace my sins have been forgiven, and with the leading of the Holy Spirit and my yielding to Him I do not have to live a life of sin. Paul makes it very clear that just because God’s grace enables the forgiveness of sins does not give me freedom to sin (Romans 6). So yes, some sins can be hidden, and some much more easily than others, but the fact that we are born sinners does not mean we have to sin continually, and certainly does not mean that we should sin.

So, to my second point, Cheaney says that homosexuality cannot be hidden. I disagree. If homosexuality is a feeling, it can definitely be hidden. People hide their feelings all the time. If homosexuality is an action it can be both hidden and avoided. Plenty of people throughout history have engaged in homosexual activity and hidden it, I am sure. But the real point is that no one has to engage in homosexual behavior! As I have stated repeatedly, even if I were convinced that people are “born homosexual” (I am not) they still have the choice to practice homosexuality. And this is why gay rights is not a civil rights issue. People can not choose or change the color of their skin, and people cannot choose their gender, either (though with the “technology” available these days they can have it medically changed).

At the end of her column Cheaney quotes Yuan as coming to realization that the Bible does condemn homosexuality as a sin, and that God called him to be holy. “My identity was not ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ or even ‘heterosexual,’ for that matter. But my identity as a child of the living God must be in Jesus Christ alone,” she quoted Yuan. And in that regard Yuan is quite right. The problem is that she prefaced that by writing that God “was not calling him to be straight, but to be holy.” The problem is, one cannot be holy and be a practicing homosexual. If the Bible says homosexuality is a sin (it does) and the Bible says that Christians are to be holy because God is holy (it does) one cannot then argue that it is possible to be both holy and homosexual (it isn’t). Am I saying all homosexuals will go to hell? No, I’m not. Homosexuality is a sin, but God forgives the sins of those who ask, homosexuals included.

My point, though, is that Cheaney is wrong about homosexuality or heterosexuality being anyone’s identity. It simply is not. I also disagree wholeheartedly that homosexual is what anyone “just is.” Who we all are is fallen human beings, created in the image of God but born in sin and therefore ineligible for eternal life. My identity now, praise the Lord, is a sinner saved by grace. And that is a identity anyone can have who is willing to call on the name of the Lord.

And so it begins…

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

I have warned several times already in this space that the push to legalize homosexual marriage will be but the first step onto an incredibly slippery slope that will quite likely lead, eventually, to the acceptance of polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and who knows what else. I surely am not the only one saying such things, but I know that there are many people who have considered these warnings to be overblown. Alas…they are not.

In February, Scientific American ran an article entitled “New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You.” The article begins with a description of the various romantic activities couples engage in on Valentine’s Day and then makes this statement: “But two-by-two isn’t the only way to go through life. In fact, an estimated 4 to 5 percent of Americans are looking outside their relationship for love and sex — with their partner’s full permission.” The next paragraph states that such “polyamorous” relationships can range from occasional swinging to long-term relationships between multiple people. The paragraph concludes with this bold statement: these relationships “may even change monogamy for the better.”

Really? And how in the world could that be?

Well, communication for one thing. “‘People in these relationships really communicate. They communicate to death,’ said Bjarne Holmes, a psychologist at Champlain College in Vermont.” That makes sense, I suppose. I mean if someone is going to consensually engage in extramarital sex with the full knowledge and consent of their spouse that would definitely require some lengthy conversation. The problem is, Professor Holmes then goes on to contradict himself. He said, “They are potentially doing quite a lot of things that could turn out to be things that if people who are practicing monogamy did more of, their relationships would actually be better off.” Come again? The people who are engaging in consensual extramarital sex are engaging in behavior that people who are monogamous should practice, and if they did their monogamous relationships would be better? Surely I am not the only one confused here. How can someone argue that monogamous couples should act more like polyamorous couples in order to be happier in their monogamy?

By the way, we also apparently need to understand that “consensual nonmonogamy” “includes sex-only arrangements, such as two committed partners agreeing that they’re allowed to seek no-strings-attached sex with other people. It also includes polyamory, which involves multiple committed relationships at once with the consent and knowledge of everyone involved. Consensual nonmonogamy does not include cheating, in which one partner steps out without the permission of the other.”

So, sleep around all you want with permission, but don’t you dare step out without checking with your spouse first is the argument being promoted here….

Terri Conley of the University of Michigan has suggested that 5% of the population is engaged in consensually nonmonogamous relationships. That number, by the way, would be higher than the number of homosexual individuals according to must studies. On April 11, 2011 The Huffington Post ran an article in which Gary Gates, a “demographer-in-residence at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank based at the University of California, Los Angeles” said that his “best estimate, derived from five studies that have asked subjects about their sexual orientation, is that the nation has about 4 million adults who identify as being gay or lesbian, representing 1.7 percent of the 18-and-over population.” Also interesting is that according to one of the graduate assistant’s in Conley’s lab, lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals are more likely to engage in nonmonogamous relationships than are heterosexuals.

The Scientific American article goes on to state that “people who cheat on their partners sexually are less likely to engage in safe sex while doing so than are people in consensual nonmonogamous relationships.” In other words, those who cheat with permission tend to cheat more safely than those who cheat without spousal permission. Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of polyamory? Believe it or not, yes. But that should be no surprise, since many in our country have been arguing for years that condoms, and now “morning after pills” should be freely and readily available so that those who engage in premarital or extramarital sex can do so as safely as possible, and with little fear of any repercussions for their actions.

Why am I bringing all of this up? Specifically because (1) it is clear evidence that the slippery slope I and others have warned of is very real, and (2) the fact that there are supposedly more people engaged in consensual nonmonogamy than there are homosexuals means that it cannot be long before those involved in this behavior will be making as much noise and demanding as much “equality” as homosexuals are now. In February, Berkeley, CA played host to the first International Academic Polyamory Conference.

It really comes down to this statement by Elisabeth Sheff, “a legal consultant and former Georgia State University professor”: “people are increasingly thinking of relationships as build-it-yourself rather than prepackaged.” “Build-it-yourself” is a polite and inoffensive way to say “do what works for you,” both of which, being translated, mean “ignore God’s ways.”

I am not going to say “I told you so,” but…

A sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

If you follow the news you have probably already heard that Ohio Senator Rob Portman has very publicly changed his position regarding gay marriage in recent days. Portman has always been a staunch opponent of gay marriage; in 1996, as a member of the House of Representatives, he was a cosponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act; in 1999 he voted for a measure that would have prohibited same-sex couples in Washington state from adopting children; in 2011 hundreds of students at the University of Michigan protested having Portman speak at the school’s graduation ceremony because of his position on gay marriage. In response to that protest, Portman’s spokesman said, “Rob believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman.”

So what changed? Well, two things. One, Portman’s son “came out,” informing his parents in 2011 that he is gay. Two, this revelation caused Portman to “think of this issue from a new perspective,” he told Ohio reporters.

Senator’s Portman’s son’s sexuality is none of my business; it is a private matter–or at least it was, until his father brought it into the public square to explain his own sad, unfortunate and poorly timed reversal on the issue of gay marriage. And I do not choose those descriptors lightly. Allow me to explain….

The reversal is sad because, based on his own explanations, Portman has allowed the circumstances of his life to cause him to reinterpret Scripture, and to do so inaccurately. Here’s how it worked: Portman believed the Bible was clear in its opposition to homosexuality and its teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman (he was right on both counts); Portman’s son informed his parents he is gay; Portman loves his son; Portman faces moral dilemma; Portman solves moral dilemma by deciding Scripture means something different than what it does, and what he had previously believed it did.

The reversal is sad because Portman decided that it was easier to embrace a false understanding of the very Word of God than it would be to stand firm in his convictions. It is easier to say God is love, and must surely want people to be happy than it is for Portman to tell his son that he loves him, but he hates his sin.

Yesterday Portman wrote a commentary in The Columbus Dispatch. In it he states that his son’s announcement has caused him to think about this issue in “a much deeper way.” Translation: I was opposed to gay marriage until I found out my son is gay, but my love for my son trumps my adherence to the Word of God. Portman writes that his son told him that “his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it is simply a part of who he is.” I am sure Portman’s son may believe that, and Portman may believe it, too. I have written here before about the issue of “homosexual orientation,” and I am not going to rehash that now. (Desire and Deceit, an excellent book on the subject by Albert Mohler addresses this issue, too). According to Portman, “At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.”

Every parent wants–or at least should want–their children to love “happy, meaningful lives.” But part of tough love–in other words, part of being a parent–means standing firm when the way in which a child wants to live that life is contrary to what is God-honoring. Portman’s reasoning is exactly the same as that that I have challenged here repeatedly regarding the slippery slope that is the issue of gay marriage. Portman wants his son to be happy, Portman’s son is gay, so gay marriage should be okay? That’s absurd. What do we do when someone’s else’s son claims that what makes him happy is having sex with children? What do we do when someone’s daughter says that what makes her happy is the challenge of stealing and exploiting someone’s identity? What do we do when someone’s child says that what makes him or her happy is taking the lives of other humans whom they find to be unattractive, undesirable, or just plain irritating? Yes, yes, I know…those are not the same things, many will say. They are not the same actions, true–but they are all choices people make.

Portman continues, “I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.” There’s nothing wrong with such a wrestling match. What is wrong is realizing that the two cannot be reconciled and so deciding that the “Christian faith” should be reinterpreted in order to make it work out alright in the end. Does the Bible have an overarching theme of love and compassion? Yes. But only because the Bible also has an overarching theme of justice and holiness. We cannot accurately understand the love of God without accurately understanding the justice and holiness of God. Because He is a God of holiness, He cannot tolerate sin or have it in His presence. Because He is a God of justice, sin has a penalty that must be paid. Once we understand that, we can understand God’s love–His incredible, indescribable, truly awesome love that caused Him to send His only Son to pay the price for the sins of humanity because none of us can pay it ourselves. What the Bible clearly does not teach, Senator Portman, is that God’s love and compassion means God wants us to do whatever makes us happy. Are we all the children of God? In so far as He made us all, yes. In so far as we will all go to heaven? Not even close.

As far as I know all three of Portman’s children are grown, but can you imagine sitting down to tell them that what they had been taught and raised to believe was God’s Truth was actually wrong? “Well kids, your mom and I made a mistake. So did the pastor, and the Sunday school teacher, and, well, most of the Bible teachers we have respected over the years. Remember what we taught you about homosexuality? Turns out we were wrong. See, your brother is gay. Yes…that’s right. Your brother…our son. And he surely did not choose to be that way. It is just the way he is. It is the way God made Him, apparently. So, we have been wrong. Now that we know your brother is gay we can see it all clearly. We just never understood before. But gay people really love each other, and they deserve to happy just like everyone else. Just because your brother is attracted to men does not mean that he should be denied the right to marry when he finally finds the man he wants to spend the rest of his life with…..” You get the idea. Do you see it, though? Portman is saying that because his son is gay, God must surely think it’s okay.

Portman goes on to make one of the more idiotic statements on gay marriage I have ever heard: “One way to look at it is that gay couples’ desire to marry doesn’t amount to a threat but rather a tribute to marriage, and a potential source of renewed strength for the institution.” Uh, yeah…that’s one way to look at it alright. One very wrong, misguided, and–sorry, Senator–stupid way to look at it.

Portman’s lack of conviction (lack of spine?) is further evidenced in the following paragraph of his commentary, when he writes this: “Around the country, family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers have discussed and debated this issue, with the result that today twice as many people support marriage for same-sex couples as when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law 17 years ago by President Bill Clinton, who now opposes it. With the overwhelming majority of young people in support of allowing gay couples to marry, in some respects the issue has become more generational than partisan.” So, since most people think the idea is okay, it must be okay then. Sure. Another ridiculous argument. God’s Word does not fluctuate with the opinions of the people in America (or anywhere else). God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and forever, and it is absolutely clear on the fact that homosexuality is sin, it is an abomination. Of course, we do live in a representative democracy in the U.S., so the opinions of the people can change the law. If that does happen it will not make it right, though, and Bible-believers need to do everything we can to oppose such a change.

And herein is why Portman’s reversal is so poorly timed: the Supreme Court will soon be hearing arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act, and Portman joins the rising throng of people advocating it being overturned. The only thing Portman gets right in his commentary is his suggestion that the courts, and right now the Supreme Court in particular, should not decide this issue. “I believe change should come about through the democratic process in the states. Judicial intervention from Washington would circumvent that process as it’s moving in the direction of recognizing marriage for same-sex couples. An expansive court ruling would run the risk of deepening divisions rather than resolving them.” I agree with that statement. The Supreme Court needs to find only that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed lawfully and is constitutional, and leave the rest up to “we the people.” The Supreme Court must not legislate from the bench and declare gay marriage to be constitutional.

Taking a Stand

~ jbwatson ~ 1 Comment

Actor and former teen-heart throb Kirk Cameron has been in the news a lot lately, and most of it has been in the form of attacks on Cameron for his stand on the issue of homosexuality.

Cameron has a new documentary, Monumental: In Search of America’s National Treasure, in which Cameron addresses the founding of America and the decline of the nation, which he directly attributes to a turning away from those founding principles. I have not seen the film, so I am going by what I have read about it in articles and reviews. Apparently, though, the film has nothing to do with those issues for which he has been in the news, and according to Cameron himself, “never alludes to such hot-button topics.” The controversy stems from Cameron’s appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight in early March.

Morgan asked Cameron about homosexuality, abortion and other so-called social issues during the interview rather than talking much about the documentary. Morgan’s approach, in my opinion, was a result of Rick Santorum’s prominence in the GOP presidential race at the time and his focus on such issues, combined with the general tendency of the liberal media to seek out opportunities to attack Christian beliefs that are consistent with Scripture.

When asked about homosexuality, Cameron told Morgan, that homosexuality is “unnatural” and that it is “ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” That should not come as any surprise to anyone who (1) is familiar with biblical teaching, or (2) expects a Christian to stand by his beliefs. Cameron made the point in the aftermath of the interview and resulting frenzy that there should have been nothing surprising about his answers. Rather, he said, “the only thing that would have been surprising is if I had not answered the way I did. That would have been more newsworthy than what I said” (WORLD, April 7, 2012, p. 61).

Initially Morgan said that Cameron had been “brave” and “honest to what he believed,” according to the Huffington Post. But when Cameron expressed during an interview on FOX that he was blindsided by Morgan’s questions since he had been told that the interview would be about his new documentary, Morgan took offense and retaliated through Twitter, tweeting that Cameron was “moaning” and “whining” and accusing Morgan of “stitching him up” on the issue. One tweet said, “So I’ll let others decide if he was stitched up…or just a bigot.” That was followed by Morgan’s final tweet on the issue: “I respect his religious beliefs – just don’t respect his use of bigoted, inflammatory language re homosexuality.”

Hmmmm… Let’s see. There seems to be a contradiction there somewhere. Piers Morgan respects Kirk Cameron for speaking out for his religious beliefs, and for staying true to them, but he thinks that in so doing Cameron was bigoted and inflammatory? I don’t see how it could be both ways. After all, there is not really any less-direct or less-offensive way to say what Cameron said, is there? I suppose he could have simply said that he believes it is a sin and left it at that, but that would not really change the message. And I think that it is relevant to point out that Cameron did not launch into an attack on homosexuals or use the platform of Morgan’s international audience to advance his convictions; he merely answered Morgan’s question.

What we have here is yet another prime example of the intolerance of those who so loudly preach tolerance. Apparently tolerance means tolerating just about any position, belief or idea other than those held by Christians and taught by the Bible. After all, there were no loud cries of inflammatory language against those who spoke out against Cameron after his interview. Herndon Graddick, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said that Cameron’s comments cause “gay youth and victims of bullying” to “truly suffer,” and said that Cameron said that homosexuals were detrimental to civilization. (What he said, of course, is that homosexual behavior is detrimental to civilization). Roseanne Barr went much further, tweeting, “Kirk or Kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech.” GLAAD launched a petition called, “Tell Kirk Cameron It’s Time to Finally Grow Up.” Notice the implication–having a conviction that is contrary to what the media or the noisy masses say is okay is considered juvenile and immature.

This issue also serves to highlight the growing tendency of liberal churches and liberal Christians (and I do not mean “liberal” in the left-wing political sense) to compromise on, and even ignore, biblical teaching. Entire denominations have, of course, now sanctioned homosexual marriage and allow homosexual clergy. Outspoken individuals professing to be Christians are lauded for saying that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that God created homosexuals that way. The problem is, the Bible clearly does not teach that. Why would our culture embrace those who claim to believe something and then deny part of what it is that they claim to believe? It is easy-believism. Believe the parts we like, leave out the parts we don’t. That way we can feel good about ourselves and still do what makes us feel good.

A case in point, unfortunately, is actress and singer Kristen Chenoweth. She is a professing Christian, but is also a support of gay and lesbian rights, and she says there is no contradiction between those two things. How does she explain that? By claiming that homosexuality is not a choice, but is actually how God makes some people. “If it was a sin to be short, what would I do? Well I’d be right on the hell bus,” she has said (Chenoweth stands 4’11”). “I don’t believe God makes mistakes, and that includes a person’s sexuality.” I have addressed this issue in previous posts so I will not elaborate other than to point out again that there is a definite and important difference between physical attributes over which people have no choice and they cannot change (height or race, for example) and behaviors over which people do have a choice, even if you believe they were born with a predisposition toward such behavior.

Here is a comment from Chenoweth, posted on Flordia Agenda’s web site (Florida Agenda is an LGBT newspaper): “Even as a young child, I thought, ‘Why is being gay bad?’ I didn’t understand it. So I asked my grandma, who is the best Christian I ever knew. I’d say, ‘what about my friend Denny: he’s gay, is he going to hell?’ She told me, ‘I read the Bible like I eat fish. I take the meat that serves me well but I don’t choke on the bone.'”

The problem is, the hard teachings of Scripture, those that are contrary to what we may like or want them to say, are not bones in the sense that Chenoweth’s grandmother used that analogy. Fish bones are not intended to be eaten. The Scripture, however, is intended to be read and understood–eaten and digested, if you will–in it’s entirety. Not just the parts that taste good.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.” That little three-letter word at the beginning makes all the difference. Not some…but ALL.