Archive for November, 2011

So, what’s wrong with gay sex?

November 19, 2011 14 comments

I hope the title caught your attention. For a long while I was holding out hope that homosexuality isn’t so clearly defined as a sin as it is being proclaimed. I’ve come to some interesting conclusion, and I think I’ve got a pretty good train of thought going. Please, stick with this, because I make the argument for why it’s wrong, then for why it’s not so wrong, and then why that second argument is not so right.

The argument for homosexuality being ‘wrong’ or as those Jesus lovers like to call it, “sinful” is short, but also extensive. It’s short in that there’s not much explaining to do, but extensive in that the listing of little explanations can run long.
1. God says no to homosexuality (Actually the bible just always calls it a sin).
2. Biology. Look at your body and figure it out.
3. It is a lie, Galations 1.
4. Adam was in need and thus provided Eve, a distinctly different creature by way of sex.
5. Homosexuality would end humanity from lack of pregnancy if practiced to the maxim, following Kant’s categorical imperative it is both immoral and irrational.
6. It is a flourishing sexual play ground of disease that would kill of pockets of the population; Again Kant would say irrational.
…the list goes on…

This next section refutes 6-4. It’s kind of boring.
Why this is crap. Let’s start from the bible and work our way up. 6-> disease from sex is a circumstance of an action not related to the action directly but to ‘other-than’ factors. In other words, sex is possible to occur without killing everyone. Promiscuity while disease is so rampant as in our time is irrational, but that also applies to heterosexuals. 5-> there are other ways to impregnate than inserting a penis into a vagina. Also, assume only 3% of the population is gay (it is), then we just saved the world. It’s not being practiced to the maxim. Moreover If  homosexuality is hereditary [big if people] then the population will at least decrease with time, perhaps hundreds of years to see significant change depending on the tendencies of the gene, it’s penetration and so on.  4-> It depends on the way Genesis is interpreted. If one interprets it to be absolutely literal, then there’s a chance of accepting that. However, most likely Genesis is a poetic allegorical metaphor. Have you ever read those stories like “how the zebra got it’s stripes” or something like that? That’s the way I like to look at Genesis 2-3. It’s the story of how women came about, and why people sin even though God doesn’t want them to, and how we got to earth, and why men work in the fields, and why women have labor pains. Convenient, huh? So yeah, Eve was made for Adam, in a poetic allegory that reflected the already existing heterosexual culture.

I have answers for 1 and 3 as well. If they are proved incorrect 2 is becomes an “oh well”, right?
3 is contingent of 1, so let’s chat about God always hating on homos. In the bible homosexuality is never mentioned, at all, in any other way than as awful. Among the worst sins ever! It’s always grouped with extreme sexuality and rape, and pagan worship, and all kinds of evil. Gay sex is up there with rapping to death, as far as the bible is concerned. The conclusion is clear, homosexuality is not at all acceptable. It’s bad, right? Well, in the culture I’m immersed in homosexuality is separate from hyper sexuality and raping to death, and even pagan worship. Let the record show that not all acts of gay sex are in devotion to a pagan God. You get what I’m saying? it’s just different. Even heterosexual sex along with hyper sexuality, and rape, and incest, and pagan worship is evil. What about homosexual monogynous relationship? The bible is silent. So maybe, homosexuality isn’t as easily thrown into the same category of evil anymore. We’re talking about something other than what the bible was talking about.

There are some questions that then come up. Such as, can one help being gay. For me, it’s hard to say. I don’t know everything, believe it or not. If you’ve chatted with me on here you’ve probably proven me wrong at least once, probably more. I know I don’t know everything, I’m wrong a lot, and on this one, I don’t know. I do know that for most people it’s a choice. And, everyone can chose what actions they make, but does that change their sexuality?
Another good question: does the bible’s silence make it okay? Answer, hell no. But perhaps we shouldn’t use the bible so flagrantly to say something’s wrong that’s not even in the book! Also, there is a word that’s used as Driscoll says “the junk drawer for sexual sin”. It’s a word that you just drop and it means sexual deviation, and it’s sinful. So, you can’t just redefine things and then they become okay. There is a right or wrong, we have to find it.

Biology sheds some light. As I explored the idea of a spiritual connection of sexuality, and the spiritual is connected to sexuality, I wondered if someone cannot be spiritually fulfilled within heterosex, but could through homosexuality would that not make it okay? It would make it okay, but I’m starting to think that logic is crap. sexually there’s nothing a man offers to a man that a woman doesn’t. Think about the body really quickly. Am I right? The only difference is the blowjob factor. I just don’t see a man not being fully spiritual because he can’t give blowjobs! that’s ridiculous right? and women the converse. All that’s left is an extra-sexual romantic relationship. I believe if a woman is attracted women emotionally, then they should find an effeminate man. That will take care of that. There isn’t a real blocking of the sexuality here right?

Better arguments? Deal. Jesus is my argument for why homosexuality is wrong. Jesus came and rocked a culture. He turned it upside down. He changed religious presuppositions. Since I presuppose sexuality to be a very weighty spiritual topic, I then believe that if a culture was wrong Jesus would have said something about it! Anything! but perhaps, the culture wasn’t too far off from the truth. That coupled with the biology argument is enough for me to say it’s a sin. But I’m not a homosexual. I’m not experiencing spiritual turmoil over my sexuality, and I just don’t know. But for now, yes, it’s a sin, and that’s what’s wrong with gay sex.


Samaritans and Bias

November 8, 2011 Leave a comment

There once was a woman drawing water from a well. She met a man there she did not expect to see, much less converse with. He was silly and asked silly questions. After a while it became clear he was actually pretty wise, and possibly a man of stature in the way his silly words all started to make sense in a crafty way. So she asked a question all the intellectuals would talk about and fight over for hours in an effort to convert their hearers to their point of view. She assumed this would at least keep him busy trying to win her over while she went about her business as usual. He dismissed her question saying “You’re wrong. But it doesn’t matter, a better time is coming where the question you asked is irrelevant.” She then replied.
“yes, I know this great man is coming, and he will make it all clear to us.”
“I am he of whom you speak.”
She was astonished. She did not ever expect to meet this great man, much less have a personal chat with him! After continuing their conversation she left back to her village to tell all the people she could that He had come! Soon the villagers came to him, and they all continued the conversation for two days! At the end of it all the villagers said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because what you have said; now we have heard for ourselves.”
(John 4, paraphrased heavily).

I watched a video recently that said “Faith in a religious context carries the intrinsic notion of yielding to human authority.” This is, in a sense true of Christianity, and most religions, because the holy books were penned by humans admittedly not divine (I cannot say for all religion, because I am not familiar with all of them).  The statement then made is: “hearsay is an absolutely unworkable basis for determining reality.”

There are a few problems with this thinking. First off, it is fueled by a supernaturalist bias, when this is explored the other problems are exposed as well.
This line of thinking assumes that one cannot experience God personally. If the option of personal experience of God were available, as it is within the teachings of Christianity, then it could be verified to each person individually and independent of testimonial “hearsay”. So, in order to make the claim “Faith in a religious context carries the intrinsic notion of yielding to human authority” one must already have decided that God does not exist. It is a conclusion based not on evidence, but bias.
A funny question then pops up that exposes the bias further. Why was the qualifier “in a religious context” needed to make the claim? look at the statement without the qualifier: “Faith caries the intrinsic notion of yielding to human authority.” What about historical matters? I believe that certain events in history happened, and it based only on “hearsay”. I don’t reject them or even doubt them for that reason. The factual happening of events is based on the quality of the hearsay, not another determiner of reality. It’s easier to make such a statement when you limit it to matters of religion, which only adds the element of supernature.
Another question comes to mind. If “hearsay is an absolutely unworkable basis for determining reality”, then what is a workable basis for determining the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural and for that matter, all historical accounts?
It is not a bad thought, only an overstatement. It should have been said “hearsay can be an unreliable source for determining reality.” Absolutely unworkable? That’s a bit too far. I would even concede to the statement, “hearsay without personal experience of the audiences as an individual is an unworkable basis for determining reality.”
A wise man once said something to the effect of “The heart cannot accept what the mind rejects”. Perhaps the mind does not need to accept in order to not reject it. If the villagers of John 4 had the bias that the Messiah wasn’t coming, if they not only had non-belief, but already rejected it in their minds, it would not have mattered what the woman said, they wouldn’t have gone to check it out, and they wouldn’t have had personal relationship with Jesus.