Replies

The extraorinary thing is the way the homosexuality enthusiasts have "centered" gayness, not as a behavior, but as an identity; hence, one cannot oppose it without being the equivalent of a Ku Kluxer.

That's true. I think we don't help when we accept their "sexual orientation" theories and try to separate the desire to sin from the sin. Obviously society addresses only the behavior. But the church has to see the desire as sin also, or we end up essentially on their side even though we might try to parse it and say that we don't see "orientation" the same as "identity." Everyone else sees it the same. We don't go around telling child molesters "child sex orientation is not a sin." Nor do we tell rapists "sex-by-force orientation is not a sin." "Homosexual desire" or "homosexual lust" would be more appropriate terms. Sinful behavior comes from a sinful desire from a sinful heart. Someone can struggle with homosexual desire. That keeps it in the behavior category. If someone has homosexual orientation, well then it seems to move outside the behavior/personal responsiblity category. It makes the person a victim instead of a responsible-for-his-own-thoughts-and-actions human being.

We lost this battle back when we started adopting their terms and throwing out "I love you" all over the place in response to their false accusations of hate. Now the term "sexual orientation" is written into a bunch of anti-discrimination laws. So now to call it sin is to be guilty of persecution and spiritual violence. No other perverted sexual desire is treated in this way. Though they all could be, what with the use of that vague term "sexual orientation." It turns all sexual perversity into an identity to protect.