Posted on 06/22/2009 5:08:59 AM PDT by Zender500
The issue of homosexuality presents all morally serious persons with an unavoidable question: What is the moral status of homosexual acts and relationships? One way or the other, some judgment on this matter will be made.
Are homosexual acts inherently wrong, dishonorable, and sinful? Or, is homosexuality morally neutral, with specific sexual acts and relationships determined to be either right or wrong by context and intention? Are homosexual acts morally good and honorable? These assertions of moral judgment represent something of the range of possibilities and cover most of the main alternatives.
Most Americans come to moral judgments by a complex and often confused process that combines moral intuition with emotivism and some (often quite minimal) knowledge of the history of moral judgment. Add to this the fact that most Americans are highly influenced by popular culture and mass opinion. In the end, as many observers have argued, most Americans are probably moral pragmatists at heart.
On an issue as controversial as homosexuality, moral confusion abounds. Americans respond to questions related to homosexuality with a range of often inconsistent and contradictory moral judgments. Ask a question about "same-sex marriage" one way and you get one answer. Change the question slightly, and you might get a very different response from the very same person.
President Obama recently signed a proclamation designating the month of June as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2009." The President declared:
"Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans."
President Obama is not the first American president to make such a declaration. In 2000, President Bill Clinton signed a similar executive order declaring June of that year as "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month." At that time, President Clinton stated:
"This June, recognizing the joys and sorrows that the gay and lesbian movement has witnessed and the work that remains to be done, we observe Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and celebrate the progress we have made in creating a society more inclusive and accepting of gays and lesbians. I hope that in this new millennium we will continue to break down the walls of fear and prejudice and work to build a bridge to understanding and tolerance, until gays and lesbians are afforded the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans."
President Obama's proclamation goes far beyond the statement signed by President Clinton. After meeting massive opposition to his proposal to allow openly-homosexual citizens to serve in the Armed Forces, President Clinton crafted the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In his declaration, President Obama pledges to end that policy. President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. President Obama has called for a repeal of that legislation.
In issuing his order, President Obama applauded the successes of the gay rights movement to date, but affirmed his judgment that "there is more work to be done." He called for enhanced federal hate crimes laws, adoption rights for homosexuals, and for "civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples," among other goals.
Nevertheless, the most morally significant dimension of President Obama's proclamation is the use of the word "pride." With the stroke of a pen, a vast moral judgment was communicated.
Given the background noise of cultural conversation, most Americans probably gave little thought to that word. Yet, by means of this proclamation President Obama called for all Americans to find pride in the fact that some of our fellow citizens are homosexual, bisexual or transgendered.
This poses a big problem for citizens who believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful. Can we find pride in what we know to be sin? That question contains its own answer. There is no way that biblical Christians can join in the chorus of "gay pride." The Bible is straightforward in its consistent identification of homosexual acts as inherently sinful. Homosexual acts are not singled out as the only form of sexual sin. The Bible condemns any number of heterosexual sins, ranging from fornication and adultery to a catalogue of forbidden acts and relationships.
Beyond sexual sins, the Bible condemns sins as various and deadly as anger, envy, covetousness, disobedience, gluttony, greed and dishonesty. The Bible declares all of us to be sinners and makes clear that not one of us can even understand the full sinfulness of our own sin. Sin is deceptive and addictive. Sin leads to death, judgment and eternal destruction.
The Bible allows no room for finding pride in sin. Indeed, such pride amounts to further evidence that sin is deceptive and subversive. Perhaps one of the most horrifying aspects of sin is just this -- we will find a way to be proud of our sin and the sins of others.
In signing this proclamation, President Obama put the issue right before us all. During the 1980s the "gay rights" movement began using the "pride" language in an effort to defy negative moral judgments about homosexuality. Calls for "gay liberation" became calls for "gay pride." The new theme brought political, strategic and psychological advantages. The assertion of homosexual pride is the ultimate rejection of normative heterosexuality.
Those citizens who believe that morality is mere social construction can go along with this. Those who believe that homosexuality is morally positive will champion the call for "gay pride." Most Americans will probably give passing attention to the president's call. But Christians committed to the authority of the Bible as the Word of God cannot find pride in sin. To do so is not only to confuse sin, but to undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Morally serious persons must take the president's proclamation as a morally serious act. As such, it demands a response. Evangelical Christians dare not respond with a claim of moral superiority as if we are not ourselves sinners. But we must be clear that we cannot find pride in sin, whether these are our own sins or those of others. The Gospel of Christ simply does not allow us to see sin -- any sin -- as a matter of pride.
We smoke marijuana in old SanFran;
We take our trips on LSD
We still bone our brothers down on Main Street;
We like livin’ wrong, NOT bein’ free.
I’m proud to be an Homo from old SanFran,
A place where even QUEERS can have a ball
We still BURN Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white-bashing still the biggest thrill of all
We don’t make a party out of lovin’;
Well said. Only moral relativism makes a virtue of being damned.
I get my moral direction from God. He invented everything, so I figure he knows a lot about it. He says men lying with men is an abomination and He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for it.
Let me repeat that I am adamently against the Gay Rights Movement becaue it ispure political pressure but I love the homosexuals and pray for them that they be born again and cleansed. If your sin is heterosexual it’s still sin. We all need to be rebirthed.
btt for later.
As a diehard libertarian I would say that in ether case, it depends ...If, for instance, the two engaged in the act are committed to a monogamous relationship and have never been in another relationship, either hetro or gay or lesbian homosexual, then I have no problem with what their particular peculiar proclivities happen to be. I will say however that they have chosen a lifestyle destined for misery and despair and I feel certain that they will have to answer for any "sin" as we all must do when we reach the end of our lives.
In the long run I don't particularly care what goes on in my neighbor's house as long as it does not involve pedophilia, bestiality or the abuse of one or the others living there. It is no skin off my nose what two consenting adults want to do therefore it is none of my or the government's business what goes on...
What the HELL have freaks and perverts got to be PROUD about???!!!
They have reduced the Meaning of Life to a glandular secretion. They have sex....you know....like oysters. Congrats on they’re big accomplishment.
Likely such a small number as to approach statistical insignificance.
I and most others agree with you that what happens in other people’s homes is not my business; however, here in lies the problem: when you decide to be prideful and DEMAND that I accept your lifestyle to be morally equivalent to my life with my wife and four daughters - you are WRONG!
Like I say all the time, I am not asking people to go back to the closet, but for goodness sake, at least get back in the bedroom!
Concur, but with the following exception. It has to do with the definition of sin and my belief that ALL sin is rather a matter of fact black or white issue with God.
Because, if Christian theological teaching is correct that Christ suffered death for all sin (with the exception of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit--atheism) then it would stand to reason that God views sin equally in that there is no sin greater than another; IOW, fornication, adultery, whoring, or even lust for another's wife all have the equal weight of sinful homosexuality in the eyes of God.
I point this out because I have known many damning homosexuality, while themselves "shacking up" outside the bounds of matrimony. I see no difference.
I agree completely! Please understand that I am NOT casting the first stone, because I too have sin. As I tell people when they ask when I was “saved,” I always say, “EVERY DAY!” Because everyday I fall short of the glory and every day I ask for forgiveness and then try again.
But, that is just what I am saying about going back to the bedroom. If you want to sin I cannot change that - I will pray for you and help you if I can. But, don’t make your sin a principle part of your life and then expect me to say, “Oh joy let’s party and have a parade!” It simply is NOT going to happen!
When will the pedophiles demand respect because this behavior happens in nature?
When will the people into bestiality demand respect because this behavior happens in nature?
After all these perverts are doing it behind the closed doors of their bedroom.
Where is this "done in nature"? I don't observe such among animals.
When will the people into bestiality demand respect because this behavior happens in nature?
Where does "this behavior happen in nature"? I have never observed dogs trying to mate with cats, or cats trying to mate with mice.
.
I like Pie even though everyone says I should be liking cake, but you don’t see me marching in the streets forcing everyone to acknowledge that I like pie.
Instead I use that energy to actually go out and procure some warm tasty pie. And you won’t see me eating pie because I prefer to eat Pie in my own damned house which I own!
Some people like to eat cake and they want to march around practically eating cake and/or pie in the streets and I think they help build a stigma against people with non traditional desert options instead of being a positive force for desert freedoms.
If I want to have pie or cake it is no one’s business except my own and there should be no government laws saying that I should not have cake or pie. The way to rights is through inherent rights and not the creation of laws. Instead they think that the way to freedom of desert choices is though the creation of more bloated laws and government oversight.
It’s no different than being a heroin user.
I told someone that heterosexuals should have a “pride” day and they said we didn’t need one but gays were expressing their pride of who they are. I countered with, “Why can’t heteros be proud of who they are?” She didn’t understand. But then again she is rather dim-witted.
Maybe you need to spend more time around animals.
After all the perverted homosexual claim of “if it happens in nature, it is ok” is used to defend their lifestyle choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.