Sometimes, finding consistency and balance in various aspects of my personal worldview isn’t easy.  For instance, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, that it is sin, and that it should be avoided and abstained from by even the most blatant of homosexual-leaning individuals.  Yet, I believe in the freedoms espoused by our country’s laws and ideals, and as such I believe that it is allowable for homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not, in the process, attempt to steal or destroy the rights of those not like them.

I also believe that it is a waste of time and resources, not to mention a detriment to the testimony of Christians everywhere, to pursue a course of legal action that will bar homosexuals from gaining the rights to marry and tap into those resources reserved for married heterosexual couples.  I am not convinced that this is the proper (or most effective) approach to ministering God’s love to the homosexual community since legal action generally only fosters anger and resentment against God’s people (a resentment that, admittedly, the Christian community has brought upon itself). 

These questions, then, beget still other questions – where do we draw the line, or should the line even be drawn?  For instance, if we allow homosexuals to marry and gain benefits that are reserved for married couples, per the freedoms of this nation in which we live, do we then also allow them to adopt children (since homosexuals are biologically unable to produce children on their own)?  If we acknowledge that homosexuality is wrong, that it is sinful, are we then justified in allowing them to raise children, particularly since we have already established a precedent of allowances in permitting marriage and benefits rights?

Add to this another value – I believe that allowing the government to dictate and regulate every part¹ of our lives is a very bad thing, as it restricts so many of the very freedoms we hold dear.  Should the government even be involved in this process, should it take a special interest here by disallowing certain freedoms because one group² has fears and concerns?  My primary concern in allowing homosexuals to adopt is not necessarily that these children will grow to themselves become homosexual, since at least part of homosexual leanings can be attributed to biology and physiology³, or that they will be psychologically handicapped or confused as a result of being raised by same-sex parents, since it can be argued that many children coming out of abusive, heterosexual homes are also extremely screwed up. 

My concern is that children coming out of homosexual homes will already be conditioned to view homosexuality as every bit as acceptable as heterosexuality.  I don’t have a problem with them being tolerant of homosexuals having relationships and getting married⁴, but I wonder if they will ever come to recognize that homosexuality is actually wrong.  How will children raised in such homes handle the tension should they come to accept Christ as their Savior and learn what the Bible has to say about homosexuality?  Suddenly, they are faced with the knowledge that homosexuality is sin and the conflict that their parents are living in sin. 

I suppose, though, that this would likely be not much different than those children faced with a parent who has had an affair, who is abusive, who has divorced, who is addicted to drugs or alcohol, or any of a dozen other vices.  Maybe the problems would be no more severe; they would just be problems of a different nature, problems that the Christian community would have to adapt to in order to face head-on, to face with the power to heal.  Homosexuals who are allowed to adopt would give children with no homes a place to live, albeit one that might be less than ideal. ⁵

I’m still not sure that I endorse homosexual adoption.  It’s a process that I am still working through in my own head, and I am very open to feedback and opinions from others on this issue.  Where does the line between personal freedom and the welfare of the majority fall?  My own concerns in allowing homosexuals to adopt is for the welfare of the children involved.  Unfortunately, this is still such a new issue that there is very little long-term research available to describe what the effects of such practices might be.  In the meantime, I do urge Christians to be patient and compassionate, because as we have seen in so many other places, becoming angry and hateful and spiteful does absolutely nothing to help the situation.  The world is changing around us almost faster than we can keep up, but the pre-eminence of Christ is still able to effect healing and change on a powerful, widespread scale that should be humbling to us all.  We should remember that and tap into before considering any actions that might prove harmful to the cause of Christ.

1. Or simply too many parts[back]
2. i.e. Christians, in this case[back]
3. Though certainly not all, since there is a definite link between homosexuality and disillusionment with the opposite gender or a need for an absence parental figure[back]
4. Again, I believe homosexuals have that right in this country[back]
5. But doesn’t that happen everyday already?[back]

Scattered Words: Men, , homosexuality and the exgay movement

Ben has a written an excellent starting point on determining just what it means to be a man.  Before I comment further, however, I highly recommend taking a moment to give his site a read.  He is extremely eloquent at describing his struggle and journey to become ex-gay under the power of the Holy Spirit, and his honesty and eloquence are very refreshing.

Ben points out that our culture seems driven to squash the man as God designed him:

But still, I think the “man” question is an important one for me and a lot of other guys, gay or straight. It’s really not good to be a man, emotionally or physically, anymore. Our culture doesn’t really value guys anymore. That confuses the issue further. The things that make a guy a guy are often the things our society wants to quash.

Part of why this is the case, I think, is because men have become demonized in our society.  They are generally viewed (particularly by the liberal movement) as drunken brawlers, lazy louts, wife-beaters, rude and crude savages, etc.  Unfortunately, to some extent men have brought this image on themselves, but even more unfortunately, it is, I think, the minority of men who have somehow created this image.  Perhaps, a more correct view is that those men who are so boorish and cruel and ugly as to make headlines, as to draw attention to themselves, have been thrust even further into the limelight as to generate a very negative stereotype of what men are.  The result is a dishonest and inaccurate definition, both of what a man is and what a man should be.  I kind of doubt that this was any planned conspiracy to demonize men (except maybe for some branches of militant feminists), but nevertheless, what we have are men who have been made impotent in our society, who are not allowed to be strong and masculine, because those are the very features that are frowned upon and viewed, seemingly, as threatening.

Whatever men actually are now, there is a clear definition of what men should be.  The Bible, particularly the New Testament, spells it out pretty well, and Christ (and His Father) is an excellent example of masculinity.  Here’ s a few of the characteristics that come immediately to mind: strong, both emotionally and spiritually; tender-hearted and compassionate; self-disciplined; sensitive to the needs of others; self-sacrificing; conscientious; loving.  Notice, though, that just about every single one of these characteristics are also applicable to women.  That is because the very traits that make strong, masculine men also make strong, feminine women.  These traits bring out the best in our respective genders, allowing us to live up to the full potential of masculinity and femininity, as God designed them.

What seems to happen, though, is that men fail to be strong, in any capacity, are weak in character, show lack of discipline, are completely negligent at seeing, let alone meeting, the needs of others, and so on.  Our culture is so self-centered that the common philosophy of self-servitude reigns supreme, and rather than being true men, the male species is little more than a group of very large 8-year-olds, who have not yet learned what it means to have a strong sense of character and morality. 

Fortunately, not all men are like this, but enough are that it is a problem.  I think the solution is to get the focus off the men who fail to be men and onto the men who are doing it right, the men who are very masculine, who are secure with their masculinity, and who display the kind of sensitivity, leadership, and strength of character that so many in our society lack.  And what is so great about this approach is that we rarely have to look much further than our own family or social circles to find just one man who serves as a terrific role model for all.  No one’s perfect, of course, but then again, that isn’t the expectation (or at least, it shouldn’t be).  The expectation is that we try to live up to our potential as men, strive to fulfill our roles in society as God created them.  In so doing I think we will find that our families are stronger, our morals more clearly defined, and a whole host of society’s ills made better.

I’ve had quite a bit of discussion with a number of individuals over this issue in recent months, and as a result I’ve had to think quite bit about the Christian stance on the legalization of gay
marriage. I’ve heard it said that the government has the right and the duty to make homosexuality illegal, which would also effectively take care of the issue of gay marriage. But as I’ve come to think about it more and more, I have to disagree.

The United States represents freedom. It was founded with the basis of providing a land where its citizens could practice their own beliefs without fear of persecution. To that end, I believe that homosexuals have the right to practice their lifestyle, even though such a lifestyle is clearly defined as sin in the Bible. Furthermore, the principles of the Bible only apply to those who are followers of Jehovah God; they have absolutely no bearing on unbelievers, and we cannot expect unbelievers to behave like believers. Therefore, we as Christians have no right to force our beliefs on others through legal means.

I’ve heard it said by many, “Your rights end where mine begin.” I’ve come to see this statement as being very reasonable. Ultimately, homosexuality affects only the people involved in the
lifestyle (though this is not, of course, strictly true, considering the emotional and psychological effects this can have on close friends and family). Whether Joe and Jake are in a relationship does not affect me, nor does their decision to get married. It doesn’t affect my ability to have a heterosexual relationship or my ability to get married, start a family, have a job, get medical benefits, etc. I may disagree with their choice of lifestyle, but given that they are not Christians, I cannot expect them to live like Christians.

Tim Wilkins states that the opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality—it is righteousness. Ergo, the way to change homosexuals is not to force heterosexuality on them via legal means but to win them to Christ, Who then has the power to show them their sin and to change their lives. I, for one, agree and see this idea as further support for the notion that we as Christians have no business making
homosexuality or gay marriage illegal. The logical end of this is that, if we are going to make homosexuality and gay marriage illegal in this country, then we also need to outlaw every other sin (thereby destroying the very freedoms this nation represents). The problem with this notion should be obvious—it would be taking us back to the days of the Old Testament and the Law, forcing Pharisaical lifestyles, and effectively negating the work of Christ.

I do think that there are ways for Christians to be involved and effective in politics, but I think we need to choose our legal battles a little more wisely. Certain issues should be overlooked,
whereas others should have more attention paid to them.

I’ve also posted this on my forum, which is actually where the topic originated. I would much prefer you to leave your thoughts on my forum (though I’ve re-enabled comments here) in order to keep the thread of discussion together. I definitely hope to hear from some you on this topic, as I know it is currently a very touchy one in our culture right now.

For the past couple of days, I’ve been listening to an extended debate regarding the legalization of gay marriage, and the “rights” and “responsibilities” thereof. It occurred to me today that the primary reason for the whole debate, other than the financial benefits gained for gay couples from such legislation, is that gays are seeking the same thing everyone else wants—a legitimate, long-term relationship. Human beings were created for monogamous relationships. It is how our psyches function and where the greatest stability comes from. Ultimately, even gays want some sense of that, and they believe, and hope, that legalizing their relationships will give them that.
——————————————————
I found the book shown below in our local library. I’m just starting to read it, but the cover of the book caught my attention and so I want to see what this guy’s theory is about. I’m sure I will comment on it here as I work my way through it.