There are lots of agendas out there. The liberals want to accomplish this and the progressives (as they differ in some way or another) want to accomplish that and the Christians hope to do this other thing and the Republicans (who aren't actually Christians, even if there are Christians among them) are aiming in that direction. The "gay community" vehemently denies it, but if you believe something is true (like "homosexuals are being mistreated") and you believe it is not right ("They shouldn't be"), then, let's face it, you'll have an agenda to right what you believe to be a wrong. They, too, have an agenda.
The most devious ones, however, are the ones that are "under the radar". You don't see them coming until it's too late. It's only when it's accomplished or, perhaps, long after that you realize, "Hey! Someone had an agenda they were working here ... and they did it ... and I didn't know it!" These types go unnoticed because 1) they are not broadcast, and 2) if you do notice you don't really notice the impact. "So? What's the big deal?" And if it's no big deal, then it's not an issue. But there is one of these really sneaky ones that has been worming its way through "the fabric of American society" (I just heard that phrase again recently and was both baffled and fascinated by it) generally unnoticed and largely unchallenged. Nay, in some quarters -- especially Christian arenas -- it is championed. And I didn't choose the word "worming" lightly. Like worms in fabric, its consequences are much worse than they initially appear -- even devastating.
What is this evil agenda? It's best known name is "gender neutral". That's it's "popular" name. It also goes by the ever-so-friendly term "gender equality". The reality is that its part of an agenda that aims at removing gender from our social equations. When the French are told that men are different than women, they reply, "Vive la différence!" -- "Long live the difference!" But we've moved away from that now. What we really want these days is "gender neutral" ... or "There is no difference!"
Consider some of the evidence:
1. It has become ... unwise to say something like "she acts like a girl" because, really, what does "acts like a girl" mean? How are girls (or boys) supposed to act? What makes particular things "girly" or "manly", "female" or "male"? It's all a faulty social construct aimed at keeping genders apart. No, no, what we really want is to have our boys "get in touch with their feminine side" and "act less like boys" (tell me again what that means). And girls ... well, they ought to be more like men ... except, of course, not.
2. The Bible uses language like "head" and "submit" and places roles on males and females that include those concepts. Today it is unpopular to suggest that a wife ought to submit to her husband or that the husband is head of the wife ... even though the language of the Bible is clear that both are commanded.
3. Despite nearly 2000 years of biblical certainty that women shouldn't be allowed to be pastors, today it is common. Why? Because "Why should women be singled out?" Not "Well, that's not what it says." No, that came after the first objection.
4. In 2005, Zondervan published Today's New International Version. Referred to as the TNIV, one of the biggest reasons for the new version is that language is changing. You see, our culture no longer knows that gender-specific terms can be used in a generic sense. Didn't you know that? So when a boat captain refers to his boat as "she", it must mean that it's actually a female vessel (as opposed to a male vessel which, apparently, doesn't exist). When the president explained his plan to help the housing problem, he said, "It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." Obviously only males buy houses ... right? Well, apparently, because our culture no longer knows how to use generic gender-specific terms, requiring a rewrite of the Bible.
5. Years ago the standard pronouncement at the end of the wedding was "I now pronounce you man and wife", but that was too ... sexist. But we're moving from there, thank goodness. "Husband and wife" are too ... gender specific. We'd prefer "married" or "spouses" so there will no longer be a question about "gay marriage". "What difference does 'husband' and 'wife' make?" The goal, then, is to strip off any sense of gender.
6. The president is working hard at removing the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy from the military. Where does that leave you? Assuming all combinations of "sexual orientation" (real or imagined), in what possible context can you house and employ the military without impacting their sense of personal space, safety, modesty, etc.? It used to be that when a group of guys went out on a mission, one issue that wasn't an issue was what was normally the biggest issue -- sex. Now it will be. But, hey, it mustn't be because gender is irrelevant. Colleges are encouraging gender-neutral bathrooms and dorm rooms. Dorm assignments are made without regard to gender. Awareness of gender is considered "gender bias" ... you know ... sexism. The remedy? Pay no attention to that man/woman/whatever behind the curtain!
7. The entire LGBTQ (are there any more letters required?) movement is aimed at the removal of gender. Sexual partners are sexual partners regardless of gender. Gender is irrelevant. In some cases (the "B"), it's really irrelevant. In others (the "T"), it's just plain wrong. To the "transgendered", you are what you feel like. Chromosomes not withstanding (and the protest "What does 'act like a girl' mean?!" reversed on itself), if you feel like you're a member of the opposite sex, you simply become it. What difference does it make? Gender is not an issue.
Just try it. Try to mention "biblical manhood" or "biblical womanhood" and see how far you get. Point out the passages that say that a woman (pick a circumstance, any circumstance) should submit to a man (again, any circumstance) and see if you're not labeled sexist and outdated. No, no, there can be no gender differences! In fact, doesn't the Bible teach that? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). See? No male or female. To Christianity (isn't that what "in Christ" means?), gender is not significant. Never mind the multiple places that Scripture says otherwise. Clearly only a sexist would see gender as an issue. There is no difference. Genders are equal. Genders are irrelevant. It is only outmoded, outdated, patriarchal stooges who buy into this stuff. No genders!
And we miss this little agenda as it worms its way through the fabric of our society, eating away at all the ties that bind, all the biblical references that exalt gender, all the design that God put into two sexes, all the value and abilities that make male and female distinctively special. I say, "Vive la différence!"
10 comments:
Well said. I think when people don't think very deeply about things, it's easy to weave warped logic into the fabric of American society. Oops, there I said it, too.
The "born that way" argument has had amazing success, too. I once had a debate for two hours with a friend who defended the "born that way" argument. He had not one shred of evidence to support this claim he'd obviously ingested uncritically, like when one swallows a gnat that got stuck in his pasta.
We need to start thinking through these things. Or maybe when the cute co-ed (girl) walks into a gender-neutral bathroom and sees a 300 pound hairy male student in mid-bowl movement, then the profound truth, "this can't be right", will make a come-back.
I can't begin to fathom why the "born that way" argument gets so much mileage. First, there is no proof (and precious little evidence). More to the point, this jump from "born that way" to "therefore it's okay" is a leap that would make Evel Kneivel proud. (If he's not part of your era, look him up.) In what universe does "born that way" necessarily equate with "good"? I know babies who are born with cocaine addiction and we don't say, "Oh, good!" I have seen kids who have been born without arms or legs and we don't cheer, "Oh, good!" Current psychology believes that the tendency to addiction is inherited (read "born that way") and no one is suggesting, "Therefore, it's good to become addicted." Finally, everyone is born with the tendency to sin, and everyone has to choose whether or not they will indulge that tendency, so what difference does "born that way" make? I know heterosexuals have to choose whether or not they will be faithful to one spouse or give in to lust. It's still a choice. "Born that way" just makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
It gets so much mileage because it is exceedingly logical. Anyone who knows gay folk knows that they were just born that way. They never chose to be gay, any more than you chose to be straight. It's the way they were born. They were, in fact, born that way and no one any where that I have ever heard has the first bit of evidence to the contrary.
Evidence that they were not born that way? Have you ever tried to prove a negative? On the other hand, despite all the best efforts of science, science keeps saying, "We can find no evidence that it's true."
But you missed the point (or rather points). "Born that way" or not, how does it prove "good"? Simply because someone is born in a certain condition is no reason to conclude that the condition is a good one or that there are no moral implications. And "born that way" or not, how does it counter choice? Just because someone is born with certain tendencies doesn't suggest in the least that they have no choice about whether or not to act on those tendencies. This is obviously true for heterosexual males who have natural tendencies toward multiple sex partners but should choose to deny those natural tendencies and be monogamous.
Summarizing -- there is no scientific evidence for "born that way", but regardless of evidence, "born that way" doesn't necessarily mean "good" and "born that way" doesn't mean "I have no choice about my actions."
So I still don't see why "born that way" gets so much mileage.
If your point is merely that being born a certain way is no proof that being that way is a moral good, I agree. Being born a certain way (greedy, healthy, gay, straight, etc) is no proof that such a condition is morally good or bad.
However, generally speaking, it seems to me that natural states tend to be positive SO LONG AS there are no negative/harmful repercussions associated with it.
Thus, a child's natural love for playing outdoors, our natural desire for a clean air and water, a natural fondness of sweetness, our natural attraction towards other people, these are in and of themselves good things, it seems to me. I see no negative or harmful repercussions associated with any of them.
Certainly, taken in the extreme (eating ONLY sugary stuff, being "naturally attracted" to multiple people and expressing that attraction sexually, etc) most of these natural conditions/attractions can be bad.
But the conditions/attractions in and of themselves bear no evidence of being "bad" or sinful. So, it seems to me, that is why the notion gains so much mileage. It just seems logical.
Dan Trabue: "it seems to me that natural states tend to be positive SO LONG AS there are no negative/harmful repercussions associated with it."
I would suppose that "negative/harmful repercussions" are determined by your personal perspective and taken to be valid for others as well? (I ask because there are many who would argue that homosexual sexual relationships are negative and harmful to the persons involved, the people around them, and the society that allows them.)
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about whether or not homosexual behavior is negative or harmful. I'm just pointing out that it is your conclusion that they are not ... without argument. I would submit that far too often what we thought was "not negative/harmful" has turned out to be both.
I think it's a reasonable conclusion that most people would have a hard time disagreeing with that being attracted to someone of the same sex causes harm. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone propose any unbiased example of gay people causing harm merely because they're gay. Sure, gay behavior (like straight behavior) CAN cause harm (promiscuity, for instance), but what harm does a committed gay couple cause anyone?
Of course, if you don't want to engage in such a discussion, that's fine. It just sounds like you're saying it's a matter of opinion and I'm suggesting I've never seen the first bit of evidence to support your hunch.
Consider Anne Heche and Ellen DeGeneres. They were highly publicized lesbians. Ellen DeGeneres is now married and has a baby. Was she homosexual? Only in a world where "homosexual" is regarded as perfectly normal and good would she end up so confused about it.
There is a fairly well-known condition among long-term lesbians where sex simply stops. It becomes a platonic relationship. Why?
The homosexual lifestyle lends itself to redefined "monogamy". One homosexual writer reported that "monogamy" to a homosexual means "I'll be faithful to just you ... as long as you're around. You can't expect me to be faithful to you if you're away." One study said that 75% of male homosexuals have been with 100 or more partners. One group (28%) said they had more than 1000 partners, and 79% said that more than half their partners were strangers. This is not monogamy.
Medical science says that homosexuals have substantially higher rates of STDs, substance abuse, and suicide. They comprise 21% of hepatitis B cases and 44% of HIV cases. Anal intercourse causes hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, and a high risk for anal cancer. Oral-to-anal contact presents a serious risk from oralfeccal infections. A major Canadian medical center found that gay men have a life expectancy of 8 to 20 years less than heterosexual men. A study in Norway and Denmark concluded that gays who were legally married had their lifespans reduced by 24 years.
All of this presupposes that there is nothing immoral about the act. As such, the spiritual ramifications aren't taken into account. However, if God considers it abominable as Leviticus suggests, you'd have to admit that this would be harmful to those who participate.
None of this is intended to persuade. I'm just laying out a quick listing of the possibility of harm to homosexuals so you won't continue to say, "I've never seen the first bit of evidence to support your hunch."
The harm you list is in...
1. Not being faithful (this would be true whether the individual is straight or gay);
2. Having multiple partners (this would be harmful whether straight or gay);
3. Having medical problems due to promiscuity (this would be harmful whether straight or gay);
4. Having mental health problems (these problems ARE compounded in the gay community because of harmful attitudes held by others such as religious folk constantly telling them how abominable they are, for example - this could be true in the straight community if folk were constantly telling straight folk how awful and disgusting it was to be straight);
5. Medical issues related to certain types of repeated sexual practices (this would be true whether straight or gay);
In short, your "evidence" is not evidence at all that there is anything harmful about homosexuality, only certain practices that are true whether straight or gay (with the exception of the mental health problems associated with being a demonized class of people).
This sort of reasoning is why more and more people are not believing the traditional religious lines, it seems to me. You are not making a good case and increasingly, people aren't buying it. Or so it seems to me.
On your "Ellen Degeneres is now married..." line, I think you have it flip-flopped. Ellen is engaged or married (I'm not sure which) to another lady (Portia De Rossi). Anne Heche went on to marry a fella.
What the research has to say about this is that people are naturally born along a spectrum of sexuality. Most are solidly straight, a few are bisexual and a few are solidly gay. Anne Heche, it seems to me, must have been bisexual, although I don't really know any details.
What's your point about that?
Post a Comment