I just heard the word for the first time the other day. For those who are erudite, I have no need to tell you what it means. For those of us who are ignorant, it comes from the merging of the prefix, pomo, a shortened version of "postmodern", and sexual. Now, the primary essence of "pomo" -- postmodern thought -- is the removal of definitions. There are not grand worldviews. Words mean what you want them to mean (as opposed to what the author might have meant). Classifications are meaningless. Relativism is supreme. Never mind that such a concept is irrational. Rationality is irrelevant in the pomo view. So, a heterosexual is one who is defined as a person who is sexually attracted to the opposite sex and homosexual is defined as one who is sexually attracted to someone of the same sex and pomosexual is one who defies any definition of sexual attraction. The effect of this category is to include all categories as valid without allowing any categories at all. So now you end up with the LBGT categories -- Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgender. These are now all valid ... but meaningless. Then there is the LBGTF designation, where the F category, believe it or not, means "friends" as if "friends" is another "sexual orientation", another definition. Others list LBGTQ, where the "Q" is unclear, but may mean either "queer" or "questioning". "I just don't know what I am." And another group wants it to be LBGTFI, where the "I" references "Intersexual", a designation for people who have no clear sexual identity. No one has provided the necessary letters yet for the pedophile, the ones attracted to animals, or the omnisexual, a growing category of folks who are defined by anything at all that they consider sexually attractive. The function of pomosexuality, then, is to allow for all of these (and more) while removing any distinction of morality. "You are what you are. So be it. It's all good."
I don't know that there is any end to the distance these will go. There are classifications for adult males attracted to young boys. There are names for those who "feel like a gay man trapped in a woman's body" -- women attracted to gay males -- or guys who are attracted to lesbians. There is the "non-heterosexual" who considers it demeaning to be called anything at all. There are those who believe in polyamory and pansexuality. There are no limits, apparently.
The goal in the terminology is to give desires validity. The aim is to turn moral turpitude on its head. The purpose is to claim that whatever stirs our loins, whatever floats your boat, whatever gets your motor running is not merely acceptable, but good simply because it does. Like a nasty little spoiled child, "If I want it, it must be good and, therefore, I should get it." And today's lack of parenting skills, both real and metaphorical, leaves little with which to combat this idea. "Why do you want that?" "Because it's good." "What makes it good?" "Because I want it." "Oh, well, then your logic is seamless. I suppose we'll have to give it to you."
And the horrible question from Christ comes echoing back in my head. "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?"
13 comments:
It is called making a language to justify perversion, and redefine wrong to make it right!
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..."
Naw! You don't have to redefine words. The "pomo" approach is simply to undefine words. Without any meaning, whatever I do is fine! A bit of magic.
And, of course, you're right.
You do realize that the internet (the platform which you are unabashedly utilizing to pontificate your hateful ideologies) would likely never have existed were it not for the brilliant Alan Turing, a pioneering computer genius who also happened to be homosexual?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Of what pertinence was his sexual orientation to his invaluable contribution to technology and society? It was irrelevant. We do and shall evermore inestimably benefit from his work, however.
Get over yourself. Jesus would weep upon reading your intolerant diatribes. Love one another. Love yourself. Just love. Cut the hate. Of course, I doubt this will even be a publicly viewable comment since you moderate posts and are unlikely to allow balanced, rational discourse in this forum. Only hate. Oh well, I hope your heart may one day find the light.
Oh, don't worry. I moderate comments not to prevent disagreement, but to prevent a host of spam and, then, some offensiveness. Trust me; I've published a lot of disagreement with my view as long as it isn't made offensively (you know, like with foul language or some such).
I would guess that you haven't read much of what I write. This particular post, for instance, wasn't even labeled "Homosexual" because it wasn't primarily about homosexuality. (Click on the "Homosexual" label if you want to see the stuff I've written specifically on that topic.) It was about definitions. Or, more precisely, it was about the removal of definitions in order to remove moral distinctions. The post was about how today's society is in favor of allowing all sexual behaviors as moral, not about homosexuality.
Now you come in to tell me that a person who practices homosexual behavior did something that provided some benefit to mankind and, therefore, any good Christian should follow Christ in loving all immoral behavior as moral. Or, to put it another way, you agree with my post. I would hope you would see that this is not a rational argument in any sense. Our society is moving away from anything resembling a moral code and toward moral license. "Do whatever you like; it's all good." This, in your view, is "love". This, from your perspective, is "Christian", is what Jesus would do.
So when Jesus berated the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, it should have made Him weep, right? Because He was calling them immoral when they were simply doing what made them feel good. And, indeed, their push toward being good did a lot of good for their society. And Jesus telling the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more" was wrong, wrong, wrong. "Jesus, don't You know that Your intolerant diatribe would make You weep?" The claim is that Jesus would wholeheartedly disagree with God who said that a man lying with a man as with a woman was abominable. Your argument is that Jesus would disagree with Scripture that says that those who practice homosexual behavior cannot enter God's kingdom. Further, the claim is that trying to warn people away from doing things that God says He finds abominable -- that warning people away from missing the kingdom -- is hate.
Look, Anonymous, I'm not saying you should agree with me. I'm not saying that you're wrong. But if you're going to try to say that Christ, the Bible, God, and Christianity agree with your "Let them do what they want" philosophy, you're going to have a really hard time defending it. If you simply say, "In my opinion people should be able to do whatever sexual behaviors they want", then you're going to do fine. But chiding me for warning people against doing things that God says He hates is judgmental on your part and blind to my perspective. You're really going to have to be more careful than that. (And, no, it's not hate. I would classify "Go ahead and take every opportunity to shake your fist in the face of God" something hateful to tell people.)
It actually is hate, disguised as dogmatic belief. The Bible is a book, penned by flawed, human zealots thousands of years ago to perpetuate their own archaic agendas. You interpret passages as you see fit to justify your own distaste with other people's lifestyles. That is hateful, judgmental, and prejudiced. Let he who is without sin...
Look into your own heart for what is right. Not scripture. Adults engaging in sexual intercourse with children is of course abhorrent, and I doubt any rational person would ever disagree with that. However, two consenting adults of any gender pairing engaging in a consensual sexual act is their own private business and is certainly not sinful at all. It is of no consequence. I just... ugh. Wake up.
Okay, let me see if I have this straight. Your first argument was "Someone who is gay did something good, so clearly you are only spewing hate." You suggested that "Jesus would weep" and that the only possible reason that anyone would say anything remotely like what I'm saying is hate. "Only hate." (Notice that you haven't yet made an actual argument in support of your position, unless you actually want to go with that "Someone did something good" idea.)
Now your argument is that the only possible position on the Bible is that it is flawed and essentially useless ... although this is the source from which we would get our view on what Jesus would do in any situation ... which you claimed to know. And then you want to try to quote it for your position? Umm, okay, if this is the approach you want to take, fine, as long as you understand that this one isn't any more rational than your "Someone did something nice" argument. So your position is that a genuine right and wrong is "your own heart". You will have a problem that that suggestion that no one would think it was okay to engage in sexual intercourse with children since there already is at least one organization seeking to legalize that very thing. However, since your position is that morality is simply what you believe it to be in your own heart, trying to foist your morality off on anyone else is pointless, baseless, and irrational.
But, look, since the Bible is false (in your view) and, ergo, Christianity is a lie and, since this is your well-reasoned and thoroughly certain position, there really is no point pursuing a conversation. We have no common basis on which to discuss this topic. And since you're going to berate me for hate, I would suggest that, by your standard, you're offering me the same hate by declaring my beliefs "dogmatic", "hate", "archaic", and false. So, who's being judgmental here? And, seriously, if "someone did something good" and "throw out all religion" is the best rationale you have, you really are going to need to do some better reasoning on the subject even if you're not going to do it with me.
I assume the organization of which you speak is NAMBLA? That fortunately anomalous, rogue organization is deeply and warrantably demonized and ostracized by nearly everyone on this planet, save it's members. LGBT organizations make it a point to distance themselves from that group and its ideologies, which are not at all aligned with the views of the LGBT community. Sexual intercourse with children is wrong. Not because the Bible says so, but because it is exploitative of manipulable creatures. I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that any child would ever consent to sexual activity unless coerced. They simply cannot comprehend the act in the same way adults are able. That being said, we live in a society which is prematurely sexualizing children's mentalities in general via media influence, fashion, and technological ubiquity. It's very difficult to maintain complete control over what content or ideologies children are exposed to. Thus, we observe young girls who are insatiably eager to be the star of the next season of 16 & Pregnant, while still unable to truly fathom the notion of consequence and how irreversibly it would alter their lives. It's a shame, and I have no idea where to even begin to counter that disparaging societal trend.
But comparing pederasty to other lifestyles which do not conform to heteronormativity is comparing apples to oranges.
Pedophiles are sick. NAMBLA is abhorrent. Have you ever heard of a group called the KKK? Have their ideologies been accepted by many outside of their organization? No. Why? Because they perpetuate destructive behavior, which is inhumane and damaging to society as a whole. Same for NAMBLA. The general population will hopefully never accept their beliefs anymore than they ultimately accepted those of George Wallace, Joseph McCarthy, Adolf Hitler, or Idi Amin.
Gay people can be rapists, but are no more prone to be so than their heterosexual counterparts. Those of the "queer" persuasion merely chose to engage in sexual activity within their own gender, or perhaps across genders - consensually. Comparing them to pederasts is inflammatory, unfoundedly baseless, and simply hateful.
Also, if you were to meet someone and be able to have a completely transparent awareness of their sexuality, what would it mean to you if you were to discover they were gay? Your posts seem to indicate that you would consider them to be of impure character. That it would be necessary for them to rectify their ways before they can be as righteous as someone such as yourself who lives to glorify God. That's a very Pharisaical mentality, no? Considering another person less worthy of God's acceptance than yourself due to their sexual orientation is no better than considering white people worthier of anything than blacks. It is divisive segregation. Certainly not aligned with, "love thy neighbor..."
The gay community does not need to be warned of the risks and dangers of losing their salvation. They are already in heaven, the kingdom of which is on earth, and are completely aware of the power of love to unify and transcend.
"I hope someday you'll join us. Then the world will live as one." - some old rock star
I would also like to point out that it isn't "hate" to tell the truth. Of course as I've heard often said, "Truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth."
It looks like you're going to have to work hard to keep up here.
1. I made no connection between NAMBLA and the homosexual community. You said, "Adults engaging in sexual intercourse with children is of course abhorrent, and I doubt any rational person would ever disagree with that." I pointed to the fact that there are people who disagree with that. And my point was not (didn't even hint) that there was a connection to the homosexual community, but that your version of morality based on your own heart convictions would not hold water for anyone else.
2. I made no connection to pedophiles and homosexuals, rapists and homosexuals, or any such thing. Arguing against an argument I didn't make is simply a red herring, a rabbit trail, a strawman. In short, it is what is known as a classical logical fallacy.
3. I am a Christian. My views of the world are shaped by my views of God, Jesus, and the Bible. Since yours are not (and, please note, I have not suggested that yours are wrong here, but that they are different from mine), I indicated that we have no common basis for dialog. And still you try to argue the point with me.
4. Since I am a Christian whose views are shaped by the Bible, I do indeed view homosexuals as "of impure character" ... along with every single human being on the planet ... including myself. Indeed, I have not and would not argue that I or anyone else is "worthy of God's acceptance".
5. If you are going to argue from a "morality is whatever I feel it is" position (in opposition to my "morality is what God says it is" position), you are going to be arguing in a vacuum. You argue that good and bad are our own views, so "they can be as righteous as ..." is a meaningless phrase, since there is no genuine comparative righteousness. Discussing our worthiness of God's acceptance is meaningless because, going with your John Lennon reference, there is no God (or, at least, not one we can know).
6. Arguing with a self-declared Bible-believing Christian that heaven is here on earth, that salvation is whatever you make it out to be, and that morality is purely subjective is nonsensical. Especially since all you've made is assersions without evidence, argument, or reasoning.
Seriously, you started this discussion with a cry for "balanced, rational discourse", and all you've offered is diatribe, opinion, and irrationality. No balance. No rationale. And you've done so without any regard for the person with whom you're discussing this stuff. I've tried to point out where you stand and how my starting point differs so that you can argue better. You've opted to simply continue to complain that you don't like my position (without even really knowing what my position is). Honestly, you're going to have to do a lot better than that before you can be viewed as either balanced or rational in your discourse. I've tried to use reason; you've continued to spew disagreement without rationality. Which one is hate?
Anonymous, Glenn has, helpfully, brought us back to the key point I was originally trying to make in our discussion. I need to try to make it again. You've hung the epithet of "hate" on my words. I disagree.
Consider an analogy. You and I are friends. I have no bomb in my car, but, for reasons unknown, you are absolutely convinced that there is. The presence of the bomb or lack thereof is not the issue. The issue is what you believe. If you care about your friend and if you believe that your friend has a bomb in his car, would it be "mean" or "cruel" or "hateful" for you to tell me there was a bomb in my car, or would it be mean, cruel, and hateful not to?
When I said it wasn't hate to warn them, you argued that my view was based on dogma and archaic views. You set out, without rationale or reason, to dissuade me from my belief. My point was that my belief, based on the basis I use, is that people in sin are in danger and need to turn from that danger. Arguing that I'm wrong about the danger is one thing. Arguing that I'm hateful by warning people who I believe are in danger is nonsense. Unless, of course, your particular moral view of love is that you do not be helpful to people you care about by warning them if they are headed for trouble. If that is your view, please, I don't really want you to be my friend.
The reasons I am intrigued enough to propose what I believe to be a short list of life events and or opinions of them, intermixed with what I would deem in line with modern philosophical debate is the elogance stated above. I am genuinely asking these what may perhaps be a series of questions to stan... the well spoken and university educated gentleman above.
I am a 30 year old white male and I have real questions on the veracity of the Christian religion. I grew up Christian baptist very devout in North Carolina and while I believe in Jesus Christ and God almighty I would say I am more Christian agnostic than anything.
Reason being is that after college and having lost my parents and grandparents I lost my life on numerous occasions having delved into the isolating depression of substance use. When ones core belief system has been shaken so hard, and the experience of afterlife is corroborated by a myriad of unrelated individuals whose death experience was the same how can I in good faith come back to the church.
The experience was wonderfully serene it was simply pure black, no worries, no issues, no form, a simple consciousness that your same mind and maybe personality were with you as you carried on in placidity existed.
No Heaven or Hell as many would believe. Reincarnation was effectively taken out of The Bible in the 550s ad as a political tool by a sultry prostitutute having slept her way to queendome but was unsatisfied not being heralded as a deity.
The modern scholarly thought on God is more akin to your own conscious in the sense that evolutionarily the right brain wasnt developed entirely in communicating with the left and in a schizophrenic sort of sense of morality "God spoke to you" as humans learned to co-exist without killing one another.
I am a straight male who is married to a gay male. I have a number of issues and im really sort of blessed and yet very depressed.
However, I am in love with this man even though sexually it isnt the greatest thing in the world. I feel like you should be able to love whoever in terms of consensual adult, wants to love as long as you know they love you. not just that, but i hesitate to imagine any of the beautiful and sweet women i have been multiple year relationships with could ever learn to love as hard. My partner is also a ceo and though married for 30 years to a woman, in fact I once dated his daughter as we are similar in age, I absolutley love him.
is this what you refer to as post modern sexual? and i dont really care anyway my names mike and i have much confidence and love so the term doesnt mean shit but i just never heard of it and find it odd that there must be people around baffled at people like me who have to make terms for people who think terms are divisive and stigmatic in a world so unbelievably prejudiced... no offense the church is the most prejudicial institution the world knows today. worse than school, jails, work places, really it is ive seen better appreciation in terms of general public collective sentiment and acceptance in psyche wards than many churches
Mike, I'm not offended by your questions or positions. Keep that in mind as you read on.
It looks as if your problem with God is that He hasn't given you the kind of life you wanted. Loss of loved ones, drug problems, "forbidden" love, that kind of thing. In the absence of moorings like that, you've opted to define things ... loosely. For instance, "Reincarnation was effectively taken out of The Bible in the 550's AD as a political tool by a sultry prostitute ..." That kind of random truth claim in the face of all the evidence is difficult to manage. Truth claims out of thin air can't be examined, confirmed, or falsified. What is not examined at this point is any rational, binding basis for any morality for human beings or any ultimate worth or purpose for any individual. It's merely a personal thing.
I wrote, "[A] pomosexual is one who defies any definition of sexual attraction." You wrote, "I am a straight male who is married to a gay male." That falls in the category of "pomosexual." You "feel like you should be able to love whoever..." without any source of definition for "should". What determines right or wrong, moral or immoral, "should" or "shouldn't"? You and you alone. No "definition". That is post-modernism. Meaning and truth are determined by me and solely me.
But, clearly, this wasn't intended, as it started out, as genuine questions. You've determined that there is no God, that Christianity isn't true, that the Bible isn't reliable in any sense, and that the church is "the most prejudicial institution the world knows today," so no argument or evidence or conversation to the contrary will matter to you. God dealt you a hand you didn't like because it would appear (and you wouldn't be alone in this view) that any genuine God must be really nice and give us only the things we like, not the things we don't. I agree with you; that God doesn't exist. But you have a serious lack of actual information on God, the Bible, the Church, and Christianity, so I wouldn't expect you to agree with that which you don't know or recognize. For instance, you've bought the lie that God in general and Christianity in particular does not believe that a man can or should love a man when, in fact, it is perhaps the most repeated claim in the Bible that we are to love our neighbor. So you're disagreeing with something other than Christianity and finding fault with something other than the Church and disbelieving in someone other than God. I would recommend you find out the truth about these things rather than continuing on the notion that you've got it just fine.
Post a Comment