Over the last couple of articles I wrote on this issue of Russia's views on homosexuality, located here and here there was an overarching theme that bled through their words: Is there any merit to Russian President Vladimir Putin's views that homosexuality is harmful information. In both these aforementioned articles I pointed out "Russia amended "...article 5 of the Federal Law "On Protection of children from information harmful to their health and development" and some legislative acts of the Russian Federation in order to protect children from information that promotes the denial of traditional family values." I also highlighted the American Psychological Association in suggesting that "...exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress..."[i] And the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry stating that "...research shows that children [from some] ...LGBT families face discrimination in their communities [and] ... may be teased or bullied by peers."[ii] I don't deny the validity of these claims, as being bullied for having gay parents and being told that your parent's union is wrong are all stimuli that surely aids in confusion and emotional issues, especially in children; states that can assist in leading someone - adult or child - to a state of stress and depression. This fact has been however used by many pro-gay activists to argue that all the woes of the world regarding homosexuality is due to those who are against it; however is the news of homosexuality's evil the only avenue of harm or at least potential harm? Simply no. As pointed out in brief contrary to desired views homosexual unions are not equal to heterosexual unions. They are not equal in health safety; nor are they equal in natural compatibility and nor are they equal in parental needs for children.
However before we examine these three grande claims lets figure out what 'being gay' or 'being a homosexual' means. In a discussion on a friend's Facebook page, a Facebook "friend" of his proposed this question, "Does the bible really say that being gay is wrong". When I came on the scene the conversation was well entrenched in short platitudes and Bible verses that were all being flung at him as answers to his objections. However it was only after I gave him my answer that I learned that he really was just being loud and that he really didn't want an answer. However putting his immaturity aside his question was a good one. In part my response to him was as follows.
"You asked ... "does the bible really say that being gay is wrong" -- It depends on what you mean by 'being gay'. If you mean that a man has homosexual attraction or a woman has homosexual attraction, then 'no' having homosexual temptation is not sin, any more than having a temptation for drunkenness is a sin. I am a recovering alcoholic and drug addict; if having a pulling towards a sinful act is sinful within itself, then I am in trouble; would you say that I am sinning for having being tempted by a beer commercial? I don't think you would. Then by this definition of being X, (gay, an alcoholic, etc.) is not ‘wrong’ or a sin.
However if you mean homosexual activity, in that you practice this behaviour then, 'yes' being gay (people who have sex with members of the same sex) is a sin, or wrong; however it is not any more or less wrong that being an active drunk, or a swindler or a slanderer; or being greedy, etc. (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11)My answer was about 6 paragraphs longer than what I have presented here, but what is presented here is sufficient for this article. In sum the idea of being gay being wrong is dependant on the specific nuance that is being applied to the phrase 'being gay'. Is someone 'being wrong' for having same-sex attraction? No. Is someone's actions of acting on homosexual sex wrong? Yes; and this is irregardless of same-sex attraction. I am a heterosexual male but if I was to have sex with another man I'd be committing an immoral act. However is the wrongness of homosexuality exclusive to homosexual sex? Simply put, no. So what other nuance of 'being gay' is there?
Let's make a comparison to substance abuse. Drunkenness is wrong on many grounds. Its harmful to the body. It is harmful to the mind. Its harmful to others when drunk'n disorderliness is afoot and so on; and from a Christian's view it is a mistreatment of God's creation. Scripture makes it clear that drunkards will not enter the kingdom of heaven, (cf. 1 Cor. 6:10). Would that mean someone then who perhaps got a little carried away over a thanksgiving dinner and had one too many glasses of wine has sinned? Some might say so; others would so no; this is of course open for debate. But careless drinking one time over thanksgiving is different than drunkenness. So what is the nuance of drunkards or drunkenness? That whole passage in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 discusses active choice of lifestyles - a willing and proud flaunting of sinful behaviours that are also logically ill-advised. The person who says "I'm gay; I love being gay; I am going to praise my gayness and I am not going to be shy about it" is proud of living a harmful and sinful life. In sum the other nuance of 'being gay' is the proud and unrepentant nuance. Even though a gay person isn't currently having homosexual sex, if their life is unrepentant about their homosexuality, they are 'being wrong' in how they live. So being gay is wrong when it is in action and pride; but merely having same-sex attraction is not wrong, any more than having attraction for a drink.
Homosexuality is not equal in health safety:
What is so bad or dangerous about the homosexual lifestyle? It is true that sexually transmitted diseases (STD) are equal opportunists; HIV, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, hepatitis A, B & C, etc. all have no concern for sexual orientation; they will ravage the life of a heterosexual with equal vengeance, if you will as they will the life of the homosexual. However the common theme in these STDs how they get around and one of their major forms of transportation is sexual promiscuity. There is too much to be said on this subject here, so the waterfront cannot be covered today. However in short, one recipe for disaster is the incompatibility of the homosexual union. Males for example are predominately sexually driven. It is no surprise to hear then the Canadian Aids Society stating:
Since the early 1980s, AIDS has had a direct impact on gay men. Men who have sex with men account for nearly 80% of all AIDS cases reported in Canada and 46.4% of the cases reported in 2001 affected that same population.[iii]
Starting in 1979 and up to December 31, 2008, there had been 21,300 AIDS cases reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Since reporting began, the MSM [men who have sex with men] exposure category has accounted for the largest proportion of total AIDS cases among adults...[iv]
Despite differences in methodology, studies continue to document a relatively high incidence of HIV among MSM,..., [v]
The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous however it is just as equally immoral as many other ill-advised lifestyles are immoral. Is there not then wisdom in Russia's ban on publication of homosexuality to children? By not teaching children that homosexuality is good is one form of training them to live smart.
__________________
[i] - http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx - accessed March 5, 2014
[ii] - http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/Facts_for_Families_Pages/Children_with_Lesbian_Gay_Bisexual_and_Transgender_Parents_92.aspx - accessed March 5, 2014
[iii] - http://www.cdnaids.ca/hivaidsandgaymen - accessed March 5, 2014
[iv] - http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/epi/2010/9-eng.php - accessed March 5, 2014
[v] - Ibid. accessed March 5, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment