Actually, this is not reserved for this friend. I 'll let him introduce himself in whatever manner he chooses to what ever extent he feels most comfortable. But this was provoked by my posting of this Laurie Higgins article, which he referred to as "pretentious drivel". As I am quite the fan of Higgins' work, especially her insightful perspective on the issue of homosexuality and the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, I do not believe I would be so partial to someone for whom the label "pretentious" would be appropriate. I am certain I've never read anything by her that in any way equates to "drivel". But then, I am not a proponent, supporter or enabler (and certainly no activist) of the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.
But FB is not the best forum for true debate on any subject, so I invited him to elaborate on his position here. I have also given him leeway as regards staying on topic so long as it is related to the general issue. But anyway, he's a new dude so give him a break and if anyone feels compelled to respond to remarks of his, wield the bludgeon gently. I've no reason to believe he is of the typically thin skinned variety of opponent. Nonetheless, as always, I will let him draw first blood if that is his intent. Leave reciprocal fire to me.
As to the link, I am not going to post any commentary at this point, other than to say if you have not seen it via my FB posting, give it a read here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think I would leave out the word "pretentious".
The best thing I can say about the article is that not once did the author refer to a "lifestyle" but implied that homosexuality is not a choice.
Like the complaint that conservatives believe people choose to be poor when that is not an argument being made, the reality here is that choice is involved in how one acts upon one's desires, which is where the term comes into play.
Imagine the desire for someone's wife. No one spends time wondering about whether one chooses to have the desire, but only how one chooses to respond to that desire is what counts. The honorable man will deny himself the other guy's wife and live with the possibility that the desire will never leave him. The homosexual who does not deny himself is no different than the guy who chooses to satisfy his desire for the other guy's wife. Both are doing wrong, if not by God, then by himself for allowing his emotions and desires to rule his life, rather than his common sense. Both will rationalize their actions and if possible, entice others to buy into the rationalization.
Hi Marshall,
These questions Laurie Higgens asks Christians to think about are excellent:
* Christians should consider whether same-sex attraction, like depression and suicidal ideation, may be a symptom of other underlying problems such as family dysfunction or sexual abuse.
* They ought not ignore the countless numbers of adults who not only choose to place their unchosen homoerotic desires at the center of their identity, but who also seek to compel the entire world to approve of homoerotic activity.
* They should consider that the Left makes no distinction between the vile words of Rev. (“God Hates F**gs”) Phelps and the words of Catholic and Protestant theologians who affirm that God, while loving his creation, abhors much of what we choose to do, including homoerotic activity. Christians should consider that the Left makes no distinction between hateful words and words they don’t like.
After the most recent barrage of comments received at my blog by D.T., I found an interaction you and Craig had with him at his blog under the title, "An insane and hellish legalism"). So instructive and encouraging to those of us less experienced with either logical argumentation or intentional deceivers. Thank you.
Alec
Post a Comment