Log in

No account? Create an account

March 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com

The Regressive Attitude Toward Homosexuality. (822)

A while ago when I read Orson Scott Card's essay on same sex marriage I thought he might have been molested as a child because he seemed to think that was how people became gay. But it seems that that belief is wide spread in the regressive Christian community.

They actually believe all that stuff they say about homosexuals "recruiting" children by sexually molesting them. It is difficult for progressives to see that because we listen to gay men and lesbians who say that they had these desires and were not "recruited" or sexually molested as children.

But the regressive Christians reject that testimony as lies spread by evil child molesters who want to be free to molest more children. In their model there are two types of homosexuals 1) adult perverts who want to molest children and 2) children who are being molested and brainwashed into a "homosexual lifestyle".

Let me talk about "homosexual lifestyle" for a moment. I am speaking from my own experience here, which may be a bit dated. I was involved with the "homosexual lifestyle" in the later 80's and early 90's. I read the books, subscribed to the magazines, and hung out at the bars. In the gay community a homosexual lifestyle (to the extent it exists) is essentially an urban professional lifestyle. It involves a certain amount of bars and parties but also art museums, Broadway plays, good food, fine cloths, music, and a knowledge of Gay culture. Gay culture is the history and literature: homosexuality in the western world from the Greeks to Drag Queens, to Guppies (Gay Urban Professionals) and DINKS (Double Income No Kids), to Stonewall, and political action. To regressive Christians the "homosexual lifestyle" consists of having anal sex with men and boys. To them a person is a homosexual if the engage in a "homosexual lifestyle" meaning they have sex with members of the same sex. If they don't have sex they aren't gay.

The progressive community defines a homosexual as someone who has a "preference" for members of the same sex. We say "preference" because we can't prove it is a biological or a psychological motivation (the nature vs nurture argument is still going on). The advantage of the word "preference" is that it doesn't take sides in the nature vs nurture debate. But also the progressive definition says that someone can be homosexual even if they never have sex with anyone.

The problem with the word "preference" is that the regressive Christians take it in a different way. To them saying sexuality is a "preference" means it is choice. Christianity has long taught that sin is more desirable to people than virtue. That is why people sin. Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Just because you would prefer to act one way rather than another doesn't mean you should. Certainly we can't all just do whatever we feel like doing.

"Orientation" is also a problematic word. It implies facing a direction and naturally leads to the metaphor of "turning the person around" to face a more virtuous direction.

Regressive Christians don't believe that homosexuality occurs in nature. No matter how much evidence you show them they just say "No. That doesn't happen." This has to do with their beliefs about what it means for something to be natural.

To them "natural" means what feels natural to them. It is a feeling not a rational argument. They know in their hearts what is natural. (Which really means they are lead by the unconscious prejudices of their upbringing.) It is one of the things that confused me so much about their attitude toward the Bible. They claim to read it "without interpretation". But there is no such thing as reading without interpretations. All communication is interpretation. Their's seems even more so to me. They emphasize some texts and ignore others, all the while claiming that this is what "God" really meant, and they know it in their hearts. They need for there to be a "natural order", a hierarchy with "God" at the top. 1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." To them homosexuality is an affront to "God" because it defies the "natural order". Men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women are "out of order" in the most fundamental way.

Of course progressives value love over order, so submission to the hierarchy is not as important as the love that people feel for each other. And as some Christians are discovering insisting on heterosexuality is driving people away from Christianity. Sometimes you can choose to win or you can choose to be right.


Regressive Christians

Here's hoping that they keep regressing to Australopithecine or beyond. I mean, have you looked at the President? De-evolution is happening all around us!


I would disagree with you on the use of "preference" v. "orientation" in progressive media. I've found hands down that most all progressive media prefers to use the phrase "sexual orientation," and the queer community pushes that particular phrase far more than "sexual preference." The reasoning that I've always heard is that a "preference" is more of a whimsical attitude, and indicates that a choice that can be made. Whereas "orientation" ties the sexual identity to the individual, and indicates it is incontrovertible and beyond their control. They are oriented in that direction, and will remain so.

All of the conservative media uses "sexual preference" and to me this underlines their point that queer people can be converted, because their sexuality is nothing more than a choice. I disagree with that, and as such, never use that phrase for fear of furthering that misconception.

Re: Quibble

Sure, is why I choose to say "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life" for these people. I want to emphasize their being against a woman have a right to choose.

Re: Quibble

Sorry, I must have missed the memo. I think it is a vocabulary drift in response to the regressive "choice" argument, and I think it is pointless change that has no effect on the argument.

I wasn't arguing that progressives use "preference" more than "orientation". I was arguing that when we use (used) the word "preference" we were not trying to imply that it was a choice.

I just did google searches on "sexual preference", "sexual orientation", "Christian sexual preference", and "Christian sexual orientation". "Preference" brought up more technical sites and "orientation" brought up more sites aimed to the public, and more recent sites.

It sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. As I mentioned in my essay there is no more inherent stability in the word "orientation" than in the word "preference".

I'm sure there is an argument here.....

But I'm not sure what they would say to someone who was not molested as a child, who had sex with a female for the first time at 36. Nobody pushed me, I wanted to do it from the time I was in college, but did not meet anyone I wanted for a long time.

What do they say about bi-sexuals, we're just confused?? I did not do anything with a church since like 13, so who can remember. Plus the subject never came up at that age....in a rinky-dink town like mine.

Re: I'm sure there is an argument here.....

"Sorry I missed church I was busy practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian."

You just a sinner who has turned away fro "God" given in to your bodily lusts.

"Feminists encourage women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, become lesbians and destroy Capitalism," Pat Robertson, preacher and former US Presidential candidate.

Re: I'm sure there is an argument here.....

Well, thats pretty much anybody who has had sex!

And....I have that T-shirt from NorthernSun!
I remember listening to Willem Dafoe reading "And the Band Played On..." on books on tape as a kid. I was led to believe that gay men in particular have anal sex at an astounding rate. Only a few years back after being comfortable enough with some gay friends to ask about their sex life have I found that many do not enjoy or have anal intercourse.

Many "fundamentalists" make accusations where the accused is either a pervert or just trying to make money. It shows that these are the only two reasons they can think of for wanting to do something. Something as abstract as real love is almost unfathomable. Not a suprise for people who need a REASON to be good. I personally think NO reason is the best reason for love. There's no paper trail for muggles that way!

Whatever...I really had to get a handle on these folks because it was driving me berserk. I find comfort in knowing that they will always be there and its not for me to question why, just to handle with grace. Christ, Dionysus, someone's always going to be nailed to a damned cross and people with little creativity are always going to use it as an angle to get attention, draw energy and be manipulative through fear.
Still everybody dreams, everybody dances. Maybe that age of aquarius is just around the corner. If that means death, all the better! SHE has been watching me, and hopefuly will let me gamble in her green garden.