Why gay is suddenly becoming OK

  • (Author’s note: I’m starting 2013 with a series of blog posts about the huge changes that are rocking Western society – and their impact on men and the church. I am not advocating these changes; I’m simply trying to explain why they’re happening, to help believers respond with greater understanding to those they may disagree with.)

    MilitaryMarchFor five thousand years homosexuality was taboo in every culture on earth. In many societies the penalty for having sex with a person of the same gender was death. As recently as the 1960s, homosexuals were widely reviled even among progressives and liberals.

    Most societies have either persecuted homosexuals or turned a blind eye to their activities. This was the case in the United States and Europe until about 40 years ago, when the tide of public opinion began turning. Today, Western elites are openly embracing homosexuality, and the broader society is quickly following suit.

    Why have most civilizations been hostile toward homosexuality? Why does the Bible call it “an abomination?” Why is the modern world suddenly accepting this long forbidden practice? And what impact will this have on the church and its men?

    Here are several reasons why gay is suddenly becoming OK in Western society:

    1. The population explosion has lessened the need to bear children. Until the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (c. 1800) the world was underpopulated. Disease, war and malnutrition routinely wiped entire civilizations off the map. When it came to reproduction, humanity needed all hands on deck.

    Against this backdrop, homosexuality was seen as a threat. If men and women were having sex with each other, that meant fewer childbearing unions.

    Fast forward to today. For the first time in history the world is widely believed to be overpopulated. Modern medicine and nutrition have greatly extended human lifespan. Experts tell us the world no longer has too few children – it has too many.

    In an overpopulated world, homosexuality is no longer a threat – it’s coming to be seen as advantageous. Among urban progressives, childbearing is now viewed as a liability to the earth, straining precious resources and contributing to pollution and global warming. Gay relationships may well become the trendy choice among city dwellers in the next generation. By 2030, many “straights” will come to see same-sex marriages as morally superior to opposite-sex unions because they cannot produce a child. Indeed, some straights will feel pressure to marry partners of the same sex because they are more PC than opposite-sex unions.

    2. The decline of all-male institutions. For centuries, society’s most prestigious institutions were all male. The military, the priesthood, the monastery, the University – even the theater were male-only. Homosexuality posed a threat to these institutions.

    For example, if two soldiers or monks or professors became romantically involved there was a potential for favoritism. Professors could reassign their pets to choice posts. Directors could cast their boyfriends in choice roles. Monastery love triangles could result in a homicide. Officers could protect their paramours by pulling them off the front lines. Even worse – if a man refused the advances of his superior he could find himself fired, flunked or even sacrificed in battle.

    Preferential treatment bred resentment and fueled anti-gay animus in all male institutions. The Catholic priesthood is still cleaning up the mess from a crop of closeted priests who used their positions of power to stalk and sodomize boys. Homosexuality has always been an enormous distraction from the mission of these institutions, so it has always been banned.

    Today there are very few all-male institutions left. With the military and the University co-ed, men can fraternize with women. Recently enacted sexual harassment and anti-discrimination laws keep predatory men (both gay and straight) accountable for their crimes.

    3. The ascendancy of women’s political power. Women got the vote almost 100 years ago, and as they began voting and winning public office, we’ve seen an attendant increase in acceptance of homosexuality.  Women are much more likely than men to approve of gay relationships (although the gap is closing, according to a recent poll.)

    Why are women more accepting of homosexuality? Gay men are no threat to them. They make great friends. A straight man may have romantic intentions, but a gay friend’s motives are completely transparent.

    And then there’s the revulsion factor. Most straight men find the prospect of sex with another man revolting. But women enjoy the idea of having sex with a man. Therefore, women aren’t “grossed out” by homosexuality the way men are.

    4. AIDS and increasing compassion for the weak. Before AIDS the image of gay men was frightening – leather clad, bulging muscles, cross-dressed or wearing makeup. But with when AIDS struck, Americans got a new image of gay men – weak, emaciated, dying in hospital beds. Rock Hudson’s gaunt visage became the face of the disease, and Americans responded with compassion. Compassion has evolved into acceptance.

    5. Online dating means gay men can find each other – without harassing straight men. Homosexuals can now discreetly find sex partners without hitting on straights. This has greatly lessened the animosity straight men have felt toward gays.

    6. We don’t control adults’ sex lives any more. Fifty years ago we arrested adulterers, controlled pornography and shut down gay bars. Today we don’t.

    _______

    These are some of the reasons gay is suddenly becoming “OK” in Western society. How do we as Christians respond?

    First, we must acknowledge that the scriptures were given to us in a time when homosexuality was a grave threat to society. Childbearing was imperative to survival. All-male institutions were the backbone of civilization. In this context it’s not difficult to see why sex between men was seen as an abomination.

    In fact, this is the very argument liberal theologians use to interpret the Bible’s prohibitions surrounding homosexuality. They believe that if Jesus were to walk among us today he would accept committed, same-sex relationships. After all, God is love, and if two men love each other, who are we to say no?

    But even if you accept the notion that homosexuality is not the societal threat it once was, it’s another thing entirely to assume that God has changed his mind on the issue. Maybe God has other reasons for restricting sex to a monogamous, male-female relationship. Humans are famous for embracing practices that seem benign in the micro but produce unintended consequences in the macro. (Who would have thought driving your car to the grocery store could lead to a global warming apocalypse? Who would have thought a tiny pill could lead to the depopulation of entire nations?)

    On the issue of homosexuality, Christians find themselves defending a shrinking island. They no longer have the culture on their side. Their position seems illogical to more and more people. Society can’t understand how Christians can love gays without accepting their lifestyle. Gay rights activists have convinced the press that disagreement = hate.

    It’s a near certainty that the church will come under increasing pressure to accept same-sex relationships in the coming years. Our “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach will draw increasing fire. Polls show that one of the main reasons young people dislike the church is the perception that “Christians hate gays.” Some Christians may conclude that it makes sense to embrace homosexuality as a way of being more welcoming to the next generation.

    Yet this is a fool’s approach. Those churches that have opened their doors widest to homosexuality are hemorrhaging members and money. They have very few young people. Men are leading the exodus from these liberal congregations.

    So what do you think? How should the church approach this issue? If the church becomes more accepting of same-sex relationships, will this drive men away, or are men’s attitudes changing? Comments are open.

    Share:
    • Print
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Google Bookmarks
    • email
    • LinkedIn
    • NewsVine
    • Yahoo! Buzz
    • RSS

    January 3rd, 2013 | David Murrow | 39 Comments |

About The Author

David Murrow

David Murrow is the director of Church for Men, an organization that helps congregations reach more men and boys. In his day job, David works as a television producer and writer. He's the author of three books. He lives in Alaska with his wife, three children, two grandchildren and a dachshund named Pepper.

  • http://www.facebook.com/deirdre.obyrne.12 Deirdre O’Byrne

    “Gay relationships may well become the trendy choice”

    No-one chooses who they fall in love with. Sexuality isn’t a choice – it is an innate part of ourselves. Are you telling me that the reason why you love women is because you find yourself attracted to men but choose not to act upon it? If so, then you are bisexual, and that’s all well and good. But there are people who never experience same-sex or opposite-sex attraction. There ARE innately straight and innately homosexual people. And such people will NEVER face the “choice” of going into a relationship that is wrong for them.

    “By 2030, many “straights” will come to see same-sex marriages as morally superior to opposite-sex unions because they cannot produce a child.”

    It is a well-documented fact that the wealthier and more educated a nation is, the lower its birth rate. Population experts expect that the world’s population will stabilise at around 9 billion in around 2050, WITHOUT any massive shifts in sexual expression.

    Frankly I find this fear-mongering about people being “forced” into relationships that are wrong for them to be quite distasteful. But I also find that fear-mongering is quite common amongst christians…

    “The Catholic priesthood is still cleaning up the mess from a crop of closeted priests who used their positions of power to stalk and sodomize boys.”

    And this is related to homosexuality how? Abuse of children isn’t about sex, it’s about power. It isn’t a sexual attraction to people or to bodies – it is a sexual attraction to the abuse of power. These priests aren’t homosexual – they are abuse-of-power-sexual.

    “Why are women more accepting of homosexuality? Gay men are no threat to them. [...] And then there’s the revulsion factor. [...] Therefore, women aren’t “grossed out” by homosexuality the way men are.”

    What about lesbians? What does it say that men are “grossed out” by gay men, and women aren’t “grossed out” by lesbians?

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    In the future urban elites will feel pressure to choose same sex relationships, just as they feel pressure today to not have children. This is already happening on many university campuses with the “LUG” phenomenon (lesbians until graduation). These women cannot find men to date so they choose female lovers until they graduate. Once they’re out of school they revert to their true sexuality and begin dating men again.
    People change their sexuality these days all the time. Just google “Late in life lesbians.” Many of these women had no idea they could be attracted to someone of the same sex until it happened. Many say they had NEVER had a same sex attraction until they met the person they fell for. So either these women were completely in the dark about their true sexual identities for 50 or more years, or something changed.
    Regarding the priests, the report from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops reported that “over 80 percent of the victims were teenage boys” and “the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.” I’ll let the report speak for itself.
    Polls show that women are more accepting of homosexuality. And if I must spell it out, the idea of being sexually penetrated by a man is extremely distasteful to a straight man, but is pleasurable to a straight woman. This physical violation makes the idea of homosexual relations “revolting” to men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/deirdre.obyrne.12 Deirdre O’Byrne

    It obviously isn’t possible to have as a lover someone whose body parts are repulsive to you. The women in the LUG scenario are therefore bisexual. They don’t revert to their true sexuality upon graduation – they fall in love with men (as many bisexuals do) – but they obviously retain the capacity to be attracted to women.

    As for late in life lesbians. I didn’t realise I was bisexual or transgender until almost 40. Nothing fundamental had changed about my sexuality or my gender identity – what had changed is I had developed the maturity and courage to deal with the issues my sexuality and gender identity had created for me all my life.

    I had no idea I could be attracted to men until it happened. But what made it happen wasn’t a change in my sexuality – it was that I had become mature enough to really embrace my biggest sexual fears – fears which had been with me throughout my adult life.

    So certainly I was completely in the dark about my gender and sexuality for 40 years. It’s called denial. It’s called “being in the closet – even to yourself”.

    As for “homosexual behaviour” – “homosexual behaviour” is a description of physical acts – it isn’t necessarily due to homosexual tendencies. And in abusers, it most certainly isn’t. The homosexual acts perpetrated by abusers is not due to homosexual tendencies – it is due to abuse tendencies – and there is NO connection between the two.

    Yes being penetrated by a man is, obviously, distasteful to a straight man. But what is interesting is that lesbian sex isn’t distasteful to nearly as many women.

  • Guest

    I believe that a geniune biblical and Christian approach to the issue leads to a very different conclusion. It is not about bowing to social pressure but, having been released from the shackles to our thinking and understanding that you describe – population, all male institutions we can reach a more truely Christian and loving approach. There has been a long journey for the Christian church in fully understanding and implimenting the radical message of Jesus and his proclaimation of freedom from condemnation. First accepting that Gentiles as well as Jews could be Christian, then issues of slavery, race and gender, now sexual orientation. Loving the “sinner” and hating the sin, is perhaps a starting point, but this is not a phrase that occures in the Bible. The old testament has to be interpeted in the light of many other stipulations we no longer follow and the issues of what sin is, needs examination. Promiscuity is clearly a sin and damaging those involved and often others – including particularly children who may be the innocent and unintended result. Forceing sex on others is clearly sinful and damaging. Both of these issues (other than creating children) apply accross all sexual orientations. If we accept that people have homosexual orientation, that is not just a matter of choice, then surely, in loving those people, we would not deny them long term loving relationships, (the Church of England has got this far for its Bishops and Clergy). Having accepted that, then are we really wanting to deny basic human intimacy – a hug for example? So then it becomes a issues about boundaries, ending up with a fairly purient interest in what happens in the bedroom. It has become clearer to me as time goes on and my knowlege of the bible has increased that whatever happens in the bedroom, if it is consentual, and not harmful, is not sin, and the decision about it is between the people involved NOT anything to do me!!! The new testament is particularly clear on the last point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=719435296 Bradley P O’Brien

    From all I read the priests preferred victims were young males. Man and boy. Sounds like statutory homosexual rape to me. There was muted outrage against the Catholic church because the media didnt really want to publicize the fact that the perpetrators were largely male homosexual.
    That isnt to say that Protestantism is spared this horrid trend. You cannot be hired as a youth pastor if you are not married.

    I got married in 1999. Many of the adult male singles in that church are still in the singles ministry. Assuming only a small percentage of them are gay, we still have a big cohort of unmarried hetero guys. Instead of directing hostility to the homosexuals why not more closely scrutinize these never marrieds? Why can’t they grow up and be big boys??

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    Pedophiles typically target boys and girls under the age of ten. But 80% of abuse victims were teenage boys. There was clearly more at play than a priest’s desire to have power over someone else.
    But let’s get back to the main point of my article: society is going to embrace a variety of sexualities and domestic arrangements in the coming decades, and may eventually see them as superior to traditional monogamous marriages. This presents a huge challenge to the church.

  • Anonymous

    In point #3, the link goes to a graph that says more men than women are okay with homosexual relationships now.

    There’s another factor I think you missed: Many of us know gay people in the workplace and find them to be honest, hard working, and likeable. Some of them make great sacrifices that are noble and do the rest of us a lot of good.

    When my children went to college they developed gay friends and found that they were nice people. My children had a crisis in faith: “The church tells us we have to shun and show disapproval to these people, but we actually value their presence in our lives.” I told my kids that if they were without sin, they could shun others. Otherwise they have to treat them exactly with the same love and respect with which they’d like to be treated.

    We have one pastor in our mega-church who can hardly wait to get up and bash homosexuals. He’s a real embarrassment.

  • Jamiel Cotman

    I think the biggest thing with homosexuality is the science.

    The logical thinkers that we men are, we are always going to look at that. And logic is blurred here. Its inconclusive as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice.

    This is some muddy water here Dave.

    A) If its a choice

    Then yea, guys are going to lead the way in pulling more and more people from a church that excepts gays.

    B) If it is NOT A choice [they are born gay]

    Then it is our rightful duty as Christian men to defend their rights [Psalm 82:3-4]. If ‘B’ is the case, then the slogan is true, “Gay Is The New Black”. And just as blacks being denied rights because of their skin-color was unjust, denying gays rights because of how they were born is also wrong.

    As a Christian man I believe ‘A’. But fortifying that argument is where the battle lays.

  • joel

    Actually, I tend to think ‘B’ (simply because, as Dave pointed out, most men are repulsed by the thought of gay relations. Who would choose something that naturally repulses them?), yet I would completely reject (as most blacks would) the “new black” argument. Skin color has no bearing on distinctiveness, but gender absolutely does. And that’s what God created marriage to be, a union of two people He created to represent different and distinct images of Himself. There’s no significant difference between a black man and a white man, but there’s a world of difference between a man and a woman, no matter what the race. As for being born gay, God can create vessels for ignoble purposes and patiently bear with them to show His glory (Romans 9). They have the same opportunity to repent and obediently resist their natures as the rest of us sinners, do they not?

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    If you doubt what I’ve written in this column, just read this article about the new trends on campus: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/fashion/generation-lgbtqia.html?exprod=myyahoo&_r=0

  • Jamiel Cotman

    You: Skin color has no bearing on distinctiveness, but gender absolutely does.

    Me: You may be confusing gender with sexual orientation.Gay would mean their gender is different from their sexual orientation. If she is a woman, who likes men the two match. But if she is a woman who likes women, then her sexual orientation is different from her gender. All I’m saying is that if she was born that way, and the studies are inconclusive, then we are discriminating against how someone is born. If such is the case, the statement “Gay Is The New Black” could be a reality.

    You: Actually, I tend to think ‘B’ (simply because, as Dave pointed out, most men are repulsed by the thought of gay relations.

    Me: Ok so you believe people are born that way. While I don’t necessarily, I’ve heard solid arguments from both sides.

  • joel

    Thanks for the reply, Jamiel!
    I’m not so sure you can separate gender from sexual orientation in the sense that a primary reason God created men and women is for sexual union, and that is His will for mankind. When the two don’t match, for whatever reason, it means there’s a brokenness that needs to be healed. There’s no such brokenness in race. That’s what I was getting at.

    As for believing one is born gay, I really don’t know. I just tend to think that for the reason I stated. It could very well be a product of environment, psychology or a combination of factors. The point is, I don’t think it matters. God clearly states that it’s sin, regardless of whether it makes sense to us, His creation.

  • joel

    Oh there’s no doubt, Dave. This has always been an attack on not just sexuality, but on the very idea of human identity as created in the image of God. Dennis Prager has made this point often and very well. It’s an attack on the very idea of male and female. The Brave New World is upon us.

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    I see it as petulance – like a child looking at his father, saying, “You’re not the boss of me!” These young people don’t realize it, but they are saying to their creator, “You didn’t create me – I created myself! Now butt out and let me live the life I’ve made.” What the world sees as individuality, Christ-followers see as hubris.

  • will

    @Deirdre O’Byrne

    Despite a person’s feelings homosexual relationships are sinful:

    Leviticus 20:13

    “‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
    have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
    will be on their own heads.

    Romans 1:18-27

    18The
    wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness
    and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
    19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
    20For
    since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal
    power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from
    what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    21For
    although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
    thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
    were darkened.
    22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
    23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    24Therefore
    God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
    impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
    25They
    exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created
    things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
    27In
    the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
    were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
    with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
    perversion.

    Temptation and sinful desire can be overcome as the testimonies of the other christians going through the same problem have done.

  • Willie Owens

    Hi David, I find the most acceptable reason why its on the rise is the spread of atheism throughout the world. When a person does not accept God. there is a general consensus that everything they do is okay. After all; they are not hurting anyone and they are self-made men who think that logic trumps the bible period. They see religion as fantasies for the desperate and cannot ever grasp the thought of an afterlife. They buy into that whole genetic predisposition thing in order to justify their sin. Well even an atheist will cry out to God on his deathbed. The don’t know the Father’s love, and the escape clause they have…just to believe that they are sinners and that Jesus died to save them too. We have a Father that not only forgives, but forgets. Karl Marx will never get anyone into the kingdom!

  • Pat Trobaugh

    We were all born with a sinful nature it just manifest itself in different ways in each of us

  • Lee

    David, are you trying to be deliberately inflammatory here? The whole tone of this article is judgemental and lacking in grace imho. I’m really saddened by it, if a gay person read this would they feel loved by the church and Christians?

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    Lee, I’m not judging anyone – just examining why society’s reaction to homosexuality has changed so much over the past 50 years. How is it inflammatory?

  • Lee

    It’s just soooo controversial David, it’s a massive grey area and it’s very topical right now here in the UK…

    i found this very helpful and very well balanced…

    http://premier.org.uk/lasttaboo

    …maybe its just the difference in our cultures Dave, things don’t always translate well across the pond e.g. Steve Chalke a big evangelical figure here in the UK has just come out in favour of gay marriage and a great discussion has started, there is no “Christian” stance at the moment, because people disagree and they may always disagree.

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    I’ve heard about Chalke “coming out.” In fact I read his very articulate and well reasoned post for why he did it. I don’t agree with his decision, but he did make some valid points.
    I don’t think it’s harmful to discuss the root causes for societal change. Nor is it hateful to project where these trends may lead us.
    Fifty years ago if you’d said, “In 2013 men will be marrying men” you’d have been laughed out of the room – or been dismissed as a fear monger. Today it’s quickly becoming the norm.
    I believe same-sex relationships will become the preferred choice among urban elites within 50 years. Is this such a leap from where we are today?
    Society’s attitudes toward family have changed before. Consider this: Large families were the norm 150 years ago, but if a couple in London bore 10 children they’d be a spectacle today. They’d be the topic of gossip and derision. People would stare. They’d face subtle discrimination.
    In the same way, opposite sex marriages with children will be subtly frowned upon by midcentury. I’m not envisioning a dystopian future where man-woman marriages are illegal. I’m simply saying that man-woman-children type families will become rarer – and will be subtly discouraged by society’s elites and government policies. Why? So-called nuclear families contribute to overpopulation and global warming. Children are expensive. Young adults commit most of the crimes. They consume resources that could be spent on the elderly – and the elderly vote.
    So, is this hurtful to gays? If so, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to hurt anyone.
    But as G. K. Chesterson said, “Before one moves a fence, one should ask why it was built in the first place.” So why did almost every society on earth have a fence that kept homosexuality out (or under wraps) for 5,000 years? And why is that fence quickly being taken down? That’s the question my post is trying to answer. Maybe nothing will change once the fence is gone, but Isn’t it wise for us to discuss it? The church is famous for ignoring issues until they’re pounding at our door. Why would we want to be caught flat footed once again?

  • Lee

    I agree we must engage with this now and we as a church leadership team are doing just that, but it wont be easy or simple. Thank you for your provocation. GB.

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    I’ve probably eliminated any possibility of ever praying at a presidential inauguration by exploring this topic, but I think it’s important to discuss these things.

  • TruthvLIes

    Guest your argument is flawed big time so you need to read the bible a lot more. So if what happens in the bedroom is consensual it is not sin? Here are few scenarios to chew on……

    Father and daughter. If it is consensual it is not sin.

    Mother and son. if it is consensual it is not sin.

    A man and his dog. If it is consensual it is not sin.

    A married man and a prostitute. If is is consensual it is not sin.

    Adult and teen. If it is consensual it is not sin.

    Two sisters. If it is consensual it is not sin.

    Two brothers. If it is consensual it is not sin.

    I guess God and Jesus both got it wrong when they said a MAN shall leave his mother and father and cling to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.

    Do you by any chance use the thoroughly revised according to modern culture bible?

  • Lee

    Absolutely David, and i reckon that gig may be overrated anyway :)

  • http://www.churchformen.com David Murrow

    Please provide the names of any agrarian societies that have granted widespread acceptance to openly gay couples. I don’t know of one.
    I’d also be curious to know about these additional genders you speak of.

  • Des williamson

    We are all born in the image of God it just manifests itself in different ways in each of us. Why always look on the negative side? Should we as Christians be life affirming – even Jesus had a laugh!

  • http://www.churchformen.com/ David Murrow

    Des, thanks for your reply, but I have to say it’s full of straw men. Of course we can mine the history books and find isolated examples of societies in which homosexuals were not persecuted – but they are rare. To say that society has not frowned upon homosexuality is to ignore 99 percent of history.
    As for liberal churches – yes, they may indeed start growing, but don’t bet on it. The the most recent incarnation of the liberal church – the so-called “emerging church” seems to be declining already.

  • Pat Trobaugh

    That Image was shattered by sin it is negative but it is the truth. That’s way God became a man and died on the cross for our forgiveness

  • Pingback: Wednesday Link List « Thinking Out Loud

  • Fikayo Adeyemo

    First, it must be pointed out that science has never proved that homosexuality is in-born. So, the proper position should still be that it is a willing CHOICE of those who practice it. Making such a choice is comparable to kleptomania, incest, bestiality, and It is an anormally that requires special help (psychiatric, spiritual, or other)

    Second, even if it were to be inborn, it would be a grave error to place it in the same category as skin or hair or eye colour. It is a would still be a disease – but this time a “physical” one comparable to sickle-cell disease, albinism, or Down’s syndrome. What the sufferers of these diseases need is medical treatment, support and cure (where possible) They definitely do not need to be told that they are OK – and should just lead their lives with the in-born ailments unattended to. Similarly, homosexuals need help, not deceit and neglect. Telling them they are OK is wicked indeed.

  • Haley

    I just wanted to let you know that some of your statements are slightly inaccurate. You stated that in every culture for the last 5000 years homosexuality has been taboo. During the Roman Empire & before, in the Greek & Roman cultures, homosexuality was widely accepted. In Athens, a philisophical/learned culture, women were used exclusively for procreation. However, if a man wanted to have relationships or sex for pleasure, he utilized men or young boys. A woman was of little more value to a senator than a slave. In fact, male slaves were more highly valued than that senator’s wife. Sparta, a warring culture in Greece, was a different story. Romans were also accepting of homosexuality. Both cultures were polytheistic, and often orgies were a part of their religious celebrations & rituals, specifically the Dionysian holidays.

    I won’t argue many of your statements, however, I’m interested in where you got your statistics.

  • http://www.churchformen.com/ David Murrow

    The Spartans and Aztecs practiced infanticide. Would you therefore say that the murder of newborns is a normal, widely accepted practice. across a broad range of societies? Of course not.
    The fact is, homosexuality has been a near universal taboo in most societies. It has always been practiced secretly, often under penalty of imprisonment or death, except in a few cases. The current acceptance/celebration of gay relationships in the West is unprecedented.

  • Haley

    You misunderstand. I didn’t say that it was normal or that I agree. My feelings are irrelevant. But you are incorrect. I am a teacher of history, and a church leader. The Roman Empire (which encompassed most of what we know as Europe & part of Asia) & most of the Grecian empire/influence for centuries is NOT small, or just some flash in the pan. When you make blanket statements, you open yourself up to debate and the fact of the matter is that homosexuality has been a taboo in many cultures, historically, but not all, as you stated. It was not practiced in secret in Greek & Roman cultures. It was accepted practice. I’m going to assume you remember the story of Sodom & Gomorrah? Part of why God wiped them out was because of their lifestyle. NOT practiced in secret, btw. And frankly, it has nothing to do with practicing infanticide. I wasn’t arguing the rightness or wrongness of your arguments, only that you presented inacurate information. I would think that you would want to present the truth.

  • http://www.churchformen.com/ David Murrow

    Perhaps we should look to an outside expert on these matters. Would you do some research into the history of gay marriages? Identify the number of societies that have officially sanctioned unions among partners of the same sex and get back to me. I’m sure my readers would like to know what you find. Blessings, DM.

  • TruthvLIes

    I’m simply saying that man-woman-children type families will become rarer – and will be subtly discouraged by society’s elites and government policies.

    In Australia it is already happening. The NSW government’s schools curriculum states that male/female marriage is not the norm.

  • TruthvLIes

    And this is related to homosexuality how? Abuse of children isn’t about sex, it’s about power. It isn’t a sexual attraction to people or to bodies – it is a sexual attraction to the abuse of power. These priests aren’t homosexual – they are abuse-of-power-sexual.

    Did you know Deirdre that the homosexualists work to a simple method. When anything that comes up that puts them in a bad light, they bandy about ideas to neutralise the negative effects of it. When they have come up with one that seems to be the answer to the problem, they then use this to hide the truth.

    Regarding homosexual priests that abuse boys, they came up with the argument you are using, it is a power thing not a paedophilia thing.

    Now here is the rub. Most of what is concocted by them is to hide the truth, so when they say it is a power thing, not a homosexual thing, you know that it is a homosexual thing because they always oppose the truth never lies.

    How do I know this? I have investigated their claims all over the place and lo and behold, everyone says the same thing, regardless of which country is involved so their grapevine works overtime to make sure everyone is dancing to the same tune.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.subritzky John Subritzky

    You hit the nail on the head with family size Dave. “Sizeism” is rampant in the west now. If you have more than two kids, you are subject to intolerance from everybody.

  • VICTIM OF SIN

    IT IS STILL A SIN AND A LIE THRU SATAN THAT THIS IS OKAY, IT IS NOT OKAY TO THINK IT WILL MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE, IT WILL NOT. IT ONLY MEANS TO ME THAT IT IS GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER FOR JESUS TO COME BACK. IT MAKES ME SICK TO MY STOMACH, I AM A VICTIM OF BEING FELT UP BY FOUR DIFFERENT LESBIANS, SO THAT IS OKAY! NO, THAT IS SAD TO THINK THEY NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABUSE DECENT PEOPLE. THESE PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM MENTALLY, AND THEY HAVE NO OTHER ROUTE THAN TO DRAW OTHER MENTALLY ILL FOLKS INTO THEIR GROUPS. THEY ARE AFRAID TO STAND ALONE AND LOVE GOD AND HIS LAW. THEY ARE AFRAID TO STAND WITH GOD’S PEOPLE. THERE WILL BE MORE SINNERS GOING TO HELL THAN THE SAVE GOING TO HEAVEN, NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.