The things I just don’t get about homosexuality…

Let me begin by saying that this post is not meant to offend, as the title states, it’s just meant to air my views and lack of understanding of this whole homosexual phenomenon. I aim to pose questions and make points based on my limited understanding of this whole social construct. So, here goes…

Firstly, why is it deemed “natural”? In my opinion, the fact that two males and two females are unable to procreate already suggests that something is unnatural about that union. So how then is it natural? I’ve been given a long-winded explanation by a guy who I still haven’t quite figured out if he’s in the closet or not. His main point was that it’s all a matter of natural selection, and he explained the statistical likelihood of a heterosexual couple producing a homosexual child and spoke about the biological superiority of homosexuals and blah blah. At the end of the day, he essentially boiled it down to an occurrence in nature, thus making it a natural phenomenon. But, does something being natural automatically make it right? I don’t think so. After all, there are a lot of things that happen in nature that are unnatural. I’m sure that sounds like a contradicting statement but, it really isn’t. Let’s take diseases for example. Diseases are deemed “natural” phenomena BUT, they stem from things like unnatural cell growth etc and they essentially go against the naturally desired functioning of our bodies… BUT they do exist in nature and are deemed natural. Get my drift? Now, let it be known I am not equating homosexuality to a disease so please, don’t misquote me. I’m simply saying, I think homosexuality is unnatural and I am yet to understand otherwise.

Secondly, why is it that homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, yet the personality traits of a homosexual couple usually entail one effeminate partner and one masculine partner? What then was the ingredient of attraction in that union? If I’m attracted to females, I would wish to find me an effeminate female, not one that looks like a man and acts overly masculine, as if trying to overcompensate. That just doesn’t make much sense to me. Also, if I’m a male homosexual, I would look for a strong, confident, masculine male who isn’t trying to be a Barbie or or strut like he’s on a Victoria’s Secret catwalk, acting even more effeminate than any woman I’ve ever met. I mean, have you seen them? I just don’t get it.

Thirdly, gay marriage. Now ,this issue is close to my heart because, honestly I can understand both sides of the fence on this issue. For me marriage is religious. HOWEVER, marriage is also an issue of the state and issues of the state, in our day, do not mix with religion. Marriage being an issue of the state, provides rights to citizens that are not afforded to them under common law, even more so homosexual unions; now this is definitely an issue. I believe everyone deserves equal rights and as such, gays should be afforded whatever legal rights they currently don’t have access to. The only issue I have with the legalization of gay unions is the fact that it will be institutionalized. In fact, it has already been institutionalized in many places across the world. Quite honestly, I would rather home-school my child than send them to a school where they will be taught that a homosexual union is “normal” (refer to first point). If my child wishes to make that decision, I would rather them make it on their own, I wouldn’t want to know that my child decides to be gay because they were influenced by their school curriculum. I just don’t think it’s right. If you wish to be gay, go ahead. If you wish to gain access to your well deserved right, go ahead but please don’t infringe upon MY right to raise my child the way I wish with the values I wish by thrusting the option of being gay at them from an early age. Children are very impressionable and I think it would be unfortunate if the inclusion of gay unions in school curricula leads to such an influence.

The other matter is that I don’t believe gays should force the church to embrace their union as something normal. Yes, we all sin and so no one has the right to cast stones, especially since the very Bible we preach from emphasizes the fact that all sin is equal in God’s eyes. Heterosexuals the world over have also made a mockery of the same union of marriage we wish to exalt as sanctified and holy. However, just because a few bad eggs are in the basket that doesn’t mean we should throw some more in for good measure. In everything there will be good and bad so we should never just use the bad to judge the whole. The church will never be perfect because after all it comprises human beings, who all make mistakes and sin. However, the foundation on which a church stands is immovable. The morals that govern the church are etched in stone and although we may never be perfect, the sole purpose of church is to aim for that perfection and to develop a relationship with God and fellowship with people who are also pursuing the same aims. If we then embrace and glorify homosexuality as being “normal” and as something to be practiced, wouldn’t that just be a big contradiction of what the church stands for?

I think the main reason that sexual sin (not just homosexuality) is so often preached against is because, it is a sin that is committed within one’s own body which is deemed to be the temple of God. Sexual sin also tends to be habitual or a lifestyle forming act. Whereas one may commit any other sin just occasionally or maybe even once in a lifetime or never, sexual sin doesn’t quite work that way. Also the repercussions of sexual sin tend to be far reaching. Just take a look around and you’ll see exactly what I mean — from teenage pregnancies to now this whole issue of trying to legalize homosexuality and make it a norm in society.

Just because we keep embracing more wrong things as normal in our society, doesn’t make them any less wrong or any more right…

Advertisements