It seems like a day doesn't go by that I don't see someone, whether in the MSM or one of my Facebook contacts, lashing out at pastors like Joel Osteen... with whom I have my own issues) or the Pope (I'm not a Roman Catholic myself), or someone running for President.
They are lashing out specifically because, given the Biblical teachings that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom, these pastors and religious leaders and believers, when asked by people like Oprah about homosexual behavior, note that homosexual behavior, like all sex or sex-like behavior that isn't between spouses (spouses meaning bride with groom), is a sin. These people are being asked for what they believe, and they are being honest in their responses.
These pastors and religious leaders and believers are not advocating violence. They are stating what is found in the Bible and church tradition. If their conviction that sex outside of marriage is wrong is "hate speech" that somehow is a threat to you, how isn't your apparent conviction that their stating their convictions is wrong a threat to them?
None of these people are saying everyone has to find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. They aren't saying you don't feel what you feel.
So please... if you are such a person who hates or is angry at or disgusted by these pastors and religious leaders because they believe what they do about human sexuality (that 1. it is for marriage and 2. marriage unites a bride and groom), please, please, please enlighten me and anyone else like me:
1. Are there any moral restrictions when it comes to sex? If so, please explain what those restrictions are.
2. How did you discover or determine or learn what those morals are?
3. Why should Osteen, the Pope, me, or anyone else replace the morals we are convinced are right with the morals you hold?
I'd really like to know. You know, in case Oprah or some pageant judge with a bogus copycat name asks me.
Simply spewing hate at me or anyone else is not an argument. So don't even try it.
Keep in mind that if everyone were to adhere to the morals I list above, along with the principle that children have a natural right to a mother and a father (so no using donations or reproductive technologies to intentionally bring children into a home without a mother or without a father) we would...
1. Have no children born out of wedlock (except in the rare cases of when a pregnant woman is widowed). Illegitimacy is correlated to many negative indicators.
2. Slash the rate of STD infections to almost nothing. Can we agree that STDs are bad?
3. Hack into small bits (there's a deliberate choice of words) the number of children slaughtered in the womb, or with their bodies out in the open but their head still in the canal. Come on, even you "pro-choicers" usually say that abortion isn't good in most cases.
4. Significantly reduce the heartache, depression, embarrassment, shame, and other negative feelings that come after someone has been fornicating with someone and the relationship ends.
5. Make it less likely that people who aren't compatible with or loving or respectful towards each other will drag their relationship on, possibly into marriage, only to split. Or do you think it is a good thing for people to stay with someone who makes them miserable just because they're having sex?
6. Continue the human race, with most children having had a parent of each of the two sexes to bond with, observe, and learn from, which is good considering every one of those children will have to interact with both men and women.
So... whatever alternate set of morals you offer should be at least as good in terms of results.
They are lashing out specifically because, given the Biblical teachings that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites a bride and a groom, these pastors and religious leaders and believers, when asked by people like Oprah about homosexual behavior, note that homosexual behavior, like all sex or sex-like behavior that isn't between spouses (spouses meaning bride with groom), is a sin. These people are being asked for what they believe, and they are being honest in their responses.
These pastors and religious leaders and believers are not advocating violence. They are stating what is found in the Bible and church tradition. If their conviction that sex outside of marriage is wrong is "hate speech" that somehow is a threat to you, how isn't your apparent conviction that their stating their convictions is wrong a threat to them?
None of these people are saying everyone has to find someone of the opposite sex and marry them. They aren't saying you don't feel what you feel.
So please... if you are such a person who hates or is angry at or disgusted by these pastors and religious leaders because they believe what they do about human sexuality (that 1. it is for marriage and 2. marriage unites a bride and groom), please, please, please enlighten me and anyone else like me:
1. Are there any moral restrictions when it comes to sex? If so, please explain what those restrictions are.
2. How did you discover or determine or learn what those morals are?
3. Why should Osteen, the Pope, me, or anyone else replace the morals we are convinced are right with the morals you hold?
I'd really like to know. You know, in case Oprah or some pageant judge with a bogus copycat name asks me.
Simply spewing hate at me or anyone else is not an argument. So don't even try it.
Keep in mind that if everyone were to adhere to the morals I list above, along with the principle that children have a natural right to a mother and a father (so no using donations or reproductive technologies to intentionally bring children into a home without a mother or without a father) we would...
1. Have no children born out of wedlock (except in the rare cases of when a pregnant woman is widowed). Illegitimacy is correlated to many negative indicators.
2. Slash the rate of STD infections to almost nothing. Can we agree that STDs are bad?
3. Hack into small bits (there's a deliberate choice of words) the number of children slaughtered in the womb, or with their bodies out in the open but their head still in the canal. Come on, even you "pro-choicers" usually say that abortion isn't good in most cases.
4. Significantly reduce the heartache, depression, embarrassment, shame, and other negative feelings that come after someone has been fornicating with someone and the relationship ends.
5. Make it less likely that people who aren't compatible with or loving or respectful towards each other will drag their relationship on, possibly into marriage, only to split. Or do you think it is a good thing for people to stay with someone who makes them miserable just because they're having sex?
6. Continue the human race, with most children having had a parent of each of the two sexes to bond with, observe, and learn from, which is good considering every one of those children will have to interact with both men and women.
So... whatever alternate set of morals you offer should be at least as good in terms of results.
Happy to answer your questions. I hope you'll be so kind as to answer mine as well. (your questions in bold)
ReplyDelete1. Are there any moral restrictions when it comes to sex? If so, please explain what those restrictions are.
There are three.
1) do not harm others - considering not only your potential sexual partners, but anyone to whom you might have bade a commitment of sexual exclusivity. ( that is, remain monogamous if you've made that commitment )
2) mutual consent - sex must never be forced on any being who has not (or cannot) consent. Take note, those who are quick to declare that same-sex marriage is the gateway to social approval of sex with animals, children and inanimate objects: none of these are capable of consent.
3) personal responsibility for possible outcomes - for folks who are not prepared to be parents, this would mean abstaining from sexual activity with procreative potential. appropriate measures to prevent the spread of STDs (another possible outcome) goes along with this responsibility.
2. How did you discover or determine or learn what those morals are?
I used my brain. That's how I do all of my thinking.
3. Why should Osteen, the Pope, me, or anyone else replace the morals we are convinced are right with the morals you hold?
You, the Pope, Osteen and anyone else should be willing to examine the reasons for their own moral convictions, and to change those convictions only if and when they choose to.
Now, a couple of questions for you or your readers . . .
1) Why should anyone be forced to comply with the moral convictions of you, the Pope, Osteen or anyone else?
2) Can you provide any illustrative example(s) of the MSM "lashing out" at Joel Osteen over this issue?
I didn't say anyone should be forced to comply with the moral convictions I hold. I was defending attacks on those moral convictions.
DeleteThere is no reason I, or anyone else, should feel compelled to dump our moral convictions because of what YOU have decided in your own mind.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/joel-osteen-says-being-straight-not-a-choice-being-gay-is_n_1904958.html
Thanks for the link. I would not characterize the interview reported as "lashing out". I don't see anything in that report suggesting that anyone said Osteen was wrong to hold or express his beliefs.
Delete