A Homophobe
.gif)
By Steven Clark Goad
Personal Note From Buff Scott, Jr., Editor
Steven Clark Goad is one of my favorite authors. His writings cut illogical positions and absurdities to the bone. This message is captivating and excitingly sensible.
Closets Are Scary Nooks!
No Seat At The Table—Oooh, my! “Gays” can have their marches and project their political clout with certain parties and gain funding for health insurance and other entitlements, but the lowly homophobe is looked upon with disgust and derision. He has no seat at the table of public opinion, nor does he receive the respect he deserves when he is brave enough to come out of the homophobic closet and stand tall in the face of his detractors. One of the most horrendous trials we homophobes must endure is the insensitive and demeaning terminology used to describe us. Who wants to be known as someone who hates humans? For that is what the term “homophobe” actually means. “Homo” means “human” and “phobe” entails “fear” and “great distaste.” We straight heterosexual men do not like to be called by ugly names such as “homophobes.” We prefer to be called “joys.” The homosexual community has chosen to select a lovely word from the English vocabulary to describe themselves and to put a better slant on their perverted and unnatural behaviors among the same sex. They wish to be called “gays.” Well, we healthy and God-fearing men and women who agree that same-sex arrangements are condemned by God simply wish to be called “joys.” Don’t call me homophobe. Just call me joy. Doesn’t that sound a whole lot more politically correct? I mean, in today’s culture, what minority group should be rebuked and mocked for holding a strong opinion about what is right and wrong? Can’t “Joy” Be A Genetic Makeup? We have not chosen to be homophobic. We are joy because of some inherent genetic makeup. We can’t help ourselves. We must stand against homosexuality and speak up against it for what it is—aberrant and antisocial behavior that results in emotional and physiological sickness. Who can fault us for being what we naturally are? Why are gays allowed to bash and vilify us innocent joys while we must remain mute regarding our strong feelings about the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle? Perverts can’t have it both ways. They can’t condemn us for our birthright to be joy and then expect us to remain silent regarding something clearly condemned by the God of morality. God Approves Of Joy Joy isn’t spoken against at all in the Bible. As a matter of fact, it is encouraged. But men sleeping with men and women with women is spoken against in the harshest of terms. The entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their practice of the vulgar and horrible homosexual lifestyle. The etymology of our word “sodomy” has its origin in the Bible. My Emotional Distress Is Bubbling Over! Most citizens of the world do not understand how difficult it is to remain closeted with this secret that is looked upon as politically incorrect. Many of my mutual “joys” have confided in me how hard it is to keep their jobs for fear that it might be discovered they are heterosexually-married “joys” with children. The emotional distress alone has taken a great toll on the many who are straight in their attempts to honor God by marriage and family after the Adamic pattern established in the beginning. God didn’t create Adam and Everett. It was clear from the first family that being heterosexual is the God-ordained pattern for humankind. Well, We’ve Made A Decision We have finally decided to keep our secret no longer. Most of us, some still admittedly timid, are now coming out into the open and declaring our rights as citizens of the world and of this once great nation. Governments should begin at once to acknowledge our lobbying efforts. Funding should be set aside for the rehabilitation of those of us who have experienced great emotional trauma for having to repress our heart’s desire to be “joy.” Reparation bills should be submitted and passed at once for all of us who have suffered the slings and arrows from living a lie, pretending to accept homosexuality as just another lifestyle, when all the while we knew it was wrong but couldn’t speak up for fear of being labeled homophobic. Leave My Self-Esteem “As Is!” Yes, I am “joy” and happy to be identified as such. Nobody can take away my self-esteem. Nobody can change what I am inside by referring to me with nasty and uncharitable language. Homophobe? Yes, if you wish to use such terminology. I stand with God and all others who desire to do His holy will in the intimate and sacred relationship known as marriage. The very nature of homosexuality precludes having children. The lifestyle itself is unhealthy in every way. So, to be homophobic is natural. How could anyone find fault with someone who is simply living out his normal birthright? To do so would simply be politically, socially, morally, intellectually, and logically incorrect.
Steven Clark Goad is one of my favorite authors. His writings cut illogical positions and absurdities to the bone. This message is captivating and excitingly sensible.
I'm obviously very out of touch. I find this piece uncomfortable. Guess the cultural divide is showing.
ReplyDeleteI would like to invite you to join the discussion on my blog. My current post is Does God Hate Homosexuals? I would love for you check it out and join the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSteve, this will win homosexuals unbelievers to Christ just how? It would be offensive to my homosexual family members and friends.
ReplyDeleteYou can join the discussion at www.kinneymabry.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteTed Haggard syndrome by any chance?
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, Ezekiel 16:49-50 - a passage summing up what was wrong with Sodom in God's eyes - does not claim that homosexuality was the cause of its destruction, but rather says that pride, gluttony, idleness, haughtiness, and lack of care for the poor and needy were. Fairly consistent with that are Jesus' references to the city in the context of inhospitality (Luke 10:8-12) and unbelief (Matthew 11:23).
Moreover, some are of the opinion that the Hebrew word that the KJV renders "know" in Genesis 19:5 should be interpreted not as having sexual connotations, but simply as knowing in the way that we "know" people in modern English. Might explain why the men of Sodom didn't proposition or try to rape Lot himself when he was outside his house, although I guess it's also possible that they didn't because wanting nothing more or less than to ruin his reputation as a host by raping his guests meant there was no reason for them to - especially if they weren't actually homosexual but just keen to rape Lot's visitors to help them achieve their goal. (I recall reading once that most male-rape perpetrators were heterosexual, and therefore committed the deed not out of lust for the victim, but to humiliate him.)
Assuming that those who believe the story has a sexual component are correct, though, what it appears to describe is, as already indicated, not a wish on the part of the men for consensual homosexual activity, but to rape. This is followed by Lot telling them that he will not grant them that wish, but will let them have his daughters for their pleasure (Genesis 19:8). So, if he meant sexual pleasure, and if he was indeed giving his permission for the men to force themselves upon his daughters, is proffering our young daughters for rape (if we have any) how to go about reducing homosexuality?
As for homophobia being a birthright, I'd say it's more environmental than anything - i.e., that whether homosexuality gets to someone is down in the majority of cases to nurture or upbringing. Hence why homosexuality tends not to fill with anxiety a person who's lived in a gay-accepting city or society all their life, and why such a person may find it hard to understand why others can't get over the fact that some are attracted to people of their own gender.
Because of the extent to which we are shaped by our culture, however, I've no doubt that most of the gay-friendly and gay-indifferent adults in places like Spain and the Netherlands would be hostile towards homosexuality had their formative years been spent in, for instance, Jamaica or Afghanistan instead, just as I'm sure that most of the adults of these two countries wouldn't have a problem with same-sex attraction if Holland or Spain were the country where they'd grown up.
Re: "But men sleeping with men and women with women is spoken against in the harshest of terms."
Yet the Bible is silent on sex between females except in Romans 1:26. If the people who view that verse as containing a blanket condemnation of all acts in that category are right to do so, is it that God didn't mention lesbianism to Moses or any other Old Testament prophet due to oversight, or that He inexplicably didn't finally start to find it detestable until Paul was penning his epistle to the Romans?
Re: "The very nature of homosexuality precludes having children."
So what? Should a straight couple comprising two childless persons be held in contempt too if one or both of them is/are incapable of reproducing, along with single heterosexuals who are not infertile but still haven't had any children and don't intend to have any either?
No response, then? I'll comment directly on a couple more things in your blog post anyway:
ReplyDelete"God didn’t create Adam and Everett. It was clear from the first family that being heterosexual is the God-ordained pattern for humankind."
So the story of Adam and Eve derides homosexuality just by having nothing to say about it? Couldn't the same kind of logic be used to argue that we should only wear garments of skin because that's all they wore according to Genesis 3:21? Or that it's wrong for us to live in a house or use a computer because they didn't, for that matter?
"The lifestyle itself is unhealthy in every way."
How so? If anal penetration is principally what you're alluding to here, I have to concur that it's not one of the safest or most hygienic of practices, but nor is it one that's by any means restricted to homosexual men. If it's the potential harmfulness of certain sexual acts that really concerns you, why not disparage them regardless of the participants' gender(s)?
Lesbians, needless to say, cannot have rectal intercourse or even simulate it without the aid of sex toys. Perhaps they're not always the healthiest of things to use either, but it would be as ridiculous to suppose that lesbians all use them as it would to suppose that few or no straight people do.