Add new comment

I am a listener who has been with you from the beginning. And while what is represented on Being is not always reflective of my views I find the education I receive each week thoughtful, often provocative but never, never dull nor condemning. You have broadened my education beyond what ever graduate school could ever do. But, I cannot accept the "righteousness" of a gay life style but I can accept the person. From a Biblical standpoint I have yet to hear a discussion where common ground can be found. Unless you can accept scripture that is written to serve your point of view then there will always be a problem with the gay life choice.Isaiah and Paul called this "men with itching ears"! I can be no one's judge but I can set a moral standard based upon scripture, as long as it is translated correctly, to be my moral compass.

There is a consistency in over a thousand years of Biblical writings that is very clear about the moral standards we must choose if we wish to be obedient to our Heavenly Father. We can NOT parse out that which we do not like. But simultaneously we can NOT parse out those who do not accept our views. The Savior was as clear on that issue as he was on His moral standards.

There is a rhetorical trope called an enthymeme. It is easy to define but it is often very difficult to recognize and understand it when it is used. Many times I think the speaker using such a trope can not even identify that they are using such an rhetorical device. You can often tell it is being used when you hear a statement that you know is logically wrong but you can't quite put your finger upon exactly what is wrong. It is the truncated and logical equation of: if A=B and B=C then A=C. An enthymeme simply assumes one part of that equation is assumed. Usually it is the first or second part. But, when it is used it is most often a falsehood that could not stand up to full logical scrutiny. Aristotle was the first to write about this interesting twist of logic. Politicians were the first to employ it's deception!

Such is the case with the underlying implication of the gay rights movement. Almost always the race issue is the comparison to the justification of a Gay life. It is true that race is not an issue for debate and can be very clearly enunciated through our understanding of genetics. Race differences often go on to validate their legitimacy through various diseases that are indicative to a particular race. While there have been hopeful implications to the genetic argument that a gay person is simply born that way there has never been a proof positive that it even exists in the least measure. On that hangs the crux the gay community uses to justify their way of living. The implied portion of the rhetoric is that scientifically demonstrable genetics is the same as wished for genetics. It almost seems a desperation on the part of many who are Gay to force this rhetorical stance upon those who are not Gay because they want so much to find a reasonable explanation to their feelings. And by such a subtle and not so subtle attempt at force they contradict the very effort they are trying to make so to exculpate the choice they have made.

Now those of you who are Gay please do not turn this forum into another battle ground for your lifestyle. I do not think either camp are going to ever agree upon these underpinnings. But is that failure to logic a justification to persecute those who claim to be Gay? NO!! They bleed just like us as the Merchant of Venice so carefully articulates. I firmly believe that Gay people have an absolute expectation of dignity and a frank acknowledgment of such from those of us who are not gay.They have the right to not be persecuted, not to be called names, NOT to fear walking down a street at night! Such persecution is what the Savior called hypocrisy. And He ranked hypocrites among the vilest of humans and never equivocated on that important distinction.

I have a nephew who is gay in a religious community that will never accept gay"ism" as the moral equivalent to racism. Yet many are duped into justifying the coals they heap upon the heads of gay people. I truly love him with all my heart and share his sorrow for the way society in general treats him. He should not have to fear ever in our world. Nor should he have to fear the lumbering thug with little more than grist between his ears. He is a gifted artist and a great conversationalist with a big heart among his many talents. And the lifestyle he has chosen is fraught with pain. I could never add to that pain. I love him no different now than when I did not know he is gay. But racism and gay"ism" are simply not the same thing.

Those of us who are not Gay have the right to express our moral ideas just as well as those who are gay have such a right. Take away those inalienable and God rgiven ights and we all perish. Once the debate can be extricated from this enthymeme conundrum then both sides can at once see the other first as human Beings, first as deserving of each others respect and claim to dignity and FIRST as members of a free and democratic republic who MUST share the ground upon which we all walk if we can ever hope to be redeemed as such Beings and as creatures of our Creator.