Someone posted a comment on my previous blog article regarding homosexuality and had his post removed because of the profane language he unwisely chose to use. Unfortunately his post was full of the kind of hatred those who approve of homosexuality are often hasty to utilize and so it was difficult to separate his alleged “argument” from attack. Though I obviously will not be reposting the comment, I would like to point out a few serious problems with what he offered in “defense” of homosexuality as indicative of the lack of an apologetic the unbelieving view of homosexuality suffers from.
The charge of condescension made little sense in light of my writing, “I am no better than any homosexual then, because I do things I know to be wrong”. The rejection of the “assumption” that homosexuals are sinning in their homosexuality lacked a supporting argument and failed to take into account that the position that homosexuality is sin is not based upon mere assumption. The assertion that there was compassion held toward me was contradicted by the tone, word choice, and personal attacks used in the post. The description of my “interpretation” of the Bible as “antiquated” was completely unsubstantiated by anything the author of the post had to offer, and while he apparently rejects the Bible as “a good basis for morality” he never explained why. The assertion that, “Thieving and lying is [sic] not the same thing as human sexuality” is true, but it does not contradict anything in my original post which describes homosexuality as a sin just like thieving and lying, not human sexuality. Human sexuality is not sinful. To compare human homosexuals to non-human animals as the person commenting did seems to me rather derogatory not to mention irrelevant since non-human animals are incapable of sinning whereas humans are not.
The deleted comment shows that excuses offered for immoral behavior are void.
Leave a Reply