Saturday, June 11, 2005
Homosexuality: Wisdom from Lawrence Webb
There has been a lot of huggle-buggle in the media recently about “the battle in the schools over homosexuality”. I wonder. I wonder if editors exaggerate these stories to up the public temperature. I wonder how many of them realize they are contributing to a growing religious intolerance on both sides of the struggle. I wonder how widespread the “battle” truly is in a country of almost 275 million.
And I also wonder why the extremists, the right wing extremists, can’t see that they are hurting their own cause with their aggressive intolerance. The vast majority of Americans respect the Bible. I’m sure of that. I’m also sure the vast majority of Americans do not want a theocracy to tell us how to live. And that is what the intolerant right wing extremists are up to: creating a Christian theocracy. Tom DeLay has said this country ought be ruled by the principles of Christian theocracy. That, folks, is the Christian equivalent of Muslim law: the Sharia.
When will Republican voters begin to see what their leaders are doing to them and to the treasured traditions of America? There are better, wiser ways to govern a society like ours, a society with so many ways of understanding God, of understanding human spirituality and sexuality.
I would like to post a wiser Christian voice. This is from the Rev. Lawrence Webb, a South Carolinian, a Baptist Minister and emeritus professor at Anderson College, Anderson, SC. Rev. Webb wisely avoids speculations about homosexuality, whether one is born to be gay or chooses. He focuses instead on the oldest virtue, the virtue of tolerance. By the way, speaking of a need for tolerance, I must say I cannot imagine why any human being in America would willingly choose to become gay or Lesbian knowing that only unChristian ugly prejudice awaits that choice.
Here is Rev Webb’s essay, an essay by a Christian, a Baptist Minister that speaks wisdom to me: “Live and Let Live”.
***
Live and Let Live -Lawrence Webb
I try to maintain a live-and-let-live philosophy regarding adult sexual orientation, including homosexuality. But, as homosexuals point out, we heterosexuals often don’t leave it at that. Horror stories of gay-bashing are not limited to the highly publicized murder of college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998.
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their business and not mine, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman who are not married, or a man and a woman who are married. I believe sex should be between husband and wife, but I cannot live other people’s lives for them or impose my religious convictions on them.
Many authorities tell us homosexuality is a disposition people are born with. I believe that is only a partial explanation and that there are multiple explanations for homosexuality. Some people choose this lifestyle. Also I believe environmental factors incline some people toward their own gender from such an early age that this leaning appears to be innate.
Whatever the explanation of their sexual preference, if two men or two women choose to live together as sexual partners, that is their business. The oft-quoted analogy regarding freedom applies: I have freedom to swing my arm until my arm comes in contact with your face. If a same-sex couple and I live quietly in the same neighborhood, their mere presence will probably not disturb me. But if the couple takes an in-your-face stance, making an issue of their sexual preference, I have a problem with that.
I have lived in the same neighborhood with unmarried heterosexual couples who went to work every day, then came home and lived their private lives without disturbing anyone. Though their sexual relationship does not coincide with my understanding of Christian conduct, I cannot make life difficult for them by trying to force my beliefs on them.
Now, let’s suppose a homosexual couple moved in next door to me, went to work every day, then came home and went quietly about their personal interests. Though their sexual practice does not coincide with my understanding of Christian conduct, I can not make life difficult for them by trying to force my beliefs on them.
On the other hand, if nearby residents---of whatever orientation---flaunted their sexual preference, disturbing the neighborhood with large crowds and loud parties, I would object openly. A modicum of modesty should be applied in public show of sexual attraction and affection, whether toward the same sex or the opposite.
Promiscuity, heterosexual or homosexual, often brings serious medical, physical, psychological, and financial problems. Thus, it can become a community ethical and religious issue. But, it is as inappropriate for me to intrude into my neighbor’s space, parading my religious predilections, as it is for my neighbor to parade his or her sexual proclivity.
Moving beyond the neighborhood, I would apply the live-and-let-live principle to the work place. The law should protect a person, whatever his or her sexual preference. A person should be eligible for hiring and promotions for which he or she is otherwise qualified, without regard to sexual preference. Sexual harassment laws should be applied to protect homosexuals and heterosexuals alike who go about their work and do not flaunt their sexuality.
Health care benefits should be available on an equal basis to any couple who can document a long-term living arrangement: married or single, male and female, two men, two women.
Even people who make foolish choices which bring on illness or disability should be provided health care, including people with AIDS. We don’t hesitate to treat drivers who are injured in wrecks caused by speed or DUI. We send drunks to rehab. We treat lung cancer which results from unwise use of tobacco. We treat dare-devils and people in high-risk occupations. We treat heterosexual STD. We usually do not stop to ask why a person has one of these diseases or ailments before providing treatment. In most cases, we do not insist that certain specified moral standards are prerequisites for medical treatment. Yet, some raise religious objections to the treatment of AIDS because it is so often considered the “gay disease.” Some religious extremists say AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals; thus, they do not deserve treatment. However, I am convinced provision for health care is a morality that should take precedence over a marriage license or an unwise course of action.
Live-and-let-live should apply in all aspects of life, whether in the neighborhood, the work place, or the medical clinic.
And I also wonder why the extremists, the right wing extremists, can’t see that they are hurting their own cause with their aggressive intolerance. The vast majority of Americans respect the Bible. I’m sure of that. I’m also sure the vast majority of Americans do not want a theocracy to tell us how to live. And that is what the intolerant right wing extremists are up to: creating a Christian theocracy. Tom DeLay has said this country ought be ruled by the principles of Christian theocracy. That, folks, is the Christian equivalent of Muslim law: the Sharia.
When will Republican voters begin to see what their leaders are doing to them and to the treasured traditions of America? There are better, wiser ways to govern a society like ours, a society with so many ways of understanding God, of understanding human spirituality and sexuality.
I would like to post a wiser Christian voice. This is from the Rev. Lawrence Webb, a South Carolinian, a Baptist Minister and emeritus professor at Anderson College, Anderson, SC. Rev. Webb wisely avoids speculations about homosexuality, whether one is born to be gay or chooses. He focuses instead on the oldest virtue, the virtue of tolerance. By the way, speaking of a need for tolerance, I must say I cannot imagine why any human being in America would willingly choose to become gay or Lesbian knowing that only unChristian ugly prejudice awaits that choice.
Here is Rev Webb’s essay, an essay by a Christian, a Baptist Minister that speaks wisdom to me: “Live and Let Live”.
***
Live and Let Live -Lawrence Webb
I try to maintain a live-and-let-live philosophy regarding adult sexual orientation, including homosexuality. But, as homosexuals point out, we heterosexuals often don’t leave it at that. Horror stories of gay-bashing are not limited to the highly publicized murder of college student Matthew Shepard in Wyoming in 1998.
What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is their business and not mine, whether they are two men, two women, a man and a woman who are not married, or a man and a woman who are married. I believe sex should be between husband and wife, but I cannot live other people’s lives for them or impose my religious convictions on them.
Many authorities tell us homosexuality is a disposition people are born with. I believe that is only a partial explanation and that there are multiple explanations for homosexuality. Some people choose this lifestyle. Also I believe environmental factors incline some people toward their own gender from such an early age that this leaning appears to be innate.
Whatever the explanation of their sexual preference, if two men or two women choose to live together as sexual partners, that is their business. The oft-quoted analogy regarding freedom applies: I have freedom to swing my arm until my arm comes in contact with your face. If a same-sex couple and I live quietly in the same neighborhood, their mere presence will probably not disturb me. But if the couple takes an in-your-face stance, making an issue of their sexual preference, I have a problem with that.
I have lived in the same neighborhood with unmarried heterosexual couples who went to work every day, then came home and lived their private lives without disturbing anyone. Though their sexual relationship does not coincide with my understanding of Christian conduct, I cannot make life difficult for them by trying to force my beliefs on them.
Now, let’s suppose a homosexual couple moved in next door to me, went to work every day, then came home and went quietly about their personal interests. Though their sexual practice does not coincide with my understanding of Christian conduct, I can not make life difficult for them by trying to force my beliefs on them.
On the other hand, if nearby residents---of whatever orientation---flaunted their sexual preference, disturbing the neighborhood with large crowds and loud parties, I would object openly. A modicum of modesty should be applied in public show of sexual attraction and affection, whether toward the same sex or the opposite.
Promiscuity, heterosexual or homosexual, often brings serious medical, physical, psychological, and financial problems. Thus, it can become a community ethical and religious issue. But, it is as inappropriate for me to intrude into my neighbor’s space, parading my religious predilections, as it is for my neighbor to parade his or her sexual proclivity.
Moving beyond the neighborhood, I would apply the live-and-let-live principle to the work place. The law should protect a person, whatever his or her sexual preference. A person should be eligible for hiring and promotions for which he or she is otherwise qualified, without regard to sexual preference. Sexual harassment laws should be applied to protect homosexuals and heterosexuals alike who go about their work and do not flaunt their sexuality.
Health care benefits should be available on an equal basis to any couple who can document a long-term living arrangement: married or single, male and female, two men, two women.
Even people who make foolish choices which bring on illness or disability should be provided health care, including people with AIDS. We don’t hesitate to treat drivers who are injured in wrecks caused by speed or DUI. We send drunks to rehab. We treat lung cancer which results from unwise use of tobacco. We treat dare-devils and people in high-risk occupations. We treat heterosexual STD. We usually do not stop to ask why a person has one of these diseases or ailments before providing treatment. In most cases, we do not insist that certain specified moral standards are prerequisites for medical treatment. Yet, some raise religious objections to the treatment of AIDS because it is so often considered the “gay disease.” Some religious extremists say AIDS is God’s judgment on homosexuals; thus, they do not deserve treatment. However, I am convinced provision for health care is a morality that should take precedence over a marriage license or an unwise course of action.
Live-and-let-live should apply in all aspects of life, whether in the neighborhood, the work place, or the medical clinic.
