Something Creepy

Introduction

As my profile says, I read up on many different issues related to Christianity. When I'm reading about "gay rights," one of the phrases I see the most is "I liked boys/girls when I was young," in terms of homosexuality. I'm writing today because after reading an exchange in Youtube's comments, the epitome of cheap entertainment, I realized just how creepy it sounds if the words are instead spoken by a heterosexual.

Seriously, Try It

Do it. If you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked girls when I was young." First, many of you will refuse to because it's an outright lie. Girls had cooties. But let's say you were like me, having friends of both sexes. What does it sound like? Now try it for the same sex as yourself. So if you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked boys when I was young."

Let me illustrate further. When I was in first grade, I was good friends with the girl that sat next to me in class. Even 15 years later, I can remember a field trip where I had no lunch to eat and she shared with me. She moved away after that year. The point is, we were close as far as kids go.

Now take "I liked girls when I was young" in the context of determining present sexuality and a heterosexual man. Does it not sound like a guy had sexual inclinations at that age by using that context? Let's remember, this is all in the line of being "born that way." The problem is, it doesn't make sense.

Two Options

This post can only refer to homosexuals using said line in the introduction if I want to be honest. Still, it shows how, aside from the evidence against "gay genetics*," how the reasoning fails. The first option I have already stated. That is, there are people claiming that their sexuality as a kid and at present reflect each other. Excuse me while I vomit for having to type "sexuality as a kid."

The other option is that it is an excuse and there is no link. If there is no link, then the excuse is moot. My ultimate point of this post isn't even about morality. It's about honesty. I highly doubt that homosexuals had strong enough, if any, sexual feelings as kids as to be able to decide on their sexual orientation.

To expand on my earlier point, I thought a teaching assistant I had in second grade was really pretty. So did a lot of girls in the class. None of the girls that I keep in contact with are lesbians. Not exactly scientific, I know. I'm just reinforcing the point that linking childhood attraction to current sexuality is stupid.

Try it Again

Now say "I liked (same sex) when I was young." It either sounds really dirty or mundane. In the general sense, the phrase means what most people think, having had friends of whatever sex in youth. Being around kids of whatever sex that you enjoyed playing with. Say it in terms of present sexuality, and you sound like you were a pervert as a kid. 

Conclusion

This isn't some proof or piece. It's not some treatise either. It's just my thoughts, using a bit of logic, to show how creepy it is when anyone says a certain phrase in a certain context.

*There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

Word Play, Part 1

Introduction

While I research the Laws of Information and avoid plagiarism, I've taken up a new series to inject in between my other posts. The intention of this series is to see how words are used and what they really mean.


Let's look at homophobia, a word slung around like a tetherball hit by an ogre. What does homophobia mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it means irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It doesn't take a sociologist to see that it's not how the word is used today.

A real-life example

By simply saying "If civil unions are equivalent to marriage, why should gays get married?" I would most likely be accused of being a homophobe.This is despite a legitimate question. If there's no "agenda" to undermine marriage, why not make civil unions equivalent in benefit? After all "marriage" could remain religious while "civil unions" would be the legal version, the government side.

I digress; I could continue that idea into an entire post of its own. The point is, there's no fear there. Two people getting married doesn't make me scared. Gay people don't scare me. I feel no threat by them. especially if the more vocal and political organizations are truly outliers. There's nothing in my reactions that points to fear.

There's no discrimination either. Even legitimate questions like the one above are ""homophobic." To quote from The Princess Bride's Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." The irony is that by discriminating between civil unions and marriage, I've taken care of all common arguments against same-sex coupling, in legal terms. To add one last layer of irony, if there is no "gay agenda," then it's truly ironic that no one has said this sooner. It would expedite the whole process of getting SSM (or SSCU, in my wording) legalized in all 50 states. Fascinating, right? For anyone thinking I've "betrayed my faith," I'll leave my personal reasoning to another post; this is simply a legalistic view.

What about an aversion? Personally, I have none. Let's take my question from the third paragraph again. An honest question is not an aversion. The vocal minorities in all cases need a thicker skin.

Conclusion

I realize that not everyone is like me. Many vocal people of many camps are rude, aggressive, even violent in their verbalization, especially with the shield of anonymity that the internet provides. Let's call those people for what they are, so long as they aren't passionate and simply need a breather (though this may be beyond the baseline wisdom needed to converse on the internet).

Such a person would simply be rude, nasty, angry, maybe even hateful. It all depends on the person. But please, stop beating the dead horse that is homophobia. It hasn't been used properly, it's no better than the person one would use it, and it's unnecessary. Dropping this word would be a start to seeing who is really hateful, after the easy mudslinging dies down.

Love is Love?

Some of my friends on Facebook have posted a picture. You might be familiar with it: on top is a gay couple and it looks like they're getting married; on the bottom is an incredibly malnourished child. It calls anyone against same sex marriage failures if they have a problem with SSM when instead they could be helping starving children.

In logic, this is what we call a false dilemma. I could support starving children (indeed, Freerice is a way I can donate at least a bit despite my low income) and oppose SSM. Someone else might support both, and another might support neither. This is why the dilemma is false.

That said, this reminded me of an oft-quoted phrase, "love is love." At the risk of sounding sarcastic, congratulations,  you just used the reflexive property of equality. My point is that this little phrase means nothing. Say it if you like, I'm not the thought police. It's simply that it has no bearing in an argument.

Need I remind everyone that we don't legislate based on love, let alone act out of love all the time? While my friends want to tell me to accept their version of love and the legislation what it entails, I have no actual rebuttal because there's no argument in the first place. I don't have an issue with people with other worldviews than mine. The issue I have is when an argument becomes about one's viewpoint of love and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Thanks for sowing seeds of discord, by the way, if you've done such a thing.

Post what you want, but be consistent and don't manipulate children to further your viewpoint that would be exactly the same simply by the cop-out "love is love."

On the Prop 8 Lawyer and "Evolving Views"

Introduction

Attorney Charles Cooper was the one to argue Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. As it stands now, he says his views are changing. This post aims to use this man and his views to make a contrast between oft-confused points while not slamming him or his views.

Why is this News?

First and foremost, his views changing comes from his step-daughter being a lesbian and her future marriage. That is his business and I don't even know what his worldview is. However, the issue in a Christian sense is the difference between loving someone and endorsing what they do. I no more tell a gay to continue in his ways anymore than I endorse the personal use of pornography, or something nonsexual like stealing. On the flip side, we Christians are called to be loving, not discounting anyone since we all have fallen short of the glory of God. Love your neighbor as yourself: your gay neighbor, your neighbor from a broken household, your wealthy neighbor, and the list continues.

The second important point is about standing one's ground. The people closest to use affect us the most. Sadly, many change their morality due to this. I get that people don't want to shake or shatter their family by not being fully supportive. Indeed, it takes a sense of maturity for both people involved to resolve the difference between who they are, how they act, and what morality surrounds them. Again, I cannot stress enough that love /= changing one's morals or approving of something that breaks your worldview.

Closing

By now there are dozens of posts on this matter. Posts making parallels, posts without a loving tone, posts that are about recontextualizing the Bible. I'd like to address that last part. "Evolving," in this case, entails that you are improving in some capacity. If this means you adopt a more loving attitude and actually show it, great! I advise caution on the other hand. If "evolving" means moving past God's Word and what it commands, then quite simply you are no longer following God's commands. In fact, such an "evolution" tends to be humanistic, focusing on the people as opposed to the morality involved or even love. It isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it is still a breaking of a whole that should remain as it is. "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

TL;DR Version: Love thy neighbor, regardless. Christ didn't use modifiers to describe this. Love /= changing one's morals. "Evolving" views must makes sense in the context of one's worldview.

On Donnie McClurkin, the Pink Mafia, et al.

While I wish I had more time, I've recently been quite busy. College is about to start and I had many issues to sort out. That said, I wanted to start with a few articles to get some more readers. You know, talk about gaming or something else universal. After much prayer I have decided to write on the following article:

Alvin McEwen writes on Donnie McClurkin

For those unaware, as I was only an hour ago, Donnie McClurkin is an ex-gay, Gospel singer. While he was asked to be a part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. concert in Washington D.C. However, he was cut from the lineup, this by the black mayor of D.C., Vincent Gray. But why? Because of "potential controversy,"  of course. McClurkin has often spoke of God's freeing him from homosexuality, hence why he is ex-gay.

You see, I'm often accused of being a bigot, homophobe, and the list goes on. And yes, before someone comments about blacks and racism and having black friends, I do have both black and gay friends. The important thing is I take the true Biblical stance: homosexuality is condemned as a sin in both the Old Testament and New Testament. It is crucial that you the reader know that I recognize LGBT as people. They are not second-class citizens, nor are they outcasts of some kind. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Thus I accept the person and tolerate the sin, just as others do for me. 

That does not make the sin right and I disagree with what happened to Donnie McClurkin on these grounds. Rather than tolerate his differing opinion, the Mayor  cut Mr. McClurkin from the MLK events. Thus it must be addressed that regardless of anyone's feelings, preemptively cutting Mr. McClurkin from the show is nothing more than bullying. Those who agree with the decision to cut McClurkin say that he is mistaken.Generally, the opinion is that he is a bigot; however, he has not demonstrated and such behavior. Additionally, McEwen claims that gays are not a result of child molestation and poor or single parenting,a beef he has with what McClurkin says in a video clip. 

As a cadet teacher I'm quite aware when bullying is going on behind the scenes. This occurrence is so blatant it doesn't take a keen observer; simply disagreeing with someone is no reason to discriminate. There are those who claim that McClurkin disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle, and that he was cut for good reason. By that logic, presidential debates would be non-existent or absolutely riotous. But they aren't because bullies aren't in charge, though I digress with recent memory of the last presidential debates in mind.

The real question, with the video in McEwen's article,  is "Is McClurkin right? If not, then he really is lying and that's unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst." Now that's a fair situation. So, do gays result from child molestation or poor/single parenting? There isn't a direct way to measure this; I'm sure no one periodically asks children how gay they feel after an event relating to these criteria. Thus, we must rely on statistics to at least give us an idea. That said, this is not some "nail in the coffin."  If successful, it will only show that there's a strong correlation.

Since I will focus on the child molestation angle, it must be said that poorly parented children do often end up participating in alternative behavior. This is problematic for two reasons: Firstly,  it's common sense but proves nothing specific. Does it blatantly cause homosexuality? It's quite possible. Without proper guidance, many youths take part in behavior from the benign to the irresponsible. Regardless, it is unprovable without a rigorous study. Secondly, there's no real way to measure this without a large sample of kids over a long period of time.  So is it offensive? I can't see how. McClurkin cannot be proven wrong or right without more data and quite frankly his comments aren't inflammatory. The best I can say is that I don't bar people from my get-togethers when they say church makes people into atheists. I don't like it, which I can see in this case, but rather than bully the person I continue with my life. Let's get to the next point and see if Mr. McClurkin is truly being hateful. 

To do this, we must look at the rates of homosexuals that molest children. Some studies claim that up to 10% of the USA's population is gay. While various statistics from 2002 (see link at end) put the number between 1 and 3%, any of these three numbers is useful. Even at 10%, if the majority of an action is done by homosexuals then it would be highly disproportionate to the actions committed by the straight population. See the frc link at the end of the article for the myriad of statistics cited.

"A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'" (frc)

While a small sample, five other studies in the same section corroborate this (#35-39). Still, how does this prove that the actions of the sick-minded (child molestation is sick, regardless of LGBT factors, yes?) makes those children grow up to be gay? This requires further development.

Citations 70-76 in the frc link detail how the abused can become abusers. Of these, 70 and 72 are especially important. By seeing that the abused are at higher risk to abuse it becomes clear that there is some link to child molestation and homosexuality. With so few Americans being gay but such high percentages involved in these activities it is very possible that McClurkin's claims are correct

This does not mean that all gays are as they are because of such situations. Mr. McEwen laments this in his article I linked at the beginning of this post, that McClurkin's comments are unfounded because "Gay men are not the products of child molestation."

Not all are, but statistics are usually telling. It is quite obvious that McEwen is firing from the hip to jump on the 
hating band wagon. Disagree, ignore, chide, but do not show bigotry to someone especially when crying for tolerance. McEwen isn't the only one who can make a claim without backing it up. "But Lietzy!," you might ask, "McEwen shouldn't have to cite a bunch of stats and have a huge write-out for his column!" You're right, dear reader, but he has to know what he's talking about! Now he's the one being unprofessional at the least and hateful at worst!

This is where the term "Pink Mafia" comes from. While I usually use the term "Rainbow Brigade" due to the LGBT flag, "mafia" is a much more telling term. Obviously not all LGBT are like this. Just like all Liberals aren't Communists and Conservatives aren't Nazis. Nonetheless, what happened to Donnie McClurkin is unacceptable. By barring his performance, Mayor Grey has caused discord and controversy, quite the opposite of the harmony he clamors about!


Sources: http://www.frc.org/?i=IS02E3

Afterword

I'd like to take a few lines to put down my inspirations for this blog. Reading Bill Muehlenberg's posts on his site was when I got the urge to start blogging. I enjoy the mathematical side of things and thus combined it with cues from Mr. Muehlenberg's work. Also, RKBentley and A Sure Word, another Blogger, have been a great inspiration. While he talks about Christianity and science I decided "Why not do Christianity and use math to corroborate?" Finally, my brother "Epic Professor" and my mother encouraged me to start this.

While I'm at it, I'll add my commenting guidelines since I haven't set that up quite yet. Be professional! Disagree, critique, congratulate, but be clean, concise and without cursing. Avoid slang and try to use proper grammar and punctuation. It helps me respond better and is easier for other readers to follow.

That's all for now, God Bless, readers!