forum SignWriting List Forum
  Message 3789  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ] Message Index
From:  Stuart Thiessen
Date:  Sun Jul 9, 2000  3:25 pm
Subject:  Offtopic response to Re: Two male lions

Allow me to make these quick comments which I could not pass by ...

Wayne, I realize there are many who emotionally oppose the homosexual
movement so much that they forgot the people who were involved. I
experienced my rejection as a deaf child in a hearing school. I know how
it can feel (I'm sure yours was different). My comments here are not to
minimize or ignore your pain. However, I am attempting to answer the
question that has been posed. And for those who follow the Bible, we cannot
ignore the clear statements that oppose homosexuality. We must uphold
them, but at the same time respect you and care about you as an
individual. That balance is hard, but required for anyone who will follow
the Bible. (This is true of responding to all sins not just homosexuality.)

At 10:52 07/09/2000 -0400, you wrote:

> Of course the most likely explanation is that the painter forgot
>(or didn't know) that lionesses don't have manes. But there's nothing
>wrong with making up stories, and if you're going to make up stories, it's
>good to have ones that don't make gay kids self-conscious. What happens
>if Noah needed two lions, but could only find gay lions? Maybe he brought
>a lioness (not pictured), and later convinced one or both of the male
>lions to father cubs with her, in order to perpetuate their species.

There is always two sides to an issue. Let me remind you of the other side
as well. People who follow the Bible believe it is history. In truth, I
have yet to find it to be mere story. So, for us, changing the story to
adapt it to one's point of view is playing with history and inappropriate
from our point of view. That should be respected. For that matter, how
should the account of Noah's ark make a gay child self-conscious? It is a
proven fact of biology that you need a male lion and a female lion to make
cubs. That in and of itself says nothing about the homosexual
preference. As a amateur historian, I must confess I bristle when anyone
from any point of view tries to play with history to make it fit their own
cultural, moral, or political bias. Let history be history and fiction be
fiction, but don't make some nonsense about "interpreting" or "adapting"
history to make a point it never intended to make.

> I did want to mention that after our discussions about Deaf
>Missions, I went to their site and was hurt by the prominent link to
>their page about the "sins" of homosexuality and lesbianism. They happen
>to have omitted the "sin" of crossdressing, but it still made me feel that
>Deaf Missons is an organization I want nothing to do with.

Perhaps they do not support the "open-mindedness" (read closed-mindedness)
of our culture. It seems to me our culture says that unless you allow
everybody to believe whatever they want and never tell them they are wrong,
then you are closedminded. Actually, that is an equally closedminded
approach. However, I would say that you should at least respect Deaf
Missions' beliefs if you would have anyone else's beliefs
respected. Agreement is not what is important, but respect. I can respect
the fact that homosexuals have their preferences, but I will never agree
that it is right or good. I cannot because of my belief in what God has
said in His word. Does that make me a homosexual hater? Absolutely
not! In the same Bible, we read that God loved the world enough to send
His Son, Jesus. If God loves all humanity (in spite of their sin and
rebellion), I must also respond in love. At the same time, it is clear
that God is opposed to sin and there are specific references to
homosexuality and crossdressing and the like. There are people who err too
much on the side of love that they ignore the sin and there are people who
err too much on the side of judgement that they forget about the great love
of God. So, balance is required. Having said all that, let me say one more
thing ...

While Deaf Missions may not be a perfect organization (which organization
is????), I believe they are serious about wanting to benefit the deaf
community and for that I believe they should be applauded and not branded
over this issue however important it may be to you or others. If you don't
want their resources, fine. But don't label them over this, any more than
you would want them to label you over it.



  Replies Author Date
3790 Re: Offtopic response to Re: Two male lions Valerie Sutton Sun  7/9/2000

  Message 3789  |  Previous | Next  [ Up Thread ] Message Index