Recently, a man wrote to “Dear Abby” to counsel his fellow homosexuals NOT to get married as a cover for their sexual preference (published on January 26th). He and his wife have been through a painful divorce, and he wishes he had been honest with himself and her from the outset. His advice is: “Give yourselves time to come to terms with your sexuality.” This counsel is based on his own farcical effort to become a heterosexual. He recommends a supportive therapist to help a person work through his/her homosexuality.
Abby, as certainly as the sky is blue, agrees. She also was reminded of a quote from Shakespeare:
“This above all: To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not be false to any man.”
Before getting to the quote, it should be admitted that the homosexual writer does have one valid point concerning marriage. No one should enter into marriage who is insincere (whether due to problems with homosexuality, infidelity, or a lack of love).
As for the “supportive therapist,” however, why not visit one that might help one work through the problem? The writer assumes that no one can change because he did not change. Where is the recognition of those who have given up the practice of homosexuality? Does one person’s experience bind everyone else to the conclusion that he drew? And when has “Dear Abby” or her sister published a letter from someone who claims to have been a homosexual who has emerged from that kind of behavior?
But also consider the homosexual writer’s summary of profound wisdom and see how it works if applied to child molesters or rapists: “Give yourselves time to come to terms with your sexuality.” “. . .find a supportive therapist. . . .” Some will recoil with horror at the suggestion and shout that the situations are not parallel. They are different in that homosexuality is by willing consent and the other two are not.
And that is a huge difference, but the three are alike in that all three of them are sexual aberrations. All three, for instance, are condemned in the Scriptures. The fact that homosexuality is consensual makes it no more acceptable than fornication or adultery. All three of those sins can be repented of (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Consensuality does not sanitize sin.
The idea presented of coming to terms with one’s sexuality and finding supportive therapy is based upon the premise that homosexuality is legitimate, but it is not–which is the reason the above comparison to rapists and child molesters is valid. Since it is wrong (by Biblical definition), then coming to terms with it should mean seeking a way to leave that condition. Finding a supportive therapist would be inappropriate because that individual would be encouraging wrong behavior. One might as well seek a therapist who will support casual, promiscuous heterosexual liaisons.
God did not leave us without any system of morality. He has made it clear under every covenant that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are wrong. Presumably, a guilty person can find a therapist who will be supportive of all those actions, but they remain sins.
“Give thy thoughts no tongue” (l. 59).
“Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar” (l. 61).
“Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice” (l. 68).
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be: For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry” (ll. 75-77).
Then follows the quote Abby cited. Polonius is at best repeating the “socially correct” sayings of his day. These are not the result of deep thought or originality on his part, and Shakespeare is not presenting these as the clever sayings of a wise man; instead they are the trite repetitions of a rambling fool.
Consider how Polonius’ advice would have affected the main characters. If King Claudius (who killed Hamlet’s father and married his mother) were true to himself, he would declare his foul deeds, thus causing his removal as king (and probably his death, also). Those who practice evil in secret must always hide their true character in public.
Hamlet suspected Claudius of murder, but he had no proof. Should he blurt out: “Claudius, I think you killed my father; how about it: Will you admit it?” The grieving son would probably have been taken to an asylum, thus eliminating the need for Acts 2, 3, 4, and 5. Hamlet had to pretend to be something he was not in order to discover the truth.
Abby’s advice is that, if a homosexual readily admits what he is to himself, then he won’t deceive anyone else. They too will know who and what he is. But is that wise? In fact, is it even called for? Adulterers do not usually call attention to their deeds. They deem it wise to conceal their actions–especially from their wives and children. A clever thief is intentionally false to every man.
But someone will say, “Yes, but those things are morally wrong; being a homosexual is not wrong–it’s just an alternate life-style.” Homosexuality can only be regarded as not being wrong if one ignores the Scriptures. If homosexuality is right, the Bible is wrong. The practice is a perversion of the way God created us and a violation of his will.
But even if this sexual deviancy were not a sin, what would require its participants to flaunt before everyone what they know is objectionable? Is there a law that requires that we tell everything we know? Even godly people have avoided public regurgitation of their beliefs. When persecuted in the first century for their religious belief, they freely acknowledged at their “trials” that Jesus was Lord and Caesar was not. But they did not organize a parade down the Appian Way and carry banners proclaiming their faith. “To thine own self be true,” as applied by Abby, is bad advice.
He writes his column as though he is discussing homosexuality. He talks about the right to do what one wills with his body, a campaign for public acceptance, “flaunting their perversion,” the excuse that “God made me this way,” and the fact that this life-style is unhealthy. Then, in a stunning revelation, he points out that he has been discussing gluttony, and a “sin is a sin. Right?” (The Dallas Morning News 21A, 2-3-99).
Yes, gluttony is a sin, but he did not take the time or trouble to define it or to check a commentary to learn what precisely the Scriptures are condemning. Gluttony usually involves eating for the sake of eating. Sometimes those who indulged in this sin would cause themselves to throw up–just so they could eat more. There is a difference between gluttony and consuming more than we need to survive. Who would like to draw that line? Probably we would need a metabolism meter to help define what is right for each individual since there are some people who remain thin even while inhaling large quantities of food.
Obesity is a health risk, but it is not necessarily synonymous with gluttony. While overeating results in a portly appearance (for most people), not everyone who is “large” got that way from eating six square meals a day (plus a half gallon of ice cream). It may have been due to a poor diet, low metabolism rate, the inability to exercise, or a combination of these factors. While the Bible condemns gluttony, it does not condemn being overweight.
Blow thinks he is being funny when he says that he is compelled to speak out against gluttony–“in love, of course.” (He fails to distinguish the differences between gluttony, overeating, and obesity.) Actually, it is love that encourages someone to give up smoking or to lose weight–just as it is love to encourage the homosexual to overcome his or her problem.
But there are some things not quite parallel between being a homosexual and being overweight. First of all, there is no “FAT PRIDE” parade conducted in various cities of this nation each year, which are to publicize the legitimacy of being overweight. There has been no book introduced into the first grade in New York Public Schools, titled Heather has the Equivalent of Two Mommies.
Blow’s column is just the latest version of the “Unless-you’re-absolutely-perfect-don’t-judge-me” game, which is calculated to help neither overweight people nor homosexuals. If he reflected upon the Scriptures a little longer, he might recall that Paul told an imperfect group of Christians to withdraw fellowship from a man living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5). He did not advise inaction because these brethren were themselves flawed; while all were guilty of sin, fornication was regarded as serious enough to warrant dealing with it in a public way.
From The Guide, a homosexual magazine, came this statement in the May, 1998 issue: “True gay liberation is not about gay people conforming, but rather about the whole world transforming” (this statement was reported in the June 12, 1998 Internet News Service). What a perverted twist of Romans 12:2! The social Gestapo has made it clear that homosexuality is here to stay, and citizens had better like it.
Are those words an exaggeration? Consider the following excerpt from The New Tolerance, a 1998 book written by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostettler:
Dr. Jim Aist, professor of plant pathology at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was “accused of sexual harassment, discrimination, and abuse of power. Students staged a six-hour sit-in protest against him. His own chairman and dean pursued charges against him. He was made to answer charges without being allowed to know what they were. He endured the scrutiny of ten investigations in two years. He had to stand by as the press paraded accusations against him.”
What was Dr. Aist’s crime? He had posted flyers on campus offering “Help to Homosexuals.” The flyers offered–free to students and faculty–carefully researched scientific information about the cause of homosexuality and guidance for homosexuals who wished to leave the homosexual life-style (73-74).
Perhaps Mr. Blow could tell us if anyone would receive the same treatment for posting flyers about a weight-watchers class. The authors point out that no one “investigating” this incident ever bothered to look at Dr. Aist’s material. When a person violates the agenda or code of today’s thought-police, they will be subject to harassment. Before a person can even defend himself, the brown shirts begin chanting, “Bigot, homophobe.”
McDowell and Hostettler explain that the “new tolerance” insists upon no absolutes, such as Truth. All values are created equal, no matter how silly. The only unpardonable sin is intolerance. A person who objects to immoral behavior in the name of God, decency, or common sense will be targeted as fair game for the media and the intellectual elite.
Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek wrote a book that was published last year: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise? Is It Legal? Is It Possible? They list several goals which they demanded at the 1993 March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Equal Rights and Liberation:
- The implementation of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
- The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
- The legalization of homosexual marriages.
- Custody, adoption, and foster-care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
- The redefinition of the family to include the full diversity of all family structures.
- The access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.
- Affirmative action for homosexuals.
- The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan (137).
Clearly, homosexuals have an agenda. The eight listed above are only a few of the 62 platform demands they make, which they have published in booklet form (261). The homosexual agenda has not been diminished by the cancellation of Ellen; the DeGeneresy continues, propped up by “churches” that have forsaken Biblical morality and columnists sympathetic to their cause. Those who yet adhere to Biblical morality either have or are close to becoming the minority–especially when young people are being taught to accept homosexuality from the time of kindergarten onward. And since minorities are often oppressed, who knows what may happen?
We are swimming in treacherous waters here. How long until free speech rights may be denied to some? How long until someone is convicted of a “hate crime” based on his affirmation of Biblical teaching? When those insisting on tolerance in others begin condemning those whose views differ from theirs, we have entered perilous times. We have not arrived at that destination yet, but some are already in the neighborhood. Only one thing is certain: Overweight people would not be as heavy-handed as their accusers. They usually have a sense of humor.