. . . there is a profound difference between moral objection to the behavior of homosexuality and the physical intimidation or abuse of those tempted by same-sex attraction. Warning against and opposing the societal embrace of certain sexual behaviors is not bullying.
If it is, Ms. Behar, I look forward to your upcoming show in which you will chastise First Lady Michelle Obama for being a willing accomplice of the brutal bullying of obese children. After all, the most bullied group of young people in our country remains the overweight children. Mrs. Obama’s warning against the societal embrace of unhealthy eating habits is only ostracizing and stigmatizing the fat kids, thus inviting more bullying. And her opposition to overeating couldn’t be born out of love and concern for those kids’ well being, could it, Ms. Behar?
‘The View’ of Incoherence by Peter Heck
Great analogy. I am so tired of people being called “haters” (and worse) whenever they say anything in opposition to homosexual behavior. I believe that homosexual behavior is harmful to society, to the family, and to the person who chooses, yes, chooses, to engage in such behavior. I don’t believe that being attracted to a person of your same sex is a sin or is morally repugnant. I do believe that acting on that attraction is wrong and harmful. I am no more hateful for expressing that opinion than I am for saying that overeating is wrong and harmful whenever I engage in that behavior, a choice I make too often and repent of frequently.
‘
Just so I understand. You’re saying that the 15 plus years I have spent with the man I love is the moral equivalent of deciding to eat an extra helping of ice-cream.
Nice.
No, sir, that is not what I said. All analogies break down at some point. I think homosexual behavior does long term harm to the person that chooses it and to society. I also believe that overeating or gluttony as it’s named in some circles does long term harm to the person that chooses it over and over and to society. In that sense the two are analogous.
Very well said Sherry! And a great analogy. Sodomy and gluttony are both sins of pure self-gratification. Because one is tempted does not mean one has to choose to live their life wallowing in temptation.
GREAT insight. Thank you for sharing.
This post is an example of what I call “well-meaning bigotry.” I am certain that the owner of this site feels quite strongly that she is not a person who feels or exhibits prejudice. However, the rule of thumb with regard to such viewpoints is to replace the particular category or classification of persons being discussed with another category or classification. Therefore, you would substitute the word “homosexual” with a word like “woman,” or “African-American” or “Roman Catholic,” etc. to see if the sentence sounds appropriate and acceptable. If not . . . the problem is amply demonstrated.
The fallacy with Heck’s analogy to obesity, which the owner of this site has adopted, is the erroneous assumption that sexuality is a CHOICE. It simply is not, although there are many, many people in this country who refuse to accept that plain truth. Whether or not to eat a steak is a CHOICE. Whether or not to be attracted to another human being is NOT. While the choice to eat the steak is appropriately subject to debate, one’s acting upon his/her innate sexual orientation is not because it is a matter of fundamental civil rights.
I have taught, lectured, and written extensively on this subject. I always pose one question to my audiences and, without failure, see the expressions on many faces as they finally begin to understand. I now pose the same question to the owner of this site:
Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
The inescapable, intellectually truthful answer is “of course not.” NO ONE chooses their sexual orientation because it is an immutable characteristic. And just as you have “always known” that you were heterosexual, your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have always known that they were gay or lesbian.
Heck is simply wrong when he claims that “[w]arning against and opposing the societal embrace of certain sexual behaviors is not bullying.” It IS bullying. It is also HATE SPEECH. And people who engage in such conduct are, sadly, “haters.”
Hopeful Spirit,
You completely misunderstood my argument and that of Mr. Heck. Persons engaged in homosexual behavior may or may not choose to be attracted to persons of their same sex. I think choices paly some part in the initiation of homosexual self-identification and attraction. You do not agree. However, there is no question as to whether or not sexually active homosexuals choose to engage in homosexual behavior, homosex, for lack of a better word. Behavior is chosen, not involuntary. I chose to get married and to have sex with my husband. I could have chosen to remain single and celibate, regardless of my attraction to my husband. My answer to your question is yes, I chose to have heterosexual sexual relations.
Again, if I believe, as I do, that homosex and identifying oneself primarily by one’s attractions (temptations) is wrong and harmful, then I am not bullying anyone when I warn against such behavior. Indeed, I am acting out of love and concern for the person who has been tempted to engage in such behavior.
Hopeful Spirit seems to lack the understanding that sex is not a recreational activity. Warning against treating sex as such from a moral standpoint is not bullying. Sex is an act reserved for married couples of one man and one woman. Same sex attracted people cannot help having atractions, the same as opposite sex attracted people cannot help having attractions. However, we all can and do choose whether to act upon the attraction. It is called self-control. My choice as a heterosexual is to be a chaste single person or to engage in sexual relations with a spouse of the opposite sex. A homosexual’s choice is to be a chaste single person or to engage in sexual relations with a spouse of the opposite sex.
No one chooses their sexual orientation but we all choose whether to engage in morally sinful behaviour or not.
Sherry: I understood your argument, but I completely disagree with it. You missed the point when you said that you “chose to have heterosexual sexual relations.” I didn’t ask you about your behavior. I asked you about your orientation! And if you are intellectually honest, you will admit that you did NOT choose to be straight any more than a gay or lesbian person chooses to be gay or lesbian. Tell a GLBT person that they cannot act upon their innate orientation, as you do, is DISCRIMINATION. And bigotry. And hate. There just isn’t any way around it. And just as you feel a need to “warn against such behavior,” your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters might feel inclined to warn YOU against the behaviors in which you engage. Are you going to see that as “acting out of love and concern” for you or that person sticking his/her nose into your private affairs? I’m sure you will feel the latter, although you will SAY the former in order to justify your arguments and commentary.
Face it: No one in the GLBT community needs you or any other straight person to warn them about their orientation or the manner in which they act upon it. (Such statement is, frankly, obnoxious and overbearing.) They just need you to accept reality, keep your nose out of their private lives, and ensure that their civil rights are guaranteed to them — just as yours are to you. It’s that simple.
It doesn’t seem as if Sherry is arguing that anyone’s basic attractions are wrong. She clearly agrees that homosexuals may not choose their orientation, but they choose the act of sex. I’m sure we can (for the most part) agree that pubescent boys don’t get to choose to have out of control hormones – but we (again for the most part) agree that just because a 12 year old boy feels sexual urges, it is best for society that he not act on them. I don’t see Sherry telling anyone what to feel or do. She merely stated her opinion, which she is allowed to have. She’s not seeking out homosexuals or unmarried couples or anyone else to judge or condemn – she’s expressing a personal opinion on a personal website. I don’t see how that means sticking her nose in the business of other people. As you are concerned about civil rights, I’m sure you’ll agree that she has every right to express her opinion on moral right and wrong on her own website.
Sherry, for what it’s worth, I applaud you for expressing an unpopular opinion when it challenges your convictions. It seems like there are many people who are only concerned about the civil rights of those who agree with them – there can’t be public discourse without opposing opinions and yours are expressed well here.