Investigating the divine perspective on the modern move to comfort the homosexual and redefine his boundaries.
The “evolution” of humanity continues, and another hint of expanded freedom is in the air. As usual, our culture is tipping its noses into the wind and following the scent with abandon.
It is nothing new—this longing for progress—it is only the expression that has changed. As a wise man of 3,000 years ago once said, “There is no new thing under the sun.”1 Today, culture delightedly applauds the release of what has apparently been held behind the bars of decency for too long—our sexuality must now be allowed to express itself, varied though the expressions may be.
A Celebration of Liberation
Cultures have tolerated homosexuality before, but mere toleration is now too cold-hearted. Acceptance—indeed “celebration”—is the mantra of our time, and we are hoping that generations to come may bask in its warmth. The liberty of a person is hampered by the old-fashioned gasps and glances, and so these must be shown the door.
The Cost of the Exchange
Few stop to ask if somehow the vision for the common good of all humanity might have been usurped by the rush for the good of all humanity’s feelings.
Few notice that with the passing of eternal absolutes sensuality has become king. Truth, it is firmly believed, is not a firm thing. And since it is hidden behind the obfuscation of myriad religions and sects, society has opted for what is more immediately obvious—sensation. The mood of the moment has become our monarch.
Quite frankly, this is a lazy bargain, and one that sets us in dire straits. The obscurity of something lost only makes it more precious once found, and truth is no exception. To lightly exchange timeless values and understood truths in favor of our erratic titillations is bartering questionably at best.
The Cost of Pleasure
From every good childhood, we are taught that we cannot always do things just because we feel like it. The tenth cookie might be delicious, but vomiting is no reasonable price to pay for it. The learned assumption is fundamental, but profound. We learn that there are two kinds of pleasure in this world: the legitimate and the illegitimate. Both must be bought at a price; the difference being that for legitimate pleasure we pay beforehand, while for the illegitimate we pay later.
But, in a world where pleasure is pursued ever more fervently, the distinction between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” is blurring fast. As tragic and painful as it will be for society to lose the definition of illegitimate pleasure, it will be equally tragic when the definition of legitimate pleasure is inevitably lost along with it. For if pleasure has no boundaries, its significance is self-referenced; and when your only reference is something as fickle as feelings, meaninglessness results.
The Cost of Love
But pleasure is not the only thing that becomes pathetic when self-referenced. Love, by definition, needs boundaries. I will borrow Michael Ramsden’s brilliant illustration to make my point. Michael recalls speaking to a class of girls who were around the age of 9 years old. He asked them all to close their eyes and imagine that the boy whom they most admire has just said, “I love you.” Smiles spread around the circle. “Now imagine that the next day you come across him telling another girl ‘I love you.’” The expressions changed dramatically.
Let me repeat: Love, by definition, needs boundaries. And the alternative agenda of homosexuality is inherently fueled by the affection that men have for men or women for women, in defiance of love’s timeless boundaries. Is love still love if we’ve redefined the very nature of love?
Lost in a quandary of swirling emotions, humanity is in great need of some absolute definitions. Left without limitations, the pleasure-seeking agenda will inevitably implode. Eventually, in all consistency, we will no longer be able to object to the feelings of the one pulling his gun on us and asking for our wallet.
Just where are these definitions to be found, and who defines them? Humanity has already proven itself too varied and unpredictable to be the absolute reference.
Read the next page to find out…