-
play_arrow
The CRUSADE Radio Network CRUSADE Radio Network
-
play_arrow
The Church Doctrine Episode 2 - O Brother, Wherefore Art Thou? The Church Doctrine Episode 2
-
play_arrow
Audio Post Format TheKingDude
The Homosexual Movement Carries A Double Standard
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “What you’re saying in your admission of homosexuality is that you are defined, at least at some level that you wish for me to acknowledge, by with whom and how you engage in sexual relations. To me, that’s the long and short of it, the difference being that were I to cavort about and demand acknowledgment of my favorite or preferred sexual position or act or whatever, that it be acknowledged as some kind of a hybrid of heterosexuality, I would be thought of as being rude, vulgar, promiscuous.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
N.B. This post was published originally on 05 May, 2013
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Caller Paul: Number one, this Boy Scout thing, the problem is much larger than the Boy Scouts, as we’re all aware. I chuckled when you read the proclamation from the Boy Scouts about homosexuals, young men, but then they say don’t have sex. It’s okay that you’re here but don’t have sex. That’s just ridiculous. If you told high school kids — they might as well hand out condoms at the Boy Scouts meetings now because it’s going to happen, there’s just no doubt about it, and it’s been happening. For some reason we have this veil over our eyes to think that these young men and young women in other organizations don’t have the same desires that we have when we were kids, and it’s just not true. Anyhow, I wanted to speak to something larger than this if I may.
Mike: Hang on for just a sec because there are a couple of things about that. Number one, how does a young man know that he is a homosexual if he has not had premarital sex outside of marriage? I suppose that’s another barrier for Masha Gessen in their crusade to attack premarital teenage homosexual sex, and how would you know?
Caller Paul: Absolutely, that is the issue. They don’t really know. Let me give you some examples. For the last ten years, I have been teaching the Bible at a young man’s home, they call it a large group home. It’s for young men that don’t have a home, either they’ve been in trouble with the law or they just don’t have any family to go to. Many of them, that’s the number one question. He’ll come up to me and say: I’m in trouble; I’m a homosexual. I say: How do you know you’re a homosexual? Well, because I think that so and so is attractive and I’d like to whatever.
Mike Church Show Transcript: Top On The Endangered Tradition List: Marriage
It’s not that they know, it’s just that they have this confusion because society has told them, what you said in the last hour, this is the new normal. Listen, it’s not the new normal. It’s been like this since the beginning of time. You and I were born with a sin nature — I don’t want to preach to you, but that’s true. We were born with a sin nature and we are going to sin. That just happens to be one of the things we do to sin. It’s more confusion than it is knowing, in my opinion. I’ve dealt with hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of young men over the last ten years and, as I said, that’s the number one question they ask: How do I know that I’m not a homosexual?
Mike: Because you like girls. That’s one indication. You see young ladies developing as adolescents as you are a developing adolescent and you go: That’s pretty cool. I think I’m kind of attracted to that.
Caller Paul: You and I probably grew up in a normal family and went to a normal high school and we had those normal attractions. These young men don’t have that. These young men live with young men constantly. They only are around young men. Of course they’re confused.
Mike: Using that analogy, wouldn’t parochial and boarding schools that were all male or all female then produce disproportionate numbers of homosexuals, which I do not believe that they did or do?
Caller Paul: That’s true, but if they go to a parochial school or home, they have a very good structure there more than likely. That really comes down to the bottom line: structure in a young man or young woman’s life. If they don’t have the structure, if they don’t have the family element, the family opportunities that I had as a young man —
Mike: All those things are good, Paul, but in my conversation with David Simpson, my financial buddy guru who is a scout leader, in his mighty protestation, he resigned as a scout master on Friday last. David said “I think we have all grown or evolved in our thinking to a certain permissiveness with the identity or the choices that one makes in their sexual life. Most of us would probably say it’s none of my business and I don’t care if you are homosexual or not.” Simpson’s problem was, as we are raising children and young men here, “you have to make a distinction. You can’t be gray. There has to be white and black, rights and wrongs as well.” His problem with it is that the Boy Scouts decision, and other decisions that are made socially, is just an admission that there is no right.
Mike Church Show Transcript: Morality And The Death Of The Family
In other words, for almost 10,000 years, man, and certainly since Christ for 2,000 years, man has been proceeding on a horrifically discriminatory, evil, despicable path by demonizing or not accepting homosexuals as normal or as vibrant parts of a normal and reproductive society — isn’t that the goal of all society, to make the society better for the next generation? In order to have a next generation, you kind of have to be heterosexual at some point in your life. I told David: I have a little more of a secular challenge and definition or presentation about the homosexuality that I like to share with the radio audience from time to time. It goes like this:
What you’re saying in your admission of homosexuality is that you are defined, at least at some level that you wish for me to acknowledge, by with whom and how you engage in sexual relations. To me, that’s the long and short of it, the difference being that were I to cavort about and demand acknowledgment of my favorite or preferred sexual position or act or whatever, that it be acknowledged as some kind of a hybrid of heterosexuality, I would be thought of as being rude, vulgar, promiscuous. Wouldn’t I be promoting sexual harassment-like behavior in the workplace and what have you? You’re at a logjam here then. Which is it?
If I’m to try to be a man that pursues virtue in all of his endeavors, I’m not going to divulge to anyone what’s between Mrs. Church and I when doors are closed and there are no children or witnesses about. In the case of the homosexual, I am forced to consider that that’s what you do and that’s how I am to remember who you are.
From the point of view of the homosexual, wouldn’t you be better off by just being quiet about it and having people say: I think but I’m not sure; she has never admitted it. By admitting it, or coming out as it were — we tore that door open long ago — the admission or acknowledgement of said sexual behavior and how it is done is then forced upon the people who must then accept. If you don’t accept, of course then you’re a bigot and a homophobe and there’s something wrong with you.
Mike Church Show Transcript: Marriage Without God Is Not Marriage
To me, that is a pretty clear-cut, I presented a pretty clear challenge to the orthodoxy that it’s just another lifestyle. No, it’s not. I don’t know any of my married friends — single ones maybe — that cavort about, as I said, boasting and bragging of positions and methods in which they participate in adult relations with their spouses. I think that you can pursue it from that point of view. Just get some agreement that: I never really thought about it that way. That’s one of the explanations that I try to give, especially when we’re talking about kids. Do you really want your kid making decisions based on having to process that?
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Similar posts
Post comments (2)
Featured post
Latest posts
I think that Mike brought up a lot of very interesting points that aren’t normally raised in any kind of public discussion of this issue, such as the caller’s assertion that the troubled men he comes into contact with are predisposed to confusion about their sexuality because of their very limited contact with females as one would find elsewhere. His argument evolves like a slippery ad hoc hypothesis from lack of female interaction, to lack of a normal upbringing in a normal family and normal school, finally to a lack of “structure,” without really explaining what it is exactly about “structure” that inures one to such ambiguity about their own sexuality. I do not think Mike’s claim that a homosexual can’t help but flaunt their sexual behavior in a way equal to his demanding that his own sexual positions define who he is and gain acceptance is really sensible. I know that a homosexual man sleeps with a man, and I know that a heterosexual man sleeps with a woman. It has nothing to do with the way in which they choose to do this. I won’t get started on the idea that the idea that society would not exist without heterosexual procreation is at all a reason to oppose the legitimacy of anything, since there has been and always will be enough people of both sexualities to continue the human race.
I won’t even get into recounting the pre-Christian (in the West, anyway) spectrum of sexuality that existed prior to the polarization imposed by designations such as straight, gay, or bi.
One concern I have always had with people who condemn or question the legitimacy of the actions of someone else is that some aspects of human behavior in which we all engage can be said to bear upon the good of society one way or another. Furthermore, not all of us would have our every action and behavior weighed against the metric, which is incredibly difficult to quantify in a reliable or consistent way, either qualitatively or quantitatively, nor would we want to justify our every action with an elaborate argument proving that our behavior is good for society. Liberty is what is good for society, and whether a community or organization decides to tolerate behavior of a certain group should be left to those individuals concerned. I am not suggesting that anyone here is making the argument that it ought to be decided elsewhere. I am merely saying that let’s not get carried away arguing about whether a behavior is good for society or not should be the metric by which we judge whether a private organization should tolerate it or not. Leave it up to them!
I personally find my own reaction to the homosexual rights issues discussed so often these days colored by my abhorrence of the obnoxiously confrontational and lewd public behavior of many of its proponents. Though I myself have never been confused about my sexuality, I have friends and a handful of family members that run the gamut from asexual (I don’t know how or why) to very actively hetero-, bi-, or homosexual. People who as Mike implied keep their proclivities to themselves never irk me the way that “we’re here, we’re doing incredibly inappropriate and childish things, get used to it” gays and lesbians. Despite my best efforts, it is sometimes a struggle to suppress my knee-jerk revulsion, so as not to paint with a broad brush, and remember that a quietly homosexual boy who behaves with the kind of decency and dignity lost in the way people behave in public these days is not the same as the ostentatiously feminine homosexual demanding acceptance of their superficial and vapid behavior, etc., and that the relative “moral or societal consequences” of the behavior of these two individuals could be expected to lie on opposites ends of the spectrum. I wonder if every homosexual comported themselves with dignity in public if there would be such a backlash against the “gay rights” movement, even among Christians who feel it is an issue of sin. I tend to doubt it, based on my own experiences with my own reaction and those of others near me.
Well stated Mike. I’ve made a similar argument before to those who support homosexuality as a valid lifestyle with no moral or societal consequences. Where they vehemently disagree with and dismiss Christian claims about truth, morality, etc., they usually aren’t as clear in their rebuttal when the argument is presented this way. Ultimately the secular side of this argument points back to the fact that objective truth outside of our plane of earthly existence is in fact real and must be dealt with by being accepted or rejected.