Re: Modest proposal about immodest acts, Oct. 9
To the Editor:
Professor Carroll's editorial in The Gazette should have been entitled "A Contradictory Proposal about Immodest Acts." His first sentence declares, "I'm no bigot" and later on he states, "I object and I object very strongly" on towards his conclusion, "It is time for decent people to stand up against heterosexuality and do what needs to be done." This seems to smack of the exact intolerance he claims not to be a part of.
His claim the Bible supports his point of view is completely grounded in wholly subjective excerpts from scripture. His first example of God destroying heterosexuals in Noah and the Great Flood makes absolutely no sense if one considers that God placed male and female from each species on the ark prior to the Flood. If he was so against heterosexuality, why did God preserve it as He did back then?
As to his other "Biblical" examples, these are taken completely out of context and Professor Carroll is again relying on irrational proposals as to the nature of God. In talking about the birth of Jesus, Professor Carroll claims God's intention in the divine virgin birth was not to taint his Son with heterosexuality. If God had wanted his Son to be born without the "taint of heterosexuality," then why was he not born to a homosexual couple such as Joseph and Manny? Again, Professor Carroll contradicts his argument's premise by not following through a contradictory rationale
As to Professor Carroll's assertion that the Ten Commandments do not prohibit homosexual behaviour, he again takes the Bible out of context. God was covering the most obvious and blatant sins through the Ten Commandments as He then lays out in detail to Moses exactly what is and is not allowed in his eyes in the book of Leviticus. The Lord's succeeding instructions to Moses and the Israelites in Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." I don't know how much more clearer anyone could be.
Another Bible verse Professor Carroll missed and which directly refutes homosexual behaviour is Romans 1:26-28, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." These verses have seemed to been subjectively omitted from Professor Carroll's "Biblical" defense of homosexuality.
This is an important point it is not just homosexual acts God hates. He also mentions adulterers, drunkards, thieves, the greedy, etc. in the above verse in addition to homosexuals when referring to wicked people. Not easy words to swallow in our politically-correct society, however, it raises the critical point that must be made and recognized within each individual. When referring to these sins and homosexuality in the context of the Bible and God, God hates anything that comes between Him and the potential love relationship that exists with man. God loves all humankind except we do and have done things from the beginning of time that symbolize us shaking our fist at Him and saying we know better. In order for us to become right with Him, we must recognize that ANY of these deeds, not just homosexuality, comes between us and Him.
I have to agree with Professor Carroll that portrayals of heterosexual love in today's media are everywhere. These wanton and explicit media portrayals of sex represent callous and completely commercialized efforts towards exploiting our natural human desire for sexuality. Rather these representations of sex should be placed in the context of where they belong in society: within the bounds of loving and trusting heterosexual marriages.