Folks, Roger asks an important question here, one that has been asked time after time, including 2 of the 6 editors of the book I am authoring. Why in the heck would a 61 year old white straight, married guy carry this particular torch? Well, let me answer that question.
Because it's time! One of my dear friends would say that I am "speaking for the voices that have been silenced". Perhaps. But, in a larger scope, I can't for the life of me see why a segment of society needs to be repressed for an anthropological trait! Yes, folks, I did say that. Did it ever occur to us that sexuality might just be an anthropological trait? I am one who believes that one's sexual preferences are not "negotiable". It comes with the package of an individual human being. It is not a "choice". I have absolutely no scientific or moral reason to suggest anything else. And neither does the Bible, for those of you who would argue that point. Many would say that "homosexuality is a sin"! No! I vehemently disagree with that assumption. I would argue that a soul is hermaphrodite; that being neither (or both) male/ female. I would argue that there is a connection of souls, as it were, not sexes. And I would argue that there is nothing condemning this specific kind of relationship.
It has been said that “marriage” is a union of “spirits” in which and for the purpose of the species being propagated. I certainly would not argue that in the least. But, there are hetero couples who choose not to propagate also. Not to mention, that he are propagating at such a rate that the natural resources of the planet are strained. I would argue that this “union of spirits” may very well be that to which we refer as “soul”. In the vernacular, could this refer to the “soul mate”? I don’t know folks, I’m not that smart, and neither are any of us. But I do know that if two human beings choose to “love one another as HE loved them”, then where is this little issue referred to as “sin”?
Specifically, Roger, the 19% who studied the issue and voted with us, is an improvement from the 69 out of 433 who voted with us in the first meeting. Our philosophy may have changed, or gotten the attention, of a few more souls, who in turn may generate a few more souls and so forth. This is how it works, Roger; little bits at a time. Or as my mother used to admonish me: “One step at a time son; one step at a time”. Today, the world has added several more folk who can see the possibility of a different way of seeing humankind. For that I am grateful.
Roger, at this point in our history as a species, I think it is darn well time, we begin to look at ourselves as one race; one that is destined to either succeed or fail on the contributions of the whole of humanity; not just the parts. Perhaps, John Lennon did in fact know something when he wrote “IMAGINE”. I’d like to think so, anyway!
Thank you for your comments Roger.
Yours in service to Christ, Tom
Posts
I say something? I live in country where being like me I can get killed for being it. I scared to be me. I can not tell nobody. I feel bad inside, you no. I not bad persson. Wat I do you no?
ReplyDeleteFolks, this is what the situation here involves on a world wide scale. It just isn’t us in our American comfort zone. This issue is worldwide, and as this person states, can be dangerous around the globe.
ReplyDeleteBefore I respond to this particular question, I want to hear from you, the readers of this blog. We have here a poster who has shared what it must be like to be GLBT in some international countries. Does anybody wish to comment on this post? I’ll post my response tomorrow.
Your total increased, your percentage barely increased from the first vote to the second vote. In one case you had 17 % in the other 19 %. You are also assuming all "no" votes were all tied to the gay issue. Maybe not. Maybe some voted because they didn't like being an independent church.
ReplyDelete"Our philosophy may have changed, or gotten the attention, of a few more souls, who in turn may generate a few more souls and so forth." That is the statement I made, and I stand by it. You of course are correct in pointing out that there is more than likely a multitude of reasons for people choosing to vote not to leave. I have no quarrel with that. My point is that we got somebody's attention and in the fight for human rights and freedom's, many battles are engaged ; each one contributing to the ultimate realization of those rights and freedoms. Sometimes the contributions are few, and other times many. But the cause marches forward. As I explained, there is no loser here. La Casa got their wish to leave; we created reason for many more people to participate, and a few more, (how many is arguable, I agree) saw things differently. Based on the emails, calls, and comments I've gotten, I would deduce that a pretty good number of those voting not to leave, did so because they had a chance to better understand the issue, and saw what this was really all about. Thank you for you comment. Have a joyous CHRISTmas season. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.
ReplyDelete