The Deacon and The Professor. Part 1.

The following is an exchange on Facebook between myself and my 28 year old nephew, a college professor at the University of Washington. It is posted with his permission. The exchange began with the posting of an anti-prop 8 video. I don't think I am succeeding in changing his mind, but this illustrates well the mindset of the culture our children are growing up in. Feel free to comment at the end.

Andy Ko posted a video.
November 10 at 11:05pm.
Special Comment on Gay Marriage ~ Keith Olbermann
Source: www.youtube.com
http://cspanjunkie.org/ November 10, 2008 MSNBC Keith Olbermann

Dan Jensen November 12 at 10:29pm

Powerful. Emotional. And misses the point. When did marriage stop being about a man and a woman providing a safe haven of nurturing for their children? When did it become about the adults only? Why is the building block of society, the teaching and training of future citizens, not being protected at all cost? When did mass failure to achieve the "ideal" be a reason for not encouraging and protecting the ideal?
The ultimate offense here is the comparison as though equal, a skin color and a sexual Behavior. A "homosexual preference gene" will be isolated about the same time as a "two partners at once preference gene"
We keep making it easier for real, historical marriage to be irrelevant, and we keep wondering why our prisons are full of bad citizens...

Andy Ko (Washington) November 12 at 11:03pm
Protecting our children from what exactly? You use words like "safe" and "protected" as if there's something dangerous and neglectful about homosexuality. If I have your argument straight, it is "gay marriage is unsafe for children because homosexuality is dangerous, and homosexuality is dangerous because its unsafe for our children." This is circular logic, a tautology, and says nothing meaningful.

Not to mention the gay couples who don't want children. Or the intersexed who are born somewhere between man and woman. Is it really worth denying equality in civil rights to more than 10% of our citizens to "protect" children from an irrational fear of two men kissing?

Luckily, I have time on my side. My generation and all those to come see through the fear and the hate, and have learned to value and respect one another as we are. The time for fear, hate, and oppression has passed.

Dan Jensen November 13 at 8:14am

You missed the argument completely. Why is behavior, a demonstrably changeable characteristic, being treated as a civil right on the order of skin color? Homosexual participants have left the "lifestyle" for various reasons while skin color seems quite difficult to change.

Prop 8 was about Returning marriage to its rightful status as the exclusive commitment between a man and a woman for the purpose of a safe and nurturing environment for the physical and emotional development of children. Years of research has proven beyond doubt that this is the "safe" environment required by children. Not the "safety" of not having to see two men kissing. That is a "straw man" argument that doesn't address the historical value of the word marriage.

You may be right about your generation. But it will mean the further destruction of society as we redefine destructive behavior by ignoring the lessons of history and the value of evidence.

Andy Ko (Washington) November 13 at 8:44am
Research shows that the ingredients for a positive childhood are unconditional love, secure attachment, and concrete feedback about a child's skills and decisions. These are not exclusive to heterosexual couples. They are possible with single parents, black parents, homosexual parents, step parents, and even no parents, when there are loving caregivers.

But, when one in ten queer teens are told "your attractions are sinful and if you act upon them I will disown you," these children lose the unconditional love and secure attachment. Some are kicked out of their homes. Others keep their secrets private, living a lie, never valuing themselves, which causes them to devalue others.

The crime you blame on homosexuality is caused by the physical and emotional abuse that comes from parents hating themselves and projecting that hate onto their kids. To believe that homosexuality is dangerous because it co-occurs with bad things is a classic logical fallacy. Correlation is not causation.

Dan Jensen November 13 at 9:07am

Prop 8 was not about what was "possible," it was about what ought to be encouraged... what society should hold and protect as the ideal. The only reason we know some good outcomes are "possible" is because children have survived in spite of the bad choices made by the adults responsible to raise them.

Sin is a reality. It may be ignored, redefined, dressed up in a suit, or even "accepted" by society, but the consequences will remain discoverable and real. We ignore God's design at our peril.

Parents who teach self-restraint in sexual impulse are expressing love not hate. Attraction doesn't equal acceptable. Pedephiles would love to piggyback on your argument.

Andy Ko (Washington) November 13 at 11:04am
This is where we get to the basis of your argument, and most others who voted for prop 8: homosexuality is wrong because God says it is.

If you believe this, there are a few other things you must believe:

"He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Either you believe everything in this book or you are selective. Most are selective (as most do not advocate murder). What kind of basis for morality is a book with such inconsistency and violence?

My morality, and that of my generation, is based on first principles: the inherent worth and dignity of all, the golden rule, liberty. Not a mishmash of arbitrary and ancient rules that have led to hate, division and war for centuries.

Dan Jensen November 13 at 3:22pm

We are in agreement that the basis for my argument comes from a book, the newest writings of which have stood the test of time for 2000 years.

As with all writings, context, history, author, intent, intended recipient, and genre are important ingredients if accurate understanding is desired. Pulling a verse from Psalms about happy people killing babies misses much in understanding the desires of God. The Psalm in question describes ugly retaliation in war. Poetic narration of events does not imply endorsement either by the human author of the book nor the Divine one who inspired him.

Do the "first principles" of your generation display "the inherent worth and dignity of all" in the advocacy for "choice" and the free elimination of "fetal matter?"

Your out-of-context bible quote pales in comparison to the loss of life in the abortion holocaust perpetrated on the innocent babies of this generation.

What are your "First Principles" based on? Consensus?

Andy Ko (Washington) November 13 at 4:42pm
The importance of context and intent in these passages is precisely my point. If your fear of homosexuality stems from the word "abominate," understand its history and meaning, Latin for "feeling of disgust, hatred, loathing." So what does the passage endorse? You've said not murder. Does it endorse hatred and loathing? How do you decide how you'll interpret the intent of this passage? Maybe you look to what else God abominates: money, lies, murder and haughty eyes. So God abominates your haughty disdain for homosexuality, the very disdain he endorsed. God also abominates a man who sows discord among brothers, which is precisely the effect of homophobia.

It's an inconsistent, irreconcilable mess. My first principles are the consensus all the world's religions, the ideals that lead to peace and respect for human dignity. They are things that every Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. would agree upon. Minus the historical baggage that has destroyed civilizations.

Dan Jensen November 15 at 9:36am

I would contend that the Bible is utterly and completely consistent. It is poor scholarship indeed that would intentionally favor polar interpretation when the alternate would display agreement.

The interpretation of scripture that teaches homosexual behavior as sinful is consistent with the teachings that heterosexual behavior outside the boundaries of marriage are also sin.

Hate for sin is encouraged, but hate for your fellow man is sin.

It is utterly consistent to recognize that hate is not the point, sin is.

Any person who voted for prop 8 motivated by hatred for PEOPLE who practice homosexual behavior fails the test.

I have homosexual friends whom I love, but true love takes more work than tolerance.

Andy Ko (Washington) November 15 at 2:08pm
Telling a queer child that their behavior is evil, but that you love them anyway, just makes them hate themselves, especially when they have no way to control their feelings of attraction. And when people hate themselves, they project that hate onto others. Self-loathing, not sin, is at the root of depression, domestic violence, sociopathy, and most of the other things you fear about the fall of humanity.

Instead of world of self-hatred, let's create a world where everyone is loved for who they are, and free to love themselves. This doesn't mean accepting all behavior--you mentioned pedophilia, which is an acutely harmful behavior--but it does mean accepting and respecting behaviors that harm no one. Gay marriage harms no one. It doesn't harm you, it doesn't harm children, it doesn't harm the sanctity of your marriage.

Hating the harmless sin, on the other hand, has indelibly harmed hundreds of millions of people. The Jesus I know would want nothing of this.

Dan Jensen November 15 at 2:51pm

Leading a normal child to believe that he is queer, just because he exhibits feminine mannerisms (or even attractions) may lead to queer behavior that would not otherwise be a real temptation to begin with.

Telling a child with feminine tendencies that their tendencies are evil is where your fear should be placed. These kids typically have macho fathers who drive them away because they can't catch a football. A boy that has feminine mannerisms needs a dad and mom that love him as he is.

Not one study since the early 90s has been repeatable in efforts to isolate a gay gene:

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/maf/A000007215.cfm

Even self-identified homosexuals who performed some of these studies agree that homosexuals are not "born gay."

Andy Ko (Washington) November 15 at 6:28pm
You're entirely right that we shouldn't judge children for their behavioral tendencies. Let us love them for who they are, whether it is nature or nurture. Rigid definitions of masculinity and femininity contribute just as much to self-loathing as homophobia.

But to suggest you can turn someone gay through suggestion is ridiculious. What person would choose ridicule, loss of friends and family, lower pay, loss of civil rights, daily social stigma, and depression, unless it was an inescapable fact of their being? I don't care if it's DNA, a hormonal gestative anomaly, early childhood development or combinations of all three. No one would actively choose this fate unless it was crucial to their existence.

Let's let people be who they are, whatever the reasons, without passing judgement on their hardwired nature or their choices. Judgement and hate, of people or sin, is the last thing we need in this world.

Dan Jensen November 16 at 5:09pm

The job of a parent IS to judge their child's behavioral tendencies! How else do you guide children if you don't pay attention to their behavior?

The question truly is how to define sin. There absolutely has to be a solid, unchanging framework, reference or standard. If not, you have nothing consistent to judge behavior with. How do you know, for instance that pedephilia is wrong? At what age is a boy who has feminine tendencies allowed to make up his own mind about having homosexual sex with a 35 year old man? Was it wrong in the 1930's because society agreed it was wrong, but will it OK in 2020 because society no longer considers 12 year old boys too young to decide?

Sin is defined by God, not man. God has chosen to reveal Himself to man in the Bible. He is Light.

"It is not that men do not have enough light, it is because men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil" (John 3)

Andy Ko (Washington) November 16 at 5:42pm
You can easily attend to and guide a child's behavior without judging their quirks. We are at our best when we guide our children through example, honesty and positive feedback. Attending to behavior isn't the same as judging it.

Unchanging moral standards are pretty easy to come by without religious texts (though religious texts are often a good source). Treat every person with respect and dignity. Don't impose on others' will unless they have done so unto others. Treat others how you'd like to be treated. Nearly every ethical guideline you can find in any religious text or in law derives from ethics like these. And they don't change.

For example, you don't need to God to say pedophilia is wrong. Any 35 year old, man or woman, gay or not, is imposing on the will of a child when they use their position of authority to manipulate a child.

By the way, I'm not sure why you keep connecting pedophilia with homosexuality. There's not even a correlation between the two.