Sin always results in spiritual poverty, taking away with one hand what it promises to give with the other. It promises freedom from God's alleged "heavy yoke", yet it oppresses and enslaves, ensnares, entangles and destroys.
"Sexual freedom" as deployed by the culture is an oxymoron - it destroys and distorts both sexuality, and freedom.
I don't understand how Hall's argument is supposed to work. That two people of the same gender (say both males) will be less likely to develop a deep friendship merely because their relationship might possibly give the wrong impression to outsiders that their relationship is actually sexual? Well, if homosexual relationships are increasingly acceptable in a society then why would it be a hindrance? It seems it wouldn't be in that society since people would know that a heterosexual friendship could externally look suspiciously like a homosexual relationship without it actually being one. It would only be a hindrance in Jewish, Christian or similar subcultures (and rightly so).
Besides, a friendship where the two (or more) are really connected wouldn't care too much about what outsiders think and so such a friendship would naturally develop further. What outsiders think may be annoying, but it wouldn't get in the way of their friendship deepening. Think of the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson as portrayed in the Robert Downey Jr. movies and the Benedict Cumberbatch TV show. [Despite the fact that Downey joked that he plays Holmes as homosexually or bisexually attracted to Watson, but that it's unrequited. I wonder if it's actually written that way by the writers].
Similarly, David and Jonathan didn't care what others thought. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if some people in their day thought their relationship may have been sexual. But they didn't care since they both knew that both of them loved God supremely and therefore wouldn't even consider trying to initiate a homosexual relationship with the other. It would in fact ruin one of the main attractions they had of each other; viz. the other's ultimate love and commitment to God which resembles his own. Besides, if they knew each other deep enough, they would know that both of them were only sexually attracted to the opposite sex. And therefore, they knew that any private or public displays of affection would have no sexual connotation. And so, they would have no fear in displaying it.
If anything, the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships will allow for deeper heterosexual relationships between people of the same gender since they won't feel like they have to hide, stifle or suppress their genuine affection toward one another.
It seems to me that the way the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships will negatively affect heterosexual friendships would be that it might actually lead to some friendships moving from a heterosexual friendship to homosexual relationship. And so the dynamics of the friendship would be destroyed. Just as it would in the dynamics of a heterosexual relationship between two people of the opposite sex. That's why it's not uncommon for male and female friendships never to blossom into a romance, since they don't want to ruin a good thing. In fact, they can't even see each other that way. They are more like siblings than potential lovers.
I'm all for discouraging homosexual (or any other unbiblical) relationship. But I'm not sure Hall's argument works. Though, it might and I just don't see it. In fact, I suspect gay rights activists might consider the argument as an example of conservatives grasping at straws. Looking for any possible argument against homosexual relationships even if they are bad ones.
Hall's argument might work, but I think we can all say that bad arguments can hurt a cause rather than promote it. Think of the damage caused by Ray Comfort's Banana Argument for God's Existence.
If something is "a hindrance in Jewish, Christian or similar subcultures", that's significant. Exempting other groups doesn't address the groups for whom you acknowledge that a hindrance would be involved.
And even if people would "know that a heterosexual friendship could externally look suspiciously like a homosexual relationship", the prominence of same-sex marriage and other matters closely related to homosexuality will bring the possibility of a homosexual relationship to mind more often and more prominently. Think of the example of Jonathan and David, which you mentioned. How often and how prominently were people thinking about and discussing the possibility of a homosexual relationship between those two men prior to modern generations? Yes, people today are aware of the possibility that Jonathan and David were heterosexual instead of homosexual. But the homosexual scenario gets considered and discussed far more often now than it did in the past.
You refer to how "a friendship where the two (or more) are really connected wouldn't care too much about what outsiders think". But even if they don't care "too much", they care to some extent. And it affects how other people view them and discuss them, for example.
Wow, that's so true. Many good points made. Feel sick thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteSin always results in spiritual poverty, taking away with one hand what it promises to give with the other. It promises freedom from God's alleged "heavy yoke", yet it oppresses and enslaves, ensnares, entangles and destroys.
ReplyDelete"Sexual freedom" as deployed by the culture is an oxymoron - it destroys and distorts both sexuality, and freedom.
I don't understand how Hall's argument is supposed to work. That two people of the same gender (say both males) will be less likely to develop a deep friendship merely because their relationship might possibly give the wrong impression to outsiders that their relationship is actually sexual? Well, if homosexual relationships are increasingly acceptable in a society then why would it be a hindrance? It seems it wouldn't be in that society since people would know that a heterosexual friendship could externally look suspiciously like a homosexual relationship without it actually being one. It would only be a hindrance in Jewish, Christian or similar subcultures (and rightly so).
ReplyDeleteBesides, a friendship where the two (or more) are really connected wouldn't care too much about what outsiders think and so such a friendship would naturally develop further. What outsiders think may be annoying, but it wouldn't get in the way of their friendship deepening. Think of the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson as portrayed in the Robert Downey Jr. movies and the Benedict Cumberbatch TV show. [Despite the fact that Downey joked that he plays Holmes as homosexually or bisexually attracted to Watson, but that it's unrequited. I wonder if it's actually written that way by the writers].
Similarly, David and Jonathan didn't care what others thought. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if some people in their day thought their relationship may have been sexual. But they didn't care since they both knew that both of them loved God supremely and therefore wouldn't even consider trying to initiate a homosexual relationship with the other. It would in fact ruin one of the main attractions they had of each other; viz. the other's ultimate love and commitment to God which resembles his own. Besides, if they knew each other deep enough, they would know that both of them were only sexually attracted to the opposite sex. And therefore, they knew that any private or public displays of affection would have no sexual connotation. And so, they would have no fear in displaying it.
If anything, the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships will allow for deeper heterosexual relationships between people of the same gender since they won't feel like they have to hide, stifle or suppress their genuine affection toward one another.
It seems to me that the way the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships will negatively affect heterosexual friendships would be that it might actually lead to some friendships moving from a heterosexual friendship to homosexual relationship. And so the dynamics of the friendship would be destroyed. Just as it would in the dynamics of a heterosexual relationship between two people of the opposite sex. That's why it's not uncommon for male and female friendships never to blossom into a romance, since they don't want to ruin a good thing. In fact, they can't even see each other that way. They are more like siblings than potential lovers.
I'm all for discouraging homosexual (or any other unbiblical) relationship. But I'm not sure Hall's argument works. Though, it might and I just don't see it. In fact, I suspect gay rights activists might consider the argument as an example of conservatives grasping at straws. Looking for any possible argument against homosexual relationships even if they are bad ones.
DeleteHall's argument might work, but I think we can all say that bad arguments can hurt a cause rather than promote it. Think of the damage caused by Ray Comfort's Banana Argument for God's Existence.
Correction of my post: By Hall, I should have said Matthew Franck. It's Franck's argument, Hall just repeats it.
DeleteOh, please. David and Jonathan were TOTALLY getting busy!
Delete@David
Delete"Oh, please. David and Jonathan were TOTALLY getting busy!"
Actually, it sounds more like you have a busy imagination!
ANNOYED PINOY,
DeleteIf something is "a hindrance in Jewish, Christian or similar subcultures", that's significant. Exempting other groups doesn't address the groups for whom you acknowledge that a hindrance would be involved.
And even if people would "know that a heterosexual friendship could externally look suspiciously like a homosexual relationship", the prominence of same-sex marriage and other matters closely related to homosexuality will bring the possibility of a homosexual relationship to mind more often and more prominently. Think of the example of Jonathan and David, which you mentioned. How often and how prominently were people thinking about and discussing the possibility of a homosexual relationship between those two men prior to modern generations? Yes, people today are aware of the possibility that Jonathan and David were heterosexual instead of homosexual. But the homosexual scenario gets considered and discussed far more often now than it did in the past.
You refer to how "a friendship where the two (or more) are really connected wouldn't care too much about what outsiders think". But even if they don't care "too much", they care to some extent. And it affects how other people view them and discuss them, for example.