Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 24, 1993 TAG: 9302240426
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GARY BURCH
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
CLINTON'S COMPARISON DON'T EQUATE GAY ISSUES WITH BLACKS' CIVIL-RIGHTS
I AM incensed at the blatant arrogance of an administration that was supposed to give America back to the people.I tried for three days in a row to contact the White House switchboard, and Sens. Chuck Robb and John Warner. My one success was getting through to Warner's office, only to be answered by a recording stating that his answering box was full . . . then it hung up!
Frustrating - but understandable. Calls were flooding Capitol Hill. The calls were not just concerning the proposed lifting of the ban on homosexuality in the military; the overwhelming majority opposed the action.
This fact was underscored by the dissent of even the White House's own top military advisers. The opinions reflected by Congress on behalf of its constituents is that they (we) are opposed to this ill-planned, ill-timed, not-well-thought-out arbitrary decision by President Clinton.
As a practicing Christian, I am opposed to any thinking that legitimizes or condones homosexual behavior as an acceptable lifestyle. Arguments to promote this lifestyle evaporate in the face of reason, logic and all that we see in nature. The Bible is clear in labeling this kind of perversion "wicked" (Genesis 19:7), and "unnatural" (Romans 1:26-32). At Sodom and Gomorrah, men "received in themselves the due penalty" for their actions; I believe that we too will be held accountable for our actions.
I am as guilty in my sin as are those who engage in homosexuality. Very few days end without my falling far short of Jesus' example. The difference between my sin and that of homosexual activists is in our attitude toward our sins.
I feel guilt and shame, followed by a desire to seek forgiveness and the strength to try again tomorrow. The above-mentioned group seeks not just understanding, but also acceptance and tolerance of this lifestyle.
Likening this issue to the civil-rights struggle endured by generations of blacks is vitally flawed, to say the least. If I were black, I would be outraged at the implications of this argument.
To engage in homosexual behavior is absolutely contrary to nature. By virtue of the design of our bodies, male and female are made to "fit" together in a variety of natural, compatible, functional, pro-creational and, yes, even pleasurable positions. It's the way God created us, because he meant for sex to be a mutual act of love and enjoyment fulfilled through the marital relationship of a male and a female.
In its proper context, it should always result in mutual satisfaction (no jokes!), and a positive physical reaction. By this I mean that any negative physical results should throw up a flag that all is not well for whatever reason. Understand, reactions of this sort are not the norm.
By contrast, the net results of homosexual behavior include not only the physical pleasure that was felt but the negative physical reactions that result from repeated behavior of this sort. The physical limitations of homosexual sex necessitate "unnatural" acts that result in the spread of diseases and unsafe sexual practices.
Although there are gays and lesbians who maintain monogamous relationships and thus confine any negative results, a realistic look at the mainstream gay community proves that multiple partners are far more commonplace.
If the aforementioned argument is presented as analogous to the struggle of blacks, the obvious conclusions must be that: 1) to be born black is either your choice or just the way you were born; 2) to live as a black person, you somehow have to go against what appears to be a given rule of nature and resort to "unnatural" behavior to experience sexual fulfillment and love; 3) since you are black, you cannot experience the joy of mutual procreation with your spouse . . . not due to any physical limitations from a medical deficiency, but because it's physically impossible for any two blacks to give birth to their own children; 4) when you do enjoy physical intimacy, you have to somehow circumvent nature and you lose something in the process. Beyond the physical and emotion-al pleasure, there is a negative physical result.
I do not view blacks in this way. I view blacks as my brothers, as precious in God's sight as anyone. There is nothing sinful, negative, harmful or unnatural about being black or being proud of one's heritage. I regard my black friends with much higher esteem, respect and sincere love than those who would equate being black with being homosexual.
I applaud the newly formed Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia, and the group's bold stand on homosexuality and other issues. May we all be so challenged and bold in our response toward any societal behavior that has the potential to further weaken our collective moral integrity.
Thanks for reading and listening this long. The White House sure isn't!