Friday, 4 June 2010

I'm wondering...



...how to react to this bloke? I'm torn. Hug him? Wring his neck? I dunno. He's like a Jew who's proud to be starching Eichmann's shirts. Haydn Sennitt is a gay man no longer gay. He went hetero for Jesus, in outward appearance at least; he has a wife and kids. I don't know if he still feels atracted to men - it seems to me unlikely that the desire could wholly vanish, but then Christers need a besetting sin to battle against, or they don't feel they're doing it right, so that's OK. Haydn was asked to participate in a forum on the subject of homosexuality. This is why he accepted:

'Someone needed, and still needs, to put their face to a story of redemption about being saved from the darkness of ‘gay’ living because the days are short and people are going to hell. Someone with enough love for God and sinners and enough conviction to put their head above the parapet—even if it means getting one’s head blown off—to win even a few to the Truth, which was something that I thought was worthwhile. I just had to step out because no-one else was doing it.'

Good for you, Haydn. You appear to have more concern for sinners than the God you proclaim. His 'word' is so vague and open to any number of interpretations, we need someone like you to tell us what it really means. But what is this about dark 'gay living'? Does the term mean anything? How? If you get in with people whose style and actions you don't like, be they gay, straight, bi or celibate, keep away from those people, but don't lump everybody of the same sexual preference together as if that were the only thing that defines them, or even the most important thing that defines them. It is not kind. Neither is it intelligent.

What other reasons did you have for playing into the hands of every bigot eager for another justification for his externalised self-hatred?

'I wanted the audience to see not simply the truth about Jesus but that God actually cares about people. That He loves them. That He even loves gay people, a group that many Christians consider untouchable, freakish, outlandish, and just plain bizarre.'

And did you do anything to change those ugly prejudices? Like fuck you did. You simply licked the boots of those who propagate them by being a penitent, an ex-untouchable, an outlandish freak reformed in their eyes because he entirely accepts their terms. It's rather as if a German Jew in the thirties were to say, you know, they're right: we really are like sewer rats.

*****

More hyper-bollocks from my creationist YouTuber this morning.

'Humanity has failed to see what love really is and means. It has cheapened it, defiled it, and glorified false representations of it. What we have defined as love is idolatry and self-worship - and that is the root origin of homosexuality.'

Top marks for young male arrogance and want of tact, there, and no points at all for defining of terms. It might be possible to do him for plagiarism too. However, I'm more offended by his skewed view of the theory of evolution:

'As homosexuality is a normal occurrence within our species, genetic evolutionary theory makes no sense - as our innate personal make-up (theoretically including our sexual orientation) is the byproduct of the genetic makeup passed down to us from our ancestors. The existence of homosexuality makes a lot more sense under the Creationist theory. If this is true, homosexuality is therefore just another example of humanity's choice to live in defiance to God's will.'

Homosexuality is 'a normal occurrence' then. So why do God's chillun bang on about its sinfulness the way they do? To be sure, evolution doesn't explain homosexuality, but it's barmy to claim that homosexuality disproves evolution. Homosexuals can and do have children. Some may do so because they want to, but in many societies, e.g., Muslim, traditional Mediterranean, people who are homosexually inclined are often given no choice but to marry and reproduce. This has been the case for centuries in so many societies. Homosexuality as presently perceived in Western societies, where couples can live openly as gay, is a phenomenon less than thirty years old. Prior to that, societal disapproval and pressure to conform would have forced thousands of people to marry and have kids, who otherwise would have preferred to live with a same-sex partner. Therefore genes would have been passed on. Nobody is claiming that a single gene is reponsible for the whole phenomenon of homosexuality, but nobody is in a position to dismiss a possible genetic contribution either.

10 comments:

Deiniol said...

Depends. Is he cute?

vilges suola said...

Not in my book. There's a photo on the page. You decide.

Your blog seems to have disappeared, how come?

Fionnchú said...

If natural law as God's plan comes in, are eyeglasses and dental work also violations of the way we were designed by our Creator? Parts fit into different crannies, and that's great for both sexes, with each other or with the opposite version. How an Iron Age hodgepodge of dogmatic documents from oral traditions of shepherds recorded and redacted centuries later (and backdated) meant to govern our advanced thinking today's stumps me. Yes, it has interesting characters and nice poetry along with a lot of bickering and bloodlust, but I do tire of its being taken as the fundamental text to guide our lives by in the era of genetics.

To paraphrase your earlier statement, how the Master of Infinity deigns to worry about what a few bipeds do in the sack seems a waste of His and our time. Even in Leviticus, the Ineffable One's a lot more concerned about the dimensions of the Ark, right?

vilges suola said...

Absolutely. It amazes and angers me that people take all this as seriously as they do. There's no objection to their believing whatever they like of course. It's just that they won't rest until everyone else believes it too.

Nik_TheGreek said...

I really admire you for going through and reading this kind of things. I simply can't. They simply infuriate me so I prefer to stay calm and ignore them.

vilges suola said...

You're probably right to ignore them. It's the teacher in me. When I see dumb arguments I can't let them go by. He can believe whatever the hell he likes so long as he can present a cogent case for doing so!

Deiniol said...

You know, your YouTuber might have a point about the connection between idolatry and homosexuality: the queers do seem to be overrepresented in neopaganism.

re: my blog: The company which hosted my site has gone belly-up, it seems. I've set up a new one at http://logodaedalic.blogspot.com/

vilges suola said...

Isn't that because Christianity is so unwelcoming to poufs?

Michael said...

People who try to define me must be the universal way of thinking that most pisses me off. I recently did a post on this. I know it's an innate compulsion for some people because categorization helps with some people's logical thinking, but gosh, it infuriates me when they make me their subject, especially when they lump me with this group, or separate me from that group, because I enjoy just being who I am, a little complicated, confusing, and multi-faceted in personality.

That little rant over... there's also my gripe with people who have misunderstandings of the concept of evolution, the gay thing, the religion thing... I think I liked it better when you talked about those pesky students!

Vilges Suola said...

They are bloody infuriating, I know. The pointof writing the post was to get it off my chest - and onto yours, by the looks of it!

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin