...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.