Option 9
Submitted by F.O.D. on November 06 1999 at 16:25:21
In reply to Paradigms Submitted by Mark on October 31 1999 at 21:55:56
|
That's a combination of 4 and 5. I guess I would see our boyloving nature as something of an ordinary variation, but I wonder if it may not be useful sometimes to draw parallels with disabled people. After all, being born blind, deaf or with cerebral palsy is also in a way a "natural" variation. (Yes, I'm the one Heather mentioned). I consider making comparisons in terms of "Ideal". Ideally, you won't be blind, you can hear fully, you're heterosexual. But things being what they are we all aren't "ideal". But with what we are, we make the best of it to God's glory. So the blind man walks outside with cane or dog and does not shut himself away at home, the deaf man learns sign language, the man with cerebral palsy may take a cane to help him walk straight, the gay man or boylover learns to enrich others through relationships without taking a wife. I've been asking how far this analogy runs. Is it fair to say being homosexual is not "ideal"? That's open to debate, but I think it might be fair, for various reasons. Even our friend Jim would like to be a dad with a family. The question, then, is if we are to encourage those who are "nonideal" to live life to the full as best they can, does that mean it is good to accept homosexual [sexual] relationships? Not to say that's "ideal", but to say stuff happens and we've got to live with it? Or with homosexual adoptions (or rearing biological children), we might say it's ideal for a child to have a mummy and a daddy, but does that mean we must never accept two daddies just because it's not "ideal"? Fod |