GLBT's sticky argument

Those familiar with the tiny hands of toddlers know that frequent washing is mandatory. Toddlers tend to involve all their digits when eating, and they enjoy foods which are loaded with ingredients which produce 'hand magnets.' You know, the jelly coated paws which are then covered with fuzz and assorted other debris. Yes, sticky fingers can unintentionally pick up all manner of excess. Arguments work the same way.

I am a counselor and was drawn to this vocation because of a natural inclination to feel empathy. The pain of others induces a response in me. I have counseled several young men and women who struggled with their sexual identity and inclinations. In almost every case, the person I dealt with was a sympathetic figure. Their pain was real and heartbreaking. Among other things, we discussed the morality of the situation and I explained the 'internal forum' to those whose understanding of their situation was different than mine. I was involved in one gay bashing incident, where I was asked to intervene with someone who was bullying some homosexuals, which I did. I am against picking on people.

When the episcopal church made it's decision(s) around all things GLBT, the process was political. We met in conventions and passed legislation. As such, the decisions were made in the realm of power and politics. Arguments were obviously provided, sometimes with great passion, but I am not sure how much actual discussion took place. Dialogue frequently means, "let's talk and then do what I want." That was certainly what I saw in this process.

As an inside observer of the process I attempted to listen to the arguments. In the end, the pro-GLBT arguments drove me to the other side. They were generally problematic. They tended to ignore the implications of their conclusions. It did not feel 'nice' to take such a position. It was difficult in light of the pain so many GLBT had suffered. But having spent many years in seminary where moral argumentation was taught I knew that reason has a place in argumentation and reason was not on their side.

Among the things which worried me most was the disdain for tradition and philosophy (especially teleology). The Biblical arguments were typical. Each side grabbed up some texts and either "proofed" their position or "explained away" the other. The best argument I heard (though ironically unappealing at first hearing) was that the natural order is man-woman marriage as set forth in Genesis. I found this to be unmoving for a long time. The genius of the insight dawned on me later. However, perhaps because of the more Protestant nature of the group, rarely was the church's historical interpretation of the texts brought forth. In the end, the fatal flaw of personal interpretation is it is personal. As such, conservatives tend to read conseratively and liberals tend to read liberal-ly. It is the nature of our subjectivity. Therefore, the pros and cons argued past each other. Much of the Biblical interpretation was shaped by feelings and limited insights into the position held.

However, as the 'progressives' rejected large blocks of scripture as 'outdated' they failed to recognize the repurcussions. Like a toddler with sticky fingers, their arguments were picking up exrtra debris. For example, the claim that one's sexual orientation is God given and therefore God blessed. We heard the constant refrain "God made me this way." I and others pointed out that this was an erroneous assumption and a problematic one as well. We were ignored (and demonized). Fastforward eight years, to September 2011. Now we hear a growing movement to normalize pedophilia... The argument used? You guessed it. We cannot judge the natural occuring desires of another. Let me be clear, I and others made this logical connection almost a decade ago and we were lambasted. Now, before our eyes, we see and hear exactly the things we said would happen. The horror.

The pro-pedophilia crowd has embraced the GLBT arguments and inserted their own group. The outcome is less certain, but in the end, once one begins arguing about the acceptability of such things, there is a sense in which the battle is lost. A society which argues about such things is open to the possibility. A society which embraces unfettered freedom and individual rights is ripe to embrace it.

I am not saying gay people are child molesters. I am, however, also not shying away from the fact that the arguments made for acceptance of LGBT is also being used by the pro-pedophilia. That is what I saw coming long ago. Arguments have consequences. Changing institutions impacts other institutions. Dismantling marriage will produce other unintended consequences.

The connections between some in the GLBT community and those sexually attracted to youths are documented. Sex between adult males and male teens has been well documented in the clergy sex abuse scandals. Ignoring this inconvenient truth has not been helpful. The politically correct limitations have helped create an environment where the idea of child molesting may become past tense. It is all so awful.

Years ago when I said such things I was told it would never, could never happen. Today, we are in the midst of the discussions. Many people have no idea what is going on. They did not pay attention to the consequences of 'sticky' arguments. Trying to be nice they opened the door to 'everyone' without thinking what everyone includes. An unattended, open door provides an open avenue to the monsters. And the monsters are real. And the monsters are trying to come in the house.