Piers Morgan interviewed Kirk Cameron the other day. Cameron is a child actor turned Christian. (What he was in his youth is unknown to this contributor, and is irrelevant to the purposes of this column.) Morgan is a newspaper man turned talk show host of unknown religious conviction.
In the course of the interview, Cameron defined marriage as between "one man (and) one woman, for life, 'til death do you part." Those who have found themselves married to a Charles Manson wannabe might find the latter clause to be little idealistic, but Morgan's visceral and negative response was clearly not to the permanence of marriage but Cameron's preferred limitation of the institution to a singular member of the opposite sex.
"Homosexuality is unnatural" and "ultimately destructive" said Cameron. Boo said Morgan. Actually Cameron is both wrong and right. In a fallen world, sin (assuming homosexuality can be defined as such) is very natural. How that sin manifests will vary from person to person, but it is the go-to condition of humankind. And yes, it is very destructive.
The shorter life expectancy of homosexuals is evidence enough of that, but consider also the future generations that will not be because of said activity. And then consider our proximity to the demographic cliff, and how we draw closer to it every time a young person voluntarily removes themselves from the gene pool. So homosexuality is clearly very destructive from both a personal and societal perspective.
What would Morgan's response be if one of his boys were gay? According to him, he'd say "That's great son, as long as you're happy." That the lad would likely die prematurely and leave him no grandchildren is apparently irrelevant... as long as he's happy. Methinks Morgan places too much emphasis on his child's emotional state. What if heroin makes him happy? Or pedophilia? Or drinking a two-six of Jack Daniels every night? Obviously a parent is responsible for a child's well-being, not merely their temporal 'happiness'.
But how can you judge people who are born gay?, a critic will ask. First of all, I'm not judging them. That's not my job. Secondly they weren't born gay, or at least there's no empirical evidence to support the theory that they were. Yes, subtle differences have been detected between the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals, but did those differences lead to homosexuality or did homosexuality lead to those subtle differences? In fact we don't know, but what we do know is that behaviour, particularly repetitive behaviour, affects neural development indicating the latter.
Morgan went on to point out that seven states have legalized gay marriage and that telling kids that homosexuality is wrong, and that it's wrong for them to marry, can be destructive. Actually, Piers, homosexuality itself is demonstrably destructive, and just because something is legal in fifty states doesn't make it right. Recall that at one point it was perfectly legal to kill Jews is Germany. It's widely acknowledged that the zeitgeist that led to that state of affairs was completely screwy. The possibility that people will one day say the same about the one that has brought us to this point must likewise be acknowledged.
And how, pray tell, did we get here? What example are legislators pointing to when they claim that the sky won't fall in if homosexuals marry? Canada's. And how did Canada become a shining, progressive, gay marriage promoting beacon to the world? For that one needs to read my previous post, The Charter: a recipe for decline.
In conclusion, Kirk Cameron is right. Though homosexuality may be natural in a fallen world, we weren't designed for it and it is highly destructive. And he's also right when he says we're all sinful. It's what ties us together: we all need grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment