Michael Glatze is an “ex-gay” — that is, a gay man pretending really hard not to be gay — has a column at the Worldnutdaily that is just a string of bizarre statements. For instance, he claims that being gay is all about making yourself into God.
Thus, since God is male and His creation – man – is male, the appropriate relationship (under the Headship of Christ) is to be satisfied in spiritual union with God. That is why Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6, says we have “become one spirit” with God. And, it is also why Paul describes, in Romans 1, the pattern of degradation that takes place when men turn from God. Ultimately, it results in homosexuality, because the man – seeking for a spiritual fellowship with God – positions himself either as a “god” for another man, or in the position of worshiping another man as “god.”
That is the deification of man spoken of clearly in Plato’s “Symposium,” in which a dialogue among seemingly learned men arrives at the conclusion that homosexuality is the highest form of love. No, it is not just an alternative to heterosexuality; it is something else, entirely.In fact, during biblical times, the vast majority of Rome’s emperors had homosexual relationships with men, all while also “using” women as procreative slaves, to be sure. In a culture of emperor worship, homosexuality = Man-as-God … ring any bells?!
Leaving aside the amusement of citing Plato in a harangue against homosexuality and the fact that, if Christianity is true, women are also the creation of God, WTF? He actually believes that men have sex with men because they really want “spiritual fellowship with God”? Wow.
To be strong, as men, Christian men must understand that homosexuality is a direct raping of the relationship between Man and God – NOT, as some have suggested, a perfectly viable sexual “choice” open to the same freedoms that any other “consensual choice” seems to have in our relativistic society.
Interesting choice of words. A “raping.” Relationships cannot be raped, of course, only people can. But he might as well have chosen genocide instead. Or torture. Or any other bad thing. This is the essence of absurd rhetoric. He just picks out a word that sounds bad and uses it, with no relation to the argument he’s making at all.