A review of a book by Donald Wildmon, Speechless: Silencing the Christians includes the following new terms:
“homosecularists” (referring to gay activists who specifically attack religion)“liberal sharia law” (referring to attempts to ban speech, thought, and behavior leftists do not approve of)
“homosecularists” (referring to gay activists who specifically attack religion)
“liberal sharia law” (referring to attempts to ban speech, thought, and behavior leftists do not approve of)
The homosecularists/liberals are doing more than just silencing Christians and people with religious, moral objections to homosexuality and lesbianism – they are actually driving them out of their jobs and invading their institutions using the legal system.
From the CrunchyCon web site today –
“As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups.”
“A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.”
“A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.”
so now gays are persecuting christians.
hmmm. as one who is christian and gay, I am not seeing this.
“homosecularist”. homo + secularist. So forcing this word marriage means what? we are moving beyond “gay agenda” and “gay lifestyle” as equally vapid, indeterminate, and so meaningless bloviage?
Consider what the term: “heterosecularists” evokes. The mental image. The emotions. Not the same huh? Why is that?
Words used for their evocative emotional power rather than for useful content.
Manipulation. Montgomery can and should do better.
catholic charities adoption services = discriminate against gays = receive govt funding = shut down.
mormon adoption services = no government funding = discriminate against gays = still in operation.
all the stuff you quote I can only find on radical christian/culture war sites. and they tell half-lies instead of whole truth.
These terms are neither helpful nor are they valid. They are ad hominems intended to invoke guilt by association (gays = secularist = atheist; liberal = Muslim). Rhetorically, they are inflammatory and are intended to invoke an emotional rather than a reasoned response. It is terribly manipulative and politicized. Political word play.
Let’s hear people throw around combinations like “heterofascism” and “Christian Sharia Law” and see how we like it. The level of discourse is hardly elevated.
I’m sorry to see JW Montgomery’s name associated with that.
Frank, I am not going to defend these terms (I really don’t think they are very helpful at all) but you have complained that all homosexuals are often painted with one broad brush. I have admitted to lazily using the word homosexual when really only referring to a subset of that larger population. I think we need to draw some differentiation in order to avoid this problem/error. Any thoughts on better terminology?
When “we” do it they’re “useful new terms.”
When the “other side” (god-hating liberals) does it, they’re “Orwellian language games.”
Can we at least try for consistency?
“Montgomery can and should do better”…. “I’m sorry to see JW Montgomery’s name associated with that.”
Hey, let’s take away Dr. Veith’s “Miss California” crown; that’ll teach him never to give a “hat tip” to John Warwick Montgomery for violating the 11th Commandment: Remember Political Correctness to keep it holy.
Speaking of ad hominems and diminished levels of discourse, let’s all pause @7 and admire it for its intrinsic instructive value.
It’s not about the political correctness or incorrectness, Vehse, it’s about basic intelligence and quality of argument. Making up a bunch of names and words to describe things in a derogatory manner is a silly and rather childish thing to do.
Everyone who disagrees with me is really a Homolibnazi!
I’m not sure where Montgomery comes into this – it’s a book by Wildmon, and the review is by Muehlenberg. I can’t find whatever it is that Montgomery said.
Yes, the intrinsic instructive value being to response to the implications of a travesty Dr. Veith committed in noted a HT to Dr. Montgomery, and that Dr. Montgomery should have done better than to (in some unspecified way) earn it.
As usual, the sarcasm @7 is gratis.
“Making up a bunch of names and words to describe things in a derogatory manner is a silly and rather childish thing to do.”
Describing derogatory things using derogatory words is not silly or childish. But whining about it is.
Webmonk @ 9
I like Homolibnazi, but at the same time I’m sure if we put our collective word coining abilities together we can come up with something even better.
How about Shariafascist-homorwellianathiommunaziocialist for a start, but I know I’m leaving out something. What else can we tack on here?
I think my post was eaten. Apologies if this ends up here twice.
Wow, it’s fascinating to read so many Cranach comments I agree with (@2, @3, @4, @6, @8, @9). Clearly the homosecularists (ahem) are taking over this blog.
And it’s no surprise that Vehse (or his programmer, whichever) defends (@7) the practice of puerile name-calling. It is his stock in trade, you know.
But if, indeed, it is true that “Describing derogatory things using derogatory words is not silly or childish” (@11), then I must say Carl, that your comments are those of a do0-do0-head.
All Dr. Montgomery did was to alert me to the review! He didn’t have anything to do with the coinage of new words. I’ll take his name off of it, if he is going to be blamed.
If you want to make a serious argument about something, making up words like “homoliberal”, “Islamofascist”, and “communazi” (I know Wildman didn’t use all those words, but they’re all words I’ve heard many times) is fundamentally childish and is just a fancier way to call people “poopiehead” or “doo-doo face”.
People who use words like that are just doing name calling. I don’t care how sad, bad, or derogatory something is, it is childish and silly to go around calling it made-up names.
Make intelligent and reasoned arguments, not silly name-calling exercises.
Tu quoque @11. One more and we have a trifecta of fallacies.
I too am a bit puzzled by the JWM HT unless this is was simply an acknowledgment of a source. In my experience, Dr. Montgomery is far too intelligent and skilled a rhetorician to resort to derogatory phrases even when refuting derogatory things.
Also, the irony inherent in coining the term “liberal sharia law” is a bit much. Not a few people on this blog routinely clamor for laws that reflect our Christian beliefs, because, you know, we’re a “Christian nation”, so the laws should reflect that. That comes a lot closer to “sharia law” than what the liberals are doing.
But then, it sounds like “sharia” is soon to join “fascism” as one of those labels you toss at someone you don’t like, regardless of how applicable the historical referent is.
I don’t see what is so inflammatory about these. “homosecularist” distinguishes between the anti-religious and the religious gays, and in fact throws the emphasis onto their militant secularism, not their sexual orientation.
And Christians ARE being accused of being like the Taliban. All the time! To show that the other side is doing exactly what they are accusing Christians of doing is not out of line.
Yes, I’m interested in language, in its whole range. Are these “Orwellian”? No. Orwell is talking about political language that purposefully makes what it is communicating vague. New words that name things concretely and with precision, even if they are rhetorically loaded, are not Orwellian.
You’ve now posted twice since my comment around # 10 was snagged (presumably) for moderation. Could you approve it please?
Nemo & tODD, I have no comments in moderation. I thought getting rid of Intense Debate would take care of it. I’ll check the Akismet spam filter.
How about a name contest? Who can come up with the best name along the lines of “homoliberal”?
I didn’t make it up, but I have always been particularly amused by “feminazi”. “Islamofascist” has also been a chuckle for me a few times.
Christofascist – people who want to enforce a strictly “Christian” (based off selective OT laws) Jewish laws.
Obamian – people who place total faith in President Obama as the salvation of our country.
(I tried to make up a “fair” sample to insult both sides.)
Veith, do you REALLY think Wildmon made up those terms in an effort to clarify things??? If so, I’ve got some beautiful ocean-front property in Nebraska to sell you.
Veith (@17), I wouldn’t argue against these terms as being inflammatory per se, but rather, pointless. If “homosecularist” is used as precisely as you claim, then what is the value? Why do we need a new term for those gays who are militant secularists, without just using the words we already have? Should we also coin the word “homosecularette” to refer to those militant secularist homos_xuals who are women? Is that also a necessary portmanteau?
It seems to me that one can rail against secularism just fine without this new word. But this word does tend to conflate all homos_xuals with all secularists, much as “feminazi” has, at least in practice, been used to smear any and all liberal women with the idea of national socialism, no matter how silly that might actually be in each case.
So if the term is to be used as precisely as you say, then it’s just merely pointless. Like, say, “homopublican” — you know, to distinguish between straight and gay Republicans. But I think it is more likely to be used to conflate what some hold to be the two great Enemies of Christianity and/or These United States. And that is not useful.
I’ll take his name off of it, if he is going to be blamed.
Then the left-wingnuts would have succeeded in perverting a “hat tip” into something for which there is “blame.”
I don’t see what is so inflammatory about these. “homosecularist” distinguishes between the anti-religious and the religious gays, and in fact throws the emphasis onto their militant secularism, not their sexual orientation.
As you can see from their whining on this list it’s about non-PC language and the liberals’ attempts to force their version of George Orwell’s Newspeak onto the public.
Veith, I now have submitted a comment that has not appeared, yet when I try to resubmit it, WordPress says it’s a duplicate comment. So clearly WordPress knows about it, but isn’t showing it.
Have you checked your Akismet filter lately? Or do you have other comment-filtering going on?
Ohhhhhhh, where has THAT occurred recently?!?
“Political correctness” (often abbreviated PC). A term now used exclusively by Republicans and conservatives. Used to refer to any criticism, no matter how appropriate or fair, of pretty much any stupid idea held by said Republican or conservative. To wit:
Conservative: Hitlery Klinton is a lesbian who hates the United States, and she is artificially inseminated with Osama bin Laden’s love child. Passer-by: You are a fool. Conservative: This is Political Correctness run amok! See the liberals trying to censor me!
The trouble is, these are not precise terms. They combine two things into one that don’t have anything to do with each other into some sort of fictitious meta-ideology.
Here’s the basic formula:
(group we hate) + (group we hate) = group we really hate
feminists + nazis (a perennial favorite) = feminazi Muslims + fascists (close to nazi) = Islamofascist homosexuals + secularists = homosecularist liberals + Muslims = liberal sharia law
Why not just call it what it is? Secularism and censorship.
We have a winner! @21 Poisoning the well and false attribution of motive in a single sentence! Well done!
I’m not a particular fan of “loaded” descriptive terms, such as “homosecularists”, but it’s certainly no worse than “homophobic”, and probably a good deal more descriptively accurate.
“Liberal sharia law”, on the other hand, is quite descriptive, as the PC crowd is working very hard to suppress genuine debate in a number of socially volatile areas. This is done through the use of “hate” speech codes, organizing to shout down speakers with whom they disagree or have them excluded from university campuses, etc., and using other shaming tactics rather than engaging in legitimate discussion.
“liberal” combined with “sharia law” is an exercise in bizarreness and incomprehensibility. Does no one know what Sharia law is?!?!?
It’s a combination of legalistic prohibitions against drinking, dancing, fornicating, eating, etc. It is financial law. It is social/marriage law. It is all sorts of stuff. It’s a complete legal/social system.
How is “liberal sharia law” used though? Does it have some sort of tie to a liberal version of sharia law? No. Of course not. That would actually be a sensible meaning of the phrase.
What it is, is a scare term and a name-calling exercise. It basically means something along the lines of laws restricting certain speech in ways that block just certain Christian/Right ideas.
Laws that limit free speech in such a style are bad and should be opposed vehemently. Making up new phrases to use in name-calling is silly and pretty much only of use in rabble-rousing.
Ha, I just read tODD’s comment at 24 after posting at 27. But, though tODD’s cited “example” was sarcastically ridiculous, I don’t think even he could legitimately argue that there are not a whole host of issues on which the establishment has declared the debate over, with a “right” side and a “wrong” side, gay marriage and the legitimacy of gay lifestyles being just one of those issues.
Webmonk @ 28: Suppressing free speech on a whole host of issues is far worse than calling that action a particular name. This kind of suppression deserves whatever scorn is heaped upon it. And, the label is applied to actions, not particular individuals, so there is no personal harm. Not saying I would use the term, but it’s certainly not unjustified.
I propose a ban on any new terms.
Don (@29), sure, but that’s not what Carl is doing (@21) in tossing out the “PC” label against his detractors. He’s trying to argue that any criticism of his witty coinages (well, he got them from a Web site somewhere, but still) is political correctness, rather than actually engage the dialog. It’s so much easier to simply label (and smear) the one opposing you than to respond to his ideas.
Hey, cool. According to Vehse, I’m a liberal and left-wingnut. Most people typically consider me a right-wingnut – this is nice for a change.
I’m in good company though – wcwirla is here with me, and I think he’s an Orthodox priest. tODD is a Lutheran, but that doesn’t quite disqualify him from being good company. I think Nemo and Joe probably got tossed in here too. FW is, of course, a permanent resident in here.
DonS #30 – I agree that suppressing free speech on a whole host of issues is far worse than calling that action a particular name.
It’s just that going around calling things names is a stupid and generally useless thing to do, beyond rabble-rousing. It really ought not be encouraged. Sure, there is a place and time for rabble-rousing, but it’s a very rare and small place/time. Unfortunately, various groups (left and right) seem to spend just about all their time doing it.
Generally, I have no problem with the “left” doing it since I figure it hurts a lot more than it helps. I try to discourage it from happening in the “right” for the same reason. (“right” and “left” are such hugely broad strokes that they aren’t accurate, but I’m using them mainly for brevity’s sake)
This is very new territory for me. I have not been labeled a liberal since my sophomore year of high school and that was only because my classmates misunderstood my speech, Why America Is A Socialist Nation, as an endorsement of socialism. It was actually intended to point out how far we had fallen from our free market beginnings.
Any suggestions on what I should to do celebrate?
Webmonk, You might check into a persons history before you slander them. Cwirla is not an Orthodox priest, nor do I think he even has the inclination to test the waters of the Bosphorous with is big toe. He does actually have a bit of celebrity as being a Lutheran pastor, and orthodox Lutheran, and a good pastor.
WebMonk (@33), sorry, but Wcwirla’s blog identifies him as a “Lutheran pastor” — though if you’d like to draw a distinction between him and me as to why one of us makes for better company, he is LCMS, while I’m WELS.
No idea about Nemo or Joe, though.
Webmonk @ 34: Well, I certainly can’t quibble with anything you said. I agree that it would be nice if those on both sides would simply argue vehemently and respectfully, which includes both speaking and listening.
Huh. For some reason I would have sworn he is an Orthodox priest. Sorry wcwirla – I didn’t mean to cause confusion. It wasn’t from your theological statements that I got my confusion – it was a vague memory of a statement. I must have mistaken the statement or the target.
Hmmm, then I guess instead of an Orthodox priest being a liberal left-wingnut, then a respected LCMS pastor is a liberal left-wingnut! Wow. Who would have guessed?! Vehse is indeed quite the perceptive person, isn’t he? He can spot those left-wingnuts a mile away!
I’ve been called many things in my day, but Orthodox priest and liberal left-wingnut are not two of them. The closest I get to being “Orthodox” is I like icons. The closest I get to being liberal is I wear Berkenstocks.
For the record: LCMS Lutheran pastor, politically more Libertarian than Conservative, heterosexual, married (sorry, girls!), right-handed, Myers-Briggs: ISTP, Aries, of Ukrainian and German descent, huge Chicago fan (Blackhawks, Cubs, Bears), certified scuba diver, woodworker, musician, talkative half of The God Whisperers (www.godwhisperers.com), blogger (http://blog.higherthings.org/wcwirla/), institutional irritant.
I propose we ban antineologolofascism. 😉
Don’t forget to toss in “postmodern” once and a while. It gives your neologism a certain “academic” flair.
I am also a confessional Lutheran of Ukrainian decent who identifies a bit more libertarian that conservative. I can’t agree to the Chicago stuff – I bleed Green & Gold.
Hey, I’ll root for the Pack when Da Bears aren’t in the hunt. Never the Vikings, though. Or any northern team that plays in an indoor stadium. Those climatophobes!
Veith (@47), I assume you found some comments of ours in the spam filter, since the comment I mentioned above as not having appeared has, well, appeared (and thrown off people’s comment-number-referring in the process!). Thanks for that.
Now if I only knew why my comment was deemed spam in the first place. Perhaps Akismet has some sort of “poor reasoning” detector?
My post @ 12 made it!
Since we’re now doing personals…I’m a former Lutheran who now prefers the distinction of “Christian.”
As for politics, I’m primarily a classical conservative, with an urge to defend “neo-conservative” foreign policy at times. I’m a PHC alumnus who studied under both Dr. M and Dr. B. What can I say?
wcwirla at @43 go cubs!
dr Veith: I have yet to see a term that includes the word homo that means anything specific.
gay agenda: a book in which gays note important times and dates for appointments to keep their lifestyles on time and organized. available at staples. unadvertised. you need to know the hidden agenda/password to get one.
gay lifestyle: what gays keep organized in their gay agendas.
homo-sexual: pick one 1) men who are sexual 2) persons who are uniformly sexual. like homo-milk. 3) people who are not homo-sapiens, they are instead homo-sexual. 4) (correct choice) a word combining a latin and greek root, the equivalent of etymological train wreck, coined in austria around 1880 around the same time that the word “gay” started to be used by literary types and homo-gays as a code word for something you risked being killed for back then. Surprise! not a highjacking of an innocent word by those toting a gay agenda in the 70´s-80´s
gay: used by homosexuals probably to distance themselves from having their entire existence reduced to s.e.x. and their dignity as human beings surgically removed. Now probably the the worst thing an 8 year old can call another 8 year old on a playground, worse even than “stupid”. 8 year olds could not define the word. they just KNOW it is something really really really bad. Just like most of their parents actually!
Joe @5 try this:
ontological categories that are true fully independent of behavior: black, white, male, female, gay, baptized child of God.
behavioral categories that are meaningless independent of behavior: alcoholic, addict, gossip, hero, liar, thief.
sinner: unique category. contra-ontological. applies to ALL categories equally. contra-behavioral (we sin because we are sinners, we are not sinners because we sin).
suggestion. Homosexual is ok, but define it in a way a homosexual would own. why not? maybe safer to alway use the word gay, and then do hyphenize it with some behavioral word.
be polite. example: if someone wants to be called black or african american, then address them as that. why insist on calling someone a “negro” or “colored”? Yes it may seem more accurate, afro-american may seem agenda-ized? so what? and you need to fight this battle why?
APA definition/clinical description of homosexual/gay/sexual orientation.
Why not have the church address the world using the same language the world uses? I suggest it would make communication alot easier.
maybe safer to alway use the word gay, and then do NOT hyphenize it with some behavioral word.
Dr. Veith (@19) stated: “And Christians ARE being accused of being like the Taliban. All the time! To show that the other side is doing exactly what they are accusing Christians of doing is not out of line.”
Indeed, that is noted in the review of the book, Speechless: Silencing the Christians, the link to which Dr. Montgomery provided Dr. Veith: “One wonders how it is that a nation like the US has so quickly become a land where Christians are being bullied into silence, and where activist minority groups are turning the values and beliefs of a once great nation upside down…. Wildmon examines groups like the ACLU which seek to ‘intimidate the schools and other public institutions into censoring Christian speech’ for fear of legal action.”
And for provided the link alert to the book review Dr. Montgomery’s reputation was subjected to insinuating slurs until the hat tip to Dr. Montgomery was removed from the blog.
well, it would really help me, while you are at it, to better define “sexual relations” outside of marriage, as there’s alot of talk in this blog about those, and it would help to know just what certain contributors mean when they use that phrase….e.g. is kissing, heavy petting, fondling of you know what, ok? well, maybe not, or perhaps it is, if there is real “love” between the 2 parties, as they said in the 70’s! most likely though, things have changed so that even “love” is no longer a requirement? afterall, as tina turner says, what’s love got to go with it, right? if it’s the bill clinton defintion, then hmmmm…almost anything short of that one deed (that could lead to pregnancy, if you need some clarification) is NOT sexual relations….how convenient (to quote the church lady)! indeed, taking it a step further, if the definition of sexual relations must involve a male and a female, and a certain physical situation that must be met (see above), then voila, NO homosexual sexual relations, inside or outside of marriage is wrong, period? forgive me for sounding cynical (or ignorant) but there are a lot of references in this blog about sexual relations outside of marriage, but no real definitions and distinctions, and am afraid without them, it may not be as innocent and wholesome as it sounds
Frank @ 53:
“and you need to fight this battle why?” My post @ 5 had nothing to do trying to fight any battles. I am just trying to find a way to use language more precisly.
#58 Joe. the you in that post was the general generic rhetorical “you”. I am so very sorry I used language imprecisely. so you get to use me as an object lesson of how NOT to use language !!! :)) I am so sorry. I hope the post helped Joe. use the word gay. it is the most polite and safest. if you meet a transgender ask that person what they prefer. often it is very polite to ask how someone would prefer to be addressed.
John what is truth @57 This is an important point actually John. usually when people ask this question they are met with a long skeptical glance and a response that says something like: “so you are trying to find all the legal loopholes to do exactly what you please aren´t you!!!”
I guess there that questionee is projecting his character onto questioner.
anyone here want to take a stab at the sexual rules for dating in detail?? what is the line and where and how should it be drawn. what is the line between sex and non sex? by definition can two lesbians even have “sex” with each other?
ontological categories that are true fully independent of behavior:… gay
No, homosexual is a behavioral category where the behavior includes thoughts, desires, words, and actions. In essense, “homosexual” involves an action (whether mental or physical). One cannot be a homosexual unless one desires, thinks or acts in a homosexual way.
Likewise, a heterosexual is one who desires, thinks, or acts in a heterosexual way.
While some heterosexual actions are sinful, all homosexual actions are sinful, just as all lying, stealing, and murdering actions are sinful.
Now whether one refers to stealing as theft, robbery, fraud, bank heist, etc., it is ridiculous to suggest limiting the description to one that carries no negative connotation or a description that is acceptable to bank robbers, con artists, and car thieves. The same applies to other sinful behavioral categories.
Here in brasil where I live, there are laws against hate speach. you cannot publicly slur racially or slur homosexuals.
Brother Lars would probably come to Brasil on vacation and end up on probation! 😉
I would rather let him be his bad self.
I think that those laws are a huge mistake. they accomplish nothing good.
#62 my sincere apologies to lars, I of course meant brother carl vehse.
you radically overstate and so you dehumanize. “all blacks are lazy” you say laziness is a necessary consequence of being black.
dear carl, what about 8 year olds who are gay? where is it that they are sinning homosexually in your opinion?
#61 carl. I am starting to think that you cannot read.
there are three categories I mention.
sinner applies to all.
a homo, like yourself, always has one or more ontological categories that fit, and as a sinner also for sure has other that are behavioral, labels you probably know intimately. ones like: slanderer, mentally slothful, liar, deceitful, and the like…
I hope that makes things more clear for you Carl!
it just occurred to me carl, by your own definition, that YOU are gay and homosexual!
I can´t think that there is anything I do or think as a homosexual that you do not also do!
cool. I am with you carl. thanks for your honesty and your solidarity!
#61 my logic is this:
I am a homosexual. Therefore everything i say think and do I do homosexually.
carl says thinks and does all the same things I say think and do,
therefore carl is a homosexual too because of what he does.
fws – get a blog! ; )
I’m sure Vehse would be an avid reader and commentator.
@61 I stated that “homosexual” was a behavioral category involving action (in thought word, or deed), that such homosexuals actions were sinful, and that it is ridiculous to suggest removing negative connotations from terms referring to negative (and sinful) actions.
You, fws, have responded, in a frenzy of posts, with inferences to hate speech, race and my arrest if I were in Brazil, along with your lies, sophistry, and irrational statements. And you are the one who boasts “everything i say think and do I do homosexually.”
I agree 50 percent with Rev. Cwirla; get your own (homosexual) blog. But Rev. Cwirla errs on your blog’s readership.
Okay, Carl. What “words” constitute homosexual behavior? I can certainly think of what “actions” constitute homosexual behavior, as you’re thinking of it. And, from Jesus’ teaching on lust, I can think of what “thoughts” would also qualify. But what “words” make one gay?
And how does one have a “(homosexual) blog”? What does the blog do to make it homosexual, since, as you say, that adjective is “a behavioral category involving action”?
And, more to the point, are you saying that FWS is never/often not a homosexual (going by his past statements)?
Or, to take the focus off FWS (since only he can speak for his thoughts and actions), are you saying that all those people out there who would self-identify as homosexuals (or at least as gays) are not, in fact, homosexuals any time they’re not thinking or acting homosexually? This certainly would be news to them, I guess.
Are you not a heterosexual when you’re not thinking or acting heterosexually? (Do you become … homosexual … at those times? Or perhaps only asexual?)
You included desires in your description of homosexual behavior. Did you mean to include involuntary desires? If so you seem to be arguing that there is no way for a gay person to not act sinfully. That seems like some heavy law with no room for salvation. What should we tell all those struggling to remain celibate despite their desires? Forget about it there’s nothing for you here go about your business.
To answer your questions, please read An Explanation of The Small Catechism, particularly Q&A #78-83. Once you realize what sin is and what its consequences are, you need to read Q&A #84.
Your reference to “involuntary desires” is simply the result of original sin that infects all humans, except, of course, our Savior Jesus Christ.
Carl! Carl! Can you hear me (@70)? Do I need to ask my questions again?
where my mind goes as a gay man is here: 7 year olds who are gay. Where exactly is the sin in their desires, both voluntary and involuntary with respect to their gay desires?
How can puppy love be categorized as sin? This all seems sort of cruel and inhuman. maybe because it is?
So it goes even beyond what you are thinking Joe.
I fully agree with your definition of sin Carl. (Did I just type that? daaaang!)
The same sin infects ALL humans.
therefore “homosexual sin” is an oxymoron. as would be “heterosexual sin”.
If you really mean to say simply any and all sex outside of holy matrimony, including sex between two heterosexual or two gay men, then just say THAT.
why the need for vague use of words and terms? Christians delight in being certain, specific and clear in their use of words.