Missing the Mark Altogether
The Attorney General’s Department under the budget of the Crime Prevention Division has just paid for a comic book to be produced to be distributed through out NSW public schools. The comic book, entitled What’s the Difference? is designed to give young teenagers the idea that homosexuals are not different from other people, and their dress, behaviour and morals are no different from other people.
Instead of making that clear, this comic book, from my reading of it, reinforces stereotypes and propagates the homosexual lifestyle among vulnerable teenagers. It is a promotion of immorality not tolerance.
It might also be asked if this is an appropriate use of money set aside for Crime Prevention. I know the argument that it may reduce gay violence, but are we doing that by describing it as ‘cool’ and fashionable for a teenager to have two mothers and no father? Is this not denigrating the role of fathers in the family when all of the research indicates that the missing father is the primary reason why so many youth develop anti-social behaviour including teenage crime?
Is the Department defeating it own purpose when the aim of proclaiming tolerance, grows into Government sponsored activism promoting homosexual lifestyles?
In dealing with the issue to homosexuality, two mistakes are commonly made. The first is that we solve the problems involved by encouraging more people to become homosexual, and the second is to try to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.
On this later point, so many commentators seem to think that the way to freedom from homosexual behaviour is for the homosexual to marry, have children and be like everyone else in suburbia.
“But” you ask, “don’t homosexuals need to become heterosexuals?” No! The Christian Scriptures neither state nor imply all people must be heterosexual. They do say explicitly, however, that we are to avoid all forms of sexual immorality, which includes heterosexual immorality and homosexuality, which it sees as immorality.
Many give the impression that homosexuals must “convert” to heterosexuality. But Jesus did not say “Go and make heterosexuals”; He said, “Go and make disciples.”
They think quite wrongly that heterosexuality is the opposite of homosexuality. But that is wrong. The opposite of homosexuality is holiness!
The term “former homosexual” is inadequate if not inappropriate. We mistakenly think a person who has found freedom from same-sex attractions is now heterosexual. The former homosexual man or woman may now experience heterosexual feelings, but heterosexuality should never be his or the churches’ goal.
Heterosexuality maybe a by-product of the homosexual’s dealing with the primary issues—a distorted self-image and thinking – which has led the person into sexual immorality but it is not the only outcome. The chaste, single life may be the answer for those engaged in homosexual immorality. That lifestyle is no different from that of the majority of heterosexual people who have never married or who are not now married. They may have sexual impulses, but they do not live immorally.
Singleness is not a sin, but immorality is. Immorality is the sin that churches must concentrate on. To promote any other aim for the homosexual is to miss the mark entirely!
Government Departments are also blind on this matter. But promoting more immorality does not solve anything – either for society, or for the individual.
GORDON MOYES
