Response to Part 2: Homosexuals to Thought Crimes - My Thoughts

“While you may be more liberal in your beliefs (for which I commend you) you are still a part of the problem because you help create an atmosphere where homosexual bigotry is considered to be okay.” --> I don’t know if I have ever before been called liberal in my beliefs. Wow. Just so you know, I try never to create an atmosphere of bigotry, nor do I believe it ever to be okay. I am very close friends with a person who happens to be gay, and it pains me when he tells me about the sometime treatment of others toward him.

“Even if you don't take an active role in voting against gay marriage, it's a half measure and you're still not voting to allow people to live their lives as they say fit even when it has nothing to do with you.” --> As a matter of fact, I am very much against the legalization of gay marriage. But it’s probably not for the reason you think. You say that I should vote to allow people to live their lives as they see fit. In response: I claim the privilege of acting according to my conscience, and I allow others the same privilege. Since homosexual behavior is legal, people can live their lives how they wish. No one is stopping them.

You know what, I just want to get this over. Instead of writing a longer post later, I think I’ll just summarize my views on homosexual marriage here:

1) The only benefits of marriage withheld from gay couples are those that are costly to the state and society.

2) The reason heterosexual marriages have been subsidized in the past is that they serve the state interest by propagating society. Since homosexual couples do nothing to serve this interest, there is no reason for the state to grant them such benefits, unless they serve some other state interest.

3) One might argue that it would better serve the state to recognize gay marriages and then make it easy for gay couples to adopt. But there is plenty of evidence that kids need both a male and female parent for proper development (for example, see David Popenoe’s Life without a Father).


“I'm pretty sure it [the Bible] does [say that homosexuals are an abomination.] --> It never, ever says that. I looked up as many as I could find. It did, however, say that homosexual behavior was an abomination. I looked up “abomination” in the dictionary and got this: “a thing that causes disgust...” If I were to be completely honest, I would have to say that homosexual behavior does exactly that to me. How strange that is to say! It’s so taboo in most cases. I’ve been called a homophobe before. Dictionary def: “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” I really resent being called that because of its totally derogatory connotation, especially since I don’t feel my aversion is either extreme or irrational. Also, it is not toward the people that I feel so strongly. Like I said, I have been close friends with gay people. But, I can’t help (and, as a matter of fact, have no desire to help) the feeling that homosexual behavior is completely against nature and common sense. All right, enough said, and probably too much.



“I take everyone on an individual basis. However, there is no denying that the Christian belief structure has - and continues too - reinforce such stupid behavior while having the added bonus of supposedly being sanctioned by God.” --> I don’t think Christianity has reinforced stupid behavior. Rather, I think people use a misinterpretation of Christianity to excuse the way they would have behaved anyway. That’s like saying that because Hitler tried to kill out an entire race of people that he believed was inferior to his own, Darwin thinking reinforced holocaust behavior. Just because someone takes an idea and twists it so that he can use it as an excuse for his own behavior does not mean the idea is necessarily wrong or evil. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying, “Guns don’t people. People kill people.” Guns are just the excuse. In the same way, Christianity doesn’t reinforce stupid behavior. It’s just the excuse.


“Parents can't punish you for thought crimes. God supposedly can.” --> I am currently reading a book called 1984. It has the term “thought crimes,” and it is very troubling. I haven’t gotten far enough into the book to recommend it, but have you read it? Anyway, as soon as I read that term “thought crimes,” I felt automatic repulsion. Fortunately, 1984 is not real life, not even spiritual real life. Here are my thoughts on “thought crimes.”

1) I searched a bit in the Bible and found no evidence for the idea that God punishes for “thought crimes.” I found a couple scriptures to which you might have been referring, but I hope you take careful note of the wording. For example, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be IN DANGER of the judgment” (Matt. 5:22, emphasis, of course, added). That is, he needs to be careful. I think the reason for this is not so much thought itself, which can be only imperfectly controlled. Rather, it is the habitual thoughts, the ones we go back to when there is nothing else to think about. Those are the ones that lead to actions. Hence Jeremiah 6:19: “Hear, O earth: behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts.” The evil is not a punishment for thoughts. Rather, the evil is the fruit of the thoughts.

2) A thought, according to my dictionary, is “an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in the mind.” An intention, by the same dictionary, is ”a thing intended; an aim or plan.” And a desire is “a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.” I believe that we are not judged by our thoughts, the random ideas that seem sometimes to spontaneously appear in our heads. Rather, it is what we do with those thoughts. Our desires and intentions that determine what happens next. This makes complete sense to me. Let me tell you a story (completely fabricated, I promise):

Take a kid who walks into a store and sees a candy bar. He thinks to himself, “You know what, I could stick that candy bar in my pocket and walk out of here without anyone even noticing.” He considers it for a fraction of a second, but it is too weird an idea for him to act on it.
He shrugs and walks away. Later on, the kid sees the same kind of candy bar. Immediately his brain jumps back to the experience. It’s THEN that he has two choices. First, he can toss the thought back out of his head. Once he does, he’ll be less likely to think of the experience again next time he sees the candy bar, and if he continues tossing the thought as soon as it comes, he’ll gradually forget it. Second, he can start pondering the idea he had. Still without any intention of ever stealing, he begins formulating a plan. He considers the different stores, ones that are busier or less busy. He considers the different sizes of pockets he has, and he judges candy bars by how small or flat they are. Soon he has a foolproof plan but still has no intention ever of acting on it.
Then one day, something happens. It could be anything. Maybe it’s something as simple as a seemingly irresistible desire for chocolate. Maybe a peer says something that sounds vaguely like a challenge to steal something. Maybe a friend mentions that he has always wanted to try a particular candy bar but doesn't have money.
No matter what it is, suddenly the stars aline. The kid feels as if fate is smiling favorably on him. The opportunity is there. He has motive and ability. It’s like a puzzle, and the last piece needed to complete it is his simply acting on something he has thought about doing dozens of times already. So what happens next? “Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices” (Proverbs 1:31).
P.S. Have you ever read Crime and Punishment? It’s an amazing book that I hadn’t thought about it for a while, but its plot came to mind as I was writing that story. It actually follows a very similar line in its first couple chapters. Only the crime is not stealing a candy bar; it’s murder.

5) Although we never punish based on desires alone, humans also assign judgment based on intentions. For example, if you really like your neighbor’s car, you haven’t broken any laws of man. But if you drive away in it, you have committed a wrong that can be punished under the law. To allot the proper punishment, the law needs to try to figure out your intent. If you simply intended to borrow the car, you might not be guilty of a crime. If you intended to use it and return it shortly, knowing full-well that the owner would not allow it, it was a minor crime. If you intended to keep the car permanently, it’s a major crime. To choose among these various alternatives, a judge or jury would attempt to determine your state of mind.


“I hope I've adequately explained my position without offending you.” --> You were perfect. No offense. Thanks.