Being Gay and Being Good

Joel Osteen, author of the bestselling Become a Better You, says being gay is “not God’s best”. Oh darn, I didn’t make the cut!

I say I’m exactly the way I should be. Perhaps in a world where role models for being gay were encouraged rather than the demonized, gays might have a better chance of adjusting to the often ridiculous and narrow strictures of “straight” society, with its questionable moral rectitude and double standards.

Chris Evans
Better yet, perhaps God is hinting to straight society that a better model is among them and they should wake up and pay attention. After all, since gay culture has seeped into straight life, especially through fashion, manners, taste and style, haven’t God’s ideals for a better “man” been upgraded?

What’s your take?

13 thoughts on “Being Gay and Being Good

  1. I’m not big on the bible. In fact I think it’s a pile of cr@p. But it does say that all men are equal in god’s eyes and that’s something that I agree with.

  2. Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). Fornication and adultery are unloving because each has a victim. What is unloving about a couple in a homosexual love relationships? Neither is victim, neither is unloved. If God did not want two men to have sex, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD Forger that “…as with a woman” stuff. (Leviticus 18:22)

  3. I think that God wants us to be happy, joyous and free. For some people, that means living a gay lifestyle. So be it. I also think I’m more knowledgeable than Joel Osteen.


  4. Does nature and natural selection mean anything to you?

    I’ve nothing against homosexuals, transexuals, or any other kind of -sexuals. I do however have a problem with people telling me it’s normal and the “same” as everything else. Why does every homosexual want to be normal anyway? If I call a homosexual a good friend, he can handle that, if I call him a great tennis player he’s ok with that too, but if I say he’s unnatural (Not in accordance or conformity with the physical nature of persons or animals) they cannot handle that.

    I’ve only to suggest that we separate the populations between homo and hetero and see which progresses further and I’m labeled as someone who hates homosexuals. It’s a simple fact. Sustainability is built into nature and it’s not really built into homosexual persons, there’s nothing morally wrong with that.

    How do you feel?

  5. Rply to Tom —

    Did you ever stop to think that the birth of homosexual humans is a Natural adaptation to the needs of our planet i.e. evolution of the species???? WHY? (you may ask). Just look at the human over-population problem and the resulting suffering which this is causing to the planet as a whole. Nature does tend to look for an equilibrium when things get out of balance.

    – Nancy

  6. Tom- Unfortunately, your physical ability to breed may not help natural selection. Your presumptuous logic betrays weak thinking, something which will hopefully evolve out of the race before we go extinct by destroying the only planet we have.

    Homosexuality is perfectly natural, in humans and in many animals, because it occurs naturally.

    Nancy, good point. Thanks for coming to defend true natural selection.

  7. I certainly didn’t mean to offend. As I said I have no issues with people’s life style choices. I am in fact a libertarian.

    Nancy – homosexuality is not response to earth’s overpopulation problem. In fact the earth is not currently over-populated biologically speaking. Homosexuality has existed for a long time. I study history, I’m fairly familiar with some source texts. Well known evidence would be the epic of Gilgamesh (3000BC), Enkidu and Gilgamesh share some… moments, though they are never strictly described as a homosexual encounter. There are others in almost all parts of the world. There certainly wasn’t any overpopulation five or six thousand years ago. I have thought very often on your assertion I just have to disagree with it after any serious analysis of the available data.

    Garnet David – I apologize. I used the wrong word, “unnatural” is not the proper term. A more appropriate phrase that I should have used is perhaps “in accordance with the ultimate goal of the majority of nature” which is defined through observation and dare I say obvious. Reproduction is the sole engine by which evolution takes place. Note I say reproduction, not sexuality (given that humans reproduce sexually though, this is where the problem lies). So the statement that physical ability may not help with natural selection is true, that is to say there is uncertainty. There is no uncertainty though in the statement “the inability to breed will guarantee the inability to evolve.” Have you read any Darwin? I’m aware his work is full of flaws, I’m just asking you. Have you by chance read anything by Dawkins?

    I know I’m coming off strong, especially for the nature of this blog. I’ve read a number of your posts. I love to argue and discuss because I learn much by doing so. You are a person who seems to have contemplated extensively and I want to get some answers out of you. I want to learn things from the time you’ve spent contemplating. If you are in no way inclined to answer my statements with any of your own please say so I will not post any further. If you don’t mind I’ve many questions about almost all of your posts that I’ve read. I posted here first because this is a topic that intrigues me. If you prefer I can write you by email. It’s just rare to come across thoughtful persons, I want to make the most of it.

    Please know though that I do not make a judgment on other’s lifestyles. I don’t pretend to know what is right or wrong. All I know is what is observable, verifiable, provable, and reproducible (experimentally speaking not sexually heh). As I said I am a libertarian and I firmly believe it has the answers to many of the world’s problems.

    I ask that you read my words and not attempt to infer meanings from their structure or order. I don’t know you and you don’t know me so all I have is my words and I make no attempts to place messages in other forms, no “between the lines” stuff.

    I apologize if my first post appeared forward.


  8. Btw, I love your blog. If my time posting here hasn’t given you that impression, I’m sorry. I do like reading what you’ve written though.

  9. Tom : Where do you get your facts that support your statement about the human population not presenting a threat to the planet? I do not agree. Our burgeoning numbers are wiping out the habitats of many other life forms; not to mention the devasting results of our environmental pollution.

    – Nancy

  10. Tom- Firstly, reproduction is not the only purpose of evolution. The cultural nature of man is not necessarily useful in evolutionary terms. Early cave painting may not have made a man more sexually desirable and may have even been done by someone who didn’t reproduce, like an early “gay” man. But it served a purpose in civilizing man, in helping him improve his cultural nature.

    Some of the most important aspects of human culture may prove to be superfluous accidents which ended up serving the overall improvement of mankind. Should art, music and religion be eliminated or excluded as evolutionarily useless?(in fact they are slowly, perhaps to the detriment of all civilization)

    Secondly, homosexuals reproduce plenty. (and homosexual children are born to straight couples all the time) Though I consider myself completely gay, I have had sex with women, and have enjoyed it. I even considered having a child by a dear friend. But to think that I should then try to be straight and marry a woman would deny my nature, which is gay.

    Gays exist as part of the evolutionary process, even if “science” has yet to understand why. Gay culture has certainly had an effect on straight culture, and have perhaps altered the evolution of straights.


Comments are closed.