Using more sophisticated terms is a great tool for articulate men yet a greater tool for bullshitters. It brings a better yield in the bullshit department. Had the pastor said 'homosexuality is wrong,' it'd come with a harsher stigma. It's more damning and specific. Once a belief has been made clinical, sterilized by smart people words, they're easier to swallow. The point of language is to communicate, so I've long since lost my eloquence schtick. The purpose of language is simply communication. It deserves reiteration. And as a poet said, "Genius might be the ability to say a proud thing in a simple way." Not only is it a great quote, but it follows its own rule.
The pastor was right, being gay is aberrant behavior, if defined by straying from the norm. He is right, as well, if he meant it is wrong when applied in a religious sense. It doesn't matter the bible advocated slavery, domestic abuse, rape, human trafficking, etc., we'll stick to the task at hand. The terms with it contain a connotation against coloring outside the lines or abiding by anything different or unusual. If the same stupidity were applied to Picasso, the man would've been arrested for his work. This is an aside. The 'aberrant behavior' line did not annoy me.
What did annoy me was the absurd argument that's always brought up, when someone claims that homosexuality is a choice. It's as silly as saying you have a final verdict on the question of free will. You don't know, I don't. I wonder who really gives a shit. Two, full grown adults, provided one doesn't have down's, should be allowed to choose a particular lifestyle. But there's a problem, it's against the bible! That relates to my last paragraph. I agree with the pastor and the people of the church when they say that religion and faggotry don't mix.
However, what if said person engaging in gay behavior doesn't agree with your church? There's this wonderful, though often discarded concept our forefathers made up to the effect of a separation of church and state. Oh, snap. Do I believe churches should be tax exempt under this general rule? The answer is yes, still. But I also believe any equally irrational and ridiculous belief should allow a person to be tax exempt. This includes followers of Islam and the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). In fact, I'm all for a new religion to be created where taxes are seem as a demonic figure, cleverly constructed to satirize an obnoxious loophole that gives the irrationally-inclined an edge in life.
Above: Sacred image of Flying Spaghetti Monster
Only time will tell, but those preaching anti-gay messages might be regarded as perpetrators of aberrant behavior some day. Their stance is quickly becoming the one against the norm, a stance that implies two consenting adults can't decide to give each other pleasure. In choosing to do so, consensually, how are you any worse of a person than had you not? Especially if you deny the religious basis that is the front for all this. And even if you were inclined toward homosexual acts just for the perversity of it all, wouldn't a stance of indifference from the Christian and like-minded religions lessen the erotic nature of the taboo? This is what claims of living in sin mean. It seems this points at the bigger issue, the issue of shame.
Catholicism, especially, a religion I was born into, is always shaming sex and in turn giving people complexes. What would otherwise feel good has been beaten into the heads of some as wrong. Sex can often be wrong, though, making the issue more confusing. Rape is an obvious wrong. Coercion is a little more sticky. What if a guy told a girl he played bass for Bon Jovi and drove a Lexus to get her into bed? He's getting some under a false pretense. Now, it's sketchy behavior, but if you consider they'd both have to be ditzes we can chalk it up as a learning experience. I personally wouldn't go that far, but may have made some white lies about pretty eyes and whatnot. At some point the tango of charm and coercion is hard to quantify. That intangible, unquantifiable element is what makes it so exciting to begin with, though, and an individual's instinct should have the final say. Not a religious verse. Not your mother. Not Oprah. As a final thing to mention, who says a majority of sexual shame is anything but socially created? Who's to say the defiance of sexual norms isn't made more exciting because it's in defiance of something that isn't wrong after all? Who's to say a lax sexual attitude isn't merely the rowdy reaction to heavily imposed sexual repression? Policing consensual sex may be the greatest perversion of all, as it may be worse than rape to permanently fuck someone's mind.
There might be a reason some religious folk are so wrapped up with what others do in bed. My hunch says sexual repression and shame. How else could you even claim to care? And when it comes to this politically hot issue, they always go with the stock options instead of questioning why they bother to begin with. Well, ya see, if everyone were queer, we'd go extinct. It isn't natural. Even if this implausible scenario where everyone's gay and all practice of artificial birth has been abandoned, death and extinction are still natural. Everything is natural. Ants build anthills and humans build cities. If humankind collectively decides to make itself extinct by way of gay sex that's the individual's choice to make. Personally, I'm more concerned with nuclear proliferation as an immediate threat.
Above: two gay heathens plot global extinction
* * *
That was the end, and although this is not an issue I follow closely, I'm surprised I've never once been confronted by any sentiment that reiterates this simple view point: Even if gay is a choice it's a choice between consenting adults so who fucking cares.