Happiness, fun and homosexuality

Once again I am provoked by a FB post to blog on another topic.  Does that make me a reactionary? :D

Okay so what about wanting to be happy and wanting to have fun.  In one sense this doesn't sound to bad, it almost sounds plausible.  But I do not think that these statements cannot stand as axioms for life.  Am I apposed to people being happy or to having fun?  Of course not!, But I do think there needs to be some sort of  caveat to go with it; something that says fun or happiness has some sort of conditions or limits on it.

So what is happiness.  I think in its basic form happiness is "I get to do what I like doing."  I am happy when I am watching a good movie, I am happy when my wife is kind and supportive (which nowadays, by the way, is most of the time).  I am happy when I have money to purchase the things I want to have.  I am happy when the sun shines, the temperature is mild and the pollen count is low.  Happiness is conditional.

In the constitution we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness.  Which is the say that we all have the right to work to pursue some form of happiness (likely in its day it had a different meaning than it holds today).  However the Constitution does not guarantee that I will be happy or that it's the government's job to ensure I am happy.  My happiness is my business.  Other people are not responsible to insure that I will be made happy.  Sometimes others will in fact be unhappy when the right thing or the moral thing is required.  I doubt that many people nowadays are happy about paying taxes, yet it is necessary for a government to govern.  Jesus recognized that when he told the Pharisees that one should render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's.  In a way he was saying, "As much as you would like to keep all that you earn for yourself, it isn't possible.  You need to pay the government their taxes (even if they are an oppressive one - which is what the Jews thought of Rome) and you must pay tithe or temple tax so that the church may continue serve the spiritual and physical needs of the people of God.

If children had their way, they would never have to do chores or homework, they would never have to eat anything that is "good for them" and they would be able to play as many games and watch as much TV as they cared to.  But parents know that children most learn some sense of responsibility.  Although there are some who are parents who have not learned this lesson for themselves.  When a parent puts a child on time out or when parent withholds privileges that child is not happy.  Is that wrong? Of course not!  Children do not know what they need (what they must learn to do and not do); initially all they know is what they want or don't want.  I cannot think of anytime I was happy to do the dishes when I was a child but now as an adult, I am happy to see all the dishes cleaned and put away when I come into the kitchen in the morning..  But we should know that parent(s) and the child are not always both able to be happy at the same time.  When a parent says no to a child, it is often because they know that the thing the child thinks they would be happy with, the parent realizes would be harmful to the child's character or physical well being.  We cannot always have what we want.

So then what is fun?  I think fun relates more to our sense of pleasure.  When we do something it gives us some sort of pleasurable feed back.  I think both fun and happiness are related and that the line between them is a fuzzy one.  But back to fun. Sometimes I have heard the response of a person to being warned off doing something to be, "But it's fun"  I must say that being fun cannot be an axiom or criteria for the primary reason to do something.  This NOT me saying that we cannot have fun.  I am just saying that something being fun cannot be the most important criteria for the reason for doing something nor does it legitimise the activity.  Some things are inherently fun and are designed to be fun.  That's okay.  Some things that are meant to be fun can be made un-pleasurable by the circumstances surrounding the activity in question but being "fun" in and of itself does not make something right or needed to be carried out.

So how do we judge an activity or a state of being if not by fun or happiness?  Well I don't really think that is what I am saying.  I think a visit to Disney Land/World should be fun.  I don't think that we should have fun at someone else's expense.  Bullies have fun bullying but they make the lives of those that they bully miserable.  Luckily I escaped being bullied and as far as I know and I never played the part of a bully.  Obviously when we cause someone harm so as to have fun, that is wrong.  But there are times that when we do the right thing that not everyone will be happy with us.

But what happens when world views collide?  What do I do when someone else demands that I change the rules for how I understand the world works because they say that my way is preventing someone else from being happy.  I think there will always be the "No way José" response for some and for others, not wanting to offend, they will quickly surrender their point of view.  I'm in the group that says, "Wow, wait a second is this really something that needs to be changed?"

200 years ago, many people saw nothing wrong with enslaving people based upon skin color or national origin. They saw profit in the subjugation of other races and even found reason from a biblical position (wrongly I would add) for doing so.  So when abolitionist came along and said "Hey slavery was wrong, it must be stopped!"(and by the way abolitionist were devout Christians) there were some deeply entrenched in owning and selling slaves who thought this was crazy.  "How dare you try to turn our world view upside down?"  This happened again for women in their bid to gain equal rights (which they are still struggling for) and yet again with the civil rights movement; led by a prominent Christian Preacher - Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.  His argument that people of all colors should have equal rights touched many people's hearts and his use of nonviolence further validated his cause.

So here we are in the 21st century and we have homosexuals saying they have the same rights as anyone to marry whom they want.  They say that we are denying them happiness and their rights by not legalizing same-sex marriage.  I admit that on one side the argument seems to have some validity.  But I think it is based upon a false premise.  The premise is that they are born that way, much as a black person or a Hispanic is born with darker skin, homosexuals claim as do some scientist and psychologist that they are born that way.  Therefore they see any laws preventing them from doing what straight people are allowed to do, is completely wrong;  much as racial prejudice is wrong. Or so goes the argument.

So do homosexuals need to be married as straight couples are to be happy?  Obviously they think they do, but yet there are so many legal options that are available to them.  They can enter into a legal union as recognized by the state.  They can put their possessions and estates into non-transferable trusts.  So there are (as far as I understand) legal actions they can take to validate and protect their estates to ensure that marriage would offer.  So do we really need to change the definition of marriage from a man and a woman to any two humans.  I have to say no but this doesn't give me the right to be hateful and even angry about homosexuals wanting some recognition as people.

I don't believe that homosexuals are born that way, yet still I don't believe that it is merely a choice (although recent changes in the law of some states make this more likely to be the case).  Homosexual's claims that they have always felt that way says their is something deep in their psyche at work.  I think if I was suffering such strange urges it would be very unsettling.  I would look at nature and the function of sexual organs, and I would know something is a miss. But where does one turn for help?  Unfortunately with the current trends in psychology, homosexuality is seen as normal and psychologists try to help people come to terms with it rather finding a way out of it.  It seems like a kind thing to do, but would you do that for a child-molester, for a drug addict or a sociopath?  These people also have urges that stem from deep seated problems or even failures to mature as a human.  We want to help these folks, but for homosexuals, some want to validate them.  The truth is that psychology has failed in some respects to effectively deal with these issues.  They can identify, but not cure and to add to it, homosexuals don't want to be cured they want acceptance.

I am left with "Love never fails."  I think that what we need to do is to love homosexuals as people created in the image of our God.  We need to introduce them to Jesus and trust that He will change them through his Holy Spirit and the Word of God.  We cannot help people by merely arguing with them and we cannot help them by demanding they conform to God's or our standards.  We need engage them, talk to them, help them wrestle with the deep things of life and faith.  We don't need to condemn them.  Unfortunately very few people I know in the faith are equipped, ready,and prepared for giving such loving help.

Christ's ways are the ways of love.  Love seeks the better of the other.  Love does not react out of fear or hatred.  Loving someone doesn't mean you have to agree with them or accept their lifestyle choices, but it does mean that you try to see who God has made them to be and introduce them to the One who can redeem even the most reprobate sinner.

So is sticking with the current model of man-woman marriage denying homosexuals happiness? I don't think so.  Is it denying them a validation of their life style? Yes.  Do we as a society need to validate same sex marriage?  No, there are other avenues available.  We won't lower age of consent for sex to appease or decriminalize pedophiles even though many societies recognize the threshold of adulthood to be 12 years of age so why try to appease this group who wants to redefine marriage.  I apologize if I have offended you by making this comparison, but there are currently advocates for child sex who are even writing books to encourage other pedophiles.  Its seems here we are on the edge of a very slippery slope.  Some are pushing others are trying to hold this back.

I know this article has moved to a very emotional and political point, but it all comes back to this.  Do we have to give in to other's wishes just because they say something is fun or that it would make them happy?  I think we have to weigh such requests carefully and neither dismiss them out of hand nor just cave in to someone else's desires.

Being a Christian can be fun and as Christians we can be happy in participating in the faith life of the community of Christ.  But we need to realize that neither happiness nor fun are in and of themselves true criteria for determining what is right.  And condemning something because it is seen as "fun" is just as pointless.  Weigh all things in the light of God's Word and God's Holy Spirit.  Trust that God will help you enjoy this life that He has given you.  Trust that even in the things that are not fun or that do not make you happy, that there is room for God to move and bring about what is right and true.