A Broken Heartbeat

We have yet to see a major kids' film put a homosexual romance front and center. That may be about to change.

By Esther O'Reilly Published on August 5, 2017

The First Law of Culture Wars is that if you want to win the culture, you have to entertain the culture. Victory in the courts of law is the fruit of smaller, quieter victories won on Americans’ media screens. Nowhere is this more evident than in the advances of the homosexual lobby. Give them credit for patience and persistence: They’ve made their game plan and stuck to it, and it’s paying off.

But there’s still one territory they haven’t completely conquered: kids’ media. Although films like Paranorman have featured quick nods to young gay side characters, we have yet to see a major franchise film from Disney, Dreamworks or PIXAR put a homosexual romance front and center. So far, the marketing powers-that-be have sensed that there’s still a large enough bloc of the paying audience for family films who would be upset by such a gamble.

Winds of Change

That may be about to change in the not-so-distant future. Here’s one clue: In a Heartbeat. If you haven’t heard of it yet, this short animated film has racked up over 14 million views and climbing since its YouTube launch on July 31st. The creators, Beth David and Esteban Bravo, are both college students who identify as homosexual. Initially, they came together to make a short film about a heterosexual high school crush, but they decided it would make more of an impact to turn it into a same-sex one.

The basic attraction of boy to girl, man to woman, may be acted on in sinful ways, but the attraction itself is always redeemable.

David and Bravo’s talent is undeniable. The short, which you can watch in full here, is gorgeously animated, with a delicate score reminiscent of Michael Giacchino’s poignant work in Up. The basic plot is that a freckled, awkward lad falls hopelessly for the popular boy in school, while his own heart takes on an adorable life of its own and threatens to out him. The boys are unnamed in the short itself but have been given the names Sherwin and Jonathan in promotional material.

Sherwin’s heart leads him on a merry chase in its headlong rush to chase Jonathan down, longing to stroke that perfectly coiffed hair and nuzzle that cheek. Just as the heart is caught, a group of students sees them together and murmurs disapprovingly. And you knew this was coming: Our poor little heart is literally broken in two. But the film ends on a happy note, as Jonathan later finds Sherwin in the bushes and helps him put the heart back together. A heart of his own takes form in his chest as the two boys smile shyly at each other under a tree.

Cultural Bull’s-Eye

The young filmmakers are clear about what they hope this film will do. Bravo says, “With [In a Heartbeat], we wanted to challenge the preconceived notion that LGBTQ content is not appropriate or suitable for younger audiences. It’s an innocent and lighthearted story about a boy and his crush that we hope will resonate with younger people regardless of their background.”

Of course, never mind the fact that Bravo and David created mock movie posters for the film riffing on R-rated fare like Brokeback Mountain. We’re challenging the preconceived notion that LGBTQ content isn’t appropriate for younger audiences, remember.

Yet, if the explosion of fan art, social media buzz, and critical accolades surrounding this film is any indication, Bravo and David have hit a cultural bull’s-eye. Already, fans are clamoring for a full-length sequel, but one wonders exactly how Bravo and David would plan to fill the run-time while still keeping up the “light and innocent” farce. Sherwin and Jonathan play cards? Sherwin and Jonathan take a walk in the park? Sherwin and Jonathan make out in the bathroom? Whoops, this is getting dicey.

A Deadly Lie

Of course, the filmmakers would reply, “We can fill the time just like any light, kid-friendly romance would fill the time, and that’s exactly the point.” This is precisely why the short is so pernicious: It sells young people on the deadly lie that sexual confusion is no less healthy and innocent than rightly ordered sexual desire.

Which is more loving — to tell a child a lie, or to tell him the truth?

Some might say, “But the story is harmless. The boys don’t do anything inappropriate. It’s ‘clean.’ I’d rather my kid saw this than some high school movie where a boy hooks up with his girlfriend.” But the fact that a boy and a girl are also capable of sexual misbehavior is not the point.

The point is that, in a heterosexual context, there truly is something sweet and innocent about awkward, shy high school crushes. The basic attraction of boy to girl, man to woman, may be acted on in sinful ways, but the attraction itself is always redeemable. It was made to be fulfilled. Even films that are not child-friendly can depict this honestly, and for that reason they may well be far less pernicious than In a Heartbeat.

The Awful Truth

In a same-sex context, there is nothing to redeem. There isn’t even the promise of monogamous affection. There is only a boy confused and in pain. And yes, there is a broken heart. A heart that all too many men would be all too willing to put back together and break again a thousand times over.

This is the awful truth that lies hidden behind pink hearts and red cheeks. This is what “the LGBT community” has to offer Sherwin: a life of depression and gnawing loneliness, of booze and needles and threesomes, of old grooming young, strong preying on weak. All these it is made of, and of graves and graves and graves.

There are those would call me a hateful bigot for saying this. But I ask them, which is more loving — to tell a child a lie, or to tell him the truth?

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • John Connor

    Where is your proof of this nonsense? No monogamy. Loneliness. Depression. Grooming and preying on the weak. How many lies can be told in the same article? Ridiculous at best.

    • Esther O’Reilly

      I provided links to studies by the New York Times and the Huffington Post. But since we all know what a heavy conservative bias those sites have, I suppose they don’t count.

      • Mensa Member

        I read the New York Times link you provided. It hardly backs up your claim that same-sex marriages have no hope of being monogamous.

        • Esther O’Reilly

          It clearly delineates the prima facie difference in approach to monogamy that homosexual couples tend to bring when compared as a whole with heterosexual couples as a whole. It is indisputable that gay couples are quite significantly less likely to be monogamous than heterosexual ones, and indeed, as the article shows, many are approaching “marriage” with the express intent of making it open. Heterosexual couples who enter open marriages from day one are still the exception, not the norm. Indeed, a gay apologist is quoted in the article hailing the loosening of monogamy as a positive thing that can change marriage for the better.

          • Mensa Member

            Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

            Better than an old newspaper article would be an academic study. That article pre-dated legalized gay marriage.

            But let’s say you are at least partially correct — that lots of gays are polyamorous. Does this mean we should make marriage illegal for those who are monogamous?

            Shouldn’t pro-marriage advocates be supportive of loving, monogamous marriage for the few who want it?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            May I ask are you ok with polygamy, polyandry or even bisexual unions?

          • Marriage involves TWO people. Polygamy and polyandry are no more relevant to Gay marriage than to Straight marriage.
            As for bisexuals getting married, as long as there are just two of them, who cares?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. Why must it be two ? Especially when we’re talking of marriage equality?
            2. This maybe the case but gay marriage is no relevant to traditional heterosexual marriage either.
            3. Marraige or traditional marriage here was always defined as the union between one man and one women.

          • There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted, and finally, in the 21st century, the courts acknowledged this. It has not had any impact on Straight couples.

            Neither polygamy nor polyandry are germane to the Obergefell decision, but if you think otherwise, get some polygamous households to represent in court.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            And if you’re going to base marriage equality then at the same time it have to be for all those who want them to have it if the case.
            Marriage in the US has always been understood to be the union between one man and one women. Also there was no constitutional basis or justification for trying to legalise gay marriage.

          • glenbo

            Chuck…Don’t try to gave a logical conversation with Shaquille.
            He has comprehension difficulties and contradicts himself and tells lies.
            Go to my profile and read the irrational posts he made.
            When he was backed into a corner because I caught him lying, he cowardly blocked me.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            I never blocked you !? Now it is you who is perpetuating false accusations here

          • glenbo

            >>”I never blocked you”<<
            Good. That means we can still talk. Forgive me.
            You still lied about Christians being "forced" to cater to gay weddings.
            You are a liar.

          • Jim Walker

            He can’t answer them. Jesus also didn’t address these abominations in his bible.
            Frankly these people are not here to find answers, they just want to cause trouble.

          • Dean Bruckner

            1Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”a 6he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the wordb of God. 7You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

            8“‘This people honors me with their lips,
            but their heart is far from me;
            9in vain do they worship me,
            teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

          • Esther O’Reilly

            I have encountered a number of gay men and women in a professional academic context through my years as a student and now a teacher. I haven’t personally known any professing “gay Christian” couples, though I’m very familiar with the arguments you’re putting forward for that position.

            To be honest, your evidence seems thin: anecdotal, and the few couples you’ve mentioned are people you don’t know well enough to be able to say they’re *not* depressed or *not* open to polyamory. My position is based on statistical studies and numerous testimonies from gay men themselves, including those who are not “ex-gay.” These include the men in the extensive Huffington Post study linked in my piece, as well as men like Chad Felix Greene, who was very much like Sherwin at his age. Quote from his article “What Happens When Men Have Sex With Teenage Boys,” which I recommend reading in full: “I remember believing myself odd and damaged when I left high school and began making friends with other gay guys my own age and I was shocked to discover nearly all of them had experienced the same thing.” So, not anecdotal. A consistent pattern.

    • Andy6M

      John Connor it takes little time or effort to uncover a host of studies that show that the gay community is rife with these issues – it is the norm. To deny otherwise is disingenuous.

  • Mensa Member

    There is also a danger in pretending that gays don’t exist. It breeds homophobia.

    • Esther O’Reilly

      Fine. Let’s not pretend. Let’s have kids read Brideshead Revisited in high school.

      • Josh Shapiro

        But you don’t have any kids, nor will you ever, so what does it even matter?

      • Mensa Member

        I didn’t know “Brideshead Revisted” had gay characters in it. Fine with me if it does.

        My point is that we are not doing kids a service if their books, cartoons, video games, etc are devoid of various types people. Not only does this include sexual minorities but other minorities as well.

        To censor types of people out of children’s media breeds misunderstanding, fear and suspicion.

        For example, in decades past school history books left out the accomplishments of African-Americans. Generations of white kids were under the impression that only white people built this country. This was a miseducation.

        • Esther O’Reilly

          It’s quite a novel. Read it or see the miniseries with Jeremy Irons and Anthony Andrews.

    • Patmos

      You claim to be Christian, yet you spend more time fighting for what God calls an abomination that you do bearing witness to the light of Christ. Oh yeah that’s right, you don’t know what the light of Christ is, so you can’t really be expected to bear witness.

      • Mensa Member

        >> You claim to be Christian,

        I am a Christian, saved by faith in Jesus though the grace of God.

        I, like a lot of Christians, think you are misreading the Bible when you believe that God calls gay people an abomination.

        Can you allow good Christians to disagree on what is a very minor issue in the bible?

        • Louise C

          There’s nothing minor about the Creator forbidding something, in fact it’s a very serious issue with great consequences.

          • Mensa Member

            It’s minor in the sense that Jesus never even bothers to address the subject.

            We are talking about a very small handful of verses and half of those are unclear. Homosexuality is obviously not a big issue in the Kingdom of God, even if it is mammoth issue among American conservatives. There are FAR bigger issues in the bible.

          • Dean Bruckner

            “Have you not read, ‘In the beginning he created them male and female. Therefore for this reason an man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” — Jesus

            You lie, and substitute false teaching to justify your own rebellion. You will face a severe judgment! Repent while there is still time!

          • glenbo

            >>”Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.” — Jesus”<<
            Why is divorce legal?
            Why aren't you fighting for that cause?
            Why instead you only concern yourself with what 2 consenting adults do with their genitals?
            Creepy.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            So what Jesus didn’t mention pedophilia or beastality, does that mean he would be fine with either of those ? Again Jesus didn’t need to state it, much of his audience were Jews who would of known or had been expected to know the Jewish law which stated something like homosexuality being a sin.

            As for a few verses listed. There are few verses in the New Testament that mention or allude to temple prostitution, does that mean it’s ok to become a temple prostitute ?

          • Louise C

            Jesus may not have addressed the subject Himself but He didn’t have to. God clearly expressed Himself regarding the issue in both old and new testament. Ultimately we are responsible to God, not American conservatives…we need to be familiar with what He has said in His word.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          For roughly 2000 years it has never been seen as a minor issue though.

        • CL

          Greetings Mensa Member,
          22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

          I think that is pretty clear.

          It goes on the further emphasis the importance of the point….

          23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither
          shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

          24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

          25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

          26 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

          27 (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

          28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

          29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

          30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.

          • glenbo

            Owning slaves is pretty clear.
            Exodus 21:20,21.
            Your moral guide book has its priorities screwed up.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Again I covered this in the slavery post which you constantly ignore.

          • glenbo

            >>”Again I covered this in the slavery post “<<
            Why is it okay to beat your slaves to death?
            Why is it okay to sell your children into slavery?
            Why is it okay to buy and kidnap slaves from other nations?
            Do you even read your bible?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Why don’t you read the link I gave you , it covers much of this. The fact that the masters of the household would be held accountable for the servants death is to the contrary.

          • glenbo

            Okay. So you admit it’s okay to murder your slaves.
            Now why is it okay to drown children, toddlers, infants and pregnant women?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Again what murder slaves ? I admit what ?!

          • glenbo

            Sorry, I don’t debate liars.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What liars here, you’re the one who is making ignorant statements on the biblical texts here.

          • glenbo

            >>”making ignorant statements on the biblical texts here.”<<
            OH MY FRIKIN GAWD!
            Read your damn bible.
            Exodus 21:20,21 clearly sates you are allowed to BEAT YOUR SLAVES TO DEATH.
            If you never actually read a bible, you have NO business defending it.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            I have read that passage and no it does say that. Again I have given you a link that goes into detail and more on the topic of “slavery”.

          • glenbo

            Here you go telling lies again.
            Please copy and paste that passage and prove to me that it’s NOT okay to beat your slaves to death.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Perhaps a video series might help;

            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?list=PLapIcULLvveczKsgd1WtVaOoQRyjPXDIT&v=5Hbz_pNwJxE

            (Please replace dot with real dot and remove brackets. Please also watch the whole series. )

          • glenbo

            >>”I have read that passage and no it does say that. “<<
            Post it here. I want to read what you read.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Alright here I quote the following;
            Ҥ Not only was abusive treatment of servants strictly forbidden, but the Law held masters very accountable!

            § If a master beat a slave and the slave died, the master was held accountable under the ‘life for life’ clause:

            “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished (Ex 21.20, NIV)
            “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then, he must be avenged” (JPS Tanach translation)
            “If a man shall strike his slave or his maidservant with the rod and he shall die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged.” (Stone Edition Tanach translation)
            § If a master caused any type of permanent damage to a servant, the servant was given immediate freedom:

            “If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. (Ex 21.26-27)
            § The above prescription is hugely instructive, in comparison to the ANE: In some ANE codes, a master could literally put out the eyes of his slaves![HI:HANEL, e.g., at Mari, 1:383; at Nuzi, 1:586]. This represents a MASSIVE departure from ‘conventional morality’ of the day!

            § And the above prescription is also instructive, in comparison to today: whereas typical insurance programs will pay 50% of maximum disability for ‘loss of a single eye’, they pay nothing for the loss of a tooth…(smile). But in the OT, there was a huge “disincentive” to strike one’s slave in the face! [Legitimate community punishments were by rods, on the back. Facial blows were considered culpable.] The ANE, however, did NOT have the same ‘respect’ for the face of slaves–besides eye-gouging, they resorted to branding, cutting of the ears, mutilating the nose, etc– IN THE LAW CODES!. These practices are NOT in Israel’s law codes, and they are implied to be prohibited by the focus on penalties for striking the face.”

            Please note there is more in the link I gave as well as the video link too.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Not Jewish.

          • glenbo

            >>”Not Jewish.”<<
            Not Jewish what?
            Please explain.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            We are not Jewish. You are referring to Mosaic law.

          • glenbo

            So Leviticus 21:13 doesn’t apply to non-Jewish gay Americans?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Homosexuality is a sin.

            The end.

          • glenbo

            >>”Homosexuality is a sin.”<<
            Why?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Because God says so.

            Got a problem with that? You can take it up with Him when you stand before Him.

          • glenbo

            >>”Because God says so.”<<
            Why does God say so?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Ask Him when you stand before Him.

          • glenbo

            >>”Ask Him when you stand before Him.”<<
            You don't have a clue, do you.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What do you mean by that?

          • glenbo

            >>”What do you mean by that?”<<
            I asked you a simple question.
            You dodged it.
            Probably because you don't know the answer and you are afraid to admit it.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            What question did you ask?

          • glenbo

            Why does God say homosexuality is immoral?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You need to ask Him.

            Now, I know, you are playing some kind of game to justify your want to continue to engage in abnormal and immoral sexual behavior. But God doesn’t answer to me. It’s the other way around.

            You don’t have to agree or accept it. But you will have to get over it.

            And before you go off with “You don’t have a clue,” “You have no answer,” etc, I did answer. Just not the way you were expecting or hoping me to.

            This discussion is over. Time to move on.

          • glenbo

            >>” I did answer.”<<
            No, sir. You did NOT answer.
            You are against homosexuality and you cannot explain why.
            You believe it is wrong, immoral, etc. yet you cannot provide a single logical tangible explanation why.
            You cannot give me a non-religious reason why, and all you can do is hide your bigotry behind some imaginary nonsense.
            Pitiful.
            FAIL.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I rest my case.

            You need a tissue?

          • glenbo

            >>”I rest my case.”<<
            What case?
            You have no case.
            You have NO logical or rational reason to treat LGBT people any differently from the rest of society other than out of pure hate and bigotry.
            This makes you morally deficient.
            FAIL.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

            Talk about projecting!!

            Sorry, Charlie, but homosexuality is not normal because you say it is. One look at a pride parade tells the story. And the fact homosexuals are openly going after kids for the purpose of indoctrination isn’t good for you, either.

            If opposition of that makes me hateful or bigoted in your eyes, you are cordially invited to go to hell. I have had enough of people like you.

          • glenbo

            >>”the fact homosexuals are openly going after kids for the purpose of indoctrination”<<
            And can you show me proof of this?

        • Jerome Horwitz

          You do not know Jesus if you claim to know Him while simultaneously and flagrantly disregarding the Word of God.

        • Jim Walker

          Funny that all those who agree with you are unbelievers here.
          Please show us a verse in the bible that says God loves and permits homosexuality.

    • Andy6M

      Who’s pretending that gays don’t exist? I’m not, but if I can I will certainly avoid showing my children something that spins homosexuality in a positive and innocent light. And if they do see it we’ll have a chat about how that picture does not match God’s design for our sexuality, the same way I do when we see hetero adultery, premarital sex, promiscuity etc, shown in other media.

      • Mensa Member

        >> Who’s pretending that gays don’t exist?

        Anti-gay Christians, for starters. And this is personal experience for me.

        If there is a book in my school library that simply has gay parents in it a parent (always conservative and Christian in my experience) will want to have it banned.

        • Andy6M

          Suggesting something be banned, or removed from the consumption of children, is not ignoring it, it’s dealing with it, and doing so in a decisive manner, albeit in a manner you don’t happen to like. I am not suggesting we portray people in a negative light, but I am certainly saying that we portray activity and lifestyle and the consequences of that activity and lifestyle in a realistic light.

          • Mensa Member

            >> I am certainly saying that we portray activity and lifestyle and the
            consequences of that activity and lifestyle in a realistic light

            Thanks for responding…. I think we are starting to find some common ground.

            This is exactly what I seek to do — portray various types of people in a realistic light. In our school we have a bunch of types of families. Traditional, extended families. Modern nuclear families. Single moms. A couple of same-sex parents. A few single dads. some foster parents. etc. etc.

            I don’t think any of these family structures should be censored out of children’s literature. These families aren’t all good or all bad but they are all reality.

            To not expose our children to these things is a mis-education.

          • Andy6M

            I would say that to promote all of those as equal or as moral, would be a mis-education as well. If material promoted as educational for my children promotes such things then I would seek to, at the least, counter educate my children, and at the best remove the material and have something that teaches the truth more favorably.

          • Dean Bruckner

            Who are “our” children? How many do you have?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            I don’t think any of these family structures should be censored out of children’s literature.

            Which is exactly the problem.

          • glenbo

            >>” I am certainly saying that we portray activity and lifestyle and the consequences of that activity and lifestyle in a realistic light.”<<
            What makes the "activity and lifestyle" of others any of your business?

          • Andy6M

            I didn’t say that other people’s activities were my business – though I may find it morally lacking they have the freedom to choose. I however have the freedom to say that I disagree and that I want to my children to not be bombarded with media that seeks to normalize something that my faith says is not within the bounds of what God decrees as acceptable.

          • glenbo

            >>” I however have the freedom to say that I disagree and that I want to my children to not be bombarded with media”<<
            Feel free to cut the cable.

          • Andy6M

            I’m asking that a more honest depiction of the hazards of the lifestyle be presented, not sugar coated as it is now.

          • glenbo

            >>”I’m asking that a more honest depiction of the hazards of the lifestyle be presented”<<
            Children should be made aware of all behaviors that can be harmful including unprotected sex both homosexual and heterosexual.
            One isn't instantly harmed if one is gay any more than one can never contract an STD from a heterosexual contact.
            It makes no sense to shield children from any danger.
            Demanding that all gays remain unseen and that no gays should ever have any rights because it somehow damages your children's development and morality is absurd.

          • Andy6M

            >>”Children should be made aware of all behaviors that can be harmful including unprotected sex both homosexual and heterosexual.”<>”One isn’t instantly harmed if one is gay…”<>”Demanding that all gays remain unseen and that no gays should ever have
            any rights…<>”…because it somehow damages your children’s development and morality is absurd.”<<

            I think a sugar coated teaching/presentation of this issue cloaked in half truths, outright lies, bias and liberal dogma is indeed damaging to my children. So I will do what I can within my local schools to mitigate such efforts.

          • glenbo

            >>”engagement within the gay lifestyle is rife with complications physically and emotionally (plenty of peer reviewed studies bear this out) “<>”there are some rights that have been extended that should not have been”<<
            Such as?
            And why?

          • Andy6M

            >>Please show me.<>Such as? And why?<<
            Such as marriage. Marriage is not simply the act of love/pleasure between two people, though it does fulfill that function. It is also the union of two people for the means of procreation. Gay unions are incapable of this. If two people of the same sex wish to be together, they can certainly choose to do so. Just don't call it marriage and don't presume to expect all the protections that societies from the beginning have conferred on heterosexual marriage because of it's procreative function.

          • glenbo

            >>”With respect, pull your head out of the sand and do your own research. It won’t take much looking”<>”Such as marriage.”<<
            What makes who others love and wish to marry any of your business?

          • Andy6M

            >>”So you were lying?”<>”What makes who others love and wish to marry any of your business?”<<
            They are free to love who they wish, though I would caution them that some choices are by their nature better than others for their flourishing, and some by their nature more detrimental. My worldview tells me that it is in fact an act of love to speak the truth about these choices and encourage one over the other. As for the question of marrying, I have a vested interest in the health of my society, as you do. I have a worldview that tells me what's best on a host of issues, marriage among them. I assume you have a worldview that guides your direction and outlook. It is also my assumption that these worldviews are diametrically opposed to one another. I am confident that mine, in the end, will carry the day.

          • glenbo

            >>”you’re free to conclude that if you like”<>”some choices are by their nature better than others”<>”I have a vested interest in the health of my society, as you do. I have a worldview that tells me what’s best on a host of issues, marriage among them.”<<
            Same-sex marriage has been legal and widely practiced in Massachusetts since 2004.
            Can you demonstrate any unhealthy effects it has imposed on society?
            What is your definition of a "healthy society?"

          • Andy6M

            >>”When you cannot back up your claims, what else it there to conclude?”<>”What makes what others choose any of your business?”<<

            I think you believe that this is some sort of magical line of questioning that will unravel all challenges. Sorry to disappoint.

            I have stated before that there are plenty of choices free for the making. Why am I not allowed to suggest that some of the choices may be poor and might be best to avoid?

          • glenbo

            >>”Encouraging you to go find information that is available through a cursory search is not the same as “cannot”.”<>”Why am I not allowed to suggest that some of the choices may be poor and might be best to avoid?”<<
            Perhaps I can suggest you mind your own business and stop obsessing over what 2 consenting adults do with their genitalia.
            To do so is creepy.

          • Andy6M

            Do, and suggest, as you like.

        • Dean Bruckner

          “They seem.”

          “There is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death” — Proverbs Of Solomon

          You are on that road, and that is your destination. Repent!

        • Shaquille Harvey

          “You qualify that a little by saying that you don’t want gays portrayed in a positive light.”
          You mean how Hollywood likes to constantly portray them yet they always portray conservatives negatively or in a quite negative light !?

        • Jerome Horwitz

          If there is a book in my school library that simply has gay parents in it a parent (always conservative and Christian in my experience) will want to have it banned.

          False. Christians, conservatives and Christian conservatives only object to the deliberate portrayal of abnormal sexual behavior in a positive light in a format where the intended audience is under the age of 18.

        • Jim Walker

          (Actually, the ones I’ve known were better but I see a lot of bad straight parents. I mean really bad. I’ve not met any gay parents that bad. )

          Are you a Mensa member ? the ratio is 1 gay parent couple to 10000 straight parents, and you say there are many bad straight parents ? and you draw this conclusion ?

    • Dean Bruckner

      Your false teaching and deception breed hamartophilia.

    • Jerome Horwitz

      Nobody is saying that. It’s more about where they come from: Indoctrination and sexual abuse.

      Secondly, there’s no such thing as homophobia. We have every right to object to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.

      You don’t like that?

      Build a bridge and get over it.

  • Josh Shapiro

    I’m gay, and am not confused, neither is my husband or our friends, gay and straight; plus, there is something definitely redeeming and touching about our relationship. Also, I have never touched a drug and rarely drink, which is more than I can say for most straight, Christian people I know. And besides, light-hearted gay movies have existed for decades; many are available on Netflix if you’d like to verify it. I’m willing to be you’re the one who’s confused, and that you’re not married and have no children; am I right? Make no mistake; you are indeed a hateful bigot, and that’s not hyperbole. Spreading lies that have the potential to do great harm to groups of people for no reason other than to foster your vindictive propaganda is indeed hateful and will not be tolerated by mainstream society. This reveals the low depths this already sub-par website has sunk to in order to draw in whatever “writers” it can find. I just have to ask, what do you gain from this? Are you not able to find a regular well-paying job that you’ve had to resort to free-lancing bigotry. No reasonable, no normal person would ever want to be associated with such garbage. In writing such nasty trite you’ve only revealed the ugliness lying within you. One can only hope that you will realize the error of your ways and make amends for your mistakes before it’s too late, because guilt and hatred can really eat someone up. Peace!

    • Esther O’Reilly

      Are you not able to find profitable ways to spend your time that you instead spend it harassing Stream writers like Joseph Sciambra? And yet I’m the one writing “nasty trite [sic].”

      • Josh Shapiro

        How is asking him for a pic of his wife and children classified as harassment?

        • Shaquille Harvey

          Why is needed or to be asked for ?

    • Patmos

      “One can only hope that you will realize the error of your ways and make amends for your mistakes before it’s too late”

      And you’re saying you’re not confused? The hardened heart of pride arrives at some really absurd conclusions.

  • Theresa Huber Jackson

    Simple truth is, sin has consequences that hurts you and obedience to the creator of the universe, humanity and sexuality’s law has rewards that bless.

  • What a hateful bigot you are, Esther! I’m reminded of a verse out of a totally different context I read this week from Daniel 8, “and truth was thrown to the ground.” So thank God there are “bigots” like you who are willing to still speak truth to cultural power. And we know our age is a perfect example of people suppressing “the truth by their wickedness,” and those people do not like those who point that out. We wear they’re hatred as a badge of honor. Keep up the good work!

  • When did acknowledging become “celebrating”?

  • Jeremy L

    Well, Esther, you’re not a hateful bigot. But you’re certainly presumptuous. The idea that gay people cannot be monogamous is untrue. The idea that they will invariably fall into a world of lewdness, promiscuity, and substance abuse if they decide to acknowledge and express their sexuality is untrue as well. A monogamous, loving romantic relationship is not off the table for them. The only reason it would be is because of systemic anti-gay prejudice constantly telling them that they could never achieve such a relationship. This whole notion of “They can’t REALLY be in love like a man and a woman can” was only ever invented to reinforce the prejudices of those who invented it. A gay couple in love would severely undermine “It’s the worst sin ever, EVER”, so the existence of loving gay couples is ignored, or it is said such couples are rare and not truly monogamous (which is quite the accusation!). In the end, Esther, you aren’t convincing anyone who didn’t already share your prejudice. And unluckily for you, it seems that the ones who are hanging on your words are mostly older and on the way out. I can easily see Sherwin and Jonathan’s romantic love as being as real and as deep as Carl and Ellie’s from Up. The reason you can’t, I suspect, is because you won’t let yourself be friends with gay couples, because it would ruin the “They’re evil and I’m better than them!!!!” illusion. But of course, I’ll be called an anti-Christian bigot who has been brainwashed by the leftist media for saying this, but in actuality, my opinions come from actual experience with gay friends and their significant others, not reading the stories of one Joe Sciambra and his career as a porn star of all things.

    • Shaquille Harvey

      That is why gay activists who have been saying years that they don’t want to bring the LGBT agenda to children and denied it now go and do stuff like this!?

      • Jerome Horwitz

        They were not denying it. They were lying about it. As per usual.

      • Jeremy L

        The film has no agenda. It is acknowledging a basic reality. Sometimes young people of the same sex fall in love. Live with it.

        • Shaquille Harvey

          So then why is LGBT constantly being pushed in the media ? Why is it being constantly being pushed in schools? Why is anyone who dare challenges it or even just questions it reprimanded and slandered?

          • Jeremy L

            Would you prefer they not be represented in the media at all? They exist. They are not gonna just go away if you ignore them. Shielding their existence from kids will make kids fear them and subsequently hate them. This is why it is being “pushed” – so kids understand that gay people are real and are not so different from you and me. But Christians continue to insist that gays be demonized rather than humanized. Because if they are demons and not humans, then it’s easier to hate them. We don’t want kids to hate them. We want them to understand them. But Christian parents would only fill their heads with lies they probably believe themselves, such as the ones Esther spews out here about all gays invariably being lascivious and abusive and miserable and lewd. She wrote this because she was just so bothered that her image of what a gay person is had been challenged by an animated short that actually reflects reality. Because God forbid Christian fundamentalism be wrong about its evaluation of gays.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. No one is saying ignore them or that they don’t exist. We acknowledge they exist. The problem here is that they aren’t just represented it’s that they’re over represented.
            2. No one is saying that children shouldn’t acknowledge them either but there is a difference between teaching your children to respect them and others and pushing something like this to impressionable minds that can have an effect on their mentality and have an affect as they develop onward, especially something like this which has been constantly denied for years that they weren’t trying to push anything.
            “But Christians continue to insist that gays be demonized rather than humanized. Because if they are demons and not humans, then it’s easier to hate them. We don’t want kids to hate them. We want them to understand them. But Christian parents would only fill their heads with lies they probably believe themselves, ”
            So instead you’ll create straw man attacks on Christians and the Christian theological understanding then !?
            “Because God forbid Christian fundamentalism be wrong about its evaluation of gays.”
            Or maybe that the LGBT activists are wrong about its evaluation on ex LGBT persons and that of Christians/Christianity by using dogmatism!?

          • Jeremy L

            Over represented? They are hardly represented at all compared to heterosexual representation. There is heterosexual representation in virtually all media, including kid’s media. But homosexual representation is not so universal.

            Respect is all that pieces of media like this short film are aiming for. No one in their right mind thinks they can “turn kids gay” with some cartoons. People who grow up and find themselves attracted to the same sex were raised on media that included nothing but heterosexuals. And yet they still ended up homosexual! You cannot just mold someone’s sexuality with media. And what would even be the motivation to try to do so?

            Our evaluation of so-called “ex LGBT” people (that they are lying, self-deceived, or were never gay from the start) cannot be disproven because the only evidence that they are legitimate is their claims. Further, sexual orientation change efforts have been shown to be ineffective. And many people end up confessing that they really hadn’t changed after all. We have all of that. What do you guys have? Any notion that there is no such thing as gay monogamy or that there is an “agenda” to “recruit children” is demonstrably false with just taking an honest look at reality.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Yes over represented. Heterosexuals are more represented but you would expect that considering they are a majority in size compared to the size of around 3-4% of the LGBT community.

            “But homosexual representation is not so universal.”
            I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.

            “Our evaluation of so-called “ex LGBT” people (that they are lying, self-deceived, or were never gay from the start) cannot be disproven because the only evidence that they are legitimate is their claims.”
            So this is yet again a blatant attack on those who wish to leave or don’t acknowledge something as this being part of theirs sole true identity anymore.
            You tell us that we should make attacks or wrongful statements on LGBT community yet you do this to this who wish to leave that lifestyle. This is yet more LGBT based dogma.
            “Further, sexual orientation change efforts have been shown to be ineffective. And many people end up confessing that they really hadn’t changed after all. We have all of that. What do you guys have? ”
            Any evidence for this or is it an assertion?!
            ” or that there is an “agenda” to “recruit children” is demonstrably false with just taking an honest look at reality.”
            Really that is why LGBT is being pushed into schools, further into children’s media and now with this!

          • Jeremy L

            Their representation is small. It is actually quite proportional to their population size. If by “wishing to leave the lifestyle”, you mean “be celibate”, that great! If you want to be celibate because you are gay and fear you’ll be set on fire forever if you have sex with people you find attractive, go ahead and be celibate! Sexual orientation change efforts have been proven ineffective. All reputable medical organizations say they don’t work. “Ex-gay therapy” providers have even admitted they’re full of crap after a while of claiming effectiveness! Exodus International shut its doors and admitted that they were wrong and could not turn gay people straight. Alan Chambers, the founder, admitted he is attracted to men but married to a woman anyway. Ergo, he never truly “became straight”, but rather posed as straight. THe group JONAH was found guilty of consumer fraud because it was shown none of their clients changed from being attracted to the same sex from being attracted to the opposite sex. The “push” in school and media is clearly to ward off gay prejudice. You say children should be aware of their existence and be taught to respect them, right? That’s all the schools and media are trying to accomplish.

          • Esther O’Reilly

            Children below a certain age don’t need to be aware of their existence. 5-year-olds don’t need to be aware of their existence. Sexual deviancy in general is something one shouldn’t rush to educate small kids about. But this is your express goal: to normalize homosexual behavior so that it’s no longer perceived as deviant. When an adolescent experiences persistent attraction to the same sex, that’s a tragedy. But this short declares that it’s no more tragic than a boy crushing on a girl. That in and of itself most certainly is an agenda.

          • Jeremy L

            “5-year-olds don’t need to be aware of their existence”. Then they’ll grow up to fear gays if they know nothing about them. Hate rides on anger, and anger rides on that initial fear. You don’t have to get into sex when telling your kids. You can just say, “Sometimes two boys or two girls fall in love and that’s why so and so has two mommies or two daddies”. But no. You refuse to say that because you refuse to believe it probably because of how your own parents dealt with the topic of gay people. And now you want to continue the cycle. Gay relationships are not simply “deviant behavior”. It is no vice. These people actually are falling in love. Their relationships go beyond sex. But you won’t believe it. You won’t have any of it. You just stubbornly refuse. That is prejudice, plain and simple.

            “When an adolescent experiences persistent attraction to the same sex, that’s a tragedy.” Why??? It doesn’t have to be. It’s only as “tragic” as you make it. The only “tragedy” is that they’ll have to deal with gay bashing and the stereotyping you’re doing now! If they want to have a same-sex relationship, it is not doomed to fail, no matter if your worldview demands it must be. Being openly gay and having a same sex partner is not guaranteed to land an adolescent into a world of sexual abuse, promiscuity, drugs, lewdness, and sadness as you so broadly decide that it will. The short’s agenda is a GOOD agenda. It is showing reality. Yes, some same-sex relationships are bound to fail, but many also succeed. Same with heterosexual relationships. You keep insisting “It’s not the same” because if it were, that would severely undermine your worldview and religion and you’d rather hold onto those than actually get a clear picture of gay people, who they are, what they feel, what they experience, etc. But no, it’s always, “Just look at Sciambra, his story is the paradigmatic gay story, totally” or “I’m going to doubt that their relationship is successful without even knowing them”. It is so frustrating. But as I’ve said, those who actually care about forging relationships with gay friends and family member know the truth, and thy aren’t buying what you’re selling.

          • davidrev17

            Jeremy:

            (Please read the following very carefully, as I’m genuinely reaching-out to you, in hopes of facilitating some dialogue, and mutual understanding.)

            I’m a single (once-married) 62 year-old, former sexually-deviant heterosexual male (can you say five (5) abortions in my distant-past as well?); of whom up until almost 21 years ago now, had lived a life of wanton/reckless SIN – in its multifarious destructive manifestations – including drug addiction, selling drugs, drinking, lying, stealing, and everything else, with the exception of violent criminal activity – outside of what I’d committed against those five (5) unborn children, as an “accessory” to murdering innocent human life.

            Thankfully, and fortunately, I received the “gift of eternal life, through the Lord Jesus Christ” at almost 41 years-of-age, subsequent to my divorce – for which tragedy I was totally to blame. Obviously, I was “born” (as you say) a strict heterosexual male; thus I couldn’t help restraining my physically insatiable desire for ravaging the bodies of the opposite sex – married or otherwise – prior to my supernaturally-instantiated, inward “heart-transformation” effected by the “Holy Spirit of Truth” Himself!

            I’ve now been CELIBATE for roughly 18 & 1/2 loonnnng years, since my Heavenly Father has not seen fit to provide me with a Godly “suitable helpmate” as a wife, since my conversion experience; seeing as though the Judeo-Christian Scriptures clearly teach that engaging in “heterosexual” activity – outside of marriage – is no doubt sinful, or morally wrong/unacceptable, from the singular perspective of the ONLY Holy Creator God in whom ALL moral goodness & perfection finds its very grounding, identity, or essence.

            Now, based upon YOUR worldview belief(s) stated throughout your posts, please tell me just “WHY” I’ve been struggling all these years – aided of course, by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit living within me – to cultivate a sexually pure heart & mind (in every area of my life as well); whose Godly striving “against my flesh” has ultimately translated into my living-out a biblically-mandated lifestyle – for a single UNmarried heterosexual male, that is – no matter how difficult, or arduously challenging this state-of-affairs has been all these years.

            So, having said all that, WHY aren’t we SINGLE male & female heterosexual Christian followers of the Lord Jesus, all up-in-arms (throughout God Bless America’s pop-culture), over this issue of our remaining sexually celibate and/or pure – much like our same-sex-oriented counterparts have been doing the last 10-years, or so now? How come it’s simply assumed that “they” should get the proverbial “pass” from a “three-times Holy God,” re: their “fallen” sexual proclivities, with which they claim to have been born; yet WE single “born-that-way” heterosexuals must, of necessity, bite the moral bullet of obedience to the commands of our Creator & Savior – Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth???

            Love to hear your reply to the issues I’ve raised here, and below from the Bible – of which represents just part of the comprehensive “worldview” of which exists between the Creator, and His specially-created, rational/moral “spirit creatures” called H%¢o sapiens; even though I clearly understand that at this point in your life, you’ve still resolutely resisted becoming a “blood-bought, born again child of the Most High God”!

            In the meantime, I thought I’d provide you with a few “verbatim” examples from the Word of God, concerning this constellation of sexual sins of which are committed by the “saved” & “UNsaved” members comprising humanity. (“Saved,” meaning those of whom are “IN CHRIST”; thus having become “ONE with Him in Spirit” – or IN “union with Him” – as “members of His Body,” through spiritual “regeneration,” whereby the Holy Spirit of God INDWELLS all His “born again” children. This is a critical, MAJOR distinction in biblical Christianity, compared to ALL the man-made religions of the world.)

            * * *

            These two passages represent what the Apostle Paul had conveyed to those ostensibly “saved” individuals, or followers of the Lord Jesus, attending the so-called “Church in Corinth”:

            “…The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. (14) And God raised [physically/bodily resurrected] the Lord, and will also raise us up by his power. (15) Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? NEVER! (16) Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute, becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” (17) BUT HE WHO IS JOINED TO THE LORD BECOMES ONE SPIRIT WITH HIM.

            (18) “FLEE FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY. EVERY OTHER SIN A PERSON COMMITS IS OUTSIDE THE BODY, BUT THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL PERSON SINS AGAINST HIS OWN BODY. (19) Or do you not know that your BODY IS A TEMPLE of the Holy Spirit WITHIN YOU, whom you have from God? For you are not your own, (20) for you were bought with a price. [i.e., the body & shed-blood of Jesus] So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:13-20, my emphasis, of course)

            * * *

            9) I [Apostle “Paul”], wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— (10) not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world [e.g., the UNsaved], or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. (11) But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother [i.e., a Christian “disciple”/”follower” of Yeshua/Jesus] if he is guilty of sexual immorality, greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (12) For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? (13) God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.”

            (1 Corinthians 5:9-13, my emphasis; re: a male church-member there, of whom it seems engaged in sexual relations with his father’s wife…perhaps his stepmother? See verses 1-8.)

          • Jeremy L

            Well, I appreciate you typing all this, but I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying, “I’m heterosexual and celibate because God says I should be since he never gave me another wife. So, why is it bad for me to tell homosexuals to be celibate? God wants them to never act on their sexuality”. Well, for one thing, someone’s celibate/non-celibate status is hardly your business and your beliefs about what God wants are your own, not everyone’s. The difference between your celibacy and a gay person’s celibacy is you can get out of your celibacy without repercussions. You can leave your bad past behind and have another wife and not catch any flack for it. You have a “way out”. But gays will face backlash and scorn from religious communities (and possibly their family and friends) if they are not celibate, no matter how monogamous and loving their relationships may be. They can’t catch a break. You can. A gay person could be with his partner for 50 years and clearly be in love, but too many willfully ignorant people would just look away and pretend the gay person’s happy and good relationship isn’t real. Too many people would say blindly that a gay relationship is the same thing as your part in drunkenness, lying, stealing, and abortions. Guess what? It’s not. Open your eyes.

          • davidrev17

            Jeremy:

            I humbly asked you to read my exhaustive, meticulously detailed post, in order that we might engage in some productive dialogue; yet you didn’t even begin to address my point-blank questions. It was articulated just like most of the other God-mocking naysayers & atheists of whom consistently attack His revealed worldview & Word on this website: meaning y’all have no desire to actually communicate, but simply must be heard!

            So you launched-into your personal (i.e., subjective) soapbox pontificating regarding this issue; meaning personally, thus incoherently insisting that your apparently omniscient, omnipresent view of this matter, is universally/absolutely binding upon all people, in all places, and for all times! Just how narrow-minded, and dogmatically bigoted is that approach anyway?? You more acutely represent what’s been called the “Intolerance of Tolerance.”

            Please answer this one question for me, as it both rationally & logically impinges upon all of your posts on this article: “SEZ WHO?”

          • Jeremy L

            Am I supposed to say same sex relationships are wrong because God says so? Because that is too simplistic an answer for me. How do we know God says that? How do we know the Bible is true? We don’t. What I keep seeing is people trying to square away reality with the Bible rather than acknowledging that reality conflicts with the Bible oftentimes. The notion that “this is wrong because God says so” is as personal of an opinion as my personal opinion about this issue. Did God come down and tell you personally? The difference is my personal opinion is based on actual investigation and honest efforts at empathy and understanding. A huge number of social workers, doctors, psychiatrists, and scientists who have studied this issue happen to agree with me. They are the ones who “say” what it is I am saying. Gay people themselves, who are actually living that which we argue over, are the ones saying what I’m saying. But, of course, you’ll just say we’re all wrong and biased and brainwashed. Which is why communication is impossible. Ultimately, one side has to be right and the other has to be wrong. There is no in between. I think it’s apparent to any clear-minded person who the right and wrong ones truly are.

        • Jerome Horwitz

          The film has no agenda.

          BS. Barbra Streisand. This is a deliberate attempt to further promote homosexuality to children under the age of ten. It is sick, it is disgusting, it is perverse.

          • Jeremy L

            You cannot “promote” homosexuality anymore than you can promote photosynthesis or osmosis or rainfall. It is a natural occurrence to be attracted to the same sex, it is not taught. You cannot alter someone’s sexuality by means of an animated short, no matter how young or old they are. Sexuality does not work that way.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Do you have evidence that homosexuality is in any similar to osmosis or this just an assertion here?!

          • Jeremy L

            What universe have I crossed into where I need to provide evidence that sexual interest and arousal are as biological as any other biological process? Atypical sexuality is not any less biological than typical sexuality.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            As you just made an assertive statement here !?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Feel free to explain the YouTube channel, “Queer Kids Stuff,” for starters.

          • Jeremy L

            There is nothing from them teaching kids to be gay, but rather explaining what it means to be gay. And without getting into sex at all.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Bovine feces.

            Explain “Queer Kids Stuff.”

            Now.

          • Jeremy L

            I did. Your perception of what “Queer Kids Stuff” is and does is not reality.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            In order to explain it, you first need to look at it. Which you haven’t done.

          • Jeremy L

            I did. It’s not a “gay recruiting tool”.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Liar. Period.

          • davidrev17

            Jeremy:

            I responded to your last post yesterday, but I must’ve utilized some buzzword that automatically generates a Flag…so it died. However, the following concise quotation below should help you try and intellectually digest – namely bite-the-logical-bullet of your worldview implications – the utter futility (or vacuousness) re: the atheists’ personally, or subjectively “moralizing” about not only this issue – but any other seeming “unjust” event taking place beteeen humans on this planet. Also, what does “unjust” indicate anyway, under your paradigmatic “worldview” belief-system; since the lives of people like Billy Graham & Saddam Hussein (or Adolf Hitler) are on so-called morally-neutral footing?

            I emphasize this, due to the logical implications of which necessarily dictate that according to strictly Godless evolutionary naturalism (your preferred worldview), there’s NO such concept of morality in any form; because everything that takes place on planet earth, is simply the case of a “nature, [that’s] red in tooth and claw” – thus all life’s activity is reduced to nothing more than WE humans “dancing to our own DNA.”

            You stringently believe in advocating for those perceived same-s@x-related injustices – while I strongly believe that infant-stomping – say, three-times-a-year – should be the law-of-the-land here in the U.S. So put-a-sock-in-it, will ya’!

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but [blind] pitiless indifference” (emphasis added).

            — Richard Dawkins, ‘River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,” (1995).

    • Esther O’Reilly

      Jeremy, did you read the Huffington Post study? I would be interested to hear your take on it. It seems to counter your thesis that literally the only obstacle between gay couples and blissful contentment is systemic anti-gay prejudice. Quote from the author: “I’m a perpetually single gay guy who was raised in a bright blue city by PFLAG parents. I’ve never known anyone who died of AIDS, I’ve never experienced direct discrimination and I came out of the closet into a world where marriage, a picket fence and a golden retriever were not just feasible, but expected. I’ve also been in and out of therapy more times than I’ve downloaded and deleted Grindr.”

      • Jeremy L

        You’re right. Systemic anti-gay prejudice isn’t the only obstacle. There’s also another big challenge that is borderline inescapable – Minority stress. When you are “different” and you live in a world where people value sameness (as is human nature), you’re going to fall on hard times. No one wants to be “different” because no matter how accepting people and governments can be, you’ll always be regarded as “other”. Therapy is often the resort of people who cannot handle the fact that they are “different” and everyone notices their “difference”. Also, consider how difficult dating and marrying may be for gay people when there aren’t that many gay people in the world. Downloading and deleting a hookup app is a sign of desperation. With gays, they often cannot just meet someone who they might like at school or work. Their chances of finding a partner by chance is severely lower because they aren’t always surrounded by other gay people and the internet often seems like the only recourse. But the internet, naturally, will often lead to disappointment. I’ve seen this struggle with so many of my friends. It’s always, “I can’t just be John the guy who happens to be gay, I have to be John the gay guy.” It’s always, “There doesn’t seem to be anyone like me around”. Even with legal gay marriage and a more gay friendly climate, surely you can see how feelings of isolation are possible.

        • Esther O’Reilly

          Yes, I well believe that feelings of isolation are endemic to the gay population. And I don’t believe we, as Christians, should pull a bait and switch on anyone by saying all of those feelings will magically disappear if you put your faith in Jesus. The problem is that you want to place sexual orientation in the same category as, say, skin color: something with neutral moral implications that has no bearing on our psycho-spiritual well-being.

          • Jeremy L

            The problem of gay loneliness will probably never be solved. Certainly religion does not solve it. Religion cannot solve it by magic and it cannot solve it in time either. There is no discarding the status of being attracted to the same sex. Suppressing it? Yes. Destroying it? No. Gay loneliness will always exist to some degree because homosexual orientation will always be a minority orientation. Even without overt persecution, this minority status can cause stress and isolation, as I explained. I know many who have been able to cope with this minority stress and find a stable partner and be happy, and still many others who have an ongoing struggle to feel secure in their own skin, find a partner, etc. Religion makes the struggle worse by adding on persecution. It never makes the struggle any easier.

            The arguments that “acting on” homosexual orientation is “immoral” and damages people psychologically and “spiritually” are all fallacious and dependent not on actual, objective observation but on religious preconceptions that being gay is inherently detrimental to one’s being and that being gay in and of itself is the source of problems we see in gay people. Though it is much, much more difficult (because of minority stress and persecution that often compounds it), I’m afraid attraction to the same sex can indeed be “redeemed” with a monogamous and loving relationship. What we see in the animated short film is no lie or deception. People young and old do and can fall in love with the same sex in the same way people fall in love with the opposite sex. Falling in love does not hurt people. And it’s not immoral.

          • Esther O’Reilly

            I agree with you about the inherent loneliness of homosexuality. But “religion” per se does not “add on persecution.” What it does do, at least in a Christian context, is proscribe sexual relations for those who are (tragically) attracted to the same sex. (I realize some Christians encourage gay or bisexual people to enter heterosexual marriages, but I’ve always been dubious about this.) I know you think this already constitutes persecution in and of itself, but that is a redefinition of what persecution is commonly understood to be.

            While morally judging an action and observing its practical consequences are two different actions (one abstract, the other empirical), Christians believe these things are intertwined. Empirical observation of the ill effects of sin on people psychologically and emotionally provides clues that moral judgments are not blindly arbitrary. For example, we observe that people who are promiscuous will invariably be more unhappy than people who are monogamous. We observe that women who abort their children are at a much higher risk for mental health problems than women who do not. Does it necessarily follow that someone who sins will feel all the effects of that sin in his life on earth? Perhaps not–there are many people who sin and get away more or less scot-free, at least in practical terms. People who embezzle and never get caught, for example. And yes, you can find gay couples who will tell you they’re not unhappy at all, and perhaps on a certain level they aren’t. But are they a representative sample? That’s the question.

            “Falling in love does not hurt people.” That’s an awfully broad statement there. Are you sure you don’t want to qualify it?

          • Jeremy L

            To clarify, I didn’t mean that homosexuality in and of itself is a source of loneliness, but rather that it can be unfortunate to be gay because there are so few gay people in the world compared to straight people. Moving on, I’m glad to know you would never proscribe heterosexual marriage to gay people. Pulling some poor, unwitting person into a sham marriage devoid of intimacy for the sake of appearing “normal” is a selfish thing to do.

            I’ll give you promiscuity, definitely. Heck, I will even give you abortion. But you don’t know every single gay person and you do not know every single gay relationship. You want to believe only what you’ve heard. You don’t want to judge them as individuals. Or that’s at least what it sounds like to me. Like an effort to preserve a certain worldview. Telling a gay person they shouldn’t be with their partner could be like someone telling you that you shouldn’t be with your husband (assuming you are married). You’d probably be highly offended and hurt because obviously you love your husband deeply. You’d probably think, “Who are they to say that to me? They don’t even know me!” It is simply not so black and white as “heterosexual unions can be bad, but can be good” and “homosexual unions MUST be bad, no matter what”.

            Falling in love can hurt people if they fall in love with someone who does not return their feelings. If you were trying to get me to say that gay people cannot really fall in love as a man and woman can or that falling in love with the same sex is always falling in love with the wrong person, I’m not going to say that. Because that’s not the truth.

          • glenbo

            >>”But “religion” per se does not “add on persecution.”<<
            Religious driven rejection and demonization of gays absolutely DOES add on persecution. Religion is the only driving force in society that persecutes gays and for no rational reason.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Again creating a straw man on Christians/ Christian theology here.

          • glenbo

            Why are you trolling me?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Not trolling it’s called commenting.

          • glenbo

            Your lack of comprehension ability coupled with your propensity to tell outright lies make your comments intellectually vacuous and devoid of merit.

          • glenbo

            >>”The problem is that you want to place sexual orientation in the same category as, say, skin color: “<<
            If that was true, why would it be a "problem?"

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Because many people such as myself find that an ignorant statement on the subject of skin colour/ ethnicity and the history.

      • glenbo

        >>”It seems to counter your thesis that literally the only obstacle between gay couples and blissful contentment is systemic anti-gay prejudice”<<
        Are you saying society has no effect on the psychological well-being of gay people?

  • Mary-Anne Delaney

    Where is the petition? I will sign it and share it.

  • Jonathan

    I think the assertion that homosexual relationships are somehow more dishonorable than any other Godless relationship (boyfriend and girlfriend living together, “friends with benefits,” polyamerous couples, etc.) is missing the point… I have seen plenty of straight couples fall to “a life of depression and gnawing loneliness, of booze and needles and threesomes, of old grooming young, strong preying on weak.” These are not things exclusive to a gay lifestyle… Focusing on the sexuality is what brought the culture here in the first place. If a relationship doesn’t have Christ as its focus, then dissatisfaction and that gnawing want for more is inevitable, regardless of the genders involved. The article asks: “…which is more loving — to tell a child a lie, or to tell him the truth?”
    But preaching “Fire and Brimstone!” without including the way to avoid it (ie. accepting what Jesus did for us by sacrificing himself on the Cross) isn’t love… It’s simply justification of our disgust for people that we don’t understand… and (I believe) this is a large part of the reason why the Church is so strongly opposed today… Everyone is speaking out against evil (which is good), but they aren’t also preaching the Gospel with their message of doom and gloom, and that’s dangerous ground to stand on…

    • Theresa Huber Jackson

      Well said.

Inspiration
How Do I Handle My Regrets?
Joe Dallas
More from The Stream
Connect with Us