After publishing my previous post, I had some insightful discussions, including one with a good friend of mine who is particularly keen on the issues I addressed. These discussions resulted in my desire to clarify some statements I made and terms I used, which may not have accurately conveyed what I had originally intended. I have four points for clarification.
First is a brief clarification regarding the connection I made with Obama’s public statement regarding homosexuality. I confirmed that the underground club’s advertisement had in fact no direct relation to the Presidential statement. While it is a minor point, I’d like to consider myself as always striving for accuracy in reporting information and reflecting various views.
Second, my use of the word “rational” was certainly not to imply that the LGBTQ position is an irrational one. Though I should’ve caught this before publishing my post, I unfortunately failed to make the connection; and if any who read my post were offended by that, I hope they see what I was trying to convey. In fact, from my own observation, LGBTQs have thoroughly thought through the possible outcomes and repercussions of their decision, so the term may be misleading. Furthermore, “irrational” conveys a haphazard, uncontrolled emotive state, and that is also something I do not consider to be characteristic of the LGBTQ community in general (though every community contains extremities of those sorts). What I did want to convey is that Christians often tend to address the issue at simply a disconnected, informational level, and I think a more fruitful dialogue should recognize deeper levels of identity and attraction.
Third, since adoption is becoming more available to LGBTQ couples, procreation is not as much a hindrance to the LGBTQ lifestyle as once thought. Again, I will refer to Michael Horton’s article, which indirectly addresses some of the fallacious ways in which Christians tend to argue against LGBTQs. What LGBTQs seem to take into consideration more when publicizing their identity is the social rejection and persecution they may face, something which I think Christians can identify with as well, though it may be within a slightly different context.
Fourth, I wrote: “LGBTQs will admit that theirs wasn’t as much a choice as a consequence.” I realize that the word “consequence” can be vague and open to interpretation, so I should clarify what I mean by that statement. In spite of the possibility of all the negative consequences I mentioned (most of them being related to social rejection), LGBTQs have chosen to identify themselves as such. The word “consequence” is a reference to what they consider to be their identity as a LGBTQ, as a result of their orientation, not necessarily an objective decision made by weighing the options.
In short, I think it’s responsible for all parties to convey others’ viewpoints with fairness and precision. The question I try to ask myself is: would they agree with my summary of their position? Hopefully I’ve accomplished that here.
DAVID I. YOON 