The Shoe Salesman and the Cuckquean

I own a shoe store. A friend of mine came to visit me at the store. He was looking for new shoes. When I asked him for what occasion he was making the purchase he replied that he had a "date" with a woman who was not his wife. I told my friend that what he was doing was wrong, that he should end the relationship, and that I wouldn't sell him shoes because I didn't want to support his behavior.

That same day another man, named Bernard, came in to purchase a pair of shoes. He knew exactly what he wanted, grabbed them off the shelf and came to the check out counter with cash in hand. He was not interested in small talk based on his body language and lack of eye contact. I sold him shoes.

My friend owns a hardware store. A friend of hers came in to buy a hammer. My friend could tell that her friend was upset - she had the look of rage in her eyes - so she asked her friend what the hammer was for. Her friend admitted she found out her husband was cheating and she was going to smash all of the windows in his sports car (that she purchased for him as a wedding gift). My friend explained to her friend that she couldn't, in good conscience, assist her in her goal by selling her the hammer and that she should, instead, try to calm herself down and think logically and practically about a better, long-term solution.

That same day, another woman, named Catherine, came in to my friend's store and purchased a shopping basket full of small tools, including a hammer. My friend remembered that this woman was very pleasant and conversational and was looking to accomplish a lot that day with her new tools.

My uncle owns a bakery.  One day a man named Frank came in a ordered a wedding cake.  He picked out the type and flavor of cake, the style, the frosting, etc.  Frank said it was a small wedding and that he - or a member of his family - would just pick up the cake the day of the wedding.

That same day, one of my cousins (my unlcle's niece) wanted to buy a cake for her wedding, which happened to be with another woman.  My hypothetical uncle happens to be devoutly Christian.  While he loves his niece and supports her happiness, he does not approve of her sinful relationship and does not want to be a part of her decision.

What is my point?  My point is that not all Christian business owners are "hateful" or "bigoted" or discriminatory of a group of people.  In the scenarios above, perhaps Bernard was also going to commit adultery, Catherine was going to smash car windows, and Frank was getting a cake for a gay wedding.  Without knowing this, the store owners do not have a guilty conscience.  They did not knowingly aid in a sinful act.  Further, all three could have been straight or gay - it doesn't really matter because good store owners (Christian or otherwise) don't discriminate against groups of people. What if Frank was a known gay man and wanted to purchase a wedding cake for his mother? Even a Christian baker would sell Frank a cake.  Its a "hate the sin, love the sinner"-type situation.  In the scenarios described above, the store owners who refused to sell to friends/family only did so because they could not - in good conscience - aid in a sinful act.  That's it. They had moral code that was important to them.  They did not discriminate against a group of people - or even a person - they discriminated against an action.  I feel like this is an important fact that has been overlooked and needn't be any longer.  Should all adulterers and cuckqueans start pleading their case as discriminated groups that should be able to sue store owners for not serving them?  I hope we'd all agree no.

We all may not agree, yet, on what a 'sinful act' is or how we should handle these situations, but if the act is fairly clearly defined to a legitimate religious organization that generally exists for the good of humanity, then forcing that group to support any sin, in my opinion, is a greater injustice than not making a cake.  After all, I'm not sure how anyone can dispute the importance of a cake to that of a soul.

Alfred Chalres Kinsey

Tonight I watched the movie "Kinsey" for an assignment in my Human Sexuality and Sexual Dysfuction class. For those of you are not familiar with the movie or who he is, you can check out his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey. Bascially he was a zoologist at Indiana University who ended up becoming a sexologist who did research on many things related to sex that were considered taboo, or worse - immoral - at the time. He had to privately fund his research, yet produced many books, including The Kinsey Reports: Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (and in another later book, Female).

One aspect of the movie that came up very little was the influence on love on sex and, I suppose, the influence of sex on love. When asked, Kinsey said, "Love is not measurable." I don't disagree that the point of his study was on sex and the measurable aspects of sex, but doing a study about sex without considering love is like doing a study about fish without considering water: you can count fish, categorize them, put the fish under a microscope and cut in open to tell me how they work, but if you can't tell me why they live in water and how the water affects them, then I would say there are certain limitations on the published report. That is not to say that his reports aren't accurate or complete (in their own right) or wonderful for science, I'm just saying that you have to take it - like all research and findings - with a grain of salt, or at least with a certain understanding of what was attempting to be accomplished in the first place.

Kinsey did bring one "revolutionary" idea to the mainstream public: people are not necessarily completely 100% heterosexual or homosexual. Based on actual past experience, many people are somewhere else along a continuum. Kinsey wrote,

"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.
While emphasising the continuity of the gradations between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual histories, it has seemed desirable to develop some sort of classification which could be based on the relative amounts of heterosexual and homosexual experience or response in each history... An individual may be assigned a position on this scale, for each period in his life.... A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist." (Kinsey, et al. (1948). pp. 639, 656)

See more about the "Kinsey Scale" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale.

He also metioned that many of the sexual acts that humans did that were considered immoral or taboo back in the 1950's were not any different than what other animal species did. I'll let you decide how you want to interpret/accept that.

I've always found it amazing how little sex is talked about in society yet how it is (or can be) such a major part of our lives. Many single people spend a lot of their free time searching for a mate. I'm sure companionship is very important, but I don't know many people who are single and looking for a completely platonic relationship. Similarly, based on my experiences and training, sex (or lack of) is often a point of contention in marriages.

That being said, I hope that this entry makes you feel uncomfortable - that means you're growing.

Same-Sex Marriage

So, for those of you who do not know, I am taking two classes at Edgewood College this semester. I'll probably write more about that later, though. We were asked to read some essays and discuss the question: "Should Same-Sex Marriage be Legal?" I'd be interested in people's perspectives. Please leave comments below or feel free to vote to the right. Thanks for your honest opinions accepted without judgment (by me at least). I'll consider adding my thoughts later, but I want to see your initial responses beforehand. Thanks!