NARTH has a nice reprint of an original article from The Catholic Standard & Times which discusses the roots of homosexuality. The author, Dr. Richard Fiztgibbons, contributed to the Catholic booklet on this issue called Homosexuality and Hope.
The main section titles are:
- Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity
- Distrust of Men/Women
- Gender Identity Disorder
- Narcissism and Profound Selfishness
- Dysfunctional Family Life
I was watching Truths that Transform this week, and during the social action part of the program, his organization and a spokesperson for Concerned Women for America talked about the threat to free speech that hate crimes and hate speech laws pose, especially to churches that want to preach about the immorality of homosexuality. Below, I present their argument, which I mostly agree with, with the caveats I mention.
But here’s the executive summary: Hate crimes laws are redundant with existing laws that cover those same crimes, can demand punishments out of proportion with the crime, and are Trojan horses for ushering in hate speech laws which threaten the free speech of opponents, usually to liberal social policy, by erroneously equating disagreement and moral criticism with hate.
Having grown weary of being called hateful for every conservative stance I take, I suddenly realized that liberals call their opposition on almost every issue “hateful.” It’s an epidemic! And WHY do they do this? I surmise that two things are going on – one, it is easier to make ad hominem attacks than make logical counter arguments, but secondly, and more importantly, they are victims of The New Tolerance, which mistakes every moral judgment for hate.
One interesting example that author gives of liberal inconsistency in this matter is the infamous Piss Christ painting. Paint Christ in a jar of piss, and leftists call that free speech. But paint a homosexual in a jar of piss? Unthinkable. Offensive. And you know what? It probably is. But only the OPPONENTS of the left are hateful in almost every stance.
In response to the recent spate of in-depth pro-gay theology comments, I have been reading and researching, and came across this debate between Christian exegete James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries and liberal activist Barry Lynn, an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ. Their debate covers many of the scriptures and contextual questions discussed, and I thought it pertinent. However, it does not address all of the arguments at hand, but merely a good number of them. I have excerpted the arguments against homosexuality by James White below. White has also penned a book entitled The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality.
From Part I of the Fall 2002 Francis Schaeffer Lectures:
Christians should be welcoming repentant homosexually inclined people with open arms, as family. The reuniting of all God’s lost children as family into the fellowship of the church, with everyone on the same level, equally needy and equally loved, that is what Christ died for. That is the Church’s most important demonstration of love, and love is the most potent weapon that the Church has in any cultural controversy.
Here, he is trying to address the sins on both ends of the spectrum of the gay issue.
The whole immigration thing is all over the news. This got me to think about all of the groups fighting for what they consider "civil rights" – all compare their causes to that of black Americans, who are of course, sometimes insulted by the comparison. Nevertheless, the three civil rights areas today I want to discuss are the homosexual, pro-life, and immigrant movements. How are they similar to the black American civil rights movements, what rights are they looking for, and how do they differ? I’m not an expert on any of these, so wanted to open it up for discussion.
The Journal of Law & Family Studies (Univ. of Utah) has published a paper entitled Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree. They review current literature on hetero two-parent, single-parent, and same-sex parenting and outcomes on children. Of course, these guys are from Utah, so you might assume they have a pro-family, anti-gay bias. However, their paper is worth reading, and full of scientific references.
The article discusses at length homosexual parenting and adoption, and though it has some of the "classic" arguments against gay and lesbian adoption, it has lots of data that we should not ignore just because it is unpleasant. While this entire post is free of moral judgements, I’m sure someone will find the data "hateful", or some authors as less than trustworthy due to some reason or other, but the data itself is meaningful. As my old scientific mentor used to say, "All data means something – it may not mean what we want it to mean, but it means something."
Many gay apologists have attempted to interpret scripture in a way that views homosexuality as normative, rather than sinful. While some of their arguments have merit (like the primary sin of Sodom being a lack of hospitality), ultimately, they fail to justify homosexuality. In fact in his booklet Same-Sex Partnerships? John Stott refutes this argument well (synopsis of it here). In the synopsis, you can see Stott’s response to each of the common pro-gay interpretations of scripture, and why he feels that they are not correct. He closes with a biblical call (vs. the twin extremes of an unbiblical, truthless, and humanistic call or a loveless fundamentalist call) to Christian faith, hope, and love. Again, I think it can be summed up in Jesus’ words “I do not condemn you, go and sin no more.”
The main new testament proof text regarding homosexuality, however, is Romans 1:18-31. Rather than give my opinion on it, I have transcribed a section of John Stott’s Romans: God’s Good News for the World. Stott is one of the most prolific and respected Christian theologians of our time. Enjoy.
The gay lobby loves to use the accusation of “hate” when they are opposed by those who believe homosexuality to be morally wrong. And while some (many?) Christians may have a condescending and despising view of gays (which is sin), the overuse and misuse of the word “hate” will continue to alienate thinking people from the gay cause. Here’s my view of what hate is and is not.
I was reading up on one of my favorite subjects, reparative therapy of homosexuality, when I came across a decent introductory article on the subject at Parents and Friends of EX-gays (PFOX). The author evaluated the many therapeutic approaches to gay recovery therapy, and found the following six factors as critical to success:
1. Personal choice and motivation to reorient is necessary
This sounds like a no-brainer, but it’s not. Until I seriously want to change something in my life, I’m just going to fail.
2. A detailed history is important
This is to overcome using an oversimplified model like "all gays are that way because they had a bad father." People fail in gender identity formation for a lot of reasons, which need to be explored in therapy.
Stand to Reason has an interesting post on the liberal canard of “imposing your views.” Much legislation is moral/ethical in nature, and as with all moral issues, I think we have a classic black/white/gray problem.
Some legislation may be purely based on an ethic of not harming others - hence, do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. Even though these are all religious commandments, in civil govt discourse, we may consider them on their ethicality alone.
On the opposite extreme are religious morals that are purely religious, and probably should not be legislated – keep the sabbath, don’t eat pork, whatever.
But there is a gray zone where we have difficulty. Is adultery wrong because the bible says so? Does it really harm people? Maybe it harms the person who needs an extramarital affair to criminalize their adultery. That may sound crazy, but proponents of open, group, and polygamous marriage argue that. Does homosexuality harm people? How about teaching our children that homosexuality is ok? What about sexual exploration among teens? What about teens sexually experimenting with adults?
Now that Disney has elevated gay activist Rich Ross to studio chief,it won't be long now until we have a new more 'diverse' princess. I can only imagine the titles.
- The Dragon and the Two Princes – A manly prince saves the swishy one from the awful Dragon and his hateful, narrow, conservative, white, hetero master.
- Queen for a Day - The widowed King is sad, and the only person that can make him happy is the 'dramatic' court jester, who secretly is romantically in love with the King. With the help of a butch Fairy Godmother, the jester is transformed into a beautiful princess for 24 hours, in which time, if she can get a kiss of true love from the King, 'she' can stay as a woman and live with the man of 'her' dreams, the lonely King.
- Escape to Brokeback Mountain - two human-like aliens crash their ship in the desert, and are helped by a gay cowboy to escape the pursuit of the evil hetero government agents. In the movie's climax (no pun intended), the two androgenous aliens and the gay cowboy have an intimate threesome encounter, showing the beauty of cross-species love and multiple partners. In the end, the aliens take the cowboy with them to live in sexual bliss in the more enlightened alien world.
- Fabulous! - The prince lives in the gray world of a fashionless kingdom ruled by his hetero father. Through the love and genious of a local taylor, they turn everyone on to colorful fashions. The father finally admits that he should have appreciated the Prince for his own 'fabulous' values.
- The Legend of the Fairy Prince - the heartwarming story of a Prince who always wanted to be a princess, and through the magic of a fairy God mother, becomes an androgenous fairy who no longer has to worry about gender.
- Cinderfella (my apologies to Jerry Lewis) – classic retelling of Cinderella, except that the Prince secretly likes men, and rejoices when the cross-dressing handmaiden shows up at the ball in drag, and they dance the night away. After a valiant search, the size 13 glass slipper turns out to fit the young, handsome, muscular, shirtless, hairless handyman slaving in the barn, and they live happily ever after.
- Beautician and the Beast – the young male beautician is trapped in the home of the Beast, who is cursed by God with facial hair, chest hair, and a penis. While the beautician can do nothing about the bulge in the Beast's pants (which he kind of likes), he *can* help the beast get laser hair removal, and show him how to stop hating himself and use facial base to cover his hair follicles.
- The Emperor's New Groove 3 – The Prince gets sex-reassignment surgery. (Get it? New 'groove'?)
We'll see if all of this diversity really comes to pass, but as ONN remarks, we all like to use our influence to push our values:
The sad reality is that whenever you see a homosexual activist at the top, nine times out of ten they end up pushing that gay agenda using their influence to push it wherever they can.
One of the topics I am interested in, for personal and academic reasons, is the Biblical view of homosexuality, as well as the potential for recovery FROM homosexuality. Of course, pro-gay commenters make all kinds of accusations about my interest, suggesting that I am a closet homo, or am supressing my homosexual or pedophile thoughts or actions, or that I have some other disingenuous, hateful or self-hateful motive. I guess you’ll have to take my word that such is not the case, or wait until I am exposed by some investigative reporter.
ANYWAY, you may be aware that there are quite a few who basically consider themselves gay Christians or Evangelical and Gay. In this same vein, there is a new book out entitled Living it Out, with a descriptive subtitle of a survival guide written by lesbian, gay and bisexual Christians, our families, friends and allies.
Anyway, for those of us interested in not only securing right doctrine on homosexuality, but developing a heart and methods for reaching them with transforming, liberating truth (and helping them heal from their ‘dysfunction’), this book, basically a compilation of their stories and journeys in trying to be gay and Christian, might be instructive in seeking first to understand. Enjoy.
Group questions Catholic funeral for Kennedy
A Catholic pro-life leader has some scathing words concerning Senator Ted Kennedy's Catholic funeral.
Healthcare reform bill = loss of privacy
free market think tank is warning that the House healthcare bill could
potentially give thousands of federal employees access to citizens'
Lesbian custody trial continues
A court custody battle continues between a born-again Christian mother in Virginia and her former lesbian partner in Vermont.
Obama 'stimulus' plays favorites with earmarks
tax policy expert says President Obama has reneged on his promise to
keep his economic "stimulus" plan transparent and free of earmarks.
Malaysia's image takes a beating in caning case
a series of flip-flops, authorities in Malaysia have decided that a
32-year-old Muslim woman caught drinking beer in violation of Islamic
law won't be caned after all.
As per a news release at PFOX:
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia has ruled that former homosexuals are a protected class that must be recognized under sexual orientation non-discrimination laws. The Court held that, under the D.C. Human Rights Act, sexual orientation does not require immutable characteristics.
This is a big deal, especially in schools, where ex-gays are not afforded the same protection and privileges as the GLBT crowd. It means that liberal school staff and administrators can no longer shut out (and openly despise) this very real minority. You know, kinda how we can't openly despise gays anymore. I need to shine up my 'Ex-gay is OK' sticker on my car.
One of my favorite humorous cultural podcasts, Shire Network News (“Protecting the Anglosphere through satire”), has created a great show this week, including an interview with Bruce Bawer, the Oslo-based US author of While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom.
Bower talks about his experiences as a gay man in what he thought would be a more tolerant European society, and what happened when he ran into radical Islam on the streets of Amsterdam one night.
Like it or not, think it's pejorative or not, the current logic people are using to justify and legalize gay relationships applies equally to other non-abusive relationships, including polygamy, polyamory and bestiality. Are we saying that homosexuality and beastiality are the same, morally speaking? No, but I'm not sure why bestialists are judged as 'bad' – I mean, it may seem 'gross' to us, but who are we to judge? You can't have it both ways if you want to be logical.
And The People's Cube has a really witty article on this – but if you can't take the humor, and are deeply offended, your misplaced sense of self-righteousness will certainly keep you from seeing the point. Here's the intro:
Molotov Mitchell says Harvey Milk drank the Kool-Aid. Mitchell asks, if Pastor Jim Jones was part of Milk’s life, why was that not in the film? Because it was a hagiography, not a biography.
One of the conservative PACs that send me emails is SaveCalifornia.com. Here's their latest, somewhat alarmist missive, which I wanted to share. And while their tone is a little over the edge, at what point do we get alarmed? Are we like the proverbial frog in the kettle, not seeing our rights erode gradually? Should we be alarmed that Christian bookstores are being forced to hire homosexuals, or that fertility clinics are being forced to service lesbian couples, or that doctors may be forced to do abortions against their consciences?
Maybe it is time to be alarmed and to fight.
This comes from an admittedly biased news source, but all the basic facts seem to check out. A Michigan man is suing two publishers of Bibles for violating his constitutional rights and contributing to his physical and emotional distress because they publish versions of the Bible which proclaim homosexual acts as sinful.
Should he be able to sue the publishers? If so, what does that say about religious freedom guaranteed under the Constitution or does his desire for freedom from persecution trump their rights of the publishers and editors, not to mention the readers, of the Bibles?