A while back, one of our commenters mentioned that her child’s school had a problem with lesbians taking over a bathroom and beating up and harassing kids who tried to use it. Others resisted the idea that such violent behavior was really associated with lesbianism. However, recent report from Philadelphia indicates that this is a real trend on the rise.
Girls at the Turner Middle School allege that the lesbian students are harassing them with gay remarks. The straight students say lesbians are bullying, groping and harassing them in gym and in the girl’s bathrooms.
This is not an isolated incident. Today on Bill O’Reilly, a
detective reported on the violence and crime done by increasing
numbers of lesbian gangs in the inner city. So what does this mean?
It means that our children are getting more lost all the time – drugs,
violence, promiscuity, and the soul injuries that lead to
the dysfunction of lesbianism.
It is no surprise to those of us who understand the dysfunctions
of homosexuality and lesbianism that they are accompanied by so many other dysfunctional activities (see the scripture below) such as gross promiscuity, drug use, depression, and violence (studies confirm such correlations). And as stated previously, even if you factor in the affects of social stigma and rejection, these associated pathologies are still abnormally high in the gay/lesbian community.
When women become sexual predators, your society has has declined enormously. May God help us.
Romans 1:26-32
For this reason God gave
them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed
with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men
and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They
were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness,
malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.
They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though
they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to
die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice
them.
While these girls may be victims of all sorts of travesties, including rape, fear, absent fathers, and poverty, we are not “blaming the victims” when condemning this violence, esp. when they have victimized others, as these lesbian gangs are doing. They are hurting, but no one should justify their violent, intimidating, and criminal actions, nor their sexual orientation, which is a part of their psychological problem.
Social rejection didn’t make them violent, at least not directly. The hurtful events and attitudes (misogynistic hip hop?) that caused them to abandon natural gender self-concepts made them mentally injured to begin with, and the social rejection amplified their problem. And out of anger, they chose violence as a response. It is understandable, but not right.
But social rejection can not positively change help change them, of course, and we are not justifying it, for it is part of the problem. But telling them that their dysfunction is OK is lying to them, and is not the type of acceptance we should be dishing out either. What they need is the message that gay apologists suppress and oppose – that they can be healed of their SSA and warped gender image through therapy and medication. That it is a result of and coping mechanism in response to emotional trauma (e.g. sexual abuse, incest, rape, neglect, abandonment, rejection, unmet needs for love, acceptance, gender identification and validation, absence of nurturing, lack of protection, or verbal abuse).
THAT is the truth, even if gay apologists go into a “bigot fit” when such things are said.
I wonder who this post is aimed at. Louis has long gone, and no one else seems to care about seeker ongoing war with gay people. I don't see any point in taking it up as everything that could be said has already been said by Louis and others. seeker just has a bee in his bonnet about homosexuality.
btw: The idea of "Lesbian gangs" terrorizing other students is hilarious. South Park should take it up.
Such social ills as lesbian gangs would probably make a good south park episode.
I am not aiming at gays at all, but educating the public in general about issues I think are important, and I infuse what I believe to be the biblical and "correct" perspective on these issues.
Again, I am not aiming at people but at the bad ideas that the gay lobby spreads, not to mention the ways in which they suppress the truth of gay recovery.
And, most importantly, I am attempting to educate the Christian community to think biblically on such important issues, rather than adopting the worldly view that accommodates sinful behaviors.
Yes, you're biblical analysis is spot on. As to the rest…well, let's just say that you're a bit cuckoo there.
btw: How about a thread on Christian recovery?
BTW, here's a washington post article on recent lesbian gang violence, and it looks like cultural rag and youth culture indicator The Star recently had an article on such gangs.
Regarding Christian recovery, we have posts on reparative therapy in the Gay and Lesbian category. But as far as general recovery issues, none of us have much exposure to that, so we don't talk about it much. There is also a Health category.
However, I did start a series on restoring the true masculine, which is a recovery topic. There is also the two parter on Christianity and Healing Depression
btw: How about a post about heterosexual gangs?
You mean ex-gay gangs, or ex-ex gay gangs (which are probably just a different flavor of gay gangs)?
The main reason I posted this article were:
– to confirm to Lawanda that her daughter's recent experience with lesbian thugs is not an isolated incident, and she is not just trying to demonize lesbians by bringing this up – it' a real phenomenon.
– to alert citizens of this phenomenon
– to alert christians that we should be thinking about the links between hx and other types of mental illness, and
– to get us to develop a biblical and psychologically accurate view of what is going on so that we can design solutions.
It just seems odd that you’d be worried about what must be a minuscule part of the on-going teen-gang phenomenon. I mean, there must be thousands of hetero gangs and crews terrorizing citizens (and far more hetero-on-homo violence than the other way around). Why pick out Lesbian gangs for notice (beyond the laugh factor, that is). I don’t think the problem is hx, but the social alienation, poverty, materialism, family dysfunction, lack of education, and violence-worship teens suffer, especially in cities (though not confined there). This is a human problem, not sex problem.
I agree. And all girl hetero gangs have probably existed for quite some time. But this particular niche is of interest due in part to Lawanda's experience with it.
And it is unique in that it is same sex sexual harassment, not something you hear about every day (outside of prison, that is). It's kind of like remarking that the hx rape of Sodom was remarkable, not just because it was gang rape, but homosexual gang rape, something doubly wicked (in that two sins are involved). Girls sexually harassing other girls? Worthy of note, because this goes beyond the normal pale of girl gang violence – it adds sexual perversion to the violence, a horrific thought. It's creepy like a twisted horror film.
Creepy? To you maybe. To me, it's funny in a Revenge of the Nerds kind of way.
Yep, you could see it that way too. I don't want to dehumanize these girls too much, I'm sure they've suffered just like any other unique minority group. The only difference is that the nerds didn't get back at their persecutors with sexual harassment and battery.
the only reason i am on this page is because i watched that episode of 'THE O'REILLY FACTOR' and as usual i was appalled by the fear mongering and lies.
…i saw the report on LESBIAN GANGS. it was accompanied by blurred footage of teenage girls fighting. there was zero information directly related to this footage. there were no indications of anything the related to homosexuality in the footage. it was just stock footage.
the reporter went on to talk about another lesbain gang called THE PINK PISTOLS who's trademarks are the pink 9mm glocks they carry.
this is a completely ridiculous fabrication.
oh, there is a group called 'the pink pistols': i googled them and found that they are a completely legit pro gun gay organization that promotes the safe and legal operation of guns by the gay/lez/transgender crowd.
days later this whole thing was haunting me and so i googled 'LESBIAN GANGS' and i got linked to THIS.
lo and behold this article cites the OREILLY piece as gospel!
ugh!!!! THIS IS INSANITY!!!!
STOP THE FEAR MONGERING!!!!
So why is it that the arch liberal NBC is in on this "conspiracy"?
Also, as mentioned above, it was mentioned in the pop culture rag The Star – certainly not a trustworthy news source, but not conservative either.
So besides the two events listed above (in Philly and Florida), here's more.
In New York, as reported in the NY Daily News – The case of the lesbian beatdown
In Maryland – 6 Arrested in Gang Attack Near Metro Station (washington post).
O'Reilly's show also mentioned reports of lesbian gang violence in Tennessee.
The fact is, it is a disturbing trend. Now, we can demonize all lesbians, or we can admit that this is a growing problem that we should do something about. The pathology of lesbianism is a separate but relatedd question.
What I can't understand, seeker, is all this concern about a few Lesbian gang incidents (4 or 5 cited above). Have you anything to say about the incredible and widespread problem of gangs and gang-warfare, almost all of it committed by heterosexuals? Here in the L.A. area, gang members far outnumber police and virtually govern (with violence) entire neighborhoods. Gangs of heterosexual teenage boys routinely bash gay men. Does this say anything about the "pathology" of heterosexuality? Or is it more a comment on human nature?
Really, you just look stupid harping on this. Try ignoring your fanatical, fundamentalist version of Christianity just for once and be reasonable.
Have you anything to say about the incredible and widespread problem of gangs and gang-warfare, almost all of it committed by heterosexuals?
I am sorry that emphasis on new, disturbing trends upsets you. Just because it is a lesser issue doesn't mean I shouldn't say anything.
And the fact is, it is part of a much larger, more disturbing trend, which is the Gay Agenda (TM) across the country. The attempt to mainstream and accept this perversion as normal is one of the more significant social movements, and threats, of our time, and this gang story is a small part of it.
And of course, we have discussed violence in the black community, though we don't focus on gang violence as a typical topic.
Part of the reason we don't is because it is acknowledged universally that gang violence is bad. But regarding homosexuality, there is no such consensus, and so, as advocates of the traditional, pro-family position, we take up that topic more often. It is precisely BECAUSE pro-gay aplogists are so vocal and active in trying to sway public policy that we take this issue up so vociferously – because they are perceived as a threat to the family, and by extension, to the stability, health, and peace of our nation.
Like it or not, this is not a social action blog, it's an idea blog. So we are involved in the battle of ideas, not in facilitating solutions. That's what inner city ministries, like the one Aaron is taking part in, are about.
But maybe we should focus more on mobilizing people to make a difference instead of thinking differently. But again, that could be like telling college professors who focus on theory that they are wasting their time, when they should be out actually DOING something.
But I think we ARE doing something, even if it seems like we are just talking and not taking action.
Really, you just look stupid harping on this. Try ignoring your fanatical, fundamentalist version of Christianity just for once and be reasonable.
And perhaps you look stupid attacking my right to focus on this. Try ignoring your fanatical, fundamentalist version of secular humanism just once, and open your eyes to the moral depravity and illness of homosexuality.
Actually, I'm not a "fanatical, fundamentalist" secular humanist. I'm just a humanist who prefers living in a secular culture. However, I'm sympathetic to religion and interested in finding the truths it has to offer. I even have certain affinities with Christianity, though not the version you espouse. I also think you are a bit deranged when it comes to homosexuality, but its your blog and you get to say whatever you want. But as long as you allow commentary, be prepared for criticism. I find your penchant to pick out the specks in the eyes of gays while ignoring the boulders in those of heterosexuals to be hypocritical and nutty. Thousands of heterosexual gang members deal drugs and terrorize entire cities and you're worried about a handful of lesbian bullies? What's wrong with you, anyway?
Actually, I'm not a "fanatical, fundamentalist" secular humanist. I'm just a humanist who prefers living in a secular culture.
Glad to hear that. I am not a fanatical fundamentalist either – I was just turning your language back on you.
However, I'm sympathetic to religion and interested in finding the truths it has to offer.
As I am sympathetic to the needs for separation of religion and state, some secular values, and enjoy such non-religious disciplines such as philosophy and psychology, not to mention the hard sciences.
I also think you are a bit deranged when it comes to homosexuality, but its your blog and you get to say whatever you want.
Perhaps I am. Or perhaps you underestimate the sinful nature and unhealthy roots of such unnatural acts, and perhaps your understanding of scripture and what it teaches is limited at this time.
But as long as you allow commentary, be prepared for criticism.
We almost never delete comments here. The whole purpose of this blog, for my sake, it to vet ideas in public. I have learned quite a bit about my ideas and myself.
Thousands of heterosexual gang members deal drugs and terrorize entire cities and you're worried about a handful of lesbian bullies? What's wrong with you, anyway?
As I said, the battle of ideas is important to me because ideas have consequences. Darwinism had a direct affect on the success of Nazism. Communism meant well, but ended in the deaths of millions.
And the acceptance of homosexuality reflects the bottom of the slide into moral decay. Regarding gangs, there is no idea war going on out there. People accept that it is bad, and people are coming up with solutions all of the time. No one is seriously saying that gang life is good.
But as I said, the development of lesbian gangs is just one part of a bigger societal problem that we have, which is the undermining of the family through such things as adultery, promiscuity, and the destruction of the definition of marriage by the efforts to mainstream the dysfunction of homosexuality.
When we start calling mental illness normal, and when we undermine the foundational building block of healthy society, which is hetero marriage, we are in dire straights. This may be more important than gang warfare in the long run.
But that's why I mentioned that one of the problems in our evaluation of sin is often only viewed from the immediate consequences, and not the ideological roots. The long-term impact of bad ideas may outstrip the current calamities.
It reminds me of an old story. Two men were walking up a river, when one saw a baby floating down. He waded in rescued it. Suddenly, he and his friend saw a second baby floating down the river, but the second man ignored the baby and kept walking upriver. His friend said "what are you doing?" to which he replied, "I'm going to find out who is throwing babies into the water."
The moral? Sometimes the immediate calamity (gangs) is not as urgent as finding and changing the cause (bad ideas like the normalization of homosexuality).
Gang warfare is a symptom. The cause? Research shows that it goes back to morality, not poverty. It goes back to a value system that embraces misogyny and violence, encourages sex without responsibility, fathering children without care for the children, disrespect for authority, and playing the victim instead of taking responsibility.
I have dealt with all of these in many posts (see Black America), so I DO care about gangs, but not at the symptom level.
But I believe that justification of homosexuality is a bad idea that that has led and will lead to all kinds of deleterious symptoms. That is why I focus on it. And lesbian gangs are just small and interesting development, one part of the overall picture (remember, this is just ONE post on the issue).
I also focus on homosexuality because I have friends and family who have been duped by the gay identity and lifestyle, and I had my own masculine issues which I healed from by recognizing and internalizing the true masculine and by letting go of my rejection of false masculinity (machoism), rather than seeking my need for inner masculinty through romanticized and sexualized relationships with men, Pro-gay apologists are lying about the roots, the cures, and the nature of homosexuality. And I get irritated by such lies because they are suppressing truths which could heal and help many.
So I would ask you, why don't you recognize or accept such things? Why must I share your value system or be "deranged?" What's wrong with YOU? Perhaps it is you who is blind and deranged and don't know it. You should ask that question.
I think you're deranged about hx because you stubbornly adhere to fringe and discredited science and refuse to see it as anything but "pathology." You also keep returning to it as if it were some kind of fixation, ignoring far worse social problems. Christianity should be about much more than persecuting a tiny minority. However, from my observation of Christians, you aren't that unusual. Quite a few people think that religion is a pathology, focusing on a fantastical realm for which there is not a shred of evidence and ignoring the real. Now, I don't particularly share this view, but when I come across someone like you I'm case see their viewpoint. However, if I claimed that your religious faith is a symptom (or cause, maybe) of a serious pathology which has grave societal implications, how would you feel? Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it so; in fact, that could be seen as a symptom of your mental illness.
Now, we're probably all deranged to some degree, which is why I try to stick to a view supported by evidence and rational thought as a corrective. You might try it.
I think it is very telling, and not uncommon, that someone finds violence amusing.
It makes me shake my head that people laugh at what they laugh at, for sure.
I am sure that any girl who is accosted by a violent sexual offender at her school would not find it funny at all. Even if, or I might say especially if, it was another girl.
Thanks for this post. I know it is real, and it worries me, whether it worries others or not!
So, let me get this straight (haha). After being mugged, raped, and abused since the beginning of time, women (namely lesbian women, because straight women are rarely daring enough to actually be this outgoing) are finally fighting back and you're freaking out about it.
Yes, gangs are bad. But you know what this does? It makes it seem as though every lesbian is in a gang. Because people generalize, and now the latest generalization is going to be if you're lesbian you are a violent recruiter. The truth of the matter is, this is highly exaggerated (especially the o'reilly factor), and you're also making homosexuality into a disease. It's not contagious, and I can't make my friends gay by hugging them. I'm gay. I have two gay friends, both of which are male, and were gay before I even met them. None of other friends have "converted" nor do I foresee them doing so anytime soon. Half of them are straight, and a handful claim to be bi, but prefer the opposite sex. I'm a lesbian. I'm also in the top 10% of my class, have a GPA higher than 4.0 and have never beaten up a girl or sexually harassed anyone in my life. I don't do drugs, and I'm not particularly promiscuous (my straight friends are definitely moreso than I am). I don't plan on going straight, the thought alone of kissing a guy is more than enough to make me feel nauseous. But, people are ignorant, and now I just can't wait for my last year of school to start so, if people have heard about this, I can get harassed in turn. Great. Thank you.
After being mugged, raped, and abused since the beginning of time, women (namely lesbian women, because straight women are rarely daring enough to actually be this outgoing
Talk about a generalization! So you are saying that namely the only women who have been abused over the centuries have been lesbians? And that lesbian women are outgoing? Or something? I don't understand that part…
…are finally fighting back and you're freaking out about it.
And you are saying that since they are lesbians it is ok for them to be violent. Because they are lesbians. And because you are a lesbian, it is ok to generalize too, I guess.
I can see how generalizing can prove a point, and I can see how it could be dangerous.
you're also making homosexuality into a disease.
Well, as seeker likes to point out, and he is right – Homosexual behavior is not the normal human sexual behavior. It just isn't. No matter how much gay people want it to be normalized, it is not the normal human sexual behavior. It is different than the normal. That is usually referred to as "abnormal" in more technical terms….
I don't do drugs, and I'm not particularly promiscuous (my straight friends are definitely moreso than I am).
I am very glad you don't do drugs! But you have just made another generalization. Just making sure you see that.
And both types of promiscuity are equally as damaging in my opinion. I don't care if you have sexual relationships with girls or with boys. Someday you will find much unpleasantness in your life due to having sex without regard to the wisdom of it, or without caution.
People do not want to hear that, though. They want to be "free" to have sex with whoever they "feel" they "love" or are turned on by at any given moment.
That is neither wise nor cautious.
Hi Lawanda:
After being mugged, raped, and abused since the beginning of time, women (namely lesbian women, because straight women are rarely daring enough to actually be this outgoing
Talk about a generalization! So you are saying that namely the only women who have been abused over the centuries have been lesbians? And that lesbian women are outgoing? Or something? I don't understand that part…
She didn't say that only lesbian women have been abused, she said that mostly gay women have chosen to respond to such abuse with force.
…are finally fighting back and you're freaking out about it.
And you are saying that since they are lesbians it is ok for them to be violent. Because they are lesbians. And because you are a lesbian, it is ok to generalize too, I guess.
I think she is saying a couple of things: (a) that it is perfectly understandable for people who have been violently pounded their whole lives to react to that pounding by being violent themselves, and (b) that you and O'Reilly are exagerating the issue.
Well, as seeker likes to point out, and he is right – Homosexual behavior is not the normal human sexual behavior. It just isn't. No matter how much gay people want it to be normalized, it is not the normal human sexual behavior. It is different than the normal. That is usually referred to as "abnormal" in more technical terms….
I guess you are entitled to whatever opinion you want, but there is no possible science to back up your claim here. To be sure, homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, but being uncommon doesn't make soemthing abnormal. The term "abnormal" presupposes a proper function to the so-called abnormal thing. Presumably you'd say the proper function of sexuality is reproduction, thus making homosexuality abnormal. But gays would not agree with you that the purpose for sex is reproduction. There are lots of possible purposes for sex and for homosexuals their sexual behavior satisfies that their purpose quite well.
I don't do drugs, and I'm not particularly promiscuous (my straight friends are definitely more so than I am).
I am very glad you don't do drugs! But you have just made another generalization. Just making sure you see that.
To be fair, you don't know her straight friends. Why think she isn't perfectly accurate in her assessment?
…And both types of promiscuity are equally as damaging in my opinion. I don't care if you have sexual relationships with girls or with boys. Someday you will find much unpleasantness in your life due to having sex without regard to the wisdom of it, or without caution.
People do not want to hear that, though. They want to be "free" to have sex with whoever they "feel" they "love" or are turned on by at any given moment.
Unwillingness to hear true things is probably the case for some, not so much for others.
your friend
Keith
Lawanda wrote:
Homosexual behavior is not the normal human sexual behavior. It just isn't. No matter how much gay people want it to be normalized, it is not the normal human sexual behavior. It is different than the normal. That is usually referred to as "abnormal" in more technical terms….
I wonder if you could define "normal" in this context? And how is "abnormal" a more technical term than "normal"?
thanks.
Thanks.
Thank you for backing me up guys.
Keith was right about what I was speaking of in the first place. I was talking about women, in general. And that's not much of a generalization. Look at history. And I never justified their fighting back as being okay. You're right. It's not okay. I know this, most people know this, but why focus on something so minuscule instead of doing something about the entire problem and not just a small section of it? And then exaggerating it terribly.
And as for the reference to normality – Come on. If everything in the world was normal we would never make any progress. Similarly, we'd all be terribly the same and boring. And you have no right to declare what is 'normal' and what isn't 'normal' and just because something isn't normal doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it. Four leaf clovers are not 'normal,' but they're good luck charms aren't they (and please do not mistake this for me saying gay people are good luck charms, I am very aware that they aren't :P)?
In reference to your comment about me saying I don't drugs as a generalization, I was pointing out that the generalization made somewhere on this page was incorrect. Homosexuality does not lead to a complete decadence of morality. You make it seem as though it's like a gateway to this land of promiscuity, drugs, violence and more! Sorry, hun, that is not so. That's a terrible generalization. Also, I wish you could meet my friends. In fact, my best friend is coming home from a retreat that she organized today. And, in a year, she'll be going to Lehigh. And in regards to promiscuity, I'm not having sex. I've had sex with one person, and that's it, and I don't think I would like to do it with anybody else or if anybody else, they better be worth it. I'm not going to go around screwing anybody I feel like it.
Anyway, enough of my commentary. I just have a question.
What's worse, living your life lying and saying you're straight so people will like you and not try and hurt you, or living your life completely out, but fearing the opinions and motives of others?
In God's eyes, I mean. Do I have a higher chance of going to hell for lying my entire life to everybody or for liking girls? I mean, if I could, I'd wait 'til after marriage to have sex, but I can't get married.
She didn't say that only lesbian women have been abused, she said that mostly gay women have chosen to respond to such abuse with force.
I understand that, especially since the roots of both male and female homosexuality is often sexual abuse. And then their choice of sexual identity further stigmatizes them, not just because they are different, but because they choose an identity that is obviously contrary to nature (and please don't pull the "there is homosexuality in nature" routine, there is infanticide in nature too – against nature means "against the design of the body and soul, and against the design of the rrocreating family."). Gays like to think of their dysfunction as a normal variant, but you might as well just use that logic for every other type of sexual sin that is agains sound pschology and biology.
None of this is reason to mug or attack people, but unfortunately, such unnatural behavior is disturbing to people, and some with less compassion respond not only with the with understandable disgust, but with fear, loathing, and attacks.
If everything in the world was normal we would never make any progress. Similarly, we'd all be terribly the same and boring.
There is plenty of beauty and diversity in the world without trying to justify every injury and warping of the soul as something to be seen as normal. We might as well see sickness and death as beautiful and stop trying to fix such "beautiful variants." Homosexuality is something to be healed of, not something to embrace. It's not what the soul or body was designed for.
Homosexuality does not lead to a complete decadence of morality. You make it seem as though it's like a gateway to this land of promiscuity, drugs, violence and more!
Actually, statistically, homosexual men have six times as many partners as heteros, and the incidence of drug use among both gays and lesbians is much higher than in the general population, as are depression and suicide (in greater numbers than even social stigma can explain). The best explanation is that homosexuality is a disorder, and associated with other disorders.
Lesbians are not any more promiscuous than hetero's, but promiscuity is mainly a male trait.
What's worse, living your life lying and saying you're straight so people will like you and not try and hurt you, or living your life completely out, but fearing the opinions and motives of others?
In God's eyes, I mean. Do I have a higher chance of going to hell for lying my entire life to everybody or for liking girls? I mean, if I could, I'd wait 'til after marriage to have sex, but I can't get married.
God doesn't expect us to live a lie, but while living honestly and out may feel better, it still falls short of what we really need to do – to ask God to heal us of the deep injuries that have led us to such a sinful choice, and seek transformation of the soul.
I mean, it's like asking me if I should suppress my anger or let it out in the open. The choice missed here is that I should repent of it and ask God to transform and heal me so that I am free of it. Same with homosexuality.
I have gay friends who desperately want a family and children, but feel they can't because they can't love the other sex. So instead, they adopt, or abuse technology to make a child. What never occurs to them is that the reason they can't EVER procreate, not even if both are healthy physically, is because their affections are contrary to nature, and they shouldn't have kids until they are changed.
One of my good friends was a homosexual, and he is now happily married w/ 3 kids. He would tell you the same.
Tori, I was going to warn you about trying to argue with this guy but he got in ahead of me. When you read the above, remember this: arguing with him is pointless, for he'll simply dismiss any and all of your points, no matter how reasonable or backed up by facts, and then repeat himself, over and over, as if you have said nothing at all. He is an ideologue, a Christianist fanatic, and a gay-hater. I advise you to resist arguing with him, as you will nothing but ulcers. Try banging your head against a wall instead.
Hi: Seeker:
You wrote: Actually, statistically, homosexual men have six times as many partners as heteros,
There are lots of possible reasons for that stat other than homosexuality being "abnormal". It could be that because of the social stigma there aren't as many social structures to reinforce stable, monogamous homosexual relationships. Hetero relationships break up because of stresses to them; homophobia can exter at lot of stress.
Or, it could be that men have a greater tendency toward promiscuity than do women, which would increase the supply of willing promiscuity partners for gay men compared to for straight men. I read a few years back in Psychology Today that lesbian relationships are tend to be more stable and monogamous than straight ones (on average) which would support the "men are pigs" hypothesis.
The same kind of thing is true for all the pathologies that gays supposedly suffer more than straights. In every case I have seen there is a possible explantion that is at least as plausible as the "homosexuality is unhealthy" theory you subscribe to. Your opinion that homosexuality is harmful isn't based on science, it is a controversial interpretation of data.
your friend
Keith
Keith's statement is entirely correct. To give one example, seeker keeps repeating how homosexuals supposedly suffer from mental disturbances like depression and suicide, that they are somehow innately disordered, and that even social disapproval can't account for this. However, he ignores psychiatric evidence to the contrary, depending on out-dated and discredited studies which only examined homosexuals in mental institutions and under psychiatric care. Further studies proved that homosexuals have no greater incidence of mental disturbances than heterosexuals.
ucdavis
Of course seeker will, as usual, dismiss this scientific evidence as mere "politics," ignoring his own political and theological biases. His pathological loathing of homosexuality bars him from viewing it fairly and objectively.
Oh and btw, I know several lesbians who remained lesbians until their "biological clock" started ticking in, and then they decided they wanted to have children. All of the lesbians I know personally (granted it is a small number, but I read of it being done by many others, as well) conceived their children the natural way. And 100% of them decided they were not lesbians anymore.
But I also know women who decided they were lesbians after being married or having several children.
I know homosexual men who have made similar choices, although not necessarily having anything to do with fatherhood.
And yet, people say homosexuality is not a choice or a decision.
There are lots of possible reasons for that stat other than homosexuality being "abnormal".
I agree with all of your reasoning there, I did not mean to say that the higher promiscuity indicated abnormality, though it *may* reflect lower morality. I think I was just answering Tori's claim to the contrary.
Your opinion that homosexuality is harmful isn't based on science, it is a controversial interpretation of data.
Actually, i think you are half right. The science is NOT conclusive. However, the higher incidence of associated mental disorders with homosexuality should give the scientist pause, and I am hypothesizing (and believe) that this correlation is due to the fact that homosexuality is also a disorder.
And to some extent, perhaps science can not make such judgments, though we typically classify things that lead to early disease and death, not to mention infertility, as disorders.
And my conclusions about the abnormality are not JUST based on the science I just mentioned, but on psychological studies of what is best for developing children, and perhaps metaphysical or philosophic discussions about the design of the body. These may not be scientific, but they are logical and worthy of investigation and discussion.
However, he ignores psychiatric evidence to the contrary, depending on out-dated and discredited studies which only examined homosexuals in mental institutions and under psychiatric care. Further studies proved that homosexuals have no greater incidence of mental disturbances than heterosexuals.
Actually, you are entirely wrong. First, here's a 2006 study of gays in the Netherlands (where the social stigma is greatly reduced). Guess what? Gays have a higher rate of suicide and mental disorders.
And how about this article from the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association:
You should really check out your science before you believe a political organization's selection of data – the review of literature that you provided was incomplete and skewed by that "UC Davis" site. It's actually not an official site, but just some pro-gay site created by a gay-activist PhD member of UC Davis.
Sure, he pretends to be unbiased and scientific, but that is betrayed by his home page, which is covered with "no homophobia" buttons and such. Even his self description shows his bias – "This site features work by Dr. Gregory Herek, an internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes, and AIDS stigma."
But I am not attacking him, only saying that your insinuation that his opinion was one from "UC Davis" gave it more credibility than it deserved, and implied an objectivity that was obviously not there. But again, I don't mind you quoting such sources, if you represent them fairly AND they have good arguments. But I have just provided two articles that deny your claims about me and his claims at objectivity in evaluating the science.
At the very least, you LIED about my sources, and accused me of depending on outdates sources. Now that I have proved you wrong, and even shown that a major(?) pro-gay site agrees with me, perhaps you should tone down your accusations of bigotry.
By the way, here's a 2006 study that indicates that lesbians have a higher rate of alcohol abuse than hetero women. Isn't alcoholism considered a "disease"?
So please don't tell me that homosexuality and lesbianism are not associated with higher incidence of suicide, mental disorders, health problems, and substance abuse. You can blame it on society, and you may be partly right, but don't lie and say that such correlations do not exist.
Homosexual behavior is indeed not the normal sexual behavior: BECAUSE it is "less common"
Two things – first, your use of "abnormal" is entirely within the definition you provided. However, use of the word "abnormal" implies a stigma which may not be true.
Just because something is not average doesn't make it bad. Einstein was not normal, but I wouldn't call him "abnormal."
Gays consider their sexuality a normal variant – not th mainstream, but acceptable.
I think that the reason homosexuality is "abnormal" is not because it is a minority behavior, but because it is against nature – that is, against biology, psychology, and sound social health.
So, apparently, what is "normal" is merely what appears as average or typical or the usual thing?
There ya go. Although I would not say "appears" but what IS.
Apparently, the only acceptable behavior is that which falls in the "average" category – what most people do most of the time.
What most people do, most of the time would definitely fall into the NORMAL category.
Acceptable behavior I would agree varies with different people. And obviously my definition of what is acceptable is more of what the Bible says is. Obviously yours is not.
Acceptable behavior is not violence though, I think you would agree with that. And I would say that sexual behavior that promotes violence, or promiscuity should not be acceptable to most. And that is exactly what the sexual behavior enacted by our young people (for several generations now) does. (And I am speaking of hetero and homo sexual behavior.)
I do not think that all or even most people who engage in homosexual behavior are necessarily violent. But in this case their sexual behavior is strongly related to their violent behavior.
And that has you worried about saying that homosexuality is all wonderful and good and harmless. And it SHOULD make you think about that. Because it is not harmless.
The problem with people like Lawanda and seeker (and apparently, their religion) is that they demand a gray uniformity to a single arbitrary standard, and are very afraid of any nonconformity or difference they come across.
The problem with people like you and Cineaste and Stewart and any other "liberal" out there who defends homosexuality in such ways is that they demand that we approve of it. When we do not. And we do not have ANY obligation to stop disapproving of it, just because other people approve of it.
We make our arguments, take them or leave them. Actually if you could debate the arguments properly (I believe seeker got hounded for attempting to bring some rules for debate…) it would get you further.
Instead you all resort to saying
how we want to control everyone (which is not true, as I have pointed out, I would like to have people around me be more wise, but control THEMSELVES. I have no desire to control anyone, except my 2 year old, perhaps)
how we do not like people who are different than us (Which, I actually enjoyed reading Tori's posts, and thought she was brave and also seemed to express herself with intelligence; and I also enjoyed reading some Louis's less violent posts as well.)
And then you try insulting us by referencing sheep (a common biblical reference) to be stupid unoriginal followers.
Unfortunately, I notice this is "normal" behavior for those in the "liberal" way of thinking.
Acceptable behavior I would agree varies with different people. And obviously my definition of what is acceptable is more of what the Bible says is. Obviously yours is not.
This is the salient point (the rest of your commentary is irrelevant). Yes, obviously, I don't base my definition of normality on biblical precepts because I don't believe that the Bible has some kind of divine authority or inerrancy. Those are matters of faith and not based on evidence. As seeker has been forced to admit, there is no scientific basis for condemnation of homosexuality, only "metaphysical" and "philosophical" ideas – code for religion. Yours is a religious objection – you disapprove based on your interpretation of the Bible and Christian doctrine. For those of us who are not Christians, we needn't agree, nor need we agree to Christians legislating their doctrine into law. "Normal" and "natural" are subjective terms, based on nothing but cultural traditions, not objective fact. Disapprove all you like, just don't push it on the rest of us.
Well, if you will notice (not that you would, since my words are so highly IRRELEVANT! Thus proving my previous post about your attitude, OH SO TRUE)…
I do not base my idea of "normal human sexual behavior" on biblical precepts, either. I base it on such definitions as I find in the dictionary (the common book people use to define terms based on their usage by said people!) as to the words "normal" and of course "human" "sexual" and "behavior".
Yours is a religious objection – you disapprove based on your interpretation of the Bible and Christian doctrine.
My objection that homosexuality is not acceptable as a practice, or Why I Disapprove of Homosexual Behavior as a general rule, is based on the Bible. But also, I see the wisdom of refraining from such practices too.
Disapprove all you like, just don't push it on the rest of us.
I could say the same only: "Approve all you like, just don't push it on the rest of us."
Oh, seeker I did not see this before:
Two things – first, your use of "abnormal" is entirely within the definition you provided. However, use of the word "abnormal" implies a stigma which may not be true.
Just because something is not average doesn't make it bad. Einstein was not normal, but I wouldn't call him "abnormal."
Ok, I dislike dealing with stigmas. Words are what they are. When I copy and paste a definition of a word from the dictionary, I do so in order to (try) to get people to realize what I mean – without the stigma.
But honestly, Albert Einstein was really of abnormal intelligence. Look up the word abnormal in the dictionary and it even has this as the second definition in the first entry:
2. extremely or excessively large: abnormal profit.
But then I see further down that it can also be stigmatized to mean:
2. departing from the normal in e.g. intelligence and development; "they were heartbroken when they learned their child was abnormal"
I think that the reason homosexuality is "abnormal" is not because it is a minority behavior
Being a "minority behavior" is what makes it abnormal.
but, because it is against nature – that is, against biology, psychology, and sound social health.
I think THAT is why it is less common and a "minority behavior"….
Do you understand what I am meaning?
Lawanda is a fascinating person: she can dish it out but she can't take it. For her, it's fine to put down gay people with terms like "abnormal" but she gets all upset when people fight back and criticize her lifestyle. She admits that her religion is at the base of her disapproval, but when, in turn, her religion is subject to disapproval she gets angry and defensive.
It's too bad we can't physically split up the country and erect an electrified fence between us.
.As seeker has been forced to admit, there is no scientific basis for condemnation of homosexuality, only "metaphysical" and "philosophical" ideas – code for religion.
Oh please, that is not what I said or meant. While good science points to higher than normal correlations of homosexuality with mental disorders, substance abuse, disease and death, and while psychology points to hetero parenting as optimal and healthy, I was only being generous in saying that science is still trying to determine if such correlations mean anything, and if homosexuality has a biological component.
The epidemiological argument alone ought to make us realize that hx is unhealthy, both mentally and physically. And the argument that it is against nature is not entirely metaphysical – the fact that no otherwise healthy gay of child-bearing age could EVER bear a child while employing gay sex, and the higher rate of anal cancer among gay men indicates to me that it is against nature, that is, against design.
The fact that you accord such arguments no weight because they are not strictly "scientific" shows that you are trying to narrow down the evidence, because the mounting evidence is against you.
I concede nothing, but admit room for further exploration. But the existing evidence against hx is already damning enough.
Christians legislating their doctrine into law.
Bogus argument. No one is criminalizing hx. We are merely protecting the biological and social healthy norms by *preventing* you from norming such unhealthy behaviors by forcing govt to approve of them. So not only are you hypocritically asking others NOT to make legislation while making legislation of your own, YOU are forcing the broadening (dilution) of marriage, the social and biological standard of society from time immemorial.
While good science points to higher than normal correlations of homosexuality with mental disorders, substance abuse, disease and death…
[sigh] There you go again. I provided information above refuting this assertion, but of course you simply ignore it and repeat yourself once again. It's not "good science" that you cite, but bad and out-dated science. There is no "epidemiological" evidence at all that homosexuals in general are any more prone to these disorders than heterosexuals. As to the "anal cancer" argument: this comes from the HPV virus which also causes a high incidence of cancer in women. Are you arguing that heterosexual sex is unnatural because women incur a higher than "normal" risk of cancer from having vaginal sex? Heterosexual people are also prone to getting AIDS and other STDs, suffering from depression, being promiscuous, and being violent. Do you then castigate all heterosexuals or heterosexuality itself because of this? Why do you insist on condemning all gays because of the behavior of a few? I think we should condemn all heterosexuality because a good portion of heteros engage in the actions outlined above. Why not? At least gays aren't creating unwanted babies or causing abortions with the reckless sex practices that heteros engage in with abandon.
Nature and design are not the same thing. "Design" is code for religion here, I think, and irrelevant. Homosexuality occurs throughout the natural world, not just among humans. How can it not be natural?
The fact that you accord such arguments no weight because they are not strictly "scientific" shows that you are trying to narrow down the evidence, because the mounting evidence is against you.
What nonsense! There is no "mounting evidence" against my position. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence goes the other way, as you tacitly admit when you note I demand scientific evidence and not ideological assertions.
There you go again. I provided information above refuting this assertion, but of course you simply ignore it and repeat yourself once again….There is no "epidemiological" evidence at all that homosexuals in general are any more prone to these disorders than heterosexuals.
Did you not see my references from 2006?!? I repeated myself AND provided data. AND, I rebuffed your bogus UC Davis link (since it was really from the site of a gay apologist who happens to work at uc davis). YOU ARE PURPOSELY BEING OBTUSE.
And did you miss the fact that a PRO-GAY site agrees with me? Know why? Because on that page, they weren't busy trying to lie to themselves about the higher risks associated with homosexuality in an effort to make it look safe and natural. They accept the science, and out of compassion, are trying to let gays know about the truth.
Whether or not they see the possible implications is a separate question. Unlike you, they are not lying to themselves and others about the mental and physical health risks associated with the dysfunctional homosexual identity and lifestyle.
Are you arguing that heterosexual sex is unnatural because women incur a higher than "normal" risk of cancer from having vaginal sex?
No, I am arguing that homosexuality is related to higher incidence of certain diseases than their hetero counterparts, and across the board, other things being equal.
Heterosexual people are also prone to getting AIDS and other STDs, suffering from depression, being promiscuous, and being violent.
Yes, but gays are, in general, MORE likely to have these sicknesses, almost across the board. Why? Partly due to promiscuity (which is also a hetero SIN), and partly due, I argue, because it is pathological and bad for you in general. Can you not follow my logic? No, because you are intent on NOT SEEING.
"Design" is code for religion here, I think, and irrelevant.
I disagree. Your head was not designed as a punching bag, although I would like to test that hypothesis. By design, I mean what leads to health and fertility, i.e. life. Things that lead to DEATH are, in general, sinful. And some are obviously against the normal functioning of the body. Like anal sex. And against the normal functioning of the soul, like same sex attractions.
Face it – your have lost all ability to see what any common sense child could see – that homosexuality is perverse, a twist of the natural.
At least gays aren't creating unwanted babies or causing abortions with the reckless sex practices that heteros engage in with abandon.
Great, so the fact that they are not involved in one of the other two enemies of humanity (abortion and Islam) means that their own particular contribution to world sickness, undermining the family and social fabric, and moral decay is ok? You want a medal?
Homosexuality occurs throughout the natural world, not just among humans. How can it not be natural?
Been answered elsewhere. Infanticide is in nature to, so the argument from nature as "natural" is not valid when determining morality. But things that lead to sickness and death, as well as infertility? DISORDER. Don't get hung up on the semantics of the word natural, or we will have to return to that discussion.
There is no "mounting evidence" against my position.
Of course not, it is all in your favor. Because you totally ignored the evidence I proposed, and I could give you a laundry list of articles if you want them. Better yet, just go to narth.org and check out the studies they cite. And don't reject them because of their pro-reparative therapy goals, just look at the many studies they cite directly, without any commentary. There's your list of mounting, recent evidence.
YOU ARE PURPOSELY BEING OBTUSE.
Can you not follow my logic? No, because you are intent on NOT SEEING.
Your head was not designed as a punching bag, although I would like to test that hypothesis.
Face it – your have lost all ability to see what any common sense child could see – that homosexuality is perverse, a twist of the natural.
You want a medal?
I failed to follow my own advice. Trying to reason with you is like banging one's head against a wall. You are a pathological gay-hater and are immune to reason. In fact, I think you are mentally ill.
I give up. Stew in your own hatred, bigot.
Quaker statement on gay marriage
Keith's Christianity has a conscience.
Yes, as I have said before, Christianity per se is not in itself evil. It is only in certain manifestations that it has allied itself with the forces of darkness. Clearly, the Society of Friends has allied itself with the forces of light and reason. seeker's and Lawanda's cult hasn't. Unfortunately, the evil cult which they represent has been in the majority throughout history.
I give up. Stew in your own hatred, bigot.
I am amazed at your ability to lie without conscience, to miss my answers and then claim I have not answered, and to totally fail to answer my responses with anything other than terms like "bigot."
Not only do you have no sense of humor (the punching bag comment), you utterly failed to address even ONE of my specific points.
Face it. It was a rout. You made claims which I refuted, and you then resort to accusations about my character, using my somewhat mocking and humorous tone (which you richly deserve for such poor argumentation – I wasn't making ad hominem attacks, but ACTUALLY accusing you of being obtuse) to "prove" that I am beyond discussion.
You can go comfort yourself in a corner that I'm some immovable bigot, but the reality is that you can't make it past one round of debate without failing to address my claims with logic and understanding. Instead, you retreat to your mental fetal position of claiming I'm a bigot.
Check out this recap:
1. you claim I am using outdated scientific data (which, btw, is bogus because i never cited any in any recent threads)
2. you claim no recent science supports my position
3. i show you such recent evidence, including the testimony of a pro-GAY site
4. you ignore the evidence and resort to ad hominems
5. i call you on your lack of honest argumentation
6. you quote mine my post for my more derisive and sharply humorous retorts, claiming that as evidence that I am some kind of bigot troll
7. having failed to get past one round of discussing facts before being defeated, you comfort yourself with the idea that you have presented a case which was not answered
8. everyone watching sees that I am ascerbic and witty, while you are a one round polemical fact slinger with no desire or ability to follow anyone else's argument, and even less to defend your own.
Go back to the minors and come back when you learn how to use facts and data, and how to choose a defendable position. Until then, you'll be just another liberal sentimentalist slinging propaganda and fear-mongering with ad hominem attacks, instead of being honest with the facts and focusing in on reason. You are not ready.
And BTW, I recognize my tendency to jump to somewhat insulting conclusions about your intelligence, and my repetition of my conclusions about homosexuality without repeating my logic or data.
I could work on that. But it pisses me off when I answer an objection, and you totally ignore it and pretend that it was never said. Maybe it is lost in my belligerent tone.
I get easily frustrated with the same lack of dealing with the facts, misrepresenting the research, the same canards and lies presented repeatedly by lefty pro-gay propagandists, and the same tired, inaccurate, fear-monger "bigot fits" that liberals throw when you disagree with them (everything is hate).
I could learn some patience. But you could learn to defend your arguments with more than ad hominems.
BTW, that Quaker statement is all grace, no truth. Statements like "We can find nowhere that Jesus said anything about homosexuality" mean nothing – in fact, they are misleading.
Jesus never said anything about bestiality, or cursing the blind or deaf (Leviticus 19:14) either. But he did support the morality of the law. Since the law condemned homosexuality, and he actually said he was not here to repudiate the moral declarations of the law, it stands to reason that he DID oppose homosexuality, just like he did other sins he did not specifically mention.
The other problem with this bad theology is that Christianity is not just what Jesus said, but what ALL of the NT writers said, including Paul. And as we know, Paul soundly condemned homosexuality in more than one place.
A world that wants to justify sin will always look upon calls for sexual purity with disdain, because "its deeds are evil." Statements like the Quaker one on homosexuality are full of grace, but empty of truth. Like all false teachings, they contain half the truth, and claim that "this is the whole truth."
Are Quakers Christian? If they believe the gospel, sure. Are all of their doctrines biblical and honoring to God? Not this one, nor their simplistic dedication to pacifism, imho. Such Christians would make lousy peace officers and soldiers. Thank God for men who know how to marshall force for the sake of justice and protecting the innocent.
And thank God for men willing to stand up to the apologists of sexual sin, who are destroying our children by encouraging immorality, our families by devaluing marriage, and calling it civil rights.
Here's some relevant scriptures you can ignore, along with the Quakers:
her religion is subject to disapproval she gets angry and defensive
I am not being defensive about my religion, but I am defending my logical position, which is based on my religion. I am not angry in the least. If I were angry I would say mean or insulting things about you. Have I? Copy and paste it if I have, and I will apologise to you.
The whole reason I am even posting on here and speaking with you is to defend my position. Likewise, I assume that is why everyone posts here. But apparently others are only here to criticize and INSULT anyone who disagrees with them.
I realize (and how many times have I had to say this, while NONE of the "liberal" people have paid any attention?) that my disapproval of homosexuality offends people. Even people who are not homosexuals.
But I also disapprove of drinking, shacking up, etc. I use logic and wisdom and experience and biblical principles there too. People get less ruffled when I say things about that and will use not quite as mean words like "prude" (still insults, instead of defending THEIR positions!) rather than more mean words like "bigot".
Tori said she does not think promiscuity or drugs were a good thing, and yet no one called HER a prude!
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because she said she was a lesbian? Hmmmm.
——————————
"Trying to reason with you is like banging one's head against a wall. You are a pathological gay-hater and are immune to reason. In fact, I think you are mentally ill."
That is a great cop-out indeed. I have not seen "reason" from you at all unless you count – I approve of it, and I say it is not wrong, so SHUT UP your stupid opinions because you are EVIL!!
(You need to look up evil in the dictionary too.)
Hi Seeker, Lawanda, Skeptic and Cineaste:
Wow! Such anger! I also have a tendency to get hot in debates, which is why I have to be very careful when participating. I have recently "invented" the idea of walking away when I allow my sinful hostility to tempt me into insult and malicious communication. Anyway, I have a few points to make:
1. Lawanda and Seeker: You believe (as do I) that Jesus is the way to eternal life. You also want (I am right about this, aren't I) even sinners like Skeptic, Cineaste–and me–to enjoy that eternal life. If so, then you need to go out of your way to show love when you post. Continue to disagree, continue to say what you believe to be true, but lose the gratuitious rhetorical shots. A very mild example will explain what I mean. Lawanda wrote in the last sentence of one of her posts "Unfortunately, I notice this is "normal" behavior for those in the "liberal" way of thinking. She had already explained her points, there was no need to add this to the post, it was unnecessary and insulting. Christ taught us to love our neighbors, to love our enemies even. I think we should think about that very thing EVERY TIME WE POST. Winning a debate is really losing every time we fail to show our love.
2. If Lawanda means "not average" when she uses the word "abnormal", then Skeptic, Cineaste and I agree that homosexuality satisfies the definition. Of course that definition doesn't imply anything wrong with homosexuality.
3. Seeker also wrote While good science points to higher than normal correlations of homosexuality with mental disorders, substance abuse, disease and death…. Skeptic and you are disputing this so I'll leave that to you and he. My point would be that the above doesn't show there's anything wrong with homosexuality. The correlations you cite could easily be a measure of the damage caused by homophobia, not homosexual orientation.
But suppose there were a correlation between sexual orientation A and mental illness B, and it isn't due to the effects of the way society treats A's. Even this wouldn't give a reason to believe that A is wrong, the observation would be irrelevant to the moral question. It could be that A is a side-effect of some biological thing that causes those maladies. A's are more likely to suffer the maladies, but there A-ness is NOT the reason for the maladies.
3. About Quakers: I agree with the Quaker statement Cineaste linked to, but as I am not a member of the Monthly Meeting in the small town that issued the statement, I am not bound by it.
your friend
Keith
Keith, you may not understand this, but I think if they do not see how they are being disrespectful, then they cannot change. They are not helping THEIR argument or stance by ignoring the issue and instead insulting the opposition.
I was not angry. At all. Still not.
I do want to show them how to be respectful in debate, but sometimes you just have to say "You are not being respectful."
I do tend to be a bit snarky, though. And I appreciate what you are saying about that.
Unfortunately (well it IS unfortunate!), sometimes you have to say things to people to get them to see their behavior is off.
They all (the "liberal" minded non-christian people on this site) react the same way, every time. Eventually. This is true, even though it is somewhat of a generalization ;) I don't LIKE having to "tell it like it is" If you think I take enjoyment from having to say to someone that they are downright rude, then you are mistaken…. I would prefer they debated in an orderly way, without saying insulting things to me or whoever they are debating with. Really.
I have said it before. I will say it again:
I have debated these very same "hot button" issues before with liberal minded people without insulting words being used as the only defense of their beliefs.
2. If Lawanda means "not average" when she uses the word "abnormal", then Skeptic, Cineaste and I agree that homosexuality satisfies the definition. Of course that definition doesn't imply anything wrong with homosexuality.
And that was precisely why I posted the definition. You cannot debate anything without defining your terms.
And I also said that it is unacceptable (wrong) sexual behavior because of the Biblical principles concerning it.
I also said a few other things were unacceptable sexual behavior, which I also base on biblical principles.
Jesus said marriage was between one man and one woman. And that fornication (any other sex you might have other than sex with your very own wife – if you are a man; or husband – if you are a woman) was wrong.
Therefore, I hold the very same view. :) Because I am a disciple of Christ.
Now does that mean I am out there strong-arming, forcing, controlling people to make them conform to the standards I hold?
Only so much as it helps society. Which I think EVERYone does. Don't you?
Hahaha. Actually I don't strong arm anyone, either. :) After I read that over I had to laugh at myself. And I can only imagine what they will say to that!
I meant that I only "force" my beliefs on others in legal ways, such as voting against gay marriage or participating in an assembly of people who preach against such things. And I have pointed out before that those are also my rights, as well as theirs.
I also only try to control myself, and to an extent the people who are under my care (my kids).
And THAT is what everyone does :)
The correlations you cite could easily be a measure of the damage caused by homophobia, not homosexual orientation….Even this wouldn't give a reason to believe that A is wrong, the observation would be irrelevant to the moral question.
I have noted at least one study that shows that the difference is greater than social stigma can account for, so there is SOME evidence that such disorders can NOT be explained by homophobia. Same with the reports from the Netherlands, where homosexuality enjoys much less stigma than here.
And no, it wouldn't mean that hx is wrong, but we should consider the obvious, which is that hx may be a disorder like the others – and to not ask that question is scientifically irresponsible.
But let me also ask you (Keith, Lawanda, whomever) – did you find my presentation of modern research showing correlation of hx with substance abuse and mental disorders, and my debunking of Skeptic's misleading UC Davis link proper? And what about how Skeptic's response was to IGNORE my data and accuse me of avoiding his contention and merely repeating myself?
Doesn't that seem disingenuous, or at least erroneous to you? Which of my comments do you think are "angry" or over the boundaries of niceness?
I still think the punching bag comment is funny.
seeker, I missed your "presentation of modern research." However, I don't think 2 0r 3 links to be much of a presentation.And I wasn't lying when I linked to the analysis, I simply used a short-hand. And, anyway, so what? The points he makes still stand. And most of your links have not been on the up and up either: gay "recovery" organizations linked to fundamentalist Christian groups. I don't have the time to do extensive research, but what I have indicates that your opinions are based on fringe and rejectionist groups and people, that mainstream organizations and the vast majority of professionals disagree with you and agree with me.
As Keith pointed out, the problems sometimes associated with homosexuality can be laid at the doorstep of homophobia. I don't think you realize just how devastating it can be to grow up and live in a society which regards you as a deviant and a pervert and an abomination. No wonder so many gays suffer from depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts! I just can't understand how you can ignore this point and just keep repeating your opinion that gays are mentally ill because of their sexual orientation. In fact, it's opinions like yours that contribute to the suffering of gay people. You are a cruel and thoughtless man. And your posts are so patronizing and insulting, that I find them hard to read. The same goes for Lawanda. There is no love in you at all. The quote about "wolves in sheep's clothing" comes to mind. It's people like you who make me despise orthodox Christianity. It looks like a heartless and threatening cult of evil to me.
The points he makes still stand.
I was not disagreeing with his points, but your presentation of them as "UC Davis" – I can analyze his points, but instead, I provided two modern research papers that substantiated my claims.
I am sorry I jumped on you for missing those. How many modern reports are enough, though? As I said, while the evidence is not conclusive (either way), it is significant, and to say that my hypotheses are based on outdated studies is untrue.
your opinions are based on fringe and rejectionist groups and people
Actually, my opinions are based on scientific papers and discussions of such. However, due to the politicization of this issue, and the bias of both the media and the APA (the whole removal of hx from the DSM was political, not scientific), I must sometimes stand in opposition to the conclusions of "established" scientific organizations like the APA because they have become politically driven as much as scientific, esp. on these issues.
Same with evolutionary items. The religion and politics of evolution have outstripped the science, and the scientific establishments that commit to the "fact" of evolution have compromised themselves. You may see that as fringe, but I'll keep providing evidence and facts, what else can I do?
I will also educate people on the illogic and deceptions involved in presentation of data when political and ideological ends are involved.
the problems sometimes associated with homosexuality can be laid at the doorstep of homophobia.
No doubt. But the evidence points to the fact that homophobia alone can not explain the higher incidences of other maladies. And many facets, like infertility, physical disease, and the need for children to have both gender parents, have NOTHING to do with homophobia. These negative impacts are a direct result of homosexual behavior (although some disease can be attributed directly to promiscuity, which is a hetero and homo problem).
I just can't understand how you can ignore this point and just keep repeating your opinion that gays are mentally ill because of their sexual orientation.
I do not ignore it, here, I acknowledge it. But I am saying that homosexuality ITSELF is a disorder.
In fact, it's opinions like yours that contribute to the suffering of gay people. You are a cruel and thoughtless man.
While we could present this information in a gentler manner, the truth is that sin kills. Promiscuity should be called out as risky, selfish, and immoral. We should warn people away from it.
Having known a few homosexuals who have recovered, I also know that they were very injured by the continued lies that they could not change, and that their condition was something to be accepted as unchangable. They thank God that someone told them what they already knew deep down:
– their sexuality was a dysfunction, a coping mechanism for wounded gender idenitity
– they were made for having a family and biological children, and were not condemned to a childless future. Anything that stood in the way of that was an abnormality
– they could be healed of their SSA
It is just as cruel and heartless to tell people they are OK when they know they are not, and to tell them that they have no hope of change.
It's people like you who make me despise orthodox Christianity. It looks like a heartless and threatening cult of evil to me.
I have much room to grow in love. But I also think you want a Christianity that tells you that sin is OK. And while we should not focus exclusively on sin, to omit the truth of our need for God, and the great risks to our souls and bodies that sexual sin presents, is not a loving faith at all, it's a cowardly one.
The same goes for Lawanda. There is no love in you at all.
Again, I think we need to agree on what our terms mean. LOVE for example.
If you look it up in the dictionary you will find about 28 definitions and then other entries, which even vary in meaning to a degree; all about the emotion we refer to as love.
Now personally, I do not actually feel the emotion for many people other than the ones I live with, and sometimes when they upset me, I don't feel the emotion even for them!
However, there is such a thing as love that I show toward people. It is not due to my having "affection" for them, really. It is due to the fact that they are my fellows on this earth and I respect them. And it is what keeps me from insulting you.
It is also the reason I believe it necessary to point out the wrongness of certain behaviors that I see being made popular (which in turn makes them more dangerous, as this original post proves, to me!) that are not necessary for society, and not in any way promoting good for it either.
My version of love is to try and help people see wisdom and act on it, instead of the unwise things that, even though they may not see it, may make their lives worse later.
Now your version of love is to say to any person – Do what you will, as long as you are not forcing others to do it, or "harming" anyone else (presumably you would let them harm themselves…I don't really know).
Which would include things like doing drugs, having sex with other "consenting" people no matter who they are, divorcing your spouse for no reason, drinking your life away, etc etc etc.
So basically there is nothing out there that you would condemn as being wrong except perhaps violence. But the problem is, where does that end? Who determines what really is violence? There are people out there doing violent acts to each other in order to get off sexually. But you cannot condemn that as wrong, because then you have to go back on some of the other acts of wrongness which you think are ok, "because they are not hurting anyone"….
————————-
seeker – I haven't got to look at your links, actually! Sorry. But I would say that living the homosexual lifestyle would by default enter you into a world where substance abuse is already a problem… And where substance abuse is a problem, there follows mental disorders.
This is just from my experience, but I can see how one could conduct a study and get results showing that. I will try to look through the links later! :)
Hi Lawanda:
You said this: My version of love is to try and help people see wisdom and act on it, instead of the unwise things that, even though they may not see it, may make their lives worse later.
Now your version of love is to say to any person – Do what you will, as long as you are not forcing others to do it, or "harming" anyone else (presumably you would let them harm themselves…I don't really know).
I assume you are talking to Skeptic here, but I think something needs saying, so I'll say it: you need to consider how non-believers take what you are saying to them. They feel like you are attacking, not like you are simply telling them what you think will help them in the end. It has seemed to me that your posts display a kind of sarcasm that is all too common in on-line forums, a sarcasm that doesn't show love regardless of whether or not you intended to show love. I am not asking you and Seeker to quit posting your opinions, I am asking you (as a brother in Christ) to make sure that what you say reflects the love we Christians are supposed to show. People involved in this debate want to debate, so there is no need for you to refrain from making your case as forcefully as want to, but the sarcastic flourishes are independent of your case. I am as guilty as you are of letting rhetoric take over, but it's really important that we let our lights shine, as our Savior told us to do, and our light is the love Christ makes possible. I think you and Seeker are missing the mark a little. I also don't agree with your point of course:-), but that's not the most important thing right now.
Now to Seeker: I haven't read any of the links you cited because whether or not the maladies you say are correlated with homosexuality are caused by more than homophobia has nothing to do with the issue IMO. That two different conditions–one a malady–are correlated doesn't imply that both are bad. It could be like the sickle cell trait; sickle cell is bad, more blacks have it than whites, but it doesn't mean blackness is pathological. My point is: science doesn't give us a reason to suppose homosexuality is bad, it shouldn't even give us pause. Your objection to homosexuality seems to me to be at the bottom based on your feelings about it, with a little bit of your reading of the bible added in. There's not much to say about that except to say that those of us who disagree with you disagree with you.
your friend
keith
I also don't agree with your point of course:-), but that's not the most important thing right now.
But the only thing that really seems so hypocritical to me about this post so far (and the other posts about homosexuality) is that the people who oppose my point of view will not reason with me about it.
Instead they try and take me down personally with words such as bigot, evil, heartless… etc.
If you will notice while we were debating the issue (or that is what I thought we were doing) I said not one unkind word to Skeptic.
The only unkind (or maybe that is sarcastic, I believe) things I have said to him were to point out to him that he was being totally insulting, and had stopped debating the issue and started slamming me and seeker. And then I was only pointing out that it (name-calling and calling those who disagree with them evil and the like) happens every time we discuss this issue. Because it does.
I also pointed out their double standard such that when Tori and I agreed on a point – promiscuity and drugs are bad – she was not slammed or called a prude as I have been many times in other discussions on this board concerning homosexuality. Because she said she was a lesbian.
That was only after his posts had all become such like this:
"the rest of your commentary is irrelevant"
"her religion is subject to disapproval she gets angry and defensive"
(to which i responded-"I am not being defensive about my religion, but I am defending my logical position, which is based on my religion. I am not angry in the least. If I were angry I would say mean or insulting things about you. Have I? Copy and paste it if I have, and I will apologise to you.")
"And your posts are so patronizing and insulting, that I find them hard to read. The same goes for Lawanda. There is no love in you at all. The quote about "wolves in sheep's clothing" comes to mind. It's people like you who make me despise orthodox Christianity. It looks like a heartless and threatening cult of evil to me."
—————————————
I am asking you (as a brother in Christ) to make sure that what you say reflects the love we Christians are supposed to show.
Every point I make about biblical principles concerning homosexuality, I can back up with Christ's own words. What else should I do?
Is it more unloving coming from me? Not if I repeat exactly what Christ my Lord has said.
Matthew 19:3-12
(NIV) (emphasis mine)
3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Hi Lawanda:
I am asking you (as a brother in Christ) to make sure that what you say reflects the love we Christians are supposed to show.
Every point I make about biblical principles concerning homosexuality, I can back up with Christ's own words. What else should I do?
Make all the arguments you need to, but leave off the sarcastic parting shots that you sometimes insert in your posts. That's all I was saying. The people debating with you want to see your arguments, or if they don't want to see them they can ignore your posts. But if you make your love clear then this represents the Lord better.
your friend
Keith
your friend
Keith
I see nothing in seeker's and Lawanda's comments to change my mind. They seek to excuse themselves from the ramifications of their positions, but the stink of bigotry and evil still emanates from them. Their's is a heartless and cruel standard, and their God is as cruel and heartless as they are. They strain as gnats and swallow camels. "Gospel" is supposed to mean "good news" but to my mind it is evil tidings to mankind. I hate and despise their religion, the faith of torturers and hate-mongers. A pox on both their houses!
note: my anathema is limited to the fundamentalist christianism displayed by the bigots posting here. True Christianity doesn't partake of their evil.
My point is: science doesn't give us a reason to suppose homosexuality is bad, it shouldn't even give us pause.
As I said, the correlation with other mental illnesses and substance abuse should alert us to the possibility that hx is a disorder, though those things don't prove it.
Secondly, there are scientific reasons apart from these correlations that most certainly DO point to hx as a disorder – primarily, the inability to procreate except with the help of genetic material from outside of the union, the studies that show that the best household for a child to develop in is one with both genders present (mother and father), the fact that there studies show significant environmental contribution to the formation of homosexuality, the fact that some people have been "cured" of homosexuality, the existence of more than one therapy model, and the argument from design – primarily that the anal sex is not the function of the anus. You could argue that, but I'd suspect you of being totally blind to the obvious no matter what your argument was.
leave off the sarcastic parting shots that you sometimes insert in your posts.
Ok, I am doing that, but as you see in Skeptic's recent post, not only is he offended by our tone, but he can't see any reasonable arguments – but I suspect that even if I had a perfect tone, he would conclude the same. As you can see, anyone who condemns homosexuality as sin is hateful, and he confuses such things with those who torture and hate.
While I will endeavor not to make my presentation and demeanor a stumbling block, the gospel and the truth itself is a stumbling block to many because they just don't like it.
And, typical of the liberal, unredeemed mindset, they confuse almost every type of moral disagreement or disapproval with hate. It's immature, in my opinion, or at least uneducated.
True Christianity doesn't partake of their evil.
And how would you define 'true' Christianity? How would you have it address sexual sins? Or are there any to be mentioned in 'true' Christianity? Are there any sins at all? And how does 'true' Christianity deal with sin?
I wrote that when tired. I don’t think there’s a true Christianity; there are merely different forms of Christianity.
typical of the liberal, unredeemed mindset
Typical of seeker: pigeon-hole opponents in some pre-digested category and move on. No need to think, no need to feel any compassion – only judge and condemn. The only disorder here is his arrogant heterosexual supremacism and his fanatical religionism. Talk about immaturity and ignorance! A few accusations and that’s it! We should just slink away, never to be heard from again. Whatever.
Well, Keith, as we christians know, nobody is perfect.
But I have to say that I do not see the sarcasm in my very true statement concerning the way these conversation always go when a person of “liberal” mindset steps in to “defend” the other position (that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or conversely that there is something right with it).
I asked Skeptic to point out where I had been insulting to him, so that I may apoliogise, but all we got was more “hateful heartless evil”… blah blah blah.
(Sorry couldn’t resist the blah blah blah.) :-p
I really don’t mean to poke fun at their mean ways…But I think it is a much better way to deal with it than being mean back.
The people debating with you want to see your arguments, or if they don’t want to see them they can ignore your posts.
I think we have seen proof of the opposite in fact, don’t you?
But if you make your love clear then this represents the Lord better.
I guess this is where I can possibly take blame. I do not preface every single post with the reason why I am posting period.
That reason is because I love my fellow man enough to not want him (her) to be caught up in the worldliness of all these sexual sins that so easily beset us humans. Especially us Americans who do not have a lot else to think about but our own pleasure, and are therefore very easy targets for lustful thinking, and the consequences of acting upon our lusts.
I guess I just assume people will know that the only reason I talk/debate about such things is because I CARE about people.
Hi Seeker:
My point is: science doesn't give us a reason to suppose homosexuality is bad, it shouldn't even give us pause.
As I said, the correlation with other mental illnesses and substance abuse should alert us to the possibility that hx is a disorder, though those things don't prove it…
I disagree with your conclusion here. You seem to be arguing that if A is correlated with a disorder, this is a reason to suspect A is also a disorder. I argue that this is *never the case*. I can think of a million non-disorders that satisfy the principle you seem to be using. I already mentioned one, let me repeat it: let A = [being black] and the disorder is the sickle cell trait. That relatively more blacks suffer the sickle cell trait gives us no reason at all to suspect that being black is a disorder.
Secondly, there are scientific reasons apart from these correlations that most certainly DO point to hx as a disorder – primarily, the inability to procreate except with the help of genetic material from outside of the union,
How is this a disorder? The homosexual couples aren't intending to procreate when they have sex, nor would they ever imagine such a possibility.
…the studies that show that the best household for a child to develop in is one with both genders present (mother and father),…
Assuming that the studies clearly showed, all other things being equal, two parent hetero families were better than two parent gay couples, how would this make homosexuality a disorder? At most it would give a factor to adoption agencies to consider when placing a child in a family.
…the fact that there studies show significant environmental contribution to the formation of homosexuality, the fact that some people have been "cured" of homosexuality,…
Whether or not any homosexuals have ever been "cured' is at the very least a very controversial claim. There are methodological issues here as well, given that the people who want to be cured typically have every reason to fool themselves.
…the existence of more than one therapy model, and the argument from design – primarily that the anal sex is not the function of the anus.
Clearly anal sex is one of the functions of the anal cavity, since people are able to use it for such. To say it isn't what the anus was designed for presupposes that (a) there was a designer and (b) the designer didn't intend multiple functions for the anus. This is beyond the ken of science.
You could argue that, but I'd suspect you of being totally blind to the obvious no matter what your argument was.
And I would suspect your sense of the obvious is informed by your prejudice. An impasse, I suspect.
…leave off the sarcastic parting shots that you sometimes insert in your posts.
Ok, I am doing that, but as you see in Skeptic's recent post, not only is he offended by our tone, but he can't see any reasonable arguments – but I suspect that even if I had a perfect tone, he would conclude the same. As you can see, anyone who condemns homosexuality as sin is hateful, and he confuses such things with those who torture and hate.
Maybe so, but you'll never know until you try:-) I do realize how easy it is to fall into the trap of sarcasm though; it's been a struggle for me for a long time. Sometimes I dodge the trap. Not often enough.
While I will endeavor not to make my presentation and demeanor a stumbling block, the gospel and the truth itself is a stumbling block to many because they just don't like it.
All anyone can ask is that we–you and me and Lawanda–make sure our tone is right. Even when we disagree with each other.
And, typical of the liberal, unredeemed mindset, they confuse almost every type of moral disagreement or disapproval with hate. It's immature, in my opinion, or at least uneducated.
See, you're doing it again! It's not typical of the liberal mindset, nor of the conservative mindset–it is something all sides fall into sometimes. I am quite liberal and I haven't done what you claim. And I know far too many conservatives who have accused people like me of hating America when we PEACEFULLY protested the most recent war. It's an epidemic in American discourse these days to charge those who disagree with you of bad faith and immaturity. It's a lot easier to do that than it is to actually listen to your opponents–I know from personal experience how easy it is to assume the worst about your "enemies". But I hope I am at least trying to change that; we Christians have a responsibility to change that.
your friend
Keith
Hi Lawanda:
If you really believe that liberals tend to ignore reason more than conservatives do, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion. I know a lot of liberals who think the exact opposite. Honestly, I haven't found the generalization to be accurate–I have been victim of people on both sides of the kind of insults and strawman arguments you object to. But suppose you are right about the liberal mindset; what good does it do to say that to us liberals? It seems to me that such comments only serve to make it less likely we'll listen to you, and it seems to me that (I could easily be reading into things but I think you should reflect on it to see if I might have a point) your comments are more motivated by frustration than by a loving desire to help your opponents see the truth. I am the last person qualified to judge you harshly for (what I see as) hostility toward an opponent, and if I'm out of line I apologize. But think about, OK?
your liberal Friend
keith
If you really believe that liberals tend to ignore reason more than conservatives do, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
I specifically meant those “liberal” minded people on this website who are not christians. (Which I said…)
Lawanda whining about "liberals" ignoring reason? HAR-DEE-HAR-HAR!
Okay, wow. Didn't even read the last five or so posts simply because this is getting out of hand.
In response to Lawanda waaaay back, I'm not Christian, but I think I'll read the Bible anyway just to gather information for my "side" of this argument.
Also, do any of you have links to studies or statistics based off of studies with the correlation between heterosexuality and diseases etc.? I don't foresee there being too many.
Haha, I don't check this out for two days and there is a barrage of posts (insulting, fact filled, etc). So, I'm sorry for not reading the last ones, but they're getting a little immature at times, and I'd rather just skim them.
Anyway, I don't find the punching bag comment funny. That's just insulting.
Skeptic, you are deliberately ignoring seeker's links and that is making you look a little on the unintelligent side. And yes, I do realize arguing is futile, and I doubt I can change their minds, but I still try and present my side of the story, and acknowledge theirs. Hence, I'm going to read the Bible, and look up more information. I like doing my research, ignorance is obnoxious.
And everybody is making generalizations. Yes, I realize I am, as well. But still, please don't think that all gay and lesbians do drugs, get diseases, get mental disorders, etc. I am a perfectly healthy teenage girl, and if it weren't for the fact that I have a tendency towards holding hands with my girlfriend, dressing on the more masculine side (I like boy shorts and boys' shirts are more comfortable than girls'. I'm sorry, but I don't feel the need to expose as much of my body as possible just because most girls do), and my friends pointing out loudly that I'm a lesbian, you wouldn't bother me. You'd dismiss me as another teenager. Well, okay, you wouldn't, because I am posting on here, right? But if you saw me on the street. Haha.
Keith, I like your arguments. ^^
Lawanda, thank you for the compliments. My mom doesn't really have any worries about me having sex. She has more worries about my brothers. I generally like how you debate because you state facts, and tell it like it is, except with your religious beliefs mixed in. This is an opinion, just so everybody knows, and you can't beat the crap out of it. I disagree with your opinion sometimes, but a lot of it is just facts. Like definitions. Haha. However, I'm not very fond of your generalizations about liberals. I consider myself liberal, and I don't freak out on people. If I get to heated, I step aside, clear my head, and then get back in.
Well, I'm off. I'm at a friend's house. I'll try and keep track better from now on.
-Tor
Tori, I don't ignore seeker's links. I missed them above. However, I can say this about them: his links to studies about homosexuality can usually be traced to religiously-based organizations and/or so-call gay "recovery" groups, hardly objective sources. I also dispute the interpretation of the data he comes up with: he inevitably distorts it to make gays look bad. And, he consistently ignores heterosexual ills (this is a continuing pattern with him – the double standard), while flaying all gays for the ills of some. I have come to the conclusion that he has a pathological hatred of homosexuality and no amount of reasoning will change that (a situation endemic to many on the religious right).
That relatively more blacks suffer the sickle cell trait gives us no reason at all to suspect that being black is a disorder.
Let me be more specific then. Let me say that behavioral disorders are often related, and homosexuality is not a purely genetic trait unassociated with pscychological and behavioral traits, such as skin color.
So neither blackness or sickle cell are appropriate examples because both are purely physical traits, while suicide, depression, drug use, and homoexuality are all behavioral. So let me reiterate – the fact that homosexual BEHAVIOR is associated with these other destructive behaviors should cause the researcher to ask – is this correlation meaningful? Does the possibility that hx is against one’s physical and emotional nature indicate that it may be an unhealthy coping mechanism like many of these others?
Again, it doesn’t prove such, but any intelligent researcher would see this obvious implication and research it, if they weren’t biased into thinking that hx MUST be normal.
And, as I mentioned, there are a lot of scientific reasons that DO point directly to the possibility (fact) that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy.
The homosexual couples aren’t intending to procreate when they have sex, nor would they ever imagine such a possibility.
Because it is ALWAYS a physical impossibility. And in every true marriage of male and female, when infertility arises, we consider it a disorder. The inability to ever procreate is just another evidence that homosexuality is against nature. The only reason that natural selection hasn’t made hx extinct is because all people are spiritually fallen, and the soul injuries that lead to homoexuality remain in mankind even if gays couldn’t pass on their genes.
how would this make homosexuality a disorder?
Because the natural pattern that leads to health in children is loving, hetero parents. Gay parents don’t provide both genders, and are therefore providing a sub-optimal, and therefore unnatural environment. It’s as normal as a single parent household – it defies the inherent design in nature, and leads to sub-optimal health.
Whether or not any homosexuals have ever been “cured’ is at the very least a very controversial claim. There are methodological issues here as well, given that the people who want to be cured typically have every reason to fool themselves
I agree, these conclusions are tentative and controversial. Science has limits, and to some extent, really can’t decide moral issues. But I would say that such things support the idea, and science has not debunked that idea (though in the APA, politics has).
Clearly anal sex is one of the functions of the anal cavity, since people are able to use it for such.
I am able to use your head as a punching bag, but that doesn’t make it a normal function of your head. The fact that it leads to DAMAGE shows that it is NOT for that. And the fact that anal sex leads to damage and increased disease says the same.
In addition, while the vagina is obviosly designed for insertion of the penis, the anus is designed solely to push out excrement. It doesn’t matter if people get pleasure out of putting foreign objects in there. People are twisted. What leads to mental and physical health is what should be considered normal, and those that lead away, morally, ethically, and naturally wrong.
It’s not typical of the liberal mindset, nor of the conservative mindset–it is something all sides fall into sometimes.
OK, I must say, I get tired of liberals who don’t understand that there is typical liberal approach to issues, just like there are typical conservative approaches. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t differing opinions within the circle, but it is totally fine to attribute a trait to a group in general. If you differ from that stereotype, fine, but the stereotype arises because it fits the majority.
For example, what are the typical liberal or conservative positions on the following issues? If you say you can’t figure it out because that is a “bad” thing to do, I’d say you are being dishonest. Stereotypes are bad if you abuse them by assuming the positions of your individual opponents in a discussion, but they are great for characterizing typical collections of ideas and mindsets.
So, could you define a typical approach or position on
– the environment
– homosexuality
– sex education
– abortion
And my particular accusation was that liberals characterize many conservative positions as “hateful.” I linked to my post on this. For example, I have NEVER met a liberal who did not think that opposition to gay marriage or moral condemnation of homosexuality was hateful. I am not the only one who has noticed this juvenile conclusion among libs. We see the same thing when opposing affirmative action or big government entitlement programs.
When a more specific label like “gay-apologists” is warranted, I try to use it, but sometimes the label “liberal” works well because it is seen almost across the spectrum of liberals.
Now, if I am wrong that the majority of libs don’t call me hateful for my positions (which those here all have), you can try to provide data to the contrary.
I do understand, however, that using “liberal” as an epithet is probably not useful, but it does express my exasperation with such anti-intellectual and juvenile tactics as using the “homophobic” or “hate-monger” or “bigot” insults. I understand that libs may really think that those monikers are factually accurate, but they use them too liberally (pun intended) to be using them well.
And I know far too many conservatives who have accused people like me of hating America when we PEACEFULLY protested the most recent war.
They HAVE? How come NONE of the conservatives here have said that? Because that is not the majority position. I again point out tha ALL of the libs here have accused anyone who is against gay marriage as a bigot and hateful, in one way or the other.
And I would say that if conservatives say you hate america, they are using the same juvenile, anti-intellectual reasoning that I condemned in What is hate?
It’s an epidemic in American discourse these days to charge those who disagree with you of bad faith and immaturity.
I think that various positions and lines of argument can be labeled as “immature” or illogical, without calling people immature (though they inevitably take it that way). The problem is accusing people of being mismotivated by racism, hatred, anti-Americanism, or whatever ill motive you want to impose on them.
If you really believe that liberals tend to ignore reason more than conservatives do, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
Actually, I would say that, despite the exceptions, the stereotypes of liberals being all heart and not brain, and conservatives being all brain and no heart, have a factual basis. Examples? Welfare. Libs want to help the poor, but they devised and implemented a system that was poorly thought out, because it made people dependent on the state, encouraged such dependence, and is not fiscally maintainable without some balance of holding people responsible for their own success – hence the conservative modification of welfare called “workfare.” And I’m sure that your anti-conservatives could come up with a litany of conservative legislation that may be intelligently thought through, but hurts people needlessly, or rapes the environment, etc.
I don’t think Lawanda is off-base when saying that liberals often rely on “emotional reasoning” rather than science. This is why, for example, Newt Gingrich has long called for Scientific Environmentalism – because the liberal approach to environmentalism has often prioritized various environmental issues based on something other than assessing their real impact.
But suppose you are right about the liberal mindset; what good does it do to say that to us liberals? It seems to me that such comments only serve to make it less likely we’ll listen to you,
You are right, I guess we have to (1) set the example, and (2) critize such behaviors across the board
his links to studies about homosexuality can usually be traced to religiously-based organizations and/or so-call gay “recovery” groups, hardly objective sources.
Skeptic, here’s why such a comment looks unintelligent. The pro-recovery sites, esp. narth, are not citing their OWN or just pro-gay research results. Narth.org links to articles in PRIMARY scientific journals. I use them because they are one of the few place that collects such results in one place.
As I said, you may ignore their commentaries, but you can’t ignore the scientific articles they post. By saying that you don’t trust the original sources because Narth posted them is ludicrous. You may think that they are picking and choosing, but if they “choose” a slew of science papers done by independent scientists, you have to address them.
That’s why most of the time, I try to provide links to the primary research, so that such dodging of the science like you do here can NOT be done.
I think your other accusations are largely baseless – rather than address the data, you accuse me of being hateful. A typical dodge when your own argument is weak. That’s how I see it.
NARTH links selectively to studies which agree with its value-based programme on homosexuality. These so-called “primary” sources are usually done by fringe researchers using doubtful methodology. It is a fact that the vast majority of scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and their professional organizations no longer categorize homosexuality as a mental disease or social disorder. It is a fact that it is now mainstream thought to regard homosexuality as a simple variation of human sexuality, while only the traditionalist die-hards, religiously motivated, and political reactionaries see it as abnormal or deviant. This is beyond dispute. Yes, I know that you like to dismiss all this a “politically” motivated. In answer, I would point out that the anti-gay forces are now, and have always been, politically motivated, that they are/were determined to ignore studies and facts contrary to their ideology, and that it took a certain amount of activism to get them to change their opinions. The same pattern has occurred throughout the history of science (e.g., establishing microbe-based theory of sickness, the theory of evolution). The fact that I have the entire scientific establishment on my side indicates that, contrary to your assertions, it is my side that has the stronger hand and yours that is weak and juvenile.
Further, I put it to you that your intent is to put the worst fact on homosexuality, no matter what opposing evidence and/or arguments that are put to you. No one in their right mind can maintain that you are anywhere near “neutral” on this subject. Time and again, when pressed, you fall into your old habits of condemnatory, condescending, and disrespectful speech patterns. And you are consistently intent on twisting any data you come across to make all homosexuals
appear mentally unstable and perverse (your word). You simply refuse to consider that it is the very positions you promulgate that are the root cause of any mental disorders gays may suffer from. You get offended when accused of hate-mongering or bigotry, but I simply judge you by your words and positions: when they are hateful in themselves, and result in untoward and measurable suffering, then you are being hateful. The fact that you refuse responsibility for this, that you always seek to establish a double standard, and that your position is not based on the established science indicates to me that there is something else going on here besides a rational debate based on the facts. And that something is, of course, religion. Your basic assumptions, your diction, your mode of argumentation, the spin you put on the data, is, throughout, indicative of a religious-based outlook and motivation. Why don’t you just admit it? Religious hatred of gay people is an established fact. It’s nefarious effects continue to this day. That’s at the root of the problem, and that’s at the base of your arguments. And, of course, why should everyone be subjected to your religious superstitions?
In addition to the above I point to the untold amount of suffering your religion and its associated pseudo-science has inflicted upon generations of gay people. Any disorders, mental or social, they may suffer can be directly laid at the doorstep of the homophobia that you and your allies throughout Christendom and conservatism so strenuously defend. An excellent parallel is the aforementioned controversy surrounding the microbe-based theory of illness. The conservative establishment scoffed when it was brought forward and its defenders were scorned and persecuted. As a result, people continued to suffer and die from microbial caused illnesses. Your position, seeker, is analogous to those who used to bleed the patient to clean imperfections from the blood: their victims not only suffered from the loss of blood, they died. Your false science, coupled with your religious and personal bias, is directly responsible for the suffering, not only of gay adults, but of gay children, making you complicit with child abuse.
I see no reason to let up nor change my opinion. I still find you an ignorant, heartless, and cruel man.
Hi Seeker:
It’s not typical of the liberal mindset, nor of the conservative mindset–it is something all sides fall into sometimes.
So let me reiterate – the fact that homosexual BEHAVIOR is associated with these other destructive behaviors should cause the researcher to ask – is this correlation meaningful?
I take it the question you are asking is: does homosexual behavior make it more likely that a person will suffer those other disorders. Maybe it was obvious that you meant that, but the reason I ask is that I’d say it is *never* the case that if behavior A is correlated with some behavioral disorders, therefore one is justified in assuming that behavior A is *itself* a disorder. Because of the stress of the job, doing police work is associated with all kinds of mental illnesses, but that gives us no reason to suppose that police work is itself a disorder.
So please clarify for me exactly what you are saying, so my comments can be on point.
Does the possibility that hx is against one’s physical and emotional nature indicate that it may be an unhealthy coping mechanism like many of these others?
Again, it doesn’t prove such, but any intelligent researcher would see this obvious implication and research it, if they weren’t biased into thinking that hx MUST be normal.
Obviously whether or not homosexual behavior increases the risk of certain mental disorders would be a legitimate area of research (as would the possibility that homophobia increases those risks for homosexuals who would be otherwise fine).
And, as I mentioned, there are a lot of scientific reasons that DO point directly to the possibility (fact) that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy.
Unnatural isn’t a category science can address. Whatever occurs in the non-supernatural world is by definition natural. Unhealthy? I suspect it is unhealthy to live and work with people who have communicable diseases, but this doesn’t imply that people ought not do so. The same seems true to me about people who have a homosexual orientation. That they might have to take more risks to express their love–assuming that it were someday established scientifically that this extra risk occurred— doesn’t imply they ought not express that love. The bottom line is IMO: science cannot show that homosexuality is wrong in any way at all. That’s not a topic addressable by science.
The homosexual couples aren’t intending to procreate when they have sex, nor would they ever imagine such a possibility.
Because it is ALWAYS a physical impossibility. And in every true marriage of male and female, when infertility arises, we consider it a disorder.
This is one reason the term “disorder” is misleading. The word “disorder’ implies a problem, and an infertile couple that never wanted to reproduce would not have a problem with infertility.
The inability to ever procreate is just another evidence that homosexuality is against nature.
This seems to be an odd semantic dispute. It strikes me, Seeker, that the whole “against nature” thing is something from an “animist” world-view. We are under no obligation to obey what nature “demands”. The inability to EVER procreate is evidence that homosexuality is against nature. But in my physical condition I am unable to procreate–I had a vasectomy–so by your semantics sexual behavior from me in my physical condition is against nature. Well, words are symbolic conventions, the point is: the inability to procreate doesn’t imply one ought not have sex unless you presuppose the only valid purpose for sex is procreation. That’s not a subject for science.
The only reason that natural selection hasn’t made hx extinct is because all people are spiritually fallen, and the soul injuries that lead to homoexuality remain in mankind even if gays couldn’t pass on their genes.
Another reason might be that the gene or genes that cause homosexuality are passed on by homosexuals who marry women because they are socially afraid to live openly as gays.
Because the natural pattern that leads to health in children is loving, hetero parents. Gay parents don’t provide both genders, and are therefore providing a sub-optimal, and therefore unnatural environment.
Assuming that homosexual two parent homes is suboptimal for children doesn’t imply anything about whether or not homosexuality is natural. It is less advantageous to be born poor than to be born rich, but that doesn’t mean being poor is unnatural. Your claim here seems like a non sequitor to me.
Whether or not any homosexuals have ever been “cured’ is at the very least a very controversial claim. There are methodological issues here as well, given that the people who want to be cured typically have every reason to fool themselves
I agree, these conclusions are tentative and controversial…
I think calling them tentative might be a little too generous
Science has limits, and to some extent, really can’t decide moral issues. But I would say that such things support the idea, and science has not debunked that idea (though in the APA, politics has).
Well I’m not a psychologist, so I have to trust the experts. I am quite skeptical when non-experts accuse the actual scientists of deciding scientific claims based on politics.
Clearly anal sex is one of the functions of the anal cavity, since people are able to use it for such.
I am able to use your head as a punching bag, but that doesn’t make it a normal function of your head.
I say my head has a dual use:-) Seriously, there are lots of things that were originally used for one purpose but that people figured out a different use for later. When it comes to science, the term “normal” can mislead more than it clarifies–especially so in this debate.
The fact that it leads to DAMAGE shows that it is NOT for that. And the fact that anal sex leads to damage and increased disease says the same.
Not really. What it shows is that there is a cost to the behavior. It’s like how swimming increases the chances of drowning, but that doesn’t imply we weren’t meant to swim.
In addition, while the vagina is obviosly designed for insertion of the penis, the anus is designed solely to push out excrement.
When you talk about design you are presupposing an intelligent designer, and when you say that the anus was deigned solely to push out excrement you presuppose that you can tell that this designer had no other purpose for designing it. This seems to be question begging.
OK, I must say, I get tired of liberals who don’t understand that there is typical liberal approach to issues, just like there are typical conservative approaches. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t differing opinions within the circle, but it is totally fine to attribute a trait to a group in general. If you differ from that stereotype, fine, but the stereotype arises because it fits the majority.
Seeker, I haven’t found that the trait you cited–confusing disagreement with your view to be motivated by hate–to be more common among liberals than conservatives. In fact, I’d say you seem to be committing the very sin you accuse liberals of committing.
For example, what are the typical liberal or conservative positions on the following issues? If you say you can’t figure it out because that is a “bad” thing to do, I’d say you are being dishonest. Stereotypes are bad if you abuse them by assuming the positions of your individual opponents in a discussion, but they are great for characterizing typical collections of ideas and mindsets.
I didn’t say there weren’t typical liberal or conservative positions.
So, could you define a typical approach or position on
– the environment
– homosexuality
– sex education
– abortion
And my particular accusation was that liberals characterize many conservative positions as “hateful.” I linked to my post on this. For example, I have NEVER met a liberal who did not think that opposition to gay marriage or moral condemnation of homosexuality was hateful.
Seeker, that’s really unfair since I never made any such charge and I am a liberal! But you are naive if you think that it’s *never* hateful.
I am not the only one who has noticed this juvenile conclusion among libs. We see the same thing when opposing affirmative action or big government entitlement programs.
Please! You never had bottles thrown at you for PEACEFULLY protesting the war have you? I have experienced my share of juvenile behavior from conservatives in my time and I see no evidence that liberals are more guilty of it than conservatives.
When a more specific label like “gay-apologists” is warranted, I try to use it, but sometimes the label “liberal” works well because it is seen almost across the spectrum of liberals.
I have no objection to your talking about liberals, but I take issue with your particular claims about how liberals act. It’s in the technical sense “hypocritical”
Now, if I am wrong that the majority of libs don’t call me hateful for my positions (which those here all have), you can try to provide data to the contrary.
I won’t even try, no more than I expect you to prove that the majority of conservatives didn’t call me pro-terrorist because I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.
I do understand, however, that using “liberal” as an epithet is probably not useful, but it does express my exasperation with such anti-intellectual and juvenile tactics as using the “homophobic” or “hate-monger” or “bigot” insults. I understand that libs may really think that those monikers are factually accurate, but they use them too liberally (pun intended) to be using them well.
Epithets are never useful, not really. I cannot condemn you for getting frustrated in discussions, but there’s a lot of collateral damage when you condemn a whole group of people.
And I know far too many conservatives who have accused people like me of hating America when we PEACEFULLY protested the most recent war
They HAVE? How come NONE of the conservatives here have said that? Because that is not the majority position. I again point out tha ALL of the libs here have accused anyone who is against gay marriage as a bigot and hateful, in one way or the other.
That’s false because I never said your opposition was based on hate.
And I would say that if conservatives say you hate america, they are using the same juvenile, anti-intellectual reasoning that I condemned in What is hate?
Exactly!
It’s an epidemic in American discourse these days to charge those who disagree with you of bad faith and immaturity.
I think that various positions and lines of argument can be labeled as “immature” or illogical, without calling people immature (though they inevitably take it that way). The problem is accusing people of being mismotivated by racism, hatred, anti-Americanism, or whatever ill motive you want to impose on them.
yes, but when you attribute that to their “liberal way of thinking” you are wrong.
If you really believe that liberals tend to ignore reason more than conservatives do, then I guess you are entitled to your opinion.
Actually, I would say that, despite the exceptions, the stereotypes of liberals being all heart and not brain, and conservatives being all brain and no heart, have a factual basis. Examples? Welfare. Libs want to help the poor, but they devised and implemented a system that was poorly thought out, because it made people dependent on the state, encouraged such dependence, and is not fiscally maintainable without some balance of holding people responsible for their own success – hence the conservative modification of welfare called “workfare.”
I would say you analysis is way wrong. Whatever dependency problem occurred because conservatives wanted to separate out the “undeserving” from the deserving. If a person worked he lost benefits, the marginal cost being quite high actually. I’ve seen that happen. A friend of mine a few years back had her drug addicted ex husband skip town and quit paying child support. She applied for AFDC. Welfare told her to sell her truck (for more than she could really get for it), live on that until it ran out (for more months than the money she got for the truck would last) and then come back an apply when she didn’t have any means to get to work.
And I’m sure that your anti-conservatives could come up with a litany of conservative legislation that may be intelligently thought through, but hurts people needlessly, or rapes the environment, etc.
I don’t think Lawanda is off-base when saying that liberals often rely on “emotional reasoning” rather than science. This is why, for example, Newt Gingrich has long called for Scientific Environmentalism – because the liberal approach to environmentalism has often prioritized various environmental issues based on something other than assessing their real impact.
Clearly this debate could go off in a lot of directions. The few environmental scientists I know would take issue with Gingrich’s analysis of the problem, that’s all I can say.
But suppose you are right about the liberal mindset; what good does it do to say that to us liberals? It seems to me that such comments only serve to make it less likely we’ll listen to you,
You are right, I guess we have to (1) set the example, and (2) critize such behaviors across the board
Pretty much. And focus on the reasoning, explain why you think it’s bad reasoning.
your friend
Keith
Tori :) This is going to be a non-debate comment! ;)
I am glad you came back. It does get hard to read when it gets so long, I can totally understand!
I have lots of liberal friends, actually, irl. We talk about these kind of things, and sometimes it can get heated, but we never insult each other. On this site the more liberal nonchristians like Skeptic tend to mean comments like the one above, although this is the first time I have really talked with him specifically, but several others do the same thing.
I dislike it when people turn to mean comments, instead of presenting their argument. I honestly try not to do so. (That was for Keith) :)
As far as mixing my religion in with facts, I pretty much have to. I am no longer able to get the words of the Bible out of my mind…Since I see so much wisdom in biblical principles, and have been a learner of Christ for many many years.
Btw, I tend to be on the tomboy side myself. (Jeans and tshirts borrowed from first my brother and now my dh, have always been my preferred dress!) But then I also have a girlie side, too. It just doesn’t appear as often! :)
Do read the Bible. With an open mind :) The New Testament is about Christianity. The Old Testament is about Judaism. Just a heads up, in case you didn’t know that already. :)
At least you are willing to try it. Many people could not care less. :)
mean comments
Skeptic, I will say it to you, too:I dislike it when people turn to mean comments, instead of presenting their argument. I honestly try not to do so.
And ask again that if I was mean to you (other than by having a differing opinion than yourself), could you point it out, please?
I would never wish to truly insult you.
Hi Lawanda:
You wrote: As far as mixing my religion in with facts, I pretty much have to. I am no longer able to get the words of the Bible out of my mind…Since I see so much wisdom in biblical principles, and have been a learner of Christ for many many years.
Absolutely. Reason as a means to expand one's knowledge works this way: you draw conclusions from what you already know to new knowledge. If a person believes that something is true, it would be intellectually wrong of him not to draw conclusions based on it. I agree with you about the efficacy of biblical principles (we seem to disagree a little about the details:-), while Skeptic and Cin don't share our faith in those principles. Since you read the Bible as being opposed to gay marriage this necessarily affects the way you interpret facts. Those who don't share your faith will see those facts in a different light. Ideally each of us can learn to avoid judging the other for these differences.
your friend
Keith
How can we avoid judging when we are so harshly judged by them? They can't even comprehend just how they affect us. It's more than just a difference in opinion here, or Lawanda's "disapproval," it's our rights as equal citizens and even our lives at stake. I see no reason to be civil any longer.
I agree with you about the efficacy of biblical principles …, while Skeptic and Cin don't share our faith in those principles.
Yes, this is very true. But I am not unreasonable. I do understand that other people will not heed the biblical principles, because they are biblical principles. And so I also attempt to reason with people who do not share my faith in biblical principles using other principles that we can (or should be able to) agree on.
Since you read the Bible as being opposed to gay marriage this necessarily affects the way you interpret facts. Those who don't share your faith will see those facts in a different light.
I think if we can read the Bible we can agree on what it says. :)
I quoted to you what Jesus said about marriage. A rather important topic to people. Him included :) In his words:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
There you have Jesus opinion on what marriage is, and what it means to God. Now where is his rule for a man uniting with another man to be his… wife?
It says in the context "male and female", no-where can I find where it says anything about a man and a man, except where Apostle Paul condemns it in Romans as being vile. (And I could find where there are several other places he puts homosexual actions/associations in lists with other sins in the other epistles…)
Ideally each of us can learn to avoid judging the other for these differences.
I'd like to know what you mean by that before commenting :) But I will go ahead and say: I do not judge people to be inferior to me because they do things differently from me.
I am quite capable of judging whether an action is right before God, by looking into his word, however. And that is regardless of all the sins I commit. Which, I am sure you will believe me when I say they have been too many.
Lesbian Gangs
Hi Skeptic:
How can we avoid judging when we are so harshly judged by them? They can't even comprehend just how they affect us. It's more than just a difference in opinion here, or Lawanda's "disapproval," it's our rights as equal citizens and even our lives at stake. I see no reason to be civil any longer.
One reason to continue to be civil even if a person is threatening your rights as equal citizens is that being uncivil doesn't help you protect those rights. Incivility is just a specific form of violence, a particularly ineffective one at that, you energize his opposition to you, diverting their attention from the issue you disagree about toward the angry retaliation. On the other hand, if you remain civil you deprive your enemy of a significant source of the energy he uses to oppose you.
your Friend
Keith
Hi Lawanda:
You state a fact: Jesus said that when a man and woman are joined together in marriage they become one flesh. This statement doesn't say anything about same gender unions–it's not about that topic at all. The statement would not be contradicted by a claim that the same is true for same gender unions. This passage tells us nothing about Jesus' opinion of same gender unions.
Now the other passages usually marshalled against homosexual unions don't actually say "homosexual" because "homosexual" is an English word and the Bible wasn't written in English. There is no indication that the Greek word the New Testament actually used referred to covenantal, monogamous gay relationships, so yuo can't really use those passages to argue against such gay relationships either, IMO.
I do agree that we necessarily judge actions as morally right or wrong; too often we are tougher on the actions of our neighbors than we are on our own. This is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught, of course.
your friend
keith
Now the other passages usually marshalled against homosexual unions don't actually say "homosexual" because "homosexual" is an English word and the Bible wasn't written in English. There is no indication that the Greek word the New Testament actually used referred to covenantal, monogamous gay relationships, so yuo can't really use those passages to argue against such gay relationships either, IMO.
Ok, I'd like to examine something, if you will.
In Romans 1, you have said that the fact that it obviously condemns "men with men" and "women with women" burning in their lusts toward one another holds no water (as it pertains to making homosexual acts an actual sin) because it is only condemning the idolatry involved and not the lustful actions of the participants.
Is that your view? After you answer I want to look at another scripture concerning Idolatry and compare them. I just want to be sure I understand your views on Romans 1, first.
Incivility is just a specific form of violence, a particularly ineffective one at that, you energize his opposition to you, diverting their attention from the issue you disagree about toward the angry retaliation. On the other hand, if you remain civil you deprive your enemy of a significant source of the energy he uses to oppose you.
Wise words Keith, thank you.
BTW skeptic, nice link on the invalidity of Wheeler’s claims about an epidemic of lesbian gangs. Still, they may be a little more prevalent than we know.
Good thing I didn’t quote Wheeler’s outrageously exaggerated stats, only the handful of stories i could find from news around the nation (though I did cite the O’Reilly Factor for bringing it to my attention.) Do I get a silver star for my honesty and careful reporting? ;)
BTW, the Wheeler article is sadly hilarious – quotes like this one are too funny, even if they may be true:
"These days, Wheeler is a "food defense specialist" for the American Institute of Baking. Just this spring, he publicly warned that the Big Mac is vulnerable to bioterrorist attacks at "250 points" during production."
Reason as a means to expand one’s knowledge works this way: you draw conclusions from what you already know to new knowledge.
Actually, I would say that the proper and complete use of reason in truth seeking involves a combination of induction and deduction – we must ask both “what have I already determined is true, and how does this fit in” as well as “what does the current data point to, regardless of my current framework of accepted truth.”
You state a fact: Jesus said that when a man and woman are joined together in marriage they become one flesh. This statement doesn’t say anything about same gender unions–it’s not about that topic at all. The statement would not be contradicted by a claim that the same is true for same gender unions. This passage tells us nothing about Jesus’ opinion of same gender unions.
What about my points that Jesus supported the OT law, and that he never mentioned a lot of sins from the OT? He never repudiated the moral law. It is much more likely that he opposed such unions than accepted them – unless you believe your next point, which puts you FAR out in left field, imo.
Now the other passages usually marshalled against homosexual unions don’t actually say “homosexual” because “homosexual” is an English word and the Bible wasn’t written in English.
To me, this is one of the most dishonest and blindingly sophistic arguments to try to make the bible not condemn homosexuality. How much more clear could it be than both OT and NT
Notice, it doesn’t use the word homosexual at all. It just defines the action. Also note, no mention of pagan ritual. This is a blanket condemnation of male homosexual sex. Why is lesbianism not mentioned? Should be self-explanatory.
Also, in Romans 1, Paul didn’t use the word homosexual, but defined the abomination clearly:
Again, no mention of pederasty or boys, and no mention if ritual or prostitution. Just a desccription of same sex coitus, clearly condemned. Now, if you retort that in the larger context of Romans 1, they are discussing what the pagans do in rejecting God, I have already answered that objection. While such thins are alluded to in Romans 1, the condemnation of homosexuality has no such delimiters around it, and the staightforward interperation is clearly against all forms of same sex sex.
There is no indication that the Greek word the New Testament actually used referred to covenantal, monogamous gay relationships, so yuo can’t really use those passages to argue against such gay relationships either, IMO.
The bible never mentions “monogamous gay relationships” because there is no need to separate them from any other kind of gay relationship that is condemned. Taking a debased and perverse (Paul’s words) approach to human sexuality is not made moral by doing it with only one person. The whole line of thinking that says that the bible writers were less enlightened and didn’t have the benefit of understanding such perversions is ridiculous. It’s like saying “they didn’t understand the insanity defense, so murder is OK.” Condemning the action is enough, esp. when it is reperhensible under all situations.
How much clearer must it be? It’s like you miss the obvious, and then make arguments from the lack of information you now have to make homosexuality OK, biblically speaking.
And as to the meaning of the Greek word in the NT commonly translated “homosexual” (or less accurately, “Sodomite”), the Greek word is made from the two words meaning male (arsinos) and coitus (koitos). Get it? Same sex intercourse.
Now, why doens’t it go into motive, or other features of same sex attraction? Because it does not matter what your motive is. The action is universally condemned, just like for adultery or fornication. Interestingly, it also mentions that “the effeminate” will not inherit the KOG. I’ll have to look up how gay revisionists massacre that one too. Probably try to make it mean “pagan ritual blah blah” – but maybe that’s a reference to transvestites.
Hi Lawanda:
You accuse me of presenting a dishonest argument. That's an outrageous charge, as I believe the argument I made is perfectly sound. I think you are ignoring the context in which the original Greek text was written, importing into the text your present day assumptions about what words mean. You may think my argument is ridiculous but you have no basis for calling it dishonest.
You wrote:
What about my points that Jesus supported the OT law, and that he never mentioned a lot of sins from the OT? He never repudiated the moral law. It is much more likely that he opposed such unions than accepted them – unless you believe your next point, which puts you FAR out in left field, imo.
Since I made the next point you just mentioned you ought to assume I believe it. You claimed a particular passage as evidence about what Jesus thought about same sex relationships. But that passage doesn't support your point at all, your argument needed to come from other passages. You make just such an argument above, but you concede the issue comes down to my "left field" claim. That's where we should focus.
How the OT passages ought to be interpreted is questionable as quite a few web sites have argued. I'l just point out the thing that so many others have pointed out, namely that the OT also weirdly prohibited all kinds of things (touching a woman during her period, wearing clothes of mixed fabrics etc.). I'd assume that there was a context in which those laws made sense and the same thing is likely true for laws against men lying with "a male as with a woman…". I see no reason to think that this context included covenantal gay relationships.
For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1)
In Romans Paul wasn't informing people what was sinful, he was explaining the cause of sin, using specific sins as examples of what happens when people fall into idolotry. So again, the context if what matters. As I understand it the Romans had a rather hedonistic view of sex, orgies and the like, and that homosexual sex was a common indulgence. So it seems quite reasonable to assume that when Paul and his readers thought about homosexuality they were thinking about that kind of hedonistic sexual activity. There is no indication that they ever considered covenantal gay relationships at all. Paul's comments seem to be considering sex that had nothing to do with an expression of love. If so then the passage doesn't support a universal opposition to gay relationships.
You argue that the word commonly translated as "homosexual" is formed by the root words for "male" and "coitus". Fine but if in the society all the examples of gay sex were the kind of hedonistic acts I referred to above you wouldn't expect anything different. For example: my wife's mom makee terrible spaghetti. If my wife had only eaten her spaghetti she would probably conclude that "spaghetti tastes awful". But not that's not true for ALL spaghetti, her universal statement wasn't REALLY universally true.
BTW I just noticed you asked me a question about Romans 1. You asked if I thought the Romans passage was only condemning the idolotry. That's not my view. IMO Romans list some things that Paul and his readers took for granted were sins, and that Romans 1 explains why it is that people did them. What I question is whether covenantal gay relationships are in fact sins. I don't believe the passage says so, and I don't believe it is a valid inference. But for the sake of full disclosure, I also don't believe we can properly assume the Bible is inerrant–it could be that Paul would have indeed counted covenantal gay relationships as sins, mistakenly so.
your friend
keith
BTW, one of the best summaries of the pro-gay exegesis of scripture is the concise What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.
I have to admit that it is nearly impossible for me to not despise such arguments, mostly because I perceive them as justifying sin by abusing scripture, which, if that is what they are doing, is a serious offense.
It is a convincing bit of sophistry if you are of a mind to contort the scriptures to not condemn homosexuality. But I think those who want to force Christianity (and Judaism) to be neutral to homosexuality by claiming that it only condemns ritual hx or orgies or pederasty, are in grave error.
Their method, as I see it, is to abuse the rules of hermeneutics. In some cases, they abuse the principle of interpretation within cultural context, by making assumptions about how the author was addressing the cultural context, and by giving this hermeneutic more priority than the immediate context of the scriptures, and more than the immediate sense of the words themselves. Using this method, they explain away the clear sense of the scriptures.
In other cases, they abuse another valid hermeneutic, which is to compare word usage in the contested passage with it's use elsewhere in scripture. While this is normally valid, when you use this to override the clear meaning of the immediate context and words, or you select non-similar uses of the word to justify your interpretation, I think you err.
What is really too bad is that the progay exegesis of these passages are esoteric enough that unsophisticated bible interpreters and laypeople may believe that the scriptures are unclear on these issues, or even be convinced by such justification of sexual sin.
But for the sake of full disclosure, I also don’t believe we can properly assume the Bible is inerrant–it could be that Paul would have indeed counted covenantal gay relationships as sins, mistakenly so.
I am not surprised, though my own understanding of scripture is something less than plenary inspiration. You would probably enjoy Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy by Catholic theologian Henry E. Neufeld.
Who cares what the Bible says? Non-Christians shouldn’t be subject to its primeval absurdities.
Hi Seeker:
Their method, as I see it, is to abuse the rules of hermeneutics. In some cases, they abuse the principle of interpretation within cultural context, by making assumptions about how the author was addressing the cultural context, and by giving this hermeneutic more priority than the immediate context of the scriptures, and more than the immediate sense of the words themselves. Using this method, they explain away the clear sense of the scriptures.
Principles of interpretation? The question is always, how do you figure out what the author intended when she wrote a given text. The “rules of hermeneutics” are somebody’s idea as to how best to accomplish the task. It is uncontroversial that what a text means is affected by the context in which is was written. This could easily be the case for biblical words which you take to apply to all homosexual activity and there is nothing illegitimate in raising those questions. You claim that such arguments conflict with the “clear sense” of scripture, but that’s question begging since just what Paul meant in the long ago past is exactly what the debate is about. When you say the “clear sense of scripture” what you mean is what you think the passage means based on what we mean today when we say “homosexual”.
It seems to me your “principles of interpretation” serve merely to reinforce your own presuppositions as to what’s right and wrong.
your friend
keith
You accuse me of presenting a dishonest argument.
First off Keith, let us get something straight. I never accused you of anything.
I was making sure I had my information correct about your argument. Hence the question mark at the end of the interrogative statement of “Is that your view”.
Now then:
You asked if I thought the Romans passage was only condemning the idolotry. That’s not my view.
Thank you for answering my question. :)
IMO Romans list some things that Paul and his readers took for granted were sins, and that Romans 1 explains why it is that people did them.
And if Paul thought they were sins, should we not as well?
What I question is whether covenantal gay relationships are in fact sins. I don’t believe the passage says so, and I don’t believe it is a valid inference.
Ok, here is the other passage about Idolatry that I wanted to bring up:
1 Corinthians 8
It is all about how the food offered to idols is just as good as the food not offered to idols.
Why would he condemn the sexual practices offered to idols, if they were fine in other situations?
But for the sake of full disclosure, I also don’t believe we can properly assume the Bible is inerrant–it could be that Paul would have indeed counted covenantal gay relationships as sins, mistakenly so.
I have said this before. If Paul was mistaken about which sins were actually sins, who can we trust to tell us what sin is?
It would be interesting to actually study the attitudes and practices the ancients had towards sexuality and then place the Bible's opinions in that factual context. Only then, I think, can one make sense of what Paul is up to and whether we should pay any attention to what he's saying. I see the problem as a clash between Hebrew and Greco-Roman cultures. Paul, the former arch-pharisee, is promulgating a new religion based on Judaism and is thus in conflict with the pagan culture surrounding him. He is also judging it based on his own (Hebraic) cultural assumptions and biases. The question is, why should we moderns be concerned with these ancient feuds? Taking Paul's opinions as holy writ is absurd on its face: why should we assume that he is being fair or anything but a subjective observer? And why should modern-day understanding based on knowledge gleaned from hundreds of years of investigation and study be subjected to one relatively ignorant man's opinions? It's just mindless.
It all boils down to religious belief, which is not incumbent on a reasonable observer to follow. Religions impose all sorts of idiotic ideas on their followers based on the unsupported assertions of various seers. I wish religious believers would be more skeptical of their faith's assertions, demanding evidence instead of belief.
Hi Lawanda:
Here is why I took you to be accusing me of making a dishonest argument. You wrote, in response to the argument I made:
To me, this is one of the most dishonest [emphasis mine] and blindingly sophistic arguments to try to make the bible not condemn homosexuality. How much more clear could it be than both OT and NT…
Anyway, to continue the debate:
IMO Romans list some things that Paul and his readers took for granted were sins, and that Romans 1 explains why it is that people did them.
And if Paul thought they were sins, should we not as well?
There are a couple of points to be made here:
1. I am not actually saying that the sins Paul listed are not sins; I am questioning whether the notion of covenantal gay relationships were even being considered in the passage. It could easily be that Paul and his readers took it for granted that homosexual sex was always associated with the hedonistic sex the Roman empire was famous for.
2. Why assume that Paul couldn’t have been mistaken about homosexual sex? Paul wasn’t infallible and even if you assume (as I don’t) that the Bible is inerrant, since the point of the passage wasn’t to convey moral facts but rather to explain a cause of immoral behavior, the passage makes no mistake so long as it’d explanation for sin is correct. You address this point in your post, so I’ll respond to it in a minute.
…Why would [Paul] condemn the sexual practices offered to idols, if they were fine in other situations?
The argument is about just what sexual practices Paul was condemning. I am questioning the idea that Paul was condemning covenantal gay relations–I am not arguing that there were conditoions where he accepted hedonistic, gay promiscuity. In fact, the passage seems to me to be about just that kind of hedonistic sex, with talk about shameful lusts.
But for the sake of full disclosure, I also don’t believe we can properly assume the Bible is inerrant–it could be that Paul would have indeed counted covenantal gay relationships as sins, mistakenly so.
I have said this before. If Paul was mistaken about which sins were actually sins, who can we trust to tell us what sin is?
This might pull the discussion into a different area, but I think your question is based on a mistaken way of reading the Bible. I don’t believe the Bible was intended to be an encyclopedia of moral facts, a reference book where we learn that X is immoral and Y is moral. I think the Bible is a pointer, it draws attention to moral issues that we might otherwise be willfully ignoring, but that we see ourselves the moral significance of the question we look at. The Bible is not then the moral authority–God is the moral authority. If the only reason you don’t do X is that you read it in the Bible, your refraining from X has no moral significance. It’s not until you see for yourself the wrongness of X does refraining from X become a moral act.
On a related topic, I would say having an infallible book doesn’t do you any good unless you know it’s infallible, so the question becomes how do you determine that a book is infallible?
I hope this last topic doesn’t get us even farther off track that the thing I wrote about the bible and moral facts:-)
your friend
keith
Oh Skeptic! You made a great point, and then you spoiled it all by saying …Religions impose all sorts of idiotic ideas on their followers based on the unsupported assertions of various seers… :-) I could just as easily say that your skepticism imposes on you the "idiotic idea" that the universe could even be absent a deity to bring it into being and sustain its existence. But like all deep metaphysical ideas, it isn't idiotic at all to believe such things, no matter how implausible they seem to others who don't share your intuitions.
your friend
Keith
Keith, I don't think it's idiotic to point out that all sorts of religions insist their followers believe in all sorts of idiotic ideas without evidence. For instance, some religions used to believe in human sacrifice. Some think that female and male genital mutilation is essential. Some modern-day religions insist that the entire Cosmos is less than ten thousands Earth-years old! Recently, the L.A. Times had an article about an Orthodox Jewish sect in Venice, CA, which wanted to place a red thread along the beach to its members could visit the ocean on the sabbath! Without that thread around a certain area they'd be breaking the sabbath by working. I maintain that monotheistic prohibitions against homosexuality are on a similar plane: leftovers from an ancient sect whose knowledge of human nature and the world was extremely limited. Paul, following his religious strictures, had no concept of a homosexual orientation nor an honorable homosexual relationship. It was all in violation of his sky-god's patriarchal commands and thus "sin." Where is his evidence for all this?
What I am saying is that we should demand evidence from those who make assertions based on religious thought rather than argue over arcane interpretations of their holy books. And I have a deep-seated distrust of other peoples' intuitions: who knows what nonsense they'll come with and then assert as truth? Hitler asserted his intuitions as true and inspired and we know what happened because of the credulity of his followers. Skepticism is a required tool when confronting the myriad assertions of the religiously inspired.
Hi Skeptic:
My objection is to your characterization of those religious beliefs as "idiotic". I am personally appalled by forced genital mutilation and such, and I consider them to be deeply contrary to what God wants. But there is nothing "idiotic" about those deeply flawed beliefs–intelligence has nothing to do with it.
I agree with you about trusting other people's intuitions but you necessarily depend on your own intuitions. If you didn't you'd never get beyond the "for all I know this whole thing might be a vivid dream" absolute skepticism. It wasn't the credulity of the supporters of nazism that produced the Holocaust, it was the content of nazi doctrine. If the nazis had been credulous pacifists the Holocaust would not have occurred. And it was the credulous belief in the power of human reason that allowed the USA to decide that fire bombing the hell out of Germany and Japan were acceptable ways to defend us from evil; that was our contribution to the hellishness of that war.
The bottom line is: there is no objective formula to govern our epistemology. We do the best we can, trusting our intuitions but still critically considering the possibility that we might be wrong. If after we critically examine things we still find our intuition pointing to something, we have no choice but to hang on to the belief. All attempts to create a set epistemological rules to govern our thinking are self-contradicting.
your friend
Keith
Sorry this is long, but hopefully not to difficult to read.
Here is why I took you to be accusing me of making a dishonest argument. You wrote, in response to the argument I made:
To me, this is one of the most dishonest [emphasis mine] and blindingly sophistic arguments to try to make the bible not condemn homosexuality. How much more clear could it be than both OT and NT…
I did not write that.
——————————————-
1. I am questioning whether the notion of covenantal gay relationships were even being considered in the passage.
The notion of covental gay relationships is considered by Jesus when he does not even make a single mention of such a thing while he is relating his and God’s views on sexual relationships. He is the Son of God. If it was something humankind needed, I think he might have mentioned it as a good thing. Or at least mentioned the possibility of such a situation.
Do you not think so?
It could easily be that Paul and his readers took it for granted that homosexual sex was always associated with the hedonistic sex the Roman empire was famous for.
And we are quite famous for that as well.
I personally do not see any difference between hetero and homo promiscuity. Both are damaging.
As of yet, however, I have not met a monogamous gay couple. I have met some who attempted it, yes. But as far as I could tell, it never worked. And I think it is because of the nature of the relationship is not based on any underlying biological connection, in part. That is just an opinion of mine.
I am questioning the idea that Paul was condemning covenantal gay relations–I am not arguing that there were conditoions where he accepted hedonistic, gay promiscuity.
But where in the Bible is the justification for such covenant relationships? Where is the justification for even thinking of trying it?
To begin with, you have to think about how one might find that they are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that it takes encouragement for common sexual thoughts to become uncommon actions. And I think that encouragement comes from our rather “hedonistic” society and the way we not only embrace homosexuality as normal, but encourage young people to think it is “cool”.
Once one finally decides he cannot ever have a covenant relationship (marriage) with one of the opposite sex, that person must then go out in search of another such person as himself. They must enter the “gay culture” in order to find such a person.
I believe you could in no way say that the gay culture in general is truly moral.
In fact, the passage seems to me to be about just that kind of hedonistic sex, with talk about shameful lusts.
Jesus said anytime you lust after someone you are not married to it is shameful. Not that people won’t lust, but he apparently thinks we should be able to get control of ourselves before we go to far in our lusts.
I don’t believe the Bible was intended to be an encyclopedia of moral facts, a reference book where we learn that X is immoral and Y is moral. I think the Bible is a pointer, it draws attention to moral issues that we might otherwise be willfully ignoring, but that we see ourselves the moral significance of the question we look at.
I think we need to be taught to be moral. If we have parents who do not read the Bible, or if we do not have someone to teach us what the Bible says concerning our actions toward others (morality) we will not automatically fall into biblically principled living.
How can we willfully ignore something if we are not aware of its even being there? How can we be aware that God might want us to live differently than how we feel like living, if we do not have a frame of “reference” to his thoughts on the matter?
If it was not intended to be a reference book on morality then why such language as –
Luke 10:37 “Go and do the same.” (as the Good Samaritan)
Luke 5:32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 6:27 “do good”
?
And that is a minor sample of the “commanding” language of the bible.
I mean, I agree that the Bible is MUCH more than *just* an encyclopedia of morality….but….
By saying it is not a reference book of what is and is not moral, but a pointer only instead, you seem to be saying that it is not a necessity.
I say it is a necessity.
The Bible is not then the moral authority–God is the moral authority.
It is the only way we have God’s thoughts on things, and as such we should pay attention when he mentions something as good or profitable; or fails to do so.
If the only reason you don’t do X is that you read it in the Bible, your refraining from X has no moral significance. It’s not until you see for yourself the wrongness of X does refraining from X become a moral act.
If the only reason you refrain from doing X is because your parents tell you not to, you are still being obedient to them. Same with God.
If you thoroughly study the Bible, it gives plenty of wise words and advice and reasons WHY things are wrong, in addition to merely saying “these actions are wrong, don’t do them.”
I am of the opinion that when we sin, and must face the consequences, we are learning why God says not to do whatever it was we just did. And if we are not wise enough to know that if it is in the Bible as something to refrain from, it most likely will have some repercussions, then we are not going to be wise enough to pay any attention to much of the Bible anyway.
On Bible infallibility, I’d say that we probably have to have some degree of Faith mixed in there somewhere, wouldn’t we? ;)
But also, I think contextual evidence for most anything that is questionable (meaning whether it agrees with the rest of the Bible, etc) is sufficient to answer to whether or not I should pay attention to what Paul calls sin. :)
Who cares what the Bible says? Non-Christians shouldn't be subject to its primeval absurdities.
There are three lines of discussion going on here. One is, "does the bible condemn homosexuality." You are free to ignore these comments.
A second is, "is homosexuality immoral or unhealthy?"
A third is, "how should legislation treat homosexuality?"
So, to answer your question, nobody cares if you don't care about what the bible says, but we discuss it for those who do care. You are free to chime in on either of the second two points.
You claim that such arguments conflict with the "clear sense" of scripture, but that's question begging
No, I am saying that they are abusing one hermeneutical principle, and allowing that abusive interpretation to take precedence over the more straightforward interpretation, which is using a different principle.
In fact, there are many valid principles for determining the meaning of scripture, including interpreting within:
– literary type
– immediate context
– larger context of the book and of all scripture
– original linguistic usage
– original historic context
So what I am saying is that progay theologians make some assumptions and use the historical context to make the scriptures say one thing, when the clear immediate context, not to mention the whole of scripture, disagrees with such an interpretation.
There is no indication that the Greek word the New Testament actually used referred to covenantal, monogamous gay relationships, so yuo can't really use those passages to argue against such gay relationships either, IMO.
Let me repeat, the more likely reason that the bible never mentions "monogamous gay relationships" is NOT because it forgot, but because there is no need to separate them from any other kind of gay relationship that is condemned. Because it was understood that ALL homosexuality was sinful, regardless of monogamy or motive.
Taking a debased and perverse (Paul's words) approach to human sexuality is not made moral by doing it with only one person.
Hi Seeker:
Let me repeat, the more likely reason that the bible never mentions "monogamous gay relationships" is NOT because it forgot, but because there is no need to separate them from any other kind of gay relationship that is condemned. Because it was understood that ALL homosexuality was sinful, regardless of monogamy or motive.
I never suggested the Bible forgot anything. It's actually impossible for the Bible to forget since the Bible isn't a sentient being. I suggested that when Paul and his audience thought about same-gender sex they weren't even considering covenantal gay sex–they were presupposing hedonistic promiscuous sex. You claim that most likely they didn't mention it for the reason YOU give; perhaps you can explain why you think your interpretation is more plausible than the possibility I mentioned.
your friend
Keith
I agree with Lawanda to the extent that this is mostly an argument between Christians. However, as they outnumber non-Christians in America, they have an effect on the rest of us. Since religious assumptions lie at the base of most homophobia, it is a matter of interest what Christians think and how they interpret their sacred texts. I've tried to address this above in two long, serious posts.
Okay, so I'm not even going to try and follow this. It's getting really ridiculous, and I just don't have time to try. Thanks for listening to my opinions, and good luck with whatever you do. :]
If you want to e-mail me, my e-mail is tori.cuteface@gmail.com and the site I'm on the most (that's my account for my art work and literary works) is http://evanescere.deviantart.com. Don't be afraid to contact me, I like discussing this sort of stuff! Haha
Thank you again,
Tor
Hi Lawanda:
I stand corrected about “dishonest argument” thing; it wasn’t you who said that–I didn’t read the names carefully enough. Oops:-(
Anyway, The notion of covental gay relationships is considered by Jesus when he does not even make a single mention of such a thing while he is relating his and God’s views on sexual relationships. He is the Son of God. If it was something humankind needed, I think he might have mentioned it as a good thing. Or at least mentioned the possibility of such a situation.
Do you not think so?
I don’t think we are in a position to say what Jesus should have said. Gay sex wasn’t the topic he was talking about in the passage you cited, that’s all I’d say.
As of yet, however, I have not met a monogamous gay couple. I have met some who attempted it, yes. But as far as I could tell, it never worked. And I think it is because of the nature of the relationship is not based on any underlying biological connection, in part. That is just an opinion of mine.
I have. I don’t have many gay friends (at least not that have come out to me) but the only gay couple I know–a lesbian couple with oodles of kids from previous hetero marriages–have been together exclusively for longer than the 15 years I’ve known them. Their relationship is more stable that a lot of hetero marriages I know.
I have to wonder how much more committed gay relationships would if there existed more societal structures (gay marriage for example) to support them.
But where in the Bible is the justification for such covenant relationships? Where is the justification for even thinking of trying it?
The Bible doesn’t mention lots of things that are OK. For example, the Bible doesn’t mention intentionally walking Barry Bonds and yet there is nothing wrong with that either. The bible gives us a way to figure these things out–love God with all you’ve got and love your neighbor as yourself–and as far as I can see it is unloving to interfere with the formation of CGRs. I wouldn’t like it at all if someone had prevented me from marrying my wife and I see no justification in my preventing my lesbian friends from their union either.
To begin with, you have to think about how one might find that they are attracted to the same sex. I personally believe that it takes encouragement for common sexual thoughts to become uncommon actions. And I think that encouragement comes from our rather “hedonistic” society and the way we not only embrace homosexuality as normal, but encourage young people to think it is “cool”.
Racists could make a similar argument against interracial marriage–our hedonistic society encourages the different races to indulge their lust and form abominable unions with people other than their own kind. IMO you don’t have heterosexuals choosing to become gay because it’s cool. What you have is the opposite: because of horrible bigotry and oppression you have some gay people who pretend to be straight. The idea that homosexuality is “cool” would eliminate that oppression.
I think we need to be taught to be moral. If we have parents who do not read the Bible, or if we do not have someone to teach us what the Bible says concerning our actions toward others (morality) we will not automatically fall into biblically principled living.
How can we willfully ignore something if we are not aware of its even being there? How can we be aware that God might want us to live differently than how we feel like living, if we do not have a frame of “reference” to his thoughts on the matter?
If it was not intended to be a reference book on morality then why such language as –
Luke 10:37 “Go and do the same.” (as the Good Samaritan)
Luke 5:32 “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 6:27 “do good”
?
And that is a minor sample of the “commanding” language of the bible.
I mean, I agree that the Bible is MUCH more than *just* an encyclopedia of morality….but….
By saying it is not a reference book of what is and is not moral, but a pointer only instead, you seem to be saying that it is not a necessity.
I say it is a necessity.
You raise a lot of points, let me comment:
1. I agree we have to be taught what’s moral, but the teaching is more like teaching math than like teaching the alphabet. A person hasn’t learned the math until she understands why things are as they are; it’s different from memorizing a bunch of facts. When a math book teaches a person how to think about the math, the book doesn’t need to be inerrant because the student who understands can tell when the book is mistaken, and if the student doesn’t understand, having the right answer doesn’t help.
2. I don’t agree that my view implies the Bible isn’t needed. We need the pointer IMO; without it we remain lost.
If the only reason you refrain from doing X is because your parents tell you not to, you are still being obedient to them. Same with God.
If you thoroughly study the Bible, it gives plenty of wise words and advice and reasons WHY things are wrong, in addition to merely saying “these actions are wrong, don’t do them.”
I agree with both comments above, but even obedience to God wouldn’t be moral unless you really get that we owe God obedience. As Paul wrote, all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for instruction. My point is that being inerrant isn’t necessary for it to satisfy those goals, and being inerrant would be useless unless we knew it was inerrant. I don’t see why anyone assumes it is.
your friend
Keith
I don’t think we are in a position to say what Jesus should have said.
I could not agree more.
Gay sex wasn’t the topic he was talking about in the passage you cited, that’s all I’d say.
And I agree with this. And this is particularly important because it is notable that when Jesus was addressing marriage and sex in general he left out homosexual sex in his description of marriage. Just as he excluded polygamy by saying “one”, he excluded homosexuality by saying “Man and Woman”. (Matthew 19:3-12) And divorce by saying “do not separate what God has joined.”
And by NOT addressing homosexual marriage, and instead saying at the end “and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” — he is saying that some will not be able to marry the way He and God have provided for us to do so.
And think about this also: every reference TO actual homosexual sex in the Bible, is negative. Can you find a positive one?
It is not like they did not know people did such things. They knew about homosexual sex. There are many references to homosexual acts in the Old Testament. None of them are positive either. God did not want the Jews to do it, for sure.
To me this is overwhelming evidence that God and Jesus do not approve of homosexual acts.
The Bible doesn’t mention lots of things that are OK.
This is true. But, if you use this reasoning, then Christians could be polygamous or serially monogamous (having a series of different monogamous relationships over your lifetime) – with as many wives as they wanted, as well. (See above)
You do have to look in the Bible and see how the words there relate to your everyday choices.
Who you have sex with is addressed many times in the Bible, though. You basically get the idea that you should be monogamous……And that you should be married, which Jesus said was male and female (hetero), the same male or female for your entire life (not divorcing).
Racists could make a similar argument against interracial marriage–our hedonistic society encourages the different races to indulge their lust and form abominable unions with people other than their own kind.
And we could say, using our sense of logic, and the very same scripture (Matthew 19); that God does not say anything about race. He specifically mentions gender, however.
And in other verses where race is mentioned it is basically saying that we are all alike, and race has nothing to do with anything. It is not an action you take. Being white or black is in no way a sin. It would not even be logical to say so.
IMO you don’t have heterosexuals choosing to become gay because it’s cool.
Then why is it that some of them end up being NOT gay after they are gay for a while? Or why some of them (you know a situation like this, you mentioned it) only start being gay after they have several children?? I know of people in both situations…
What you have is the opposite: because of horrible bigotry and oppression you have some gay people who pretend to be straight. The idea that homosexuality is “cool” would eliminate that oppression.
That it is “cool” HAS lifted the oppression of such actions being thought of as “not good”… Hence the reason we are even debating it!
Can you not really see that the opposite is more likely to be true? Can you not honestly see that there are people (many) in this country pretending to be gay?
Maybe they wouldn’t call it pretending, but I know lots of people who went through a “gay” phase. Quite similar to their “drunk” phase, actually.
Think about that situation: the alcoholic.
Some people are truly alcoholics, and admit it.
Some people are pretending to NOT be alcoholics, who actually are.
Some people are pretending to be alcoholics (partiers), who actually aren’t.
So maybe the true alcoholics need help. But they enjoy their lifestyle too much and prefer to stay an alcoholic. Does that make it ok in God’s eyes? should we not try to help them, because it makes them happy to be drunk?
I am not saying that there are not people out there who are really only sexually attracted to the same sex.
BUT
What I am saying is *that* (being attracted to the same sex) is their temptation. Which is why the last part of Jesus’ thoughts on marriage is so important.
We each have our temptations, the things we lust after or covet. Does that mean that we should each be able to give in to them? Temptations are not things that look bad to us. On the contrary, they are things that look like they will make us “happier”.
God will lift those from us, when we go to heaven. And he even provides a way to help us on earth, by joining him in his kingdom…And fighting our own lusts.
We are not fighting anything else (or if we are we shouldn’t be) but our own sins. However, we need help to do it. We need to encourage each other to do right.
If I do not say these things, perhaps nobody will ever think about it, and go on ignorantly in their lusts as before.
If I do say these things, yes, they will not like me. They may even hate me. But I have told them what God said, when I quote his book.
Lawanda illustrates the unbelievable arrogance of Christians. For instance,
To me this is overwhelming evidence that God and Jesus do not approve of homosexual acts.
Maybe they wouldn't call it pretending, but I know lots of people who went through a "gay" phase. Quite similar to their "drunk" phase, actually.
If I do not say these things, perhaps nobody will ever think about it, and go on ignorantly in their lusts as before.
If I do say these things, yes, they will not like me. They may even hate me. But I have told them what God said, when I quote his book.
It seems amazing to me that anyone could claim to know conclusively what God thinks. I would advise them to qualify their remarks by saying that's its merely their interpretation of God's will, or their particularly brand of Christianity's interpretation. Otherwise, it's hubristic to claim to know the mind of God (like an ant could claim to know the mind of a man, only worse). And, Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality.
Also, it's highly offensive to compare homosexuality with alcoholism. I could compare Christian belief with alcoholism to similar effect. Why not? Both seem highly dysfunctional and delusional, and exhibit characteristics of addiction. Lawanda can't understand why she comes off as hateful and why she attracts criticism, but here's a perfect example. If she attracts hatred it's entirely her own fault.
Hi Lawanda:
1. I don't find your argument about what Jesus *didn't* mention to be persuasive.
2. In our discussion you asked me where the Bible *supported* covenantal gay relationships (CGRs from here on); as far as I know there is no such positive support. When I noted that there are lots of OK things the Bible is silent about, you countered that
"if you use this reasoning, then Christians could be polygamous or serially monogamous."
I'd say, not really. I didn't argue that because the Bible is silent on CGRs therefore CGRs are OK; my point was the Bible doesn't say anything against them and thus cannot be used to oppose them. Your position depends on the notion that when the bible speaks about same-gender sex it was meant to apply to ALL same-gender sex in all circumstances. My argument is that the references are all in the context of hedonistic sex, not covenantal sex.
You say that the folks in bible times knew about homosexuality, seeming to say that my argument assumes they didn't. But it's obvious that the bible's authors knew about acts of homosexual sex–what I am questioning is whether or not the category CGR existed back then. I suggest it didn't; I suggest that the bible's authors didn't even consider such a thing. Thus, there condemnation was toward something that is categorically different from CGRs.
3. Then why is it that some of them end up being NOT gay after they are gay for a while? Or why some of them (you know a situation like this, you mentioned it) only start being gay after they have several children?? I know of people in both situations…
I am skeptical that such ever happens. A person who was essentially bisexual might interpret her same-gender attraction as pure homosexuality for awhile, and then because of anti-gay prejudice find it easier to limit her sexuality toward the opposite sex. Such a person might appear to be a person who was gay for awhile. Or (more commonly I expect) a gay person could react to homophobia by trying to be straight, have children, but in the end give up the game and be who she was from the beginning. This person could appear to be a person who "turned gay". I am very skeptical that a person's sexual orientation changes.
4. You offer an analogy between the gay person and the alcoholic. IMO the analogy is flawed because it presupposes that homosexuality is a pathology. I don't share that presupposition.
5. It seems to me that your bottom line position is that (a) the Bible condemns gay sex in all circumstances, that (b) the Bible is word for word what God wants to communicate to us about such things and that (c) given those two facts your love for your neighbor requires you to speak truth to power on the subject. My main disagreement with you is about (a) and (b). I don't think it is at all clear that the Bible condemns CGRs, and even if it does, I see no reason to assume the Bible is inerrant–I don't think that's how we ought to read the Bible.
your friend
Keith
Hi Skeptic:
Also, it's highly offensive to compare homosexuality with alcoholism. I could compare Christian belief with alcoholism to similar effect. Why not? Both seem highly dysfunctional and delusional, and exhibit characteristics of addiction. Lawanda can't understand why she comes off as hateful and why she attracts criticism, but here's a perfect example.
In fact, I suspect that most of us Christians are offended when atheists call us delusional. I know that Christopher Hitchens comes off as a hateful ass when he goes on his anti-theist rant, enough so that even secularists have criticized his brand of "new atheism". But what he writes isn't very much different from the right wing comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism, pedaphelia, or beastiality.
your friend
Keith
I think Christendom has invited this level of counter-attack. It has become so arrogant and overbearing in recent years that it's high time for a take-down. I, myself, think that there are branches of Christianity that aren't evil (your Quakers, most North American Episcopalians, for example), but the rest deserve all they get. I really can't blame secularists and non-Christians for dismissing most of Christianity, both on historical and philosophical grounds. Hitch may go too far, but it is a necessary corrective to religion's arrogant and threatening expansion.
Hi Keith :)
My argument is that the references are all in the context of hedonistic sex, not covenantal sex.
Christ said that the marriage covenant was between a man and a woman, for the duration of each one's life, and they were not to have sex with anyone else. You do not necessarily have to take even that passage word for word, but when you read it, you know what marriage meant to Jesus, and therefore to God as well.
I think what I am trying to persuade you to with this is that: In God's eyes there must not be any covenant sexual relationship, other than between a man and a woman. Or he would have provided it in his thoughts on marriage…
Because while you may say that Paul had no idea of there being such a thing in existence, I would assume Jesus would know. And I do not understand why he would not SAY SOMETHING about it to SOME ONE, if such a thing did exist. Because he DID say he came to help us sinners into heaven…. And we cannot know what to do, unless he tells us, or "points" the way :)
You offer an analogy between the gay person and the alcoholic. IMO the analogy is flawed because it presupposes that homosexuality is a pathology. I don't share that presupposition.
I think it is a decent analogy as far as I took it… Sex is a part of MANY pathologies. And there are sexual pathologies, even though you would not consider being gay as one of them… I think it very well CAN be…
My point is though, that for most people it is not… It is something they are just doing for experimentation or temporary pleasure. And the result is usually a return (or a try at first) to "normal" sexual activities within their lifetime….
It seems to me that your bottom line position is that (a) the Bible condemns gay sex in all circumstances, that (b) the Bible is word for word what God wants to communicate to us about such things and that (c) given those two facts your love for your neighbor requires you to speak truth to power on the subject.
I'd say that is pretty spot on ;) But even allowing for inaccuracy in one part (where you would say that Paul is wrong because he does not know of a good kind of homosexual relationship), I think it is shown that God wants men to marry women and not men – and vice versa – pretty consistently throughout the Bible.
I don’t know why, but I am constantly amazed at the misconceptions most people have about homosexuals. That they can so confidently speak about something of which they are so woefully ignorant speaks volumes, I think.
I do agree, however, with Lawanda’s evaluation of the Bible’s depiction of sexual relations. It’s obviously the product of the patriarchal Hebrew culture and thus heterocentric to an extreme. However, that is unimportant, except to the literalist and fundamentalist believers. Since all Christians ignore some parts of the Bible, I don’t think it’s any big deal to ignore this part as well. As civilized people, we no longer hold slaves nor consider women inferior to men, nor believe in the divine right of kings, nor in condemning human beings to an eternity of torture, so it’s an easy step to dismiss this ignorant and hateful homophobia as a primitive leftover of more backward times.
As civilized people, we no longer hold slaves nor consider women inferior to men, nor believe in the divine right of kings, nor in condemning human beings to an eternity of torture
The Bible does not tell us to do any of that, either.
:)
To Skeptic:
I agree with part of your point. I think the Old Testament is a product of the culture from which it arose and as such might be expected to contain some of the biases and prejudices of the people who wrote it. This is no way is inconsistent with the book being inspired by God. It could be that when God inspired the human authors of the Bible, this inspiration was filtered through fallen humanity and thus some of their faulty thinking and bigotries could there way into the text. Obviously and omnipotent deity could have caused an inerrant book to be produced, but I see no reason to assume he did. Written language is often difficult to interpret, especially when translated from one language to another, or from one time and culture to another, and if God had wanted to communicate a detailed set of facts he could have done it more efficiently than by having it written down in a book. I don’t think the bible is intended to be read as an encyclopedia of faith, I think reading it that way might be a form of idolotry.
I think you and Lawanda both miss this interpretive difficulty though when you agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality in all circumstances. You have both read my arguments so I won’t bore you by repeating them. I’ll just repeat my conclusion: I think you two might be stripping the gay stuff from it’s cultural context and importing present day meaning into ancient language.
To Lawanda:
I just don’t agree with your reading of Jesus’ comments about marriage. I do not agree that because Jesus didn’t mention the then socially impossible CGR that therefore he was saying that they were wrong. And I must add that IMO such an interpretation is quite a weak reed to use to support an explicit condemnation of CGRs. This is the kind of argument slave holders used to justify slavery–Jesus never condemned it so he must have approved. But Jesus never approved slavery either–he took it as a social given at the time and explicitly condemning it arguably would have been a distraction from his mission.
your friend
Keith
I do not agree that because Jesus didn't mention the then socially impossible CGR that therefore he was saying that they were wrong.
Socially impossible?
Have you read up on ancient Greek culture lately?
Homosexual relationships were very in vogue during the time of Ancient Greece. They were socially accepted; they were encouraged as moral. Especially pederasty. Look it up in Wiki. Very educational concerning the Ancient Greeks' (and China's!) views on homosexual covenants.
Pederasty was so common that they had to pass laws about it. The relationships were sanctioned by the state. They had to be approved by the boy's father… (sound familiar? like marriage almost?)
Why would you think covenant gay relationships to be "socially impossible" in ancient times more than now?
I know everyone thinks we are so enlightened in modern times, but we have the same old problems we've always had since Adam and Eve figured out what it meant to be naked. And God has always addressed them.
And that is why I do not know why Jesus would never mention it, if it were ok with him for homosexuals to enter covenant relationships. People were doing it at the time, and it was even legalized. (it is possibly what Paul was even referring to, come to think of it… since a marriage is a religious practice!)
Jesus knows all about everything, why would he not give those people who are struggling with this (you all like to point out their struggles, and I know they do) some kind of encouragement, if he did not see anything wrong with it… Like he did with people who ate meat offered to idols? He told them THAT was ok…
You know, Jesus did not mention pornography specifically, either. But is it not pretty plain that it is wrong from the stuff Jesus does mention? (And don't think it was "socially impossible" either! They may not have had cameras, but they drew plenty of it!)
I honestly do not think I could ever tell someone who was wanting to justify looking at porn that it was ok, because Jesus never said not to. But he covered it, imo, when he talks of lust and fornication. Just like he covers marriage.
And I could not say to a person who wanted to enter a covenant relationship with one of the same sex that Jesus approves and will overlook the homosexual acts that they will commit on entering that relationship, just because they promise (make a covenant) to not have any other sexual relations with anyone else.
What really gets me, is if you ARE wrong, you are encouraging people to do that. And if you ARE wrong, what about their souls?
If I am wrong, I at least have some justification for saying to someone "You need to try to overcome your lusts before they manifest into actions" Because Jesus says so. He says there are men who will have to renounce marriage for his kingdom's sake.
I just think you need to examine your motives. I do not mean to say that you are purposely trying to lead people away from God's words. I know you mean very well. You are one of the nicest politest people I have ever debated with :)
But it does seem that in order to justify something that our culture is justifying, you are going a bit out of your way to ignore the negative God consistently puts on any homosexual act.
It is perfectly understandable to want people to be happy and be able to fulfill their sexual desires. I personally know that it is not easy to keep yourself in control when it comes to sexual desires. That is pretty much how we all are, isn't it? Which is why God gave us words of wisdom concerning sexual desires.
But like I said before everything that makes US happy does NOT make God and Jesus happy. And you can see that God wants us to control our sexual thoughts and actions if you read the Bible, even if you just read the Gospels he gives you plenty of guidelines as to what HE thinks is appropriate sexual desires and actions. And homosexuality is not in the appropriate category that I can find anywhere.
Keith, I understand your point. It just seems that you have to tie yourself in knots to get where you want to go. It seems to me that if God wants to communicate His desires effectively He should just do it and quit hiding! I mean, where is He anyway? He "inspired" a bunch of sheepherders 2 or 3 thousand years ago and let it go at that. We have to somehow figure out what He meant from this weird text. I mean, just look at Lawanda as one result of this, assuming she knows the mind of God because of words written down by a totally alien culture millennia past and thus feeling justified in sitting in judgment over the rest of us. When I read you two, I just want to laugh and through up my hands. Who needs it? I prefer studying the totality of human history, literature, philosophy, and artistic endeavor. Much, MUCH better sources for understanding life than the ill-informed, ill-written, speculations of a bunch of Hebrew ideologues!
Lawanda does make a good point, however unwittingly: other cultures – far more advanced than our Palestinian sheepherders – regarded homosexuality as merely a variation on human sexuality and made room for it in their societies. She may, in her parochial way, disapprove, but so what? Christianity isn't the end all and be all of human history, and I see no reason to subject myself to its superstitions.
I prefer studying the totality of human history, literature, philosophy, and artistic endeavor. Much, MUCH better sources for understanding life than the ill-informed, ill-written, speculations of a bunch of Hebrew ideologues!
I would say that you could not study the totality of human history without written words.
I enjoy studying the whole of human history too. I just include the Bible in "literature, philosophy, and artistic endeavor" rather than believing it to be "ill-informed, ill-written, speculations of a bunch of Hebrew ideologues"….
Hi Skeptic:
If God exists then the fact that God doesn't make his desires undeniably obvious to every person must mean that he doesn't think that's best. It must mean that realizing the purpose of our life requires the degree of ambiguity that obtains in the actual world. IMO that's why the Bible is the way it is.
your friend
Keith
Hi Lawanda:
Homosexual relationships were very in vogue during the time of Ancient Greece. They were socially accepted; they were encouraged as moral. Especially pederasty. Look it up in Wiki. Very educational concerning the Ancient Greeks' (and China's!) views on homosexual covenants.
Pederasty was so common that they had to pass laws about it. The relationships were sanctioned by the state. They had to be approved by the boy's father… (sound familiar? like marriage almost?)
Why would you think covenant gay relationships to be "socially impossible" in ancient times more than now?
Pederasty is a perfect example. Such sexual relationships are inherently exploitative (like polygamous relationships in my opinion) and as such are not covenantal. But aside from that, when the question is what Paul meant by the sexual relationships he condemned, it sure seems like he was talking about hedonistic relationships, not covenantal, loving relationships.
You repeat your argument that Jesus would surely have mentioned CGRs had they been acceptable. But what is your response to my observation about slavery? I'm sure you agree that slavery is wrong, but Jesus never taught against owning slaves. He didn't sanction slavery either, it should be noted, but IMO the fact that he didn't teach against an obvious evil is evidence against using what Jesus didn't say as evidence that he in fact believed the opposite. Failing to say that something is right doesn't imply that Jesus thought the something was wrong, as far as I can tell.
…But it does seem that in order to justify something that our culture is justifying, you are going a bit out of your way to ignore the negative God consistently puts on any homosexual act.
On the contrary, I believe I am faithfully trying to follow what God wants. I don't believe we should read the Bible as a moral encyclopedia, I don't assume the Bible is inerrant, so even if the Bible did clearly come out against CGRs, IMO we'd still have to consider the possibility that the Bible was wrong. But I am not at all sure that the Bible does condemn CGRs, so I believe that what I should do is let compassion be the default. I agree that not everything that brings us pleasure is good for us, but I see no essential difference between the loving relationship my lesbian friends have and the loving relationship my wife and I share. For me to condemn relationships like theirs seems just plain immoral to me.
your friend
keith
He didn’t sanction slavery
And that is enough.
Did Jesus say some people on this Earth would be slaves? He did. He said pretty much “rise above” the temptation to hate your master, if you happen to be in that situation. We all suffer the consequences when others are doing bad things… like slavery.
I do not recall Him saying that you had to remain a slave if you had the chance not to, though. And I do recall that He was very pro – releasing slaves (Well, if you can consider Paul to be right about that in the book of Philemon), or treating them like they are your neighbor/brother.
He also says there are some who will be in the situation where they should “renounce marriage” or not marry; that is, if they happen to be in a situation where they are not attracted to the opposite sex. (Look up information on the word “eunuch” if you don’t think that is what he is referring to.)
I don’t believe we should read the Bible as a moral encyclopedia, I don’t assume the Bible is inerrant, so even if the Bible did clearly come out against CGRs, IMO we’d still have to consider the possibility that the Bible was wrong.
Well, in that case we have nothing to discuss concerning the Bible. I view it as a book God had written, so that we can know his mind and opinions on how we should handle things in our daily lives and over our lifetimes.
But if you are going to say something is ok, regardless of what the Bible says about it, then there is nothing further to say. Because you obviously do not think the Bible is God’s words to us, if you think it is not to be trusted.
Although it seems very contradictory to always be saying we should try to be like Jesus and that Jesus says to love your neighbor when, within your theory of the Bible being subject to errors, he quite possibly did not say that. I am sure Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John could be wrong about that just as conceivably as Paul (or them) being wrong about homosexuality.
If you pick and choose only the parts you agree with to be considered “not wrong” then there will be no consistent way to discuss any of the contents of the Bible.
The Bible may have a few grammatical errors or some inconsistencies here and there, but that is to be expected with any book translated from another language. I think it is very easy to find them and adjust them in accordance with the rest of the text. Which is how you would treat any other book, naturally.
Over all it is really an amazing book, and very consistent, especially when you consider how many authors contributed and over the time period they did it…
And it is better literature than almost any other book, too. Of course that is just my opinion ;)
Hi Lawanda:
Having done the gay thing to death, I want to continue this discussion on the Bible:
You wrote:
I don't believe we should read the Bible as a moral encyclopedia, I don't assume the Bible is inerrant, so even if the Bible did clearly come out against CGRs, IMO we'd still have to consider the possibility that the Bible was wrong.
Well, in that case we have nothing to discuss concerning the Bible. I view it as a book God had written, so that we can know his mind and opinions on how we should handle things in our daily lives and over our lifetimes.
But if you are going to say something is ok, regardless of what the Bible says about it, then there is nothing further to say. Because you obviously do not think the Bible is God's words to us, if you think it is not to be trusted.
I wouldn't quite say the Bible isn't to be trusted. I see the Bible as similar to a math text. From a math book you learn how to think about math. And inasmuch as you know how to think about math you can detect math errors in the math book when you encounter them. I'd say the same is true about the Bible.
Although it seems very contradictory to always be saying we should try to be like Jesus and that Jesus says to love your neighbor when, within your theory of the Bible being subject to errors, he quite possibly did not say that. I am sure Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John could be wrong about that just as conceivably as Paul (or them) being wrong about homosexuality.
It seems to me considerably less likely that the entire Gospel picture of Jesus is wrong than that some specific claims in the Bible are wrong. I see "love your neighbor" as being common to everything Jesus is described as teaching. But more importantly, the very thing that convinced me that Jesus is Lord convinces me that the Bible accurately portrays Jesus as teaching us to love our neighbors. I wasn't convinced that Jesus is Lord simply because it's written in a book. Nobody is convinced that way, I'd say.
If you pick and choose only the parts you agree with to be considered "not wrong" then there will be no consistent way to discuss any of the contents of the Bible.
I think there's still some room for discussion even if I don't think the Bible is inerrant. But as a matter of fact, everyone "picks" and "chooses" what they consider to be true–obviously you don't believe anything you think is false!:-). IMO Inerrantists are no less "guilty" of this than the most liberal of liberal theologists–inerrantists are just forced to argue that their pet doctrine is just what the Bible teaches.
The Bible may have a few grammatical errors or some inconsistencies here and there, but that is to be expected with any book translated from another language. I think it is very easy to find them and adjust them in accordance with the rest of the text. Which is how you would treat any other book, naturally.
Such inconsistencies are also to be expected with any book produced by human beings. An infallible deity could surely produce a book without any errors, including inconsistencies and grammar mistakes. You concede the Bible isn't such a bookwhich is to say that you concede that somewhere during the writing/translation of the Bible, human error crept in. That's all I'm saying.
Over all it is really an amazing book, and very consistent, especially when you consider how many authors contributed and over the time period they did it…
And it is better literature than almost any other book, too. Of course that is just my opinion ;)
I find the Bible to be amazing as well; IMO it has guided me to much better understanding of my life, and even more important it guided me to my Lord.
your friend
Keith
If God exists then the fact that God doesn't make his desires undeniably obvious to every person must mean that he doesn't think that's best.
One could also posit that this God has lost interest, fallen asleep, died, or doesn't exist. And look at all the damage the Bible has inflicted on mankind through its "ambiguity." Who needs it?
Hi Skeptic:
I don't agree that the Bible's ambiguity has inflicted any damage at all on humanity. It was people who inflicted the damage and there is no reason to think that with a less ambiguous Bible there wouldn't have at least as many people willing to inflict at least as much damage.
your friend
Keith
I can agree with you there: a more straightforward Bible would have been even more of a disaster than it already has been. (Kind of like the Koran.)
Hi Skeptic:
But you don't agree with me; the Bible hasn't been a disaster at all. People have been the disaster. Seriously Skeptic, I have found nothing but good from the Bible.
your friend
Keith
!
Then there's nothing more to be said.
I kind of agree w/ skeptic here, at least in saying that the bible is often ambiguous and unclear.
But we've got what we've got. Again, the question really should be "is it true?" not "do I like it?", even though the latter is a valid question.
obviously you don't believe anything you think is false!
Actually, I believe that I could be wrong on any thing. This is another reason I like to debate. To test out my theories, and see if anyone else can show me something more or different than what I have concluded.
But I conclude things about what God wants me to do by reading the Bible first. Then studying what others say on the matter, whether I agree with them or not.
But if you would show it to me in the Bible, and we could reason about it, then I would be more likely to change my mind, than if you said that you thought the authors of the Bible made a mistake.
Such inconsistencies are also to be expected with any book produced by human beings. An infallible deity could surely produce a book without any errors, including inconsistencies and grammar mistakes. You concede the Bible isn't such a bookwhich is to say that you concede that somewhere during the writing/translation of the Bible, human error crept in. That's all I'm saying.
I think we can agree that the thoughts the book is perpetuating are not mistakes, and they are not inconsistent with the rest of the text.
I concede only that people who print or translate the books may make a mistake. I do not concede that the mistakes stay put. In other words, if there are mistakes they are noticeable and can be corrected.
The Bible is the same in any language. It has also been the same throughout the ages. It is the same as it was when it was penned. The meanings of words and thoughts contained in it, I mean. Obviously we do not use greek words, so our actual words are english!
I am sure it is very like any other book. I am sure there would be an uproar if the HP books had mistakes in them that the editors did not notice and correct before publishing.
And I am sure it would be even more critical for the Bible, seeing as the subject matter it contains is so personally meaningful and significant to so many people.
But what you are saying by saying that Paul was even possibly mistaken in writing what he did, is that the thoughts in the Bible cannot be trusted. That it is not what is on the mind of God and Christ.
If the Bible is God's opinions and thoughts, then the opinions and thoughts contained in there would have to be infallible…. if you believe God to be so….
One way to see if you are dealing with a mistake that may exist is to compare several different translations. Or you could possibly learn to speak and read several different languages. THAT would be cool. But not as easy as comparing several different translations.
Really if all the translations give you the same ideas in the end, then you should be able to say that God meant you to read it, and understand what he says.
I kind of agree w/ skeptic here, at least in saying that the bible is often ambiguous and unclear.
I kind of agree with that too. I have an opinion on why it is not a rule book in 1.2.3. form… And that is because it is like any other (good) book. It is designed to keep you looking and thinking and questioning.
:)
I stumbled on this site while catching up on the "lesbian gangs" story that started this thread. I have read most of the posts, and I find it so odd that heterosexual people would spend this much time and effort debating these issues. Have I missed something? Is anyone posting here gay or lesbian? If not, please explain to me why you feel the need to discuss this topic?
First, let me say that I understand that any gang activity is deplorable, and if there are issues with lesbian gangs, they should be taken seriously. But as a lesbian, I can tell you I had never heard of one until today. And I live in New York.
The main reason I am posting is to ask you to conisder how you would feel if total strangers routinely debated the morality of your life, the ability for you to have equal rights and protections, and even, as suggested in this blog, your mental health. Just think for a moment what that would feel like, to be part of minority, where the majority feels they have a right to make life-altering decisions for you and your family.
My partner and I have been married for ten years, and we have a beautiful, healthy, well adjusted child. We are upstanding citizens, attend church, donate to charity, and pay taxes. We are good neighbors, friends, coworkers, daughters, and mothers. We are not insane, violent, or immoral.
I am weary of this debate. Why is this of such concern to so many? I respect your right to believe what you wish, but why impose it on me? How would you feel if the reverse were true? Honestly, it's just not any of your business. Just as your choices are not any of mine.
Please, when you are discussing homosexuals, and making pronouncements about our well-being, our "agenda," or whatever else you deem important, remember we are real people. Disagree, fight for what you believe, but do so knowing that you are speaking out against decent people who just happen to love a person of the same sex. Don't we have more important issues to focus on?
One study negates another. One interpretation of the Bible conflicts with another. Have you ever visited with a gay and lesbian family? Do you know what it is like to grow up gay in this country? Have you ever considered the consequences of your dissection of our right to be who we are according to God's law or the government? At the end of my life, if there is a price to pay for my love, that is between me and God.
Finally, please stop worrying about homosexuals recruiting young people. First, this is not possible. You are either gay or you are not. If you were gay, you would know that. In fact, that reality should comfort those who are concerned about homosexual influence on young people. Second, we have no desire to recruit. We don't need "more" of us to feel better or stronger. That is a projection imposed on us by the heterosexual community. We're just fine being the minority, thank you.
Thanks for reading this all the way to the end. I mean no ill will, only illumination from someone who is actually a lesbian.
Annie
If not, please explain to me why you feel the need to discuss this topic?
If you mean lesbian gangs, this is the only post on the topic. If you mean homoxexuality, there are many reasons for heteros to discuss it:
– it is one of the civil rights movements of our time
– it is and always has been a questionable moral behavior which is finding, if not pushing for, increased acceptance in public policy. Public policy on such matters is a topic for all citizens to discuss
– it is of current theological importance, as we see entire denominations splitting over it
conisder how you would feel if total strangers routinely debated the morality of your life, the ability for you to have equal rights and protections, and even, as suggested in this blog, your mental health.
You mean the way anti-religionists like Sam Harris do with Christianity? You mean like the anti-evangelical liberals do in the media regularly? Get used to living in the real world. And if you want to engage in what appears to most to be a deviant and unnatural affection, you might as well get used to scrutiny, rather than blaming everyone else for the attention. If you choose to be different, you will be criticized. That's human nature. How do you think poor me feels when people attack me as a bigot? It comes with the territory, right or wrong.
While you are right that such attacks feel different when you are minority, gay advocates are not being criticized merely because they are a minority, but because they are pushing to normalize what most (rightly) consider unnatural, unhealthy, and religiously speaking, immoral.
I respect your right to believe what you wish, but why impose it on me?
I ask you the same question. Why impose your morality on my kids by forcing them to be taught to accept your behavior as normative? As I discussed in Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone, government should be neutral in questionable matters (which gay behavior and marriage certainly are), rather than condoning or criminalizing.
Honestly, it's just not any of your business. Just as your choices are not any of mine.
In the privacy of your own home, that is correct. When you try to push your ideas as public policy, they become everyone's business.
Please, when you are discussing homosexuals, and making pronouncements about our well-being, our "agenda," or whatever else you deem important, remember we are real people. Disagree, fight for what you believe, but do so knowing that you are speaking out against decent people who just happen to love a person of the same sex.
Well, civility and respect in public discourse is a great reminder, but your claim that gays are merely people who just happen to love persons of the same sex is a gross oversimplification of the many facets and impacts of gay life and appeals for public and legal acceptance and approval.
Don't we have more important issues to focus on?
Some of us think that the devaluation of marriage and the family, the embracing of developmental disorders as "normal," the politicization of psychology, the sexualization and indoctrination of our children, and other matters related to homosexual advocacy are important. The fact that you find such things unimportant is, as you might say, "your own business" – why foist your hierarchy of values or issues on us?
Actually, I am just playing devil's advocate w/ that last statement. I *do* think that in civil government and public life and discourse we ought to focus on high-priority problems. I just think this issue is more important than gay advocates like to think – they minimize it by saying "it's just about two people of the same sex loving one another" – but the many related issues I listed above make this topic of much more import than such minimizing would indicate.
Finally, please stop worrying about homosexuals recruiting young people.
I don't think you'll find anyone here claiming that. What we might claim is that public school curriculums that teach that homosexual exploration or orientation is something normal or even worth exploring is objectionable. That's not really recruiting, but it is pushing your values onto our vulnerable children.
I do live in the real world. Every day I deal with people like you, with grace, courage and dignity.
What are you so afraid of? What do you think will actually happen if gay people are accepted and have equal rights? What do you think will happen if your children view homosexuality as normal? Unless they are a homosexual, how would it affect them in any disasterous way? I honestly would like to know what you are trying to prevent. Considering all of the homosexuals I know, I can't see anything different than heterosexual lives – except that we are generally more accepting of differences.
Finally, what about my child? Gay and lesbian parents exist, and we have children too. I would argue that my child being exposed to discrimination, hatred, and bigotry is much more damaging than your children being exposed to gay normalcy.
What galls me is that you think you actually have a right to make decisions about my rights: my right to visit my partner in her hospital room, my partner's right to inheritance with severe taxation, my son's right to his nonbiological mother's social security beneifts, our right to receive family medical insurance, etc., etc.
Call it religious perogative, what we really have here is fear and discrimination. This, as you suggested in your post, is not a "poor me" attitude. It is a simple statement of the facts. I'm not whining – I'm fed up.
Thank you for your response.
Annie
You wrote:
Some of us think that the devaluation of marriage and the family, the embracing of developmental disorders as “normal,” the politicization of psychology, the sexualization and indoctrination of our children, and other matters related to homosexual advocacy are important. The fact that you find such things unimportant is, as you might say, “your own business” – why foist your hierarchy of values or issues on us?
My response:
Please explain this to me further. How does my right to marry devalue your marriage? Please be specific. With all of the talk about gays and promiscuity, and protecting children, you would think you would want to help us preserve our own families and marriages. Why is your family more important than mine?
Do you disregard all scientific evidence regarding genetic and biological factors in homosexuality?
How is accepting homosexuality sexualizating children? Would you suggest that my three-year-old son is being sexualized because he has two mommies? Please explain this (false) statement.
I really don’t understand why allowing homosexuals to have basic equality is foisting any values on you at all. It just allows us to be equal in rights and protections.
I honestly would like to know what you are trying to prevent.
I doubt you will agree with the logic, but here’s the basic arguments
1. The nuclear, hetero family is the building block of civil society. When we undermine the stability of the family, via pornography, bad tax codes, promoting promiscuity, or via promoting alternative family structures as normal (when really, they are sub-optimal or worse), we undermine societal health.
2. For the sake of our children, we need to ensure the stability of the traditional home. Studies show that for proper pscychological development, children require a parent of each gender, not one parent, and not two of the same gender.
3. Homosexuality is associated with higher medical risk and mental illness. It is still likely that by promoting it as normal, we are masking what is more likely a developmental disorder or mental illness.
Note that we are not pushing for the criminalization of homosexuality, but demanding that public policy does not grant special rights to and CONDONE it either. We expect government to remain neutral on such questionable issues.
And while we are fine with gays having equal rights in such things as housing and employment, polluting the institution of marriage, as well as making it the law of the land that we have to teach our kids that such unnatural and unhealthy coping mechanisms are normal is not a step we are willing to make.
And it’s not about fear, except for a healthy fear of the consequences of making such a mistake. It’s called wisdom and prudence.
Gay and lesbian parents exist, and we have children too. I would argue that my child being exposed to discrimination, hatred, and bigotry is much more damaging than your children being exposed to gay normalcy.
Yes, you have someone else’s children, of course, since nature has conspired against you in having your own. Exposing kids to truth is not bigotry or hatred – you may avoid conflict now, but in the end, you believe a lie.
YOU have brought them into your relationship of unnatural affections, and despite your kindness to them, are warping them. They will have to deal with the developmental issues of missing one of the genders in their home, and how that affected their own gender development. This is as serious a problem as the teasing that they will have to unfortunately endure from people who do not know how to treat them kindly despite their home situation.
If you, for instance, read how Christian books on sex-ed treat homosexuality, such as Book 3 of the God’s design for sex series, you’ll see that they explain to pre-teens what homosexuality is with kindness, but disagreeing with the choice as unnatural. Moral disagreement does not have to be bigotry.
What do you say to your children about religious people who disapprove of homoseuxality? Do you tell your children that they are really OK? I doubt it. You see, you have to teach your kids how to know right from wrong while not becoming judgmental. Accepting everything is foolish.
What galls me is that you think you actually have a right to make decisions about my rights
The issus is, you can get most of those rights without asking to redefine the family, or asking for special consideration for your relationship. What galls me is that you want to taint society by getting social and governmental approval for your dysfunction, and push that on all of us as normal. You do not have the rights of the nuclear family because what you are engaged in is unnatural and against sound social policy.
You should be content with the fact that you CAN sesure such rights if you need them. I’m sorry that it is more difficult than for a typical married couple, but when you ask for those rights, you are also asking for more than just that – you are asking us to define your relationships as normative and healthy, and a smart society just won’t do that.
Call it religious perogative, what we really have here is fear and discrimination.
It’s not religious really. It’s reason – it’s science, it’s common sense.
Please explain this to me further. How does my right to marry devalue your marriage? Please be specific.
A healthy society comes from healthy children. Children need a stable, loving home. Studies show that, for normal emotional development, they need to bond with parents of both genders. Homosexual relationships can not only NOT produce children, when you pull children into that envirnoment, you are providing a sub-optimal, if not unhealthy family for them.
Granted, perhaps being in a loving gay family is better than an unloving hetro or single parent home, but it is still not optimal for children. But we don’t call these other bad situations normal and healthy either. As a side note, we do let otherwise healthy single people adopt children, and I am fine with that – better a loving single parent home than being unloved and unwanted in the foster care system or worse. Same goes for gay couples, or even a pair of sisters or brothers that want to adopt. But the morally questionable nature of gay pairings does make that particular arrangement one to reconsider, and I understand why some would NOT want to let gays adopt, though I am not specifically against it.
When we tell children that gay marriage is the equivalent of hetero marriage, we are denying the obvious – that nature does not intend gay couples to have children, and biological reality mirrors the psychological one – that such a pairing is not healthy.
You see, you are not devaluing MY marriage, but the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of a stable and emotionally healthy society. When you set such unhealthy and unnatural choices as norms, you begin to undermine the health of society. Instead, such dysfunctions should be seen as something to heal, rather than accept. We don’t accept depression as normative, we treat it. To say that it’s just a normal variant is to ignore the fact that it leads to premature illness and death, just as homosexuality does, statistically speaking.
See Is Gay Marriage Destructive to Society?
Do you disregard all scientific evidence regarding genetic and biological factors in homosexuality?
No. Homosexuality – Genetic or Environmental?. Just because something is genetic doesn’t mean it’s good – cancers, depression, and aggression have biologic roots, but we still treat them as disorders.
How is accepting homosexuality sexualizating children?
It is not, but the same people who are promoting gay exploration among our students are usually the same one’s who disdain teaching abstinence and chastity, and who instead teach children that premarital sex is normative and morally acceptable, when istead, it is risky, stupid, and most likely immoral.
Would you suggest that my three-year-old son is being sexualized because he has two mommies?
No, but I would suggest that if he fails to bond with a man in the first few years of his life, he will eventually become gay himself (studies show that children of gay parents are more likely to be gay, enforcing the environmental theory of homoseuxality), or at least be a very feminized boy. I should know, I grew up in a single parent (mother) household, and in my 20’s, had to do some real gender identity work to identify with the true masculine and feel like a man rather than a boy among men.
It just allows us to be equal in rights and protections.
It is not viewed as equal rights from this side, but special rights. And unfortunately, along with granting those rights, you also force society to officially accept AND TEACH that acceptance of your position to our school children.
BTW, thank you for posting in a respectful and reasoned manner.
Annie, take my advice and forget about it. seeker is a dyed-in-the-wool ultra-conservative fundamentalist xian who really and truly despises homosexuality and is impervious to reason. I've tried. So let him live in the 12th century and get on with your life.
regards…
Good advice, Louis.
Seeker, I do not have "someone else's children." I gave birth to my son. And for your information, not that I feel it matters, my son has an active biological father. My partner and I created a family with our dear friend, and he is as much a parent as we are.
Your facts are so blatantly false, I don't know where to begin. But one that I know you cannot argue, because it is actually in reference to law, is we cannot get ALL of the rights you and your spouse have, no matter how much we spend on legal bills. The list of rights (not special, but equal to yours) that are we are not permitted to have is very long, and you need to get your facts straight before you make such claims.
I see you have zero interest in learning from an actual gay person. You would rather make your judgments and pronouncements about total strangers. How very Christian of you.
By the way I AM a Christian. And as for those who would discriminate against or tease my son, I would tell him to have compassion for them, for they know not what they do.
We live in a community of 6,000 people with nearly 100 gay and lesbian families, so I'm not really concerned about his childhood experiences where people like you are concerned.
The list of rights (not special, but equal to yours) that are we are not permitted to have is very long, and you need to get your facts straight before you make such claims.
Can you provide a reference to such a list?
You would rather make your judgments and pronouncements about total strangers. How very Christian of you.
I am sorry you find my moral and logical reasoning to be "judgments." I don't find logical argument, moral disapproval, nor identifying sin as unchristian, unless you call the Apostle Paul's declarations as "unchristian." I think you are making a classic mistake, which I have discussed in What is hate?
You might also enjoy my sermon Do Not Judge
seeker is a
1. dyed-in-the-wool ultra-conservative
2. fundamentalist xian
3. who really and truly despises homosexuality and
4. is impervious to reason
Nice string of descriptors. As to claim one, I would say guilty, except that I am more liberal than most conservatives, esp. on specific issues such as abortion (I believe it should be legal up to about 4-6 weeks), stem-cell research (see <a href="http:// wwww.c-ral.org” target=”_blank”>c-ral.org), and immigration (I agree with a more generous approach as outliend by GWB). Even on homosexuality, a true ultra conservative would support sodomy laws. I do not.
As for being a "fundamental" Christian, in the secular understanding of that word, I would say "guilty." But within Christian circles, I am not considered a fundamentalist, but rather, an evangelical. See my colorful graph of doctrines in Neo-fundy doctrines to see the difference between the extreme positions and the conservative evangelical postision on issues.
As to point 3, I refer you back to What is hate?.
As to point 4, I am not impervious to reason, but I am impervious to many of the pro-gay polemics because I find them unconvincing. I am also resistant to some new arguments that contradict principles that I have previously determined to be true. Impervious to reason? No. Impervious to most pro-gay theologies? Yes, but not for lack of reason, but because I find the counter arguments more convincing.
By the way I AM a Christian.
By what measure? That you believe you are a sinner and that Jesus died for your sins? And that we ought to turn from sin to follow Christ? That you have received him and are born again? That you believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God, and authoritative for belief and practice?
Or the kind that gives mental assent to a "Christian" ethic of being nice? The latter is hardly what I would call Christian.
so I'm not really concerned about his childhood experiences where people like you are concerned.
As you wish.
Here is a link to some information about marriage equality. Scroll down to the bottom to see a short list of rights we currently do not have:
http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=14392&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm#1
Your four-point description of yourself has nothing to do with me or my opinions. I do not believe any of those things, so I’m not sure why you are posting it in response to me. But to suggest that you are not judgmental is ridiculous.
The American Heritage Dictionary gives this definition of “judgmental” –
Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones.
I was born a Christian, baptized a Christian, and live based on the principles I was raised on in my Christian church, family and school. It is not for you to tell me whether I am a Chrisitian or not: you do not define it. I am not surprised that you feel a Christian must have very specific qualifications. Considering what a welcoming and loving man Jesus was, I do not believe he would be pleased to have so many people shut out others in his name.
Again, I ask, when was the last time you spoke with a gay person about any of this?
Through sad and long experience I maintain that you are impervious to reason on this topic. You may be open on other topics.
As to your fundamentalist vs. evangelical discussion: I continue to be baffled. You all just seem the same to me.
Your four-point description of yourself has nothing to do with me or my opinions.
Sorry, I was answering someone else’s comment at the same time. I’ll make it more clear next time.
Inclined to make judgments, especially moral or personal ones.
Perhaps you should cross-reference that with the definition of discernment. Also, not all judgement is bad. When Jesus talked of it in Matthew 7, he explained that we ought to first evaluate ourselves, THEN we can see fit to evaluate and help others with the truth.
I was born a Christian, baptized a Christian, and live based on the principles I was raised on in my Christian church, family and school. It is not for you to tell me whether I am a Christian or not: you do not define it.
Well, those are all well and good, but scripturally speaking, NONE of those make you a Christian.
As Jesus clearly said in John 3, unless a person is born AGAIN, he can not see or enter into the Kingdom of God. It matters not that we were born into a Christian family or culture, or that we were raised with Christian values. In fact, even Baptism does not make one a Christian, because biblical baptism is for those who first believe – it is an outward sign that you believe that you are dying to your old life and raising up in faith in Christ – baptism in and of itself is not salvific.
And you are right, it is not for ME to determine what a Christian is, nor is it really up the opinion of any person, not even you – in fact, the *scriptures* define it quite clearly.
It is about what you BELIEVE. And this is not a question of your value system, but clearly, whether or not you believe that Jesus dies in your place, and that through receiving him and his death on your behalf, you receive forgiveness and a new life from within. Don’t believe that? Not a Christian, if you are asking the Bible for a definition.
Scriptures clearly teach what it means to be a Christian, and being born into a Christian culture, family, or ethic are not it. If you are still believing that your good works will outweigh your bad, or that God will forgive you without your acceptance of Christ and his death for you, you are, as Jesus would say, “still in your sins.”
I am not surprised that you feel a Christian must have very specific qualifications.
And I am not surprised that you would prefer to appeal to a subjective definition, or one based on culture, values, or good works, rather than a scriptural one – in fact, everyone unfamiliar with the gospel usually thinks such things. I was a Catholic, but not a Christian until I understood and believed the gospel, as clearly presented in such presentations as the now classic The Four Spiritual Laws.
Considering what a welcoming and loving man Jesus was, I do not believe he would be pleased to have so many people shut out others in his name.
Such a sentimentalized view of Jesus belies an ignorance of his life and teachings. Speaking of shutting the door, check out these quotes from Jesus and compare them to your view:
Again, I ask, when was the last time you spoke with a gay person about any of this?
I have a few gay friends, and usually we do NOT talk about such things. However, I have one gay friend with whom I often discuss such things. He, however, is an anomaly, since he is one of two of my gay friends who reject much of the gay culture – the queening and butching, the flaming and sexual promiscuity, the militancy and public policy pushiness of much of the gay culture. In fact, two of my gay friends agree that gay marriage should NOT be made the law of the land. So go figure.
LOUIS WROTE: As to your fundamentalist vs. evangelical discussion: I continue to be baffled. You all just seem the same to me.
It is much the same, and the differences are somewhat minimal to the outsider. As an evangelical, I would say that the main differences are as I described in my few posts on neo-fundamentalism – they are often mistakenly anti-modern culture, confusing it with the worldly values of modern culture (materialism, individualism, sexual permissiveness, etc.), and it is most obvious in their rejection of contemporary worship, music, or art forms.
seeker is a self-hating gay man who is in the closet. talking about homosexuality or pretty much anything relating to his multiple issues (involving a mix of confused sexuality, early abuse, a need to be seen and respected as an authority figure and various mental health / stability problems) will go absolutely nowhere.
there had better be a god b/c with all the problems seeker has, he is not going to get any salvation in this life. you can feel sorry for him but arguing is a waste of everyone’s time.
Think tank estimates evangelical churches 90% closet homosexuals was written just for you, pretty boy.
My daughter was set upon by a lesbian gang at a high school in California.
AFTER being bullied by the bad-lesbians, another group came on to her with the good-lesbian routine.
Another parent from the same school asked me if I know where his daughter might be located.
After we got to talking about things, we concluded that his daughter had gone through the same things.
Both children as missing as of today; living at one of a number of hide-outs, which are lesbian-ruled.
I have no doubt that this kind of activity is going on at many other schools, because THIS school went to incredible lengths to KEEP this whole thing under-wraps.
Your children are MISSING, as in abducted? Lesbian hideouts? Are you kidding? Could you provide more details? ANY news reports? What school?
Maybe they were abducted by aliens.
Are you saying that lesbians are aliens? Just checking ;)
The truth is out there.
This is a rediculously idiotic website maintained by ignorant morons.