Dear Joe,
I'm curious to know what you think about the possibility of a gay gene. While some people claim to know their orientation from a very young age, others only “discover” they are homosexual later in life Do you believe that men and women are genetically predisposed to being homosexual? If not, what do you feel causes them to switch over?
Dear J.S.,
The root cause of human behavior, whether it's environmental or genetic, "nature" or "nurture", is one of the great mysteries of the human condition. While I don’t consider myself qualified to give an answer I find that I'm often asked a variation of that question. In fact, almost every day someone ask me whether I was born stupid or if I had to work at it. Honestly, I just don’t know the answer.
Since it comes rather naturally I assume it must be innate. More than likely, though, there is an environmental “trigger” that kicks in just as it does in other behavioral maladies. Alcoholism, for instance, is often attributed to a genetic precondition even though it’s possible to live your whole life without realizing it. Most people aren’t initially aware that they have the “alcoholism gene” until they’ve downed few fifths of Wild Turkey and ended up with their tongue stuck to the inside of a toilet.
I think the same is probably true for the suspected “gay gene.” A person could go their whole life and not realize that they are “born that way.” While I don’t know all the triggers that could cause a person to switch over and turn gay one rather reliable indicator seems to be having a long-term relationship with me.
I should note that my ex-wife was not the only person I inadvertently “converted.” A year after my divorce I started dating a rather lovely and attractive young woman from Seattle, a relationship that lasted nearly a year before we broke up. I can’t quite recall why we parted ways (something about me being a moron, I think) but I clearly remember how the next person she dated, fell in love with, and co-habitated with, was a woman.
Now the first time it happened I chalked it up as a fluke. While it's a rare occurrence, there are a handful of men whose wives leave them for someone of the same sex. The second time it happened, though, was harder to dismiss. And when I started receiving date referrals from the National Lesbian Recruiting League I had to admit that maybe it had something to do with me after all.
I initially had a difficult time understanding why I was causing women to give up on the male side of the species. I started to wonder if there wasn’t something particularly feminine about me that was causing them to become attracted to their own gender. While I have no overtly effeminate mannerisms (I am, after all, quite a manly man) I do have certain qualities that are, as one of my buddies put it, “a bit suspect.”
Admittedly, I do possess certain characteristics that could be construed as contradictory. For example, I’ve been in the Marines for over half my life and yet I've retained a preternatural instinct for interior design. That in itself is rather peculiar. You don't often find cold-blooded warriors who are adept at accessorizing with throw pillows.
Unfortunately, my personality is plagued by such contrasts. I find that I can field strip a deer without remorse yet I still get choked up when I watch “Bambi.” I love sports, John Wayne movies, and big juicy steaks. But sometimes I feel the need to put on a Barbara Streisand album, eat a pint of Hagen Daas and have a good cry. And while most days I’m like any other normal guy, sometimes I find that when my wife tells me about her day I actually listen. It doesn’t happen often, of course, but enough to make me question my manhood.
For a man to be gay, though, he also has to be good-looking, so naturally I’ve never had cause to truly question my own sexual identity. Yet my ability to convert women makes me wonder if there isn’t something to this “gay gene” stuff after all. Maybe, in fact, I have it myself. Though I hesitate to face the truth, I have to admit the possibility that maybe, just maybe, I have a genetic predisposition to lesbianism.
Mr. C - ROLF! Forget about reading God's word to humor me! This was truly funny...although I'm not laughing at your pain.
However, when you think about the issue seriously. If science just happens to find a gay gene, then obviously then they will start looking for a cure. When they find it, then all the gay people will be relieved because then they will be able to get fixed and not blame society anymore for their choices.
Ummm...you don't know any gay people, do you, Stacy?
None of the gay people I know consider their orientation a problem, except in terms of how they are viewed by others. None wants a cure.
Thanks for the good post. I left homosexuality behind 12 years ago. I am not gay anymore and very content. Soul autonomy (everyone is accountable to God alone) is very important. I can respect others ability to decide what is important to them even in serious disagreement. I believe we are spiritual beings called to a spiritual life first.
And before people email me saying I was never really gay...believe me...I was very comfortable with and "out" as a gay person. I simply found a greater love in Christ. (notice the use of personal pronouns :) )
Joe, your story reminds me of why I often feel sorry for straight men. In many ways gay men are much more free to be their own man rather than someone else's expectations of what a "real man" should be. Since gay men will never meet the bar, as far as most people think, for being a "real man", we are somewhat more free to make up our own rules.
I got a lot happier when I figured out that being a "real man" meant not worrying about doing things in a certain way so that they didn't appear "feminine" or other such nonsense. Real men do what they want to do with conviction and verve, whether it's racing cars or arranging flowers.
One of the main restrictions that I see put upon straight men is that they are only "allowed" to be creative in certain ways. If you are a mechanic, you are butch, but if you are an artist, you lose three points on the masculinity scale. It's stupid, purely cultural prejudices that change over the centuries anyway.
I think straight guys tend to suppress their own creativity. So of course it comes bursting out like water from a dam whenever there is an acceptable task where they can use their imagination.
You will probably laugh at me but I think this is why some straight guys seem to go absolutely frigging insane around Christmas when decorating the outside of their house with lights. So the reason you are paying that $400 electric bill Nov. through Jan. is because of too much repressed creativity. Let it out more often.
Incidentally, one the more interesting ideas lately about a "gay gene" is that there isn't one, exactly. It's simply a potential that exists in the human genome that can be triggered by the right combination of factors that are both environmental and nature based.
The idea is that although a persons sex is determined by chromosome at conception, gender itself doesn't actually start to differentiate until later on in the pregnancy. All human fetus's start out as female. Later with the addition of hormones, etc., the physical characteristics of sex emerge. It's a very complex process, since it's not only the type of hormone released but also the amount and the timing of the release as well. Since nothing nature does is an exact process, there are times when an "in-between" human brain is created. There are also times when a hermaphrodite is created. It's just a question of where on the scale between super-male and super-female you fall into. And even the majority of straight people do not fall into either of the far ends of the spectrum.
So some say it may be possible that gay and lesbian people from the human species can be eliminated from the human species altogether by influencing this process with hormones, etc. This raises all kinds of moral questions, namely, is this Eugenics? You also cannot remove the core cause, which is the basic potential that exists in the genome. If you did then the fetus would lose the ability to become male or female.
Before everyone starts arguing with me, I will say this is pure conjecture. But there is a lot more in the human genome that just DNA, and it is turning out that these things effect our basic makeup as human beings.
There was an article in Scientific American a while back that described an experiment where they were able to change the fur color of a mouse's offspring by feeding the mother certain substances. It wasn't that they fed the mother brown dye so the children were brown, it was a where the substance she ate actually turned on the gene for brown fur in her children. This may mean that those old wives-tales about what you eat during pregnancy determining gender and personality may have a grain of truth to them after all. ;-)
Yeah!
Many people do live by the moto of "if it feels good do it". In this day and age when it comes to sexual preference the above moto does come into play.
With respect to a gay gene. It's not the gay's that "don't want curing" that will be affected. It's the children. Few parents, even if they "fully support" their child's sexual preference, *want* a gay child. If it can be fixed pre-natally (or in infancy) then it will often be done.
Since mankind has yet been able to definitely "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a so-called "gay gene", our society is in the situation of having to "entertain" the concept.
Therefore, normal deductive reasoning would then lead us to acknowledge that the inability to disprove the gay gene keeps the door open that it's possible (regardless of how remote).
This is exactly what the people who are behind the gay agenda want. The theoretical existence of a "gay gene" translates into "It's not my fault I perform sex acts with persons of the same gender, I was born that way." This is the ultimate alibi against any personal responsiblity for one's sexual conduct.
The gay agenda advancers have a vested interest in making sure nobody can ever "disprove" the existence or possiblity of a "gay gene" because then the responsibility for performing sex acts with persons of the same gender would then, by means of deductive reasoning, BE A CHOICE. Therefore, all persons could, then, CHOOSE NOT TO.
If that were the case, then a person would no longer be a "member of a gay group" but basically "people who all choose to perform homosexual acts". The "victim" status goes away and so does the political power of the people with a gay agenda.
Beware. The "gay gene" argument was invented by the gay agenda seekers, as it fulfills their political goals.
I know you're not one to let the actual scientific evidence get in the way, but there is a pretty large body of evidence that homosexuality has genetic and biological causes, though they can be and are influenced by environmental factors. The heritability seems to be around 50% (about the same as intelligence), and the biological correlates are multiple, ranging from digit size to differences in otoacoustic emissions, with major differences in several brain regions in between. Of course, scientists aren't actually looking for a "gay gene," because, well... scientists know something about genetics. There is some evidence related to the X-chromosome, but even that is not designed to find a "gay gene."
Um, message to Dave Williams:
Most gay and straight persons do not claim that they have zero control over their sexual activity. Of course they do. They can choose to have sex with a particular person. Or they can choose not to.
The issue is orientation.
So, Dave, when did you decide to become a heterosexual? Was it a tough choice for you? I'm guessing yes because you seem so confused now.
In a vain attempt to get back on topic (and to possibly poking a stick in a hornets nest as well as recalling the title of this blog), I would venture that Biblical authority could be interpreted to come down on the side of Nuture. For example, take Jeremiah 1:5 (probably not typically used in these arguments) but one could argue that the author (Jeremiah or G*d if you prefer) has selected Jeremiah as prophet pre-natally (genetically?).
And Larry .... by suggesting one can "choose not to" (have sex) you are skating perilously close to suggesting celibacy is an option. This isn't particulary popular in the modern church (and much less the liberal "establishment").
Joe Carter is proof that you dont have to be homosexual to be gay. :P I'll bet you were metrosexual before metrosexual was cool.
Oh, um, another message to Dave Williams:
You better not disagree with Larry Lord or he will ridicule you and make scatalogical remarks about you, your beliefs, your friends, and your parents as well as twist all your words into whatever utter nonsense he believes humorous.
The monkey on Larry Lord's back
Mark warned me:
"Larry .... by suggesting one can "choose not to" (have sex) you are skating perilously close to suggesting celibacy is an option. This isn't particulary popular in the modern church (and much less the liberal "establishment")."
Mark, I'll do more than suggest it. I'll say it outright: celibacy is an option for heterosexuals and homosexuals. You can choose to be celibate. People make that choice all the time. The issue is whether people should be given the choice, or whether conservative religious groups should make the decision for them.
Wow, an open-minded Christian.
Did it snow in Hell this morning or something? :-)
Dave Williams says, in his best falsetto:
"It's not my fault I perform sex acts with persons of the same gender, I was born that way." This is the ultimate alibi against any personal responsibility for one's sexual conduct."
No, Dave, it's not my fault that I fall in love with persons of the same gender. This is regardless of whether I have sex with them or not. You may have sex with whomever or whatever you choose, it does not change your sexual orientation. But of course that's not something you are willing to admit.
The thing about those with the anti-gay agenda such as Dave is that they always dehumanize other people into just a sexual act. This allows them to deny any possibility that they should recognize gay or lesbian people as actually being of equal standing as themselves in the eyes of God. Well Dave, isn't that special. You may do your little superiority dance now.
But getting back to the topic. If you would like to find out about the guy who actually coined the term "metrosexual", you can go to the link below:
http://www.marksimpson.com/index.html
Joe Carter said:
The root cause of human behavior, whether it's environmental or genetic, "nature" or "nurture", is one of the great mysteries of the human condition. While I don’t consider myself qualified to give an answer I find that I'm often asked a variation of that question.
If you were a robot with programmed behavioral instructions, there might be some truth in this claim. Our choices in life, i.e., our human behaviors are not programmed by our genetic structures. To say that genetics plays a role in our behavior would be to deny our free will has any bearing in our lives. I doubt any would argue that our souls have a genetic makeup. Our souls are part and parcel of our behavior, for if they were not, it would matter not what our bodies do in our earthly existence it would have no merit on whether or not our souls attain paradise in the hereafter. There are people who wish this were so though. Behavior could never have nature as a root cause.
smmtheory,
Behavior could never have nature as a root cause.
That is an interesting theory, though rather gnostic for my taste. As a Christian who believes in the Bible as the ultimate standard of truth, I have to politely disagree with your assessment of root cause of behavior.
Joe,
What is in the Bible that leads you to disagree with my assessment? Is there something to suggest that we do not have free will, that we do not have choice in our behavior? Is there something that suggests that rejecting God will have no bearing on where we will spend eternity in the hereafter? Or rather is there something to suggest that our souls are not involved in our choices? Or perhaps you could tell me what about my assessment struck you as being rather gnostic?
Someone should note that "nature vs. nurture" really isn't one of the "greatest mysteries, these days. The widespread consensus, supported by decades of data, is that it's some of both, and they interact. The particular role of nature or nurture in the formation of particular behavior patterns can still be questioned, but these questions never yield an all one or all the other answer.
"Behavior could never have nature as a root cause."
Did somebody really say this? Is this only true of humans or of all animals? You don't believe people can be genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, but you believe in a "soul".
Fascinating.
Joe,
Why don't you believe what the Bible says about homosexuality?
And since when did you reject what the Bible says about morality in the favor of materialistic determinism?
Rob,
How can anybody think that genetics predisposes our choice, our free will to act as we choose, to think as we choose?
If a behavior pattern is extablished, it is by choice. Your choice may have been coerced by another person or circumstance, but it was ultimately your choice to establish that behavior pattern.
I choose to believe that I have a soul. I choose to believe that I have the ultimate free will to stop, start, or continue in my behavior. Nobody on earth can take that away from me.
smmtheory says:
"If a behavior pattern is established, it is by choice. Your choice may have been coerced by another person or circumstance, but it was ultimately your choice to establish that behavior pattern."
Uh, did you consciously "choose" to be heterosexual? For that matter, how would I know that you are heterosexual? Would just who you have sex with be enough information? Why? If you personally had sex with someone of the same gender would that mean you have become homosexual? Would your core identity have changed? What would be the sin? The core identity or the behavior?
You cannot discuss "free will" without placing it in the context of morality. Behavior and the exercise of free will are not the same thing.
You are genetically programed to giggle like a schoolgirl when tickled. Is the behavior of "giggling" in response to being tickled, a moral choice that you have made? Did you decide to giggle or was it an uncontrollable behavior?
Is your predisposition or orientation to giggle a sin? Or is it just that your inability to control this behavior that is the sin?
If you found that the Bible said that it was sinful to giggle would you feel that God had stacked the deck against you?
How would you feel, personally, as a "giggler", if you lived in a country that does not permit "gigglers" to marry? That "gigglers" were the root cause of the breakdown of non-gigglers families and/or a sign of the End Times?
How would it feel, as a "giggler" to be born into a family of non-gigglers? To be told all your life that "giggling" is the absolute worse thing for you to be? And that it was somehow your personal moral failure that you were a "giggler"?
Puzzled,
Why don't you believe what the Bible says about homosexuality?
I do. Why would you think otherwise?
And since when did you reject what the Bible says about morality in the favor of materialistic determinism?
I don't. Having a genetic predisposition does not mean that behavior is determined. We still have a moral responsibility for our behavior.
Patrick,
I can no more be a heterosexual than I can be a homosexual or even bisexual. These are not physical but behavioral definitions of personhood. Getting involved in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship is no more pre-determined by genetics than whether or not you giggle when somebody attempts to tickle you. If somebody goes through the motions of tickling me, I choose whether or not to respond with a giggle. You should try it sometime.
I was once informed by a gay man that the presence of a cluster of nerves at the very bottom of the prostate was physical proof that men are wired for gay sex.
I won't get into the many obvious fallacies of his argument but something he else he said got me thinking. He said that these nerves when stimulated produced a more intense orgasm than one obtained having sex with a woman.
Many studies produced back before it became politically incorrect to explore other then natural causes for homosexuality, noted a high number of gay men reporting very early sexual initiation by a male adult. What might happen to a child's sexuality if exposed to this alternative at a formative age. Could they not become addicted to the intense feeling? Its not unheard of in other cases. The more pleasurable the drug the more unable its users are able to kick it.
Then there is simply the knowledge that gay sex is possible. A young person would not have to be exposed by an adult at a vulnerable age. They can very easily find out about these things from their peers, from books magazines and the internet. Another thing that is very common among gay men is that they are naturally disposed towards sexual experimentation and risk taking. Could these have been those teen age boys who experimented with gay sex once and then could never forget it until it became an obessesion until they finally "come out" later in life claiming that they can't deny their true selves anymore?
I have always wondered something. If a male must be aroused in order to have sex how on earth to these men who claim to have never been atttracted to women, force themselves to have sex with their wives and have children by them? Why do so many gay men have sex with women on an occaisional basis. Why have I been propositioned before by so-called "gay" men who otherwise live the lifestyle to the hilt?
I believe it is a sexual addiction brought about by an intense experience from which the person finds it nearly impossible to break the habit. Couple this with society constantly telling them that their struggle is unnatural and that they shouldn't put themselves through pain trying to fight and you have record numbers of people declaring that they are going to be true to themselves by living as gay people.
It always hurts less to cease struggling and to take the easy way out. Our society is telling people with this addiction that the feeling they get from quitting the fight is true happiness when its simply a false sense of peace produced by just following whereever your urges lead you.
Peggy,
How silly. Many straight guys partake in sexual activity that involves stimulation of the prostate. Furthermore the overwhelming majority of gay people, in fact every single one that I know, never had a molestation experience as a child. They became sexually active in their mid teens, just like everyone else that I know. I do know some people who had molestation experiences as children. They are all straight.
On your arosal question, you've got to be kidding. Give a guy enough friction, and for sure measure the right mental picture, and they achieve sexual stimulation with pillows and socks much less female genitalia.
The fallacy in all this discussion is the notion that gay relationships are defined solely by the act of sexual intercourse. That may be true for one night stands, but that is a general statement. Long term gay relationships have an intense emotional connection aspect, just as marriage does. If you believe gay relationships are simply a manifestation of a sexual addiction, than the same is true for heterosexual relationships.
Oh and there is the whole "spectrum of sexual preference" thing that was first postulated almost a century ago. There are 100% gay people on one end, 100% straight people on the other and bisexual people right in the middle. Bisexual people do exist, I know them personally. Like everything else in this society everything is "either-or" there is no gray. How intellectually simplistic.
Joe,
Thanks so much for your wonderful post. It made me LOL. After reading so much truly distressing news I knew I could come over here and at least find a rational discussion of something that would calm me. Even better was finding this letter that made the laugh.
Thanks!
"Getting involved in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship is no more pre-determined by genetics than whether or not you giggle when somebody attempts to tickle you."
Perhaps you are like my older daughter, who admirably resists laughing when I attempt to tickle her. My younger daughter can't help but laugh the instant I touch her. She does not choose to laugh. Actually, sexual behavior involves much more choice, but it is still a behavior we are biologically predisposed to.
You haven't answered my question, smmtheory. Is all animal behavior a matter of choice? Can lions choose to stop eating zebras? I will agree that we humans can choose whether or not to have sex, or even whether or not to eat, but you seem to suggest that our species has no genetic predisposition to behavior at all. How do babies learn to cry? Or laugh? Or draw back their hands from a sharp object? Identical twins separated at birth often manifest strikingly similar tastes and behavior patterns. How do you explain this? To deny your genetic predisposition to certain behaviors is to deny your humanity.
Like everything else in this society everything is "either-or" there is no gray. How intellectually simplistic.
I often marvel at how recognizing truth for what it is can be seen as "intellectually simplistic" by those who are proudly confounded by the fuzziness of it all.
Just because you cant tell black from white is not proof of gray. It only proves blurred vision.
Just because you cant tell black from white is not proof of gray. It only proves blurred vision.
So there is only "hot" and "cold" temperatures, there is no warm? There are literally only two colors in the spectrum? Why do you decided to arbitrarily reduce something as complex as human sexual behavior into two diametrically opposed categories. I understand that many people have that impulse. Having the impulse doesn't make your point of view correct, it simply makes it your internal vision of the world. The world is fuzzy. The world is complex. Deal with it.
smmtheory says:
"I choose whether or not to respond with a giggle. You should try it sometime.."
Then you have my pity. Being able to spontaneously break out in laughter is one of God's great gifts. However, give me a feather and I'll challenge you to a duel. Besides, you have proved nothing. Even if you control your giggling, you still have the desire to giggle. That hasn't changed.
Peggy, I am a 41 year old gay man. I've never been molested by anyone. I dated girls in High School and dated boys in College. I've been celibate for the last few years because I'm a widower. Quite an ordinary man, really. While tragic stories of corrupted youth no doubt sell well in the anti-gay section of the Christian bookstore, that is simply not a common experience among gay men or lesbians.
There has been some evidence that we suffer more from depression than the general population, but it almost always turns out to be associated with the results of living with the stigma of being gay in an unwelcoming society.
Peggy, if you run around saying gay is evil, sick, etc., and your child hears that, you will not influence whether they turn out to be gay or straight.
If they turn out straight, then you will just pass on your prejudices to them. But if they turn out to be gay then what you will have done is to tell them that you hate them. If there is childhood trauma in gay men or lesbians then that is usually the source of it.
so how many times does it actually mention in the bible that homosexuality is wrong? once, maybe twice? a vague refernce in the bit about soddom and gamorra? and how many times does it mention being able to own your own slaves? and all that smoting?
the whole idea of a gene making you be gay sounds like there is something wrong with you that needs to be fixed.
seems like evengelicals are making this stuff up as they go along.
doesn't it seem like if god was that worried about homosexuality that he would mention a goddess? hey, jesus wasn't into women either. holy spirit seems a little farieish. hmmmm....
Joe,
Perhaps you are just a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Rob Ryan said:
You haven't answered my question, smmtheory. Is all animal behavior a matter of choice? Can lions choose to stop eating zebras? I will agree that we humans can choose whether or not to have sex, or even whether or not to eat, but you seem to suggest that our species has no genetic predisposition to behavior at all. How do babies learn to cry? Or laugh? Or draw back their hands from a sharp object? Identical twins separated at birth often manifest strikingly similar tastes and behavior patterns. How do you explain this? To deny your genetic predisposition to certain behaviors is to deny your humanity.
Yes, all behavior is a matter of choice. A lion can choose to stop eating zebras. The lion can learn any behavior like that given the right stimuli. If this were untrue, then dogs would never be able to learn expected behavior like house training, sitting, or even something more important like being a seeing eye dog. If a baby's crying (a simplistic form of communication) were regulated by genetics rather than learned behavior, then people would not be able to replace crying with verbal communication.
The same is true of laughter. As people mature they learn many ways to communicate joy other than laughter. Sometimes, laughter is the best way to communicate it, just as sometimes crying is the best way to communicate anguish. Learning behaviors implies that genetics does not program our behavior. Some things are easier to learn than others. Pain is a powerful stimulus that helps babies learn to draw their hands away from sharp objects. Pain is genetically programmed. Responding or reacting to that stimuli is learned behavior. Twins are no different than other people. They learn expected behaviors just like everybody else. Denying that any of my behavior is genetically predisposed is not denying my humanity. On the contrary, I am demonstrating the freedom of my humanity from the limitations of nature.
Patrick said:
Then you have my pity. Being able to spontaneously break out in laughter is one of God's great gifts. However, give me a feather and I'll challenge you to a duel. Besides, you have proved nothing. Even if you control your giggling, you still have the desire to giggle. That hasn't changed.
You don't need to pity me. I never denied being able to spontaneously break out into laughter. I do that often as a matter of fact, but whether I do or not is a choice I am free to make. Being ticklish or not has nothing to do with behavior. Behavior is how a person reacts or responds to that tickling sensation. If my life depended on not giggling and it were regulated by genetics rather than free will, I would not be able to save my life would I? Desire is also a learned behavior. Is it indeed that I have not proven anything or is it rather that you have decided that I have proved nothing?
"If a baby's crying (a simplistic form of communication) were regulated by genetics rather than learned behavior, then people would not be able to replace crying with verbal communication."
Clearly a non sequitur; a genetic predisposition does not preclude learning contrary to that predisposition.
"Learning behaviors implies that genetics does not program our behavior."
It may imply that we are not slaves to our genetic tendencies, but it does not deny their existence.
It is pointless to continue this discussion. If you think even animals are not genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, you are beyond my practice. No one teaches a baby to cry or a moth to fly.
So now a moth is equivalent to a human Rob? Flying is a behavior for a moth? Or is it rather flying toward a light source is the behavior? Babies are unable to learn through observation that noise attracts adult attention? I think you underestimate the human potential.
Funny, but many of the gay men that I know were sexually molested as young people. I have it from their own mouths.
Sex and relationship are two separate things. People have sex with people with whom they have no relationship and they have sex casual sex with friends.
When a relationship accompanies sexual activity it only proves that the two people are close friends. You can be close friends and sexual partners and you can be convinced that you love someone that you have sex with but that doesn't make it so. Evidence of long term committed relationships is no proof that gay sex isn't a sexual addiction.
Of course I could point to the overwhelming evidence that gay relationships are most often open in that both partners continue to voraciously seek sex with others with the full knowledge and participation of both partners. The appetite among gay men for sexual partners and for risky sexual behavior is rampant.
The evidence seems to fit my hypothesis better. That gay men are people who were naturally predisposed to sexual experimentation and risk taking who have become addicted to male on male sex and so feel as if they can't help it. They happen to form long term relationships with others who share their addictions in much the same way that junkies do. You simply cannot prove and have not proved that this is not the case.
As for your spectrum, the fact that human sexuality is flexible is no proof that indulging in such flexibility is natural or moral. We exercise choice in everything we do including what we do in the bedroom. Only animals have no choice in their sexual behavior. Its called being in heat. What acceptance of homosexuality has brought us to is the belief that we are more like animals in that we have no choice about our orientation and less like humans who very much can control their sexual urges. Its just one facet in the overall trend to convince human beings that we are what the textbooks say we are ie that we are basically little better than animals and that we are hardwired to be the way we are and so there is no use fighting it.
The same argument will lead to the acceptance of polyamory and man/child love. The same thinking has already led to a phenomenon where doctors are amputating the limbs of people who are convinced that it is a mistake that they were born with a certain limb and are unable to find rest until that limb is chopped off. Those doctirs have reached the conclusion that they might as well mutilate a healthy human body since the person will never be happy unless they get their way.
Just because we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are hardwired a certain way and that we were just born that way is no proof whatever of that feeling being true. If the mind is sick or flawed what defense do we have against it unless someone has the guts to stand up and tell us that we have a choice.
we have a choice in life to be more like animals and be ruled by the hardwiring in our brains or we can choose to be more human by fighting what seems like an overwhelming tendency within ourselves. Its that fight that is key to the formation of extraordinary character. Its good for us to resist our natural tendencies. Yes it does hurt, but through pain comes development. Its a cultural fallacy that many people have swallowed hook line and sinker that pain indicates that something is deeply wrong and that effort should be discontinued and yet athletes work through pain to achieve and win and handicapped people struggle through pain and suffering to overcome their disabilities.
Why is it that in the case of homosexuality that the personal pain that comes from resisting the urge is considered evidence that homosexuality is natural and shouldn't be resisted? If that is true then we should be consistant and tell other people with inborn challenges that they should also not put themselves through personal pain to overcome their disabilities either.
I am not convinced that celibate homosexuals would necessarily live in contant personal pain though. There is ample evidence of happy celibates throughout world history. In this current time, one is particular stands out. The Dalai Lhama is a peaceful and happy man who is celibate. He is happy and peaceful and content because he is a master of himself rather than a slave to himself. He is a master of himself as many many monks and nuns of both his faith and of ours because he follows time tested practices of discipline which anyone at all could master if they chose to.
Life is really a choice between whether we are masters of ourselves or slaves to our urges. Homosexuals are being sold a bill of goods that they can't help themselves and shouldn't even try. Of course they aren't alone in that because everyone in our culture is told the same thing by the so called authorities. Straight or gay, whenever we become enslaved to our urges we diminish ourselves and that is why homosexuality is a sin which should not be indulged in much the same way that adultery should not be indulged. In every case of sin, the failure is in failing to choose rightly and in choosing the easy way out rather than the high hard road.
God wants us to choose the high hard road because that makes us better stronger people who are capable of so much more than we would be capable of in our quiescent natural state. God sees the big picture I think and he hands us our daily challenges so that we might grow ourselves and be models and helpers and heroes to others.
Thanks the ad hominem attack. It goes to show that your argument needed a little help.
smmtheory mutters:
"Is it indeed that I have not proven anything or is it rather that you have decided that I have proved nothing?"
Now you are just using circular reasoning to try and bludgeon your way through the discussion. You have in no way, shape or form addressed any of the points that have been made about your previous statements. When you attempt this kind of deception, it means that nothing you say can be trusted. This invalidates your credibility so completely that any "discussion" with you as a participant is pointless.
Peggy says:
"Thanks the ad hominem attack. It goes to show that your argument needed a little help."
I have in no way attacked you personally. If you think I have, then prove it by quoting it and I will apologize. Otherwise I expect an apology
from you. But I won't hold my breath....
Peggy also says:
"Evidence of long term committed relationships is no proof that gay sex isn't a sexual addiction."
Peggy, If this and the other arguments you make for homosexuality being an addiction were true, then by using the same measures it would declare that heterosexuality is an addiction as well. Perhaps there is a 12-step group for it.
Peggy also says:
"Of course I could point to the overwhelming evidence that gay relationships are most often open in that both partners continue to voraciously seek sex with others with the full knowledge and participation of both partners."
It is true that gay relationships tend to be more open than straight ones. But gay relationships do not have the backing of our culture and religion, along with other incentives, to prop them up the way straight marriages do. So you are saying that gays can't get married, but then you criticize gays for not acting as if they were married anyway. More circular reasoning.
You also have left lesbians completely out of your argument, which is strange since their relationships actually have a better record of fidelity and longevity than heterosexual marriages do.
You also say:
"Just because we are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are hardwired a certain way and that we were just born that way is no proof whatever of that feeling being true."
If we were talking about a few individuals you might have a point. But we are talking about a certain percentage of people who have existed in every culture around the globe since the beginning or recorded history. You also omit that homosexuality, and even homosexual long-term relationships, are found in almost every species of animal on the planet. Especially among primates, cousins to our ancestors.
Your basic argument is that homosexuality is a sickness, or addiction. But you have not presented any proof of this other than your personal opinion. This would lead one to believe that your judgment in this matter is purely arbitrary and the result of personal bias rather than a reasoned conclusion based on facts. You should just stick to "because the Bible said so". It's a more honest approach.
Is this an evangelical post?
If so, shouldn't somebody be quoting Scripture?
If God created man and woman and declared them to be good, then does that mean the genetic building blocks of humanity changed in the fall? Or is man after the fall just simply able to choose sin over and against right behavior?
Those within Christendom who see the Biblical proof for original sin certainly believe in an inherent quality within mankind opposed to God's will, including an innate desire in some to be homosexual. This does not condone such acts.On the contrary, it condemns them rather strongly.
btw, someone asked how many times the Bible speaks against homosexuality. A lot. It is not addressed as much as other sins, mostly because after the Levitical laws were in place, the people engaging in homosexual sin were put to death (Leviticus 20:13). No debate, no footnote in the Bible required, end of story.
More Scriptural analysis would be welcome, especially by exgays like Randy Thomas (who commented above) -- and by ex-exgays.
Randy Thomas says he is gay no more but, sadly for the cause of full disclosure, he doesn't point out that he has redefined the word "gay." The word commonly means "same-sex-attracted," but Thomas redefines it to mean "supportive of homosexual behavior and politically liberal."
Thomas' recent ex-gay ad (available at the Exodus web site) admits that he is not especially attracted to women. Fair enough.
Either he is suppressing his ongoing same-sex (gay) attractions -- an understandable pursuit for a gay conservative Christian who demands celibacy of himself and other gay men -- or, he is striving for asexuality -- a sexual attraction toward no one. Which is it?
Whatever the case, I wish him success with celibacy.
"Behavior could never have nature as a root cause."
Somebody actually said that? I'm amazed. Tell that to dog breeders. It is clear to anyone paying attention that different breeds of dogs have different traits--they were bred to have different traits--even though they (a) descended from common ancestors (wolves), and (b) have quite similar genetic material.
The different genetic make-ups can't express themselves in different behaviors is idiotic in the extreme.
"Babies are unable to learn through observation that noise attracts adult attention?"
Have you ever witnessed a birth? No one had to teach my daughters to cry.
Mike A. writes, "More Scriptural analysis would be welcome.."
Ok. :)
"he doesn't point out that he has redefined the word "gay." The word commonly means "same-sex-attracted," but Thomas redefines it to mean "supportive of homosexual behavior and politically liberal."
Either way it is defined, it is a sin. Jesus "hardens" the Law by saying, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:27,28)
Thinking about sex and having sex are the same offense, adultery.
My concern, however, is for you, Mike A. You seem to have a boatload of anger for Mike A. Jesus also said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." (Matthew 5:21,22)If this is the case, repent and believe, Mike A., for the kingdom of God is at hand.
[Revision note]
..boatload of anger for brother Thomas.
-gedi
Rob,
I guess if one does not consider babies human until after birth, one can ignore the fact that they also learn in the womb. I did witness the birth of all three of my children. One of them did not cry upon birth.
Raj,
I have red hair like my brothers. My hair color is not a behavior. I am genetically predisposed to walk on 2 legs. Walking is not a behavior. Choosing where, when, and how fast to walk is the behavior.
Patrick,
I guess this means you are trying to accuse me of not being genetically predisposed to having an open mind.
"Is this an evangelical post?"
After reading these posts, I was beginning to wonder.
My understanding of "evangelical" is that we believe the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God. As such, it clearly condemns homosexual behavior. It simply says that Homosexuals (and adulterers) will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Cor 6:9) What part of "will not inherit" is hard to understand?
Since this is a very scholarly blog, I submit the following:
By definition all sin is against God.
Therefore only God can define sin. (if there is no God there is no sin.)
God has defined homosexual behavior as sin in his revealed Word - in no uncertain terms.
God will never judge a person for something they cannot help. It is not a sin to "be black" for example. You cannot choose where you are born.
There is no sin that MUST be sinned.
God will judge all sin.
Therefore, homosexual behavior is always the result of a person choosing to sin.
Again, even if it is argued that a person is "born that way," the pre-disposition is not sin. The homosexual sexual acts are sin. And they can be avoided. If not, then God would be condemning someone for something they cannot help. Since he is both a loving and just God, this is not a possibility.
PEGGY - hang in there gal. It gets rough in this blog.
"Is this an evangelical post?"
Anyone who read the comments without reading the original post my missed an obvious and relevant point: the post was intended to be satirical.
Some people are taking it way, way too seriously. It was originally written as for my old newspaper column which mocked the whole idea of seeking advice from people who write for newspapers. It's not meant to be a treatise on what I believe is the Biblical view of homosexuality, behavior, or anything else.
Oh, and for the record, this comment by Phil Troyer is a similiar to my own view on the subject:
Again, even if it is argued that a person is "born that way," the pre-disposition is not sin. The homosexual sexual acts are sin. And they can be avoided. If not, then God would be condemning someone for something they cannot help. Since he is both a loving and just God, this is not a possibility.
smmtheory at September 14, 2004 08:09 PM
>I have red hair like my brothers. My hair color is not a behavior. I am genetically predisposed to walk on 2 legs. Walking is not a behavior. Choosing where, when, and how fast to walk is the behavior.
This has got to be a joke. You have one datum point. Dog breeders have hundreds if not thousands of years of examples of data points. Are you seriously going to contest the notion that genes can determine propensities for various behaviours?
If so, quite frankly dear, present your evidence.
BTW, the notion that you walk on 2 legs, instead of acting like a chip, is itself nothing more than another data point for the contention that genes help determine behavior.
Stop being an idiot.
"Is this an evangelical post?"
I'll pay attention to an evangelical post when someone gives me a reason to kiss hank's ass
http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv
Phil Troyer.. well said! Thanks for restoring sanity to this thread.
It's a shame that you didn't read the rest of 1st corinthians:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And that was the short list. So anyone who has had sex before marriage, or if we extend the definition to thinking of having sex outside of marriage a la Matthew 5:27,28, anyone who has put something before god, anyone who has had sex outside of marriage, anyone who is metrosexual, any guy who has sex with men, anyone who intentionally used an expired coupon, anyone who ever wished they had the same car as their neighbor, anyone who ever had too much to drink, anyone who bitched out another person, all of them aren't going to heaven.
Actually that's just the short list. I think it was put more succinctly in Romans 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
I Cor 6 9:10 condemns behavior which we have all partaken in. Why do you choose to isolate the gay part? Perhaps its because its easier for you to point at the splinter in someone else's eye while you ignore the plank in your own.
Raj,
If your calling me an idiot is the only way you have of proving that I am wrong, then
||||
(_)/
talk to the hand.
"I Cor 6 9:10 condemns behavior which we have all partaken in. Why do you choose to isolate the gay part? Perhaps its because its easier for you to point at the splinter in someone else's eye while you ignore the plank in your own."
Or maybe it is because they have acknowledged their sin(s), repented, confessed them and been forgiven. If one blatantly partakes in unrighteous behavior, he or she shouldn't expect to inherit the kingdom...
smmtheory at September 14, 2004 10:50 PM
Sorry, guy, you are being an idiot. Walking is not a behavior? What is it?
KD,
And who is righteous according to the Bible? "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." Have fun with the plank in your own eye.
raj,
||||
(_)/
talk to the hand
Brother or Sister anonymous wrote, "I Cor 6 9:10 condemns behavior which we have all partaken in. Why do you choose to isolate the gay part? Perhaps its because its easier for you to point at the splinter in someone else's eye while you ignore the plank in your own."
John in his first epistle puts it nicely:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." 1 John 1:8-10
People who have sex outside the bonds of marriage are adulterers, be they gay or straight. When they repent, they are cleansed from all unrighteousness. How? Verse 7 says, ".. the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin".
You quoted Romans 3:10, "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one'". Verily, this is true. We are not righteous but rather declared righteous in God's sight. If you read just a little further in Romans, Paul continues, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." (Romans 3:21-22)
Repent and believe. You can't get to belief without repentance. People who have sex outside the bonds of marriage, including gay sex, need repentance. If they repent, they too can believe and be declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.
"To say that genetics plays a role in our behavior would be to deny our free will has any bearing in our lives."
Actually, genetics plays a HUGE role in behavior - at least in the autonomic nervous system. Although it is true that all humans have control over a lot of behaviors, hence celibacy is a choice for all of us, whether gay, straight or in between, not all behaviors are within human control.
For instance, I can stop breathing for a short time, but my autonomic nervous system, which controls breathing, will eventually force me to take a breath. I also may be able to slow down or speed up my heartbeat, using biofeedback for instance, but I cannot choose for my heart to beat or not.
Sexual desire and attraction, not to mention emotions, seem to come from the autonomic side of our bodies. Certainly we don't choose to whom we are sexually attracted, with whom we fall in love. Even sexual responses are largely independent of conscious control, as any teenage boy who had to walk with his books in front of his nether regions knows.
The issue of "nature vs. nurture" for me, as far as sexuality goes, is one of "does attraction - both physical and emotional - to the same gender come from nature or nuture." What the data show us is that it appears to come from nature - being attracted to the same gender is not a choice.
Whether we act on that attraction is the realm where morality comes into play. And morality is clearly all nurture - no one is born a Buddist or a Christian, we must choose the moral belief system we will follow.
Personally, after living as an "ex-gay" (that is, a person who is attracted to the same sex, but does not act on it) for many years, I found that I could not reconcile that lifestyle choice with my own morality (taught in the Catholic Church, of all places). I knew that, as a pure Kinsey 6 (no sexual attraction to the opposite gender at all), it would be a sin to get involved with a woman, because the relationship (and, God forbid, any marriage) would be based on a lie - I did not want to become someone like Jim McGreevey.
So I chose to remain celibate, but found that celibacy also led to sinfulness, but of a very different, and almost scarier sort. I work in health care and have learned over the years how important a happy and fulfilling personal life is for people to remain healthy and productive. My life as a celibate gay was neither (apparently some people, like Randy Thomas who posted above, are able to live happily without a personal life, I could not do it). I was really committing a form of slow suicide.
So, like a drunk who hits bottom, I had to take a long look at my life. Even though I knew living as an openly gay man was a sin in the church of my youth, I found that, by coming out, my life got 1000% better. I found that by allowing myself to love and be loved, in a real and meaningful way, I was a better person.
So I chose to change my moral belief system, and learned about scholars who do not believe that the biblical admonishments against homosexuality are true reflections of God's will.
I have no idea if I am doing the right thing or not - I believe I am, with all my heart and soul. But more importantly, I believe in the God that I was taught about in my youth - a loving God that does not condemn someone for doing what they truly and honestly thought was right.
CPT_Doom wrote, "So I chose to change my moral belief system, and learned about scholars who do not believe that the biblical admonishments against homosexuality are true reflections of God's will.
I have no idea if I am doing the right thing or not - I believe I am, with all my heart and soul. But more importantly, I believe in the God that I was taught about in my youth - a loving God that does not condemn someone for doing what they truly and honestly thought was right. "
Brother, my heart goes out to you. It is not easy to wrestle with sin. The Bible is replete with those who felt they were doing the right thing, but in fact were acting contrary to God's will. These people who think they are doing what they should be doing but are not are always condemned by God who is love. This is not a contradiction. If God did not love you, CPT_Doom, he would not desire what is best for you. God, however, does love you and wants you to spend eternity with him. He asks that you repent of your sinful acts, sexual acts included, and believe. God makes it clear in the Bible that homosexuality is not what is best for you even if it "feels" best for you. Seriously consider giving the Bible and Christ another shot. I will pray for you, brother.
Oddly enough, I do agree with Phill Troyer, as far as it goes. He says:
"God has defined homosexual behavior as sin in his revealed Word - in no uncertain terms.
God has defined homosexual behavior as sin in his revealed Word - in no uncertain terms.
God will never judge a person for something they cannot help. It is not a sin to "be black" for example. You cannot choose where you are born.
There is no sin that MUST be sinned.
God will judge all sin.
Therefore, homosexual behavior is always the result of a person choosing to sin."
If, as a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the inerrant etc. revealed Word, you are committing a sin if you have homosexual sex.
However, it also says that the punishment for homosexual sex is, as Gedi points out, death. So why aren't' more Christians out with guns blowing away homosexuals to the right and the left? After all, if they don't, then they are not following the law of God and are themselves committing a sin. Not that I don't appreciate it, but to me this always says that Christians arbitrarily pick and choose which "sin" to believe in. Because they do this then it invalidates any moral authority they might have in telling me that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Why should I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God when you don't?
"If God did not love you, CPT_Doom, he would not desire what is best for you. God, however, does love you and wants you to spend eternity with him. He asks that you repent of your sinful acts, sexual acts included, and believe. God makes it clear in the Bible that homosexuality is not what is best for you even if it "feels" best for you. Seriously consider giving the Bible and Christ another shot. I will pray for you, brother."
Not to beat the proverbial dead horse - but I spent 20 years doing exactly what you say, gedi. After that time, one has to believe the answer to one's prayer is "No."
There are so many instances, both in the bible (whatever version you care to believe) and in history, of the "truths" that God allegedly revealed being proven wrong. The shape of the earth and its position in the heavens is only one such instance. Slavery is another good example.
I still believe in God, unlike a lot of gays and lesbians who have left their churches, and I truly believe that God continues to reveal the truth about our existence and the universe we live in. I realize that is not the position of a lot of you.
I see God as a parent - who explains things to us children in ways that make sense, at the time. When my 5-year-old nephew asked "why is the sky blue?" I didn't respond with an overly complicated dicussion of the perfusion of light because of dust particles in the atmosphere, he couldn't understand that. I told him, instead, that it was a reflection of the water on the earth - not true, but something he could comprehend. He also now knows that the blue sky is a natural phenomenon, which is the important piece of information for him.
The scientific inquiry to date, which shows that, at the very least, not all gay and lesbian people are horrible monsters trapped in a meaningless existence, not to mention the wealth of scientific information that shows same-sex attractions are not a choice, demonstrates that there are flaws in the version of the bible that you all believe (or the versions, not sure how many different religions are represented here). I cannot ignore those flaws, nor can I ignore the reality of the lives of the gay and lesbian people I know. They all point to homosexuality as being part of God's plan.
As for doing what "feels" right - there is so much more to it than that. It is not about mere pleasure, but about happiness - about truly being happy with who I am, all of me.
When I came out and accepted my sexuality - when I asked the "what if" questions ("what if being gay is a normal part of humanity," "what if God did not actually condemn gays"), for the first time since puberty I felt like a real human being. That was so far beyond pleasure I cannot explain it. To me, accepting my humanity, my sexuality, my value as a person all happened when I came out, and it was a gift from God.
Patrick said, "However, it also says that the punishment for homosexual sex is, as Gedi points out, death. So why aren't' more Christians out with guns blowing away homosexuals to the right and the left? After all, if they don't, then they are not following the law of God and are themselves committing a sin. Not that I don't appreciate it, but to me this always says that Christians arbitrarily pick and choose which "sin" to believe in. Because they do this then it invalidates any moral authority they might have in telling me that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Why should I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God when you don't?"
Good point Patrick. I don't understand why Jewish people who only hold the Tanach (Old Testament) to be the inspired Word of God are not doing just that.
However, Christians have this additional piece o' information; namely, that God demeaned Himself by putting on human flesh. As such, He let us know that He no longer requires sacrifice but rather mercy (Matthew 9:13). God makes the rules, not you or I. Likewise, He let us know that His wrath has been held in reserve until the last day. So, the Church no longer requires the enforcement of the death penalty for gay sex. However, I would be remiss if I did not instruct you as to the coming judgment. God will enforce His wrath on the last day. It is just a matter of who's blood will pay for your sins, Jesus' or yours. I pray, Patrick, that you would repent and believe so that the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world might include you as well.
"that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust." (1 Timothy 1:10)
"Why should I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God when you don't?"
I do.
God bless you, brother!
Someday I will click that remember info button..
*sigh*
Last post was me.
"The scientific inquiry to date, which shows that, at the very least, not all gay and lesbian people are horrible monsters trapped in a meaningless existence, not to mention the wealth of scientific information that shows same-sex attractions are not a choice, demonstrates that there are flaws in the version of the bible that you all believe (or the versions, not sure how many different religions are represented here). I cannot ignore those flaws, nor can I ignore the reality of the lives of the gay and lesbian people I know. They all point to homosexuality as being part of God's plan."
If you got the impression that I felt you or any other gay person are horrible monsters trapped in a meaningless existence, then I apologise. This was certainly never my meaning. You are a wonderful work of God.
I don't understand how "scientific information that shows same-sex attractions are not a choice, demonstrates that there are flaws in the version of the bible". Could you elaborate on this point?
Homosexuality is not part of God's plan, brother. I am sorry. God certainly works miraculous good through even our worst sins. In Matthew 1, Christ's genealogy contains all sorts of undesirable sexual escapades, lot the least of which is the affair between David and the wife of Uriah. Yet, each of these instances of sin held real consequences for the sin. It was not excused. God did not love them less. He loved them more.
"When I came out and accepted my sexuality"
God wants more for you than this, CPT_Doom. Your soul lasts forever, your sexual appetites do not. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28).
You are in my prayers, brother.
gedi,
Let me explain what I meant.
According to some Christian sects (we'll ignore Leviticus for now, unless you are arguing that we should be Orthodox Jews, which I doubt), certain passages in Paul's letters state that being gay is a sin - or more accurately, expressing one's homosexuality is a sin. None of the writings that make up what is commonly known as the "bible" (I no longer accept this book as the definitive word of God, but you do), dicuss the orientation of homosexuality, just its sexual fulfillment.
The implication of these passages is that gay people, assuming we have no sexual feelings for the opposite gender (which I do not) should repress our sexuality, for God.
What I see as contradicting the writings known as the "bible" are the scientific findings that 1) homosexuality exists in a host of aminal species, not just man, 2) gay people are quite capable of having loving, monogamous, adult relationships and 3) being gay appears to be a natural phenomenon (getting back to the debate here). If God not only created homosexuality (which I believe was actually part of evolution, although I believe God is the driving force behind such natural phenomena), but also created homosexual humans with the capacity for loving, fulfilling, relationships, then it makes no sense to classify ALL such relationships as sinful. That's where I see the "bible" as being wrong.
"lot the least of which is the affair between David and the wife of Uriah."
And what about David and Jonathon?
"Your soul lasts forever, your sexual appetites do not. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul."
You are reducing gay and lesbian people to a sexual act again. It is dehumanizing. Sexual appetites are irrelevant. If I never had sex again, it would not change whom I fall in love with. And it is love, not mere lust as you wish to describe it.
And to try and live by denying the gift of your inner nature as God has given it to you is to spit in his eye like a willful spoiled brat. To reject it is the death of the soul, little by little, each day that passes.
Is your understanding of God now complete? Is there nothing more for you to learn? How is your understanding of God different from when you were 20, 12, 3, years old? When you say that I and those like me are not part of God's plan are you so certain that your understanding of God's will is complete? If you are human, you are fallible are you not?
Patrick,
I should have made it more clear who I was addressing but that was impossible given that the person who called me "intellectually simplistic" failed to identify himself. I'm sorry if you thought that I was addressing you. I wasn't. Whoever it was called my thinking intellectually simplistic. To me that is name calling. I don't think that person could find where I called his intellect into question.
As for your argument that if homosexuals are prey to a sexual addiction then the same could be said of heterosexuals, I have to say that this argument doesn't fly at all.
Why? There is one huge and telling difference. Heterosexual unions have the potential at least to produce a tangible positive in that heterosexual sex is the only natural way to produce children. I can't think of a single addiction which produces anything close to such a positive result.
Homosexual sex results in nothing beyond personal gratification and often personal degradation and destruction. Some people are functional alcoholics but they are still addicts. Many alcoholics suffer personal degradation and destruction. The same spectrum can be found in those addicted to cigarrettes and the same spectrum can be found in those addicted to gay sex.
I didn't address the subject of lesbian fidelity specifically. I was speaking of gay men and only gay men. I don't think that their relative fidelity is any refutation of my addiction hypothesis. It only proves that men and women are naturally different in behavior. Women tend to bond more closely with others, while men tend to roam. But since you bring it up, I would definitely say that lesbians are addicted to lesbian sex for rather obvious reasons that I won't go into. They happen to bond more closely to only one person who enables their addiction as women tend to do in all manifestations of female sexual addiction. In all manifestations of male sexual addiction straight and gay, men can't seem to get enough partners.
If you will read carefully, my argument does not deny that homosexuality is hard wired into the brain. My argument is that evidence of hardwiring is not proof of something being normal or right or acceptable. I do not believe that gay people can be re-oriented into heterosexual people. But my argument is that they should resist their challenges rather than sucuumb to them. I also argue that this is not a sentence of everlasting misery and discontent for the gay person. I see no reason why gay people could not be happy as celibates and why they could not make a more positive on the world as such. I'm talking about the world benefiting from the creativity and livliness of gay men and from the practical solidness of lesbian women without the negative ramifications of their untreated sexual addictions.
You could make the same argument that you make about gays being so much a percentage of the populations with alcoholics and other addicts too. These folks are also hard wired for addiction and must for their own good live their whole lives resisting that hard wiring. Nothing and noone can make an alcolholic not an alcoholic but we do that person a great service to insist that they not sucuumb to their addiction. Its the same with gay people.
I am not going to address your argument that recognition of gay marriage would change gay behavior. I don't have the time. But my short answer is that I am not at all convinced by that reasoning.
You say that I am just expressing my opinion and that everything that I say is just my opinion. That is another resort for those whose argument needs a little propping up. I am not a trained philosopher but I am making my argument using a more sound grasp of philosophical argument than you are. It seems that you refer quite a bit to popular science, emotion and contemporary thought. Your argument depends heavily on the prevailing opinion of those who agree with you. Philosophically the arguments that you and other pro-gay acceptance advocates use don't hold up to examination in the light of reason. Just see above for what I mean. You argue for instance that the prevalence of gay people in the human population is evidence that gay is normal and natural. I argue that lots of things are prevelant in the human population and not all of them are by any means normal. You also fail to make your case that relationships between gay people proves that you are not victims of sexual addiction. I argued that evidence of relationship is no proof that gay sex is not an addictive behavior and I backed that up with reasonable examples.
I am using reason to make my argument that the "proofs" offered by gay people to make their case are no proofs at all. I am not just relying on mine or any other popular opinion.
Peggy,
I'm sorry but I am having great difficulty understanding what your driving at. Are you claiming that for homosexual people, gay sex is an addiction?
That is a rather radical claim (no surprise to see it made here, of course). Do you have any scientific or medical support for your claim (i.e., some citations to medical or scientific journals) or are you just making it up as you go?
To help you overcome your bigotry (if you are interested in not being a bigot) you might want to consider that gay people have been having sex with each other for thousands of years and they're going to continue doing so whether you understand why or not. Rather than spew forth your prejudices out of ignorance, you might try the reliable approach known as love and acceptance. I assume you are a follower of Jesus, in spite of the bigotry you've espoused here. He talked quite a bit about love, as I recall. If you knew anything about love, you'd recognize that gay people love each other. And if you knew anything about sex, you'd recognize that a great many humans express their love for each other sexually.
It's all quite simple. Gay people = human beings who love as we all do. You = bigot.
Larry,
I believe Jesus can answer your question about what Peggy was driving at:
John 8:34 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
Since homosexual behavior is defined as sin in the Bible, then it follows that, according to Jesus, a person who engages in homosexual sex, is a slave to that sin.
That's the problem with sin - any sin. If it didn't give us so much pleasure, at least in the short term, it wouldn't be tempting at all. But once we buy into it we become slaves. And oh the price we pay. One thing about the Devil is that he runs a very good collection agency.
I've had an epiphany! I've been thinking about this all day and it finally came to me what the gay practitioners have been trying to say. When they claim that being gay is genetic, they've been saying that they are an evolutionary and genetic dead end! Could this be what caused the extinction of dinosaurs? Genetics turned them gay, they