I've put off writing about this for a long time, because I know it's an emotionally charged issue and I don't think what I'm going to say is going to be very popular. Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding the consecration of the Anglican church's first openly gay bishop provides a useful backdrop for the topic of homosexuality and Christianity in general. (I'm not Anglican, and don't have much to say about the specifics of that matter.)
Let me start by quoting the Bible, from the book of Romans, chapter 1.
Romans 1:18-32This New Testament passage is the foundation for modern conservative condemnation of homosexuality, but you will notice that the passage itself is not primarily about homosexuality. The subject is mentioned, and condemned, but so are a great many other Godless activities that we all participate in.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
From verse 29 and on we see that all mankind is filled with evil: envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, hatred for God, insolence, arrogance, boastfulness -- who among us is innocent? None. We all stand condemned, before a holy and righteous God.
Why, then, do many Christians see homosexuality and homosexuals as particularly evil? Theologically, we shouldn't. The real difficulty, however, is that although most of us acknowledge the wrongfulness of our many lies, thefts, and boasts, many people deny the wrongness of homosexuality. Our culture glorifies many types of evil, but individually we mostly agree that greed, slander, gossip, and the rest are bad and that we should not participate in them. However, when it comes to homosexuality, many people argue that it's not wrong at all; and unless we are willing to confess the evil of our actions, God will not forgive us. We must be willing to submit ourselves to God's dictates on right and wrong, and we must be willing to agree with him when he condemns our actions.
Much of the justification for homosexuality is based on the idea that people are "born that way". There have been studies done to support that theory, and it seems plausible to me. But I don't think it matters. Some people are born with a propsensity to lie, some with a propensity to steal, others seem inclined to set fires, to murder, to rape, to molest children, and the list goes on. We all face a unique set of challenges in our lives, and we all struggle with powerful desires within us that drive us to do evil. Just because I really want to doesn't mean it's ok for me to do so -- even if that want is genetic or environmental in origin.
We are each individually responsible for our own actions. We cannot always control our inclinations and our temptations, but we must control how we act on them. There is a place for homosexuals in the church, and it's right next to me, a liar, a thief, a slanderer, a gossiper, and all the rest. I struggle constantly against every kind of evil, and by Christ's power I often prevail. That same power is available to everyone who is willing to ask for it, no matter what evil he or she battles against.
Amen, brother. Great post.
The biggest issue for me isn't even that Bishop Robinson is gay. The issue for me is that he is a practicing homosexual.
Scripture clearly says that it is wrong, but there is a growing number of people in the mainline denominations that are taking a cafeteria style approach to the Bible. Taking what they want, and leaving out the stuff they don't like. They justify their approach by saying that the Bible was written in a different time, in a different culture. What gives the lie to this is that human nature doesn't change based on time or culture. Never has and never will.
The problem is, God doesn't give us that option.
Sort of like my teenaged to twenty-something children that say, "You have to change with the times, Dad!" and my reply is, "No, I don't!" Human nature is what it is and their protests about my criticism of their behavior are no different than the ones my peers used in the 60's and 70's. I, of course, never did any of that stuff. ;-)
This is an issue I struggle with vehemently (the biblical outlook on homosexuality, not homosexuality itself). In faith, I say "Amen" to your comments and I even intellectually concur. It's just one of those "I believe. Help me in my unbelief" kind of issues. I know a man of wit, sensitivity, creativity and depth in the Word. He knew all the biblical principals and wanted to be in compliance with them. He did not practice any kind of homosexual relationship and engaged in thoughtful and seemingly inspired service in our church as a leader in music. At some point though, he left and joined a "gay" church in San Francisco. It would have been one thing if he had been agitating for open gay service in our church and was asked to leave, or if he had been behaving indecently or something along those lines. But in stead, he quietly and prayerfully struggled and made a considered decision - a decision which, in light of scripture has to be seen as at least a kind of compromise and at worst an act of open rebellion. I consider this guy a friend. I respect his insights and creativity. When someone like this goes the way he did, I can't help but wonder how anyone could do otherwise. In my head and heart I know the answer to these questions. It is Jesus Christ, living in our hearts, that gives the power to change our behavior. But I still grieve and struggle. For my friend whose journey I can't quite understand, and for my own desire that he should not have to struggle with something that is obviously that big an issue in his life.
Once I held to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, but no more. But I'm almost drained of any desire to debate the issue from a moral or Biblical standpoint.
But, as a practical matter, it is too late for the church to have much of a sway over gays as far as homosexual relationships per se. Years of either church-sanctioned oppression or church indifference to the bigotry, hate and discrimination has caused most gays to turn a deaf ear to the church's teachings. So now the church will have to learn how to deal with a large body of people who won't repent, either because they are unwilling to, or increasingly, because they don't feel a need to repent for something they don't consider a sin.
Regardless, I expect more and more gays to leave the churches and traditions they grew up in for Episcopal and other affirming churches.
The point is that Christians shouldn't want to "hold sway" over homosexual relationships, any more than Christians "hold sway" over lying.
Couldn't a careful interpretation of the passage lead to the conclusion that it's the giving in to those "shameful lusts" that is the real sin?
In other words, consider a man who at an early age realizes he is attracted to other men. Being a practicing Christian he is able to convince himself that to give into those temptations would be to go against God's Word. It's difficult, as we all know, to deny the flesh but with support of his church he is able to succeed.
Perhaps even later in life he finds a man (or a woman whom he has no real interest in sexually), and is able to build a deep friendship and respect for - maybe she's widowed, and both are searching for companionship. Maybe they realize that they love and care for each other enough to marry, chaste and all and realizing that sexual attraction is not the basis for a relationship.
Is he to be condemned as a sinner for the sin of homosexuality? Does just feeling attraction for the same sex constitute a sin as bad as those who actively pursue same-sex relationships?
Another difficulty I have is categorizing it as "evil". I guess if you define evil as anything that's against God it would fit, but looking around these days - we've seen evil enough to last any mortal. Between Saddam, Osama, Malvo & Muhammad, Kim....heck, insert name of local pusher/rapist/street punk here.
Are there "degrees" of evil? If so, I have difficulty believing homosexuality is any more evil than, say, cheating on your spouse. Reprehensible? Yes. Evil? Um.....
Depending on how you define "evil", is homosexuality "evil"?
We've see a lot of evil these days. Saddam, Osama, Malvo & Muhammad, Kim...heck, even your everyday pusher/rapist/murderer/molester. Nobody would deny these people are evil, and commit evil deeds. But is a man who cheats on his wife committing an "evil" act? Or cheats on his taxes? Kicks the dog? Covets his neighbor's new houseboat?
Are they sins? Yes. Immoral? More or less. Reprehensible? In some cases.
Evil? Um...
Barry, I think you're exactly right. As I (tried) to indicate, we can't control how we feel and what our inclinations are, all we are responsible for is how we act on them. Your example is great.
Barry, you bring up the distinction that I addressed in my comment about Bishop Robinson. Personally, I would have absolutely no problem with his ordination if he would stop practicing homosexuality. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
You cannot be a Pastor and teacher of the Word of God and actively refute it with your lifestyle.
What we as Christians need to do is to come to grips with how we deal with Gay people. That means that we need to remind our more zealous brethren that they need to love gay people as God loves all sinners, yet at the same time, be able to rebuke that sin. We should not "affirm" the homosexuality of gay believers, but gently point them to scripture and let God do the rest. God works best at convicting people when we move out of the way and let Him work.
It's a difficult balance to stike, because being human, we lack the perfect grace that God has.
Sorry for the repetitive posts - I posted comment #1, didn't see it come up and thought it got lost. I then proceeded to post comment #2 which only touched on one of the topics.
homosexuality isn't about homosexual acts, it's about the heart. even if some refrain for a time from the act, this is simply behaviour modification that will in time break.
Steve:
being a thief isn't about theft, it's about the heart. even if some refrain for a time from the act, this is simply behaviour modification that will in time break.
I don't think that sin is inevitable. We have a choice, and we consciously choose to sin, but we don't have to.
Within 50 years, it is likely that a significant majority of mainlines Christians and maybe even more will be accepting of gay lifestyles.
Usury is a terrible sin, but the Western world thrives on it. Where are all the pastors and faithful Christians on that issue? Where are all the Christians rushing to feed the starving in Africa? By focusing so much attention on homosexuality as a sin, it is easy for others to be off the hook. It is a sin to fail to give 10% of one's income to the church. But where is the emphasis on that sin?
I'm a pastor. I don't consider homosexuality a sin because I believe that there was then no understanding of sexual orientation and the scripture at its heart condemns lust and lack of faithfulness. There are more and more of us pastors that feel that way. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it means it is an issue that will be in the forefront of Christianity for decades.
But I think that's a good point - I was taught that if you're married and you lust after another woman in your heart (sorry to channel Jimmy Carter, but that's the best way to describe it) it's still considered adultery and a sin as if you'd actually gone through with it.
I'm not sure I can get behind that distinction completely, but I think maybe at the core it's probably true.
Does it apply to homosexuality? I don't know, but with some sins it might.
There's a difference between lust, and temptation. "Lust" involves immersing yourself in the tempting sexual fantasies, coveting, and spurning your wife's love in your heart, even if only for a short time.
And Joel:
As I said, above, I don't think it matters whether or not some people are born with homosexual inclinations, any more than it matters that some people are born with homocidal inclinations. Strong desires are no excuse for evil actions.
What is your definition of usury? All interest? Or excessive, loan-shark interest? Or what?
Further, I don't think it's a sin to give less than 10% of your income to the church. I think that's a good guideline, but I expect that the vast majority of us could give more than that without it being much of a sacrifice.
As for caring for people in Africa, Christian missions are the #1 source of healthcare for most Africans, and Christian missionaries are very active in that region (as well as most other 3rd world areas). When disasters happen, who are the first people on the scene to help out? Christians, that's who. And not always Americans.
Any interest over 10% would be usury. That's just my judgment.
Michael, I don't dispute your right to believe that homosexual relations are evil; I acknowledge that you are not a gay-basher.
Interesting, though, your view on tithing, because tithing is specifically part of the law that Jesus said is still in effect. For that reason, failure to tithe (give 1/10)is a sin. If it is a sin to do the things that are prohibited, it is also a sin to fail to do the things that are commanded. Tithing is not a recommendation, it is a requirement.
Please give me a NT reference in which Jesus commands us to tithe.
Under the law, the Jews were required to give 10%, but under grace we are not. God still expects us to give -- and in most cases, people could give more than 10% without feeling much of a crunch.
Michael,
Matthew 23:23 is a clear reference to the fact that Jesus accepted that the command to tithe was still in force.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. We need not fulfill the ceremonial or sacrificial part of the law, but we are not freed from obedience to the rest of the law. We cannot be saving by obeying the law, but that doesn't mean that disobedience to it isn't a sin. I will also grant that for Jesus it was the purpose of the law that mattered more than its letter or legalism. Ethical obedience in love was commanded over and above the "Pharisee" approach. I understand tithing to be so central to Christ's love ethic that failing to tithe must be considered a sin. Other faithful Christians disagree.
Yes, we are under grace, but that doesn't free us from the law. If that were true, violation of the ten commandments wouldn't be a sin.
I acknowledge that the area of what it means to be "under grace" (new covenant) instead of "under law" (old covenant) has been a dispute within the church for centuries, just as has been the different understandings of what "predestination" means.
As for tithing, I think that Jesus set the bar far higher than the law ever did, just as he did with murder and adultery. Giving less than 10% is not a sin -- failing to give sacrificially and generously is a sin, and for most people that will be more than 10%.
Still, as you say, it's not a point for anyone else to judge, which is why there's no reason to draw a line at 10% and say "thus far".
"The more important part of the law." That tells me that tithing is still part of the law today and that Jesus doesn't discard it as a command.
One of the reasons that giving is higher among evangelical Christians in the southern U.S. states, IMO, is that tithing is often shared as a command of the law that we are still bound by.
When people disagree on whether "tithing" is still the law or not, it is not surprising that many would disagree with the idea that homosexual practice is evil.
Re: Ursury
What determines a "sinful" rate would have a lot to do with the inflation/deflation rate of the overall economy.
In a situation where there were no inflation, 2% or 3% might be excessive. Conversely if prices were doubling every two or three weeks as in Wiemar Germany in the 30's 100% interest might be very reasonable.
Good point, Tom.
The problem with usury isn't the interest rate per se, it's the coercion that's generally invovled with loan-sharking, and the like. In a competitive financial environment (such as the United States) it's virtually impossible for anyone to face excessive interest rates, unless they've involved in illegal activities. Any bank or lender who charged rates in excess of their own risk would be put out of business very quickly.
Therefore, even if one extrapolates OT laws that applied specifically to Israelite relations within their nation to modern Christians, there's still no issue with usury.
Micchael, I think your last post on usury is a complete re-writing of what usury is about. Usury is not just about being forced but being exploited. A bank that entices a consumer to take out a 25% rate bank card is exploiting that person, regardless of the measure of risk the bank is taking. The non-exploitive thing is to simply refuse to offer loans at that rate.
In my area of the county, numerous people have lost their homes because they were first lured into taking out 15% personal loans, then when they couldn't pay, talked into taking out second mortages at 18%, which quickly escalated to 22% upon delinquency. The finance company knows there is a very substantial chance they will end up with the home.
As I have posted elsewhere, we as a society are fast turning one hyperbole of Christ into the following: It is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a poor man to stick a camel with a needle.
Yes, I agree that people shouldn't take advantage of others like that, but what do you want to do about it? Have the government regulate everything?
You're right though, I suppose that would count as modern usury, and it's bad.
The bible dosn't have an oppinion on gay love, only gay acts like rape, idolotry, and gay prostitution. Why do we continue to hound gay men and women for a gift God gave them anyway? Anyone can email me for further evidence on doctorwho6@activemail.co.uk to find out more.
BRIAN
I'm fascinated that you used the standard pharisee trick of ending the scripture post at verse 32...instead of continuing to Romans 2:1.
When the letter was written....it wasn't divided into chapters...and the letter has been arbitrarily segmented into chapters at a later date.
But I have noticed pharisees just REFUSE to quote Romans 2...in connection with Romans 1...in the same way pharisees will quote 1 cor 6:9-10 without the redemptive verse 11.
What is it that so grates on you about Romans 2? You don't feel so smug about your own 'moral superiority' when you're discussing the homosexual issue....that's what.
Lance: Hm, I wasn't particularly trying to trick anyone, and I included a link so that anyone who was interested could read the passage in context. I'm not exactly sure what you're accusing me of, and I'm not aware of any Pharisees who ever quoted from the NT.
The point of chapter 2 is pretty obvious -- that God has the prerogative to judge us, and that we shouldn't judge each other. And so? Chapter 1 tells us what his judgements are. If I condemn homosexuality based on the Bible it's not me doing the judging, it's God. I'm simply pointing out what he has said on the matter.
In contrast, if I say "it's evil to wear yellow shoes", then I'm the one doing the judging and setting up my own moral framework, because as far as I know God has no opinion on show color.
Not judging people doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye to right and wrong according to God's standard, it means that we shouldn't go around creating our own definitions of right and wrong. Is there a grey area of interpretation? Of course. But I hardly think there can be any doubt as to God's position on homosexuality.
I have heard it opined that homosexuality is especially condemned by many churches because it is a sin with which the majority are not tempted by.
It is easy to feel righteous about condemning homosexuality, far harder about adultery, lust or greed. Things which many more, including good Christians, are tempted by.
This is not to imply that Christians should not consider homosexuality a sin, but perhaps a better balance of condemning sins might be appropriate.
Why does anyone care about what two consenting adults do? Maybe these homosexuals aren't Christian. Maybe they don't believe in God. It's legal to be an Athiest still, right? Why don't Christians focus on how Christians behave and stop minding everyone else's business? There is a difference between homosexuality and the other "sins" you mentioned (stealing, cheating, lying, rape, incest, etc.) These sins directly and negatively affect the other party involved. By necessity, the other party is not willing or consenting. However, this is not the case in homosexual relationships.
Non-Christians (and Christians who believe homosexuals are not sinners) really don't care what other Christians believe about homosexuality. Homosexuals wouldn't dream of making a Christian participate in their lifestyle. Likewise, they would rather Christians please stop making homosexuals participate in the Christian lifestyle. (Christianity is a choice and homosexuality is not) Aren't Christians busy enough minding your own hipocricies? Christian families in general are poor and are poor souls in my opinion. They still have a lot of praying to do...for themselves. May God help them.
what's the general consensus these days about the 'miracles' of Christ - ie walking on water and turning water into wine. Do Christians still take this literally or do they understand that they are merely stories to show how Jesus really does represent a humane, just God who loves us.
I do believe that because some Christians say that these 'miracles' are literal that a lot of people turn their back on the church.
What does everyone out there in cyberspace think!
Regards, Jill
We are being brainwashed on the homosexual issue by Hollywood and the press. Homosexual activity has far ranging effects on people way beyond the persons involved in the activity. Homosexual men are like other men in that they have a great craving for new partners and virgins. This results in a substantial amount of trolling for young boys through family contacts, organizations, and traveling to country's where young boys are more available for sale.
All commentary acknowledges that early or first time homosexual sex is a strong determinant of future predeliction. Therefore the predatory behavior of adult homosexuals has a long ranging effect. And we haven't even talked about sexually transmitted diseases or secondary psychoses.
The church needs to pay attention to the word of God and clearly condemn the acts of all individuals who sin. How that plays out in the political world is less about the church and more about the consequences outlined above.
Brainwashing – “forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs”
hmmm the church wouldn't know anything about that....
So, let me see…..ACCORDING TO YOU, homosexuals are responsible for raping little boys which then grow up to be rapist homosexuals themselves… and, this is all to do with the fact that they lust after new sex partners and virgins…
Oh yes, and let’s not forget that they are also the cause of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and secondary psychoses....
(I'm going to assume that your OPINION about this is based on your many years of research in epidemiology, sociology, and psychology)
So, Dr. Kirk... Can I call you doctor?
I'm curious do you watch CNN?
Just wondering cause I could have sworn that I watched a program about a 23 year old FEMALE teacher who was sleeping with her 15 year old MALE student only weeks ago.....
But you know I think you could be on to something with this brainwashing media thing...., maybe she was REALLY a gay man disguised as a STRAIGHT woman for the purpose of tricking the rest of us biblically-challenged heathens into accepting the gays so that they can continue to prey on young boys and recruit them into their gay army of pink camo wearing rapists.
Thank God for experts like you out there to keep little boys safe! And the way that you can argue your point without supplying any facts… Genius! Pure Genius!
I think I’ll try that with my thesis… Research is such a pesky chore. Who needs facts? I’ll just say whatever the hell I want, screw proving it, and then at the end to back my bulls**t up I’ll just throw in some quotes from the bible for good measure.
It's ppl like you giving the intelligent Christians an undeserved bad rap!
You can call me Doctor. I've earned the title. You can call me expert. I've written books, spoken widely, and been interviewed hundreds of times on radio and tv, including the old Geraldo daytime show.
However, don't take my word for it. Do the Google search. But do it in detail. Read for bias on both sides of the issue. Then keep in mind that pointing out the facts is important, even if you don't like them. I'm absent minded. Its a fact. I need to know that so that I can arrange my life around that fact.
As a society we need to know the facts about groups. Thats one of the reasons we have Sociology, Social Psychology, Anthropology, Zoology, and History departments at our Colleges.
Knowing that homosexuals have tendencies to behave in certain ways does not mean that we should dislike them or avoid them. We certainly shouldn't hate them or keep them from sharing the rights we all enjoy in this nation.
But if I have a friend who is a thief, I don't leave my stuff around when he's at my house or in my car. If I have a friend who is a gossip, I don't share my secrets. If I know someone is homosexual, I'm not going to let him sleep over with my son.
Re: the last post. Start your research here should science really be what you care about.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0073.html
That's hilarious the words catholic and education in the same sentence!
Yes it's important to study groups, but it is also important to not place an entire group of people into a stereotype. A gay man isn't more likely to rape a young boy than a straight man is....
In fact most of the rapes in this country are committed by straight men because anyone who has actually studied psychology and sociology knows that rape isn't about sex it's about power and abuse....
http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/survivors/10/207
But you're an expert? You should know this....
Unless of course you got your education from the bottom of a Cracker Jack box!
I'm working on my 2nd PhD, and I have yet to come across a study that claims and factually proves gay men are responsible for mass raping of little boys...
Actually it's the catholic priests that can't seem to keep their hands off them... So, if you ask me my kid is safer with my gay friends then he would be serving as an alter boy for one of those sexually oppressed child molesting priests...
I'll stereotype you and guess that you didn't go to the site suggested.
Next, I'll tell you that while it would appear that your site is doing useful work, it was about rape. There is plenty of consensual sex taking place by predators against those who are younger and less able to make wise decisions.
Also, the myth you attempt to explode by stating that the self declaration of those men who rape boys is more often hetero than homosexual is one of those great little uses of stats. Since only 1.7% of adult males are self proclaimed homosexuals, it would be shocking if the 98.3% heterosexual men didn't numerically commit more rapes on young boys than the 1.7% homosexuals. Many people do wierd things for wierd reasons at different times and circumstances.
So, I continue to suggest you read the other side. One and a half PhD's doesn't prove anything if you only read one side of the issue.
Tell me, is it a common catholic practice to propose a theory and provide only self serving uncorroborated bullshi*t to back it up, or is this solely a practice that you subscribe to?
Should I only think about science? Um well…. Hell Yes!
I’ve never in the past nor do I intend to in the future start adopting a policy that relieves me from my duty as a scientists and a decent human being to always back up my research and theories with actually fact. To be sure to look at every situation objectively, and to always demand the same from others!
FACT, LOGIC, REASON, TRUTH! If you feel so strongly about something prove it! If you can’t prove it then maybe you should reevaluate your point of view!
And, yes I visited the site! I guess I just have higher standards for what I consider FACTUAL evidence then you do!
If you'd like to do some REAL research of your own try starting with the American Psychological Association you might find their source of information just a tad more objective than your self serving religious website. Much of their information tends to be independently corroborated by more than one expert in the field!
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
Good luck on that long road to self discovery and objective thinking Doc....
I'll stereotype you and say that I predict you'll never get there...
Here's to hoping I'm wrong!
SNF: Homosexual men commit a disproportional number of pedophilic rapes. That's more important than the absolute number, as I'm sure you'll agree.
Also, the idea that rape is about power and not sex is one pushed by those who have a clear agenda for rape to be seen that way. Common sense says otherwise. The most common targets for rapists are 12 to 16 year old girls. Are they the most vulnerable? No, just the most sexually unattainable and attractive. The vast majority of rapes are about sex.
I'm never going to convince Science Fiction, but I'll just relate a few of my personal experiences since he will merely dismiss the facts that he doesn't like and site the ones he does.
I used to have several friends who were homosexuals. I also had three friends who had homosexual sons. All of these are dead. From HIV.
Another friend ran a travel business and became partners with a homosexual man. His primary travel business was setting up tours for homosexual men to countries where they could have sex with virgin boys.
Another lesbian friend has bee
My best friend in college got drunk one night and was convinced to have a homosexual experience. He attempted suicide the next night and almost succeeded. He eventually dropped out of site and cut off all connections with his old friends.
During my pscyh studies at UCLA Science and the text books were clear. Homosexual behavior was Abnormal and could be cured, though not easily. Today it is unethical to propose a cure to a homosexual patient, and homosexuality is normal. Well, that is at least the opinion of the American Psychological Society. But a great majority of actual practicing therapists still believe that Homosexuality is abnormal and treatable. Academia has an agenda, and the agenda has infected the science. If we look at the actual results, we get clarity.
Sciencenotfiction-If you are not gay yourself, take a look at homosexual magazines, newspapers, and websites. Maybe that will give you a better picture of what folks in that life are thinking and doing. If that is normal, I prefer to be abnormal.
Clarity? Is that what you call it?
For some reason you seem to think a few homosexuals can determine the characteristics of them all. There are straight newspapers, porn mags, & websites that are equally reprehensible.
This new method of applying religion to research seems to be a paradigm developing among the SO CALLED religious scientists who seem to have fallen off the research ethics wagon in their failing attempts to bridge the gaps between their religious beliefs and some contradicting scientific evidence.
That is not a valid application of the scientific method. You must always be sure to properly select your population. Everyone knows a group of gays from the same bar in downtown wherever aren’t anymore indicative of the entire gay community than a group of white supremacist at a KKK meeting are of our entire race.
Or, at least everyone calling themselves as doctor should know this!
I have a colleague who is gay. He has been in a committed relationship with his partner for over 8 years neither have HIV/AIDS. I also have another colleague who is straight that cheats on his pregnant wife with any girl over 18 he can convince to sleep with him.
You keep going back to this gay sex with little boy thing, like sex with young victims is a isolated case for gay men alone.
Have you heard about the little girls being forced into the global sex trade. Sold as slaves! There are straight pedophiles as well.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state first there are some people who are prone to sexual attraction to little children & that these people tend to be both straight & gay?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/23/MN92308.DTL
http://www.stnews.org/archives/2004_may/edit_science_0504.html
Homosexuality is a treatable mental disease? Tell that to the women who have found themselves married to gay men for the past 15 years! Many of these gay men forced into pretending to be straight by unfounded religious prejudice and social pressures.
Bottom line. I don't know all the answers. It seems almost ridicules that as a straight man I can sit here and debate the nature of homosexuality with another straight man. Neither of us REALLY has any idea what its like to be gay, or how & why people find themselves attracted to members of the same sex.
The truth is after 2 undergrad degrees in chem. eng/psychology & 1 1/2 PhD’s in Analytical Chem/genetics I still have no idea with any amount of certainty what makes the worst kind of people tick let alone why people choose to be gay or straight.
I can however be sure that I will never simply draw my own conclusions about an entire group of people, based solely on my personal beliefs alone, just because I don't understand them and can't explain it. The evidence shows that both gay and straight people can be moral and immoral, it has shown that both straight and gay men rape, it has shown that both straight and gay men like sex with little children. I can't explain this accept to say that humans are complex and human sexuality is complex..... I will not succumb to phobias and fanaticism as a substitute for my responsibility as a scientist to remain objective & to consider only the facts!
"Also, the idea that rape is about power and not sex is one pushed by those who have a clear agenda for rape to be seen that way. Common sense says otherwise. The most common targets for rapists are 12 to 16 year old girls. Are they the most vulnerable? No, just the most sexually unattainable and attractive. The vast majority of rapes are about sex." - Mike Williams
Mike,
Read these.
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e141/e141g_e.shtml
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html
http://www.mako.org.au/whoabuseschild.html
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/428/428lect19.htm#PEDOPHILES
Now, either the entire scientific community is out to get you or perhaps your logic is flawed.
Seems to me that if you look at the last link you’ll notice part of the profile of a pedophile is someone who is very active in religion.
Now, by your kind of logic should I then assume that every priests is a child molester or every Christina is going to rape my kids just because statistics show that most of the child molesters are ACTIVE in RELIGION?
Well, lets thank “god” that I apply logic to my reasoning and would never try to suggest such a connection.
I think there are good Christians and there are bad Christians. Bad people exist in all groups and it is the individuals that are the problem, not the groups themselves.
SNF: I don't have the time or inclination to read all that, but I'm familiar with the general literature. Self-reporting is one of the great weaknesses of psychology, and it's hardly a science. Yes, rapists have stuff in common with other violent offenders, but I never claimed that rape isn't (sometimes) violent. It's absurd to claim that psychologists who study rape don't have an agenda of their own. One of my minor fields for my own PhD is psychology, and I'm familiar with the field, and very skeptical of any of its claims.
Mike: that's not surprising to me.
"Self-reporting is one of the great weaknesses of psychology, and it's hardly a science." - Mike Williams
Yeah Chirstianity and religion in general seems to suffer from the same problems.
Adam: Uh, Christianity and religion don't claim to be scientific.
yeah, thats why quoting them in an argument, which is based on "fact" is usually not a good idea.
Adam: I think you're confusing yourself. When we're having a discussion about religious issues, it certainly makes sense to discuss the facts of what things are written in the Bible.
if you claim to believe in god and that the bible is his message to us then you must follow his instructions. the bible lists homosexual acts among the many things that are sins. a person can take the words and twist them to suit their wishes or simply ignore the parts they don't like, but to what end? why do people wish to call themselves something but then not follow the guidelines set up? if you want to be a christian, fine. if you want to be homosexual, fine. but i don't think you can be both, going by the established guide anyway.
Wow,
I started reading your blog because it was clever, intelligent and funny.
Then I read this spiel about homosexuality.
For an educated person, the stock you put in the Bible is astounding. You seem to take a large leap of faith that the Bible is the word of God and not a compilation of the works of some pretty strange guys, purporting to be the work of God. But I guess that’s the point, faith I mean.
Well that said; let me correct you about something.
People are born gay, which is definitely not the same thing as being born a 'liar'. This is not something that can, or should, be overcome like the urge to misstate your income on your 1040.
You also fail to mention Leviticus 20-13, where the Bible suggests we crack the heads of the gay people open.
I believe this is as much the 'word of God', or at least as relevant to your bringing the Bible into the argument, as your touchier feelier selective New Testament stuff.
Jesus, I hope you don't apply the same selective evidence to your work for the defense department, this is how things that blow up in your face are made.