Unless you are sinless, lay your stone down and walk away

November 11, 2007 at 1:35 am 57 comments

Gay 1I never cease to be amazed at the lengths to which humans will go to make one set of people somehow appear superior to another group. This is obvious as the debate about the homosexual lifestyle continue to be a hot topic in religious, social, and political circles.

This debate carries the weight of validation for an entire segment of people. It is not as if they require the validation of society to exist, for they will exist regardless. However, if and when society finally accepts them, those who are homosexuals will finally be able to life their lives to the fullest without fear of reprisal for being who they are.

Gay 2Let’s face it, society has at various points in recent history sought to restrain or rid itself of varying segments of the population that it feared would change the status quo. These offensive segments typically reflected factors such as race, gender, intellectual capability, financial status, physical health, mental health and political ideologies. This list could go on forever.

Sexual preference continues to be at the forefront of the “get rid of them because they are different” battle simply because there are so few who wish to accept the fact that a person’s sexuality is as ingrained as a person’s race or gender.

However, even if – for the sake of argument – homosexuals choose to have same sex relationships, society has no right to stand in their way. If society affords a person the right to choose what house to buy, what car to drive and what clothes to wear, then surely people should also have the right to choose the gender with whom they want to have sex.

Moreover, we all know very well that a heterosexual person can choose whom to have sex with. A heterosexual can choose to have sex with several separate people in one day if she/he so chooses and society will have nary a word to say in resistance so long as that person is being responsible by practicing safe sex.

So why must those who practice safe homosexual sex be constantly chided by society for their lifestyle? Do they not have the same right to have sex with whomever they want as the heterosexual? Oh, I know that many of those who fight against the homosexual lifestyle are religious and use their holy books to make this segment of humans feel like social outcasts.

For example, the Bible says in Leviticus 18:22 that it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman. If a Christian wants to accept this as law, so be it, but give some thought to this. A few verses later Leviticus 19:19, the Bible also says “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” I need not say how many people wear clothes of varying material nowadays.

Likewise, in Exodus 35:2, the Bible says, “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

Why do I not see the letter pages of the newspapers marking a movement against working on the Sabbath? Obviously, this is so offensive to God that death is mandated for anyone who does not observe the Sabbath.

In Exodus 21:7 a man can sell his daughter. Does that mean the Bible condones the trafficking of humans? In Deuteronomy 22:9 we are informed that a crop will be defiled if two different kids of seeds are planted in the same field. Defiled? Should we be eating defiled food?

The reality is many of these ancient customs are no longer practiced. In addition, even if a Christian wanted to insist that the New Testament is the guideline for contemporary living, this thinking gives luminosity to the hypocrisy used when singling out the homosexual lifestyle.

For example, the scripture used by Christians to treat homosexuals so badly in the 21st century is 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

It seems to me that if Christians are going to be so publicly adamant about the homosexual lifestyle being wrong, there should also be a public outcry against all who are sexually immoral (having sex outside of marriage), adulterers, male prostitution (I guess female prostitution is okay), thieves, the greedy, drunkards (no beer?), slanderers and swindlers.

I guess that just about covers us all.

Jesus said that the person without sin should cast the first stone (I carefully lay my stone down and walk away). Who among those letter writers does not fall into one of the categories listed with “homosexual offenders”? If you have been guilty of any of the sins listed, then put your stone down and walk away.

I have a great idea. Why don’t we focus on the adulterers for a while since adultery has a direct impact on families? Or we could focus on thievery since crime is a constant nuisance to us all.

In short, homosexuality is no worse a sin (according to the Bible, not to me) than adultery or stealing, so why the war against this segment of the population? Since Christians just let the adulterers live their lives without such direct interference, homosexuals should be allowed to choose their own lifestyle as well.

Don’t worry though, I’m sure as soon as the homosexuals want to know the Christian’s opinion on how they should live their lives, they will ask. (Not!)

- Stellar1

Reference: Bible Literalism ala The West Wing

Entry filed under: Stellar1. Tags: , , , .

The stages of grief over my loss of faith Reasons why I can no longer believe: 3 – Unchanged lives

57 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ESVA  |  November 11, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Thanks for this post. I’ve said for years that Christians need to get out and stay out of people’s bedrooms and focus on serious issues like systemic economic inequities that engender homelessness and poverty, or environmental issues like global warming and the USA’s disproportionate squandering of resources.

    You used the term “the homosexual lifestyle” a few times in your post. What, exactly, is this? I don’t think homosexuals have any one lifestyle any more than all Christians or Jews or Muslims do. Some homosexuals are rich and live a lifestyle I can only dream about. Some homosexuals live on the streets. Others hold average jobs and drive average cars. Or, to look at it another way, what is a “heterosexual lifestyle?” There is no such thing. Our lifestyles are determined by lots of factors, most of which have nothing to do with sexual mores.

    I think “the homosexual lifestyle” is a phrase that was coined by fundies and evangelicals to conjure up visions of depraved, lascivious, irresponsible homos. The use of such a vague phrase allows all listeners to fill in the blanks with their own twisted images.

    Anyway, thanks for a great post. Your discussion of biblical passages is right on, as is your suggestion that, if we are going to focus on cleaning up sexual practices, adultery may be a good one to start with, since it unquestionably damages families. Great point.

  • 2. blueollie  |  November 11, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Sorry, but I do believe that “the homosexual lifestyle” is harming traditional marriage, namely mine.

    If it weren’t for all of those gays and lesbians attempting to get married or have civil unions, I wouldn’t be constantly checking out my yoga teacher’s @ss in class (yes, she is female) :)

    Seriously, good post.

  • 3. LeoPardus  |  November 11, 2007 at 11:24 am

    A heterosexual can choose to have sex with several separate people in one day if she/he so chooses and society will have nary a word to say in resistance so long as that person is being responsible by practicing safe sex.

    Legally no one can say anything, but plenty of folks can and do have something to say about such promiscuity. I for one, am against it.

    So why must those who practice safe homosexual sex be constantly chided by society for their lifestyle?

    Frankly I think they can do what they want in their bedroom. I will point out though that numerous studies have shown that safe sex is massively under-practiced in the homosexual community. The heterosexual community also fails to use it consistently. Both bad. Not sure what to do about it though. It’s not like anybody is keeping safe sex a big secret.

    Why don’t we focus on the adulterers for a while since adultery has a direct impact on families?

    Right on. I can count on the fingers of one hand the sermons I’ve heard on adultery, or the times I’ve heard someone rail against it. But homosexuality? i’ve lost count.

    Since Christians just let the adulterers live their lives without such direct interference,

    Maybe adultery strikes too close to home for too many? [Need an icon for an evil grin]

  • 4. loopyloo350  |  November 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Please, this is an interesting post but at least be as objective as you are claiming Christians are not. We are no more black and white in our beliefs than you are. Please get off your high horse here and try not to make such totally inclusive or exclusive statements. I am a Christian and my neighbors son is gay, my favorite Dr. that I went to for many years is gay, many nurses I worked with when I was nursing were gay or lesbian. So I appreciate your desire to stand up for others, but don’t do the same thing you are complaining about others doing.

  • 5. Evangelines  |  November 11, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    First of all, in response to loopyloo, yes you are right – not all Christians behave as Stellar1 says. BUT, Christian churches (more so in US than anywhere else) are extremely vocal about being anti-homosexual. Vehemently so. The minority voice of tolerance is rarely heard.

    I agree with you Stellar1 in that there is alot of hypocracy in the Christian religion, something I questioned in my own blog. The current trend is to be vocal about Homosexuality and abortion. That’s it. What about the other stuff? They aren’t up in arms about adultery, stealing, murder etc (some anti-abortionists favour the death penalty – go figure…) , all the things according to the ten commandments they are not supposed to do. Who are they to pick and choose which commandments are the most important if they are ‘the word of God’?

  • 6. loopyloo350  |  November 11, 2007 at 5:04 pm

    You are quite right. A lot of so-call Christians are so concerned with finding fault in others that they neglect the beam in their own eye. I truly just wanted to remind you that not every Christian felt that way. May peace and light follow you may knowledge find you, keep on looking.

  • 7. clothier  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:43 am

    The truth is, any person is the way he or she is, by the grace of G-d alone. A sinner’s actions however, are no more “supposed to be” the way it is, than any other who practices any other vice. One falls into sin if one doesn’t seek the answers to the cross we bear. Of course, Christians are wrong in as far as sometimes they fail to accept the sinner, while condemning the sin. The sinner is also wrong by wanting to be accepted into the fold of believers, without acknowledging her/his sins. The problem emerges when people try to say that this or that action is not sinful. If any person doesn’t wish to have the Christian opinion or a muslim or Jewish opinion for that matter, they should accept the law of the religion, atone for their sins, instead of trying to change the religious law it to suit themselves. Of course, cruelty is not acceptable in any case, and when that was done, it was indeed a wrong interpretation of the law. Equally wrong however, would be the churches’ reshaping the law or the scriptures to suit current world views. Our world views as believers have to be shaped by the scriptures, not the inverse. When this happens, it’s a slippery slope and a way to chaos. God hates this kind of situation, and my fear is that the world is fast turning into this chaotic scenario.

  • 8. Quester  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:55 am

    I realize this response is more than a little cynical, but:

    1) Homosexuals, on the whole, are easier to identify and punish than adulterers. Easier to identify, because some identify themselves. Easier to punish because all we have to do is prevent changes to current views. We don’t have to make any changes.

    2) The continuing debate is not always about homosexuality. It is about the authority of the bible, who has the authority to interpret the bible, the internal unity of the various national and international churches and how decisions can be made that affect the members of these churches. In short, the ongoing contentious argument is sometimes just about power- who has it and how it can be wielded- and homosexuals are collateral damage in a struggle that is only about them in name.

    Salt these thoughts to taste. I am no expert.

  • 9. Martina  |  November 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

    So basically, if I read you right, you don’t think anything is a sin and no one should say anything about someone who is sinning?

  • 10. Cody  |  November 12, 2007 at 5:06 am

    Read the post a little closer martina;)

  • 11. Mi Lucha Interior  |  November 12, 2007 at 5:41 am

    Well said. I believe that if we as Christians would like to have a better “moral” discourse, then we have to stop focusing on the homosexuality issue, as if it were the only one. That’s often humans tendency: to reduce problems to very simple answers. In that context, please let me disagree with your parabolic comparison between sex outside marriage and the use of mixed textiles.

    As food scientist, I could simply suggest that in the past God forbade the consumption of specific foods because of safety, as a way to protect his people. When elementary preservation technology and processing were there, and New Creation was inaugurated in Jesus, then these rules did not apply anymore. But to say that human sexuality has changed … and that we should accept whatever, it does not sound so wise.

    As ex homosexual, often i don’t know if laugh out loud or cry with tears when I hear people who does not really struggle with homosexuality giving their so wise and understanding advices … I don’t want to belittle your intention, but you need to be gay and undergo all the process of facing it, to be able to understand and advice.

    Greetings,

  • 12. rhea  |  November 12, 2007 at 6:35 am

    Hi. As a Christian and a fellow human, I just want to say I’m sorry for all the hate and judgment that exists on this issue. Superiority is an ugly facade to hide behind. Be confidant in your beliefs and keep up the good work….

    Rhea

    rhea7.wordpress.com

  • 13. Fred Conwell  |  November 12, 2007 at 7:20 am

    Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). What is unloving about a Gay love relationship? Who is the victim being sinned against? Where is the hurt?
    If God didn’t want men to have sex with each other, He would have said “Man shall not lie with man PERIOD”
    Forget that “,,,as with a woman” phrase! We are not straights pretending to have sex with a woman.

  • 14. Dennis  |  November 12, 2007 at 11:04 am

    I speak not as a reverend but as a human being.

    My belief is that if someone of the same sex makes you a better person then it is acceptable and should be accepted by the law that men and women created.

    It is also my belief that same sex marriages should not be accepted in the church as the laws created by god does not accept it and why would god. Same sex marriages can not reproduce but I do believe some would make great parents because love is the key ingredient for a healthy family and that can come from two people of different sex’s or same sex.

    Anhow, I love people no matter what there sexual preference is and I believe people who are closed minded will miss alot of what is happening around them and will loose the wonderful thing we call life!

  • 15. loopyloo350  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Since most churches are artifical constructs they have little to account for the way they judge or treat people. God is where we gather in his name. We are none without sin and to judge or fellow travelers is to attempt take on ourselves both what we are not qualified to do and what God forbade us from doing. To deliberatlely try to divert God’s will is the worst sin, I believe.

  • 16. devildog6771  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    An excellent post. I found your references fair and unbiased. There were also a couple really good comments. I noticed that no one touched your “first stone” remark. Personally, I found that the most compelling comment of the post.

    I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Ten Commandments. I believe much of the Old Testament was changed or maybe clarified by Christ. in the New Testament.

    However, irregardless of all the aforementioned for and against, besides Christ saying, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” didn’t God pretty much say the same thing in the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve ate from the Apple, they were like those ready to throw the stones, they were trying to elevate themselves to God’s level.

    Is it our place as humans to judge or to live by God’s Commandments and the teachings of Christ. I am not implying we should act like the people did when Moses went up onto the mountain. I am saying we should not make the same type mistakes he made when he broke the tablets.

    We teach our selves and our kids the best we can. e live the best we can. We treat each other the best we can. We let God do the judging else we repeat the sins of Adam and Eve, Moses,and the stone throwers! I don’t remember seeing anything in the Bible that says I will not go to heaven or be judged harshly if I do not act as a judge or dictate to others how they should live!

    Civil laws are man made laws. Over zealousness and extremism can apply to some Christians as easily as it does to the Muslim extremists or any other extremist.

    These are just my thoughts for what it’s worth!

  • 17. HeIsSailing  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Fred Conwell says:

    Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). What is unloving about a Gay love relationship? Who is the victim being sinned against? Where is the hurt?

    Fred, I am with you 100% on that! When I was a Christian, I could never understand the anti-gay of some of my buddies. I always thought that attitude was very un-Christ-like.

    I checked out your website, and kind of liked it. You may be interested this article I wrote a few weeks back that looks at the Bible and Homosexuality from another perspective. I think you might like it. Check it out!!

  • 18. HeIsSailing  |  November 12, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    Fred Conwell says:

    Jesus defines sin as lack of love (Matthew 22:36-40). What is unloving about a Gay love relationship? Who is the victim being sinned against? Where is the hurt?

    Fred, I am with you 100% on that! When I was a Christian, I could never understand the anti-gay of some of my buddies. I always thought that attitude was very un-Christ-like.

    I checked out your website, and kind of liked it. You may be interested this article I wrote a few weeks back that looks at the Bible and Homosexuality from another perspective. I think you might like it. Check it out!!

    http://de-conversion.com/2007/10/17/another-look-at-homosexuality-and-christianity/

  • 19. greatwhitehype27  |  November 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    First off, the Scripture you’re quoting is Jesus literally telling persons not to execute capital punishment on an adulterer because they are broken beings as well, so quoting it as a “don’t take a stance on an issue or lifestyle as sin because you’re a sinner too” is doing violence to the Scripture you quoted. It’s ok though, you’re not alone in misquoting this Scripture, as I hear it in my church at least three or four times a month; completely out of context.

    And second, be careful about what you think is absolutely true or factual, as you suggest in saying “there are so few who wish to accept the fact that a person’s sexuality is as ingrained as a person’s race or gender.” That assertion is very much in dispute, especially in light of new science specifically related to genetics. At the very least, it would be more accurate to suggest that “there are so few who wish to accept the suggestion that a person’s sexuality is as ingrained as a person’s race or gender.” I’d encourage you to check up on the field of genetics (a jaunt over to Wikipedia would do quite nicely), where among other things, you’d find that recent science (not the fundamentalist new earth Christian crap) shows that one’s environment and heredity BOTH deeply impact one’s genetic code, not just inherited realities…what this means is that the environment surrounding an individual deeply shapes them all the way down to altering their very genetic makeup. In short, our genetic code is always in flux (though mostly stable), and can be altered through disciplined activity and alteration of surrounding environment.

  • 20. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Hi, I posted earlier with some concerns as ex-gay person. Actually, I think that there is a misconception here. Since when love includes necessarily sex? The fact that I love someone e.g. of my same gender does not automatically allow me to have sex with this person. With this specific reasoning, then let’s celebrate all kind of sex outside a blessed marriage! Wasn’t it the same in the pagan world in the previous centuries?

    Love, is it only a feeling? Is it the consequence of your hormones jumping out? Or it should be life giving, sacrificial and … like Jesus? Thanks to the so kind people that think that two persons who love each other, independantly of the gender, should consummate that love. However, everyone that has a bit of experience with Christian counselling/pastoral care would know for sure that the main reason people request pastoral care is due to the consequences of having sex, not actually due to any consequence of not having sex.

    I however don’t think that gay sex is harmless, even if it’s done in love. If I love someone, I would give my life for that someone. That’s not at all the case in most gay people I know and have met. Often, in our search of love, homsexual oriented men would pay with their bodies, and eventually their lives, the illusion of love. For following the instinct, and the legitimate need of love from the same gender … we end up being used by someone else that is as much or more broken than we are.

    I live in a country where gay marriages are possible. Gays don’t use this rigth. The problem with thinking that sex “with love” is ok, is that it can mislead, and one cannot see the final line. In a neighboring country, some time ago, there was a politician that promoted pedophilia (sex with children) as a natural lifestyle. He use to say that since it was in the nature of pedofiles to have sex with children, it should be accepted as an alternative lifestyle! Though I’m against violence, I’m glad that an outraged man killed this politician, for the sake and well being of one generation of children that would have been legally abused otherwise. Where is the limit of love? Does love enable me to have sex with the beloved? I know people who deeply love their dogs … should they be allowed to have sex with them because they love each other? Again, there is the story (true) of a man that was put in jail for having sex with his dogs, but actually not for the offensive act of having sex with animals, but because the animal protecting association thought that the animals were forced to having sex with the owner! so they put him in jail to make prevail the rights of the animals.

    Please don’t judge me exaggerated. These things are factual, happened in Belgium and The Netherlands not even 5 years ago.

    Uff, was long. Sorry for the lenght.

  • 21. karen  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, recently had an excellent essay on this topic in his newsletter. I’ll reprint it here:

    The issue of Gay marriage in particular and homosexuality in general is a case study in what is wrong with religion, especially Christianity.

    The overwhelming evidence from science shows that gender preference is primarily determined by our genetics and prenatal biochemistry, especially embryological hormone balance. Almost everyone is born attracted to members of the opposite sex. A tiny percentage — perhaps as few as one to two percent — are attracted to members of the same sex.

    Asking a homosexual when he or she chose to become gay is like asking a heterosexual when he or she chose to become straight.

    Nevertheless, on this particular issue Christianity remains mired in pre-civil rights, pre-enlightenment, even pre-scientific thinking, basing their beliefs on a single biblical passage (Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”) that itself is tucked in between other passages that instruct parents to kill their disobedient children and to execute adulterous wives and nonvirgin brides. That’s right, the death penalty for adultery, which would immediately eliminate a good number of Christian Congressmen and Senators, preachers and televangelists.

    As a consequence of this embarrassing lapse of Christian charity, Christian preachers, writers, and theologians think nothing of tormenting gays by telling them that their desire to love another person of the same sex is an “abomination,” by telling them that they have a disease that can be “cured” through “treatment” (such as forcing gay guys to watch football games), and by telling them that promiscuity is evil but that the single best prophylactic against it — marriage — is legally banned from them.

    Christians actually believe they are being charitable by proclaiming that they “hate the sin, not the sinner,” which is not dissimilar to what Christians declared just before torching women for allegedly practicing witchcraft in order to save their souls, or when Christians called for pogroms against Jews for being Christ-killers. (May I point out that if Jesus had to die for our sins, that means someone had to kill him, and therefore that someone should be thanked, not persecuted and murdered.)

    Mark my words. Here is what is going to happen. Within a decade, maybe two or three, Christians will come around to treating gays no differently than they now treat other groups whom they previously persecuted — women, Jews, blacks — but not because of some new interpretation of a biblical passage, or because of a new revelation from God. These changes will come about the same way that they always do: by the oppressed minority fighting for the right to be treated equally, and by a few enlightened members of the oppressing majority supporting their cause.

    Then what will happen is that Christians will take credit for the civil liberation of gays, dig through the historical record and find a few Christian bloggers or preachers who had the courage and the character to stand up for Gay rights when their fellow Christians would not, and then cite those as evidence that were it not for Christianity gays would not be equal.

  • 22. HeIsSailing  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Michael Shermer says:

    Mark my words. Here is what is going to happen. Within a decade, maybe two or three, Christians will come around to treating gays no differently than they now treat other groups whom they previously persecuted

    That trend has already started. Homosexuals were the spawn of Satan when I was a boy. And while Christians are still told to ‘love the sinner but hate the sin’, they have overall become more tolerated in Christian society. Why? Because American culture and society has become more accepting of gays, so Christianity is forced to follow suit or become irrelevant.

    Not that I am complaining. Believe me, I think it is long overdue. But you really have to wonder about religions that conform to fit in secular society so often throughout recent history. It seems that society never changes because of new thinking or interpretation in Christian theology – it is always the other way around.

  • 23. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Karen, i’m a scientist, and so far, I have not found sound scientific evidence of the genetics of homosexuality. What i’ve fond is that actually there is much evidence on the developmental origins of homosexuality.

    You are right. If I would have been given the choice, I would have chosen something else as struggle, a more socially acceptable sinful behaviour, such as gambling, heterosexual promiscuity, or simply being a compulsive liar. But it does not mean that I’ve developed homosexuality because of my genetics. The roots of homosexuality are very deep and not uni-factorial. Same sex attraciton develops as consequence of your own personality, together with messages, received or perceived, words and experiences in childhood and adolescence.

    My point here is: if I do struggle with homosexuality, and I have been actively gay for some years, and I found it not to fulfil my actual needs, should I be forced to “accept” it as my identity? Don’t I have the right to find a way out of this lifestyle, and struggle to get out of it? If all Christians would simply endorse homosexuality, then what hope would be for those with unwanted same sex attractions?

  • 24. HeIsSailing  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    refreshingfromheaven says:

    If all Christians would simply endorse homosexuality, then what hope would be for those with unwanted same sex attractions?

    uh.. you end the relationship?

    Sorry, that sounds like an absurd reply. But when does anybody do when they are in a relationship that is not working? Are you telling me that you are forced to continue in that relationship if the church endorses it as non-sinful? Baloney. You have a will, and what relationships you have in your life are based on the decisions that *you* make with your partner. Your faith should not dictate your life to that degree.

    My mother, a devout catholic back in her younger years, was told by the church that she must not divorce her abusive husband. What do you think was wiser – for her to listen to her church, or dump the drunken man who was beating her every evening?

  • 25. The de-Convert  |  November 12, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    What really muddles the discussion on choice or genetics is that there are babies without the clear distinction of being male or female. Though rare, it happens. What if it’s really a male but the parent decides to go female and vice-versa. Are they forever doomed to “sin”? (see http://www.answers.com/topic/intersex-states?cat=health )

    Yes, there are environmental or social issues that can influence a person’s sexual orientation. However, that does not exclude genetics.

    I should add that it is encouraging to see so many Christians leaning towards accepting homosexuality. As with the other “sins” that are now acceptable (like it being ok for a divorce person to remarry in clear violation of scripture), I predict that in a few years, homosexuality will fall into that category and hopefully blogs like this and the one by HeIsSailing contributes that that change.

    Paul

  • 26. Rob V.  |  November 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    The original post asked:

    So why must those who practice safe homosexual sex be constantly chided by society for their lifestyle? Do they not have the same right to have sex with whomever they want as the heterosexual?

    Of course homosexuals have the same “right” in the civic sense. What we as Christians are fighting against is being forced to deny our beliefs and accept these lifestyles as natural and unsinful. I say forced because we are being branded as hatemongers simply because of a difference of opinion. Maybe I can’t convince you homosexuality is sinful – but you can’t convince me it isn’t. Can’t we just leave it at that?

  • 27. HeIsSailing  |  November 12, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    Rob V says:

    I say forced because we are being branded as hatemongers simply because of a difference of opinion.

    But it is not just a difference of opinion. I think the Bible makes for great bathtub reading, but that is just my opinion. But when Christians say that homosexuals are living a sinful life, they are saying that because they percieve God-Almighty has decreed it, and is coincidentally on their side with this issue. Christians are not taking it as opinion, but as a matter of Divine Revelation. You are claiming that God has chosen you, but has damned the homosexual. Tough luck, huh?

    So I am afraid no, we cannot just leave it at that, because it is a little beyond a mere ‘opinion’.

  • 28. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm

    Helsailing, I do apologise, and with all respect, i don’t understand your point.

    With respect to the abuse your mom suffered, I would hearthardly agree with a decision to leave the abusive husband behind! I’ve already encouraged another believer to do the same for the same reasons. However, I wonder what’s the relation with the subject of homosexuality?

  • 29. karen  |  November 12, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    Of course homosexuals have the same “right” in the civic sense.

    How can you say that? No, gays absolutely do not have the same civil rights as do Americans of heterosexual orientation. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of legal rights that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have. For starters, they can’t get married in most states – and there are states that have specifically passed statutes decreeing that marriage rights cannot be extended to homosexuals. These discriminatory statutes have all come about due to the financial backing of religious organizations.

    What we as Christians are fighting against is being forced to deny our beliefs and accept these lifestyles as natural and unsinful.

    No one is trying to force Christians to change their theology. We live in a secular society (for the time being, at least) and we should have laws that represent the plurality of our citizenry, not laws that conform to the various doctrinal positions of the wide array of Christian churches or other religious organizations in the U.S. Believe what you want to believe. All we’re asking is that you don’t impose your particular brand of belief on society as a whole, especially when most of society doesn’t buy your viewpoint anymore.

    I say forced because we are being branded as hatemongers simply because of a difference of opinion.

    Would you brand racists and slave owners as “hatemongers”? After all, many of them use the bible to back up their opinion that black people are inferior to whites and should be subjugated in our society.

    Times change, society changes and our notions of what is – and isn’t – acceptable changes. Racism might have been perfectly acceptable to the majority in the 30s, 40s and 50s. By the 60s, that changed. The same thing is happening with homosexuality and the church is going to have to change with the times. It will happen eventually, but as usual the church will be on the lagging end of the civil rights issues of the day.

  • 30. karen  |  November 12, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    You are right. If I would have been given the choice, I would have chosen something else as struggle, a more socially acceptable sinful behaviour, such as gambling, heterosexual promiscuity, or simply being a compulsive liar.

    Now, see, I think all those things are far more damaging to the individual and to society than is homosexuality.

    But it does not mean that I’ve developed homosexuality because of my genetics. The roots of homosexuality are very deep and not uni-factorial. Same sex attraciton develops as consequence of your own personality, together with messages, received or perceived, words and experiences in childhood and adolescence.

    As far as I know, and I’m not an expert, the idea that homosexuality is shaped by messages from parents in childhood was discredited many decades ago.

    My point here is: if I do struggle with homosexuality, and I have been actively gay for some years, and I found it not to fulfil my actual needs, should I be forced to “accept” it as my identity? Don’t I have the right to find a way out of this lifestyle, and struggle to get out of it? If all Christians would simply endorse homosexuality, then what hope would be for those with unwanted same sex attractions?

    As HIS points out, if you’re unhappy with homosexual relationships, for goodness sakes there’s nothing stopping you from being celibate. I’m sad to hear that you feel you have to “struggle” not to be something that seemingly comes naturally to you, however. You might try reading “A Place at the Table,” by a gay Christian named Bruce Bawer. Not all gay “lifestyles” need to promiscuous, dangerous or unfulfilling by any means.

  • 31. John Senin  |  November 13, 2007 at 12:47 am

    I like creativity, love and the pure Gospel (Which means good news!)- I stumbled onto this website and enjoyed some of the posts. Here is another website that talks at length on this topic- you would probably appreciate an alternate viewpoint.

    http://www.desertstream.org

  • 32. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 13, 2007 at 5:06 am

    Karen, the most important thing is to separate homosexuality as an orientation and the gay lifestyle. I agree with you that homosexuality per se is not harmful, unless it becomes sexually active. I am celibate for quite some years now already. So, I’m not in need of breaking any relationship. FYI my orientation/attraction is changing, that I’ve even considered marriage (heterosexual of course). Ah, by the way, the consequence of my involvement in the gay lifestyle, the one you look as harmless, is called hepatits B and Human Papilloma Virus … and it wasn’t because of not using condoms! those are the other things that you can get besides aids. So, don’t try to tell/teach me if it is harmless or not.

    If you are not an expert, then don’t say if something was or not discredited years ago. I am a scientist, therefore if you want to convince me, please provide the published peer reviewed articles supporting your statement. The rest is, speculative.

    Please don’t feel sad for me. Why don’t you rejoice with me that I could leave a lifestyle and a sexual orientation that could only bring negative things to my life? I do struggle with sin, as any Christian does.

  • 33. Rob V.  |  November 13, 2007 at 11:28 am

    HeIsSailing said:

    You are claiming that God has chosen you, but has damned the homosexual. Tough luck, huh? So I am afraid no, we cannot just leave it at that, because it is a little beyond a mere ‘opinion’.

    This is what gets me: if someone points a finger at you and says you’re going to hell, but you don’t believe it what does it matter?! That’s what I mean by a difference of opinion. If homosexuals are being killed by Christians (and they are NOT), then they can complain. But if they boo-hoo because of some damnation claims, they have soft egos. Heck, if a Muslim says I’M going to hell, do you think that’s going to bother me? Not in the slightest! I think he’s wrong, he thinks I’m wrong – different opinions!

    karen:
    With all due respect, you are emoting your own opinions and are assuming they represent the majority. You are also making very large claims without supporting them with hard data (as refreshingfromheaven has pointed out). To say homosexuals have dozens or hundreds of rights witheld from them is preposterous. What you fail to realize is that homosexuals want SPECIAL rights. They already have the right to marry – the opposite sex. They want a special right to marry the same sex. The only other special rights I can think of are in relation to adoption and medical benefits (including visitation in hospitals, etc.). What are the “hundreds” of others?

    As to this comment from you:

    All we’re asking is that you don’t impose your particular brand of belief on society as a whole, especially when most of society doesn’t buy your viewpoint anymore.

    What you’re saying is that you can impose YOUR particular belief on society (and our children) and we’re supposed to just sit back and take it? You’re kidding yourself to think we will.

    Lastly, Karen, you insult all black people by comparing the horrors of slavery to homosexuals wanting acceptance of their lifestyle.

  • 34. karen  |  November 13, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    karen:
    With all due respect, you are emoting your own opinions and are assuming they represent the majority. You are also making very large claims without supporting them with hard data (as refreshingfromheaven has pointed out).

    Nope, not so. Here’s a site that includes historical polling data asking about legal recognition of homosexual relationships:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

    The most recent poll, from just last month, shows that 56% of Americans favor legal recognition – in the form of full marriage rights or civil unions – for homosexuals. Only 38% say that gay people should get no legal recognition of their relationships.

    From Wikipedia:
    Public opinion has shifted towards increased acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for gays and lesbians over the past 30 years. According to the Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who think that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal has increased from 32% to 57% since 1986. In 1977, 56% of Americans thought that gay people should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities. Today, that number has risen to 89%. In 1992, 38% thought that homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle. Today, that number is 54%.

    So, that’s not me “emoting” (what’s that supposed to mean anyway?), that’s hard data from the latest polls on the issue. If you look at that site I referenced closely, you’ll see that while the issue is clearly controversial and the country is still divided, people’s ideas on this question have been shifting over the years toward granting legal rights to homosexuals and away from denying them rights or classifying them as criminals.

    This shift is a natural consequence of scientific advancements in how we view the cause and nature of homosexuality as well as more gay people coming out of the closet and demanding equal treatment under the law.

    To say homosexuals have dozens or hundreds of rights witheld from them is preposterous. What you fail to realize is that homosexuals want SPECIAL rights. They already have the right to marry – the opposite sex. They want a special right to marry the same sex. The only other special rights I can think of are in relation to adoption and medical benefits (including visitation in hospitals, etc.). What are the “hundreds” of others?

    There are indeed hundreds of legal benefits involved in marriage currently that touch on financial areas, end-of-life and medical areas, adoption of children, employee benefits and anti-discrimination in employment. Obviously, since by definition homosexuals have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex, these rights are currently denied to them.

    Here’s a couple of sources that outline international laws criminalizing homosexual behavior, including some countries that impose the death penalty on homosexuals:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

    http://www.ilga.org/statehomophobia/State_sponsored_homophobia_ILGA_07.pdf

    You may call them “special rights” – parroting the terminology of the anti-gay lobby, which is largely religious – but I call the extension of existing rights to a minority group such as homosexuals “equal rights.” The Southern Poverty Law Center did an extensive history of the anti-gay movement in the U.S. a couple of years ago. It’s an excellent resource and I highly recommend it:

    http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=862

    What you’re saying is that you can impose YOUR particular belief on society (and our children) and we’re supposed to just sit back and take it? You’re kidding yourself to think we will.

    Wow, sounds like you are very threatened on this issue. Why is that? Again, I’m not interested in imposing my personal beliefs on society, I’m pointing out what the majority of society believes and making the argument that secular society should not be ruled by religious elements. The great thing about this country is that it has a tradition of protecting minority rights. My belief is that homosexuals should have the same protections that other Americans do, nothing more or less than that.

    Lastly, Karen, you insult all black people by comparing the horrors of slavery to homosexuals wanting acceptance of their lifestyle.

    Says you. I do not happen to agree.

  • 35. karen  |  November 13, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    Karen, the most important thing is to separate homosexuality as an orientation and the gay lifestyle. I agree with you that homosexuality per se is not harmful, unless it becomes sexually active. I am celibate for quite some years now already. So, I’m not in need of breaking any relationship. FYI my orientation/attraction is changing, that I’ve even considered marriage (heterosexual of course).

    Good for you. If you’re happy, that’s wonderful.

    Ah, by the way, the consequence of my involvement in the gay lifestyle, the one you look as harmless, is called hepatits B and Human Papilloma Virus … and it wasn’t because of not using condoms! those are the other things that you can get besides aids. So, don’t try to tell/teach me if it is harmless or not.

    Are there no heterosexuals who pick up sexually transmitted diseases? I don’t believe that hepatitis and HPV transmission is exclusive to homosexuality, and I don’t think you do either. Even people who are not generally promiscuous can get STDs from just one unprotected encounter of either the straight or gay variety. To use this as an argument that all homosexual behavior is medically dangerous is incorrect.

    If you are not an expert, then don’t say if something was or not discredited years ago. I am a scientist, therefore if you want to convince me, please provide the published peer reviewed articles supporting your statement. The rest is, speculative.

    There is historical record on the fact that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in the 1970s and the theories about family dynamics “causing” homosexuality have long ago been discredited by studies from Kinsey, Hooker and others. I’m not a scientist, I’m just an informed citizen, and all this has been widely reported. You may not want to accept the findings that have been made – that’s your prerogative – but it puts you outside of the current mainstream thinking on the issue.

    From Wikipedia:
    A resolution adopted by the American Psychological Association in August 1997 states that “homosexuality is not a mental disorder”.

    Here is information on the psychological studies that started the reformation in thinking about homosexuality:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker

    Please don’t feel sad for me. Why don’t you rejoice with me that I could leave a lifestyle and a sexual orientation that could only bring negative things to my life? I do struggle with sin, as any Christian does.

    If you were unhappy with your homosexuality and you’re happier now that you’re celibate, that’s great for you. If you feel self-loathing and shame about a natural orientation, I do think that’s sad. But maybe that’s just me.

  • 36. LeoPardus  |  November 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    gays absolutely do not have the same civil rights as do Americans of heterosexual orientation. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of legal rights that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have. For starters, they can’t get married in most states

    I’d really like to know, what are the other rights that straights have that gays do not?

  • 37. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 13, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    There is historical record on the fact that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in the 1970s and the theories about family dynamics “causing” homosexuality have long ago been discredited by studies from Kinsey, Hooker and others. I’m not a scientist, I’m just an informed citizen, and all this has been widely reported. You may not want to accept the findings that have been made – that’s your prerogative – but it puts you outside of the current mainstream thinking on the issue.

    Karen, as I told you before, I’m a scientist, and actually your concept of “informed citizen” is worrisome. It makes me think why we cannot translate research in lay terms to communicate to the citizens. If Wikipedia is your source, then we are in troubles. Just go to PubMed and type a general search on “sexual orientation” and you’ll get thousands of papers on the issue. I’ve read some of them, not all. Many of those who were counter current to the mainstream of thought were those who eventually did change something for society, so somehow your comment is flattering.

    Still, I really wonder why isn’t possible for you to rejoice with me for the process I’m living? Is that so politically incorrect that you have to be “sad”.? What’s wrong with engaging in a new lifestyle because of my encounter with Jesus some time ago? (I’m explicitely saying that my relationshisp with Jesus does not mean being a Christian Right fundamentalist) Why do you insist in telling me what my “natural orientation” is or should be? If I have to choose between adivces of what my natural being is, with due respect, I would choose the Bible’s and not yours.

    Greetings,

  • 38. LeoPardus  |  November 13, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Noticed this too on later read-through:

    No one is trying to force Christians to change their theology.

    There have been, and continue to be, many instances of trying to force Christian churches and organizations to hire gays, atheists, Muslims, etc. That’s at least telling them to compromise if not change.

  • 39. LeoPardus  |  November 13, 2007 at 5:17 pm

    the theories about family dynamics “causing” homosexuality have long ago been discredited by studies from Kinsey, Hooker and others

    Huh?! Family dynamics are well recognized as having profound influence on behavior. The literature is simply replete with data supporting it.

    And Kinsey?? Much of his research has been discredited*. Don’t see how it could then be used to discredit something else.

    * For lack of proper controls, poor population selection, inappropriate interview methods, poor data analysis, selective representation of data, among other reasons.

  • 40. Paul S.  |  November 13, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    loopyloo350 said,

    I am a Christian and my neighbors son is gay, my favorite Dr. that I went to for many years is gay, many nurses I worked with when I was nursing were gay or lesbian.

    So your neighbor’s son is gay, your doctor is gay, and some nursing acquaintances are gay. What’s your point? The issue isn’t whether you know any gay people (and I’ll bet you know more than you think), the issue is whether you agree with current Christian characterizations of a homosexuality as a sin more grievous than adultery, drunkeness, or working on the Sabbath.

  • 41. loopyloo350  |  November 13, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    PaulS. Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I think any kind of dicrimination is wrong. I have a son that is mentally retarded and have seen him treated quite awfully by people who should know better, teachers, etc. Is it a sin? Personally I think whatever anyone does that hurts someone else is a sin. By that definition, marriage itself can and sometimes is a sin.Sin and crime are seperate issues, allowing marriage, personally I think all marriage should be limited but I also feel it is an individual decision. At one time or other in our history probably anything and everything has been illegal. If you cause change by force, does it last? Or do you set up even worse on the rebound.And as for my neighbors son, I know but his grandfather doesn’t and his grandparents are our best friends. My point, I guess is, their is always something that hurts someone and change comes slowly, but it does come.

  • 42. Paul S.  |  November 13, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    LeoPardus said,

    I’d really like to know, what are the other rights that straights have that gays do not?

    Sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic under current federal civil rights laws.

    In 31 states, it is legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. SOURCE

  • 43. Paul S.  |  November 13, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    devildog said,

    I believe in the Bible. I believe in the Ten Commandments. I believe much of the Old Testament was changed or maybe clarified by Christ. in the New Testament.

    Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

    I don’t how much clarification was provided, but it is readily apparent Jesus did not intend to change anything from the Old Testament.

  • 44. karen  |  November 13, 2007 at 8:43 pm

    refreshing:
    Just go to PubMed and type a general search on “sexual orientation” and you’ll get thousands of papers on the issue. I’ve read some of them, not all.

    I actually spent a great deal of time replying to you earlier today and coming up with various sources which you’ve ignored. If you’re so familiar with all these PubMed studies, why don’t you post some links and show me how the family dynamic of a strong mother/absent father has not been discredited but indeed it has been validated by psychological and sexual studies? I’d love to see them.

    Still, I really wonder why isn’t possible for you to rejoice with me for the process I’m living? Is that so politically incorrect that you have to be “sad”.? What’s wrong with engaging in a new lifestyle because of my encounter with Jesus some time ago? (I’m explicitely saying that my relationshisp with Jesus does not mean being a Christian Right fundamentalist) Why do you insist in telling me what my “natural orientation” is or should be? If I have to choose between adivces of what my natural being is, with due respect, I would choose the Bible’s and not yours.

    As I said, if you’re happier celibate, I’m glad for you.

  • 45. karen  |  November 13, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Huh?! Family dynamics are well recognized as having profound influence on behavior. The literature is simply replete with data supporting it.

    As I said to refreshing, if you’ve got literature supporting family dynamics as a primary cause of homosexuality, I’d love to see it.

    And Kinsey?? Much of his research has been discredited*. Don’t see how it could then be used to discredit something else.

    * For lack of proper controls, poor population selection, inappropriate interview methods, poor data analysis, selective representation of data, among other reasons.

    Yes, I’m familiar with the shortcomings of Kinsey’s work, particularly the fact that he sampled men in prison and thus came up with a much higher estimate for homosexuality in society than is likely to be accurate across the board.

    However, he was the first to study homosexuality and to question the long-held canard about domineering mothers “causing” homosexuality in little boys.

  • 46. Charz  |  November 13, 2007 at 10:11 pm

    “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7 (NASB)

    Yea, too bad I was also taught that somewhere Paul wrote that don’t judge lest it be with RIGHTEOUS judgement.

  • 47. refreshingfromheaven  |  November 14, 2007 at 5:44 am

    For Karen:

    With due respect, Wikipedia is not a source of scientific papers. We all know that Wikipedia can be altered several times by the internauts. Evidence based science is normally based on published peer reviewed articles. Authors should report their findings objectively and if there are flaws on the methodology, peers wont’ accept the papers. That’s as simple as it is. A preliminary search on PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez) with the terms “family AND dynamics AND “sexual orientation”” yielded 6 papers. Just one example below. If you change AND for OR you’ll get 17177 papers.

    Schott RL. Arch Sex Behav. 1995 Jun;24(3):309-27.

    The childhood and family dynamics of transvestites.
    This article reports a survey of childhood experiences and family dynamics reported by a sample of 85 cross-dressing males drawn from the readership of a magazine for transvestites. The sample had a higher percentage of only children and eldest children compared to a national sample and also a much closer relationship with their mothers than with their fathers. Their identification as nuclear or marginal transvestites or transsexuals is related to the quality of
    the reported relationship with the mother, to the factors they identify as associated with their cross-dressing, and to their sexual orientation. Covert cross-dressers account for over three fourths of the subjects, but those who were overt (their cross-dressing openly encouraged by female family members) show significantly different patterns and distributions on several variables. A constellation of family and parental relationships is proposed–drawn in part from the insights of object relations and family systems theory–which may contribute to the development of transvestism.

    Another interesting and very recent article refining the Kinsey study:

    Bogaert AF, Blanchard R, Crosthwait LE. Behav Neurosci. 2007 Oct;121(5):845-53.
    Interaction of birth order, handedness, and sexual orientation in the Kinsey interview data.

    Department of Community Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada. tbogaert@brocku.ca

    Recent evidence indicates that 2 of the most consistently observed correlates of men’s sexual orientation–handedness and older brothers–may be linked interactively in their prediction of men’s sexual orientation. In this article, the authors studied the relationship among handedness, older brothers, and men’s
    sexual orientation in the large and historically significant database originally compiled by Alfred C. Kinsey and his colleagues (A. C. Kinsey, W. B. Pomeroy, & C. E. Martin, 1948). The results demonstrated that handedness moderates the
    relationship between older brothers and sexual orientation. Specifically, older brothers increased the odds of homosexuality in right-handers only; in non-righthanders, older brothers did not affect the odds of homosexuality. These results refine the possible biological explanations reported to underlie both the handedness and older brother relationships to men’s sexual orientation. These results also suggest that biological explanations of men’s sexual orientation are likely relevant across time, as the Kinsey data comprise an older cohort relative to modern samples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).

    I think that a systematic review of scientific literature should be done in order to clarify some of the beliefs regarding sexual orientation. In any case, this is the kind of scientific literature that provides proof. The rest is speculative and often based on beliefs and even more often based on a specific agenda.

  • 48. LeoPardus  |  November 14, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    There are more. These addressed the matter pretty directly.

    Fathers, sons, and sexual orientation: replication of a Bieber hypothesis.
    Friedman RC, Stern LO.
    Psychiatr Q. 1980 Fall;52(3):175-89.

    This retrospective study compares memories of the father-son relationship between lifelong socially well-adjusted, non-patient homosexual and heterosexual men. No homosexual subject reported the presence of a reasonably intact, positive relationship with his father or father surrogate during preadolescent years, whereas 12 of the 17 heterosexual men did. Previous investigators have hypothesized that a constructive, supportive father-son relationship precludes the development of homosexual orientation. This hypothesis stemmed from investigation of men who in general suffered from significant global psychopathology. The data in the present investigation supports the notion that a meaningful association, which is not attributable to confounding psychopathology, exists between quality of father-son relationship during early life and male sexual orientation.

    J Soc Psychol. 2004 Apr;144(2):191-206.

    Human affection exchange: VI. Further tests of reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their adult sons.
    Floyd K, Sargent JE, Di Corcia M.
    J Soc Psychol. 2004 Apr;144(2):191-206.

    The authors examined the communication of affection in men’s relationships with their fathers. Drawing from Affection Exchange Theory, the authors advanced four predictions: (a) heterosexual men receive more affection from their own fathers than do homosexual or bisexual men, (b) fathers communicate affection to their sons more through supportive activities than through direct verbal statements or nonverbal gestures, (c) affectionate communication between fathers and sons is linearly related to closeness and interpersonal involvement between them, and (d) fathers’ awareness of their sons’ sexual orientation is associated with the amount of affection that the fathers communicate to them. Participants were 170 adult men who completed questionnaires regarding affectionate communication in their relationships with their fathers. Half of the men were self-identified as exclusively heterosexual, and the other half were self-identified as exclusively homosexual or bisexual. The results supported all predictions substantially.

    Father-son attachment and sexual partner orientation in Taiwan.
    Lung FW, Shu BC.
    Compr Psychiatry. 2007 Jan-Feb;48(1):20-6.

    The topic of homosexual adjustment problems has never been explored in Taiwan. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of parental bonding in the adjustment problems of homosexuals. A total of 51 young homosexual males, 100 nonhomosexual personnel with adjustment disorder, and 124 controls were administered the Parental Bonding Instrument, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and the Chinese Health Questionnaire. The final parsimonious logistic regression and structural equation modeling showed paternal attachment, especially paternal overprotection, to be a predisposing factor in the development of homosexuality. Paternal attachment, introversion, and neurotic characteristics were key factors in the development of homosexuals. In particular, paternal overprotection played the most important role in the developmental process of male homosexuals. This study can be used as a reference for clinical personnel in caring for male homosexuals.

  • 49. LeoPardus  |  November 14, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Paul S:

    Thanks for the source link. Just the sort of info i was looking for. If you have more, let me know.

  • 50. karen  |  November 14, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Interesting stuff, Leo, thanks.

    What I’m seeing there (other than the study that is nearly 30 years old) when it comes to family dynamics doesn’t seem to be related to causation of homosexuality, but rather how parental relationships are different with sons they perceive to be homosexuals versus sons they perceive to be heterosexuals.

    fathers’ awareness of their sons’ sexual orientation is associated with the amount of affection that the fathers communicate to them.

    Interesting that you didn’t turn up studies done on females.

    The study that talks about older brothers and handedness is related to biological causes and has to do with the amount of hormone present during gestation, and whether that has an impact on the development of homosexuality in utero. This idea, that sexual orientation is fixed similarly to handedness, is the basic premise of the book I mentioned earlier, “A Place at the Table.” Over the centuries, religion has demonized both minority orientations – homosexuality and left-handedness – and tried without much success to “cure” both.

    If you talk to homosexuals about their perception of their own sexual orientation, all/most of them will tell you that they were aware of their attractions to same sex from a very young age, perhaps as early as preschool. Unless they are truly bisexual, they did not grow up feeling attracted to the opposite sex and then at some point during adolescence change their orientation after their difficult relationships with dad or overprotection from mom. Could this happen subconsciously? Yes, I suppose so, but it seems more likely to me that there’s something more fundamental going on that shapes all our sexual orientation.

  • 51. HeIsSailing  |  November 14, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Just so you all know, I know next to nothing about homosexuality, gay culture, or societal consequences on this culture. I have enjoyed learning from all these comments and chasing down your references. Thanks to everyone!

  • 52. LeoPardus  |  November 14, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    What I’m seeing there (other than the study that is nearly 30 years old)

    The study? There are three citations. Nearly 30? One is. The others are within the last 4 years.

    when it comes to family dynamics doesn’t seem to be related to causation of homosexuality, but rather how parental relationships are different with sons they perceive to be homosexuals versus sons they perceive to be heterosexuals.

    Huh? That’s nowhere in any of the articles.

    fathers’ awareness of their sons’ sexual orientation is associated with the amount of affection that the fathers communicate to them.

    Again. That’s not anywhere in the citations.

    Interesting that you didn’t turn up studies done on females.

    Wasn’t looking for that in particular.

  • 53. karen  |  November 14, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    fathers’ awareness of their sons’ sexual orientation is associated with the amount of affection that the fathers communicate to them.

    Again. That’s not anywhere in the citations.

    Yeah, it is. Here:

    The authors examined the communication of affection in men’s relationships with their fathers. Drawing from Affection Exchange Theory, the authors advanced four predictions: (a) heterosexual men receive more affection from their own fathers than do homosexual or bisexual men, (b) fathers communicate affection to their sons more through supportive activities than through direct verbal statements or nonverbal gestures, (c) affectionate communication between fathers and sons is linearly related to closeness and interpersonal involvement between them, and (d) fathers’ awareness of their sons’ sexual orientation is associated with the amount of affection that the fathers communicate to them. Participants were 170 adult men who completed questionnaires regarding affectionate communication in their relationships with their fathers. Half of the men were self-identified as exclusively heterosexual, and the other half were self-identified as exclusively homosexual or bisexual. The results supported all predictions substantially.

    It seems to me like this is a chicken-egg thing. Do parental relationships with kids cause homosexuality, or are the kids homosexually oriented first and that orientation affects the parental relationships?

    Obviously this is a subject that will continue to be studied; it’ll be interesting to see where the conclusions are in a decade or so.

  • 54. Charz  |  November 15, 2007 at 4:03 am

    I have just always wondered: why don’t we have as much passion for trying to stop these no-fault divorces and single-parent adoptions and the like as we do to go against gay marriage and gay adoption? Why are the evangelicals far from vocal on such topics as these?

  • 55. LeoPardus  |  November 15, 2007 at 11:51 am

    karen:

    Thanks for pointing that one out.

    I agree on the chicken-egg thing.

  • 56. LeoPardus  |  November 15, 2007 at 11:55 am

    Charz:

    I wonder why people keep asking that question. Evy/Fundy’s are far from silent on those topics. How is it that people keep missing that fact?

    Go type “no fault divorce” into a search engine. Or try it on the web pages of Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family, or several other vocal Christian groups. You’ll get plenty.

    If you search “single parent adoption” you’ll get less. Partly because it’s a smaller issue. Most adoption agencies will hardly talk to a single parent, so the issue just about dies right there.

  • 57. Jonathan  |  November 17, 2007 at 6:37 am

    “Sexual preference continues to be at the forefront of the ‘get rid of them because they are different’ battle”

    Isn’t homosexuality a renunciation of the Other?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,054,450 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 211 other followers