I just became aware of another referendum related to same-sex partnerships, this one in Washington State. In May 2009 Washington’s legislature approved a bill that expanded the rights of domestic partners to include all the same rights as married couples, lacking only the name “marriage.” Again, this was put to the voters as a referendum, and the citizens said, “Yes.” The final vote was 51% to 49%.
I find it interesting that those who supported the referendum to expand domestic partnership rights, raised nearly 1.1 million dollars for their efforts. Those who opposed the referendum, however, only raised $60,000. And yet still, the vote was within 2% points.
Thinking to Believe 
November 4, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Washington State is rather complicated in that regard. The West half of the state is very liberal and has most of the money. The East half of the state is very conservative and also very rural. The West has the majority population, and thus typically carries the vote, which is why WA is a blue state. But, despite being liberal in the West, there is also a large religious component, and most of the churches here advise their members to oppose granting anything that would make gay marriage legal. So the state is conflicted.
Personally, I find it ridiculous that some people think granting homosexuals the right to marry each other would in any way erode the principles of marriage. But, whatever. I guess everyone needs a cause.
LikeLike
November 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Thanks for the insider information.
What do you mean by “the principles of marriage”? Also, do you think opening up the institution of marriage to same-sex couples will have any impact on society? Any negative impact?
Jason
LikeLike
November 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I just mean marriage, in general. The idea that you are dedicated to one other individual and that you don’t have relations with anyone else. Homosexual marriage wouldn’t change that, and frankly, it just as good for them to be monogamous as it is for everyone else.
As for impact on society, no. I don’t think it will have any impact at all. What could it possibly do? It certainly wouldn’t effect me, and wouldn’t make my own marriage any less. How could it?
LikeLike
November 4, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I don’t know anyone who thinks it will affect their own marriage. What it will do, however, is affect the institution as a whole. In particular, it tends to cause the number of those choosing marriage to diminish. This effect was demonstrated in Scandinavia. When marriage can mean whatever people want it to mean, it loses its meaning. And if it is meaningless, why engage in it? After all, it is a legal entanglement!
Secondly, this will impact the education system. If you say that there is no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, textbooks ealing with families will have to show pictures of same-sex and opposite sex families, and speak of same-sex marriages as being equal to opposite sex couples.
Thirdly, it is likely to lead to religious discrimination for those who do not accept the normality of homosexuality and the equivalence of same-sex marriages to heterosexual marriages. The laws are already on the books (including sexual orientation as hate speech), and some precedents have been set for trying to silence those who voice their opposition. We can only expect that to increase once the legal distinction between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples has been eliminated.
Fourthly, saying that same-sex couples can marry is to say marriage is not about children. That is a significant change. Marriage has traditionally been understood as an institution to establish a family unit to procreate are rear children in. But if same-sex couples can also be considered “married,” then clearly children must not be the purpose of marriage. That doesn’t mean that people won’t have any more children. Obviously they will, but they will do so more and more out of wedlock, and its been demonstrated that family dissolutions occur much more quickly and frequently in such situations, and that family breakdown is a leading cause of social chaos (crime, drug use, etc.).
In the 60s and 70s people said that cohabitation wouldn’t affect anyone, so no one should object. After all, how is what I do in my own home going to affect what you do in yours? But we’ve seen just how big of an effect it has had. Lots of single parents exist, and lots of people on welfare to take care of them. That raises taxes. And its been shown that kids raised in single-parent homes are at a higher risk for all sorts of anti-social behaviors. It does matter.
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 8:27 am
Thanks.
I appreciate your viewpoint. That’s the information I was looking for.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 9:31 am
I paraphrased your points in the comments in this discussion:
I also linked back here, telling my readers they should see your original for all the points. I think you described them quite well, and they should be understood.
I should note, however, that I do not agree with most of your points. I do respect your position on the matter, I just don’t think these factors will impact society in as negative a way as you may perceive.
The only thing I see as valid is #3: religious discrimination.
I am very opposed to anyone tampering with free speech, and I see this as a free speech issue. Churches must have the right to oppose homosexuality if they wish to do so. Just as some churches may not oppose it – that is their decision. I may not agree with what a specific religious organization chooses to say, but I’ll fight for the right for them to say it. If anyone starts telling you to re-write your doctrine or you’ll get thrown in jail, then start screaming. (I’m sure you would anyway). No one has the right to tell you what you can or can’t say.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Jason With the money that poured into the yes column it may not have been only the citizens who said yes but special interest groups influencing the vote. Sad.
Writerdood
You said,
Marriage does not equal monogamy. The same sex marriages in males in Sweden are 50% more likely to divorce than their same sex counter parts and 167% more likely if it is a lesbian marriage.
Marriage at it’s heart is a religious institution and the Government should stay out of religion. Give them a union but not a marriage license.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Writerdood,
You don’t think the textbooks will be revised (#2)? Surely they will, particularly given political correctness. If the law says same-sex relationships are legally equal to opposite-sex relationships, textbooks speaking about marriage and pictorially depicting marriage will have to speak of both as equal.
Of course, those who support SSM won’t have a problem with that at all, but those who oppose it (which is the majority of U.S. citizens) do have a problem with it. When the schools take this approach, it undermines what these parents are telling their kids at home. The schools will be working to normalize SSM in the minds of our kids, while we work to say it is not normal, even if it is legal. The school’s efforts will have a social effect: normalizing SSM in the minds of the young.
I would be interested to know why you don’t think #4 is valid.
Apart from the actual effects that SSM might have on society, I would be interested in your take on my actual argument for opposing SSM. My argument is based strictly on policy. It does not even require that one think homosexuality is immoral. While it may not be likely, a person who thinks homosexuality is morally good could still accept my argument. You can read it here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/samesexmarriage.htm
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm
cs,
That was what happened. Microsoft was the biggest donor: 100K. There is only one individual in the top 6 donors category. The rest are groups. For the no-on-SSM side only 1 out of the top 5 contributors was a group (other than churches), and they only gave $1400. The top contributor was an individual who gave $7095. The next biggest was $2750 from an individual.
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 1:11 pm
It is important to note that my general opinions on this stem from the understanding that brain chemistry and brain morphology are different in homosexuals than heterosexuals. As a result, I believe that the vast majority of those people who are homosexual are not so by choice, but are rather born with a brain predestined for homosexuality. In other words, for me, nature wins in the nature vs. nurture debate here. There are probably some cases where homosexuality is a choice (true bisexuals for instance), but for most homosexuals, the attraction to someone of the same sex is as normal for them as attraction to someone of the opposite sex is for heterosexuals.
Therefore, I do not believe that homosexuality is “catching” or that people can spontaneously “become” homosexual. I believe that if it appears they suddenly became homosexual that they were probably that way all along and were trying not to be due to social constraints. After all, we make it pretty hard on homosexuals. We don’t allow them to marry, we openly call them names, we persecute them, we try to make them change their sexual preferences. Etc. You can’t “cure” homosexuality. (Not without altering brain morphology and chemistry). In the future, this might be possible, but right now, we simply don’t have that kind of technology. Maybe someday we will, at which point I will be interested to see who will use it. What if you could test your child to see if they were going to be homosexual, and the test confirmed it? Would you abort, or would you proceed with an experimental medical process that might kill them. Or, or course, would you assume that you might somehow alter this person’s sexual preferences through the imposition of religion upon them?
In any case, this helps explain where I’m coming from, and leads me to answering your questions. First, #2 – regarding the change in the definition of marriage in the public school system – it should be neutral if possible. Just as it is neutral with with most socially charged issues. By that, I mean you simply don’t mention gender. There is no need to discuss homosexual marriage, and there is no need to discuss homosexuality. You just leave it out. You don’t need a picture. What do you really need a picture for? Keep it neutral, that way it’s fair to everyone. And if you do show a picture of a tradition marriage, then what’s the problem? – it is statistically always going to be the majority type of marriage. I mean, are people of mixed marriage going to complain because there’s a picture of two married white people? Probably not. I doubt homosexuals are going to complain if there’s not a picture of two same-sex individuals. Public schools should always strive for generic neutrality. If you want to teach them something different, then use home schooling, it’s always an option, and I know plenty of Christians who do so simply because they don’t want their children exposed to evolution. That is their right.
For number 4, saying that marriage is not about children. I actually don’t think that marriage is about children, so that’s not a problem for me. I have several friends who are married and don’t have kids. They could have had kids, but they chose not to. That didn’t stop them from getting married, and it didn’t cheapen their marriage. They wanted to get married so they could share each others lives. Additionally, there are homosexuals who adopt kids (and we all know that there are plenty of kids out there who need someone to adopt them). Studies have shown that there isn’t any higher percentage of homosexuals statistically coming from this group than there are from heterosexual marriages. Being raised by homosexuals doesn’t make you gay (and I discussed this in the first two paragraphs already).
In regards to your point on cohabitation – I agree that it hasn’t been particularly good for society. There are certainly problems with it when a father or mother can simply walk away from a family. I think if you’ve had kids with someone, then you’re in it until the kids are gone. That’s what’s best for the kids, and as a result, that’s what’s best for society. But a lot of single parent families don’t necessarily come from cohabitation. They come from failed marriages too, and they come from lack of birth control and lack of education, not to mention prostitution with drug use as a motivator.
I haven’t read your other article, but I will do so and comment there.
Thanks.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 1:48 pm
*no profound responsive comment from me here for the topic, yet I needed to post something to be notified of follow-up comments via email. I will say though that this dialogue is quite interesting! Carry on! lol*
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Jason
It should be illegal for companies to donate money for any kind of political gain. Still yet there will be a backlash one day.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm
writerdood,
I’ll respond in several shorter posts.
As of yet, there is no clear evidence for a biological cause of homosexuality. But even if such were found, scientists who study in this area have said that would only be one factor. The other factor—nurture—would still be an important cause. At best, biology would predispose someone toward homosexuality, not determine it.
Even if we discover a clear biological cause for same-sex attraction (SSA), it would not follow that homosexuality is morally permissible or good for society (anymore than it would follow that pedophilia is morally permissible if a genetic cause was discovered for such attractions).
Neither would it follow that just because some people are born with SSA, that society needs to open up the institution of marriage to them. What if bisexualism is also genetic? Would we be forced to open up the institution of marriage to people who want to marry one person from both sexes simultaneously? My point is that policy is not dictated by discoveries in biology. The institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years, not to affirm the validity of people’s love, but to promote the procreation of children, and provide a stable environment in which those children can be reared so that they might become productive members in the next generation of society. Apart from children, there is no need for the government to get involved in regulating anyone’s relationships. Given that same-sex couples cannot procreate, there is no reason for society to regulate their relationships.
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 3:04 pm
writerdood,
I generally agree with you that people’s sexual attraction is not chosen. People who engage in homosexual behavior do so because they experience a natural attraction to members of their same sex.
As for the cause of SSA, I don’t think there is any doubt that social factors (mostly in early adolescence) are largely responsible. There are too many clear, definitive patterns in the social history of those who experience SSA for this to be doubted.
As for whether SSA can be “cured,” there are many people who have experienced SSA who claim to have experienced a reorientation of their sexual attractions. Some report simply overcoming SSA, but not gaining an opposite-sex attraction (OSA), while others report both overcoming SSA and gaining OSA. I have no good reason to doubt their testimonies. I think it’s the height of hubris to claim, as some do, that they are lying. How could they possibly know that?
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 3:18 pm
writerdood,
As for defining marriage, how could any definition be neutral? To maintain neutrality they would have to talk about marriage without ever defining it, because the moment they define it gender will pop up. And what about pictures? They tend to show pictures in school textbooks. Surely they won’t show two blackened out faceless heads.
The problem with only showing a heterosexual couple will be that homosexual rights groups will cry discrimination. And given the politically correct world that we live in, where we have to show diversity in everything, there is no doubt that they will be forced to display such pictures and or talk about the various “forms” in which marriage comes.
As for number 4, I realize that there are many who think like you think. They already don’t associate children with marriage. This is a larger problem within our culture, but the political fight over SSM has only worsened this perception. After all, during the years in which this fight has been going on we’ve been told that marriage isn’t about children, but love, and thus same-sex couples should have their relationships legalized. After a while, people begin to believe that message.
I’m glad you and I agree on the ills of cohabitation. So I hope you’ll see my point, then. My point was that when people were arguing for acceptance of this practice, they argued that we should accept it because it won’t change how others live their lives. That was true insofar as it goes, but it has affected society as a whole. I think the same is true of SSM. Of course it won’t affect my marriage, but it will have larger social ramifications that a lot of people aren’t looking at.
I completely agree with you that a lot of single parent homes are not the result of prior cohabitation. In fact, the majority are the result of divorce. I am equally opposed to that. The passage of “no fault” divorce laws in this nation have had horrible consequences, particularly for our children. The government’s involvement in regulating marriage was intended to make it difficult for families to dissolve, but with no-fault divorce, it became easy, and thus marriage lost its power to do what society needed it to do: keep families together. As a society we’ve been slowly destroying marriage, first by making it easy to dissolve, then by thinking of it as a way to affirm people’s love for one another rather than thinking of it in terms of children, and now in terms of redefining its form from two sexual counterparts, to any two people who want to participate.
Jason
LikeLike
November 6, 2009 at 8:23 am
Thanks for the information. It was good to hear your view point. I don’t think either of us is going to change the others mind, or that further dialog will be useful.
Additionally, I must say that the passion in this argument is primarily on your side. I am heterosexual and have no gay family, so I have no real motive to provide me with a reason for saying that homosexual marriage should be legal. It’s bizarre to me that I’ve ended up defending it, when it’s something I care so little about. (I do care, in the sense of personal liberties, that homosexuals should have this right, I just don’t have a vested interest). I think you would be better served by discussing this with someone who is gay and wants to get married. That would be more interesting.
LikeLike
November 6, 2009 at 1:39 pm
This is a non-issue. Any gay person in every state can get married. Nothing prohibits two persons from exchanging vows and living together as they see fit. That’s not what they want. They want government endorsement of their lifestyle. **WE** take notice because the “government” is We the People. If they want to get married, they can do so right now; if they want certain property rights, there are legal constructs available, etc; but when they seek government endorsement, we draw the line. Homosexuality is unnatural from a biological standpoint, and immoral from a Biblical standpoint. It is, therefore, not surprising we would oppose government endorsement of unnatural, immoral behavior.
The fact you disagree does not make your position rational. There is no scientific evidence proving the phenomenon of homosexuality is exclusively caused by one’s genes. To insist that it is in the face of the evidence is bad science and fuels irrational dialog.
Science HAS NOT taken the position that homosexuality is exclusively genetic. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health (the organization is a co-decipherer of the human DNA sequence) says the following, “If you look at identical twins and if one of those identical twins is exclusively gay…what’s the chance that the other twin will also be exclusively homosexual? It’s about 20 percent…If it was purely genetic, you’d expect to see 100 percent accordance and you don’t, you see much less than that. So that says there are other factors. DNA is involved but others factors are also very important. We don’t know what those other factors are. We don’t know whether they’re biological, whether they’re environmental exposures, whether they are childhood experiences… we don’t know whether they’re reversible or not.”
So, while DNA may be involved, it is not the exclusive cause of that phenomenon. Fully 80% of identical twins of homosexuals, having the same genetic makeup, ARE NOT gay. Moreover, a genetic cause does not imply normal genetic variation (like left-handedness). It could also imply a genetic flaw. Why do lesbians have ovaries? Why do gays produce sperm? Homosexuality is biologically unnatural, so if we see a persistent occurrence of it, and if there is a genetic cause, to one degree or another, that does not imply that the genetic cause is normal. It can equally imply a genetic disorder which affects a very small percentage of the population. So, even if the cause were exclusive genetic, it is irresponsible to leap to the conclusion that said behavior is normal.
The genetic claim is false. Whatever one’s opinion of gay rights, the debate should not be fueled by bad science. As the science now stands, the genes may play a role, but, at best, it is not the exclusive cause of that phenomena.
The counterexample of pedophilia demonstrates that logical debate cannot be based upon mere genetic claims. Many, if not most, pedophiles ARE NOT attracted to adults. Pedophilia appears just as persistent a phenomenon as other sexually deviant practices. Do the genes play a role? What if the cause thereof, to one degree or another, is genetic? It is irresponsible to call pedophilia normal regardless the originating cause because it is manifest that sexual relationships between adults and children are unnatural. Again, even if the cause is exclusively genetic, it is more likely due to genetic disorder, not natural variation.
LikeLike
November 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I never said genes played a role. That was your assumption, not mine. This is a developmental biological issue. Current research shows that it takes place in the womb. This research has been ongoing for decades. I didn’t say anything about genes. You should really read more carefully. Here are my words again:
“It is important to note that my general opinions on this stem from the understanding that brain chemistry and brain morphology are different in homosexuals than heterosexuals. As a result, I believe that the vast majority of those people who are homosexual are not so by choice, but are rather born with a brain predestined for homosexuality. In other words, for me, nature wins in the nature vs. nurture debate here. There are probably some cases where homosexuality is a choice (true bisexuals for instance), but for most homosexuals, the attraction to someone of the same sex is as normal for them as attraction to someone of the opposite sex is for heterosexuals.
Therefore, I do not believe that homosexuality is “catching” or that people can spontaneously “become” homosexual. I believe that if it appears they suddenly became homosexual that they were probably that way all along and were trying not to be due to social constraints. After all, we make it pretty hard on homosexuals. We don’t allow them to marry, we openly call them names, we persecute them, we try to make them change their sexual preferences. Etc. You can’t “cure” homosexuality. (Not without altering brain morphology and chemistry). In the future, this might be possible, but right now, we simply don’t have that kind of technology. Maybe someday we will, at which point I will be interested to see who will use it. What if you could test your child to see if they were going to be homosexual, and the test confirmed it? Would you abort, or would you proceed with an experimental medical process that might kill them. Or, or course, would you assume that you might somehow alter this person’s sexual preferences through the imposition of religion upon them?”
Do a Google search for Homosexual Brain Chemistry and start reading. There is plenty of evidence that homosexual brain chemistry is different than heterosexual brain chemistry. It’s flat-out there. Saying it isn’t won’t make it go away. If you don’t understand the difference between developmental biology and genetics, then you should research that as well.
LikeLike
November 6, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Your source? Current research does not demonstrate pre-birth homosexual brain chemistry.
Athletes tend to have bigger muscles than non-athletes, but are those muscles the cause of athletic behavior or vice verse? There are no studies demonstrating these brain differences (chemical) are the result of or the cause of sexual activity. To assume one over the other is a matter of choice, not science.
Agreed. I scanned your messages a little too quickly. That said, I think you are missing the forest for the tress. The topic of this thread is gay marriage, and one of the arguments used in favor of gay rights is that SSA is a product of nature, not choice. Consequently, it is perfectly normal to be gay. As the science now stands, that argument has no place at the table because science hasn’t proved that hypothesis. To argue it has misrepresents the data.
Don’t need to. I already know that. If you’ve “read” as much as you claim, then you know there is also plenty of evidence demonstrating lifestyle-induced brain changes.
If one wants to demonstrate birth differences lead irreversibly to sexual orientation differences, one would have to scan at least several thousand newborns (before learning and behavior can have any effect), follow them into adulthood and then determine whether there is a significant correlation between newborn brain anatomy/chemical composition and adult sexuality. Until that is done, one is merely waving a flag.
LikeLike
November 7, 2009 at 12:00 am
So much has been discussed in this forum…my thoughts:
1 – So, these couples in Washington state have been granted all the same rights as married couples, except the acquisition of the term “marriage” – well, ok…I don’t have much to say about that, and apparently no one else did either because the discussion immediately shifted to homosexuality in general, so I will follow suit…lol…
2 – Can “SSA” be cured? Jason, I know you mentioned about the testimonies you have heard. Unfortunately the one’s I have heard are exactly 180. All the testimonies I have heard about being “cured”? They have turned out false. Every last one. What was the deal? For some, they had repressed the feelings and went without activity for awhile. Yet the repression became too great and they fell back in…of course, this was after having testified of being healed. For others? Yeah, some of them just flat out lied, OR some of them were in the previous category (who thought they were “healed”), but were not, and then had to lie to not be shamed or embarrassed that they still had desires and fell to them yet again. I don’t know anyone who has been “cured” and has stayed as such. Now, I do know of those who have claimed to not be active, yet the desires remain. For me, I am a skeptic, BUT I do not just assume the individual is lying. If they are lying, it will more than likely be revealed… BUT based on experience, I just wonder….
3 – I still don’t understand why pedophilia and homosexuality are compared to make a point… to me its like apples and oranges. I say that because to my knowledge a child does not have desires of being a pedophile. A child can’t be a pedophile, to be even more clear. Only an adult can. However, it appears that a child can be a homosexual in that they can have sexual desires for the same sex. This to me marks a major difference. I can’t accept someone saying they were born a pedophile (that defeats the definition of a pedophiler), but I can accept someone who feels they were born gay, based on their feelings and experience from the EARLY stages of life.
4 – All in all, I don’t support gay marriages. Likewise, I am weary of the “assurance” of so many of us religious/spiritual individuals, claiming to be so certain about the details/affects/causes/remedies, etc of homosexuality but yet aren’t gay. To me it’s likened to a man being so sure about the details of being a woman. Ok, sure, you can do some tests, make some assumptions, etc, but you are a man, not a woman – you don’t know what it feels like, with all of the innateness of being a female. Then some have the nerve to challenge the woman on her own admissions to her life as a woman, telling her this or that about her own being when she in fact would know better than observers – she lives it! I learned quickly and I suppose acquired a unique perspective with this issue because my surroundings have put me in the path of numerous gay/lesbian/bi/DL folks who have discreetly shared with me their plight. *sigh* – it gets so deep from hearing their stories – and these are people BORN AGAIN – filled and all…I really don’t have an answer for them that that has led to them “changing”… apparently no one else does either…from what I was told, one thing that really hurts and for some angers them is when they are told “you chose to be gay” – when clearly they claim they did not, especially those born again, but yet they still have the attractions/desires…
5 – NEVERTHELESS, I do not support homosexual behavior, nor gay marriage primarily based on spiritual convictions– and unless the bible changes on that (lol) I will not either. That is just me though. As for societal reasons, I suppose I still need to research that to formulate a concrete stance – some will not care to hear about my religious convictions, but will want other reasons for my disapproval of gay marriage….Jason, I will start with your articles!
LikeLike
November 8, 2009 at 12:08 am
Hi, Michael! My replies will correspond to the points you’ve made.
1) My initial remarks addressed this issue by calling it a non-issue. Gays don’t want to get married (they already can). They want societal endorsement.
2) You write,
I am reminded of movie critic, Paula Kael, who said, “I can’t understand it. None of my friends voted for Nixon.” This, after Nixon won the ’72 presidential election in a landslide.
Michael, unless you are a researcher in this field (or have read various studies on the topic), I say with all due respect that your personal experiences carry little logical weight. The fact you haven’t met any “real” converts does not mean there are none.
I know your remarks are measured in that you don’t completely deny contrary testimonials. But if your experience validates your view, then the experiences of others should be accepted in the absence of scientific proof — unless, of course, we call everybody who disagrees with us liars (which you don’t do).
3) You are not basing this on any scientific data. You cannot see how a person can be “born” a pedophile so that settles it. I am not arguing they are. I am arguing that being “born” homosexual is no more normal than being born a pedophile is. Birth orientation, whether chemical or genetic, does not normalize that orientation.
Many straight persons fail to experience sexual attraction until puberty while many others testify of prepubescent desires. If one argues every person’s sexual orientation is hard-wired (one way or the other), then it is irrelevant whether that orientation emerges in prepubescence. And if it does emerge prior to puberty, said desire includes other children. If you desired that cute girl in your fourth grade class, then perhaps that fella sitting next to you had his eyes on her too, but he never lost his attraction to children as he grew older. Since it is logically conceivable pedophilia is the result of a chemical or genetic disorder, the comparison with homosexuality is definitely analogous.
4) Okay, they claim they didn’t choose to be gay. What will you say to somebody who is equally angered when you say they chose to be attracted to children? You’ve never walked in their shoes so you have no basis for that opinion, right?
All I am saying in this regard is we should not be calling something natural or normal when it clearly isn’t.
As to “answers” for these “born again” gays, they must remain celibate if they want to be saved. What do you say to a woman whose husband is a paraplegic? What do you say to that “unattractive” 29-year-old woman who nobody in your church wants to marry? The biblical answer IS NOT to violate God’s law because life’s circumstances are unpleasant. They need love and compassion, without compromise!
5) Well, I think we can agree here — mostly. 🙂
Best wishes!
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 10:36 am
Hello Scalia. Thanks for your reply…
So, I typed out my response to you, point by point as we usually do. Then it was time to edit. Then that is when all my strength was zapped. Why? For both spoken and unspoken reasons. Some points we agree on, some we do not. Some things you understood what I was saying, and therefore partially agreed or fully disagreed, some things you misunderstood me or assumed, and therefore fully disagreed. But I am actually ok with that. I suppose that a person can get weary going back and forth on certain topics, vigorously attempting to prove their point and persuade the other side. Especially with this one, as it is extremely extensive. So I am choosing to “throw my hands up and say – ‘it is what it is’” and keep it moving.
Anyhow, I am deciding to now disregard my extremely detailed reply back to you and simply say a few remarks, remarks which have been developed from my own personal research and interactions with those individuals who have same sex desires.
While it is important, I realize that the homosexual/bi/DL etc individuals I know – (the ones that you do not know (more than likely) so you can take it or leave it concerning what they have shared with me) – the ones who satisfy my research for the time being – the ones who have been born again (like the bible says, lol), the ones who strive to live for God: it seems that they are becoming less concerned about the discussion of whether one is born gay or not, whether it’s common or not, natural or not, whatever. What they do know is that according to the bible, the practicing of that activity prevents one from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven (but yet that was how they USE to be, right? They were washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God – but the desires and struggle still remains? What gives they ask? Anyhow…)…What they seek now, the answers they seek concern:
1-living each day without those same sex desires and instead having desires for the opposite sex
2 – Enjoy companionship and the love a man is supposed to have for a woman (and vice versa)
3 – Have a spouse of the opposite sex to enjoy sexual fullfillment (see – it’s one thing to choose to be single and celibate, yet its another thing to force oneself to be single and celibate because the sexual desires they DO have are forbidden, and also they have no idea how to “convert” them over)…
4 – Have children
5 – Be accepted by society and more so the body of Christ that they are apart of. And when I say accepted, I dont mean that the behavior be approved. EVERYONE KNOWS IT’S WRONG! LOL (clearly they dont, but I am talking about those who do) – when I say accepted, I mean compassion, empathy, the lack of condemnation and indifference and negative assumptions, etc)…
For these individuals, they have prayed, fasted, operate in the power of the Holy Spirit, sought counseling, help groups, etc – they have “done it all.” While some days are better than others, the desires remain. The church? Well we tell them that they can be totally “delivered.” How? Prayer, fasting, crying out to God, couseling, wanting it enough we say. Well, as mentioned, these individuals have done that. They have been in the prayer lines, been drowned in anointing oil and prayed over in English and “other tongues” …they have sought the couseling. For these individuals, the desires remain – for many since childhood and remains after years.
What answers are they looking for? Not the ones they already have: don’t embrace the feeling or your going to hell. Thanks – they know that and are sure we wont forget to remind them. It seems they are becoming less and less concerned about the ignorance of society and particularly many Christians and other heterosexuals who claim to be so conclusive about the issue as a whole. Besides, many of them are “in disguise” and others don’t know about them anyhow. Unfortunately, it seems better that way they say. Why? Because getting support or relief from those areas (society and Christians) seems to be a constant FAIL…for the most part it seems. But we would say that is subjective…ha – what isn’t nowadays (sarcastically spoken).
So, now they wanna cut to the chase – how do they wake up one day as a heterosexual, FULLY…how do they attain all of those numbered points I typed out already… No one seems to know…and what has been suggested, it’s not working for them…So they just live on…
I chuckled (and shook my head) at the comparison of an unattractive 29 year old single woman to homosexuality – in regards to what to tell them about dealing with being single. I had a very detailed response on how that is TRULY apples and oranges – no – apples and bricks more like it. But I am sure we would disagree on that in some aspect as well, so moving on from that.
But hey, in conclusion, I FULLY (not just ‘mostly I think’ like you said concerning a different point I shared in the previous post), but I fully agree with you on this part:
“They need love and compassion without compromise!”
Amen.
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 10:37 am
LOL! My new re-drafted response was still long and detailed I see! aha! Well, trust me, the one I WAS going to send? Yeah, a novel…heh.
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 11:05 am
Michael,
Yes, some do relapse. Some claim to have their orientation changed when it really hasn’t been. But to me, this no more discounts the possibility that others have genuinely experienced change than apostosizers from the Christian faith discount the veracity of the Christian faith. Just because there are fakers doesn’t mean there are no genuine conversions. All we have is the testimony of those who claim to have experienced change. I have no reason to believe that every single person who claims to have experienced change is lying, or just repressing their true feelings. Some seemingly overcome their SSA, but by their own admission are still not attracted to women. Others claim to have actually changed their orientation to heterosexual and go on to have families. I think we would be doing a disservice to these people to claim that they are really still gay but only pretending not to be. We could never know that. And given what we know about the social causes of SSA, it seems possible, by using social healing techniques, to reverse it (although even ex-gay ministries admit that this is difficult). But even if it were the case that change was not possible, the point that needs to be made clear is that this would be irrelevant to the moral nature of homosex, and to legal recognition of same-sex relationships. It simply has nothing to do with the questions at hand.
As for the pedophilia and homosexuality, they are not being compared as though they are similar in any way (other than the obvious fact that both pertain to sexual attraction). I raise the issue of pedophilia as part of a reduction ad absurdum argument, showing how the principles being invoked to justify SSA would equally justify pedophilia. If we can’t say something is unnatural simply because the desire for X comes naturally, then not only are we prevented from saying that homosex is unnatural, but we cannot say pedophilia is either.
As for understanding the causes of homosexuality, we don’t need to be gay to understand it. There has been a lot of clinical research in this area, and our current understanding of it is based in large measure on the testimony of gay individuals. Their testimonies reveal particular social patterns that help explain how they developed SSA.
Jason
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 11:20 am
Michael,
I agree with you that the main concern of Christians who struggle with SSA is that they do not act on their attractions. If they are able to overcome their SSA, or even acquire OSA, that is to be preferred. But it is not necessary to be a Christian, or to be saved.
As for being celibate, I don’t know any men who choose to be celibate because they have no sexual desires for women. They choose to be celibate in spite of their sexual desires. Maybe there are some who simply lack all sexual desire, but if so, those people are not normal human beings!
Yes, we need to have compassion on those struggling with SSA. Many people are under the impression that those struggling with SSA choose to be that way. This is false! People do not choose their sexual attractions; they only choose whether or not to act on them. Sexual attraction is formed in adolescence. Those who form SSA do so because of events and social circumstances early in their childhood (and possibly due to biological predispositions as well). But they choose whether or not they will act on those desires.
I agree with you that SSA is not something that can generally be “prayed away.” The root causes must be dealt with. This point was really driven home to me by my roommate in college. I knew his spiritual life. He prayed a lot, he fasted. But it never helped him overcome his SSA. It only helped give him the strength to choose not to act on it.
Jason
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 11:51 am
Michael, thanks for your reply. Although you wrote War and Peace, Volume II 😉 I’ll only reply to one thing you wrote:
If you chuckled and shook your head, I think you misunderstood me. I’ve seen many young Apostolic women and men, fearing a life without a companion, go to the world to find emotional and sexual satisfaction. The majority of them regretted that decision because they walked away from Christ.
The Church’s message is to find a godly companion and remain celibate until one is found — even if one remains single the rest of h/er life. I’ve personally known several individuals who died in the faith without a companion; and insofar as I know, they remained celibate. The point I am making is that the Church’s message is not, “You need sexual fulfillment, so go ahead and marry any unbeliever you can find.” These godly individuals subordinated their sexual passion to their commitment to Christ — their entire lives. Godly women have remained faithful to their impotent husbands while going without sexual satisfaction for decades. It would be a mockery to their faith and to the message of God’s word to tell homosexuals they are free to gratify their sexual desires merely because we feel sorry for their plight. That’s all I intended with my “29-year-old” example.
I’m glad we agree that everybody needs compassion without compromise.
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Jason,
I read both of your replies. Thanks. I agree with your perspective.
Just one thing…about the celibacy aspect…what I was emphasizing would be this: it is my understanding (unless I was liked too, but this DOES seem logical) -if you have SSA, but you are born again, you know it is wrong (ssa). Well, you dont get married or have a girlfriend/boyfriend (unless your frontin’) because the desire is not there sexually. So by defualt, your celibate. And you feel you have to stay that way because you can’t act on your desires (unless you wanna burn up in everlasting hell with satan and his angels that is). This is different than a heterosexual who also has sexual desires, but chooses to be celibate for whatever reason. Why is it different? Because IF the heterosexual decides, if they burn like Paul described (who advises you therefore get married!)they CAN get married and have sex/companionship/a family AND still be acceptable to God. Not the case for the homosexual. For the most part, sexually speaking, they are screwed. (No pun intended). They will just have to burn…they will have no family…and no companionship, even if they desire those things (which is normal and a blessing from God)…but hey, it is what it is…at the end of the day, do what you gotta do to stay saved with or without help from others…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
Your roommate…interesting…I wonder how he is doing now. Hopefully well…considering that is…
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Scalia – thanks…
Yes, compassion without compromise for everyone.
Amen.
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Michael,
My roommate in Bible College actually dated a friend of mine for a time in his personal attempt to like girls, so having SSA does not guarantee that one will remain single. In his case he broke up with her and revealed his SSA not too long after.
I do understand the distinction you are making between a heterosexual who chooses to remain celebate and a homosexual who remains celibate. The former, in principle, could satisfy their sexual desires if they wanted to, while the latter can’t. I agree. I’ve made the same point many of times myself. But I don’t think this difference is all that meaningful, because in both instances you have individuals who are restraining their natural desirs for sexual fulfillment for some greater good. I think the best analogy is between an unmarried heterosexual Christian who wants to get married and have sex, but never finds a mate, and a homosexual who struggles with SSA and wants to have sex. In both instances you have individuals whose sexual desires are never fulfilled. The only difference is that in the case of the Christian, it was at least possible in principle for him to fulfill his sexual desires in a moral way, whereas it is not possible in the case of the homosexual. But the bottom line is that the struggles both face is identical: wanting to fulfill sexual desires that for religious and practical reasons cannot be fulfilled.
Jason
LikeLike
November 9, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Jason,
*nodding my head*…good point(s)…yes, I understand, and now I do prefer that analogy instead!
As for your former roommate, yeah, I have heard stories like that as well.
Oh and lastly, in my last post, I had a typo – it was supposed to say “lied” not “liked” – but you understood, lol.
Thanks
LikeLike
November 28, 2009 at 10:16 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
This decision clearly shows that the United States of America does not reverence nor repect the God of heaven and earth in upholding two men and two woman to violate God’s most holy law. For if the united States of America respected God Almighty then they would make it illegal for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgrendered to practice their lifestyle in these United States.
May the God of all grace continue to have mercy upon your soul. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
November 7, 2012 at 10:46 am
[…] also had an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage was already legal in all but name). Only half of the votes have been counted thus far, but at present 52% have […]
LikeLike