Rapid City activist for homosexuality Curtis Price responds on the Forum page of the Rapid City Journal to a piece by Dr. Richard Wells, Senior Pastor of South Canyon Baptist Church, which was on that same page last Saturday.
Price says he considers Wells to be cold blooded because Wells dared speak against the usurpation of the California Supreme Court of the will of the people of California, a people who had gone the extra step in 2000 of defining in state law what we have understood without question for thousands of years: marriage is between a man and a woman.
Price also trots out the already-tired and ineffective allusions of inequality, insisting that because homosexuals don't have the right to label a relationship which does not meet the requirement for marriage (in a homosexual relationship, either a man or a woman is missing from the equation) as "marriage," homosexuals are being denied "equality.
Homosexuals already enjoy the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals enjoy; they are not being denied anything that someone else rightfully has.
Inferences are made between the demands of homosexual activists for legitimacy and the struggle for the full civil rights of black Americans. Price ignores the reality that skin color is a fixed physical characteristic, not a behavior, and that, unlike homosexual behavior, there is nothing immoral, Biblical or otherwise, in one skin color or another.
Quite frankly, activists for homosexuality have hijacked the civil rights movement and justification once used to fully extend rights to black people that, under the Bible and the Constitution, should have been theirs all along.
This is not only disingenuous and misleading, but is an insult to the innate dignity of blacks who have historically suffered so much, and belittles the assault once perpetrated on their humanity simply because of their skin color.
Price says the day is coming when homosexuals will be able to call their unions "marriage" and "it is not to be feared; rather, it is something to joyfully celebrate."
"Celebrate" a behavior which God makes clear in both Old and New Testaments violates his design for human sexuality, and that he specifically does not approve of? "Celebrate" an agenda which undermines marriage and family? "Celebrate" a behavior so unhealthy that those who practice it experience greatly increased rates of AIDS, STDs, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence?
I am reminded of a verse from Isaiah 5:20 which says
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
I wouldn't want to be on the other side of that warning, come Judgment Day.
22 comments:
While I disagree with the author’s point of view and see no threat to our society by homosexuals worthy of opposition, I do support the author's right to his own opinion. I do not, however, appreciate or support the use of propaganda to support any argument or opinion, and that appears to be the basis of this post. I believe that most people who oppose homosexual equality do so out of a purely personal, not Biblical, motivation. It appears that homosexual behavior is so unseemly to many heterosexual persons, that they will find consolation in any contrary argument regardless of the degree of fact or legitimacy in the argument. It seems odd to me that there are far more overt sins rampant in our society which are ignored, while the "sin of homosexuality", apparently a ceremonially forbidden behavior for the Jews of the old testament similar to that of eating shellfish or pork, with only 6 references in the whole of the Bible, gets practically elevated to a mortal sin even higher than adultery despite the fact that that status is nowhere stated in scripture.
While I don’t think we will resolve the Biblical-exegetical debate over homosexuality here, I do think that we should call out blatant misstatements or facts quoted out of context. I will treat the author’s statements one by one below. The author contends:
1) homosexuality violates [God’s] design for human sexuality – so does birth control, in exactly the same way;
2) [God] specifically does not approve of [homosexuality] – nor does he approve of eating pork. In the same context, both are an “abomination”: we had better take a closer look at the word abomination. Perhaps it does not mean “sin”;
3) [homosexuality has] an agenda which undermines marriage and family – so does the federal government – it’s called the marriage tax. But let’s talk about how this undermines marriage and family. I cannot think of any sense whatsoever in which legitimizing the relationships of homosexuals changes or impacts the relationships of heterosexuals, the institution of marriage, or other existing families;
4) [homosexuality is] a behavior so unhealthy that those who practice it experience greatly increased rates of:
AIDS – untrue – worldwide, the percentage of heterosexuals with HIV-AIDS is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the proportion of homosexuals with the disease – when will people get it that HIV is NOT A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE. Until they do, millions of heterosexual men and women around the world will continue to become infected annually,
STD’s – perhaps true, but extremely poor context. STD’s are transmitted in exactly the same way for homosexuals and heterosexuals – unsafe sex. Higher STD rates in the homosexual population is a behavior within a behavior. Homosexuals have the same ability as heterosexuals to avoid STDs using abstinence, protection, and monogamy,
Depression – again, very poor context. All data show that higher rates of depression in the homosexual population are related, in one way or another, to social ostracization by society - not by their behavior, lifestyle choice, sexual dysfunction/identity, or psychological instability,
substance abuse – also, perhaps true. But here again, the author is addressing a behavior within a behavior. There are numerous subsets of society in which the same issue exists, irrespective of sexual behavior, and it is impossible to characterize a group of people as having a predisposed “nature” for substance abuse – shame on the author for drawing this misleading association,
suicide – same as above with depression. There is no evidence that suicide rates are higher among homosexuals who have integrated into their community as homosexuals. Suicide rates are higher among homosexual youths who fear having their homosexuality become known to their heterosexual family, friends, and community. This begs another interesting point: If homosexuality is a mere “behavior” with no biological or psychological developmental foundation, then why would anyone kill themselves over this “behavior” rather than abandon or avoid the “behavior” – help me understand this one. Also, the reader should be aware that many people identify as homosexuals without ever having sexual relations with another person – true of many homosexual youth who commit suicide,
and domestic violence - ??? where does the author get his facts? I cannot find any report or statistic which shows domestic violence to be higher, proportionally, among homosexuals than heterosexuals – no evidence of this whatsoever. Now, on the other hand, there is strong evidence that the incidence of homosexuals being abused by disapproving heterosexuals is unacceptably high.
Doug, you failed to point out a single piece or source of propaganda; there is no propaganda in this piece.
You did make an interesting statement about sin, though. You said "…there are far more overt sins rampant in our society..." That might be true. But then, I can't think of a single other sin in our society that is so aggressively and vehemently defended. I also can't think of one that has such an aggressive campaign to convince people that it is normal, natural and healthy.
When is the last time you saw an advocacy group or a media outlet defending the legitimacy moral uprightness of drug use? Or drunkenness? Or incest? Or adultery? Or polygamy? Or bestiality? Or theft? Or gluttony? Or...anything?
You state that "I don’t think we will resolve the Biblical-exegetical debate over homosexuality here." It's been resolved countless times at Dakota Voice: the Bible repeatedly and clearly states in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is wrong. I think you meant to say that "I don’t think I'm going to accept any proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality here."
To respond to your points:
1) There might be a case for the contention that birth control violates God's design for human sexuality. However, pregnancy is not possible during every permissible sex act; only during a small window of fertility each month. There is no imperative in the Bible that sex is ONLY for reproduction, though that is its primary biological purpose. Also, the heterosexual sex act itself is not immoral in any way, provided it is done within marriage. On the other hand, homosexual sex ALWAYS violates God's design in every way and in every circumstance it is practiced. Even if birth control DOES violate God's design for human sexuality, that doesn't magically make homosexuality moral. Your argument here is irrelevant.
2) God has no current prohibition against pork. It was not permitted under the old Mosaic Law, but God lifted this prohibition under the New Covenant established by Christ. This was specifically addressed in Acts chapter 10.
3) Are you arguing for the repeal of the marriage tax? If so, I commend and join you. If you are arguing that two wrongs make a right...well, I think we both know the answer to that. To the rest of this point, I suggest you read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-state-have-compelling.html. In short, allowing homosexuals to call a relationship which cannot meet the requirements of marriage a "marriage," it undermines, devalues and causes a loss of faith in the genuine article, just as counterfeiting currency does to money.
4) AIDS throughout the world is primarily caused by immoral behavior; very few people contract AIDS through blood transfusions and such now. Most get it through prostitution, sex outside marriage, drug use, and oh yeah, homosexual sex. In the United States, 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual behavior; it's a published Center's for Disease Control statistic. Even Matt Foreman, the former Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, admitted a few months ago that AIDS is a "gay disease."
The STD rate is higher in the homosexual community because the rate of promiscuity is much higher--that, and the nature of homosexual sex lends itself to greater risk of tissue damage which can transmit the virus much easier.
Depression-incorrect. The data DOES NOT show this is caused by ostracization. Rather, the data shows that even in countries and areas that have embraced homosexuality, depression and all that comes with it continues. Its ultimate cause is debatable (I think there is a strong argument for the fact that running against nature and against conscience causes depression), but the data strongly indicates society's disapproval is NOT the cause.
Substance abuse - by this point, you're wiggling pretty hard to avoid the obvious conclusions of the data. People who are unhappy (i.e. depressed) tend to abuse substances at much greater rates. The data indicates homosexuals experience depression at a greater rate than the general population--and the data also indicates it isn't an acceptance factor. Could it be that deep down they know they are doing something that isn't natural and isn't moral, and this causes depression, which causes a rate of substance abuse also greater than the general population? Sounds pretty reasonable.
Suicide - essentially the same answer as the last two sub points. Continually living against nature and against what is moral leads to depression, which can lead to substance abuse, and both depression and substance abuse can lead to suicide. Why not stop homosexual activity and just live? Why do drug addicts kill themselves? Why do drunks kill themselves? Because they think their life stinks and can never get better. Because sexual addictions are very similar to substance addictions, in that we come to depend on them to "medicate" our bad feelings, and it can become very hard to stop doing them. But many drunks and drug addicts HAVE stopped (I'm a former drunk who hasn't had a drink in over 15 years), and so have many homosexuals--the ministry of Exodus International and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 proves homosexuals can change if they want to.
Domestic violence - Try Department of Justice Statistics. They show that lesbians are 44 times more likely to experience domestic violence than married women, and male homosexuals are 308 times more likely than married men.
When you get right down to it, homosexual behavior is so dangerous, even without the moral considerations, it's unconscionable that homosexuality should even be condoned, much less "celebrated." Imagine the ads opposing the condemnation of illegal drug use: "Stop the hate! Doing crack is normal, natural and healthy!" Or ads opposing the condemnation of being a drunk: "Stop the discrimination! Drunks are as good as you!"
But given the fact that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God strongly disapproves of homosexual behavior, anyone who claims it is morally acceptable to God is either profoundly ignorant or completley out of touch with Biblical truth.
Bob,
In your point about suicide, you consider homosexuality a type of sexual addiction. Why?
You mention Exodus International as "proof" that gay people can change. Please cite resources that document how participants in this ministry have undergone long-term (key word) change. And I don't mean change in behavior, because any gay person can choose not to have sex. I'm talking about a fundamental change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, or at least to bisexual.
"When is the last time you saw an advocacy group or a media outlet defending the legitimacy moral uprightness of drug use? Or drunkenness?"
Um, ever seen a cigarette ad or beer commercial? They make it look pretty fun! As for gluttony, well, that's pretty obvious almost any time you turn on the television. Point is, excess is a multi-billion dollar industry in America. Homosexuality is NOT the only sin that's "aggressively and vehemently defended."
Finally, I'm not sure how you define propaganda, but according to Webster, it's "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person." That sums up this article, and this entire site, pretty well. You throw around facts with no citations, repeat the same mantra that "homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and unhealthy" to the point at which you seem like a doll with a pull-string, and inject bias into everything you write. All to destroy the homosexual agenda (whatever that even is) and prove yourself right. Yes, it's propaganda.
Are you saying that no one is ever helped out of their homosexuality by Exodus? Surely you're not going to make such an absurd claim; even a fake organization trying to perpetrate an outright fraud couldn't get away with it as long as Exodus has been around. Joe Dallas, a former homosexual, has served as Chairman of their Board of Directors. He's been out of homosexuality for something like 15-20 years.
You tried real hard with your beer and smoke analogy, Alex, but no dice. Is anyone specifically saying they're healthy? Is anyone specifically saying they're moral? Are there advocacy groups (HRC, PFLAG, etc.) who are saying these sorts of behavior are moral and healthy, and pushing for legislation to protect them? Is anyone doing that for adultery, polygamy, incest? I don't think so.
Implicit in the definition of propaganda is the assumption of fallacy and deception. By the strict definition you provided, every news outlet and book ever written are nothing but propaganda (some are, of course, but I'm pointing out that you can't ignore the implications of a word, either).
I use plenty of citations in my material (and have cited some here today), but even if I tried to provide a full set of footnotes and bibliography with every statement I make, I would accomplish basically three things:
(1) provide a level of references no media outlet in the world provides, (2) spend more time providing source material than analysis and information itself (which the interested reader can look up on his own), and (3) still not convince people such as yourself who are desperate to escape the obvious conclusion that homosexuality is not only morally condemned by Christianity and every other major religion in the world, it is also profoundly unhealthy and dangerous.
Bob,
Discussing the issue of "change" with Exodus International is a tricky business. You must define what you mean when you say that someone like Joe Dallas has been "out of homosexuality," because you'll quickly dig yourself into a hole. If you say it means that he hasn't had sex with a man in twenty years, that indicates nothing of his orientation; anyone can just stop having sex. He may not be a practicing homosexual anymore, but the personal torment he may or may not be living with every day will be his own secret. Only he knows whether or not he's living in anguish over relationships he won't allow himself to have, pleasures he won't allow himself to feel, and a personal wholeness he can achieve only by being with a man. Then again, none of that could be true, and his gay urges may have completely subsided. We'll never know.
And that's the problem -- we'll never know. When people who go through Exodus claim that they've changed, we're going on nothing more than the assumption that they're telling the truth. There is no verifiable test one can administer to tell if they're REALLY not attracted to the same sex anymore, so all we have is the person's word. What Exodus and other such ministries should do (and have so far failed to do) is provide longitudinal studies that track former participants for decades. Sure, a week after an Exodus course, I could say that I've been "cured" and no longer desire homosexual behavior. But who knows where I'll be ten years down the road? This is a question Exodus fails to answer, and one that would shed tremendous light on whether or not their message really works. They may claim a success rate of around 30%, but survey the same group in thirty years, and I'll bet it'll be much lower. THAT'S the kind of statistics they should be publishing.
Even then, if you look me up years from now to see how I'm doing, you're still depending on the honesty of my response. I could be lying to you outright, which I'm sure many people do; consider what they have to lose, think of the extreme pressure they're under by their family, friends, and religious community to be a success story. Or, I could be so deluded into thinking that I've changed that I keep my permanent homosexual urges buried deep down, where no one will ever know about them. I consider this going back into the closet. People who do this revisit the old self-denial and self-loathing they once put themselves through, and they believe so strongly in the lie that they've "changed" from gay to straight that they no longer consider it a lie.
That, or just consider Alan Chambers. Take one look at that man and tell me he's not gayer than Ryan Seacrest at a pride parade in West Hollywood.
You're right. Joe Dallas could be lying to all of us. Then, so could I. Maybe I'm just lying and I'm really an incredibly self-loathing homosexual myself. Maybe elephants can fly, too.
Ultimately, unless you have some sort of proof or reason to disbelieve Dallas, you're just grasping (or hoping, more like it).
I haven't had a drink in 15 years, and after the first few months, I haven't wanted one. I'm smart enough not to go into bars where I might be overwhelmed by temptation (just as a former homosexual needs to stay away from places that may tempt him).
But with God as my witness, there has been no "personal torment." And I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect there isn't for Dallas, either.
Even if Exodus were padding their numbers, they'd still have a better success rate than drug and alcohol addiction, which one study puts at about 25% at 1 year and about 10% at 5 years.
Any habitual sin is hard to leave behind...at first. After a while, though, it gets better. Eventually not doing that sin becomes a way of life.
Sadly, many homosexuals who don't want to change have created the supposition that it's impossible. And even more sadly, many spineless professionals have joined them in that fallacy; it's easier to say "okay" than it is to say "no."
If you don't want to change, Alex, that's between you and God. But you could if you really wanted to. As many already have.
It wouldn't be easy, but God could make it happen if you'd surrender your will to his and let Jesus change your life. Today's not too early to make that decision, either.
Two more things:
"Even a fake organization trying to perpetrate an outright fraud couldn't get away with it as long as Exodus has been around."
That's probably the most adorably naive thing I've ever heard.
And you still haven't answered my question of why you consider homosexuality a type of sexual addiction.
Addiction can be defined as a compulsive need for something. One of the characteristics of addiction is that the more you do it, the more ingrained the need becomes to do it. There is often a preoccupation with the substance or activity. Part of the addictive nature of certain sexual activities is the adrenalin rush from the excitement. Addictions usually involve use done despite the harmful effects (we've been over that one plenty).
Any substance or activity can become an addiction if the person develops a perceived psychological need to perform the activity in order to feel good or normal. Even eating or playing video games can become an addiction.
This does not, however, absolve the one addicted from moral responsibility. Drunkenness is a sin, and though some might say I'm predisposed toward that addiction, it is MY responsibility to keep my distance and keep myself off it.
One final note. Whether homosexual relationships are or can become an addiction is largely irrelevant to their morality. One act constitutes a moral transgression, just as one bender does, regardless of whether you're a "drunk" or not. However, the more one gives in to a behavior, the greater the likelihood of addiction.
This is predicated on the assumption that all gay people do is have sex. It's sad how little you understand the very people you want to see disappear.
Here's another question: If you lived next door to a gay couple who have been together for just as long as you and your wife, have sex just as often/seldom as you do, and basically do all the same things that you do, which one is sexually addicted?
I'm sure the answer will surprise me, but I can't wait around. I have an orgy scheduled in ten minutes, and I can't let them start without me. Gotta go!
You don't need to do something all the time to be addicted to it.
The fact that homosexuals do it in defiance of moral, health and societal norms is a strong indicator that there may be a compulsive factor involved.
Regardless of whether it's an addiction or not, it's immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.
Bob,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. There has been a lot said in this blog over the past 24 hours, but I am only replying to your first reply to me here in the same order of your statements:
When I said that we wouldn’t resolve the Biblical-exegetical debate over homosexuality here, No, I did not mean that I won’t accept proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I meant that you and I differ in both our hermeneutic and exegesis of the relevant texts. I have a theological hermeneutic of the Bible which is clearly less fundamental than yours. I believe that all passages in the Bible generally interpreted to pertain to homosexuality are predicated on a Jewish understanding of Leviticus similar to the Jewish understanding of the role of women, which I reject as a New Testament principle based on the teachings of Christ and not the disciples.
While I certainly don’t dismiss any passage of scripture, I have come to believe that the New Testament writers did inject certain cultural idiosyncrasies into there doctrine which are not meant to apply today (such as doctrines on women and head coverings, Peter’s teachings on Jewish customs later rebuked). It is ironic that am so moved by Pauline theology and yet differ from him on the topic of homosexuality (and women in the church). I look to the whole of scripture to interpret any particular verse. Yes, I’m familiar with the original design theory which states that homosexuality is wrong because sexuality is apparently designed for procreation, but I do not believe that theory addresses the fact that sexuality in scripture is not exclusively reproductive, nor is man exclusively procreative; further I believe that man was created for many purposes other than this.
As one reads the Law, as you know, one either reads it as a theonomist, an antinomian, or with some other particular theological predilection. Mine is a typical Reformed understanding of the Law which tends to divide it into Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. From an Old Testament/Jewish theological perspective, I cannot hang such a heavy weight as to label homosexuality a Moral sin on the single verse in Leviticus. The Jewish faith (Talmud) does not even treat it as such but merely as a violation of the Jewish Law. Clearly the Old Testament, in its particular treatment of this topic does not assign everlasting moral value to the subject of homosexuality any more than it does the other Jewish practices of cleanliness and dietary habit. Finally, Leviticus appears more concerned with the traditional male and female roles in Jewish society (man laying with a man as a man lays with a woman) rather than the modern view of “homosexuality” which is describing a state of being or preference more than a behavior or act.
As I stated in my earlier post, there are people today who identify with homosexuality but who do not practice homosexual acts. This is foreign to the OT mindset as procreation was so essential to survival and social well-being that the Bible and other contemporary writings did not even consider the idea of “being homosexual”, but only homosexual acts.
Let me be clear. I do believe the Bible, on the whole, treats sex and sexual ethics as serious topics, but I don’t feel that people who are or who practice homosexuality should be treated as outcasts. I do, as you put it, believe sexual behavior, alcohol consumption, swearing, excessive consumption, smoking, etc. are matters of the conscience for each person, and God, to judge.
As for the New Testament treatment of homosexuality, it is apparent to me that the authors were not dealing with homosexuality as we know it today at all but with sexual promiscuity as defined by the sexual ethics of that day (not to discount those ethics as invaluable, but that is the historical context nevertheless). While NT statements now regarded as pertaining to homosexuality are, in places, somewhat bold, they are also hollow and almost without substance. It is interesting to me that modern day translations even use the term “homosexual” in the NT passages as I, a Greek and NT scholar, would have chosen a term more like “licentiousness” or “promiscuity” in place of the word homosexuality. I cannot find any Biblical or patristic cross reference to the term homosexual or same-sex sexual acts which would lend itself to the use of the modern word “homosexual” in the English translation of the NT.
How do you say that God has no current prohibition against eating pork, yet believe that God does have a current prohibition against homosexuality? Both topics are treated equally in the OT Law. These are rules of the cultus of the Jewish faith. Further, the New Covenant was established between Moses and God as a promise – not Christ. Christ was execution and fulfillment of that covenant and of the Law. I’m sure you know this.
I can’t disagree with you more when you say that same-sex marriage devalues the genuine article, as I actually feel that marriage is a state institution which in this country should apply equally to all persons wanting to covenant with another to get through life. This is what I believe is the essence of marriage. I don’t believe in slippery slope arguments, and I do believe it is for the state to define marriage. But it is for the state to do so as an agent of the Constitution of this country. I believe we all live together in social compact and choose to make laws which 1) equally benefit all and 2) limit individual liberty as little as possible while 3) protecting the peace of society. Based on this formula used by many of our fore fathers, I do not see just cause to limit this important legal instrument of marriage to only heterosexuals if granting it to homosexuals leads them to live genuinely, openly, honestly, and faithfully. How then does the application of a legal instrument to a group who desperately want all of the trappings of the institution of marriage (faithfulness, commitment, responsibility) devalue the institution (except in your mind)? But I must say, the institution of marriage does not belong to you, me, or Christians, but to the state and its subjects, not a few of whom happen to be homosexual.
You follow this statement by again attacking homosexual promiscuity. First I would argue that there are identifiable segments of the straight population which have equal rates of “promiscuity” as you define it. Second, why wouldn’t homosexuals be promiscuous if they have no hope of legitimate bonding with another individual, something MOST homosexuals want – a monogamous relationship?
Regardless of whether you think extramarital sex is immoral, or that HIV is transmitted by immoral behavior, from a global perspective, you absolutely cannot argue against the fact that HIV/AIDS is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease. Out of 33.3 million infected persons world wide, about 30 million are considered heterosexual with 50+% of those being women and children. No disease statistic in the United States – the healthiest nation on earth – is meaningful in the scheme of global disease statistics. I found your Gay and Lesbian Task Force reference – again, taken out of context of the disease on the global front.
Regarding your statistics on depression – I think we will agree to disagree. I do not have the time to dissect statistics on this topic, but respectfully disagree with your statements on the topic entirely. Primarily because you interject your suppositions about “running against nature” which is highly speculative, contrary to modern science, and contrary to virtually the entire body of understanding of the field of psychological study and medicine both past and present. You further go on to entangle the subjects of depression, substance abuse, and suicide in an alarmingly unscientific fashion, drawing conclusions that one leads to another and then to another in general. You make assertions that homosexuals are “living against nature”, which, as I stated before, is not a foregone conclusion – in fact, I would argue this is probably the most obnoxiously offensive statement you could make to almost every homosexual who understands it their “nature” to be attracted to the same sex. You also draw the conclusion that suicide is the natural result of depression which is certainly not true. A tiny subset of those who experience depression ever give the first thought to suicide – thank God. You paint with a broad and fallacious brush when you allude that homosexuals “think their lives stink” as do drug addicts and drunks. I beg you to provide some statistics here.
You say, “why not stop homosexual activity and just live”. Well the answer is simple for the homosexual. First he would ask “Why?”. The answers aren’t so evident to the average homosexual to whom sexual desire for the same sex is as natural as desire for the opposite sex is to you. Second, I suspect most any homosexual would say to you in response, “why don’t you stop heterosexual behavior and just live?”. You see, ALL sexual behavior is a function of desire – not of necessity, not of will, not of logic – but of desire. No one willingly has sex with another person without desire for the other person, and despite your (and some of the Puritans) assertions to the contrary, desire often cannot be changed. Now you will have to make a compelling argument to persuade homosexuals the world round that God did not make them to desire the same sex just as he made heterosexuals to desire the opposite sex before any self respecting homosexual (and yes there are some) is going to listen to you on this topic.
I applaud you for remaining sober, but don’t see any connection between that and the topic of homosexuality whatsoever. Furthermore, no single passage of scripture “proves” anything.
Regarding domestic violence, here were the statistics I found (source: American Bar Association – abanet.org):
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
[Among heterosexuals:]
• Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
• 84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
• Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
• 50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.
Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf
Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships as it does in heterosexual relationships.
• 11% of lesbians reported violence by their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner reported being victimized by a male partner.
Patricia Tjaden, Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).
You make the statement that homosexuality is “dangerous”. Please explain to me how any facet of homosexuality, sans the many external modifiers such as drugs, alcohol, STDs, is dangerous in any way. Absent an STD in either party (which I assume you would agree heterosexuals are just as susceptible to), how is any homosexual act “dangerous” in and of itself? Dangerous to the individual? Dangerous to society? And please don’t restate your “tissue damage” argument which absolutely doesn’t hold water. The exchange of bodily fluids between ANY two people is inherently dangerous if either of them has a communicable disease and there is no great epidemic of tissue damage among the gay population. How is it then that homosexual contact is more dangerous than heterosexual contact?
You state that “it is unconscionable that homosexuality should even be condoned.” Who are you to condone or disapprove of the behavior of other people which doesn’t harm you? You and I are not the Elders of the world, nor its judges. You may disapprove of anything your conscience tells you is sin, but you absolutely must permit many sinful behaviors to exist which are the peaceful, conscientious decisions and actions of others. It is not our place to limit civil liberties which offend our sense of morality or duty. I hope you agree as this is a founding principal of not only ours but of most free nations. I do feel dialogue of this nature is valuable and I also appreciate that you and I have differing views. But I don’t wish to impose any restrictive view of mine on others who do not subscribe to my moral system of belief. That is God’s business.
Finally, you state, “given the fact that the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God strongly disapproves of homosexual behavior, anyone who claims it is morally acceptable to God is either profoundly ignorant or completley out of touch with Biblical truth.” First, I would say that the Bible contains no objective facts. The bible is a subjective body of religious literature – a true statement, regardless of your view of its inerrancy or infallibility. This is also true because the Bible does not seek to state objective proof from a scientific perspective. Rather, the Bible depends on the witness of the Holy Spirit to testify to the heart of the hearer as to its veracity. It does not say, look, God is at 123 Main Street, go there and he will demonstrate how he created the world. My point is to say that the Bible is not merely a string of facts chained together, any of which can be pulled out and quoted with the same force as it occurred in the unbroken chain. A seminary professor of mine referred to it as “the fabric of theology.” The bible is a true story about the experience of various people who have known God. It is not a science text book, a rule book, or even a Law book applicable today (without some theological construct of interpretation).
Look Bob, I can except that we differ in our views, but I cannot accept that you cannot accept that there are other interpretations other than your own.
Doug, in short, it appears that you do not believe the Bible is the word of God. If you did, you wouldn’t be able to pick-and-choose what you’re going to believe, i.e. “I differ with Paul here” or “I disagree with the writer there.”
It isn’t for you or me to disagree with anything written in the Bible. God said it, and he said it through the divine inspiration of the writings of Paul and others who wrote the Bible. If you don’t like it, then you can go be a Muslim or an atheist. But just as you can’t pick and choose which laws of our nation you’ll abide by, you can’t pick and choose which of God’s truths you’ll abide by and which ones you won’t.
There are moral choices that aren’t clearly defined in the Bible, and those, as the Bible points out, fall under freedom of conscience (in ancient times, an example was eating meat offered to idols; a modern example might be playing cards or going to movies). But those behaviors which are clearly defined as immoral (homosexuality being one of them) are not up for debate or choice: God has said they are wrong, period. End of discussion.
There is one type of homosexuality condemned by the Bible: men having sex with men, or women having sex with women. The Bible makes no distinction about whether love is involved, or whether the relationship has any longevity. It’s wrong. Period. Your attempts to justify it with “Well, what if…” is a transparent attempt to circumvent the authority of the Bible. I’m not fooled by it, and I can assure you God isn’t either. He’s not the mentally feeble idiot you apparently think he is.
You asked about the prohibition of pork, as if the fact that that prohibition has been rescinded in the New Testament somehow issued a blanket authorization to commit homosexual acts. I explained that, but you either failed to understand or rejected that explanation out of hand because it interfered with your determination to justify homosexuality. Do you see a justification for homosexuality in Acts chapter 10? I don’t see anywhere in that chapter—or anywhere else in the New Testament—that, like God did with the dietary laws, God declared it “clean.” I do, however, see multiple references in the New Testament that STILL say homosexuality is wrong.
You said “…I actually feel that marriage is a state institution which in this country should apply equally to all persons…” Why do you find it so hard to understand that it DOESN’T MATTER what you feel. If God said something is wrong, or things are supposed to be a certain way, IT’S NOT UP FOR DEBATE. You and I are HIS creation. We don’t get a say in the matter.
You claim there are segments of heterosexuality that have as high rates of STD transmission as homosexual behavior. I’d like to know what they are, since I’ve never come across them in my years of study of this subject. And even if there were, so what? Homosexuality would still be immoral And I guarantee you that these other heterosexual practices would also be immoral. If you have sex only with your spouse, as God designed sex, you wouldn’t get AIDS or any other STD.
You ask me to (again) explain why homosexuality is dangerous, but I already have—in detail. Apparently you don’t like that information and have summarily rejected it, so I won’t bother to repeat what you already refuse to accept.
You asked, “Who are you to condone or disapprove of the behavior of other people which doesn’t harm you?” I am a follower of God, and God has told me to warn others caught in immorality—for their good, and for the good of a society undermined by their immoral behavior. Christians cannot force other people to do the right thing, but if you claim to be a Christian and aren’t speaking the truth to a lost world, you’re derelict in one of your primary responsibilities to God.
Again, your closure indicates you have a profound and dangerous lack of respect for the authority of the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” If, as you say, parts of it are authoritative and parts of it can be disregarded at will, then it’s a fairly useless book. And if God is telling the truth to us when he said the whole thing is to be considered authoritative, then you’re disobeying God by cherry-picking what you’re going to believe and substituting human “wisdom” where convenient.
You appear to be professing to be a Christian. Since I can’t look into your heart, I can’t know whether you have a genuine relationship with God or not. But based on your flippant and casual attitude about obedience to God, about his authority, and about holiness, I seriously admonish you to think about your attitude. God isn’t some guy you can sit around in the living room with, debate morality, then walk away and do your own thing. He’s given you the freedom to choose to obey him, or not. But if you choose “not,” there are serious consequences to be paid. Please think about that.
Bob,
I assume you are Protestant. Whichever denomination you subscribe to, it came about because someone disagreed with established Christian doctrine that had existed for centuries in the Catholic Church. In essence, you believe what you believe today because of contrary interpretations of scripture, over which parts are authoritative and which can be re-interpreted. It has shaped your entire Christian worldview, and if that disagreement had not taken place, you would be a Catholic today.
Furthermore, what you read in the Bible today is the result of centuries of repeated translation and transcription by scholars who, their proficiency and intellect notwithstanding, are fallible humans who make mistakes. Do you honestly believe that during this process, not one word of the Bible was changed -- whether intentionally or not?
Maybe THAT'S something you should think about.
You are correct, Alex, that there are different interpretations on some things within the Christian community on some things that are not specifically spelled out in the Bible. They include things like infant baptism, certain facets of what baptism means, whether a Christian can lose their salvation, certain spiritual gifts, and the like. As with any written text--even the divinely inspired Bible--there will be some areas that are not completely clear. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
But there are other things in the Bible which are clearly defined and beyond any doubt about their moral acceptance. They include things like murder, theft, adultery and, yes, homosexuality. While there are texts which lend credibility to both sides of the issues mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are NONE that lend credibility to the contention that homosexuality is morally approved by God. Not a single one. To claim uncertainty about the morality of homosexuality because there is uncertainty about baptism or predestination is only an attempt at misdirection and obfuscation.
On the subject of the Bible transcription over the millennia, there do seem to be some slight transcription errors from the original texts. The differences in texts, whether they be from Eastern European sources or Western European sources, or compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, are minute. It is phenomenal the care that was taken to ensure accurate transcription. One group was so careful that after they transcribed a line, they would go back and compare the number of words in the old sentence to the new one, and then compare the number of letters in the old sentence to the new one. There are more ancient texts of the Bible in existence than any other ancient literary work. One of the oldest, the Codex Sinaiticus, found in the former Eastern Roman Empire, goes back to the 300s AD. The Codex Vaticanus, which comes from the former Western Roman Empire, dates from around that same period, but some think it's even older. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to the 1st Century AD. Some fragments are even older than that. There is a tremendous amount of documentary evidence which assures us of the documentary integrity of the Bible.
But not a single one of the slight transcription uncertainties changes or undermines a single theological or moral issue in the Bible. Even looking back at the Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew Scriptures in the Second Century BC, there is nothing to indicate any mistranslation that would magically declare homosexuality "moral." There is also nothing in the New Testament Scriptures, or any questionable translations thereof, that would declare it "moral," either.
No matter how you look at it, homosexual behavior is inconsistent natural function, with God's design for human sexuality, and inconsistent with God's written instruction for human sexual behavior.
Isn't it amazing the great lengths to which some people will go, and the straws which will be grasped at, to attempt to justify something that is so clearly immoral and unnatural?
To me, that's one more proof of the existence of God and the truth of his spiritual claims. These incredible attempts to ignore the obvious defy human intelligence; there must be a factor of spiritual blindness involved.
I didn't mean to confuse you, but I wasn't implying anything about homosexuality. Just pointing out something about the book you rely on so heavily: if the answers are as clear as you say they are, then why isn't there only one sect of Christianity?
Bob,
I'd like to revisit your statements that homosexuality is unnatural and nothing more than a matter of personal choice, because they appear to be two of your main arguments against same-sex marriage equality and the legal recognition of same-sex couples. However, one look at the animal kingdom proves that both claims are false.
On July 17, I brought up the fact that homosexual behavior has been documented in many animal species. In response, you rationalized this fact as a consequence of our world's fallen and sinful state, saying, "[Animals] can't sin, since they don't have a soul like humans do. They are, however, part of creation, which is in a broken state because it was under man's dominion when Adam sinned. When he sinned, he brought the curse of death and decay not only on himself, but everything under his dominion. Just as the misbehavior of a president or other world leader or a CEO brings trouble and disarray on whatever is under his dominion, so Adam's sin brought trouble on creation, which was under his dominion."
In essence, you claim that Adam's sin brought homosexual behavior upon the animal kingdom, forcing them to engage in it. But this is inconsistent with your pervasive claim that homosexuality is a choice.
Here is what scientists say about homosexual behavior in animals. Time prevents me from really investigating the issue in depth, so I hope Wikipedia will suffice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
As you can see, homosexual behavior has been observed in over one thousand different species, most notably among birds and mammals. There is also a surprising number of insect species that display such behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior).
I'll let the article speak for itself, and I won't even discuss scientists' explanations for why this phenomenon occurs. It's irrelevant. All that matters is that animals do not have free will; cannot choose; have no concept of morality, sin, or reason; and are on a different plane of intelligence from humans. I think we can agree on these claims.
This disproves your statement that homosexuality is nothing more than a personal choice, because organisms that are incapable of choice exhibit such behavior. And even if you rely on the explanation that original sin has caused the phenomenon, it still begs the question: how are these animals doing it if they do not have free will? Is it instinct, which is God-given by necessity?
At this point, you must either admit that homosexual behavior is a biological inevitability, or prove that organisms as simple as a dragonfly can choose and therefore sin. The latter would contradict the Bible, which states that man was created in God's image, with the ability to reason, think, choose, and sin. We were created in part to hold dominion over the animal kingdom and be stewards for the earth, so therefore, according to the Bible, man is on a higher plane than animal, on every conceivable level. According to the Bible, animals cannot choose and do not have souls. Yet they display homosexual behavior, something you believe is caused only by personal choice.
You should amend your argument to account for a biological/psychological (and therefore natural) basis for homosexual behavior, because as it stands now, either you are wrong, or the Bible is wrong.
Neither are wrong, Alex, and I think I've wasted enough time on your absolute refusal to even acknowledge common sense or scientific evidence. Everything must be bent or excused in order to justify something which is obviously aberrant both morally and scientifically.
Animals sometimes display homosexual behavior because they are part of a broken, corrupt creation--broken and corrupt because of Adam's sin. Just as some organisms may be perfectly healthy, while other organisms may have a deformity of the limbs, while yet another organism may have a defect of the heart or another organ, so some but not all (a tiny subset, actually) sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior.
People sometimes become inclined toward that behavior for the same reason--humans, too, are broken and corrupt. Humans, unlike animals, have a soul that is accountable to God for their moral behavior, and they have a free will with which they can CHOOSE to fight their fallen and sinful inclinations.
If you don't get that by now, I doubt anything I can say will make a difference. I'll pray that God's spirit may get through to you and help you see the truth, but I don't see any point in continuing these discussions, and I probably won't.
Bob,
I can tell that you're frustrated by my comments, and that's fine. Just remember that you're just as unlikely to change your mind as I am, and from my perspective, you're the one who is refusing to acknowledge common sense and scientific evidence.
I'm happy to have a discussion, on the condition that we are willing to reasonably answer each other's questions rather than throw our hands up in exasperation when we feel that the other just doesn't "get it." When someone presents you with what they think is a flaw in your argument and gives you a chance to cogently explain your way out of a problem, you should take it as an opportunity to have a discussion, not to run away.
That said, I fully understand that humans can choose not to engage in homosexual behavior. However, animals cannot choose, so they do not fit your understanding of homosexuality. All I want you to do is explain how you can consider homosexuality a choice and an act that has no grounding in biology or psychology, while knowing that animals, who cannot choose and couldn't care less about God or morality, exhibit homosexual behavior. How do you reconcile the two? Also, what specific Bible passages explain that Adam's sin causes certain animals to exhibit homosexual behavior?
Bob,
I just finished reading the first three chapters of Genesis and the entire book of Romans, as you suggested in an older thread, and I found not a single explicit declaration, or even so much as a vague implication, that Adam's sin brought about homosexual behavior in animals. Or birth defects. Or disease, for that matter. In fact, animals are not the focus at all in these passages; the focus is exclusively on humans.
In Genesis 3, God condemns Adam and Eve, of course, and condemns the serpent to a life of crawling on its belly and eating dust. As for how the earth has been affected, God declares, "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field" (17-18). Nothing about homosexual behavior among animals. Not one word.
In Romans, Paul explains how Adam's disobedience has introduced death into the world, but again, he says nothing of how this disobedience has impacted the animal kingdom or nature.
Your claim that "animals sometimes display homosexual behavior because they are part of a broken, corrupt creation--broken and corrupt because of Adam's sin" has absolutely no biblical basis. None. You are certainly entitled to hold the opinion that it does, but unless you can point to chapter and verse, your claim has no place in an intelligent discussion.
What does have a basis in reality, however, is the scientific observation that many animals engage in same-sex behavior because of things like social dominance, population control, natural responses to hormonal anomalies, etc. You can read about such facts in any zoological journal, or even a basic Google search.
You don't strike me as the type of man who can gracefully admit when he's wrong, so I don't expect you to say anything. We both know that your claim is incorrect and unfounded, so I won't belabor the point any longer. I only hope that one day you won't allow the Evangelical principle of inerrancy to cow you into denying that which is readily observable in nature. Just because the Bible is wrong about homosexual behavior in animals doesn't mean that it's wrong about everything else.
I'm going to try one more time.
1. In Genesis 1:26-28 God placed creation under the dominion of man.
2. In Genesis 3 humanity and all under his dominion are cursed because of Adam's rejection of God's authority.
3. In Romans 8:18-22 we again see that creation has been subjected to the curse (or was "frustrated" from living out the pure purpose for which God intended it), and is in a state of suffering and travail.
4. In Romans 5:12-19 we see that sin and the curse came upon man and the world through "one man" (Adam), and that the world is in the process of being redeemed or restored through "one man" (Jesus Christ)
Again, this curse of sin that Adam brought upon himself and all under his dominion resulted in (1) spiritual death for humans, (2) physical death for humans, (3) physical death for all under man's dominion (i.e. the animal kingdom), and (4) the perfect plan of God for a perfect and peaceful world being disrupted in practically every way.
The truth is there if you have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." It does't take a genius (I'm certainly not one), only a heart and mind willing to look for the truth and accept it when you find it.
Your arrogant insistence that the Bible is worthless and wrong leads me to believe that description doesn't match your state, so I've spent enough time here. The Bible says not to cast your pearls before swine (meaning not to waste God's good truth on someone who refuses to appreciate it), so I don't want to disobey that.
I am not disputing any of those four points. What I want, and obviously will never get, is contextual evidence (that means chapter and verse) that EXPLICITLY states that animals engage in homosexual behavior as a result of original sin. You have not provided this evidence. And now I can safely assume it's because you cannot: the passages you've cited speak of a "curse" in general terms. Why can't you admit the simple fact that this curse could mean anything, which may or may NOT include homosexual behavior in animals? One does not need to sympathize with homosexuals to recognize that your interpretation is biased and says what you want it to say.
My opinion of the Bible is irrelevant to this conversation. It all boils down to this: you made a claim, I challenged it, you have tried and failed to rationalize it, and you refuse to admit your error. I'm not at all surprised, because based on what I've gathered, you are too blind to know it's an error at all.
Go ahead and obey Matthew 7:6, just as your book commands. We wouldn't want you to think for yourself, now would we?
See why I'm ending this conversation, Alex? You refuse to use the mind God gave you, insist on being spoon-fed everything, and when you are spoon-fed, you spit it out like a petulant child.
I'm happy to help someone find answers if they're interested, but there's no sense wasting time on someone who is just mad at God and wants to argue.
I hope you find the truth eventually, Alex. Grace and peace to you.
Post a Comment