Sexual orientation is a matter of who you are naturally attracted to sexually. Some people seem to be sexually attracted to the same sex, others to both sexes, and some only to the opposite sex. Now, traditional sexual morality says that these desires can only be acted on where there is a marriage, and marriage, in the sacred sense is only possible for opposite-sex partners. I seriously doubt that this is simply genetic, as some have argued, but for some people at least it doesn't seem to be alterable. Trying to "pray the gay away" doesn't seem to work for some people, and the failure of Exodus International seems to support this contention. But if traditional Christian sexual morality holds, then people who are in this condition through no fault of their own are morally obligated to be celibate. It doesn't seem to me that those who are in that condition can alter their condition, nor does it seem to me that they had to have committed some sin in order to get into that condition.
What does the Church have to say to such people? There are four possibilities.
1) You are this way because God hates you. When Westboro Baptist says that God hates fags, they don't mean that since you chose to be a fag, you is angry with you. They believe in a particularly strong version of Reformed theology according to which God chooses some for heaven, whom he loves, and he hates everyone else. And one expression of God's hatred for you would be if you were to be an homosexual. That is a pretty good sign that God has created you for the fiery pits. God doesn't have you because you're gay, you are gay because God hates you.
2) You can change your orientation and become straight, through prayer, Bible study, and therapy. I think this was the position of Focus on the Family, and is the basis of Exodus International, and it looks to me like it doesn't work. And I when I read histories of the gay rights movement, and try to explain why so many Americans now accept gay marriage, this chapter in the story tends to be left out.
3) The celibacy option. This is the view that, yes, there are people who are unalterably gay, and these people are obligated to be celibate. Technically, there is nothing wrong with being gay any more than there is anything wrong with having black skin or blue eyes, but the moral path to acceptable to intimate relationships is closed to them.
4) The Lord is my shepherd and he knows I'm gay (the title of a book by Troy Perry, the founder of the Metropolitan Community Church). This is to hold that the traditional prescriptions against homosexual conduct are not absolute, and that gays should seek a homosexual equivalent of traditional heterosexual marriage.
These are the four options. 1 seems unacceptable, 2 doesn't work, so 3 and 4 are what is left.
38 comments:
Victor:
You have quite a few premises before you get into options:
VR: sexual orientation is a matter of who you are naturally attracted to sexually.
Are we talking about lust?
VR: marriage, in the sacred sense is only possible for opposite-sex partners.
A clearly Christian position
VR: I seriously doubt that this is simply genetic, as some have argued, but for some people at least it doesn't seem to be alterable.
Do you mean “some” or “all”? If you mean some, are you admitting change is possible for some? Are we adjudicating only the “some” that do not “seem to be alterable?”
VR: Trying to "pray the gay away" doesn't seem to work for some people, and the failure of Exodus International seems to support this contention.
Does the failure of one ministry support the contention? Does praying work for some?
VR: But if traditional Christian sexual morality holds, then people who are in this condition through no fault of their own are morally obligated to be celibate.
When did we establish this is “through no fault of their own?” Why label refraining from illicit sexual behavior celibacy? Being single is the same state.
VR: It doesn't seem to me that those who are in that condition can alter their condition, nor does it seem to me that they had to have committed some sin in order to get into that condition.
If the condition is the embracing of an illicit lust, how could that not be a sin?
What do I say to someone who's gay? I say, 'Hi, how's your day going?'
1 is a joke response, and WBC is basically a fake organization.
4 is absurd, and is about as reasonable as 1, despite being more popular.
3 is reasonable, but 2 isn't a settled issue anyway. I mean, 'therapy' is basically a matter of technology, and technology is always marching forward. Plus, 2 applies expressly as-is to bisexuals, which is pretty important since by and large lesbians don't exist.
Oozie: Take the case of straight, unmarried people, the condition you and I were both in before our weddings. We were heterosexuals at that time, and it was possible for us to be heterosexual without committing the sin of lust. Now single Christians do commit the sin of lust, but I don't think it makes sense to say that you have to lust in order to be heterosexual. Otherwise, we would have to say that Jesus was neither homosexual, nor heterosexual, nor bisexual, since he never married and never committed the sin of lust.
If it is possible for single heterosexual Christians to be free of lust, then the same has to be possible for homosexuals.
The fact is that on the traditional Christian view most physical attraction ought not to be pursued. Natural attraction for whoever we are oriented to be attracted to is unavoidable, and lust, whatever that is, has to come later. Lust, at the very least, has to be something over and above the initial attraction built into us by nature. It involves an action, or at least nonresistance on the part of the will.
I found a statement like this on a message board, but I know a similar statement has been attributed to Billy Graham:
I once asked a guy I worked with his opinion on when you have lusted. He said this was how he described it to his middle school boys sunday school class. When you see a good looking woman walking down the sidewalk in a short skirt and you say "she sure is pretty," you're ok. When you pray for the wind to blow her skirt up, you've gone too far.
Celibacy happens when you refrain from sexual behavior. Jesus and the apostle Paul, so far was we know, never married. Jesus committed no sin, even in his mind.
Can we change orientations? For everyone who goes from a homosexual relationship to a heterosexual relationship, I suppose it is always possible to say that that person was bisexual to begin with (in which the population of bisexuals is larger than most of us are inclined to think). But there are a significant number of Christians who say that they were unable to acquire a heterosexual orientation no matter how hard they tried. In the heterosexual case the steps that put us into sin go beyond merely having a heterosexual orientation, so why would not the same thing be true if you had a homosexual orientation.
If one admits that there are some people who cannot, as hard as they may try, develop a heterosexual attraction to persons of the opposite gender, then one has to wonder why a loving and just God would condemn some children to such a lonely future state of existence.
Many persons are born with chronic diseases or disabilities, but no one condemns these persons for accepting and acting out their disability.
And would Christians ever accept the notion that God created some human beings to be career thieves, career rapists, or other career sinners? No. Yes, in the Christian belief system, all are born sinners, but who would say that God has condemned their child, in advance, to be a career murderer? God would never do such a cruel thing. So why would God condemn some humans to a life of unfulfilled same-sex attraction? Some conservative denominations believe that it isn't just lusting that is a sin. These denominations believe that the same-sex attraction itself is a sin, and must be repented of every time that attraction occurs! What an existence!
It makes you wonder about God, doesn't it?
I suggest that Christians with same sex attractions ask themselves this question: Which is more probable:
1. God created me this way; to be forever lonely; to never experience the joy of being in love with another human being. To constantly experience attraction that can never be consummated in a loving relationship. To be guilty of sin and deserving of divine judgment every time that I am attracted to a person of the same sex.
2. The Bible is wrong. The Judeo-Christian God doesn't see same-sex attraction or relationships as evil. The (heterosexual) men who wrote the Bible wrote down their own prejudices, not the words of God.
3. Historical evidence demonstrates that same-sex attractions have existed as long as humans have existed. It is not a sin, it is just a less common variant of human behavior. The Judeo-Christian god does not exist. He is the imagination of ancient superstitious people. I am free to love and have intimate relationships with any consenting adult I choose, just like heterosexual human beings.
Many persons are born with chronic diseases or disabilities, but no one condemns these persons for accepting and acting out their disability.
They don't have a choice, dude. You can't decide 'I'm not going to be crippled today'.
We do, in fact, condemn people who 'act out' their inclinations, even if they were born with them. The people who are born as pedophiles, or with serious/violent tempers, are not called to be lovingly accepted for who they are and encouraged. They're called to control themselves. Those who don't are treated fiercely and swiftly.
Yes, in the Christian belief system, all are born sinners, but who would say that God has condemned their child, in advance, to be a career murderer? God would never do such a cruel thing.
How the heck do you know? Feels? We already accept that some children may be born with addictive personalities, prone to alcoholism or worse. Our attitude is the same.
And no, it doesn't make us wonder about God.
1. God created me this way; to be forever lonely; to never experience the joy of being in love with another human being.
There's nothing sinful about being in love. It's ass to mouth and anal sex which is the issue. Hell, you can't engage in sodomy even if you're hetero by most Christian viewpoints.
2. The Bible is wrong. The Judeo-Christian God doesn't see same-sex attraction or relationships as evil. The (heterosexual) men who wrote the Bible
How do you know they were hetero again? For all you know they had various urges that they didn't act on. In fact, that's incredibly likely.
3. Historical evidence demonstrates that same-sex attractions have existed as long as humans have existed. It is not a sin, it is just a less common variant of human behavior.
Non-sequitur, since plenty of 'common human behaviors' are, in fact, sins. We cheat. We lust. We even lust when we get in a relationship. We have all kinds of 'natural' urges which we deny.
Reasoning that 'God cannot possibly exist because if He did then this urge I have is bad and that can't be right' isn't reasoning at all - it's just juvenile excuse making. Whether the person in question is gay, attracted to children, or attracted to schnauzers.
VR,
"Sexual orientation is a matter of who you are naturally attracted to sexually."
Naturally??
It is precisely the point that homosexual attraction is unnatural.
The term "naturally" as applied to homosexual attraction begs the entire question. You need to refine and define your concept of "nature" and "naturally".
Forget about orientation. Perform heterosexual acts. Force yourself to appreciate the other sex.
Again, do not be misled by the orientation talk. Even if you appreciate your own sex, you can perform with the other sex. Do not entertain illicit desires.
Even if you appreciate your own sex, you can perform with the other sex.
As many a gay man with a family has shown.
There's a loaded question. "Is a man who regards the female form as - universally - rather gross or uninteresting, somehow defective?"
Let's ask this question in front of a feminist, an LGBT activist, and a liberal preacher. I expect the first two will drop into a near-catfight in short order, and the last one will just be sobbing.
Dear Crude, you left out the most important part of my argument:
"The Judeo-Christian god does not exist. He is the imagination of ancient superstitious people. I am free to love and have intimate relationships with any consenting adult I choose, just like heterosexual human beings."
To me, probability suggests that this is the most likely reality. Christians may be able to produce evidence for a generic Creator, but the evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, is weak to non-existent. He is an ancient invention by scientifically ignorant people to explain a world they did not understand.
Believe in a Creator if you wish, but not in the ancient middle-eastern god, Yahweh. He is no more real than Baal or Ra. And if he does not exist, then the Bible's condemnation of same-sex relationships is man-made nonsense.
Gary,
Plenty of non-Bible believers condemn same-sex attitudes as well. Check Dalai Lama.However, it is true that in modern times the Church holds as dogma those truths that were held as truisms earlier, as Chesterton observed.
VR: "What do you say to someone who is [afflicted with homosexual desire]?"
How about: Shut the hell up about it, already!
One of the (very annoying) things about persons afflicted with homosexuality -- and more so if they identify as "gay" -- is that nearly everything they think and do and say circles around their homosexual desire. It's so tedious trying to be a friend to a homosexual, because that's *all* most of them can talk about -- no matter what the subject is, most of them will try to steer it toward homosexuality. And this includes a high number of the ostentatiously celibate ones.
VR: "2) You can change your orientation and become straight, through prayer, Bible study, and therapy. I think this was the position of Focus on the Family, and is the basis of Exodus International, and it looks to me like it doesn't work. And I when I read histories of the gay rights movement, and try to explain why so many Americans now accept gay marriage, this chapter in the story tends to be left out.
2 doesn't work"
How in the world is option 2) going to work for someone who is always polishing his homosexual desire? Gollum can't let go of The Precious if that's *all* he ever thinks about.
The stigma placed on homosexuality today is primarily due to Judeo-Christianity (which Islam co-opted). In other ancient cultures, it often was not considered a problem. The stigma against homosexuality is not based on science or reason, it is based on ancient superstitions. It is time to abandon ancient superstitions and stop persecuting people who are not harming anyone else.
^ You don't know what you're talking about.
Dear Gay,
Dear Crude, you left out the most important part of my argument:
You didn't make any arguments. It's just a lot of whimpering about how you can tell Christianity is false because your heart-of-hearts tells you that no God would ever say that ass to mouth or anal was a bad thing. Nice emoting, I suppose, but little else.
By the by, I say this all as someone who regards the standard gay masturbation (it's not sex, after all) as sinful but unimpressive. Jacking off's bad too. The world copes, as do jackoffs. It's only a subset of Team LGBT which screams to high heavens 'ACCEPT ME OR I'M KILLING MYSELF'. And frankly, most people - including a sizable chunk of LGBT people - are sick of it all.
Even out and out gays are, like Milo Yiannapolous or Peter Thiel, rejecting LGBT culture. They're going 'You know, I do like to suck a dick now and then. But I'm not quite on board with making this the centerpiece of my existence a la Dan Savage'. They're leaving the fold, and that trend will likely continue. They just want to be left alone to sin, like the saner sinners out there.
It doesn't help that LGBT culture is rife with, let's face it - pedophilia and disease. The graveyards are filled with self-inflicted wounds, more than any imagined gay persecution ever could be responsible for (and no, that disdain was held basically worldwide - see how the atheist soviets regarded the whole gay thing. It ain't pretty.)
But hopefully, you'll come to realize your objective disorder for what it is. Don't worry - plenty of us are around to help out with that. You're welcome in advance, by the by.
You've got issues, dude. See a therapist.
You've got issues, dude.
Care to call me out on specifics? Question me on the LGBT culture - which many LGBT people reject, by the by - and its association with pedophilia or disease. Or the mental health issues. Or the suicide rates, or the abuse rates, or more.
Here, let's start out with the least controversial issue: the obesity issue with lesbians.
Remember: my view is that LGBT people are just fine, the particular acts may be sinful, but everyone's a sinner anyway (especially nowadays - thanks, internet.) You're the one insisting that personal revelation has shown you that ass to mouth is a Platonic Good which no God could ever dismiss. I think you have your work cut out for you.
Coddling homosexuals only encourages them and is ultimately bad for them. As has been observed, fetishism is transgressive per se and thus tries to transgress any limit being put to it. Thus, it makes sense to lighten the limits for the sake of society and the fetishists themselves.
Sorry, Not "lighten" the limits but "tighten".
VR,
For a CS Lewis scholar, you don't actually quote him much. In think in Mere Christianity, he says that if one is saddled with a loathsome perversion for no fault of one, don't worry but struggle against it and one day He will give you a new body.
It may be noted that I have said the same but in much more crude way.
Homosexuality may be tolerated. But a tolerated minority necessarily has certain obligations towards the majority. It must learn to keep private its unseemly behavior and must not put stumbling blocks in our children's way.
Thank goodness the conservative Christian perspective on this issue is becoming more and more fringe...and socially unacceptable.
Gyan: "Coddling homosexuals only encourages them and is ultimately bad for them. As has been observed, fetishism is transgressive per se and thus tries to transgress any limit being put to it. Thus, it makes sense to [tighten] the limits for the sake of society and the fetishists themselves."
Consider the whole "ass play" thing, and for that matter, the near public worship of "oral".
When I was growing up, 50 and more years ago, I don't recall people talking about "oral", much less right out in public. And, to the point, I don't recall people talking about it as though committing that particular act -- or rather, having it committed upon one -- were more interesting then, well, the sex act itself. Then came that porno (you all know which one I mean), and suddenly "oral" became a make-or-break issue in relations between the sexes, and which was talked about as though it were a religions ecstacy ... and now, we're to the point that nearly every comedian, male or female, seems to have to make jokes about it, and how awesome it is, and how *that* act is the way to cement the marital bond.
Or, consider "anal". At some point when I was in college, people started talking about "anal", and how that particluar was the Holy Grail in a sexual relationship. And, of course, seemingly all the comedians, male or female, seem to have to make jokes about it, and how awesome it is, and how *that* act is the way to cement the sexual bond.
But, think about this. Who in his right mind would want to be involved in either end of that transaction? From the one direction, it has to be very painful ... and must cause long-term health damage; assholes were not designed for that act. From the other direction, why not just shit in your hand and beat-off with that? An enema does not change the nature of an anus.
And now there is the mouth-to-ass thing that the "gay" "community" has gifted society, and which a few comedians are beginning to joke about (and I understand that some show and movies have depicted it). There is no way it can end well for *that* to be the new de rigor make-or-break issue between the sexes.
Now, what do all these acts (and the "facial") have in common, besides mainstreaming "gay" acts? They have in common that they turn what should be (open to the) the loving giving of life into a sterile "biological function" and they promote the degradation of women ... which isn't too surprising if you've ever tried to be friends with "gays" and thus know that most of them despise women.
Gyan: "Homosexuality may be tolerated. But a tolerated minority necessarily has certain obligations towards the majority. It must learn to keep private its unseemly behavior and must not put stumbling blocks in our children's way."
Indeed.
"Thank goodness the conservative Christian perspective on this issue is becoming more and more fringe...and socially unacceptable."
Because the real leftist (*) and/or Islamic perspectives will be so much better!
(*) once "gays" are no longer useful
someone who *will not* reason: "Thank goodness the conservative Christian perspective on this issue is becoming more and more fringe...and socially unacceptable."
The phrase "thank goodness" is a euphemism for "thank God", so what this fool said translates to: "Thank God that GOD's perspective on this issue is becoming more and more fringe...and socially unacceptable."
Since when has *any* society that judged the Judge's perspective on anything to be "fringe...and socially unacceptable" had a social future?
Thank goodness the conservative Christian perspective on this issue is becoming more and more fringe
Careful about the fringe, kiddo. They're doing well lately.
Has anyone else noticed how quickly Gary retreated the moment he was called out? This was supposed to be a lecture, and it turned into a rout.
Let it be a lesson, Gary. Because even 'LGBT people' are sick of your act.
^ as see here
It amazes me how Christians will demand that gays stop having sex and remain celibate yet sex outside of marriage for heterosexual couples is equally wrong but there are almost no admonitions for them to stop having sex until marriage - a supposedly easier goal to reach than a lifetime of celibacy.
but there are almost no admonitions for them to stop having sex until marriage
Don't be an airhead.
Of course there's admonitions for that. The difference is that people having sex before marriage aren't frantically sobbing about how they demand respect and a Church green light for their relationships. And if they did, I assure you, there'd be just as stern words for them as well.
Nor am I, personally, hammering someone for fucking up when it comes to having a lifetime of celibacy. Everyone fucks up. We have a guy in this thread literally saying 'God would never condemn ass to mouth, that's evil, God must not exist if He says that'. Said guy deserves a whole lot of mockery dumped on him for those amateur theatrics.
Now some might be thinking that it is an awfully cruel God who would demand such a thing, but if you are congenitally attracted to little boys and only little boys, it seems to me the only reasonable thing to conclude would have to be that there is no moral way to have a sex life. If you are married and your wife has contracted a health condition (and there are conditions like this) that makes intercourse always painful, does this give you the moral right to find other partners?
it seems to me the only reasonable thing to conclude would have to be that there is no moral way to have a sex life.
You know, I think we'd go even further. With people like that, an expression of sympathetic action is 'Let's look into therapy or treatment that will LET them have a normal sex life. Even if there's no chance of that now, maybe that will change in the future.'
VR: "Now some might be thinking that it is an awfully cruel God who would demand such a thing, but if you are congenitally attracted to little boys and only little boys, it seems to me the only reasonable thing to conclude would have to be that there is no moral way to have a sex life. If you are married and your wife has contracted a health condition (and there are conditions like this) that makes intercourse always painful, does this give you the moral right to find other partners?"
Ah, so you're out of "devil's advocate" mode, now?
That being so, let's take *real* consideration of the issue of sexual activity a step further. Since what does God *owe* anyone "a sex life"? Since never is the correct answer.
CS Lewis in the Four Loves distinguished between erotic love for a person, which is wanting a person as a person, and the physical act that consumnates Eros ("Venus" as CSL calls it). The two things, Eros and Venus can exist very well without each other.Old married couples have Venus without Eros as do newly wed couples in traditional countries. There Eros follows Venus.
Now, same-sex Eros is certainly disordered but not expressly forbidden. Now, is it really the case that sodomitical acts consummate same-sex Eros in the same sense Venus consummates normal Eros?
but if you are congenitally attracted to little boys and only little boys, it seems to me the only reasonable thing to conclude would have to be that there is no moral way to have a sex life.
Not even sure how this applies to anything in this discussion. Let's stay on topic, shall we?
Of course there's admonitions for that.
I did say that there were admonitions - just not nearly on the scale that is done for gay sex. You don't see Christians protesting or writing laws prohibiting premarital sex. You don't see Christians writing laws that make it legal to refuse service to people practicing premarital sex. You don't see Christians kicking those who practice premarital sex out of church.
Not even sure how this applies to anything in this discussion. Let's stay on topic, shall we?
No, that's quite on topic. You'd agree that they now have no moral way to have a sex life, yeah?
You don't see Christians protesting or writing laws prohibiting premarital sex.
They're not writing laws prohibiting sodomy or same-sex relationships either. In fact, you don't see them writing laws making it legal to refuse service to people having anal sex either - they don't want to have to provide service for particular events. Go see if they think it's fine to be forced to provide service celebrating an orgy.
When the issue comes up, it's dealt with. Victor's comparison between homosexuality and child molestation is far more valid than this comparison with premarital sex - there's little in the way of 'premarital sex advocates' even now.
The pedophile argument is a rebuttal against the claim that everyone ought to have a morally acceptable sex life in accordance with their orientation, and that it would be a cruel God who denied people this.
It may turn out that you can't have a sex life and be moral. That should not be a given. Not just for pedophiles. If you are married to someone who can't have sex with you for medical reasons, then you shouldn't be having sex with other people. Your spouse needs your emotional commitment even if she can't function sexually.
This is Kenny Rogers' hit "Ruby don't take your Love to Town," which makes this exact point.
You've painted up your lips and rolled and curled your tinted hair,
Ruby are you contemplating going out somewhere?
The shadows on the wall tell me the sun is going down,
Oh Ruby, don't take your love to town.
It wasn't me that started that old crazy Asian war,
But I was proud to go and do my patriotic chore,
And yes, it's true that I'm not the man I used to be,
Oh Ruby, I still need some company.
It's hard to love a man whose legs are bent and paralyzed,
And the wants and needs of a woman your age really I realize,
But it won't be long, I've heard them say, until I'm not around,
Oh Ruby, don't take your love to town.
She's leaving now cause I just heard the slamming of the door,
The way I know I heard its slams one hundred times before,
And if I could move I'd get my gun and put her in the ground,
Oh Ruby, don't take your love to town.
Oh Ruby, for God's sake, turn around
In my mind, a sense of entitlement about sex ruins the whole thing.
I think part of the issue is that we as a society don't seem to do close platonic friendships as well as we used to, meaning that romantic relationships have to do much more of the emotional heavy lifting than in previous times. A life of celibacy would probably seem easier if men could still pour out their hearts to each other and rely on each other for emotional support, instead of the relatively diffident friendships we have nowadays.
I think part of the issue is that we as a society don't seem to do close platonic friendships as well as we used to,
It's as if the constant celebration of same-sex sexual relationships, to the point where even platonic friendships are called 'bromances', is fucking things up.
Post a Comment