Why are you lying?

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Thanks so much for your respense. I grateful for it. It shows that you’re willing to have a conversation, and are willing to not only teach what you know, but learn as well. This reminds me of Aquinas, who argued that, not only is it good to know, but even better, to convey what one knows.

I must, however, respectfully disagree with your assertion that the Bible does not require a sophisticated deciphering process. Since we rely on a modern english translation, and the Old and New Testaments were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, respectively, one would have to conclude that God produced a miracle for this translation to be absolutely correct. Although I certainly don’t dimiss this possibity in an a priori fashion, I consider it not to be believeable, unless there’s sufficient evidence, to support it. One cannot believe this on blind faith. If one accepts that God miraculously intervens, whenever a problem arises, not only is there no evidence that this occurred, vis a vis the Biblical translation process, but there would literally be no end in sight. After all, God could create miracles all over the place, and one could use this as an “explanation” when thinking and investigating, although much harder, is the better approach. I fear that intellectually lazy people (not you, Anna, you’re certainly not intellectually lazy) will use the “miracle” option, whenever a difficult problem, has no easy answer.

But there certainly are answers. I am skeptical that the translation process has rendered a modern english Bible completely free from translation errors, but I certainly have no sympathy for any form of Postmodernism. Truth is there, to be found, if not by us, a being with the requisite intellectual capacities. I suppose that I’m arguing for an agnostic position, concerning whether the Bible is correct in every way. Not only is it problematic that a modern english (for example; of course, the same principle would apply to any modern language translation, from an ancient language) could faithfully reflect the ancient Hebrew and Greek, but we’re assuming that no blatant forgeries, or just unintentional mistakes were made (after all, St. Jerome, for example, was human). Again, we have to invoke a miracle, to overcome these obstacles.

“P.S. The Bible also has much to say about evolution and creation, and many scientists who do not even look to the Bible for Truth have rejected the theory of evolution on many points based on good science.”

I’m not aware that the Bible says anything specific about evolution. Furthermore, taking the Genesis account literally is not just a creation vs evolution issue – it’s creation against almost every branch of science: geology, physics, cosmology, history, archeology, etc. There are huge amounts of data in all these areas contradicting Genesis, and almost no data in support other than the Bible text itself.

And it may be worth your while to explore just exactly how many of these scientists ‘reject evolution on good science’ – you will find you’ve been led astray. The number is very small and their science is normally not good either. While you may prefer that evolution appear to be “in crisis” because it makes it easier to stick to the Biblical account, the data supporting evolution is stronger now than ever and continues to grow.

While you may disagree with evolution, you cannot disagree with the fact that it is the dominant scientific explanation and almost universally accepted through out the scientific community.

I don’t think a discussion of Thomas Kuhn and the philosophy of science will really shed any light on the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality per se as a psychiatric disorder, although I continue to maintain that what happened was similar to what Kuhn described as a paradigm shift.

Although it will not add to the discussion about the APA, I am curious to know if you can produce the text of Kuhn’s alleged letter to the New York Times of 30 April 1981, since I have searched the Times and found no letter by Kuhn that day or even that year.

The point remains that what happened at the APA convention was force majeure exercised by obstreperous demonstrators who had physically entered the building.

I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. There was no invasion of any APA body or committee actually working on the revisions, and the committees’ votes were taken in the absence of gay protesters. It is not as if gay activists invaded a convention where psychiatrists were voting on the matter and threatened them as they were voting. Also, opponents of the change managed to obtain a referendum of the entire membership of the APA on the question of homosexuality, with 58% of the 10,091 psychiatrists voting to support the deletion of homosexuality as a disorder. There was a great deal of campaigning by gay activists and supporters of the change, but there was no possible intimidation in a referendum conducted by mail.

The problem with saying that the APA’s decision was based on politics and not science is that science cannot answer the question of whether homosexuality is a “disorder” or not. There may have been no scientific reason for removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, but there was no scientific reason for including it in the first place. It’s just not a scientific question.

2. Kuhn maintained that it was still possible to maintain that the earth was at rest in the center of the world in a letter to the NY Times (30 April 1981) and which he affirmed in private correspondence to William Wallace (12 May 1981). There is additional discussion here: http://nekhbet.com/popper/index.html

3. The point remains that what happened at the APA convention was force majeure exercised by obstreperous demonstrators who had physically entered the building. It was not a new way of looking at the old data, nor even a new way of looking at old data motivated by new anomalous data. There simply was no data one way or the other. That is, it was not in any manner “like” a scientific “paradigm” shift. (For a comment on Kuhn and paradigm shiftiness, see http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/galileo%E2%80%99s-great-bluff-and-part-of-the-reason-why-kuhn-is-wrong/

Thanks for your thoughtful response! I have given these things much thought, as I have numerous friends and coworkers who are homosexuals and whom I care a great deal about. Because I care about them, I believe it is extremely important to get the answers to their questions about how God views homosexuality correct. If I believe God hates sin and that homosexuality is described as sin in the Bible, then I am much more loving to tell them that in the most sensitive, kind, straightforward way possible, with much grace and humility for my own sins and struggles than I am to back away from what I believe is Truth or to try to wrangle Scripture to please their ears.
I respectfully disagree that the homosexuality issue gets down to interpretations and that the Bible requires a sophisticated deciphering process to properly interpret it. This is the postmodern argument that says we can never really understand anything written since we cannot get into the writer’s mind, have our own worldview biases in reading anything, and have translation issues that prevent us from ever being able to interpret language with certainty. What our everyday lives show us is that, although some things CAN be read more than one way, most things are clear or can be easily clarified. If we could never trust language at all, we could not communicate. So we have to trust that the Biblical writers were very careful to articulate exactly what God had revealed to them, and more importantly that God is Sovereign and wise enough to know the people He is communicating to, to know all of the issues that man would struggle with in the future, to know all of the language and cultural experiences man would have over time, and STILL communicate in a way that is clear enough to man for man to understand Him and what He chose to reveal to us.

My 8 year old son can pick up a Bible and read it in context, and understand a passage in context. I am not saying he will instantly understand it all, but most of us have an ability to read things in context and surmise the meaning of any given sentence when taken in the full context of the thought, and within the context of the work as a whole.

People can (and sadly do) argue for or against all kinds of things they want to be true about the Christian walk, our relationships with God, and anything else the Bible discusses, by proof-texting. They search for a Scripture that might be able to be interpreted to say what they want it to say, when in fact it has nothing to do with that topic, and when taken in context clearly demonstrates another meaning. We have lost our ability and discipline to do the hard work of a Berean, to actually search the Scriptures to see what THEY say, not what we want them to say.

If Scripture is not God’s truth, there is no point in furthering the discussion, as Christianity can never express its arguments and win. However, if Scripture IS in fact God’s Word, than it IS Truth, and it does have meaning. It does not contradict itself when taken in context and as a whole. Our job is to find that one meaning. not try to force our ideas on to it.
There is enough revelation about life that the Bible says it is ALL we need in order to live a life of Godliness and Wisdom. If that is the case, than although the Scriptures do not speak exhaustively about every possible facet of life that we will ever experience (such as the internet), it does reveal sufficiently what we need in order to view anything we experience and to then determine whether such experiences would be God honoring, condemned (like looking at pornography on the internet) by God, or morally neutral (like whether I buy paperclips on ebay). It is when Scripture is completely silent on an issue and has nothing to say about it whatsoever, that we then have the freedom to make our own conclusions.

When it comes to same sex marriage, as you pointed out, people will use the argument that Scripture does not address same sex marriage because it didn’t become an issue until the 21st century. However, the argument makes no sense whatsoever when you view the Bible as God’s Word, revealing to us all that we need in order to live a life of Godliness. We must ask ourselves what God HAS revealed to us that can be applied to the topic.
When it comes to marriage, homosexuality, and human sexuality, the Bible actually has much to say. Throughout the Bible, God describes his relationship with man and mans submission to Him just like that of a heterosexual marriage, where the man protects his wife and the wife submits to the husband (See Eph 5:22-33). There is NEVER a reference to a marriage in God’s eyes, or even a condoned relationship, between same sex couples. In every passage on marriage, it is a man and a woman. And in every passage discussing sex that is allowed, it is between a man and a woman who are married. This is not because there were no homosexuals in Biblical times.

Rather, in EVERY instance where homosexuality is discussed, it is discussed as something that is an abomination to God. Leviticus 19:22 makes it clear, in a long passage detailing inappropriate sexual relations that “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Note that it does not say, “unless it is monogamous and loving”. It says DO NOT. Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Note that there is nothing here that is difficult to interpret. It dies not say that our desires make it OK, our civil union make it OK, our being made to have such desires, our genetics, our psychology, or anything else make it OK for a man to have sexual relations with another man. It says the ACT of sex between 2 men is detestable and warrants being put to death. There is no mincing of words, no confusion. Romans 1:24-32 says, “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them”. Again, God has revealed that the passions between 2 men are vile and shameful.

Further, the argument that says “But what if this was how God chose to create?” does not stand the Biblical test for any sin. The Bible says that ALL men are sinners and do not seek God. It says that our hearts are wicked and deceitful above all things. We do not desire the things of God, because all of us have chosen sin. Only by God’s grace and our acceptance of His gift of forgiveness of our sins by faith and genuine repentance, can we overcome the stronghold that sin has on us. We ALL still struggle with things. A homosexual’s lusts and desires for sex are no different (in terms of sin) than a heterosexual’s lusts and desires for sex. It is not the desire for sex that it inherently sinful, it is the choice to act on those lusts and desires in a way that is condemned by God that makes it sinful. And neither the homosexual nor the heterosexual can stand justified by psychoanalyzing ourselves to see “why” we are the way we are. God made us all and God requires the same CHOICES and ACTIONS in response to what He has shown us to be sin…regardless of the reasons that might compel us to choose such sexual sin. The choice is not to commit heterosexual nor homosexual fornication, adultery, sex outside of marriage, sex with close relatives, polygamy, beasteality, nor any other forbidden sexual deviation from God’s design for sex between a married husband and wife. ALL other sex HAS clearly been spelled out in scripture as promiscuous, sin, and an abomination to God. The answers are there. Yet we “choose” to ignore them and continue to ask “what if” questions that are already answered right before our eyes in black and white, clear as day.

Again, I am not one to lash out as homosexuals as any worse a sinner than I am. I don’t claim that it is not possible to be gay and a Christian. I do, however, claim that Scripture makes it clear that acting on homosexual desires for sex is sin and must be repented of and turned from in order to be obedient to and reverent of God. All the psychology and science we can come up with does not change God’s command not to act on the desires and tendencies for homosexual sex…any more than analyzing all the things that make me who I am justify the sexual and other sins I committed against God before choosing to turn from them…or the things I still struggle to bring under His obedience. Biblically, to me, this is not a homosexual vs. heterosexual issue, a scientific issue, a fundamentalist issue, nor an issue of Biblical complexity in interpretation. It is a simple issue of the sinful nature of ALL men and our natural inclination to enjoy sin and want to find an excuse and justification for it, rather than to submit God in humility and obedience.

P.S. The Bible also has much to say about evolution and creation, and many scientists who do not even look to the Bible for Truth have rejected the theory of evolution on many points based on good science.

Statustician,

I’d say this is the Catholic definition of disordered, and it has very little to do with what should and should not be classified as a psychiatric disorder. Occasional masturbation or use of contraceptives would both be considered “disordered” by the Catholic Church, but they are not psychiatric disorders. Almost certainly most psychiatrists and other medical professionals would consider a certain level of masturbation normal and non-pathological. Oral sex used to be considered a perversion, but I doubt that you could find a psychiatrist who would treat a patient who enjoyed oral sex (although they might very well treat a heterosexual patient who could enjoy only oral sex and considered it a problem).

No. In the first place, it [paradigm shift] applies only to sciences, not to psychiatry.

I am not sure that is really true, but in any case I said “it seems what happened in the APA was similar to what Kuhn calls a paradigm shift.”

In Kuhn’s philosophy, the new way of looking at the data need not be more correct. The paradigm was capable of shifting to a less correct position. But Kuhn thought “more correct” and “less correct” did not mean anything in the sciences, a position with which many scientists of all stripes take exception.

This is just wrong. Kuhn believed that someone presented with a number of paradigm shifts in scrambled order could put them in chronological order, since he believed that each successive paradigm shift was a step forward.

Clearly, if one accepts the Bible as God’s word, it only makes sense that, if a scientific theory contradicts, or conflicts with God’s word, the latter has to be faithfully adhered to, and any scientific theory, which could be wrong, must be rejected, since God’s word, a priori, cannot be wrong, unless one believes that God tells lies, which, of course, no one can believe.

But, it really gets down to interpretations, of the Bible. The Bible requires a sophisticated deciphering process, to accurately intrepret its passages. And, as Giberson and Stephens point out, the Bible doesn’t contradict evolution. And, as they also point out, it doesn’t talk about same sex marriage.

It’s about interpretations. Some will derive the inference, that the Bible could not possibly endorse same sex marriages, or evolution, since we have passages that seem to clearly condemn homosexual activity, and God creates, which doesn’t fit with natural relection, and random genetic alterations. But what if this was how God chose to create? What if God is only condemning promiscuous homosexual activity, and would endorse monogomy among homosexuals?

Also, can the Bible be God’s word, but not be about telling homosexuals that they cannot marry, in the twentifirst century? Or, if it does, why can’t, as I mentioned above, it be interpreted to mean promiscuity, rather than a categorical rejection of all homosexual activity?

Can the Bible be God’s word, but not be meant to be a scientific text? the answer to these questions, can be yes.