Gay and Christian
Sep 1, 2011
Russell E. Saltzman
Melinda Selmys is the author of Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality. She surrendered secular lesbianism for Catholicism, and, according to reviews, the book charts her course from one to the other. I have not read the book, but I’m not here to talk about it anyway.
No, what I’m talking about is her article in the New Oxford Review, “Authentic Dialogue is Possible” (May 2011). The authentic dialogue is between Catholics and gays. Some of the article, I would suppose, is drawn from her book. The article may prompt me to read the book, maybe.
Selmys begins by giving a brief history of “homosexual politics in the Western world” to help us understand the sensitivity of today’s gay community to arguments against homosexuality. This will, in turn, help us determine what forms of engagement are not effective.
For one thing, if I understand her well enough to extrapolate, what the gay community has said is true: The same-sex behaviors Scripture condemns is not what LGBTQ folk experience. Cool your jets and let me go on a bit, okay?
Jewish antipathy toward same-sex behavior in the ancient world, according to Selmys, was based on a perception that homosexual relationships were abusive. Selmys describes Greek homosexuality as pederasty. Greeks openly praised love of boys, an older lover and a younger (preferably beardless) beloved. It was mentoring, with sexual dividends for the mentor. So when Seleucid Greeks erected a gymnasium in Jerusalem, recounted in Second Maccabees, Jews were right to be alarmed. The no-clothing policy at the gymnasium provided not only a way for the Greeks to easily identify practicing Jews by their circumcision, but also an opportunity for Greek men to ogle Jewish boys.
Homosexual behavior was also part of ancient Rome, but the Romans, being Roman, skipped the idealism and went straight for virile conquest. Homosexual behavior was tolerated, if one was the dominant participant. The passive role, a decidedly less than virile position, was filled by a slave or by a social inferior, or someone looking to move up the career ladder or someone too intimidated to snub the offer.
Christians inherited the Jewish antagonism toward same-sex behavior. “Sodomy was implicitly connected with sexual predation in the minds of the late Roman, Byzantine, and medieval Christians,” Selmys writes. “This needs to be taken into account when reading the vitriol that is poured out against ‘sodomites’ in the writings of early Christians”—St. Paul included.
Readers will recognize a central gay Christian contention. What Scripture condemns is pederasty and sexual exploitation. But the contemporary gay experience—said to be non-exploitative, mutually enriching, and increasingly monogamous—ought to be accepted as a normal alternative. This argument has found a ready hearing among some Protestant churches in North America, Europe, and Scandinavia, and it has no small part to play in places that have legalized gay marriage.
Over the course of the eighteenth through twentieth centuries homosexuality came to be viewed as a biological or psychological anomaly. What was once regarded as an unusually nasty sin became a pathology to be cured. This generated some genuinely horrific quack “cures,” like testicular transplants and electro-shock therapy.
Considering the violence inflicted on gays as a punishment for sin or an attempted cure, it’s not surprising that they reject both classifications of their behavior. They have adopted instead, Selmys says, a “homosexual identity” producing today’s gay subculture and a wider acceptance of the gay life. “[H]omosexual identity cements same-sex attraction”—an otherwise transient bit of normal human experience—“as a crucial element of personality.”
Seeking effective outreach to the gay community, Selmys looks to her own conversion experience. It wasn’t the intellectual arguments that converted her:
I could see that if you believed in a God who had designed the universe, and that the natural creation was a manifestation of His wisdom, and that sexuality was ordered and designed for the union of spouses and the procreation of children, then obviously homosexuality had to be immoral.
The argument made sense to her, if one believed in that sort of God, but she didn’t, not then.
It wasn’t until she encountered the love of Christ that anything actually changed. That was her ultimate impetus to leave her gay lover, something she would not have done for “anything less than the person of Christ Himself.” She describes a growing consciousness that her identity as a Catholic offered more spiritual security than her identity as a lesbian. It was this, no “reparative” therapy or exhortations to “pray away the gay,” that have given us a transformed Selmys with six children and one husband.
She concludes with a small homily for Catholics trying to engage the gay community: Accept the notion “there are real reasons why gays and lesbians choose to identify with their sexuality and that these reasons have to do with more than just sex.” “If the Church does not offer adequate emotional and spiritual support for people with same-sex attractions who wish to live out a full Catholic life in accord with magisterial teaching, then Catholic witness is doomed to failure.”
My understanding of her article may be far off the mark, but her piece does not suggest why identity in Christ trumps identity rooted to one’s sexuality. Nor is it suggestive of why one cannot be both Christian and gay. Sure, living contrary to the “natural creation” as she describes it is “immoral.” Yet the gay argument is exactly that—“natural creation” includes a “homosexual identity.” It would be immoral, contrary to nature, pretending to be straight. Selmys leaves me wondering if “homosexual Christian” is quite the oxymoron many believe. I cannot think this is what she means to say. But I’m not certain of what she is saying, exactly.
I understand the offense given to gays when the suggestion is made that homosexuality is a psychological trouble subject to remedy. I understand too the offense when I asked a gay acquaintance if she could not regard same-sex attraction as the result of living in a world fallen into sin, filled will all manner of inappropriate attractions. I was met with a stony “‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’–get off my case.”
If homosexuality is not the result of psychological formation, and if it is only a manifestation of a mulishly repetitive but harmlessly generic sin, what point is there in suggesting conversion? Is there any real harm in being gay and (likely, a liberal Protestant) Christian? She doesn’t make that case, not for me, however interesting her piece.
My college roommate, a good guy, was gay and now dead nearly twenty years from AIDS. I have had deep conversation with a lesbian pastor I like personally—though it was clear we were talking about two different gospels; hers was “justice” while mine fell into that stodgy old Lutheran category of “justification.” Best I can figure, she has been in and out of three relationships, including an early fling at straight marriage.
Selmys may be right that “gay experience” today is not exactly that condemned in Scripture, but the “experience” does not seem to serve anyone well, not my roommate, not my friend. I certainly would not recommend shock treatment for homosexuals and, honestly, I think there are worse sins than a gay couple seeking solace with each other. Still, I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong about homosexuality.
Russell E. Saltzman is the mission development pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, Gothenburg, Nebraska, and the author of The Pastor’s Page. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality
“Authentic Dialogue is Possible”
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
9.1.2011 | 7:42am
Anonymous says:
A tangential point: I had "shock therapy" (ECT, Electro-Convulsive Therapy, administered unilaterally) in the late 1990s. It saved my life from likely suicide. It's nothing like one sees in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I do not know much about its administration prior to my experience with it, and I doubt very much of course that it would affect one's sexual and emotional attractions, but it's not (in my very real but relatively recent experience) torture.
9.1.2011 | 9:09am
Vincent Cama says:
Mr. Saltzman, I don't beleive the purpose of Mrs. Selmys's article was to diminish the gravity of the immorality inherent in the modern homosexual experience.
Rather, as with her book (which I would highly recommend to anyone interested in this issue) her emphasis is on pastoral care, attempting to thoroughly understand where the other side (i.e. the LGBTQ crowd) is coming from and a genuine respect for the dignity of the human person along the lines of John Paul II's Theology of Body.
None of this involves passing off homosexual behaviour as "a manifestation of a mulishly repetitive but harmlessly generic sin" but rather, as I understand it, a setting of priorities whereby the acceptance of Christ preceeds all inneffectual appeals at behavioural modification which are often viewed as demeaning by homosexuals seeking Christian counsel.
Ms. Selmys's book goes into much more detail than I could possibly give. As a young Catholic, I'm vey grateful for her voice, which is, to my knowledge, the only one that sheds any ray of hope on this polemical issue.
VC
Rather, as with her book (which I would highly recommend to anyone interested in this issue) her emphasis is on pastoral care, attempting to thoroughly understand where the other side (i.e. the LGBTQ crowd) is coming from and a genuine respect for the dignity of the human person along the lines of John Paul II's Theology of Body.
None of this involves passing off homosexual behaviour as "a manifestation of a mulishly repetitive but harmlessly generic sin" but rather, as I understand it, a setting of priorities whereby the acceptance of Christ preceeds all inneffectual appeals at behavioural modification which are often viewed as demeaning by homosexuals seeking Christian counsel.
Ms. Selmys's book goes into much more detail than I could possibly give. As a young Catholic, I'm vey grateful for her voice, which is, to my knowledge, the only one that sheds any ray of hope on this polemical issue.
VC
9.1.2011 | 9:12am
Joe DeVet says:
Good questions, which to me boil down to this: what is a good, loving and prudent pastoral approach which does not compromise the moral truth involved. Hiding or finessing the truth does no one any good--I do believe the Master when he says the truth will set you free.
Seems to me one approach to Saltzman's last statement (which I believe is rightly put) is to recover our ability to articulate natural-law principles. For this I commend the works of CS Lewis, particularly in "The Abolition of Man", and "The Problem of Pain", and the part about the moral law in "Surprised by Joy." Also, the contemporary U Texas prof J Budziszewski ("What We Can't Not Know", et al) and the collaboration of Chuck Colson with Robert George on natural law.
Seems to me one approach to Saltzman's last statement (which I believe is rightly put) is to recover our ability to articulate natural-law principles. For this I commend the works of CS Lewis, particularly in "The Abolition of Man", and "The Problem of Pain", and the part about the moral law in "Surprised by Joy." Also, the contemporary U Texas prof J Budziszewski ("What We Can't Not Know", et al) and the collaboration of Chuck Colson with Robert George on natural law.
9.1.2011 | 9:15am
Ayodele says:
Selmys is right in the way she attributes her abandonment of the lesbian lifestyle to the transformative power of the love of Christ, which enables all sinners to become "new creatures" free from the power of sin, which is what homosexuality is. There is after all a real reason why you can never find a practicing homosexual who is simultaneously in a committed relationship with the Son of God. The two are mutually exclusive, and no amount of bridge-building or homilies about "justice" and "equality" can change this.
However in her attempt to build bridges to the life she left behind, and bringing homosexuals into the fold, she errs greatly in drawing distinctions between the ancient and the modern day practices of homosexuality. These distinctions are false, both factually and scripturally. The references made in scriptures, (especially in the book of Romans), clearly implied consensual relationships, not coerced ones, otherwise it would be unjust to condemn and punish the unwilling participants/victims in those relationships, just as it would be to punish victims of heterosexual predators.
In any case, even the modern day practice of homosexuality is not confined to consenting individuals, but is also highly predatory in the way that young men and women are increasingly being targeted and recruited into the gay lifestyle. This is due to partly to the extremely fleeting nature of those relationships, whereby it is common to have multiple partners simultaneously. This devaluation of lives means that there has to be a constant supply of "fresh blood" to feed the voracious lifestyles lived by many homosexuals. So again, Selmys' argument falls apart here.
At the end of the day, we are still left with the inconvenient truth, which is, as Dr Salzman points out, that no good thing can result from embracing the homosexual lifestyle, either to those directly participating in it, or to the larger community of believers whose imprimatur they seek in order to legitimize it as an "alternative" lifestyle.
However in her attempt to build bridges to the life she left behind, and bringing homosexuals into the fold, she errs greatly in drawing distinctions between the ancient and the modern day practices of homosexuality. These distinctions are false, both factually and scripturally. The references made in scriptures, (especially in the book of Romans), clearly implied consensual relationships, not coerced ones, otherwise it would be unjust to condemn and punish the unwilling participants/victims in those relationships, just as it would be to punish victims of heterosexual predators.
In any case, even the modern day practice of homosexuality is not confined to consenting individuals, but is also highly predatory in the way that young men and women are increasingly being targeted and recruited into the gay lifestyle. This is due to partly to the extremely fleeting nature of those relationships, whereby it is common to have multiple partners simultaneously. This devaluation of lives means that there has to be a constant supply of "fresh blood" to feed the voracious lifestyles lived by many homosexuals. So again, Selmys' argument falls apart here.
At the end of the day, we are still left with the inconvenient truth, which is, as Dr Salzman points out, that no good thing can result from embracing the homosexual lifestyle, either to those directly participating in it, or to the larger community of believers whose imprimatur they seek in order to legitimize it as an "alternative" lifestyle.
9.1.2011 | 9:28am
Buzz says:
If homosexuality was an "abomination" in the Old Testament?
So was eating shellfish or pork.
So was eating shellfish or pork.
9.1.2011 | 9:39am
M L McKinley says:
A worthwhile contribution to this challenging topic comes from Wesley Hill in his book "Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality." A PhD student in NT studies, he writes about his life as a gay Christian for whom celibacy is a necessary part of his obedience to Christ. He offers an uncommon window into Christian faithfulness; in my view, it is a book for our time.
9.1.2011 | 10:02am
bill bannon says:
If gay sexual interacting is legitimate then Scripture is incomprehensible because Romans chapter one denounces gay actions in se (regardless of relationship questions) as against nature for both sexes with no mention of ancillary abuse issues.
But Christians both Protestant and Catholic have been helping to vitiate the authority of Scripture in various ways....Protestants with legitimating real divorce between mature people....and Catholics with two successive Popes calling the death penalty "cruel" despite God commanding it more than 30 times in the first person singular in the Bible....and with wifely obedience going unmentioned in Vatican II or the catechism while obedience to hierarchy received great mention in Vat II.
So the Churches have set the stage and climate for laity ignoring those parts of the Bible which run counter to each of us in one topic or another. Will the hierarchies apologize for this cafeteria scriptural relativism (to transplant Benedict's moral relativism)?.....no. Will paid Catholic and Protestant writers point it out? If they do, they will find less speech opportunities and sagging book sales....and these are not easy days for job finding.
The elephant in the nave is that churches and their leaders set the climate for gays to subtract Romans chapter one.....by the churchs' previous subtracting of things that irked them whether it be permanent marriage or the death penalty.
But Christians both Protestant and Catholic have been helping to vitiate the authority of Scripture in various ways....Protestants with legitimating real divorce between mature people....and Catholics with two successive Popes calling the death penalty "cruel" despite God commanding it more than 30 times in the first person singular in the Bible....and with wifely obedience going unmentioned in Vatican II or the catechism while obedience to hierarchy received great mention in Vat II.
So the Churches have set the stage and climate for laity ignoring those parts of the Bible which run counter to each of us in one topic or another. Will the hierarchies apologize for this cafeteria scriptural relativism (to transplant Benedict's moral relativism)?.....no. Will paid Catholic and Protestant writers point it out? If they do, they will find less speech opportunities and sagging book sales....and these are not easy days for job finding.
The elephant in the nave is that churches and their leaders set the climate for gays to subtract Romans chapter one.....by the churchs' previous subtracting of things that irked them whether it be permanent marriage or the death penalty.
9.1.2011 | 10:35am
Michael PS says:
I agree that the phrase “natural creation” needs a bit of unpicking; the word “natural” has gathered so many different connotations that it is very nearly useless. That said, I really do think the context makes it clear enough to a candid reader.
Aristotle, the philosopher of common sense has a famous passage in the Nicomachean Ethics [[Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30] where he says “others are morbid states, resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these, lust for males [aphrodision tois arresin – these comments don’t do a Greek font – Editor?]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” Aristotle is obviously using “nature” [phusei – Please can we have a Greek font?] in a very different sense to Ms Selmys, but a meaning pretty close to the “Gay argument” cited by the Rev Dr Saltzman, that “—“natural creation” includes a “homosexual identity.”
The passage not only illustrates the lexical point, but documents the views of at least one Ancient Greek on same-sex attraction; the atmosphere of roughish tittering on the subject, in Plato’s dialogues tells the same story.
I find Ms Selmys’s reasoning compelling: if the Author of Nature – Aristotle’s First Mover – is not only the supreme and uncaused act, the pure and endless being of the philosophers, but a Man, who, standing in an upper room, breathed forth on his disciples, from the heart of all Being, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, then, really, there is no more to be said.
Aristotle, the philosopher of common sense has a famous passage in the Nicomachean Ethics [[Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30] where he says “others are morbid states, resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these, lust for males [aphrodision tois arresin – these comments don’t do a Greek font – Editor?]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.” Aristotle is obviously using “nature” [phusei – Please can we have a Greek font?] in a very different sense to Ms Selmys, but a meaning pretty close to the “Gay argument” cited by the Rev Dr Saltzman, that “—“natural creation” includes a “homosexual identity.”
The passage not only illustrates the lexical point, but documents the views of at least one Ancient Greek on same-sex attraction; the atmosphere of roughish tittering on the subject, in Plato’s dialogues tells the same story.
I find Ms Selmys’s reasoning compelling: if the Author of Nature – Aristotle’s First Mover – is not only the supreme and uncaused act, the pure and endless being of the philosophers, but a Man, who, standing in an upper room, breathed forth on his disciples, from the heart of all Being, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, then, really, there is no more to be said.
9.1.2011 | 10:36am
momofthree says:
I find Selmys to be very convincing and honest. However, since I consider the origins of male homosexuality to be different from female homosexuality (and they do appear very different in practice), I am left wondering just how much relevance her experience has for men with SSA.
9.1.2011 | 10:41am
David Nickol says:
bill bannon,
Nothing could be clearer in Scripture than the prohibition of divorce, and yet many Protestant denominations don't take the word of Jesus as law.
It is also crystal clear from Acts 15:28-29 that Christians are at least partially bound to refrain from eating certain kinds of non-kosher animal products:
***********
‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’
**********
Regarding Romans 1, it is not as clear-cut a condemnation of current-day homosexuality as some make it out to be. I quoted from Frank J. Matera's book _Romans_ (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament) recently, and it's worth repeating. (I have broken the text into paragraphs and added bullets for readability.)
---------------------------------
. . . .Paul’s own attitude toward these sexual relationships, be they between adults and minors or between adults and adults, is clear.
The more difficult question today is the hermeneutical issue: What is the authority of Paul’s remark about such relations. For some, this is not and issue. For others, the text raises questions about a phenomenon whose biological and social origins are not fully understood. In my view, further discussion will do well to recognize the following.
• First, Paul’s own position about same-sex relations is clear.
• Second, the example of same-sex relations plays a rhetorical role in Paul’s argument in Romans, and his discussion of such relations is not the main point of the passage.
• Third, while Paul opposed such relationships, they do not otherwise play a significant role in his writings. Other forms of behavior such as greed and strife are condemned more regularly.
• Fourth, Paul’s discussion of same-sex relations occurs in a context that emphasizes all are under the power of sin and have fallen short of God’s glory (3:9, 23). Consequently, no one is in a position to condemn others, for all are in need of God’s saving grace. The most prudent course of action in the present time, then, is to treat all with compassion, aware that only God is in a position to judge another person.
---------------------------------
In any case, things are not right or wrong because "the Bible says so."
Nothing could be clearer in Scripture than the prohibition of divorce, and yet many Protestant denominations don't take the word of Jesus as law.
It is also crystal clear from Acts 15:28-29 that Christians are at least partially bound to refrain from eating certain kinds of non-kosher animal products:
***********
‘It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell.’
**********
Regarding Romans 1, it is not as clear-cut a condemnation of current-day homosexuality as some make it out to be. I quoted from Frank J. Matera's book _Romans_ (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament) recently, and it's worth repeating. (I have broken the text into paragraphs and added bullets for readability.)
---------------------------------
. . . .Paul’s own attitude toward these sexual relationships, be they between adults and minors or between adults and adults, is clear.
The more difficult question today is the hermeneutical issue: What is the authority of Paul’s remark about such relations. For some, this is not and issue. For others, the text raises questions about a phenomenon whose biological and social origins are not fully understood. In my view, further discussion will do well to recognize the following.
• First, Paul’s own position about same-sex relations is clear.
• Second, the example of same-sex relations plays a rhetorical role in Paul’s argument in Romans, and his discussion of such relations is not the main point of the passage.
• Third, while Paul opposed such relationships, they do not otherwise play a significant role in his writings. Other forms of behavior such as greed and strife are condemned more regularly.
• Fourth, Paul’s discussion of same-sex relations occurs in a context that emphasizes all are under the power of sin and have fallen short of God’s glory (3:9, 23). Consequently, no one is in a position to condemn others, for all are in need of God’s saving grace. The most prudent course of action in the present time, then, is to treat all with compassion, aware that only God is in a position to judge another person.
---------------------------------
In any case, things are not right or wrong because "the Bible says so."
9.1.2011 | 10:43am
bill says:
I am astounded by the phrase "harmlessly generic sin". All sin is 'generic' in that no new kinds of sin (as opposed to the mechanism of sinning) have been invented by humans since before Moses came down from Sinai, and in that all sin distances one from the creator. Sin is never harmless.
9.1.2011 | 11:03am
EWH says:
Shouldn't it be worth pointing out that her historical argument fails because the Bible prohibits homosexuality prior to the possibility of Jewish and Greek interaction? If I recall correctly, homosexuality is proscribed in the Pentateuch, where Egyptian and Canaanite culture would ostensibly be the offending parties. Didn't the Sodomites try to take the angels from Lot's house for untoward purposes?
9.1.2011 | 11:28am
Stephen M. Barr says:
Hi, Russ,
I haven't read Selmys's book or her article, only your piece. But I must tell you that I find her position (as described by you) quite coherent and perfectly orthodox, and yours quite confusing and dubious. What on earth do you mean by a "repetitive but harmlessly generic sin". The Catholic teaching, at least, but I would think the traditional Protestant teaching also, is that there is no such thing as "harmless sin". (Even what Catholics call "venial sins" are not "harmless", only less harmful.) All sin is harmful --- always to the sinner, and usually to someone else as well. Sin, by its very nature, harms the sinner's relationship with God and has a corrupting effect on him.
It sounds to me like you think that an act being violative of the divinely intended purpose of human sexuality is in itself no big deal and not enough by itself to raise an act above the level of the "harmlessly generic". You therefore are looking for something more grievous about homosexual acts than just that. But in the traditional Catholic view, being violative of the divinely intended purpose for human sexuality is a very big deal indeed. That is why ALL genital sexual acts are taught to involve "grave matter" (a technical theological way of saying they are a big deal). Therefore, in Catholic teaching, all genital sexual acts outside of marriage (and even those inside of marriage that violate the purposes of human sexuality) are "mortal sins" if done with full knowledge and consent.
The Catholic Church says that the reason that fornication is wrong is that it violates the divinely intended purpose of human sexuality. I think Selmys would give that as the reason as well. Does that reasoning imply that fornication is "a generically harmless sin"?
Certainly some sexual sins are worse than others. Even among those that are in the category of "mortal sins", some are worse than others. But nothing Selmys says (according to your account) suggests in the least that she would regard homosexual acts as in any way less serious than, say, fornication, or less than mortally sinful.
It appears that you think Selmys is going light on homosexual sin. I think that your article goes light on sexual sin generically.
Steve
I haven't read Selmys's book or her article, only your piece. But I must tell you that I find her position (as described by you) quite coherent and perfectly orthodox, and yours quite confusing and dubious. What on earth do you mean by a "repetitive but harmlessly generic sin". The Catholic teaching, at least, but I would think the traditional Protestant teaching also, is that there is no such thing as "harmless sin". (Even what Catholics call "venial sins" are not "harmless", only less harmful.) All sin is harmful --- always to the sinner, and usually to someone else as well. Sin, by its very nature, harms the sinner's relationship with God and has a corrupting effect on him.
It sounds to me like you think that an act being violative of the divinely intended purpose of human sexuality is in itself no big deal and not enough by itself to raise an act above the level of the "harmlessly generic". You therefore are looking for something more grievous about homosexual acts than just that. But in the traditional Catholic view, being violative of the divinely intended purpose for human sexuality is a very big deal indeed. That is why ALL genital sexual acts are taught to involve "grave matter" (a technical theological way of saying they are a big deal). Therefore, in Catholic teaching, all genital sexual acts outside of marriage (and even those inside of marriage that violate the purposes of human sexuality) are "mortal sins" if done with full knowledge and consent.
The Catholic Church says that the reason that fornication is wrong is that it violates the divinely intended purpose of human sexuality. I think Selmys would give that as the reason as well. Does that reasoning imply that fornication is "a generically harmless sin"?
Certainly some sexual sins are worse than others. Even among those that are in the category of "mortal sins", some are worse than others. But nothing Selmys says (according to your account) suggests in the least that she would regard homosexual acts as in any way less serious than, say, fornication, or less than mortally sinful.
It appears that you think Selmys is going light on homosexual sin. I think that your article goes light on sexual sin generically.
Steve
9.1.2011 | 11:31am
Craig Payne says:
"Sure, living contrary to the “natural creation” as she describes it is “immoral.” Yet the gay argument is exactly that—“natural creation” includes a “homosexual identity.”"
Remember MacIntyre's "After Virtue," in which he describes the Aristotle/Nietzsche division in society? Here is a good example. To Aristotle and Aquinas, the "natural" is what is objectively given in the created order. To Nietzsche, the "natural" is our inner passions and instincts.
If the natural is defined by my inner passions, then the natural can include a homosexual identity. But if the natural is defined by the created order, then even my innermost passions may be precisely "unnatural," and may need to be controlled. This would apply equally well to "homosexual identity" or to an over-active heterosexual drive.
One step would be to recover the language of nature, passion, instinct, and so on, and to distinguish between them.
Remember MacIntyre's "After Virtue," in which he describes the Aristotle/Nietzsche division in society? Here is a good example. To Aristotle and Aquinas, the "natural" is what is objectively given in the created order. To Nietzsche, the "natural" is our inner passions and instincts.
If the natural is defined by my inner passions, then the natural can include a homosexual identity. But if the natural is defined by the created order, then even my innermost passions may be precisely "unnatural," and may need to be controlled. This would apply equally well to "homosexual identity" or to an over-active heterosexual drive.
One step would be to recover the language of nature, passion, instinct, and so on, and to distinguish between them.
9.1.2011 | 12:42pm
Michael PS says:
Craig Payne
I do nothink that Aristotle always used "nature" in the way you suggest. In the passage I cited in my earlier post, he speaks of such things as hair-plucking, nail-biting and eating coals as arising "from nature" [tois men gar phusei], which he contrasts with "habit."
Here, I take his distinction to be between innate and acquired habits.
As I said earlier, "nature" has acquired too much baggage to be useful in these discussions; we are better paraphrasing.
I do nothink that Aristotle always used "nature" in the way you suggest. In the passage I cited in my earlier post, he speaks of such things as hair-plucking, nail-biting and eating coals as arising "from nature" [tois men gar phusei], which he contrasts with "habit."
Here, I take his distinction to be between innate and acquired habits.
As I said earlier, "nature" has acquired too much baggage to be useful in these discussions; we are better paraphrasing.
9.1.2011 | 1:19pm
William L. Harnist says:
" . . .I think there are worst (sic) sins than a gay couple seeking solace with each other." Sin is sin. Christ suffered and died to atone for sin; I don't believe He distinguished one sin from another in manner of degree of sin.
9.1.2011 | 1:44pm
Richard says:
Jesus said "take up your cross and follow me." There are many crosses in life and they are not the same for every person. For some, the cross is celibacy as a necessary alternative to acting out disordered impulses with which one is afflicted. Since everyone is subject to disordered impulses, saying no when the love of God demands it is something all Christians must bear up under, gay or not.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
9.1.2011 | 1:46pm
Siger Brabant says:
"the result of living in a world fallen into sin"
The world is sinful, but it is untenable to think that it is Fallen any longer, in the sense that death is the consequence of (Adam and Eve's) sin. Archeological evidence shows clearly that plenty of things died before humans existed, and hence, before they sinned. So much of Christian theology needs to be rethought after Darwin, if it can be. It is amazing that it has taken so long.
The world is sinful, but it is untenable to think that it is Fallen any longer, in the sense that death is the consequence of (Adam and Eve's) sin. Archeological evidence shows clearly that plenty of things died before humans existed, and hence, before they sinned. So much of Christian theology needs to be rethought after Darwin, if it can be. It is amazing that it has taken so long.
9.1.2011 | 2:45pm
R says:
The teaching of the Roman Church (I am not Catholic) is correct: homosexuality is an objective disorder. To anyone who would accuse me of bigotry or "homophobia" for taking such a stance, I would simply say "Nonsense, I have that disorder myself. I've lived with it all my life, and I can see it as nothing by a disorder." So, I find myself disliked by both polarized sides of this debate. Those who say it can be cured are put off by my skepticism of their claim, while the gay crowd ("gay" and "homosexual" are not the same thing) would accuse me of self-hatred. I do not hate myself; I see this as a cross I am called to bear.
Like some other disorders, it probably has a biological basis. But its having a biological basis does not constitute an excuse for indulgence. A tendency toward alcoholism also appears to have a biological basis, but it that does not mean that people with such a tendency should simply follow it to their own ruin. It means rather that they have to learn ways to live with it, to keep it under control. I myself don't claim to know what the optimal lifestyle choice should be for people who share my tendency; there are not doubt several legitimate answers to that. But I am convinced that a life of indulgence is inimical to the spirit of the Christian Religion, and that however we choose to deal with it, for Christians simply giving in to it is not the answer.
Like some other disorders, it probably has a biological basis. But its having a biological basis does not constitute an excuse for indulgence. A tendency toward alcoholism also appears to have a biological basis, but it that does not mean that people with such a tendency should simply follow it to their own ruin. It means rather that they have to learn ways to live with it, to keep it under control. I myself don't claim to know what the optimal lifestyle choice should be for people who share my tendency; there are not doubt several legitimate answers to that. But I am convinced that a life of indulgence is inimical to the spirit of the Christian Religion, and that however we choose to deal with it, for Christians simply giving in to it is not the answer.
9.1.2011 | 3:19pm
bill bannon says:
R
Thank you for the sanity. It is an "objective disorder" in me when my head starts turning to look at women who are not my wife....don't let that phrase get you down somedays; when it does, think of me twisting my head back to forward while trying to walk down Main St. on a hot summers day that is festooned with females in shorts. I often joke with God, " OK....You're right....that blond can't be my Asian wife so why am I looking at her like a food inspector checks cheddar....'if you so much as look with lust at another woman'...I hear Ya...I hear Ya.....help me."
All of us have objective disorder that crucifies us til the end in varying seasons of varying types...and so we call on Him.
Thank you for the sanity. It is an "objective disorder" in me when my head starts turning to look at women who are not my wife....don't let that phrase get you down somedays; when it does, think of me twisting my head back to forward while trying to walk down Main St. on a hot summers day that is festooned with females in shorts. I often joke with God, " OK....You're right....that blond can't be my Asian wife so why am I looking at her like a food inspector checks cheddar....'if you so much as look with lust at another woman'...I hear Ya...I hear Ya.....help me."
All of us have objective disorder that crucifies us til the end in varying seasons of varying types...and so we call on Him.
9.1.2011 | 3:38pm
Michael says:
'Best I can figure, she has been in and out of three relationships, including an early fling at straight marriage." -- What does this have to do with your subject matter? Is this another tired old argument of anti-gay rhetoric: gays and lesbians hop from one partner to another? I don't think it's any of our business how many relationships the minister has been in.
9.1.2011 | 3:58pm
Dave says:
People are constantly talking past each other on this topic. If one believes that those few scriptural references commonly used to condemn homosexuality are, in fact, referring to things that are very different from the kinds of committed, monogamous same-gender relationships we are talking about here, there is no particular Biblical justification for considering such relationships sinful at all. The notion of some sins being worse than others doesn't even enter into the argument. The conflict between being a gay person in relationship and being a faithful Christian doesn't exist. One doesn't have to choose. It's not a matter of moral relativism, or giving in to what society says is OK, or giving in to a self-indulgent lifestyle.
So for those who object to the church taking a more accepting stance vis-a-vis same-gender relationships, some things that are NOT helpful: assuming those that disagree are dumb, ignorant of scripture, lacking in faith, and/or willing to compromise their Christian beliefs just to fit in to society. Stereotypes are also not helpful. The majority of Christians I know are quite supportive of people in same-gender relationships, and the people I know in such relationships are generally living healthy, happy, productive lives. (The majority are faithful Christians at that.) Saltzman's conclusion that the gay "experience" serves nobody well, based on two gay individuals he's known, is a bit silly.
The core of this disagreement lies in the question of whether scripture condemns same-gender relationships in all forms and contexts, or only those that were common when the scriptures were written. That should be the focus of debate. And if no resolution is possible, then people on both sides of the issue should learn to respectfully agree to disagree, realizing that nobody has perfect understanding of God's Word.
So for those who object to the church taking a more accepting stance vis-a-vis same-gender relationships, some things that are NOT helpful: assuming those that disagree are dumb, ignorant of scripture, lacking in faith, and/or willing to compromise their Christian beliefs just to fit in to society. Stereotypes are also not helpful. The majority of Christians I know are quite supportive of people in same-gender relationships, and the people I know in such relationships are generally living healthy, happy, productive lives. (The majority are faithful Christians at that.) Saltzman's conclusion that the gay "experience" serves nobody well, based on two gay individuals he's known, is a bit silly.
The core of this disagreement lies in the question of whether scripture condemns same-gender relationships in all forms and contexts, or only those that were common when the scriptures were written. That should be the focus of debate. And if no resolution is possible, then people on both sides of the issue should learn to respectfully agree to disagree, realizing that nobody has perfect understanding of God's Word.
9.1.2011 | 4:07pm
Bill Tammeus says:
I wish everyone in this debate were as approachable and reasonable as Russell Saltzman, even if we disagree. My position on what the Bible says about homosexuality is found at:
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/the-bible-and-homosexuality.html
Cheers, Bill Tammeus
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/the-bible-and-homosexuality.html
Cheers, Bill Tammeus
9.1.2011 | 4:38pm
Richard says:
R,
As a Christian, I am full of admiration for your courage and moral clarity. As a man who fought a losing thirty year bottle with the bottle until grace intervened, I know something of what it is to struggle with a harmful predisposition. On whether homosexuality is innate or not, I will only report that I have known or known of two women who could enjoy sex with either men or women, and ended as lesbians (in one case, perhaps both, sexual abuse in youth was a powerful factor), and I have known one quite brilliant active homosexual who told me he would give anything to be otherwise. He may have been firmly constituted as gay. I don't know.
I do not hate homosexuals or those who argue for the natural and healthy nature of homosexuality. I think that they are in error but not wilfully vicious, and leave them, myself, and all of us to God's mercy.
Dave,
In my view, the herculean efforts we see now to work around the judgement of both the Old and the New Testaments (never mind the universal testimony of the fathers) on the forbidden nature of any kind of homosexual behavior are futile. As for peacefully coexisting with those who see things otherwise, certainly, but compromising on fundamental principles of Christian teaching, that I cannot do for fear of adding yet another hammer blow to those that throughout history have driven the nails into Christ's wounds and will continue to do so until the end of time--he died for our sins, past, present, and future, and the sum of those, alas, grows more immense every day.
Regards,
Richard
As a Christian, I am full of admiration for your courage and moral clarity. As a man who fought a losing thirty year bottle with the bottle until grace intervened, I know something of what it is to struggle with a harmful predisposition. On whether homosexuality is innate or not, I will only report that I have known or known of two women who could enjoy sex with either men or women, and ended as lesbians (in one case, perhaps both, sexual abuse in youth was a powerful factor), and I have known one quite brilliant active homosexual who told me he would give anything to be otherwise. He may have been firmly constituted as gay. I don't know.
I do not hate homosexuals or those who argue for the natural and healthy nature of homosexuality. I think that they are in error but not wilfully vicious, and leave them, myself, and all of us to God's mercy.
Dave,
In my view, the herculean efforts we see now to work around the judgement of both the Old and the New Testaments (never mind the universal testimony of the fathers) on the forbidden nature of any kind of homosexual behavior are futile. As for peacefully coexisting with those who see things otherwise, certainly, but compromising on fundamental principles of Christian teaching, that I cannot do for fear of adding yet another hammer blow to those that throughout history have driven the nails into Christ's wounds and will continue to do so until the end of time--he died for our sins, past, present, and future, and the sum of those, alas, grows more immense every day.
Regards,
Richard
9.1.2011 | 5:09pm
JP says:
I don't understand this fascination with homosexuality. Gays barely make-up 3% of the population. Yet, they are treated with a kind of awe by most writers, intellectuals, pop artists, and other assorted navel gazers. There few more hetros suffering from sex addiction, or who are serial adulterers; but, we haven't created an entire cottage industry brooding over thier pathologies. We certainly haven't attempted to discover some inner beauty or meaning to thier otherwise depraved behavior. Will a month go by without another essay written about the uniqueness of being gay? Probably not. Perhaps it is time for a Christian adulterer to step forward and demand his/her due?
9.1.2011 | 5:39pm
Dave says:
Richard -- the scriptures on homosexuality arguably have to do with things like gang-rape, same-sex activities conducted as part of pagan rites, prostitution, and pederasty. It really doesn't take a herculean effort to understand why some Christians would distinguish those activities from loving, committed same-gender relationships when it comes to ascertaining what is sinful and what is not. And while you are entitled to your own views on this, I would note that you didn't actually say anything in response to the views of those who make such distinctions. And to some extent, that may be the point of the article.
JP -- please note that while homosexuals comprise a small percentage of the population, they do have a great many straight friends and family members who know, love, and respect them ... and who take issue when they are discriminated against, abused, and harassed for who they are. And I suspect most would agree with the consensus view of the mental-health community when they say that homosexuality does not represent a pathology, and does not represent the kind of damaging behavior that things like addiction and adultery do.
JP -- please note that while homosexuals comprise a small percentage of the population, they do have a great many straight friends and family members who know, love, and respect them ... and who take issue when they are discriminated against, abused, and harassed for who they are. And I suspect most would agree with the consensus view of the mental-health community when they say that homosexuality does not represent a pathology, and does not represent the kind of damaging behavior that things like addiction and adultery do.
9.1.2011 | 6:54pm
Al Barber says:
I heartily agree with your main point. If one is going to encourage a friend or someone seeking spiritual counsel to move away from sin (in this case homosexuality), you need to give some reasons and hopefully personal examples for why embracing Christ is compelling. As you mention, if someone considers homosexuality as an inherent, natural way of being (and therefore not inconsistent with God's plan) or they believe it is a "minor" sin, then there is no compelling reason to embrace Christ. As you say, "...what point is there in suggesting conversion?"
In my life, I have had several friends who were gay and paid a high price socially for there decision. High school can be very tough on teens to begin with and announcing your homosexuality doesn't help. My experience is similar in the military with young troops, and in youth organizations where homosexual leaders come to light. Nonetheless, these individuals believed strongly enough in their condition to take on the social ramifications when deciding to reveal their homosexuality. Their consequences were very real. If I were to guide them through friendship towards Christ, it would seem essential to have compelling reasons beyond a simple statement that it is a sin, don't do it, see I told you so.
It would seem more compelling to build on the support and strength to be found in Christ even as we grapple with the consequences of our sins (whether if they recognized it as sin or not) and allow that to mature into full realization that homosexuality is not part of image God made us in. It would be very practical and useful to outline other, probably more compelling approaches. My own experiences, described above, demonstrate at least three times in my own life when being better prepared would have helped immensely.
As always Russ, great food for critical thought and introspection into one's own values and mechanisms for dealing with the world.
In my life, I have had several friends who were gay and paid a high price socially for there decision. High school can be very tough on teens to begin with and announcing your homosexuality doesn't help. My experience is similar in the military with young troops, and in youth organizations where homosexual leaders come to light. Nonetheless, these individuals believed strongly enough in their condition to take on the social ramifications when deciding to reveal their homosexuality. Their consequences were very real. If I were to guide them through friendship towards Christ, it would seem essential to have compelling reasons beyond a simple statement that it is a sin, don't do it, see I told you so.
It would seem more compelling to build on the support and strength to be found in Christ even as we grapple with the consequences of our sins (whether if they recognized it as sin or not) and allow that to mature into full realization that homosexuality is not part of image God made us in. It would be very practical and useful to outline other, probably more compelling approaches. My own experiences, described above, demonstrate at least three times in my own life when being better prepared would have helped immensely.
As always Russ, great food for critical thought and introspection into one's own values and mechanisms for dealing with the world.
9.1.2011 | 7:18pm
bill bannon says:
Dave
There is no context for the law in the Pentateuch:
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
You and others may project conjectures of scholarship that the period had a problem with gang rape but there is none in the text. With such issues one may then ask the scholars how could God form laws and communicate them at all if they
can be circumvented by projected context conjectures.
There is no context for the law in the Pentateuch:
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
You and others may project conjectures of scholarship that the period had a problem with gang rape but there is none in the text. With such issues one may then ask the scholars how could God form laws and communicate them at all if they
can be circumvented by projected context conjectures.
9.1.2011 | 7:29pm
Dave says:
@Al Barber -- you seem to view the social ramifications of being an out-of-closet homosexual as an inherent consequence of being gay, rather than a consequence of bigotry on the part of society. I find that a bit odd. Also, you seem to assume that partnered homosexuals must not be in relationship with Christ, and also that being in relationship with Christ will naturally lead them to "mature" into believing that there is something sinful about being a partnered homosexual. Neither assumption is correct. If you really want to grasp the situation more clearly, you really need to take a step back and at least try to understand the viewpoint of those that don't believe scripture condemns loving, same-gender relationships as sinful.
9.1.2011 | 7:57pm
Michael says:
I’m struck by Saltzman’s concluding sentence: “Still, I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong about homosexuality.”
The question of “what is wrong about homosexuality” takes me back to First Corinthians where Paul says, “the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In looking at Paul’s list, I see a difference between his condemnation of “idolaters” and his condemnation of the other sins he lists: “the sexually immoral, … adulterers, the self-indulgent,” etc. The difference is this. To convert idolaters, we must show them how only Christ leads to life; idols cannot. To convert the others, we must show that the life Christ offers can transform them, giving the strength needed to combat the sin and live this life more fully. We must show that sexual immorality, adultery, etc., in fact robs them of the fullness they can find in this life and the next.
For example, adultery offers excitement or the illusion of a new beginning, but the adulterer has to take the love and intimacy he has with his wife and split it, pouring some of his energy and attention into another woman. To keep his wife in darkness about his affair, he has to start keeping secrets and lying about how he’s spending his time. However much he may think he loves both women, his life is becoming a tissue of lies, deceit, and split energy. He might continue to be a good employee, citizen, and even churchgoer, but his lies will seep into these areas as well. His immorality in one area slowly infects the whole of his life.
The same is true about the other sins Paul lists, with the exception of idolatry. Idolatry is like failing to keep the Sabbath or denying the Holy Spirit. These sins divide us from God but do not result in the concrete harms the other sins on Paul’s list do.
Saltzman seems to waver between thinking that homosexuality is a sin with concrete harms like adultery or a sin like idolatry that divides us from God. Homosexuality can be associated with concrete harms. Saltzman mentions AIDS, and other commenters have pointed to other concrete harms they have seen. However, the problem with seeing homosexuality as a sin with concrete harms is that they are produced by something other than homosexuality. AIDS, for example, is the result of promiscuity, not homosexuality. Stop the promiscuity, and the concrete harm disappears. A faithful couple can continue in their homosexuality and not suffer any concrete harms.
If we’re going to follow Saltzman’s advice and articulate “what is wrong with homosexuality,” we’re going to have to think of homosexuality as something like idolatry or failing to keep the Sabbath, something that divides us from God. And I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that explain how exactly homosexuality divides us from God.
Basing his conclusion on a sample of two, Saltzman concludes that the homosexual experience “does not seem to serve anyone well, not my roommate, not my friend,” but I’ve know many homosexual couples who live perfectly ordinary upright lives. Being a couple gives them more than the “solace” Salzman describes; they have found instead the helpmeet promised in Genesis. It’s time for us to see that homosexual Christians have the same range of options that heterosexual Christians do—to live a life of chastity or to find a helpmeet that one can be fully faithful to.
The question of “what is wrong about homosexuality” takes me back to First Corinthians where Paul says, “the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites, thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
In looking at Paul’s list, I see a difference between his condemnation of “idolaters” and his condemnation of the other sins he lists: “the sexually immoral, … adulterers, the self-indulgent,” etc. The difference is this. To convert idolaters, we must show them how only Christ leads to life; idols cannot. To convert the others, we must show that the life Christ offers can transform them, giving the strength needed to combat the sin and live this life more fully. We must show that sexual immorality, adultery, etc., in fact robs them of the fullness they can find in this life and the next.
For example, adultery offers excitement or the illusion of a new beginning, but the adulterer has to take the love and intimacy he has with his wife and split it, pouring some of his energy and attention into another woman. To keep his wife in darkness about his affair, he has to start keeping secrets and lying about how he’s spending his time. However much he may think he loves both women, his life is becoming a tissue of lies, deceit, and split energy. He might continue to be a good employee, citizen, and even churchgoer, but his lies will seep into these areas as well. His immorality in one area slowly infects the whole of his life.
The same is true about the other sins Paul lists, with the exception of idolatry. Idolatry is like failing to keep the Sabbath or denying the Holy Spirit. These sins divide us from God but do not result in the concrete harms the other sins on Paul’s list do.
Saltzman seems to waver between thinking that homosexuality is a sin with concrete harms like adultery or a sin like idolatry that divides us from God. Homosexuality can be associated with concrete harms. Saltzman mentions AIDS, and other commenters have pointed to other concrete harms they have seen. However, the problem with seeing homosexuality as a sin with concrete harms is that they are produced by something other than homosexuality. AIDS, for example, is the result of promiscuity, not homosexuality. Stop the promiscuity, and the concrete harm disappears. A faithful couple can continue in their homosexuality and not suffer any concrete harms.
If we’re going to follow Saltzman’s advice and articulate “what is wrong with homosexuality,” we’re going to have to think of homosexuality as something like idolatry or failing to keep the Sabbath, something that divides us from God. And I haven’t seen any convincing arguments that explain how exactly homosexuality divides us from God.
Basing his conclusion on a sample of two, Saltzman concludes that the homosexual experience “does not seem to serve anyone well, not my roommate, not my friend,” but I’ve know many homosexual couples who live perfectly ordinary upright lives. Being a couple gives them more than the “solace” Salzman describes; they have found instead the helpmeet promised in Genesis. It’s time for us to see that homosexual Christians have the same range of options that heterosexual Christians do—to live a life of chastity or to find a helpmeet that one can be fully faithful to.
9.1.2011 | 8:31pm
Dave says:
@Bill Bannon -- there is always context for any written text, even if it's not spelled out in detail. In the case of the two Leviticus passages you cite, both are explicitly given in the context of the Egyptian and Canaanite cultures that the Israelites dealt with. Same-gender activities in those cultures were conducted as part of cult rituals. This is known both from historical sources, as well as other OT texts (e.g., in Deuteronomy and 1&2 Kings).
As for the gang-rape reference, I was referring to the Sodom story in Genesis, where that particular element is explicitly spelled out in the story.
As for the gang-rape reference, I was referring to the Sodom story in Genesis, where that particular element is explicitly spelled out in the story.
9.1.2011 | 8:44pm
Gabriel says:
Bill Bannon said: "Dave - There is no context for the law in the Pentateuch: Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Homosexual sex may be forbidden by the New Testament. But I don't see how Christians can bring proof from the Old Testament law, to back up this New Testament prohibition (as Bill Bannon seems to want to do, for example). After all there are many many Old Testament laws which Christians simply ignore. (For example, the law not to wear clothes which mix wool and linen, not to eat an animal seethed in its mother's milk, the law to pin certain Scriptural texts on one's doorposts, etc etc etc). There are many many such laws which are completely ignored in Christianity. Why, then, do some of these laws seem to get picked up, and cited as authoritative? I know this is an old question, but I would love to know the answer! -
Perhaps it is only those laws on the Old Testament which are paralleled in the New? Is that what distingishes the ones picked? I don't know. But somehow it seems - at least on the face of it - as though it is quite unfair to cite the authority of the Levitical prohibition on Homosexual sex, while ignoring the hosts of other prohibitions that surround it.
Homosexual sex may be forbidden by the New Testament. But I don't see how Christians can bring proof from the Old Testament law, to back up this New Testament prohibition (as Bill Bannon seems to want to do, for example). After all there are many many Old Testament laws which Christians simply ignore. (For example, the law not to wear clothes which mix wool and linen, not to eat an animal seethed in its mother's milk, the law to pin certain Scriptural texts on one's doorposts, etc etc etc). There are many many such laws which are completely ignored in Christianity. Why, then, do some of these laws seem to get picked up, and cited as authoritative? I know this is an old question, but I would love to know the answer! -
Perhaps it is only those laws on the Old Testament which are paralleled in the New? Is that what distingishes the ones picked? I don't know. But somehow it seems - at least on the face of it - as though it is quite unfair to cite the authority of the Levitical prohibition on Homosexual sex, while ignoring the hosts of other prohibitions that surround it.
9.1.2011 | 9:10pm
Fake Herzog says:
Dave,
I left this comment over at Joe's post, but in short, bill bannon is on the money and if you want to study the issue and learn why everyone who argues otherwise is wrong, just go to Robert Gagnon's website and read a bunch of his stuff: http://www.robgagnon.net/
Also, while I agree with everything Richard and JP say, they don't get at the real problem with the attempts at "normalizing" (for lack of a better word) gay behavior -- sin has a way of disrupting all who come into its orbit. So when society treats sin as normal, society will eventually start to break down. Those of us who want to preserve Western civilization cannot sit back and let folks like you tear it apart.
I left this comment over at Joe's post, but in short, bill bannon is on the money and if you want to study the issue and learn why everyone who argues otherwise is wrong, just go to Robert Gagnon's website and read a bunch of his stuff: http://www.robgagnon.net/
Also, while I agree with everything Richard and JP say, they don't get at the real problem with the attempts at "normalizing" (for lack of a better word) gay behavior -- sin has a way of disrupting all who come into its orbit. So when society treats sin as normal, society will eventually start to break down. Those of us who want to preserve Western civilization cannot sit back and let folks like you tear it apart.
9.1.2011 | 9:34pm
The Moz says:
JP and Richard, you're both so right about this. This entire topic is a fad, a passing fad. Everyone knows that ssa is disordered. Why does it occur and so strongly in some people that it makes them believe they were born that way? Who knows definitely, but it is what it is: disordered and to be avoided if possible. Just like adultery, masturbation, pornography, polygamy etc. etc. This is such a small issue that is being so cleverly used by plain old atheists and people angry at the order in the universe and old socialists etc. to attack Christianity and the foundations of the modern world. If we want to privatize sexuality and marriage completely ok go ahead but I predict that in fifty years this world will be harsher, more violent, poorer and more divided. And guess who'll still be fine and doing well? Straight couples who married had children and stayed together no matter the temptation to cheat, to drink, to surf porno, to have threesomes, to divroce etc. etc. This is so simple I am amazed people don't see it. SSA is but the latest salvo against the order that created the west. If it is done away with poor people will be the first to suffer. If the activists really cared about poor people, women and minorities they'd be the first to admit that ssa is disordered and wrong. PS How did America get here this fast? Twenty years ago you defeated the soviet union, today you're tearing yourself apart over this issue? What happened?
9.1.2011 | 10:04pm
JDC says:
Dave:
"Or willing to compromise their Christian beliefs just to fit in to society."
I would confidently wager that most Christians face the temptation, and many are even willing to compromise their beliefs. Maybe not with full awareness or consent; staying silent and listening to mixtures of truth and falsehood can sway you. We should not accuse them, but we should do our best to help them stand strong.
Michael PS:
"Here, I take [Aristotle's] distinction to be between innate and acquired habits."
But of course--habits innate to individual persons with particular temperaments or predispositions; not necessarily to man generally. It is not really clear that anything more than temperaments are innate, however, and some would argue even that. The fact that some people seem to have innate homosexual desires does not make them ordered, not even if the Philosopher is interpreted as saying so.
Dave: "[T]he scriptures on homosexuality arguably have to do with things like gang-rape, same-sex activities conducted as part of pagan rites, prostitution, and pederasty. It really doesn't take a herculean effort to understand why some Christians would distinguish those activities from loving, committed same-gender relationships when it comes to ascertaining what is sinful and what is not."
As another pointed out, there is no reason to believe the Scriptures were addressing homosexual licentiousness but not homosexuality itself. Further, we must be clear that homosexual acts are not loving. They are physically and spiritually bad for people.
Drop down out of the cerebral clouds. We must be clear about one thing: Sexuality implies complementarity--we do not call it heterosexuality because mating is part of it. In order to do what it does, sexuality just is heterosexual.
There is, in fact, no such thing as homosexuality properly so called. Sexuality cannot be used between two people of the same sex. Homosexual intercourse is impossible, because the souls that would be speaking to one another in the union of the flesh are not complementary. Homosexuality is a non-creation, a misappropriation of sexuality by the evil one.
This is not to deny the reality of homosexual desire, but to deny the reality of the happiness promised by the temptation to create homosexuality.
"Or willing to compromise their Christian beliefs just to fit in to society."
I would confidently wager that most Christians face the temptation, and many are even willing to compromise their beliefs. Maybe not with full awareness or consent; staying silent and listening to mixtures of truth and falsehood can sway you. We should not accuse them, but we should do our best to help them stand strong.
Michael PS:
"Here, I take [Aristotle's] distinction to be between innate and acquired habits."
But of course--habits innate to individual persons with particular temperaments or predispositions; not necessarily to man generally. It is not really clear that anything more than temperaments are innate, however, and some would argue even that. The fact that some people seem to have innate homosexual desires does not make them ordered, not even if the Philosopher is interpreted as saying so.
Dave: "[T]he scriptures on homosexuality arguably have to do with things like gang-rape, same-sex activities conducted as part of pagan rites, prostitution, and pederasty. It really doesn't take a herculean effort to understand why some Christians would distinguish those activities from loving, committed same-gender relationships when it comes to ascertaining what is sinful and what is not."
As another pointed out, there is no reason to believe the Scriptures were addressing homosexual licentiousness but not homosexuality itself. Further, we must be clear that homosexual acts are not loving. They are physically and spiritually bad for people.
Drop down out of the cerebral clouds. We must be clear about one thing: Sexuality implies complementarity--we do not call it heterosexuality because mating is part of it. In order to do what it does, sexuality just is heterosexual.
There is, in fact, no such thing as homosexuality properly so called. Sexuality cannot be used between two people of the same sex. Homosexual intercourse is impossible, because the souls that would be speaking to one another in the union of the flesh are not complementary. Homosexuality is a non-creation, a misappropriation of sexuality by the evil one.
This is not to deny the reality of homosexual desire, but to deny the reality of the happiness promised by the temptation to create homosexuality.
9.1.2011 | 11:06pm
Fred says:
Enjoy your essays always. Another outstanding thoughtful one. Brought back memories of Kansas City Lectures your congregation sponsored along with the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau.
Frederick Schumacher
Frederick Schumacher
9.2.2011 | 12:53am
Stephen J. says:
I think the unique and exceptional temptation to sin when dealing with same-sex attraction (and sexual sin in general) in today's culture is not lust -- almost everyone has that in common, and masturbation is as grave a sin as same-sex activity -- but a kind of dishonesty, both conscious against others and half-conscious against oneself.
It is right and honest to point out that much of the Judeo-Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes out of the Jewish experience of it as a predatory power practice, often used against children and youths and common from Babylon to Greece and Rome; much of the Judeo-Christian insistence on fidelity and monogamy likewise derived from reaction against the heterosexual counterpart of this predation upon women. It is also true, so far as it goes, that a committed, monogamous and loving same-sex relationship is far superior to such predation, and that such relationships do exist.
But it is *not* honest to imply in the gap between those truths that the majority of most modern Western same-sex communities in fact espouse those ideals or aspire to them in actual practice. Fidelity, monogamy and permanence are *not* held up as things to aspire to in most same-sex communities, or at least not at the price of any difficulty or sacrifice. (Dan Savage, gay sex advice columnist, explicitly asserts that infidelity is a morally acceptable solution for sexual dissatisfaction in a relationship, if a more honest solution is infeasible.) I have always thought it very telling that not a single same-sex-union advocacy group has ever tried to win support for their cause by offering to repeal no-fault divorce laws along with legalizing same-sex unions. And the campaign for same-sex unions in general is far more about using the law to force changes upon society against the majority's will than it is about obtaining legal benefits (which were always rejected when offered in an arrangement not explicitly called "marriage") or fulfilling a denied dream of a whole subculture (the proportion of same-sex couples who actually marry is far lower than in the straight majority, and always subsides to a minuscule trickle within a year of SSU laws being passed). Similarly, the desire to present same-sex vs. opposite-sex attraction as essentially identical counterparts can only be a persuasive case as long as the definitional difference between them, i.e. fertility vs. sterility, is deliberately ignored or disregarded as irrelevant -- something that was not ever possible even to claim plausibly before the invention of cheap, safe, effective contraception.
To claim that what the Bible is most prominently condemning is not what most same-sex relationships today actually constitute or resemble is one thing; to say that the majority of same-sex relationships, or the subculture in which they exist, aspires to what the Bible actually encourages or requires is another entirely. But we must beware our own dishonesty here; the straight world has enthusiastically participated in this self-deception because of the sexual benefits we too could easily reap from the devaluation of sex. Nor was it any gay community who passed no-fault divorce laws.
It is probably more practical to let those trying to reconcile their own sexual urges with their faith -- a problem in no way limited to people of same-sex attraction -- deal specifically with their own counsellors, loved ones and families, rather than making blanket statements of condemnation *or* forgiveness.
It is right and honest to point out that much of the Judeo-Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes out of the Jewish experience of it as a predatory power practice, often used against children and youths and common from Babylon to Greece and Rome; much of the Judeo-Christian insistence on fidelity and monogamy likewise derived from reaction against the heterosexual counterpart of this predation upon women. It is also true, so far as it goes, that a committed, monogamous and loving same-sex relationship is far superior to such predation, and that such relationships do exist.
But it is *not* honest to imply in the gap between those truths that the majority of most modern Western same-sex communities in fact espouse those ideals or aspire to them in actual practice. Fidelity, monogamy and permanence are *not* held up as things to aspire to in most same-sex communities, or at least not at the price of any difficulty or sacrifice. (Dan Savage, gay sex advice columnist, explicitly asserts that infidelity is a morally acceptable solution for sexual dissatisfaction in a relationship, if a more honest solution is infeasible.) I have always thought it very telling that not a single same-sex-union advocacy group has ever tried to win support for their cause by offering to repeal no-fault divorce laws along with legalizing same-sex unions. And the campaign for same-sex unions in general is far more about using the law to force changes upon society against the majority's will than it is about obtaining legal benefits (which were always rejected when offered in an arrangement not explicitly called "marriage") or fulfilling a denied dream of a whole subculture (the proportion of same-sex couples who actually marry is far lower than in the straight majority, and always subsides to a minuscule trickle within a year of SSU laws being passed). Similarly, the desire to present same-sex vs. opposite-sex attraction as essentially identical counterparts can only be a persuasive case as long as the definitional difference between them, i.e. fertility vs. sterility, is deliberately ignored or disregarded as irrelevant -- something that was not ever possible even to claim plausibly before the invention of cheap, safe, effective contraception.
To claim that what the Bible is most prominently condemning is not what most same-sex relationships today actually constitute or resemble is one thing; to say that the majority of same-sex relationships, or the subculture in which they exist, aspires to what the Bible actually encourages or requires is another entirely. But we must beware our own dishonesty here; the straight world has enthusiastically participated in this self-deception because of the sexual benefits we too could easily reap from the devaluation of sex. Nor was it any gay community who passed no-fault divorce laws.
It is probably more practical to let those trying to reconcile their own sexual urges with their faith -- a problem in no way limited to people of same-sex attraction -- deal specifically with their own counsellors, loved ones and families, rather than making blanket statements of condemnation *or* forgiveness.
9.2.2011 | 1:46am
Joshua Gonnerman says:
Having read both the article by Melinda Selmys and her book "Sexual Authenticity," I have to say that Saltzmann's charges against Selmys are very poorly grounded. He seems to have failed to grasp the point of her article in any way, shape, or form. It is not directed towards gay people, and it is not intended to prove the truth of traditional sexual ethics. It is directed towards orthodox Christians, and orthodox Catholics in particular, and intended to show them something of the point of view from which gay people criticize the Church, in order to promote understanding and provide a framework from which her intended audience (orthodox Christians) can then go on to discuss sexuality, identity, and the calls and demands of faith with gay people.
I am also astounded that he reads her article primarily against the backdrop of liberal pro-same-sex-marriage theology, rather than against the backdrop of Catholic ethical teaching which she inhabits and which informs her. How he can justify such a move is beyond me; surely, any reasonable reading of a text must arise from its context and from those to whom it is addressed? If Selmys meant to write something about why same-sex intercourse is immoral and why gay people should be celibate, she doubtless would have done so. Saltzmann is decrying an orange for not being an apple.
I am also astounded that he reads her article primarily against the backdrop of liberal pro-same-sex-marriage theology, rather than against the backdrop of Catholic ethical teaching which she inhabits and which informs her. How he can justify such a move is beyond me; surely, any reasonable reading of a text must arise from its context and from those to whom it is addressed? If Selmys meant to write something about why same-sex intercourse is immoral and why gay people should be celibate, she doubtless would have done so. Saltzmann is decrying an orange for not being an apple.
9.2.2011 | 3:04am
edmond says:
Talk about splitting hairs ridiculously, the attempt to find some loophole for homosexuality to be made acceptable today is really strained. Trying to re-define homosexuality by trying to show how it was perceived during early Christendom as against what one postulates could be the reality achieves the writer's objective which is to confuse. As for the statement on "generic sin", it doesn't make things any clearer. A sin is always an offense against God and should therefore never be explained lightly. Saltzman says he hasn't read Selmy's book but then attempts to quote a passage or two from the print and then use it for making a point. The article is clearly half-baked and therefore fraught with irresponsible conjecture.
9.2.2011 | 5:59am
Bret Lythgoe says:
I think that a highly legitimate question, that all thinking Christians, and those of other more conservative religious traditions need to ponder, is how humane is it, to require someone of homosexual orientation, to remain a life long adherent of celibacy? Assuming that a homosexual leads a responsible sexual life (i.e., he/she has a monogamy's relationship), it's rather hard to see where the "sin'' is.
And considering that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek, one must be careful about concluding that certain words, translated into modern English, mean the same as the New Testament authors intended it, and the references to homosexuality, are no exception.
And, as Selmys has pointed out, the NT authors often viewed homosexuality, in its abusive contexts.
There seems to be a less than non arbitrary way that some will interpret the NT. Aside from this problem of maintaining the same meaning of words, when translating from first century Greek, to modern English (a huge problem, in itself) there's the issue of taking clear passages, that no one, or few dispute are accurate translations, and coming up with interpretations that, one could be forgiven for concluding, might be less than what a rational interpretation would require. For example, as Dave Nickol pointed out, Jesus stated that divorce was not allowed. Some Protestants don't interpret this to mean that all divorce is wrong.
Also, although I certainly respect Selmys, and her choice to marry, clearly the empirical evidence, derived from neuroscience, and psychology, make it clear that, one cannot change one's sexual orientation. My guess is, and it's just a guess, is she might be bisexual in her orientation, thereby explaining how she made the transition to marrying a man.
And considering that the New Testament was originally composed in Greek, one must be careful about concluding that certain words, translated into modern English, mean the same as the New Testament authors intended it, and the references to homosexuality, are no exception.
And, as Selmys has pointed out, the NT authors often viewed homosexuality, in its abusive contexts.
There seems to be a less than non arbitrary way that some will interpret the NT. Aside from this problem of maintaining the same meaning of words, when translating from first century Greek, to modern English (a huge problem, in itself) there's the issue of taking clear passages, that no one, or few dispute are accurate translations, and coming up with interpretations that, one could be forgiven for concluding, might be less than what a rational interpretation would require. For example, as Dave Nickol pointed out, Jesus stated that divorce was not allowed. Some Protestants don't interpret this to mean that all divorce is wrong.
Also, although I certainly respect Selmys, and her choice to marry, clearly the empirical evidence, derived from neuroscience, and psychology, make it clear that, one cannot change one's sexual orientation. My guess is, and it's just a guess, is she might be bisexual in her orientation, thereby explaining how she made the transition to marrying a man.
9.2.2011 | 7:14am
bill bannon says:
Dave
Then there is no sentence God could have formed for you in Leviticus to forbid gay actions if you can simply find the behaviour in nearby cultures as cult involved and use that to dismiss God's law. You have therefore made it impossible for God to formulate a law in your area of desire. There is no set of His words that you cannot circumvent... so it was impossible for God to communicate with you against gay actions. You can always out clever Him. It all reminds me of the JW resistance to an eternal hell. Christ tried evrythng in the book...."the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched"...." eternal"...." a great gulf between us and you that no man can pass over from you to us". But no matter how Christ formulated it, the JW circumvents it. Welcome to lawyer Christianity. Romans chapter one however defeats your whole context rationale in its statement that such actions are against the natural use.....which means context has nothing to do with it's being forbidden even in Leviticus.
Gabriel
You see no distinction between moral laws and symbolic laws? The symbolic laws are over. The anti gay action law of Leviticus is repeated in Romans chapter one with a declaration of its unnaturalness.
Then there is no sentence God could have formed for you in Leviticus to forbid gay actions if you can simply find the behaviour in nearby cultures as cult involved and use that to dismiss God's law. You have therefore made it impossible for God to formulate a law in your area of desire. There is no set of His words that you cannot circumvent... so it was impossible for God to communicate with you against gay actions. You can always out clever Him. It all reminds me of the JW resistance to an eternal hell. Christ tried evrythng in the book...."the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched"...." eternal"...." a great gulf between us and you that no man can pass over from you to us". But no matter how Christ formulated it, the JW circumvents it. Welcome to lawyer Christianity. Romans chapter one however defeats your whole context rationale in its statement that such actions are against the natural use.....which means context has nothing to do with it's being forbidden even in Leviticus.
Gabriel
You see no distinction between moral laws and symbolic laws? The symbolic laws are over. The anti gay action law of Leviticus is repeated in Romans chapter one with a declaration of its unnaturalness.
9.2.2011 | 9:33am
Dave says:
@Fake Herzog -- I looked through Gagnon’s essay and actually found very little that speaks to the translation and historical/Biblical context issues at the heart of this debate. In fact, the disputed verses are hardly mentioned at all. I did note one reference to the 1 Cor. 6 text where he makes the unambiguous claim that arsenokoitai means “men lying with males” … a very broad definition that is not at all universally accepted. (Even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - hardly a strong supporter of gay rights - acknowledges that the word likely refers specifically to pederasty: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm ) And there is a brief discussion of context where he makes the blanket statement that those who say the relevant verses refer to specific things like pederasty or cult prostitution are wrong … but he gives no evidence or even a supporting argument to substantiate that claim. He mostly seems to go with translations that support his views, ignores contextual issues that don’t, and insists that unless one can prove that the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality in all contexts, then one should simply assume that it DOES. Not a very substantive, stand-alone argument on the Biblical texts themselves.
And to those who insist on pushing the negative stereotypes, I’d suggest you stop relying on groups like NOM, FRC, and NARTH for your information and start researching the websites of professional mental-health organizations like the APA. Groups like NOM rely on wild distortions when it comes to discussing the homosexual community, and while problems do exist, many can be tied to the social stigma that comes with being homosexual in this society. The fact is that most of the same-gender couples I know, as well as those my friends know, live very normal, healthy lives, and evidence stable, committed relationships that are every bit as loving and spiritually edifying as those of any straight couples I know. Your stereotypes just aren't very convincing when they fly in the face of what many of us see first-hand in the lives of people we know personally.
And to those who insist on pushing the negative stereotypes, I’d suggest you stop relying on groups like NOM, FRC, and NARTH for your information and start researching the websites of professional mental-health organizations like the APA. Groups like NOM rely on wild distortions when it comes to discussing the homosexual community, and while problems do exist, many can be tied to the social stigma that comes with being homosexual in this society. The fact is that most of the same-gender couples I know, as well as those my friends know, live very normal, healthy lives, and evidence stable, committed relationships that are every bit as loving and spiritually edifying as those of any straight couples I know. Your stereotypes just aren't very convincing when they fly in the face of what many of us see first-hand in the lives of people we know personally.
9.2.2011 | 10:22am
Michael PS says:
JDC
" The fact that some people seem to have innate homosexual desires does not make them ordered, not even if the Philosopher is interpreted as saying so."
Aristotle says nothing of the sort - he calls such states morbid [nosematodeis] The comparison of same-sex eroticism with the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth is very telling. What they would appear to have in common is that they are all, essentially, pointless. Nevertheless, he regards these states as arising, either from "nature" [phusei] or from habit/custom [Eks ethous]
All I am saying is that Aristotle did not use "nature" univocally, any more than we do.
" The fact that some people seem to have innate homosexual desires does not make them ordered, not even if the Philosopher is interpreted as saying so."
Aristotle says nothing of the sort - he calls such states morbid [nosematodeis] The comparison of same-sex eroticism with the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth is very telling. What they would appear to have in common is that they are all, essentially, pointless. Nevertheless, he regards these states as arising, either from "nature" [phusei] or from habit/custom [Eks ethous]
All I am saying is that Aristotle did not use "nature" univocally, any more than we do.
9.2.2011 | 10:38am
Dave says:
@Bill Bannon -- there is a bit more involved with the Levitical verses than just finding nearby cultures where same-sex activities were part of their cult worship. The verses in Leviticus specifically mention these cultures as the context for the laws (e.g. Lev. 18:3). So the link between these verses and these other cultures is not nearly so remote as you suggest. And as for Romans 1 ... again, there is always historical and Biblical context to consider, as well as translation issues, no matter how much you want to deny that. Just to reiterate what I pointed out in a previous comment, there is a wide range of views regarding just what Paul was referring to in texts like Romans 1, 1 Cor. 6, and 1 Timothy. Again, see the 3rd footnote in the following commentary from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops: http://www.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians6.htm . You may not be Catholic, but at the very least you should admit that the USCCB is not biased in favor of same-gender relationships when they discuss translation and context issues of texts like Romans 1.
9.2.2011 | 10:58am
bill bannon says:
Bret
Actually the original Greek words as connoting abuse toward prostitutes was addressed and refuted in response to the gay scholarly claims about arsenkoimasthai in the late 90's by the Auburn Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Union Theological Seminary...Raymond Brown in his "Introduction to the New Testament":
" Moreover the linguistic composition of arsenokoitai lends little support to confining the term to using male prostitutes. The components arsen and koimasthai are found in Lev. 18:22; 20:13, which forbid lying with a male as with a woman, i.e.,having coitus with a male. Surely Paul, whose basic Bible was the LXX, had these passages in mind when he used the compound word to condemn homosexuality."
Actually the original Greek words as connoting abuse toward prostitutes was addressed and refuted in response to the gay scholarly claims about arsenkoimasthai in the late 90's by the Auburn Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the Union Theological Seminary...Raymond Brown in his "Introduction to the New Testament":
" Moreover the linguistic composition of arsenokoitai lends little support to confining the term to using male prostitutes. The components arsen and koimasthai are found in Lev. 18:22; 20:13, which forbid lying with a male as with a woman, i.e.,having coitus with a male. Surely Paul, whose basic Bible was the LXX, had these passages in mind when he used the compound word to condemn homosexuality."
9.2.2011 | 11:09am
bill bannon says:
Dave
Romans one renders the context issue moot. It says such actions are against the natural use. Raymond E. Brown....the apex of Catholic biblical commentary in the view of probably most Bishops.....saw the context/original greek reasoning as invalid in this case and he was all about context in his "Birth of the Messiah". See my post to Bret with Brown's comment. Nor are you addressing the impossibility for God to condemn gay actions within your paradigm. God can't find any words to condemn it that you can't circumvent with context references.
Romans one renders the context issue moot. It says such actions are against the natural use. Raymond E. Brown....the apex of Catholic biblical commentary in the view of probably most Bishops.....saw the context/original greek reasoning as invalid in this case and he was all about context in his "Birth of the Messiah". See my post to Bret with Brown's comment. Nor are you addressing the impossibility for God to condemn gay actions within your paradigm. God can't find any words to condemn it that you can't circumvent with context references.
9.2.2011 | 12:35pm
Fake Herzog says:
Dave,
You say, " I looked through Gagnon’s essay and actually found very little that speaks to the translation and historical/Biblical context issues at the heart of this debate. In fact, the disputed verses are hardly mentioned at all. "
Huh?!
I provided a link to Gagnon's website which has all sorts of scholarly papers, essays and even short emails he has written to people. I have no idea what you are talking about. For example, this paper carefully examines every single mention of what Gagnon calls "homosex" in the Bible and explains why the Bible does in fact condemn sex between two consenting men:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ReformedReviewArticleWhyTheDisagreement.pdf
Note that link takes you to a 112 page, footnoted scholarly paper (he starts to deal with the OT passages on page 46). His website is full of stuff like that.
You say, " I looked through Gagnon’s essay and actually found very little that speaks to the translation and historical/Biblical context issues at the heart of this debate. In fact, the disputed verses are hardly mentioned at all. "
Huh?!
I provided a link to Gagnon's website which has all sorts of scholarly papers, essays and even short emails he has written to people. I have no idea what you are talking about. For example, this paper carefully examines every single mention of what Gagnon calls "homosex" in the Bible and explains why the Bible does in fact condemn sex between two consenting men:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ReformedReviewArticleWhyTheDisagreement.pdf
Note that link takes you to a 112 page, footnoted scholarly paper (he starts to deal with the OT passages on page 46). His website is full of stuff like that.
9.2.2011 | 1:06pm
Dave says:
@Fake Herzog -- I was specifically referring to the first paper that appears on the sexuality articles portion of his site, entitled "Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse as Intrinsically Sinful? An Evaluation of Mark Powell's Essay in Faithful Conversation (Sections I-III)" It is quite long, and as I said, discussed historical and contextual issues very little, and tended to start with an assumption that the Bible condemns homosexuality in all it's forms, and proceeds from there in circular fashion to prove that assumption. I admit I did not read any of the other papers, mostly because the first one was, by it's title, supposed to address the kinds of issues I was highlighting, but didn't actually have much to say on them. If I get the chance, I will check out this other article you cite.
@Bill Bannon -- you say that Roman renders the context issue moot since it condemns "such actions" ... but it is the exact nature of what "such actions" are and what context has to say on the matter that is in dispute. While you may cite one of a number of distinguished scholars that consider the meaning of those passages beyond debate in terms of their general condemnation of same-gender relationships, there are equally distinguished scholars -- apparently including some among the USCCB and the translators of the Catholic NAB translation -- that disagree. As to your comment about context references allowing any interpretation one desires, that is nonsense. If there are minimal ambiguities in translating words from the original Hebrew or Greek, and there is no historical or Biblical contextual information that supports competing interpretations of a passage, then one is left with a fairly uncontested view of what the passage means. That is not the case with these texts however.
@Bill Bannon -- you say that Roman renders the context issue moot since it condemns "such actions" ... but it is the exact nature of what "such actions" are and what context has to say on the matter that is in dispute. While you may cite one of a number of distinguished scholars that consider the meaning of those passages beyond debate in terms of their general condemnation of same-gender relationships, there are equally distinguished scholars -- apparently including some among the USCCB and the translators of the Catholic NAB translation -- that disagree. As to your comment about context references allowing any interpretation one desires, that is nonsense. If there are minimal ambiguities in translating words from the original Hebrew or Greek, and there is no historical or Biblical contextual information that supports competing interpretations of a passage, then one is left with a fairly uncontested view of what the passage means. That is not the case with these texts however.
9.2.2011 | 2:11pm
bill bannon says:
Dave
Not "such actions" but the phrase "against the natural use" closes all context talk and original language talk....the versions are in accord
RSV Rom.1:26.
" For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural.."
NIV. Rom 1:26
" Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
Vulgate
" propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam..."
NKJV
" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
Check all versions imaginable....."against nature." And "against nature" means
that even if the Egyptians and the people of Canaan never did gay actions, it does not matter....why?....because it is against nature. I'm leaving now. You want what you want. God could have stated " the penis must never enter an anal tract"....it wouldn't matter because you'd parse "never" and question whether it was an adverb or an hyperbole. God be with you. We are going in circles. On Catholic commentators on the NAB, we as yet have no idea how many gays are in Catholic clerical circles due to recent events known to all. Is it 5% or 25%? We have no idea. And that could influence commentary.
Not "such actions" but the phrase "against the natural use" closes all context talk and original language talk....the versions are in accord
RSV Rom.1:26.
" For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural.."
NIV. Rom 1:26
" Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones."
Vulgate
" propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae nam feminae eorum inmutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam..."
NKJV
" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature."
Check all versions imaginable....."against nature." And "against nature" means
that even if the Egyptians and the people of Canaan never did gay actions, it does not matter....why?....because it is against nature. I'm leaving now. You want what you want. God could have stated " the penis must never enter an anal tract"....it wouldn't matter because you'd parse "never" and question whether it was an adverb or an hyperbole. God be with you. We are going in circles. On Catholic commentators on the NAB, we as yet have no idea how many gays are in Catholic clerical circles due to recent events known to all. Is it 5% or 25%? We have no idea. And that could influence commentary.
9.2.2011 | 6:38pm
Richard says:
Bill,
I sympathize with your frustrations. I don't see much comfort for the revisionists in Paul's Greek. The word for homosexual he uses in Romans is "arsenokoites," which means a male who sleeps with (i.e. has sex with) a male. The word does not connote abuse, force, prostitution, cultic sex, or partners of unequal age, though it does not exclude them either. It does not exclude long term monogamous male love partners a la pseudo marriage either. It simply means males who do males. Period. Liddell, Scott and Jones' revised Greek Lexicon (the bible of Hellenists) quaintly but faithfully translates the word as "sodomite." The Third Edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament translates the word as "a male sexual pervert." Harsh words in an earlier time, but very much in harmony with Paul's condemnation. Those who say that though this was Paul's view it may not have been Jesus' are utterly defeated when Jesus defines marriage as God's joining together a man and a woman in a long term union. Not just two people, a man and a woman.
Jesus had some very harsh words to say against sexual sins, though he was merciful with the woman taken in adultery, both because God is merciful and because, I think, he saw her as a helpless pawn in a Pharisaical attempt to trap him and was having none of it. Significantly he did say "then neither do I condemn thee," but he also said "Go thou and sin no more."
Exegetically, this whole debate would be a non issue were it not for the push in our culture to normalize sexual acts forbidden by tradition and scripture, led predominantly by gays, secularists, and entertainment stars flaunting their polymorphous perverse sexuality.
Pascal rightly said "The heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing." I would add, "and it's not always a good thing, either."
I'm not impugning the sincerity of every disputant taking the other side of this issue, but I think that the revisionist argument is spectacularly feeble and I have no intention of being drawn into a never ending quarrel over it. Since nothing I could say would change the minds of the revisionists I will say no more.
God bless,
Richard
I sympathize with your frustrations. I don't see much comfort for the revisionists in Paul's Greek. The word for homosexual he uses in Romans is "arsenokoites," which means a male who sleeps with (i.e. has sex with) a male. The word does not connote abuse, force, prostitution, cultic sex, or partners of unequal age, though it does not exclude them either. It does not exclude long term monogamous male love partners a la pseudo marriage either. It simply means males who do males. Period. Liddell, Scott and Jones' revised Greek Lexicon (the bible of Hellenists) quaintly but faithfully translates the word as "sodomite." The Third Edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament translates the word as "a male sexual pervert." Harsh words in an earlier time, but very much in harmony with Paul's condemnation. Those who say that though this was Paul's view it may not have been Jesus' are utterly defeated when Jesus defines marriage as God's joining together a man and a woman in a long term union. Not just two people, a man and a woman.
Jesus had some very harsh words to say against sexual sins, though he was merciful with the woman taken in adultery, both because God is merciful and because, I think, he saw her as a helpless pawn in a Pharisaical attempt to trap him and was having none of it. Significantly he did say "then neither do I condemn thee," but he also said "Go thou and sin no more."
Exegetically, this whole debate would be a non issue were it not for the push in our culture to normalize sexual acts forbidden by tradition and scripture, led predominantly by gays, secularists, and entertainment stars flaunting their polymorphous perverse sexuality.
Pascal rightly said "The heart has reasons of which reason knows nothing." I would add, "and it's not always a good thing, either."
I'm not impugning the sincerity of every disputant taking the other side of this issue, but I think that the revisionist argument is spectacularly feeble and I have no intention of being drawn into a never ending quarrel over it. Since nothing I could say would change the minds of the revisionists I will say no more.
God bless,
Richard
9.2.2011 | 7:50pm
Richard says:
Correction:
Haste makes waste.
In my previous post I should have located arsenokoites in 1st Corinthians, not Romans. I see that a vast literature has grown up around the word and its history, and into this I have not mluch delved. It provides ammunition for and against my position (linguistically naive, one scholar would have it), and I'm not going to get up to speed in the literature to enter the lists with the jousters. I still think it is a waste of time. Scholars will argue about just about anything to accumulate professional points, but when a dispute grows to this magnitude you know that more than philology is at stake. This one's for blood, and God will inform us who's right in the Big Interview.
Best,
Richard
Haste makes waste.
In my previous post I should have located arsenokoites in 1st Corinthians, not Romans. I see that a vast literature has grown up around the word and its history, and into this I have not mluch delved. It provides ammunition for and against my position (linguistically naive, one scholar would have it), and I'm not going to get up to speed in the literature to enter the lists with the jousters. I still think it is a waste of time. Scholars will argue about just about anything to accumulate professional points, but when a dispute grows to this magnitude you know that more than philology is at stake. This one's for blood, and God will inform us who's right in the Big Interview.
Best,
Richard
9.2.2011 | 9:57pm
Michael says:
Bill,
Are there others sins against nature besides homosexuality? To ask again Saltzman’s question, how exactly does it harm people? Is that harm concrete as it is for such sins as adultery or theft? Or is the harm a spiritual division as it is for such sins as idolatry or the failure to keep the Sabbath?
Are there others sins against nature besides homosexuality? To ask again Saltzman’s question, how exactly does it harm people? Is that harm concrete as it is for such sins as adultery or theft? Or is the harm a spiritual division as it is for such sins as idolatry or the failure to keep the Sabbath?
9.3.2011 | 3:15am
Alessandra says:
Saltzman is much more aligned with Dan Savage than Catholicism, in my view.
Concerning this part right here:
It wasn’t until she encountered the love of Christ that anything actually changed. That was her ultimate impetus to leave her gay lover, something she would not have done for “anything less than the person of Christ Himself.” She describes a growing consciousness that her identity as a Catholic offered more spiritual security than her identity as a lesbian. It was this, no “reparative” therapy or exhortations to “pray away the gay,” that have given us a transformed Selmys with six children and one husband.
============
Are people who normalize homosexuality now acknowledging that she had a sexual psychology problem to begin with? And, because she found more security with Catholicism, she resolved her profound psychological problem which led her to develop a homosexual problem? Or do people who normalize homosexuality think Selmys is delusional about her own sexual psychological change?
It is clear that if she could have found the same security with other non-Catholic systems, she would have been able to equally resolve her psychological problem with (homo)sexuality. A person who has a homosexual problem has both a problem with homosexuality and one with heterosexuality. In fact, it is basically because they have such profound problems with heterosexuality that they develop a homosexuality problem.
What therapy tries to address are exactly psychological problems, including hetero/homosexuality ones. What Saltzman fails to acknowledge by his dismissive mention of "reparative therapy" is that there are many more kinds of therapy and many have as a purpose to investigate and help someone to resolve their homosexuality problems.
It is clear that in these threads we never see one single commenter who has any knowledge about how therapy works, nor what it has discovered in terms of the sexual psychology of people with a homosexual problem.
Ignorance is then the basis for saying that there are no problems with homosexuality. Simply ignoring all the problems that exist and have been investigated and documented will not make them go away.
People who are intent in normalizing homosexuality are not interested in knowledge, in any case. They only want to take into account elements of reality that are in accordance to their ideology.
============
Accept the notion “there are real reasons why gays and lesbians choose to identify with their sexuality and that these reasons have to do with more than just sex.”
Exactly, the claim that homosexuality comes from a (non-existent) gene is one of the most disingenuous fabrications ever conjured by modernity. Homosexuality is a product of profound psycho-social problems and of a host of other problematic choices, thoughts, and actions.
=============
"And to those who insist on pushing the negative stereotypes, I’d suggest you stop relying on groups like NOM, FRC, and NARTH for your information and start researching the websites of professional mental-health organizations like the APA. Groups like NOM rely on wild distortions when it comes to discussing the homosexual community, and while problems do exist, many can be tied to the social stigma that comes with being homosexual in this society. "
It was mostly thanks to the protests raised by NARTH that pedophilia is still recognized as a dysfunction. If it had been for the APA, they would have normalized it just like they did for homosexuality. This goes to show how deformed the minds and the professional ethics of people who normalize homosexuality are, including the APA. And NARTH is a professional mental-health organization, BTW.
The best advice that can be given for people with a homosexual problem is to start investigating more of why they developed the problem in the first place. Liberals would do well to stop spreading their harmful propaganda trying to cover up just how profound and extensive the problems with human sexuality are in our society, and in particular within their group.
Concerning this part right here:
It wasn’t until she encountered the love of Christ that anything actually changed. That was her ultimate impetus to leave her gay lover, something she would not have done for “anything less than the person of Christ Himself.” She describes a growing consciousness that her identity as a Catholic offered more spiritual security than her identity as a lesbian. It was this, no “reparative” therapy or exhortations to “pray away the gay,” that have given us a transformed Selmys with six children and one husband.
============
Are people who normalize homosexuality now acknowledging that she had a sexual psychology problem to begin with? And, because she found more security with Catholicism, she resolved her profound psychological problem which led her to develop a homosexual problem? Or do people who normalize homosexuality think Selmys is delusional about her own sexual psychological change?
It is clear that if she could have found the same security with other non-Catholic systems, she would have been able to equally resolve her psychological problem with (homo)sexuality. A person who has a homosexual problem has both a problem with homosexuality and one with heterosexuality. In fact, it is basically because they have such profound problems with heterosexuality that they develop a homosexuality problem.
What therapy tries to address are exactly psychological problems, including hetero/homosexuality ones. What Saltzman fails to acknowledge by his dismissive mention of "reparative therapy" is that there are many more kinds of therapy and many have as a purpose to investigate and help someone to resolve their homosexuality problems.
It is clear that in these threads we never see one single commenter who has any knowledge about how therapy works, nor what it has discovered in terms of the sexual psychology of people with a homosexual problem.
Ignorance is then the basis for saying that there are no problems with homosexuality. Simply ignoring all the problems that exist and have been investigated and documented will not make them go away.
People who are intent in normalizing homosexuality are not interested in knowledge, in any case. They only want to take into account elements of reality that are in accordance to their ideology.
============
Accept the notion “there are real reasons why gays and lesbians choose to identify with their sexuality and that these reasons have to do with more than just sex.”
Exactly, the claim that homosexuality comes from a (non-existent) gene is one of the most disingenuous fabrications ever conjured by modernity. Homosexuality is a product of profound psycho-social problems and of a host of other problematic choices, thoughts, and actions.
=============
"And to those who insist on pushing the negative stereotypes, I’d suggest you stop relying on groups like NOM, FRC, and NARTH for your information and start researching the websites of professional mental-health organizations like the APA. Groups like NOM rely on wild distortions when it comes to discussing the homosexual community, and while problems do exist, many can be tied to the social stigma that comes with being homosexual in this society. "
It was mostly thanks to the protests raised by NARTH that pedophilia is still recognized as a dysfunction. If it had been for the APA, they would have normalized it just like they did for homosexuality. This goes to show how deformed the minds and the professional ethics of people who normalize homosexuality are, including the APA. And NARTH is a professional mental-health organization, BTW.
The best advice that can be given for people with a homosexual problem is to start investigating more of why they developed the problem in the first place. Liberals would do well to stop spreading their harmful propaganda trying to cover up just how profound and extensive the problems with human sexuality are in our society, and in particular within their group.
9.3.2011 | 8:34am
Momofthree says:
Alessandra,
Could you please provide some links to research supporting your claim, "Homosexuality is a product of profound psycho-social problems and of a host of other problematic choices, thoughts, and actions. " I am not trying to be combative; I am sincerely interested in learning more about the research. It seems to me, that there has been entirely no success with the efforts of "reparative therapy".
Again, I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different, and therefore I am not convinced that Selmys' experience has any relevance for men. (Does anyone else think this?) However, the experience of David MacDonald http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm, is worth considering.
Could you please provide some links to research supporting your claim, "Homosexuality is a product of profound psycho-social problems and of a host of other problematic choices, thoughts, and actions. " I am not trying to be combative; I am sincerely interested in learning more about the research. It seems to me, that there has been entirely no success with the efforts of "reparative therapy".
Again, I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different, and therefore I am not convinced that Selmys' experience has any relevance for men. (Does anyone else think this?) However, the experience of David MacDonald http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm, is worth considering.
9.3.2011 | 10:34am
Michael PS says:
A suggested reading of St Paul is that when he says, “ Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural...” he is referring, not to sexual relations between women, but to bestiality; this, coupled with the following reference to male homosexuality, parallels Leviticus’s condemnation of Mishkav Zachor (18:22) and Mishkav Behema (18:23) Verse 23 is the only one in the whole chapter that contains a prohibition addressed specifically to women, “neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto...” Otherwise, it is difficult to see why he would choose as an example a practice nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Torah (although some Jewish commentators considered it prohibited by the words “After the doings of the land of Egypt...”)
It is a difficult argument to refute on purely textual grounds.
It is a difficult argument to refute on purely textual grounds.
9.3.2011 | 12:04pm
Dave says:
@Alessandra -- since you automatically dismiss anything representing the broad consensus views of psychologists in this country (i.e., anything from the major mental-health organizations like APA and the AAP), it seems pointless to discuss how out of touch you are with their views. So I'll just touch on two specific points that stand on their own.
First, you refer to the "claim" that homosexuality comes from "a (non-existent) gene." That is, in fact, a misstatement of what psychologists assert. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when there was a broad consensus that sexual orientation is determined solely by "a gene." A more correct statement would be that genetics (i.e., one or more genes) plays a role in determining sexual orientation, along with other factors (like intrauterine environment). (Distorting the positions of those you disagree with so that it is easier to launch attacks is a common NARTH tactic.) Further, NARTH has frequently cited a book by the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, as a key source for their denial of genetic contributions to sexuality. Having read the relevant portion of the book, as well as NARTH's statements about what that portion of the book says, it is clear that NARTH felt completely free to distort and falsify what is contained there. Collins, in fact, believes -- as do most researchers in the area -- that there is a genetic contribution to sexual orientation and that the gene(s) responsible will be identified in the coming years. Collins also felt the need to issue a rebuttal to NARTH's comments, protesting the way his comments were distorted to take on a meaning that was almost the exact opposite of what he said.
You also claim that the APA sought out to normalize pedophilia ... which is also totally untrue. It is another NARTH claim that relies on distortions and falsehoods. NARTH typically will find fringe elements of the psychological community that hold soft views on pedophilia and then falsely attribute those views to the entire APA. Or they point to a 1998 paper by Rind et al. and falsely characterize it as an APA report, or as a study somehow endorsed by the APA. The fact is that the APA has never taken a stand that remotely says pedophilia is anything less that a serious, damaging problem for those involved. Nor has there ever been anything more than a miniscule fringe element of the membership of the APA that says normalization of pedophilia would be a good thing.
Given the tendency of NARTH to distort and make blatantly false statements about materials that are readily available for public perusal -- and there are more than just the two that I've mentioned here -- I don't see much reason to trust anything they say. And I'm certainly not sure they deserve to be characterized as a "professional organization."
First, you refer to the "claim" that homosexuality comes from "a (non-existent) gene." That is, in fact, a misstatement of what psychologists assert. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when there was a broad consensus that sexual orientation is determined solely by "a gene." A more correct statement would be that genetics (i.e., one or more genes) plays a role in determining sexual orientation, along with other factors (like intrauterine environment). (Distorting the positions of those you disagree with so that it is easier to launch attacks is a common NARTH tactic.) Further, NARTH has frequently cited a book by the head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, as a key source for their denial of genetic contributions to sexuality. Having read the relevant portion of the book, as well as NARTH's statements about what that portion of the book says, it is clear that NARTH felt completely free to distort and falsify what is contained there. Collins, in fact, believes -- as do most researchers in the area -- that there is a genetic contribution to sexual orientation and that the gene(s) responsible will be identified in the coming years. Collins also felt the need to issue a rebuttal to NARTH's comments, protesting the way his comments were distorted to take on a meaning that was almost the exact opposite of what he said.
You also claim that the APA sought out to normalize pedophilia ... which is also totally untrue. It is another NARTH claim that relies on distortions and falsehoods. NARTH typically will find fringe elements of the psychological community that hold soft views on pedophilia and then falsely attribute those views to the entire APA. Or they point to a 1998 paper by Rind et al. and falsely characterize it as an APA report, or as a study somehow endorsed by the APA. The fact is that the APA has never taken a stand that remotely says pedophilia is anything less that a serious, damaging problem for those involved. Nor has there ever been anything more than a miniscule fringe element of the membership of the APA that says normalization of pedophilia would be a good thing.
Given the tendency of NARTH to distort and make blatantly false statements about materials that are readily available for public perusal -- and there are more than just the two that I've mentioned here -- I don't see much reason to trust anything they say. And I'm certainly not sure they deserve to be characterized as a "professional organization."
9.3.2011 | 2:51pm
F.B. says:
Michael PS
Read the next verse in the Vulgate or your favorite English....see "similiter" or in English "in the same way"...therefore the sinful step by women was identical to that of men who used each other... not radically different as in bestiality.
Vulgate: "27 Similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminć, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes."
Read the next verse in the Vulgate or your favorite English....see "similiter" or in English "in the same way"...therefore the sinful step by women was identical to that of men who used each other... not radically different as in bestiality.
Vulgate: "27 Similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminć, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes."
9.4.2011 | 2:31am
Alessandra says:
Momofthree,
I would recommend reading Nicolosi's work. I think he has investigated so many crucial and interesting issues about the dysfunctional psychological roots to certain homosexualities. I believe his work on homosexuality is like a Pandora's box, millions of questions erupt from it, along with many interesting answers.
If you would like to read a good review of one of his books, here's one: Review: Therapy Terminable and Interminable: "Non-Gay Homosexuals" Come out of the Closet - James D. Weinrich.
Please understand that I think there is much more to human sexuality (and homosexuality) that is covered by Nicolosi or Weinrich, meaning, it's not because I am suggesting these materials that I agree with everything that is written in them.
Can you point me to any researcher who has gone into the depth of Nicolosi's investigations about the psychological roots related to developing a homosexual problem that disagrees with him?
MOT: It seems to me, that there has been entirely no success with the efforts of "reparative therapy".
That's not what Nicolosi reports. And this is why confronting a normalize-homosexuality ideology such as Weinrich's to Nicolosi's is very interesting.
=====
MOT: Again, I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different, and therefore I am not convinced that Selmys' experience has any relevance for men.
I think there are many different types of homosexuality (and bisexuality), and I also think that there may be some which are particularly shaped by either the feminine or masculine gender experience.
"I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different"
In what way? (not wanting to be combative either - just interested in knowing more about your views and observations)
I would recommend reading Nicolosi's work. I think he has investigated so many crucial and interesting issues about the dysfunctional psychological roots to certain homosexualities. I believe his work on homosexuality is like a Pandora's box, millions of questions erupt from it, along with many interesting answers.
If you would like to read a good review of one of his books, here's one: Review: Therapy Terminable and Interminable: "Non-Gay Homosexuals" Come out of the Closet - James D. Weinrich.
Please understand that I think there is much more to human sexuality (and homosexuality) that is covered by Nicolosi or Weinrich, meaning, it's not because I am suggesting these materials that I agree with everything that is written in them.
Can you point me to any researcher who has gone into the depth of Nicolosi's investigations about the psychological roots related to developing a homosexual problem that disagrees with him?
MOT: It seems to me, that there has been entirely no success with the efforts of "reparative therapy".
That's not what Nicolosi reports. And this is why confronting a normalize-homosexuality ideology such as Weinrich's to Nicolosi's is very interesting.
=====
MOT: Again, I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different, and therefore I am not convinced that Selmys' experience has any relevance for men.
I think there are many different types of homosexuality (and bisexuality), and I also think that there may be some which are particularly shaped by either the feminine or masculine gender experience.
"I also think the origins for female and male homosexuality are distinctly different"
In what way? (not wanting to be combative either - just interested in knowing more about your views and observations)
9.4.2011 | 3:54am
Alessandra says:
Dave says:
@Alessandra -- since you automatically dismiss anything representing the broad consensus views of psychologists in this country (i.e., anything from the major mental-health organizations like APA and the AAP),
=============
I don't automatically dismiss, I am critical of disingenuous professionals posturing as authorities. As a consequence, obviously I reject the broad consensus of major mental-health organizations on a variety of issues. Thank heavens for people who do, or such organizations would be nothing but the representation of ideological power over any scientific knowledge.
In case you are completely ignorant about the history of mental-health organizations, you might do well in reading up on the subject. You will discover just how barbaric such organizations have always been, while claiming to know the truth and nothing but. Great rivals to the Church, I might add.
If this were the 1940s, I am sure you would have been totally in favor of barbaric lobotomy practices. You see, the practice was fully endorsed by the same mental health organizations you admire so much (and so cluelessly), all of which displayed "a broad consensus" on the practice. So much for "broad consensus!"
A little bit more on your "adored" mental health organizations:
Most lobotomy procedures were done in the United States, where approximately 40,000 people were lobotomized. In Great Britain, 17,000 lobotomies were performed, and the three Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden had a combined figure of approximately 9,300 lobotomies. Scandinavian hospitals lobotomized 2.5 times as many people per capita as hospitals in the US. Sweden lobotomized at least 4,500 people between 1944 and 1966, mainly women. This figure includes young children. In Norway there were 2,500 known lobotomies. In Denmark there were 4,500 known lobotomies, mainly young women, as well as mentally retarded children.
Aren't your little mental health organizations wonderful? Very impressive. And "professional" too!
===========
Dave: "(Distorting the positions of those you disagree with so that it is easier to launch attacks is a common NARTH tactic.)"
Is there anything that you said about NARTH which is not a profound distortion?
==============
Dave: In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when there was a broad consensus that sexual orientation is determined solely by "a gene."
The time is right now. There are a *huge* number of people who believe this (the "born this way" fabrication) and they have been told this by homosexual activists. What a handful of (APA or other) researchers may think about the subject gets completely distorted in the populace's simplistic understanding of homosexuality. And the APA is too corrupt to engage in a broad, national educational campaign to correct the misinformation situation about the "born this way" myth.
Here we have the declaration of complete ignorance, stupidity, and incapability of the APA below concerning knowledge about homosexuality (from 2000):
"What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality."
No one in the APA, that is. By their own admission, after decades of research, they have discovered nothing, learned nothing, produced NO knowledge about any cause of anything related to sexuality. It's stupidity and ignorance to the highest degree imaginable.
"Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. "
How can they assert this, if they have just said they have NO knowledge on what causes homosexuality? If they have no knowledge, they are not in a position to criticize any other theory or finding, given that they themselves are completely ignorant.
"Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. "
An outright lie.
What the APA is desperate to cover up are the myriad psychological and cultural variables which play a forceful role in the dysfunctional development of someone's sexual psychology.
Dave, are you in the same position as the APA regarding causes of homosexuality or bisexuality? Are you completely and totally ignorant of any cause which is not biological? If not, can you tell me what psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual and how this happens?
You affirm: "A more correct statement would be that genetics (i.e., one or more genes) plays a role in determining sexual orientation, along with other factors (like intrauterine environment). "
Let's take homosexuality, to me, the APA affirms something else:
"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
"ANY specific biological etiology," they say. Are you aware that the APA is contradicting your claim?
Or have they changed their theories since they issued this declaration?
@Alessandra -- since you automatically dismiss anything representing the broad consensus views of psychologists in this country (i.e., anything from the major mental-health organizations like APA and the AAP),
=============
I don't automatically dismiss, I am critical of disingenuous professionals posturing as authorities. As a consequence, obviously I reject the broad consensus of major mental-health organizations on a variety of issues. Thank heavens for people who do, or such organizations would be nothing but the representation of ideological power over any scientific knowledge.
In case you are completely ignorant about the history of mental-health organizations, you might do well in reading up on the subject. You will discover just how barbaric such organizations have always been, while claiming to know the truth and nothing but. Great rivals to the Church, I might add.
If this were the 1940s, I am sure you would have been totally in favor of barbaric lobotomy practices. You see, the practice was fully endorsed by the same mental health organizations you admire so much (and so cluelessly), all of which displayed "a broad consensus" on the practice. So much for "broad consensus!"
A little bit more on your "adored" mental health organizations:
Most lobotomy procedures were done in the United States, where approximately 40,000 people were lobotomized. In Great Britain, 17,000 lobotomies were performed, and the three Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden had a combined figure of approximately 9,300 lobotomies. Scandinavian hospitals lobotomized 2.5 times as many people per capita as hospitals in the US. Sweden lobotomized at least 4,500 people between 1944 and 1966, mainly women. This figure includes young children. In Norway there were 2,500 known lobotomies. In Denmark there were 4,500 known lobotomies, mainly young women, as well as mentally retarded children.
Aren't your little mental health organizations wonderful? Very impressive. And "professional" too!
===========
Dave: "(Distorting the positions of those you disagree with so that it is easier to launch attacks is a common NARTH tactic.)"
Is there anything that you said about NARTH which is not a profound distortion?
==============
Dave: In fact, I don't think there has ever been a time when there was a broad consensus that sexual orientation is determined solely by "a gene."
The time is right now. There are a *huge* number of people who believe this (the "born this way" fabrication) and they have been told this by homosexual activists. What a handful of (APA or other) researchers may think about the subject gets completely distorted in the populace's simplistic understanding of homosexuality. And the APA is too corrupt to engage in a broad, national educational campaign to correct the misinformation situation about the "born this way" myth.
Here we have the declaration of complete ignorance, stupidity, and incapability of the APA below concerning knowledge about homosexuality (from 2000):
"What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?
No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality."
No one in the APA, that is. By their own admission, after decades of research, they have discovered nothing, learned nothing, produced NO knowledge about any cause of anything related to sexuality. It's stupidity and ignorance to the highest degree imaginable.
"Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. "
How can they assert this, if they have just said they have NO knowledge on what causes homosexuality? If they have no knowledge, they are not in a position to criticize any other theory or finding, given that they themselves are completely ignorant.
"Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. "
An outright lie.
What the APA is desperate to cover up are the myriad psychological and cultural variables which play a forceful role in the dysfunctional development of someone's sexual psychology.
Dave, are you in the same position as the APA regarding causes of homosexuality or bisexuality? Are you completely and totally ignorant of any cause which is not biological? If not, can you tell me what psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual and how this happens?
You affirm: "A more correct statement would be that genetics (i.e., one or more genes) plays a role in determining sexual orientation, along with other factors (like intrauterine environment). "
Let's take homosexuality, to me, the APA affirms something else:
"However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
"ANY specific biological etiology," they say. Are you aware that the APA is contradicting your claim?
Or have they changed their theories since they issued this declaration?
9.4.2011 | 4:16am
Alessandra says:
p.s. and in this post, you will find my definition of homosexuality (just to be proactive about problems in having a discussion on the subject with people who may employ the word to mean something different):
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2011/06/22/whos-redefining-what/
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2011/06/22/whos-redefining-what/
9.4.2011 | 8:16am
Michael PS says:
FB
The Textus Receptus has “homoios” which means “in the same way” or “likewise” or “just as well.”
The preceding sentence, rendered lterally, has the women exchanging [metellaksan] the natural function [phusiken cresin] into the beside nature [paraphusin]
Now, given the Hebrew expression of Mishkav Zachor (Lying with men) and Mishkav Behema (Lying with a beast) are so similar in form, “likewise” would be entirely appropriate, especially given that he two commandments follow each other in two successive verses (22 & 23) in Leviticus 18. I need hardly remind you that, in English, the single term “buggery” embraces both ("the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast" - 25 Hen 8, c 6)
Contrary to your contention, they were seen as the same kind of sin and were treated together by the Sages. They usually discussed them, along with incest, under the heading of “giluy arayot” [uncovering nakedness] If so, how does “likewise” undermine the argument?
The Textus Receptus has “homoios” which means “in the same way” or “likewise” or “just as well.”
The preceding sentence, rendered lterally, has the women exchanging [metellaksan] the natural function [phusiken cresin] into the beside nature [paraphusin]
Now, given the Hebrew expression of Mishkav Zachor (Lying with men) and Mishkav Behema (Lying with a beast) are so similar in form, “likewise” would be entirely appropriate, especially given that he two commandments follow each other in two successive verses (22 & 23) in Leviticus 18. I need hardly remind you that, in English, the single term “buggery” embraces both ("the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast" - 25 Hen 8, c 6)
Contrary to your contention, they were seen as the same kind of sin and were treated together by the Sages. They usually discussed them, along with incest, under the heading of “giluy arayot” [uncovering nakedness] If so, how does “likewise” undermine the argument?
9.4.2011 | 3:13pm
F.B. says:
Michael PS
So if a man's wife left him for another woman OR left him for a zebra from the zoo, it would all be "similiter"....similar. Thank you....but I must rest on this Sabbath from the overly abstruse and I don't believe the original readers of Romans felt compelled to refer a narrative chapter in Romans to a legal chapter in Leviticus at all....in the real world. Scholars do that....Romans was sent to a community of people of diverse occupations. I think they never connected the two....Romans and Leviticus. I think they read the two verses the way Christians read those two verses for 2000 years and will continue to do so.....as equal barbell balance as one finds with this exact similiter autem in I Cor. 7:3-4:
3 Uxori vir debitum reddat: similiter autem et uxor viro.
Look at that. Equal balance on each side of similiter autem. Man pays the debt to the wife. Similiter autem. Wife pays the debt not to an zebra but to the husband.
4 Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier.
Look at that: barbell balance again. Wife has not power over her body but the man does. Similiter autem. Similarly the man has not etc. Likewise in Romans....perfect balance men used men, women used women against nature.
If you are seeking to see your Catholic Church approve lesbianism because you say it's no where in scripture condemned, good luck waiting.
So if a man's wife left him for another woman OR left him for a zebra from the zoo, it would all be "similiter"....similar. Thank you....but I must rest on this Sabbath from the overly abstruse and I don't believe the original readers of Romans felt compelled to refer a narrative chapter in Romans to a legal chapter in Leviticus at all....in the real world. Scholars do that....Romans was sent to a community of people of diverse occupations. I think they never connected the two....Romans and Leviticus. I think they read the two verses the way Christians read those two verses for 2000 years and will continue to do so.....as equal barbell balance as one finds with this exact similiter autem in I Cor. 7:3-4:
3 Uxori vir debitum reddat: similiter autem et uxor viro.
Look at that. Equal balance on each side of similiter autem. Man pays the debt to the wife. Similiter autem. Wife pays the debt not to an zebra but to the husband.
4 Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier.
Look at that: barbell balance again. Wife has not power over her body but the man does. Similiter autem. Similarly the man has not etc. Likewise in Romans....perfect balance men used men, women used women against nature.
If you are seeking to see your Catholic Church approve lesbianism because you say it's no where in scripture condemned, good luck waiting.
9.4.2011 | 3:13pm
F.B. says:
Michael PS
So if a man's wife left him for another woman OR left him for a zebra from the zoo, it would all be "similiter"....similar. Thank you....but I must rest on this Sabbath from the overly abstruse and I don't believe the original readers of Romans felt compelled to refer a narrative chapter in Romans to a legal chapter in Leviticus at all....in the real world. Scholars do that....Romans was sent to a community of people of diverse occupations. I think they never connected the two....Romans and Leviticus. I think they read the two verses the way Christians read those two verses for 2000 years and will continue to do so.....as equal barbell balance as one finds with this exact similiter autem in I Cor. 7:3-4:
3 Uxori vir debitum reddat: similiter autem et uxor viro.
Look at that. Equal balance on each side of similiter autem. Man pays the debt to the wife. Similiter autem. Wife pays the debt not to an zebra but to the husband.
4 Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier.
Look at that: barbell balance again. Wife has not power over her body but the man does. Similiter autem. Similarly the man has not etc. Likewise in Romans....perfect balance men used men, women used women against nature.
If you are seeking to see your Catholic Church approve lesbianism because you say it's no where in scripture condemned, good luck waiting.
So if a man's wife left him for another woman OR left him for a zebra from the zoo, it would all be "similiter"....similar. Thank you....but I must rest on this Sabbath from the overly abstruse and I don't believe the original readers of Romans felt compelled to refer a narrative chapter in Romans to a legal chapter in Leviticus at all....in the real world. Scholars do that....Romans was sent to a community of people of diverse occupations. I think they never connected the two....Romans and Leviticus. I think they read the two verses the way Christians read those two verses for 2000 years and will continue to do so.....as equal barbell balance as one finds with this exact similiter autem in I Cor. 7:3-4:
3 Uxori vir debitum reddat: similiter autem et uxor viro.
Look at that. Equal balance on each side of similiter autem. Man pays the debt to the wife. Similiter autem. Wife pays the debt not to an zebra but to the husband.
4 Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir. Similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier.
Look at that: barbell balance again. Wife has not power over her body but the man does. Similiter autem. Similarly the man has not etc. Likewise in Romans....perfect balance men used men, women used women against nature.
If you are seeking to see your Catholic Church approve lesbianism because you say it's no where in scripture condemned, good luck waiting.
9.5.2011 | 4:38am
Michael PS says:
I do not believe the Catholic Church rests its sexual ethics on natural law, rather than Scriptural proof-texts, which is precisely what the Jewish Sages did and then hung it on the peg of "After the doings of the land of Egypt..."
It is a matter of impression, of course, but, to me, Mishkav Zachor and Mishkav Behema do form a doublet; they plainly did so for the English Reformers in 1536, who were responsible for "buggery with man or beast" being made a temporal offence. This, after all, was the same parliament that declared only the degrees in Lev 18 were impediments to marriage and that these were indispensable.
It is a matter of impression, of course, but, to me, Mishkav Zachor and Mishkav Behema do form a doublet; they plainly did so for the English Reformers in 1536, who were responsible for "buggery with man or beast" being made a temporal offence. This, after all, was the same parliament that declared only the degrees in Lev 18 were impediments to marriage and that these were indispensable.
9.5.2011 | 10:23am
Dave says:
Alessandra -- the discerning reader will hopefully notice that you didn't actually respond to either of the points I raised in my previous post ... NARTH's willful distortions of Francis Collin's views on genetic contributions to sexual orientation and details surrounding the Rind controversy. Instead you mostly engaged in a lot of unsubstantiated name-calling and a barrage of irrelevant data on lobotomies. (I am perfectly willing to conceded that the mental-health profession knows a great deal more about how the brain functions than it did 60 years ago when such procedures were common ... but how that supports your position is unclear to me.) And you lift a statement off the website of the American Psychiatric Association that acknowledges that the specific, detailed mechanisms involved in determining orientation have not yet been determined, gloss over the word "specific," and arrive at the following bizarre conclusion:
"By their own admission, after decades of research, they have discovered nothing, learned nothing, produced NO knowledge about any cause of anything related to sexuality. It's stupidity and ignorance to the highest degree imaginable."
That twisting of what they actually say is an excellent example of the kinds of distortions I have been talking about. I would suggest that anyone that is still following this thread simply refer to the websites of organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as the American Psychiatric Associate to get an accurate view of current understanding based on extensive peer-reviewed research. Because for sure they won't be getting accurate information from you.
"By their own admission, after decades of research, they have discovered nothing, learned nothing, produced NO knowledge about any cause of anything related to sexuality. It's stupidity and ignorance to the highest degree imaginable."
That twisting of what they actually say is an excellent example of the kinds of distortions I have been talking about. I would suggest that anyone that is still following this thread simply refer to the websites of organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as the American Psychiatric Associate to get an accurate view of current understanding based on extensive peer-reviewed research. Because for sure they won't be getting accurate information from you.
9.6.2011 | 12:17pm
CKG says:
Sorry I'm so late to the party here; I've been unavoidably occupied otherwise the past several days. . .
I read Selmys' book, but not the NOR article. I regard the book as a seminal piece of deep truthfulness. Her particular genius is in bringing her readers to see their 'gay' neighbors as human persons made in God's image and likeness, and to help those readers get past the stereotypes and abstractions that poison so much of the rhetoric that flys around on the topic of homosexuality. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall any of the 'history' you cite from the article, being in the book.
As to your final sentence, I'd have thought that Selmys' Natural Law account of what marriage (and human sexuality more generally) is FOR (ie, as designed by their Creator), are exactly aimed at 'giving an account of what's wrong with homosexuality'. Or am I missing something?
I read Selmys' book, but not the NOR article. I regard the book as a seminal piece of deep truthfulness. Her particular genius is in bringing her readers to see their 'gay' neighbors as human persons made in God's image and likeness, and to help those readers get past the stereotypes and abstractions that poison so much of the rhetoric that flys around on the topic of homosexuality. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall any of the 'history' you cite from the article, being in the book.
As to your final sentence, I'd have thought that Selmys' Natural Law account of what marriage (and human sexuality more generally) is FOR (ie, as designed by their Creator), are exactly aimed at 'giving an account of what's wrong with homosexuality'. Or am I missing something?
9.6.2011 | 2:43pm
Gil Costello says:
Tweaking theology, history, philosophy, psychology and medical facts (doctors who know better should be ashamed of their cowardliness) to conform to a view that we are just plain wrong in being opposed to destructive homosexual behavior that is intrinsic to relationships between most gay men, to the point that we now teach children in sex education classes that anal sex practices are natural, normal and medically safe if one wears a condom (a lie), is a practice that is here to stay, and Melinda Selmys makes her contribution. The damage being done to children who are the victims of the lies being taught in sex education classes to accommodate the ambitions of gay leadership would have to be central to any truly authentic conversation.
9.6.2011 | 3:39pm
Gil Costello says:
When Melinda Selmys writes, "I could see that if you believed in a God who had designed the universe, and that the natural creation was a manifestation of His wisdom, and that sexuality was ordered and designed for the union of spouses and the procreation of children, then obviously homosexuality had to be immoral," it is clear that her argument against a gay lifestyle is rooted in a belief in God, and particularly in living one's life in the image and likeness of Christ. What she skirts is the sound medical reasons that could sway a person from participating in a gay lifestyle, religious or not, or at least encourage reasonable persons not to impose a gay lifestyle on children whose frontal lobes (seat of discernment) is not fully developed until age 23. Keep in mind that from time immemorial most children who experienced same-sex attraction would eventually mature into opposite-sex attraction. But today in many schools when a child confides to a counselor that he/she has experienced same-sex attraction, that child is placed in a gay-support group where he/she will be indoctrinated into embracing a gay lifestyle. This is criminal behavior on the part of counselors because it disrupts the maturation process of the child and endangers his/her life.
9.6.2011 | 4:15pm
Gil Costello says:
It's really like standing outside a building on fire with children trapped inside and discussing the nature of the fire, its possible origin and ways of future prevention, when the real question is: how do save the children?
9.6.2011 | 6:35pm
momofthree says:
Gil Costello wrote: "Keep in mind that from time immemorial most children who experienced same-sex attraction would eventually mature into opposite-sex attraction. "
Where is the evidence for this? I did not know this.
Where is the evidence for this? I did not know this.
9.6.2011 | 10:39pm
Gil Costello says:
momofthree,
There are plenty of books and websites you can go to that explain the elaborate sexual maturation process of children, including classics written by Jean Piaget and other respected child psychologists who have been effectively banned from courses at most universities. But here it would be more helpful to quote from a pro-gay website (http://www.avert.org/am-i-gay.htm):
"There isn't a questionnaire you can fill in or a test to take! While your sexuality is developing, many teens will become attracted to someone of the same gender - it doesn't mean that you'll always be attracted to people of that gender. Some people can be quite old before they have their first same-sex attraction. For some people, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see. Other people seem to have known they were gay since they were really young - everyone's different."
There are plenty of books and websites you can go to that explain the elaborate sexual maturation process of children, including classics written by Jean Piaget and other respected child psychologists who have been effectively banned from courses at most universities. But here it would be more helpful to quote from a pro-gay website (http://www.avert.org/am-i-gay.htm):
"There isn't a questionnaire you can fill in or a test to take! While your sexuality is developing, many teens will become attracted to someone of the same gender - it doesn't mean that you'll always be attracted to people of that gender. Some people can be quite old before they have their first same-sex attraction. For some people, the only way to know for sure is to wait and see. Other people seem to have known they were gay since they were really young - everyone's different."
9.6.2011 | 10:55pm
Gil Costello says:
Many advocates of indoctrinating children who experience same-sex attraction into embracing a gay identity employ the tactic of equating same-sex attraction with sexual orientation: they use the terms interchangeably, mostly emphasizing sexual orientation. The terms describe two different phenomena, although they are related in some respects, yet educators and counselors are treating children who experience same-sex attraction as persons with a homosexual orientation when most of those children are simply in a stage of sexual development. This is precisely why it is imperative not to lock any child into any sexual identity with a sexual orientation label. This includes a heterosexual identity. It simply damages the sexual development of the child, each child being radically unique.
Sex liberationists, including gay leadership, have been playing this word game for almost a half century, and they're getting really good at it.
Sex liberationists, including gay leadership, have been playing this word game for almost a half century, and they're getting really good at it.
9.7.2011 | 6:00am
Alessandra says:
Dave :I would suggest that anyone that is still following this thread simply refer to the websites of organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, as well as the American Psychiatric Associate to get an accurate view of current understanding based on extensive peer-reviewed research. Because for sure they won't be getting accurate information from you.
=============
Oh, but lobotomy was very much peer-reviewed. You're purposefully glossing over the fact that peer-review has never meant that quality in research will obligatorily materialize as a result, quite on the contrary. And history shows that psychology, psychiatry, and biology research departments have always included a considerable number unethical and unprofessional researchers, all of whom are "peers" and publish their little "peer-reviewed" journals.
And I see that you ran away from answering this profoundly important question:
Dave, are you in the same position as the APA regarding causes of homosexuality or bisexuality? Are you completely and totally ignorant of any cause which is not biological? If not, can you tell me what psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual and how this happens?
In other words, so far, you have basically done nothing but call me and other organizations names. But how about some of this "information" or "knowledge" you boast you have? I would love to know exactly what "accurate information" we could get from you concerning which psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual.
How does this happens?
Or are all your attacks here based on complete ignorance of this subject?
For all your name-calling, you've so far shown yourself to be completely incapable of providing any knowledge on the non-biological factors that contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual.
Obviously, you can continue with your next round of evasions, excuses, and lame name-calling if you have no knowledge.
Yet "the discerning reader" will hopefully notice that you didn't answer my core question about homosexuality.
Lastly, I didn't bother with your statements about NARTH's history, because as it was already pointed out, they are merely an attempt to smear the organization. Instead of copying and pasting all the pages of the ugly history of the APA here, which intersects with NARTH's outstanding stance against them, I would recommend that people who are interested in reading about how the APA tried to normalize pedophilia to visit the NARTH site.
http://narth.com/
=============
Oh, but lobotomy was very much peer-reviewed. You're purposefully glossing over the fact that peer-review has never meant that quality in research will obligatorily materialize as a result, quite on the contrary. And history shows that psychology, psychiatry, and biology research departments have always included a considerable number unethical and unprofessional researchers, all of whom are "peers" and publish their little "peer-reviewed" journals.
And I see that you ran away from answering this profoundly important question:
Dave, are you in the same position as the APA regarding causes of homosexuality or bisexuality? Are you completely and totally ignorant of any cause which is not biological? If not, can you tell me what psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual and how this happens?
In other words, so far, you have basically done nothing but call me and other organizations names. But how about some of this "information" or "knowledge" you boast you have? I would love to know exactly what "accurate information" we could get from you concerning which psychosocial and cultural factors contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual.
How does this happens?
Or are all your attacks here based on complete ignorance of this subject?
For all your name-calling, you've so far shown yourself to be completely incapable of providing any knowledge on the non-biological factors that contribute to the development of a homosexual psychology in an individual.
Obviously, you can continue with your next round of evasions, excuses, and lame name-calling if you have no knowledge.
Yet "the discerning reader" will hopefully notice that you didn't answer my core question about homosexuality.
Lastly, I didn't bother with your statements about NARTH's history, because as it was already pointed out, they are merely an attempt to smear the organization. Instead of copying and pasting all the pages of the ugly history of the APA here, which intersects with NARTH's outstanding stance against them, I would recommend that people who are interested in reading about how the APA tried to normalize pedophilia to visit the NARTH site.
http://narth.com/
9.7.2011 | 9:04am
Dave says:
@Alessandra -- sorry but I asked my questions first, in response to your first post, and which are, in some sense, more fundamental than yours, as they relate to truthfulness issues that determine whether it is even worth discussing anything with you. In response to your denial of a genetic contribution to sexual orientation, I asked about NARTH's distortions of Francis Collins views. Do you deny that NARTH so twisted what he said that he had to issue a rebuttal pointing out that their version of what he said was almost the exact opposite of what he, in fact, said? And in response to your claim that the APA had worked to normalize pedophilia, I pointed to false characterizations of the 1998 paper by Rind et al. as an APA report, the result of an APA study, endorsed by the APA. You did at least respond to that one indirectly in your most recent post pointing to the NARTH website. But in the piece on the site that seems to speak most directly to this issue ("On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known") the only bit I find about the APA is a reference to the Rind paper (referred to by co-author Bauserman), where it is again falsely referred to as an "APA study." Other than that, there are references to isolated papers by isolated authors on the fringe of the psychological community that never appeared in the APA journal. That NARTH piece, title notwithstanding, offers absolutely no evidence of an effort within the APA to normalize pedophilia.
(I would also point out that while that particular NARTH piece has a post date of April 2009, it refers to the 1998 Rind paper has having been published "last summer" misleadingly giving the impression that it was discussing recent developments. In fact, the piece appears to rely on several isolated papers dating from 1981 to 1999.)
As to your question, however, you ask if I, like the APA, am totally ignorant of the causes of homosexuality. If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true. That is one of the charms of bogus questions like yours, that are based on a false premise ... in this case the notion that the APA is totally uninformed regarding these things. It is usually best to leave such questions unanswered and left to stand as an example of the questioner's disingenuousness.
(I would also point out that while that particular NARTH piece has a post date of April 2009, it refers to the 1998 Rind paper has having been published "last summer" misleadingly giving the impression that it was discussing recent developments. In fact, the piece appears to rely on several isolated papers dating from 1981 to 1999.)
As to your question, however, you ask if I, like the APA, am totally ignorant of the causes of homosexuality. If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true. That is one of the charms of bogus questions like yours, that are based on a false premise ... in this case the notion that the APA is totally uninformed regarding these things. It is usually best to leave such questions unanswered and left to stand as an example of the questioner's disingenuousness.
9.7.2011 | 11:52am
momofthree says:
Alessandra,
The reason I think that male and female homosexuality arose from different origins, has to do with my understanding of evolution and homosexual acts as seen in the animal kingdom, as well as from the research that demonstrates how male orientation predicts arousal, but not so for females.
Also, the increasing incidence of male homosexuality as correlated to the greater number of male older siblings one has, points to an adaptive strategy that bypasses the traditional bestowal of resources on the first males in a family.
I think it unlikely that the same biochemical processes that predispose someone to male homosexuality does the same thing for females.
The reason I think that male and female homosexuality arose from different origins, has to do with my understanding of evolution and homosexual acts as seen in the animal kingdom, as well as from the research that demonstrates how male orientation predicts arousal, but not so for females.
Also, the increasing incidence of male homosexuality as correlated to the greater number of male older siblings one has, points to an adaptive strategy that bypasses the traditional bestowal of resources on the first males in a family.
I think it unlikely that the same biochemical processes that predispose someone to male homosexuality does the same thing for females.
9.7.2011 | 3:12pm
Gil Costello says:
What was once common knowledge among psychologists and anthropologists but now politically incorrect to discuss is that among primates homosexual behavior is always associated with dominance and therefore essentially sado-masochistic in nature, and why humans engaged in homosexual behavior "naturally" play sado-masochistic sexual games, the evidence of which can be viewed at any gay pride parade, even though we are no longer allowed to discuss it.
9.7.2011 | 3:20pm
Gil Costello says:
In my last post I failed to indicate that I was writing about homosexual behavior among male primates (I haven't researched female homosexuality enough to speak authoritatively on it). Also, one can make the argument that sado-masochistic behavior can be observed among heterosexual primates, including humans, but in the latter case it is not primary and is recognized as an aberration, even when freely chosen.
9.8.2011 | 1:41am
Alessandra says:
Gil Costello says:
What was once common knowledge among psychologists and anthropologists but now politically incorrect to discuss is that among primates homosexual behavior is always associated with dominance and therefore essentially sado-masochistic in nature, and why humans engaged in homosexual behavior "naturally" play sado-masochistic sexual games, the evidence of which can be viewed at any gay pride parade, even though we are no longer allowed to discuss it.
=============
With corrupt social science researchers dominating major research and professional institutions, this comes as no surprise. Every problematic aspect of homosexuality must be denied and lied about, so that it is normalized, and that includes legitimizing homosexuality by bogus "peer-reviewed" research studies which are designed not to ask or investigate any questions that expose the irrational and harmful dogmas found in liberal ideology about homosexuality.
Social science related to homosexuality which is produced by liberals is designed to continuously run away from and mask reality. However, it reaffirms *the* narrative completely. Another example in the history of science where ideology furiously trumps the scientific method.
What was once common knowledge among psychologists and anthropologists but now politically incorrect to discuss is that among primates homosexual behavior is always associated with dominance and therefore essentially sado-masochistic in nature, and why humans engaged in homosexual behavior "naturally" play sado-masochistic sexual games, the evidence of which can be viewed at any gay pride parade, even though we are no longer allowed to discuss it.
=============
With corrupt social science researchers dominating major research and professional institutions, this comes as no surprise. Every problematic aspect of homosexuality must be denied and lied about, so that it is normalized, and that includes legitimizing homosexuality by bogus "peer-reviewed" research studies which are designed not to ask or investigate any questions that expose the irrational and harmful dogmas found in liberal ideology about homosexuality.
Social science related to homosexuality which is produced by liberals is designed to continuously run away from and mask reality. However, it reaffirms *the* narrative completely. Another example in the history of science where ideology furiously trumps the scientific method.
9.8.2011 | 10:31am
Douglas Johnson says:
Alessandra,
I'm curious what you think of Stephen Barr's comment above. It made good sense to me. What say you?
I'm curious what you think of Stephen Barr's comment above. It made good sense to me. What say you?
9.8.2011 | 8:19pm
Gil Costello says:
It’s interesting how many different takes there are on Saltzman’s piece, and I want to make as clear as I can what mine is. Saltzman makes three statements that I consider a portal to understanding what he has written:
“Is there any real harm in being gay and (likely, a liberal Protestant) Christian? [Selmys] doesn’t make that case, not for me, however interesting her piece.”
“My college roommate, a good guy, was gay and now dead nearly twenty years from AIDS. I have had deep conversation with a lesbian pastor I like personally—though it was clear we were talking about two different gospels; hers was ‘justice’ while mine fell into that stodgy old Lutheran category of ‘justification.’ Best I can figure, she has been in and out of three relationships, including an early fling at straight marriage.”
“I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong about homosexuality.”
For me, Saltzman is giving an overview not of his, but of what Selmys’ argument consists of in trying to build bridges between persons committed to a gay identity and those committed to Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and that, notwithstanding all the rhetoric on all sides of the fence concerning gay identity in contradistinction to an identifying with Christ (after the Bible, wasn’t “The Imitation of Christ” the most widely read book?), Selmys, although correct in stating that abandoning a gay identity for one in Christ as she did might have a profound impact on how one views oneself and the world, possibly leading one out of a gay lifestyle (keep in mind that there are, as in the time of John the Apostle, many different Christs running around, and a gay person could easily, as a self-perceived Christian, end up identify with the wrong one), she simply doesn’t present a compelling argument that could inspire those locked into a gay identity to trade if off for one in Christ. And Saltzman concludes why this is so: “I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong with homosexuality.”
From reading Saltzman’s piece I am convinced more than ever that Christians must seriously consider whether their perceived Christian charity towards gays has in fact been a complex development of lukewarmness, even a kind of indifference towards gays, not in any way caring about how their lives are being destroyed, an indifference that is an extreme act of violence towards those who have adopted a gay identity.
“Is there any real harm in being gay and (likely, a liberal Protestant) Christian? [Selmys] doesn’t make that case, not for me, however interesting her piece.”
“My college roommate, a good guy, was gay and now dead nearly twenty years from AIDS. I have had deep conversation with a lesbian pastor I like personally—though it was clear we were talking about two different gospels; hers was ‘justice’ while mine fell into that stodgy old Lutheran category of ‘justification.’ Best I can figure, she has been in and out of three relationships, including an early fling at straight marriage.”
“I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong about homosexuality.”
For me, Saltzman is giving an overview not of his, but of what Selmys’ argument consists of in trying to build bridges between persons committed to a gay identity and those committed to Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and that, notwithstanding all the rhetoric on all sides of the fence concerning gay identity in contradistinction to an identifying with Christ (after the Bible, wasn’t “The Imitation of Christ” the most widely read book?), Selmys, although correct in stating that abandoning a gay identity for one in Christ as she did might have a profound impact on how one views oneself and the world, possibly leading one out of a gay lifestyle (keep in mind that there are, as in the time of John the Apostle, many different Christs running around, and a gay person could easily, as a self-perceived Christian, end up identify with the wrong one), she simply doesn’t present a compelling argument that could inspire those locked into a gay identity to trade if off for one in Christ. And Saltzman concludes why this is so: “I do not see how we can call gay men and women to conversion without giving an account of what is wrong with homosexuality.”
From reading Saltzman’s piece I am convinced more than ever that Christians must seriously consider whether their perceived Christian charity towards gays has in fact been a complex development of lukewarmness, even a kind of indifference towards gays, not in any way caring about how their lives are being destroyed, an indifference that is an extreme act of violence towards those who have adopted a gay identity.
9.13.2011 | 8:55pm
Alessandra says:
Douglas Johnson says:
Alessandra,
I'm curious what you think of Stephen Barr's comment above. It made good sense to me. What say you?
===========
I agree.
"That is why ALL genital sexual acts are taught to involve "grave matter" (a technical theological way of saying they are a big deal). Therefore, in Catholic teaching, all genital sexual acts outside of marriage (and even those inside of marriage that violate the purposes of human sexuality) are "mortal sins" if done with full knowledge and consent. "
And I know that we write in very summarized forms in forums, but the issue goes beyond "genital sexual acts." I think sexuality as a whole needs to be taken very seriously and be part of a committed relationship. One reason why pornography is so demeaning. It's truly for people with a deformed mind about sexuality.
And, add to this a very important other issue, this is why anything that is in the line of sexual harassment, molestation, or abuse are such horrible grievances.
You know what I find so profoundly disconcerting? It is the utter lack of concern about the huge number of people who have such destructive and deformed minds about sexuality in society. The collective damage that this does to society in its most intimate and personal realms is enormous. Yet, it has been all normalized and it's mostly not even considered *a* problem, much less a top priority problem for society.
It's so sad.
Alessandra,
I'm curious what you think of Stephen Barr's comment above. It made good sense to me. What say you?
===========
I agree.
"That is why ALL genital sexual acts are taught to involve "grave matter" (a technical theological way of saying they are a big deal). Therefore, in Catholic teaching, all genital sexual acts outside of marriage (and even those inside of marriage that violate the purposes of human sexuality) are "mortal sins" if done with full knowledge and consent. "
And I know that we write in very summarized forms in forums, but the issue goes beyond "genital sexual acts." I think sexuality as a whole needs to be taken very seriously and be part of a committed relationship. One reason why pornography is so demeaning. It's truly for people with a deformed mind about sexuality.
And, add to this a very important other issue, this is why anything that is in the line of sexual harassment, molestation, or abuse are such horrible grievances.
You know what I find so profoundly disconcerting? It is the utter lack of concern about the huge number of people who have such destructive and deformed minds about sexuality in society. The collective damage that this does to society in its most intimate and personal realms is enormous. Yet, it has been all normalized and it's mostly not even considered *a* problem, much less a top priority problem for society.
It's so sad.
9.13.2011 | 8:58pm
Alessandra says:
Apparently this comment didn't get posted. I'm trying again to make sure.
Dave: As to your question, however, you ask if I, like the APA, am totally ignorant of the causes of homosexuality. If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true. That is one of the charms of bogus questions like yours, that are based on a false premise ... in this case the notion that the APA is totally uninformed regarding these things. It is usually best to leave such questions unanswered and left to stand as an example of the questioner's disingenuousness.
===============
There is *nothing* bogus or disingenuous about asking what are the non-biological causes for the development of a homosexual psychology.
As for your round three of evasions, lame excuses, name-calling and complete lack of a straightforward answer with even a tinsy bit of knowledge about homosexuality, well done!
You prove that people who smear NARTH are profoundly incapable of providing accurate, honest information about homosexuality.
===========
"If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true."
I am very interested in knowing the truth about your thoughts and claims. I've been asking for the truth about the non-biological causes of homosexuality three times in a row now, and every single time you simply cannot tell us the "truth."
Curious, isn't it? You spend a lot of energy on name-calling and discrediting ("bogus and disingenuous", aside from your NARTH smears), but when we ask for some knowledge on the subject of homosexuality, what do we find? Complete and absolute ignorance.
Typical.
Dave: As to your question, however, you ask if I, like the APA, am totally ignorant of the causes of homosexuality. If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true. That is one of the charms of bogus questions like yours, that are based on a false premise ... in this case the notion that the APA is totally uninformed regarding these things. It is usually best to leave such questions unanswered and left to stand as an example of the questioner's disingenuousness.
===============
There is *nothing* bogus or disingenuous about asking what are the non-biological causes for the development of a homosexual psychology.
As for your round three of evasions, lame excuses, name-calling and complete lack of a straightforward answer with even a tinsy bit of knowledge about homosexuality, well done!
You prove that people who smear NARTH are profoundly incapable of providing accurate, honest information about homosexuality.
===========
"If I were to say yes, that would imply I think the APA knows nothing. If I were to say no, that would imply I disagree with the APA. Neither is true."
I am very interested in knowing the truth about your thoughts and claims. I've been asking for the truth about the non-biological causes of homosexuality three times in a row now, and every single time you simply cannot tell us the "truth."
Curious, isn't it? You spend a lot of energy on name-calling and discrediting ("bogus and disingenuous", aside from your NARTH smears), but when we ask for some knowledge on the subject of homosexuality, what do we find? Complete and absolute ignorance.
Typical.
11.8.2011 | 5:21pm
AKO says:
"This generated some genuinely horrific quack “cures,” like testicular transplants and electro-shock therapy."
Wait what?! That's crazy!? Testicular transplants?! Wow...
Wait what?! That's crazy!? Testicular transplants?! Wow...
3.1.2013 | 12:29pm
Nancy D. says:
The cure for our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, is learning how to Love one another according to The Word of God, The Truth of Love Made Flesh. If you are not following The True God, The God Who desires that we overcome our disordered inclinations so that we are not led into temptation, but rather sin no more, you are not following The God of our Salvation.
If a heterosexual man would adopt his sexual subjective desire as his own identity, he would be considered psychologically unbalanced. Of course, the same situation is not applicable to gay people.