Homosexual marriage

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, brainwashing and/or abusing someone is definitely non-genetic.

Neither of the people I mentioned was treated in that way.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with you that being gay isn't genetic.

Why do you think it isn't genetic?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Neither of the people I mentioned was treated in that way.

I'm glad to hear that, but I'm still hightly suspicious of programs (or whatever) to make someone not gay. They must come from the premise that the person is somehow wrong or sinful, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all! Correct me if I'm wrong here.
That can't be a particularly positive experience.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why do you think it isn't genetic?

It does not appear to be a heritable trait. I think it's a chemical development in the brain, when you're a foetus. Much like handedness. (If it was genetic, a choice, or something else, I still wouldn't have a problem with it though.)

[Lief Erikson]

How is it then, according to you, that there are examples of people who once, but no longer feel those impulses? If it's chemicals in the brain, that sounds rather final too.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

They must come from the premise that the person is somehow wrong or sinful, otherwise they wouldn't exist at all! Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I don't know anything about those programs. You can bet though that a large number of people attending these programs would not be there if they didn't want to change, so someone sympathizing and helping would not likely be a negative experience. Further, from my own Christian beliefs, I wouldn't make the statement that the person is wrong or sinful any more then other people. They simply suffer from a different problem. The practice is wrong and sinful though, as many other behaviors are.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That can't be a particularly positive experience.

For some people, having those feelings when they aren't wanted is not at all a positive experience. I know that simply because I've spent time struggling against heterosexual sexual instincts. Someone offering a helping hand when dealing with that kind of dilemma is not negative, but positive.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How is it then, according to you, that there are examples of people who once, but no longer feel those impulses? If it's chemicals in the brain, that sounds rather final too.

Yes, though I haven't really thought of it in those terms, I guess it is pretty final. I don't think someone can stop being gay, any more than you or I could stop being straight.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't know anything about those programs. You can bet though that a large number of people attending these programs would not be there if they didn't want to change, so someone sympathizing and helping would not likely be a negative experience. Further, from my own Christian beliefs, I wouldn't make the statement that the person is wrong or sinful any more then other people. They simply suffer from a different problem. The practice is wrong and sinful though, as many other behaviors are.

I strongly believe that God made gay people that way on purpose, so that there could be gay people in the world. I don't think He was just adding another sin into the mix, because I don't believe that being or acting gay is a sin. This is based on my own Christian beliefs.
I don't know anything about these programs either, but they don't seem like a positive force to me.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For some people, having those feelings when they aren't wanted is not at all a positive experience. I know that simply because I've spent time struggling against heterosexual sexual instincts. Someone offering a helping hand when dealing with that kind of dilemma is not negative, but positive.

I don't think a gay person should feel like they aren't wanted. It's not something that needs to be cured.
I guess you and I have diametrically opposite views on this one. (Despite us both being Christian.) Um... how about a pint in the Café? I'm buying. And by "buying" I mean typing in that I'm buying you a beer.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yes, though I haven't really thought of it in those terms, I guess it is pretty final. I don't think someone can stop being gay, any more than you or I could stop being straight.

What would you say about these two such cases I'm acquainted with, then? And about these other Christians who have lost these feelings?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I strongly believe that God made gay people that way on purpose, so that there could be gay people in the world.

Why? Sorry, I'm a bit blank on this. What is beautiful and lovely about gay relationships? I know the affection is very good.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think He was just adding another sin into the mix, because I don't believe that being or acting gay is a sin. This is based on my own Christian beliefs.

As you won't find that in the Bible, I don't know it that can very accurately be described as part of your Christian beliefs.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't know anything about these programs either, but they don't seem like a positive force to me.

In view of your worldview, that makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't think a gay person should feel like they aren't wanted. It's not something that needs to be cured.

There are plenty of people who believe the Bible though, and believe that it says homosexuality is a sin. These people will feel much happier if they are relieved of these instincts.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I guess you and I have diametrically opposite views on this one. (Despite us both being Christian.) Um... how about a pint in the Café? I'm buying. And by "buying" I mean typing in that I'm buying you a beer.

I don't drink. You could buy me one eyedrop though; it probably would only cost a penny or two. One of my eyes is bugging me.

Sees' Chocolate sounds like a really, really good idea though, if you're buying .

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with you that being gay isn't genetic.

Do you think then, that if someone is gay then they can become straight out of free will or not?

[The Gaffer]

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. It's irrelevant. In fact, it's a red herring because there's an underlying premise to the question that homosexuality is some sort of disorder.

For me, there's a pernicious political agenda in this debate, driven by an unholy alliance of religious fundamentalism and prejudice, which should have no place in how a secular society regulates its citizens' behaviour.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What would you say about these two such cases I'm acquainted with, then? And about these other Christians who have lost these feelings?

Well I didn't know the two people to whom you are referring, so it wouldn't be fair to make comments on them.
I will say that I definitely think the situation is complex. They could truly believe that they are no longer gay because they want it so much. There are gay people who actually got married to someone of the opposite gender and had children even. This doesn't mean they stopped being gay, but they certainly did enter a straight relationship. If someone wants to do that that's their affair

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why? Sorry, I'm a bit blank on this. What is beautiful and lovely about gay relationships? I know the affection is very good.

Given your world view, that makes sense to me.

However, I strongly disagree. A healthy, loving relationship between two gay people is as beautiful and wonderful and a healthy, loving relationship between two straight people.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As you won't find that in the Bible, I don't know it that can very accurately be described as part of your Christian beliefs.

Butterflies aren't in the Bible either but they certainly exist.

I belong to a very liberal Anglican congregation. There is a significant 'chunk' of the Anglican church that sees no problem at all with homosexuality, many of whom are much more versed in the Bible than I am. (There are also significant chunks of the United and Lutheran churches that have no issue with homosexuality IIRC.)
From what I have seen though, the six passages in the Bible that do say something about homosexuality are not very convincing as to its wrongness (at least to me and all other Christians who legitimately believe being gay is not sinful). They obviously have convinced a lot of people, but I think they can easily be interpreted either way.
(Now is one of those times I wish I had studied the Bible thouroughly, or at least read it in its entirety. This doesn't make my opinion wrong or unsupported, it's just that I don't think I'll be able to articulate it very well. We'll see. )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are plenty of people who believe the Bible though, and believe that it says homosexuality is a sin. These people will feel much happier if they are relieved of these instincts.

Relieved of these instincs? I don't think it's that simple, but I guess a gay person who also believed that being gay was a sin would be in an uncomfortable position. You can believe the Bible without believing being gay is a sin, as I mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't drink. You could buy me one eyedrop though; it probably would only cost a penny or two. One of my eyes is bugging me.

Sees' Chocolate sounds like a really, really good idea though, if you're buying .

See you in the Café buddy.

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Do you think then, that if someone is gay then they can become straight out of free will or not?

No, I don't think that you could choose to be gay or not to be gay. I believe this based on what I've observed. No one has ever said to me, "Over the years, I decided that I'd like to be gay," but people have said (paraphrase) "Over the years I came to realize that I was gay."
If being gay was a choice, that wouldn't bother me at all, I simply think it is not so. As I said earlier, I think it's a chemical development in the brain. That means you can't inherit it (you don't always inherit genes, and sometimes they are not expressed, but I don't want to go there ), but also that you are born with your sexual orientation.

EDIT:
Cross-posted with The Gaffer.

[The Gaffer]

* waves to Nurv *

I can understand why this issue might be difficult for Christians, and it's refreshing to hear the non-Evangelical viewpoint. You might be interested to know, Nurv, (if you don't already) that many Bible scholars believe that the texts proscribing homosexuality have been misinterpreted.

Here's a link if you're interested in following up the translation debate: religioustolerance.org

[Lief Erikson]

People who don't believe in hell say the same thing about that. I've heard church leaders take an extremely unlikely translation of one word from one gospel, that all tradition and history have rejected, and go haywire with it. I attend the Episcopal Church .

Nurvi, I believe quite firmly that liberalism (which fills the Episcopal Church) is a modern day heresy. This is particularly true when it is taken to extremes. I attend an Episcopal Church and hear the gay acceptance word at least once a month. I have debated and discussed religious matters in the middle of a group of liberals. I don't know of any church leaders that aren't divorced (which breaks clearly spelled out Biblical principles). Many are having affairs. Many of their youth believe that anything goes, that every religion is as good as every other, and every course of action equally good. It's a religious quagmire. As I told one of their pastors when debating the subject with her, "if we reject clearly explained Biblical teachings, the Bible is useless to us. We're going to do what we want, regardless of its guidance."

We were debating sexual immorality. She and another Episcopalian were making jokes about what kind of youth leader we have. As I am an assistant youth leader, I expressed my concern that we not have someone sexually immoral in that leading position. That's how that debate started. It was quite polite really, believe it or not. But rearranging Biblical truths so that they always say what you want them to say is obviously wrong- and that's what the Episcopal Church is doing.

I think the homosexuality thing is one more offshoot of natural liberal views. Some reject hell teachings too. They reject almost all the teachings on sexual morality. Most of them do not believe in God's power where it concerns the miraculous- I've heard the pastor publicly trouncing things like prophecy. I know from personal experience that prophecy is a real spiritual reality. He said it was the best guesses of people at the time.

Among the youth I suppose the liberalism is at its strongest. The youth teenagers believe anything goes, your beliefs are equal with my beliefs, you have your truth and I have my truth. It is a major heresy. Nurvi, you don't want to be part of that. The Bible would be reduced from God's Word to "Some Thoughts Good People Once Held."

The Bible is a piece of living dynamite. It has the power to transform lives, as it did mine. When I encountered God for the first time, I had not read the Bible in months at all, and not in years of my own free will. Finally I flipped the pages open, and instantly every word I read spoke directly to my own situation, to my own heart. Everything I had gone through in my recent times of darkness, God sympathized with, his heart there with mine. The words seemed almost to leap off the page. That's God's Holy, Living Word.

Countless other people through the ages have had their lives transformed through reading the words on those pages. They lose sexual or drug addictions, they feel true freedom that utterly changes their lives. The Bible is God's Word, not "Some Thoughts Good People Once Held."

If you're a Christian, you believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He said, "It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear then for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

As God's Word I have experienced it. Whenever I have questioned that something in it might be God's Word, God leaps on me and explains it. The Word is truth. That is something we should live with, something we should grow with and experience. That's why we have to accept it for what it says, not for how we would make it. If we change it so that it says what we want to hear, the Bible is worthless. It has no power to change, no power to transform. If we have doubts about something or if we do not understand how something in it can be good or true, asking God is the key.

It says in the scripture that the Holy Spirit will illuminate the words for us and grant us understanding. I mentioned that to that pastor also when I was debating with her, after she said that sometimes it was difficult to know how to interpret the scriptures.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well I didn't know the two people to whom you are referring, so it wouldn't be fair to make comments on them.
I will say that I definitely think the situation is complex. They could truly believe that they are no longer gay because they want it so much. There are gay people who actually got married to someone of the opposite gender and had children even. This doesn't mean they stopped being gay, but they certainly did enter a straight relationship. If someone wants to do that that's their affair

One of these people has married and had children. For the other one, the abrupt switch in inclinations was a complete surprise. She's a nonbeliever, you see. It's in a way good to have people like you and Insidious around, who think people have no choice about those instincts. It makes people who do experience that change, when the nonbelievers (not saying you're one of them) are all saying it isn't possible, have an added incentive to believe in Jesus.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Relieved of these instincs? I don't think it's that simple, but I guess a gay person who also believed that being gay was a sin would be in an uncomfortable position.

Someone with those inclinations but believed them to be wrong is in an uncomfortable position, correct. I think these are the primary people that would attend these meetings for the removal of their instincts, and if it is successful, one can see why that would be a great comfort to those individuals.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

No, I don't think that you could choose to be gay or not to be gay. I believe this based on what I've observed. No one has ever said to me, "Over the years, I decided that I'd like to be gay," but people have said (paraphrase) "Over the years I came to realize that I was gay."
If being gay was a choice, that wouldn't bother me at all, I simply think it is not so. As I said earlier, I think it's a chemical development in the brain. That means you can't inherit it (you don't always inherit genes, and sometimes they are not expressed, but I don't want to go there ), but also that you are born with your sexual orientation.

I'll research . The nice thing is that all it would take is a few cases to debunk this. I already know two people, and you have to make assumptions about what they're feeling in order to make them fit with the model. More, I'm certain, can be found who are outside of my own immediate experience.

[Count Comfect]

It is quite possible there are multiple causes of homosexuality. I know people who try to make themselves feel homosexual impulses and people who appear to have been born with it. But one of the causes does appear (in the light of current evidence) to have something to do with hormone levels in the mother during pregnancy. Whether that is the only cause is obviously uncertain, but it does seem to suggest that for some at least, it is NOT an alterable decision.

In addition, I do not feel that religious stances as religious stances really have a place in this debate. Why? Because not everyone has the same religious beliefs. Clearly, religious beliefs shape (and are a major part of) social beliefs, but saying "My church does not sanction X, and therefore, in order to raise my children safe from X, I must have this law" is poor lawmaking for a nation like the United States. I am Jewish. Say I would greatly like to keep kosher and have my children do so. However, this is made much harder by the fact that people eat shellfish, pork, and other non-kosher dishes, and do not separate meat and milk. This does not mean that I should be able to force everyone else to conform to me in order that I might raise my children more easily. This would not prevent my belief from being that, for my temple and my fellow Jews, we should not eat such things. But that would not be a national law.

[Lief Erikson]

Count, my most recent post is indeed highly religious. However, it was responding to Nurvi's religious arguments. It was not something meant to be in the least convincing to nonbelievers. My primary posts on this thread are nonreligious in content.

I'm desirous of seeing your evidence supporting the theory that hormones of the mother at pregnancy are a cause for homosexual instincts.

[Nurvingiel]

Well said CC!

Liberalism is the new heresy!? I have to admit that that statement struck me as funny, but I do respect you a lot. I'm not trying to diminish your beliefs.
Given that you and I seem to have diametrically opposite views, despite both being Anglicans, I guess it makes sense that my Christian beliefs seem heretical to you. (BTW would you mind terribly editing some paragraph breaks into post #190? I really want to read all of it, but the block paragraphs hurt my eyes.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But rearranging Biblical truths so that they always say what you want them to say is obviously wrong- and that's what the Episcopal Church is doing. I think the homosexuality thing is one more offshoot of their natural liberal views.

I'll just comment on two things from your post, but I will read it thouroughly with more breaks in the text.

Just because the views are fundementally different from yours does not mean we're rearranging Biblical truths. It means conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible differently. We didn't just make up a new chapter in the Bible to suit our needs or whatever, there are scholarly and supported liberal interpretations of the Bible. The Gaffer's link is one such place.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The youth teenagers believe anything goes, your beliefs are equal with my beliefs, you have your truth and I have my truth.

My personal views on this statement only partly agree. I don't think anything goes, that's just silly. I think your beliefs and my beliefs are equal in the sense that my beliefs are not better than yours. More correct yes (), but not superior. This ties in with my belief that you believe some things are true for legitemate reasons. I think that where we disagree, the things that I believe are true are the right things, but that doesn't stop me from respecting you (or other people with whom I disagree). (In sum, all humans are of equal value and deserving of respect, but I'm right. )

EDIT:
*waves to Lief in cross-posting* (That's a nice habit Gaffer. )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Count, my most recent post is indeed highly religious. However, it was responding to Nurvi's religious arguments. It was not something meant to be in the least convincing to nonbelievers. My primary posts on this thread are nonreligious in content.

I just have to object to the term "nonbelievers", simply because it creates an "us versus them" sort of atmosphere between Christians and "everyone else". Somehow the term non-Christians does not have this connotation to me. I know you weren't using the word in a mean way or anything though.
What do you think?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm desirous of seeing your evidence supporting the theory that hormones of the mother at pregnancy are a cause for homosexual instincts.

What the heck?

EDIT2:
Oh I see. Yes, I too would like to see this theory expounded. I've never heard of it before.

[Count Comfect]

Well, first let me say I HATE using Google searches for this, but I don't really have journal citations to look through, so Google it is.

http://www.neoteny.org/a/homosexuality.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

These give some summaries of research into the causes of homosexuality. The first one has some more about specifically maternal hormones.

EDIT: Actually, my college allows me to access some medical journals. From a 2002 article in "Current Women's Health Reports" in 2002 (Issue 2, pages 457-463) by Barbara L Frankowski MD MPH at UVermont comes this quote:

Most researchers now agree that homosexuality is a variant of sexual orientation without inherent pathology, and human sexual orientation most likely exists as a continuum from solely heterosexual to solely homosexual. The etiology of homosexuality remains unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in this field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice-that is, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual

[jerseydevil]

And the overlap between the GLB thread and this one has occurred. These two threads are becoming almost indistinguishable.

Since it seems not to matter where things are really put anymore - I figured I'd throw this out...

Often times it's said that aids is a punishment to homosexuals. So I'm wondering - using the logical conclusion of cause and effect - what the hell did cows do to deserve Mad Cow Disease?

[Nurvingiel]

Haha! It was all those innocent blades of grass they slaughtered...

Well, moral discussions and whatnot seem to be in this thread instead of (not in addition to) GLB now, even though I agree there is an overlap.

[Count Comfect]

Well, the overlap creep was inevitable, wasn't it? I mean, since someone (whether or not it was Lief) was going to bring up the causes of homosexuality in discussing their marriages. Bound to happen

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well said CC!

Liberalism is the new heresy!? I have to admit that that statement struck me as funny, but I do respect you a lot. I'm not trying to diminish your beliefs.

I suppose by diminish you mean "put down." Diminishing in terms of "make you no longer believe them because of becoming convinced by a more rational perspective," does not bother me, of course .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Given that you and I seem to have diametrically opposite views, despite both being Anglicans,

Actually, I'm nondenominational. I'm attending the church and helping lead the youth group anyway.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I guess it makes sense that my Christian beliefs seem heretical to you. (BTW would you mind terribly editing some paragraph breaks into post #190? I really want to read all of it, but the block paragraphs hurt my eyes.)

It'll make sense even more after you read that post .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Just because the views are fundementally different from yours does not mean we're rearranging Biblical truths. It means conservative and liberal Christians interpret the Bible differently. We didn't just make up a new chapter in the Bible to suit our needs or whatever, there are scholarly and supported liberal interpretations of the Bible. The Gaffer's link is one such place.

Someone posted a link to one of those things before. It was a very in depth article. I found lots of problems with it- lots. Things are in my opinion being added to the Bible and taken out. You really need to read the Bible, Nurvi . That would be lovely. Then we could really discuss these things on a more even footing.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

My personal views on this statement only partly agree. I don't think anything goes, that's just silly. I think your beliefs and my beliefs are equal in the sense that my beliefs are not better than yours. More correct yes (), but not superior.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not positive I agree. What if you have dozens of links to unbiased articles showing that homosexuality is good and healthy, and you have historical and scientific information backing this, as well as numerous scriptures, and all I have is my own belief that it's wrong. Are the beliefs still equal?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This ties in with my belief that you believe some things are true for legitemate reasons. I think that where we disagree, the things that I believe are true are the right things, but that doesn't stop me from respecting you (or other people with whom I disagree). (In sum, all humans are of equal value and deserving of respect, but I'm right. )

Hurrah for respect .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I just have to object to the term "nonbelievers", simply because it creates an "us versus them" sort of atmosphere between Christians and "everyone else". Somehow the term non-Christians does not have this connotation to me. I know you weren't using the word in a mean way or anything though.
What do you think?

I've never received a complaint about it from a non-Christian. I have, of course, never intended it with an "us versus them" slant. If non-Christians tell me they find the term insulting, I'll do my best to stop saying it. Though it would be hard, I assure you! Habits .

I'll start now on adding those paragraphs to the other post.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Well, the overlap creep was inevitable, wasn't it? I mean, since someone (whether or not it was Lief) was going to bring up the causes of homosexuality in discussing their marriages. Bound to happen

Hence the reason why I have always felt this was an unnecessary thread and should have just been kept in GLB. Just as long as GLB doesn't become christian centric again.