Well, Dog My Cats

Okay, so here I am, off on another jag concerning the LGBTQ thing or, as others might call it, the QQQQQ thing. Some might wonder why I blog about this stuff all the time. They muse pensively about it, stroking their chins, querulously inquiring why this topic is on my brain so much. I dunno. Maybe I was born this way. Well, dog my cats—and stop being so judgey.

So let’s talk about reparative therapy, or conversion therapy, which respectable evangelicals have in recent memory handled as though it were a really hot rock. That is to say, they—having misplaced their sufficiency-of-the-Word-oven-mitts—dropped it like a really hot rock. A full court press was on, our guy inbounding the ball panicked and bounced it off the blonde head of the nearest cheerleader. And no, I am not mixing metaphors until I have him inbounding a really hot rock.

The first part of this to get out of the way is the religious liberty issue, or depending on the situation, the mere liberty issue. Many civic jurisdictions have outlawed attempts to “cure” teens with homosexual temptations, and you are bad and wicked and will be fined if you continue to act like repentance might be a thing for teens. So even those Christians who say they disagree with the value of reparative therapy—so long as they are not disagreeing with it as a way of covering their evangelobutt—should be also fighting for the right of any counselors anywhere to offer reparative therapy.

Shoot, it ought to be legal to offer to cure homosexual temptations with dark roasted juju beans. Because anyone who cannot identify the straight line that will be drawn from outlawing reparative therapy for teens (even when offered by mountebanks) to outlawing exegetically sound sermon series through Romans and Leviticus (even when not offered by mountebanks) is someone whose last name rhymes with naïve.

What has happened is that we are trying to have a debate over what is true and what is false, and we simultaneously have these bands of deputized thugs with socks full of deck screws wandering about, helpfully beating up anyone who suggests a wrong answer. This is neither the way of science, nor theology, nor law, but rather a simple and very raw totalitolerance move.Shoot, it ought to be legal to offer to cure homosexual temptations with dark roasted juju beans.

It is a totalitolerance move in defense of a rigid dogma, one that does not even command the assent of the homosexual world. The born-this-way thing is one side of an argument, and not a scientific fact. And it is an argument that is as lively within gaydom as anywhere else.

Now let us say that we have 100 teens from evangelical homes who say they struggle with homosexual temptation. Let us say that they are as eager for counseling that might help them win the victory in this struggle as their parents are. Show of hands. Who thinks that offering such help should be against the law? And let us narrow the circle further. Another show of hands. Who among conservative evangelicals who might themselves plausibly but erroneously be accused of offering such help thinks that it should be against the law? So my question to the evangelical establishment is this—do you oppose or support the criminalization of reparative therapy? As offered by others?

Back to those 100 teens. Even if you pass the test contained within the previous paragraph, and courageously come down on the side of liberty, we then come to the issue of the disagreement itself. To disagree with any attempts to turn any of them back to a normal sexuality betrays an incredibly simplistic approach to human sexual temptation. It assumes that inside each of these teens there is a toggle switch, and that the toggle switch was welded into the same-sex position at conception. “Sorry, nothing can be done for any of you.” The experiment in which this important datum was established has not yet, to this date, been published. This probably has to do with internal editorial politics over at the Journal of What All Scientists Are Supposed to Know.

Anyone with any counseling experience knows that the same temptation lies closer to the bone in some people than others. And I have twenty bucks here that says that out of those 100 teens, there would be profound cases of gender confusion and there would also be kids who were temporarily confused because of their parents’ inept handling of entertainment standards. So if you refuse to counsel someone in the direction of normal sexual expression because of that welded toggle switch dogma, then you have no right to the phrase biblical counseling in any of your brochures. Biblical counseling ought not to mean without-God-and-without-hope-in-the-world counseling.

What? Can you not think of any reversible conditions that might plausibly affect whether a teen-ager might come to think that he is experiencing “same-sex attraction?” Peer pressure? On their own terms, a B kid who mistakenly thought he was a G kid? A straight kid who was afraid of girls and drew the wrong conclusion? A charismatic sex ed teacher? A curious kid experimenting? A kid who had been molested years before and who concluded that this settled it for him? On the view that any attention is better than no attention, a kid who discovered that talking this way got him lots of attention from his dad? No, no, the cowards of counseling say. Welded toggle switch.

One last thing. By putting it this way, and by granting that some cases lie close to the bone, I am not assuming that there has to be such a thing as a genetically-determined same-sex temptation somewhere among the 100. That’s more than we know. But even if such a gene were one day to be discovered, this affects nothing to the purpose. We already knew that heterosexual sin is genetically determined, and we already knew that unregenerate man is a slave to sin. Sin is not defined by our native ability to avoid it, contra Pelagius. Sin is defined by Scripture. So even if someone one day discovered a gay gene, biblical Christians would just look at it through the microscope, shake their heads and say “by nature objects of wrath.” Just like it says in the Bible.

236
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
12 Comment threads
224 Thread replies
6 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
34 Comment authors
Jill SmithKatechoStephen AndersonJustin Parrisbethyada Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
adad0
Member

A “same sex attraction gene”?

How exactly would that gene be passed on? ????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Adad, genetics is a bit more complicated than that. It could be several genes acting together. It could be a recessive gene that only haphazardly shows up.

adad0
Member

‘Check, the only “complication,”, albeit induced, is the conflation of genetic traits with social behaviors.
An alleged gene that would make an offspring not reproduce is absurd on its face, in the context of sexual reproduction, which requires opposite sex attraction.

After that, asexual “reproduction” has not worked out for James Toback . ????

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

adad, even helpful genes produce all number of crazy side effects, especially when they interact with other genes. Plus there is data indicating there is some social benefit to having a small number of homosexuals in any given population. Not having children fees them up to do other things that benefit the community.

soylentg
Member

“Not having children fees them up to do other things that benefit the community.”

It only “fees them up” if they are charging for their sexual favors. ….sorry, couldn’t resist.

Katecho
Member

Classic Freudian slip. And I think Freud was a complete quack.

adad0
Member

Well ‘check, for what ever reason, the sense of humor gene at times seems unevenly distributed! ????

Hope you are well anyway!

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Plus there is data indicating there is some social benefit to having a small number of homosexuals in any given population.

I’ll take the bait. What data?

Please note that Krychek_2’s science credentials are totally on the line right now.

soylentg
Member

Wait, I get it now.
” Plus there is data indicating there is some social benefit to having a small number of homosexuals in any given population.”
Obviously the key word is the adjective “small.” In other words , that statement could mean that the smaller the number the greater the social benefit.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

I’m tracking with you, Soylentg. In mathematics and statistics it’s called asymptotic distribution. There’s a special case when the sequence of random variables always approaches zero; otherwise known as a degenerate distribution, corresponding to the value zero.

I think what Krychek is trying to say is that statistically, the closer to zero the homosexual population gets, the better it is for society.

Wow, that guy is smart!

adad0
Member

FP “does the math”! ; – )

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No, small as in you wouldn’t want everyone to be gay or the species would die out, but there are evolutionary reasons why a society is better off with some homosexuals in it. I posted a link above, but if you google “homosexuality good for society” you’ll find quite a bit.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

Next thing you know, Krychek will mention some data indicating that there is some social benefit to having a small number of “transgenders” in any given population.

Even though they have a near 50% suicide rate. And many of them effectively sterilize themselves so they can’t reproduce.

That’s Krychek for you: Promoting evolutionary dead-ends while worshiping at the altar of evolution.

All in the name of Science™.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

“I’ll take the bait. What data?”

Well, you can find lots on google, but here’s a good start:

http://www.newnownext.com/homosexuality-ted-talk-james-o-keefe/11/2016/

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

From your link: ” This is a trait that ought to go extinct in a few generations, yet down through recorded history in every culture and many animal species as well, homosexuality has been a small but distinct subgroup. If this were a genetic error, natural selection should have long ago culled this from the gene pool.” Almost like it’s not a genetic condition at all isn’t it? Almost like it’s a psychological condition. It doesn’t matter how few children or how high he suicide rate is amongst those with most psychological disorders, since your genetics aren’t the cause of… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Not that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, but genetics actually is responsible for some psychological disorders. Schizophrenia, for example, runs in families and has a genetic basis. But you very deftly changed the standard from “genetic error” to “genetic condition.” The two are very different.

bethyada
Member

You call that data?

Katecho
Member

I asked for the data, and Krychek_2, knowing that his science credentials were on the line, links us to a TED talk?

Probably time for him to just turn in that “science” card he is always playing here.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I posted a link to a TED talk because the speaker does a good job of explaining the data. If you want more than that, you’ve got the same access to google that I do.

Katecho
Member

Let the record show that Krychek_2 refuses to cite any actual data to support his assertion.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Let the record show that I told you how to find it.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Let the record show that I told you how to find it.

This is what we have to put up with from the atheist peanut gallery. This is apparently what passes for intellectual integrity among them.

At this point all we have to do is declare that the data shows that atheism is bankrupt, and that Christ is the Truth. If Krychek_2 doubts this, he can google “atheism is false”, or “Christ is Truth”. There. Done.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“but genetics actually is responsible for some psychological disorders. Schizophrenia, for example, runs in families and has a genetic basis. ” I said most. Your rebuttal is a straw man. I openly acknowledged that there are mental illnesses with a basis in genetics. You then completely ignored the bulk of my response. and the obvious deep problems with the information presented. It is anti-scientific at its base. “I posted a link to a TED talk because the speaker does a good job of explaining the data. If you want more than that, you’ve got the same access to google that… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

All right, point taken. Tied up at work now but I’ll post links to data later today.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Thanks,

Note that I got up this morning, got my coffee, and started writing the responses all at once. I neglected to refresh in the middle, so anything I’ve written elsewhere in that hourish time spam did not take your real time responses into account.

bethyada
Member

time spam

I was going to ask if you meant time span, but spending our time responding to people on internet forums probably is time spam.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Not having children fees them up to do other things that benefit the community. Why does Krychek_2 assume that “homosexuals” aren’t having children, and why assume that they are exclusively homo-sexual? “There is data indicating” that 37% of surveyed LGB individuals have had at least one child, if not more (see http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf on page 2) In the general population, about 52.4% of surveyed women have had a child (I couldn’t find a combined stat for men and women). So it’s invalid to assume that homosexuals aren’t having children. In regard to benefiting the community, the same linked report… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

First, Katecho, you’re assuming that today’s social conditions have already existed; when we talk about an evolutionary basis for something, we’re talking about an extended period of time. However, even if we just stick to the present, I specifically stated that *not* having children freed up gays and lesbians to do other things, so I’m completely mystified as to why you’re citing data about gays and lesbians who *do* have children.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: … I specifically stated that *not* having children freed up gays and lesbians to do other things Indeed. It was the “*not* having children” claim that I was refuting. Note that “there is data showing” that 37% of LGBs surveyed have had at least one child, which is only about 15% less than the rate of heterosexuals. And those LGB that have children are three times more likely to be near the poverty threshold than heterosexuals. So I’m not seeing the huge social benefit that Krychek_2 promised. Where’s the actual data? How is “benefit” being defined? Krychek_2 wrote:… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

” Is he going to declare that something that happens has no natural evolutionary basis? He would be blaspheming his god.”

Spot on. It would then follow, that if something having an evolutionary basis is a defense unto itself for its existence, and everything has an evolutionary basis, that everything is defensible. This would, presumably, include us and out interpretation of Scripture. I’m just happy to do my part to help the will of the random chance that guides us all.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Krychek, surely the social benefit lies in the singleness and the childlessness. The nuns and maiden aunts of my youth were tireless teachers, nurses, parish workers, and visitors of the sick and homebound.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Jill, it’s the same idea, yes. Traditionally, gays were more likely to be single and childless, even though that may no longer be true today.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Traditionally, gays were more likely to be single and childless, even though that may no longer be true today.

Citation please. Where’s the data for this claim?

Believe me, I’ve tried google already. I can’t even find current total fertility rates for LGBTQs, let alone historic trends. All I could find was a survey of 15-45 year olds, reporting how many have “had children”. It didn’t report how many children, or the gender or age mix of the respondents. The median age could have been 20, for all I know.

bethyada
Member

I read a recent link that mentioned higher rates of heterosexual sex and pregnancy among teenage gays/ lesbians that straight. It seems in this group hypersexuality was leading to more variable sexual experimentation.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Krychek_2 wrote:

Plus there is data indicating there is some social benefit to having a small number of homosexuals in any given population. Not having children fees them up to do other things that benefit the community.

Would our society be better or worse off if it forbid homosexuals from adopting children?

bethyada
Member

A broken gene could.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Is there any evidence that reparative therapy actually works? Because it seems to me that that’s the central issue. If it doesn’t work, then it should be illegal for the same reason it’s illegal for me to tell you that if you give me $5000 for my special swill it will cure your brain cancer. We have laws against other types of fraud, so why should this type be an exception? And the data I’ve seen indicates that it doesn’t work. You might be able to guilt-trip gay people into not having sex if they are highly motivated for religious… Read more »

bethyada
Member

So we are to believe the literature over the people we know who struggled with temptation to same sex and are now happily married to someone of the opposite gender?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

They may be married; I’m skeptical that they’re not still gay. If you had a 14-year-old son, would you allow one of them to take him on a weekend camping trip? If not, then you don’t believe it works either.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

If I owned a liquor store, I wouldn’t give the keys to a recovered alcoholic and ask him to watch over it for the weekend. I can believe that AA did him a world of good without believing that it rendered him impervious to temptation.

bethyada
Member

The point is that they are being taught to redirect their desires and mortify their temptations. I am fairly strict in my requirements for who my children remain in the care of. But I know of situations where men may be supervising my children, say in the context of a camp. There are men I know who have struggled with various sexual temptations in the past and I would be okay with them being a camp parent (I can think of specific names). There are others who have this background which I would not be happy with, and there are… Read more »

soylentg
Member

“If you had a 14-year-old son, would you allow one of them to take him on a weekend camping trip?

So then you do believe that homosexuals tend toward pedophilia.

Jimmy Says
Guest
Jimmy Says

Probably less so than heterosexuals. If you don’t believe me, ask Mr. Wilson. He’s had some experience with pedophilia in his congregation. Your logic is a bit off.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No more so than heterosexuals; if I had a 14 year old daughter, I wouldn’t allow an adult heterosexual male to take her on a weekend camping trip either.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

” If it doesn’t work, then it should be illegal for the same reason it’s illegal for me to tell you that if you give me $5000 for my special swill it will cure your brain cancer.” That’s only true if the therapy promises specific results. Services that require a great deal of their customers rarely make such promises. “And the data I’ve seen indicates that it doesn’t work. You might be able to guilt-trip gay people into not having sex if they are highly motivated for religious or other reason, but the literature all says that there’s no evidence… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Justin, same question to you as to Bethyada: If you had a 14 year old son, would you allow one of these ex-gays to take him on a weekend camping trip? If not, then you don’t believe it works either. I draw a distinction between individual pastors doing counseling who, while I think they’re misguided, are probably mostly honest. On the other hand, is what I call the racket of the reparative therapy establishment, whom I believe to be mostly charlatans selling what they know to be snake oil. Spend a few minutes thinking through whether you could become an… Read more »

Jane
Member

“If you had a 14 year old son, would you allow one of these ex-gays to take him on a weekend camping trip? If not, then you don’t believe it works either. ” Absolutely false. The Christian conception of avoiding sin involves fleeing temptation, not thumbing your nose at it. Believing that someone has truly repented of homosexuality and has firmly established a chaste celibate or chaste married heterosexual life does not mean that we should be sanguine about known temptations, any more than trusting my husband means I want him to go camping alone with another woman. True repentance… Read more »

nate
Guest
nate

Well said. This person obviously needs to embrace the gospel. After that, when the entire New Testament has been absorbed, the simple teachings about temptation versus living in and practicing sin will be clear for this person. Let’s pray for understanding.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

John, Bethyada, Nate, and Jane, if they still have homosexual temptations, then they are still attracted to men, which means they’re still gay. Not having sex, perhaps, but still gay.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

You could likewise say that there is no such thing as an “ex-alcoholic”. Even if that is a true statement, no one would except it as a valid argument to outlaw Alcoholics Anonymous.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

“accept”

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

There probably isn’t such a thing as an ex-alcoholic. The difference is that probably everyone here would recognize the difference between moderate drinking and being an alcoholic, which is probably comparable to the difference between a long-term same sex relationship and being promiscuous.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

Some individuals in both groups (alcoholics and homosexuals) recognize that they are suffering from urges that other do not. They then seek out therapy that, while it may not cure them of those urges, allows them to master and overcome them.

Why should the government intervene to prevent one of those two groups from finding the assistance they desire?

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

If there’s evidence the assistance works, fine. Otherwise it’s a consumer protection measure.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

So, if it does not produce ex-alcoholics, what evidence is there that AA works?

bethyada
Member

Some may have them, some may not have them. I know of people for whom sexual desires have significantly changed, and others for whom they have not.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: John, Bethyada, Nate, and Jane, if they still have homosexual temptations, then they are still attracted to men, which means they’re still gay. Not having sex, perhaps, but still gay. Krychek_2 is just assuming the very thing that he needed to show. He’s assuming that a temptation equates to an immutable identity. However, we know that, in Christ, temptations can be refused, rather than reflexively indulged. But this concept is completely foreign to Krychek_2’s materialistic determinism. In Krychek_2’s hard-wired worldview, whatever appetite happens to strike the senses must be fed and cannot be denied without denying our identity.… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, you’re still not getting determinism, but I’m lacking the energy to explain it again. Maybe if I use really simple words, next time it will click.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

Katecho, you’re still not getting determinism, but I’m lacking the energy to explain it again. Maybe if I use really simple words, next time it will click.

Odd how Krychek_2 doesn’t have energy to explain, but seems to have abundant energy to insult my intelligence.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

That’s because of how little energy it takes to insult your intelligence.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

That’s because of how little energy it takes to insult your intelligence.

Insults are indeed cheap, but Krychek_2 is just confirming his intellectual laziness.

lndighost
Member

Krychek, no one is “gay”. Aberrant sexual desire might be persistent and pervasive, but it’s not an integral part of one’s identity. (I’m getting déjà écrit here; I think we have had this discussion before.) Whether God will completely remove anyone’s temptation in this life, we don’t know. But by your reckoning anyone who suffers homosexual temptations, however brief or intermittent, is stuck with the gay label forever. No wonder sufferers despair, if this is the paradigm they are presented with. No chance for healing, no way out! By contrast, the truth that God can and will redeem, restore, and… Read more »

Jimmy Says
Guest
Jimmy Says

If he’s been repaired, why would he be tempted to fondle a 14 year old boy? A girl, maybe, but certainly not a boy. As to your husband, I’m certain that you would have no problem with him going off a weekend camping trip with his buds.

Jane
Member

There may be some theologically illiterate advocates of “repair” who believe that means people never suffer from their former temptations again. They are silly and need to learn better. That does not mean there cannot be true repentance of a sort that resists, but is not immune, to temptation. I’m not concerned about my husband in such a scenario because he has never shown himself susceptible to homosexual temptations. I would be concerned about him going off and doing any activity that I thought would induce the temptations I know he has — even though I know he is a… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

” If not, then you don’t believe it works either.” I never said it works. In fact, if you look at my own response to the article near the bottom, I suggest the opposite. I was objecting to your rationale, not your conclusion. Similarly, I disagree with this rationale. Whether or not parents are comfortable with your hypothetical has no relevancy at all to its success. The entire premise of my point was that success is impossible to measure. That it’s impossible to measure necessarily means a parent, any parent, is also incapable of knowing whether or not it was… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I’m ex-Navy, and while that doesn’t make me an expert on sexual behavior within the Navy (or for that matter China or prisons), my layperson’s perspective is that straight men who have sex with other men are doing what I would do if I found myself stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but brussels sprouts. I despise brussels sprouts, but if my only choices were starving or eating brussels sprouts, I would eat them. Just not happily. And I don’t think the fact that a man “makes do” with what’s available means that he’s gay; it means… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Since you only responded to that contention, shall I assume you don’t object to the rest? Because I found my second paragraph on the topic far more directly relevant. Your hypothetical that I couldn’t imagine my sexuality changing was rather important to your argument. “And I don’t think the fact that a man “makes do” with what’s available means that he’s gay; it means he’s making do with what’s available. ” So, for clarity, a man who calls himself formerly gay. A man who professes that he used to be gay, but was “cured” you disbelieve on the face of… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

No, you should assume that that’s the contention I found most egregiously wrong, so that’s the one I responded to. If you make five points, and I make five points each in response, pretty soon we’re writing War and Peace, so I tend to just pick out the one or two points that I consider most important and respond to them. If there’s something you specifically want a response to, say so. I think sexual orientation is tied less to acts than it is to emotions. Suppose you have a man who is married to a woman and never has… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Which takes us right back to the reprobate mind issue in Romans 1. The thing that makes God give you up and give you over is not the mere fact that you’re having gay sex, but that your mind desires gay sex. No. I suggest Krychek_2 read Romans 1 again, and take notice that the thing that makes God give them over is not homosexual desire at all. The vile passion is a thing that God gives them over to. It’s a result, not the cause of His giving them over. Given these basic errors of exegesis, Krychek_2… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote:

If there’s something you specifically want a response to, say so.

If only it were that simple.

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

Katecho, this conversation may be an exception, but for the most part you’re usually asking me to respond to stuff I’ve already responded to multiple times. And insisting that I haven’t.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“I think sexual orientation is tied less to acts than it is to emotions. Suppose you have a man who is married to a woman and never has sex with anyone except his wife, but the only way he can maintain an erection is by fantasizing about guys. What’s his sexual orientation?” He would be gay. This brings us back to my original point though. Your definition, a correct one, makes it functionally impossible to measure if conversion therapy is effective. You conclude, despite your own definition of what homosexuality is, that it definitely doesn’t work. This is because you’re… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

I started out agnostic on the question of whether homosexuals can change. I’ve seen no evidence that they can. That’s not conclusive proof that it’s an underlying condition, but it sure points in that direction.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“I started out agnostic on the question of whether homosexuals can change. ” A claim you IMMEDIATELY disprove yourself “I’ve seen no evidence that they can. ” Ok, in the abstract, if homosexuals could change, what sort of evidence would you find of it? Certainly the only evidence that could exist is homosexuals who say they have, yes? Well it so happens that we have exactly that, but you assume them to be lying. Why? Because it contradicts your idea that homosexuals can’t change. Your presupposition is tainting your entire thought process. Homosexuals can’t change because that would mean that… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Justin Parris wrote:

Well it so happens that we have exactly that, but you assume them to be lying. Why? Because it contradicts your idea that homosexuals can’t change. Your presupposition is tainting your entire thought process.

Exactly.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s as if Justin and I were separated at birth, or perhaps reunited in rebirth.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Krycek, I would eat my companions before I ate the brussels sprouts.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
Guest
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp

I heard that among the meager possessions the survivors of the Donner party brought with them to California was a wagon-load of brussels sprouts.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I feel about brussels sprouts the way that Pastor Steven Anderson feels about gays: filthy, loathsome, and unnatural.

Katecho
Member

Krychek_2 wrote: Spend a few minutes thinking through whether you could become an ex-straight and begin to desire other men. Could you do it? If not, why would you assume gay men can do it in reverse? Krychek_2 seems to be assuming that the bulk of self-professed “gay men” are not, in fact, opportunistic in their appetites for sex in both directions (see prison system). What evidence shows that so-called homosexuals are so well-regulated and exclusive in their sexual appetites? In other words, I question the legitimacy of invoking a normal person’s response to an offer of homosex, and then… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

What puzzles me most, and what I find addressed almost never, is the emotional component of same sex attraction. We tend to talk as if the driving factor is pure (or impure) physical desire, devoid of romantic love, tenderness, or unselfish concern for the other. We don’t do this with other sinful attractions. We can believe that the adulterous couple is driven by romantic love and not merely a desire to have sex. I understand that gays who frequent bathhouses are looking for anonymous physical sex, as are straight men who go to our local Dames & Games. But I… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Homosexuality is generally discussed in terms of the physical act of sex in large part because of how we see it take shape in the world. It is overwhelmingly more common in men, and those men overwhelmingly more commonly have a high quantity of sex with many partners. That said, I don’t interpret that to mean that sex is the exclusive relational component that’s forbidden. This isn’t an understanding I have an exact verse for, and perhaps Katecho will immediately contradict me with exact reference. If so, I’ll be glad for the education. My understanding though is that more than… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Justin Parris wrote: That said, I don’t interpret that to mean that sex is the exclusive relational component that’s forbidden. Agreed. I don’t have any verse to suggest that the homo-sex act is the exclusive point of sin. In terms of judicial action, the civil magistrate would be limited to prosecuting the act rather than the things that may have lead up to that act, but the Church would have something to say about the lust, the rebellion, and the heart condition. Justin Parris wrote: Man is incomplete without woman and vice versa. … So, a basic assumption one could… Read more »

Nathan Smith
Member

A good point. Except that we all know people who used to “be gay” and now they aren’t. Its hard to prove that something is never the case. To do that you have to prove a law. To prove a law you need empiric evidence. But to disprove a law, all you need is one case that negates the law. Ergo, reparative therapy, or whatever one wants to call it, works.

Anon
Guest
Anon

In my high school and college years, I was very promiscuous (hetero) and I also began smoking and taking drugs (after all it was the sixties). When I got married I decided to take my vows seriously. I expected my bride to do so (Christ had yet to reveal Himself to either of us but we realize now that it was He who directed us) and I began being faithful. Faithfulness has been a war for the past 50 years. It’s difficult today but the impulse has lessened over time. I began having kids and realized that I would need… Read more »

lndighost
Member

Must’ve got something in my eye while I was reading that. 1 Peter 5:6-11 Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you. Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world. After you have suffered for a little while, the God… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

I don’t want reparation therapy to be legal because without love, Christians become nothing more than “deputized thugs with socks full of deck screws.” I have seen that in the approach to women,to marriage, to sexual abuse, and to homosexuality. I am so sorry but I doubt the heart, I doubt the motivation, and I distrust that the Lord will lead you, rather than being led by one’s own biases and desires. Epic score however, I’m quite the libertarian and would never dream of making anything illegal, but I get it now. It’s not about loving people it’s about an… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“I don’t want reparation therapy to be legal because without love, ”

Why must the therapy be without love? God guided many to repentance in the Bible and God is love. Your objection seems to be ad hominem. You assume the worst of conservative Christians, therefore you assume that they would do this without love. Am I misreading you?

bethyada
Member

The problem is that even love and support and encouragement to live a sin free life will be interpreted as reparative therapy.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

That is my concern with it as a free speech issue. When I was an adolescent, youth group leaders discussed ways to avoid fornication. They were kind, gentle people, and they also talked about ways girls who had “slipped up” once might refrain from slipping up again. In an age when fornication is every highschooler’s birthright, does this kind of instruction become illegal? Would it be illegal to counsel somebody struggling with promiscuity?

OKRickety
Member

Jill Smith,

“In an age when fornication is every highschooler’s birthright, …?”

I love this phrase, although, on further thought, it really is applied to every post-pubescent person, maybe even the married.

Oscar
Member

“… even love and support and encouragement to live a sin free life will be interpreted as reparative therapy.”

That’s a feature, not a bug.

Eagle-Eyed
Guest
Eagle-Eyed

This was rather gay.

Kilgore T. Durden
Guest
Kilgore T. Durden

Human sexuality is a very complex mix of genetics, environment, beliefs, and circumstances. To try and boil this down to an unchangeably fixed A or B is simply not dealing with reality.

I think anyone over 12 knows this to be true. But we have to hold our political opinions, so let’s continue to oversimplify things!

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I have often thought that we can’t even have intelligent conversations until we are willing to follow where the data leads us. I used to believe that if a boy decided he was gay at 16, then he was gay for life. That his orientation was fixed and immutable. I also believed that he would never have sex with a woman (unless he was forced by some unlikely circumstance). I further believed that if a gay was allowed to live openly, he would settle down with a partner and act no differently from any heterosexual married couple. A lot of… Read more »

Andrew Lohr
Member

Don’t call it “therapy,” call it “sex education”??? Or “talking about sex.” Are Doug’s letters to Tomas here “therapy”?

John White (Chr author) somewhere wrote that one of his secular shrinkology professors, in the A.D. 1960s??, tried to cure same-sex-tempted men by teaching them to seduce women. Or at least taught or mentioned that method–been 30 years or so since I read it.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Personally, I find conversion therapy to be, more likely than not, the product of wishful thinking from weak knee’d Christians. The Bible clearly requires that we not have homosexual relationships. If someone were gay and truly “born that way” (an existent, though unproven possibility), then forcing them to be permanently unsatisfied seems so cruel. Unfortunately, the very nature of sin is that we, as fallen beings, are going to want to do things we shouldn’t. The Alcoholic is “born this way”, it doesn’t retroactively make constant excessive drinking acceptable. The abusive spouse is “born” with an overabundance of rage. That… Read more »

bdash
Guest
bdash

if feminist do not need therapy, why should those who are gay?
makes no sense to torture gays

Arwenb
Guest
Arwenb

Ah, but your comparison requires one to accept the premise that feminists don’t need therapy.

To which I say “Assumes facts not in evidence.”

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Further, that therapy is by necessity torture.

Facts not in evidence indeed.

denjim50s
Guest
denjim50s

“therapy” sits on a swing. Should it not also be “outlawed” to prescribe hormone therapy to a trans teen? How about outlawing teen sex change surgeries? Aren’t both these types of “THERAPY” also a suppression of the teen body dysmorphic who was also just “born this way?” It is quite plain that there is a cultural agenda at work with-in the Med/Psych /Pharm professions, and their welded toggle switch can be welded in only one direction for allowing conversion/surgical or reparative/hormone “fixing”. If not for double standards they would have no standards at all.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I generally agree with your argument throughout this post. In fact, I agree so much that I was left confused at one point. When you say: “What has happened is that we are trying to have a debate over what is true and what is false, and we simultaneously have these bands of deputized thugs with socks full of deck screws wandering about, helpfully beating up anyone who suggests a wrong answer. This is neither the way of science, nor theology, nor law, but rather a simple and very raw totalitolerance move.” I agree completely. However, I’ve been under the… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“I agree completely. However, I’ve been under the impression that you has spoken positively of theocratic societies in the past (such as Calvin) who punished “wrong answers” via means even more brutal than socks full of deck screws, and that you would support the institution of such a society in the future.” This is an odd comparison. Any such society would have a source of truth declared at the foundation, such as the Bible, and so an objective source from which to discern the truth. If you’re a part of that society, you’ve agreed to submit yourself to the principles… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan needs to provide a citation where Calvin endorsed “bands of deputized thugs” wandering about, with socks full of deck screws or not.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

The Beeldenstorm featured “bands of deputized thugs” employing axes, hammers, ropes, tree trunks and flames. Socks full of deck screws would have made effective auxiliary tools to smash stained glass windows that were unreachable by ladders.

Katecho
Member

The context was thugs “helpfully beating up anyone who suggests a wrong answer”. Callaghan is actually referring to a period of vandalism and confiscation of property, although some of the destruction was also government ordered according to his source.

Does Callaghan have a citation of Calvin endorsing private vandalism or vigilantism? Calvin did believe that the lesser magistrate had authority to organize active resistance, but that’s not thuggery or vigilantism.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I didn’t think “deputized” meant “vigilantism”, but I really don’t know where you’re going with all that anyway.

Here are some sources for what you’re asking for, apparently. I don’t have any energy to chase down the original statements and their support.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2014/07/the-breaking-of-images/

I’ll say that Beldenstorm isn’t really what I’m talking about at all. I was simply referring to beating people up for suggesting wrong answers.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The half that I had the issue with was the people getting beaten up for suggesting wrong answers. If you (and perhaps Pastor Wilson, though I’d rather he answer for himself) are cool with that half of the scenario, and it’s only the “bands of deputized thugs” that you had issue with, well then. I guess in your world you can come up with a different name for the people assigned to beat up those who suggest wrong answers.

Farinata
Guest
Farinata

Are you objecting on the basis of your convictions regarding violence, such that any ruler who enforces anything is basically a thug? Or are you singling out Genevan-style government as especially thuggish?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

We’re talking about enforcing BELIEFS, not the regular enforcement of prohibited actions by government. I’m objecting based on a belief I held long before my more general convictions regarding violence, which is that theological debate is not to be adjudicated with a sword. You don’t prove your ideas are right by killing people who disagree, generally, and even more specifically you don’t win souls to the Kingdom of Christ by beating people who have a different theological formulation. Go back to Pastor Wilson’s statement: “What has happened is that we are trying to have a debate over what is true… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Enforcing right belief is often demanding men again against their conscience, a damnable practice.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“If you (and perhaps Pastor Wilson, though I’d rather he answer for himself) are cool with that half of the scenario, ” This is kind of ridiculous. At a base level, all societies have some measure of people who’s job it is to use violence to enforce the basic truths that the society has accepted. The only particular difference between a secular society’s police, and a theocratic society’s police (to which you clearly take great exception), is that a theocratic society has a much more fully fleshed out list of agreed upon truths. A secular society like the U.S., has… Read more »

bethyada
Member

But there is a difference in enforcing behaviour and ideas.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

“But there is a difference in enforcing behaviour and ideas.”

That’s not necessarily true depending on the theocratic document you’re using. There are far left activists who regularly state that words are literal violence. If they’re the ones writing the document, ideas could be considered the behavior. That’s why I phrased it the way I did. A theocratic document as the base that everyone’s agreed is the standard for society could say any number of absurd things.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You appear to have taken Pastor Wilson’s statement: “This is neither the way of science, nor theology, nor law, but rather a simple and very raw totalitolerance move.”, and made it basically meaningless.

“Raw totalitolerance and the violent enforcement of ideas by thought police is just fine as long as you write it into the documents.”

Why would Pastor Wilson even put “neither science, nor theology, nor law” into the statement if he only meant the statement to apply narrowing to government sanction?

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

You appear to have mistaken me for taking Pastor Wilson’s statement at all. I wasn’t using him for the basis of my thought. So trying to show me in conflict with him is kind of a waste of time. Though I suspect when he sais “nor theology” he was referring to the way theologies do and have worked historically, not how they have the potential to work in the abstract. This is really the problem with the level of abstraction of your comparison. ” However, I’ve been under the impression that you has spoken positively of theocratic societies in the… Read more »

Katecho
Member

bethyada wrote: But there is a difference in enforcing behaviour and ideas. True, with respect to which governing sphere is involved. And we can Scripturally critique whether Calvin and the civil authorities in Geneva got that distinction right, as a matter of exposition, church and civil enforcement. But I don’t think it’s a difference that matters very much to Jonathan’s brand of nonviolence. He doesn’t seem to allow that anyone but an unbeliever can actually be God’s minister of sword-bearing wrath. Christians are mysteriously barred from ministering in that capacity since it would involve actually employing a sword. So as… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

My overall beliefs about violence in a completely different situation (which you are stating inaccurately, FWIW) are quite immaterial to our discussion of Pastor Wilson’s beliefs regarding violence in this situation. It’s a complete red herring.

Can you imagine how annoying it would be if I brought up your pro-slavery views every time we discussed the extent of government power, and said, “Since Katecho believes the government should be allowed to enslave people who have failed to pay their debts, his arguments about anything else the government is or isn’t allowed to do are immaterial.”

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: My overall beliefs about violence in a completely different situation (which you are stating inaccurately, FWIW) are quite immaterial to our discussion of Pastor Wilson’s beliefs regarding violence in this situation. It’s a complete red herring. I don’t see that I’ve misstated Jonathan’s beliefs at all. I notice that he didn’t bother to even try to constructively correct what I stated about him. Such coyness suggests that one isn’t really all that interested in being understood. One’s actual ideas, when discovered, can sometimes be a liability. I’m convinced that Jonathan’s personal views are directly related to his challenge… Read more »

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

I’m not familiar with Jonathan’s background or exegesis, but I take some serious issues with his basic definitions of words I don’t think you touched on. “Can you imagine how annoying it would be if I brought up your pro-slavery views” Then both you and he describe views that aren’t really pro-slavery, but pro indentured servitude. A slave is owned. An indentured servant is someone who owes something. A slave is an indefinite state in perpetuity, because a slave has no rights. An indentured servant is free to go once the debt is paid. Indentured servitude is not only not… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Again, Pastor Wilson’s statement was: “What has happened is that we are trying to have a debate over what is true and what is false, and we simultaneously have these bands of deputized thugs with socks full of deck screws wandering about, helpfully beating up anyone who suggests a wrong answer. This is neither the way of science, nor theology, nor law, but rather a simple and very raw totalitolerance move.” There is a massive gulf between enforcing wrong actions, and enforcing wrongs answers to beliefs about what is true and false. The second may lead to the first, but… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: There is a massive gulf between enforcing wrong actions, and enforcing wrongs answers to beliefs about what is true and false. Agreed. And I’m even willing to engage in a critique of the Genevan civil magistrates on that point, as well as any of Calvin’s exposition that could have contributed to overreach. I’m just not sure what it has to do with Wilson’s post. It seems like one of those red herrings that Jonathan is concerned about. Wilson appears to be concerned with activist thugs who seek to punish and prosecute the lawful activities of others. Whether they… Read more »

Krychek_2
Guest
Krychek_2

OK, as promised, links to hard data that supports the proposition that small amounts of homosexuality are good for society:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/scientists-discover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

That’s two that I found on google in five minutes. There’s plenty more out there.

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Re: 1st link First, and this isn’t an argument so much as a suggestion, but I heartily suggest not using iflscience as a source for anything. They regularly spread not just misinformation (and I’m not talking about I’m a Christian so I have different ideas than you, I mean like how big is the solar system), but a misunderstanding of what science even is. It’s like asking Breitbart to give an accurate accounting of the GOP. It’s purpose is, whether you like the site or not, to be a circus ringleader in its promotion so I see it and immediately… Read more »

bethyada
Member
Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

Yeah, I found it. Haven’t had the chance to dig in yet. I just wanted to note that his consistently not giving the actual science hints that perhaps he doesn’t know the difference.

bethyada
Member

Very complex paper but

Hypersexual male flies who do not care who they display mating behaviour to, have female relatives which out-reproduce other flies.

Katecho
Member

bethyada wrote:

Hypersexual male flies who do not care who they display mating behaviour to, have female relatives which out-reproduce other flies.

Thanks to bethyada for the summary. Unfortunately, Krychek_2 was supposed to establish that a small amount of homosexuality was a social benefit. How do we know if out-producing other flies is a social benefit or not? What if it leads to overpopulation and resource depletion? I recall arguments that the barrenness of homosexuality is “nature’s response” to human overpopulation. So is out-reproducing a good thing, or a bad thing for society?

Justin Parris
Member
Justin Parris

” I recall arguments that the barrenness of homosexuality is “nature’s response” to human overpopulation. ”

This is the argument I’ve gotten from every single atheist I’ve ever spoken to on the issue. They never take very kindly to my response of “Nature sure is wise. I’m glad we have such a great and powerful wise entity watching over us.”

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Pluto is a planet again!

Ken B
Guest
Ken B

I thought Pluto self-identified as an asteroid. Which settles it.

Stephen Anderson
Member

Sin is not addressed by therapy of any kind, but only by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. I say ban psychology, ban all false gospels, and strip the ungodly of their franchise to vote.