Homophobia

Brilliant! 😀

Remember, to love someone means to approve of their actions (sarcasm)

I usually counter with the charge of homosexism. And all those gay victimology debating points are highly debatable, IMHO.

Yes!!

How about using it as an excuse for being an antagonistic punk?

Do you people deny a genetic link to homosexuality? I can’t imagine that your Church does.

Tim,

I guess I qualify as part of “you people,” so I’ll respond briefly.

There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the existence of a “gay gene” or some other genetic cause of same-sex attraction (SSA). The studies by Hamer and Levay over a decade ago have been discredited (and not replicated), and Levay himself has backed away from the claim that his flawed study proves SSA to be genetically determined. We’re talking about a myth, albeit a shrewd one, as homosexual activists have used the “I was born that way” line–or better yet “God made me that way”–to garner sympathy for their lifestyle.

The fact of the matter is that most “gay” and “lesbian” spokesmen don’t buy into this genetic argument at all. They are “constructionists,” meaning that sexual categories such as male and female and “gay” and “straight” are merely social constructs that people create and invest with their own meaning and value.

Just one such example of what’s going on here: Gay-rights advocate Ellen Broido in her article entitled “Constructing Identity: The Nature and Meaning of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Development” says that even though “the social constructionist perspective seems to be the dominant viewpoint of those working within the humanities and social sciences,” when it comes time for political strategy, constructionist activists “have found ways to use essentialist perspectives [i.e. “born that way”] as effective tools to acquire equal rights.

I liked Jeff’s post, because it’s a light-hearted critique of the chronic misuse of the word “homophobia” to label and tune out those who find homosexuality a moral and psycho-sexual disorder rather than a healthy, morally acceptable lifestyle. I’ve used the term “homophobia” myself (and have been harshly criticized for doing so) because there is a crucial distinction to be made between opposing the lifestyle and affirming the person who is trapped in it. If the line is crossed, then whatever term we might use to describe such transgressions (“homophobic,” “intolerant,” etc.) are justified. But only then.

The Church doesn’t try to sort out the complex causes of homosexuality. That really is more the domain of science, but such research should be honest and not agenda-driven. The Church does urge pastoral ministry that is 100% truth and 100% charity. If we fail on truth and tolerate sin and harmful behavior, we become enablers; if we fail on charity, our words become harsh and hollow.

I enjoyed the entire post, but that third paragraph is brilliant.

stone…women who werent virgins before their birth?

Does that mean anything? Is it supposed to? Ah, this “god” is Bob Dylan? “Everybody must get stoned”? I think somebody might be stoned around here.

Jason,

Your statements illustrate my point exactly. The fact that you think it’s equivalent to atheists arguments against Chrisitianity shows that you obviously didn’t get it. The arguments used by gay right activists are silly and not based on sound rational arguments. Arguments for or against God aren’t even in the same category of arguments altogether and I don’t see what bringing them into the debate does.

If you have a good argument that demonstrate that Christians are wrong to object to homosexual relations then go ahead and make your point. If not then don’t waste your and our time.

Is any kind of hatred something that Jesus would advocate? I always thought our God was a God of Love? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

Jester, your take on this nonsensical kerfluffle is quite good. It’s much more intellectual than I could ever be.

This is the way I see the issue. Homophobia, my eye! They’re merely trying to silence me. I don’t believe I have a phobia about a homo. At least I don’t think I have a phobia. I could be wrong – second time in my life. I’m not a head shrinker, either. I view sodomy with the same disgust as when I contemplate eating a s#!t sandwich. I also must be afflicted with fecesphobia. I need help! I have two mental illnesses. Can I qualify for benefits under the “Americans with Disabilities Act”?

To above commenters that are either homos or homophiles: I don’t care what you say. Opinions are like rectums, everyone has one. I do not accept your perverse, sterile acts as anything other than disordered. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. You know how I feel.

P.S. I really liked the blog post. It’s an interesting way of looking at the arguments.

Rose, that’s a good, honest question.

First, though, I think we should avoid talking about a “gay gene” or even a genetic cause of homosexuality. “Same-sex attractions” (SSA) is the more precise, inclusive term. Words like “gay” and “lesbian” tend to be used by those who have embraced the homosexual lifestyle and the “gay agenda” as it’s commonly understood. “Same-sex attractions,” on the other hand, would include not only “gay and lesbian” folks, but also those who never act upon such inclinations and who don’t buy into the “gay agenda.”

Meanwhile, “homosexual” is a little more vague than SSA, plus (like “gay” and “lesbian”), when used as a noun, it’s defining a person based on his or her sexual inclinations. Rather, God made us male and female, and some males and some females experience SSA. That’s how objective scientists approach it.

The hunt for a “gay gene,” for reasons too complex to get into here, will never succeed. There are simply too many other complex, non-hereditary factors at work in homosexuality for it to be a pre-determined reality. I suppose it theoretically could be, but that would run counter to the body of knowledge we’ve acquired so far.

What we can say is that all of us experience a certain brokenness, a tendency toward sin, called “concupiscence” as a result of original sin. Concupiscence itself isn’t a sin, but it’s the tendency toward sin. It’s theoretically possible that there could be genetic factors at work that would make one more susceptible to SSA when coupled with other environmental factors, but even that, to date, hasn’t been established.

The fact remains that many reputable scientists have found homosexuality to be a preventable as well as treatable disorder. If we were to posit that in some cases it was genetic and not thus not preventable, it would still be treatable, and I’ve personally met people who have definitively left behind the homosexual lifestyle with the help of such professional counselors.

The key of course is how it is approached by health care professionals, many of whom sadly have been swayed by various political and religious biases and agendas rather than science. Obviously if it’s not seen as a disorder but as an alternative lifestyle, those who do want to treat those with SSA are persecuted by the politically correct professional community, such as the APA.

And of course people with SSA do not choose their childhood and the combination of factors that led to their condition. Not an insignificant number were abused as minors. It’s a struggle for them, especially when they understand the truth about their condition and want to live chastely. They deserve the help not only of professional counselors but all the People of God.

Thank you Leon for your well thought out and articulate response.

Jason, UAB,

You just keep proving Jeff’s point: Homosexual activists will not allow any disagreement.

Is a man who does something against natural law because of a mental illness still incorring in sin?

If he fully consents, understands it sinfulness, and has reflected sufficiently, then yes.

Wouldn’t this be a case of invincible ignorance?

No, because the Church’s position against acting upon (either in thought, word, or deed) one’s homosexual desires is completely clear. Her position cannot be misunderstood.

Where do you get these things?? Genius!

Ian, if you found the bones of a dragon in your backyard, what would you do? 🙂 I mean, as long as we’re playing “what if” games here…

UAB chided me on the issue of curing those with same-sex attractions, saying that such treatment must be pseudoscience, especially since the gay community is the oppressed minority in all this.

Other commenters, whose remarks have been deleted, substantially confirmed my point through their visceral attack of NARTH–one of the leading voices of reparative therapy for homosexual men and women. They did not counter what I said with scientific evidence (which doesn’t exist), but with a scathing attack of anyone who dares to provide treatment for homoseuxality. Such attacks are not unusual.

What’s sad is what this says to the man or woman who is able to overcome same-sex attractions through such treatment, as well as others who deep down would like to follow suit.

To those who commented earlier, let’s move past the name-calling and address the issues honestly.

To Ian, who’s hoping that an updated version of the New Testament is discovered that supports gay rights, do you accept the New Testament that we actually have?

To Sebas, who wondered whether homosexuality would still be a sin if a genetic cause were discovered, we’d need to make a crucial distinction. The condition itself, if such were the case, while still a disorder, clearly would not involve any sin. However, acting upon such condition would still be a sin. For myself, I’m biologically programmed to commit the sins of fornication and adultery, but I’m still free not to commit those sins.

For more on this general subject, see my article “Straight Talk” posted at http://www.cufblog.org/?p=43

if there was a “second draft” of the new testament that said that jesus gave a green light to being gay, would you still be against it?

That won’t happen. Here’s Why: God is the creator of the natural world, among other ‘things.’ Reproductive organs are not analogous to waste disposal organs. It is contrary to the nature of man. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, would NEVER condone acts which contradict and debauch God’s design for man.

I read this to all my roommates and they laughed so hard.