Can you be 'cured' of homosexuality? [Archive] - Spiffy Moms

Lori

02-10-2007, 07:29 AM

I don't think someone can be "cured" of homosexuality because I don't think it's a disease.

Could somebody who is primarily or exclusively attracted to people of the same sex make the choice to live as a heterosexual? Of course. By the same token, somebody who is primarily or exclusively attracted to people of the opposite sex can make the choice to live as a homosexual. But the question is whether that choice is right for them. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't seem like people are able to happily live against their sexual orientation for any sustained period of time. Many former leaders in the "ex-gay" movement have ended up in gay relationships, because they got to a point where they simply could not keep denying their desires. On the other side, I know a woman who had made a political choice to be a lesbian when she was younger, and at 35 she left a 10-year lesbian relationship to be with a man, because she just could not go on denying her desires.

If Ted Haggard truly feels that he cannot be happy living as a gay man, then I take no issue with his choice to live as a heterosexual. What I do take issue with is the idea that every person who is attracted to people of the same sex should make that same choice. The scandal around him shows that, even for someone who believes that homosexuality is an abominable sin, living against your desires is a hard thing, and often leads to far worse behaviors (drug use, sleeping with prostitutes, lying, adultery) than having a loving, monogamous same-sex relationship would. I think that people need to decide for themselves what God is calling them to do, and if they truly believe that God is calling them to live against their desires, then I can't fault them for doing so, but I do fault others for criticizing or condemning those who feel that they are being called to live in accord with their desires.

I don't think, though, that somebody's primary desires can be changed. I don't think a person who is attracted to the same sex can become attracted to the opposite sex in the same way, and I don't think the opposite can happen, either. There's no evidence to support the claim that it does happen.

Christine

02-10-2007, 07:49 AM

I know my views on this will not be popular and I'll do my best to express myself the best way I can...

My wholehearted belief is that we all struggle with different issues in our lives. We all have something - some behavior - that is not productive for us to be a part of. Who you are attracted to doesn't define who you are. The choices you make doesn't define who you are. A woman who is only interested in prison house romances really truly is only attracted to "bad boys" but it's not a healthy situation for her to be involved in. With a desire to change and a good support system, she can choose to go in a different direction without changing who she is. Not sure if it's the best example to illustrate my views on it, but it's the best I can think of right now (still haven't finished my coffee ;) ). I don't think that homosexuality needs to be cured, but I do believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. Sorry. However - like I said before, I don't believe it defines a person any more than my anger issues and depression define me. If I was classified by my sin, I'd have a lot of problems interacting with people. I refuse to define people that way so when I express these views, know where I come from. I honestly do believe that a person is separate from their behavior.

Polly

02-10-2007, 08:06 AM

:hellno I agree with Lori. My faith influences my decision, of course. I believe that God or Goddess doesn't make mistakes (the whole infallability thing) and that all love flows from him/her. Love is divine embodiment of the Creator. Therefore, homosexual love is divine, too. I also believe in a divine purpose for everyone. Clearly, there is a reason homosexuals are born and filled with love; it's the same as heterosexuals.

No, I don't believe homosexuality can be cured. I do believe if you are truly bisexual that you can make a conscious choice of what path is easier for you HOWEVER this doesn't mean you will follow it. It really just boils down to who you love and who loves you in return.

Polly

Val

02-10-2007, 09:31 AM

No, I don't think it can be cured- but why do they call it "cured" anyway? Like it's a disease they caught or someting.

Kristi

02-10-2007, 10:19 AM

No I do not think so.

Jejune

02-10-2007, 11:06 AM

My thought on the whole thing is that we all exist on a spectrum of desire and some people are very firmly at one end or the other, while other people are somewhere in the middle. I tend to think, though, that love and physical attraction are not always compatible, and I think it's thoroughly possible, if unlikely, for people to fall in love with someone of the gender they aren't attracted to. It all seems too complicated to me. Certainly too complicated for something as pat as a "cure". And since I don't believe that homosexuality is a real problem, I don't really care, to be honest, about a cure.

Lori

02-10-2007, 11:10 AM

I tend to think, though, that love and physical attraction are not always compatible, and I think it's thoroughly possible, if unlikely, for people to fall in love with someone of the gender they aren't attracted to.

ITA with that. What I don't think is that such a thing can be made to happen; when it does happen, it just does.

off-kilter

02-10-2007, 11:12 AM

I think human sexuality is not black and white, so I think some people could alter a preference for one gender over another, but I think that requires at least a latent ability to opt for both. I, for one, would be hard pressed to alter my sexual desires away from men and actively and exclusively want only women. However, when I was younger I was much more sexually drawn to wiry, dark-haired men and my big, blonde, muscle of a husband was not my knee-jerk desire. Now I'm still one to linger on the Benjamin Bratt pics, but my husband is king of my fantasy life! (which is good, seeing as he's the only guy I've ever had sex with)

I don't think that homosexuality needs to be cured, but I do believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful.

I hope you don't take this as an attack, as I can almost see you bracing yourself as you wrote that very heartfelt and thoughtful post, but I do question this part.

Why is living a homosexual lifestyle more or less sinful than the vast majority of heterosexual "lifestyles"? Is a promiscuous frat boy having sex with a dozen girls on a party weekend more or less sinful than if he was with men? Are Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell living in more or less sin than Rosie O'Donnell and her legal-union partner Kelli Carpenter? What about Britney Spears' "love" life, former and current?

What exactly makes up someone's lifestyle? Sexual choice exclusively? I think that's a bit limiting.

You're absolutely entitled to think that way, but it just puzzles me.

Erika

02-10-2007, 11:24 AM

Lori

02-10-2007, 11:30 AM

I think human sexuality is not black and white, so I think some people could alter a preference for one gender over another, but I think that requires at least a latent ability to opt for both.

I do agree with that, as well.

I think I was more essentialist about things in my first post than I actually feel about them.

The whole problem I have with the issue of "curing" homosexuality is that the implication always seems to be that gay and lesbian people should be cured. Even if we figured out a 100% effective way to change people's sexual orientation, I wouldn't consider it any more the right thing to do for a gay person to become straight than for a straight person to become gay. If someone felt moved by their individual conscience to change their orientation in either direction, then I see no problem with them making the attempt to do so, but the problem would be if it became something people were expected to do, or that people forced others to do (a family forcing a gay child to undergo a "cure," for example, before the child was able to make that decision or against the child's will).

The Haggard case saddens me because, while I respect his right to want to live as straight and his attempts to do so, I don't believe he can truly make a free choice, given the teachings he has been surrounded by for so long. I tend to think he just feels, "It's wrong, so I have to change," as opposed to really trying to think about if it's possible that his being gay is what God has willed for his life. Obviously, I can't give an answer to that question. I have no idea if his being gay is/was separating him from God, but I do think it needs to be asked very seriously if in his case his attempts to deny his homosexuality haven't been what has separated him from God (through the lying, adultery, criminal activities, etc.), and not the fact that he is/was sexually attracted to men. He's the one who would need to ask and seek answers to those questions, but I am saddened to think that he wouldn't have the support he would need to really do that, because the people around him, and he himself, feel they don't even need to ask.

Kristen

02-10-2007, 11:52 AM

Why is living a homosexual lifestyle more or less sinful than the vast majority of heterosexual "lifestyles"? Is a promiscuous frat boy having sex with a dozen girls on a party weekend more or less sinful than if he was with men? Are Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell living in more or less sin than Rosie O'Donnell and her legal-union partner Kelli Carpenter? What about Britney Spears' "love" life, former and current?

What exactly makes up someone's lifestyle? Sexual choice exclusively? I think that's a bit limiting.

I'm not Christine, but as you get to know us better, you'll see we're kind of one and the same on these types of issues, so I figure I'm entitled to answer. :giggle

Christians often give the impression that homosexuality is the worst sin ever, while we say very little about the sinfulness of unmarried heterosexual sex, or multi-partner sex or sex that is unfaithful to a marriage. and I do get confused about why Christians fight so hard to put a ban on gay marriage, but aren't up in arms about the number of people having unmarried sex.

Homosexuality does, imo, offend God a little more than, say, unmarried heterosexual sex. I base this on the fact that homosexual sex carried a much stiffer penalty in the OT law, and also because homosexual sex is never ok, not even if it's within the bonds of "marriage". I don't believe God says there are ever any circumstances where He is pleased with homosexual sex, but within the bounds of marriage, He IS pleased with heterosexual sex, and is, in fact, displeased if sex stops happening in a marriage.

That said, I don't think that's a hill to die on, nor do I think it's terribly important in terms of the way we live our lives or deal with gay people. The point of the gospel really is that NONE of us lives our lives in a way that can earn God's favor. I should be sent to hell for losing my patience with my children just as much as a gay person should be for engaging in homosexual activity. And this is not a point you hear very much from the Christian camp, unfortunately. We tend to come off all high and mighty, I think.

I may be taking your second question wrong, and if I am, feel free to clarify. I think you are asking if sexual activity is the only determining factor as to whether someone is living a lifestyle pleasing to God. To that, I would say no...but the Bible does say that someone who loves God isn't going to live defiantly and happily in sin. Someone who loves God may struggle with sexual sin, and may fall and stumble, but this person isn't going to just sit back and get comfy with their sin. And same with any other sin, really...this struggling and falling thing isn't at all limited to sexual sin.

Perhaps you are asking the question because Christians are often perceived as saying, "Homosexuals are nasty dirty sinners, and we are not.". Which is not the case...Christians are nasty dirty sinners too, and we are only clean because Jesus has covered our nasty dirty sinful selves with His righteousness. We still sin daily, though, and we have no right to be all proud that "at least we're not gay". :rolleyes

Kristen

02-10-2007, 11:56 AM

:hellno I agree with Lori. My faith influences my decision, of course. I believe that God or Goddess doesn't make mistakes (the whole infallability thing) and that all love flows from him/her. Love is divine embodiment of the Creator. Therefore, homosexual love is divine, too. I also believe in a divine purpose for everyone. Clearly, there is a reason homosexuals are born and filled with love; it's the same as heterosexuals.
Polly

I am curious...do you also feel this way about people who seem to born "loving" children in this way? or people who, uh, "love" animals? What about love that leads people to be unfaithful in their marriages?

If you don't consider pedophilia to be acceptable, how do you reconcile this with God or Godess not making a mistake?

I hope you don't take this as me being nasty or anything...it was just something I was thinking about as I was scrubbing the tub this morning. :giggle

off-kilter

02-10-2007, 12:05 PM

No, Kristen, you understood my question correctly. I do often hear that homosexuality is a burden (but we're all sinners so love the sinner and not the sin), but that a "homosexual lifestyle" is strongly condemned. But what, exactly, a homosexual lifestyle *is* apart from the sexual aspects is rarely expounded on, so I'm left with the impression that it's the sex and that's it.

That's why I'm asking clarification on what makes up a lifestyle and why a homosexual one (BTW, that makes it sound like all homosexuals pursue the exact same thing) is regarded as bad or worse than a heterosexual "lifestyle" that is still, by definition, considered sinful.

Thank you for expounding on the other points I was questioning. It does seem at times that many who are very vocal in the religious front put homosexuality or sexuality in general at the forefront of Bad Behavior and put themselves above such things. Knowing that others within the same group feel that it is a nothing more than a failing, and we all fail in different parts of our lives, everyone of us, makes it easier for me to understand the context, though I still disagree that homosexuality is necessarily a failing.

Christine

02-10-2007, 12:11 PM

I think human sexuality is not black and white

Neither do I think it's black and white. I also believe that God wants us to live under a certain set of rules. Living as a homosexual is not part of his "best plan".

Why is living a homosexual lifestyle more or less sinful than the vast majority of heterosexual "lifestyles"? Is a promiscuous frat boy having sex with a dozen girls on a party weekend more or less sinful than if he was with men? Are Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell living in more or less sin than Rosie O'Donnell and her legal-union partner Kelli Carpenter? What about Britney Spears' "love" life, former and current?

I never said that homosexuality was more or less sinful than any thing else. In my viewpoint, anything that is against God's plan is a sin. A sin is a sin is a sin. Yes, I believe that Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn are living in sin. Yes, I believe that Rosie O'Donnell and Kellie Carpenter are living in sin that is EQUAL to the other. I believe that a frat boy having sex with a dozen girls in a weekend is sinful.

No, sexuality is not the only thing that determines lifestyle and I meant to make that clearer in my post. I don't expect people to think of me as "Christine the heterosexual", you know? That is only a very small part of me.

All in all, I believe that we ALL struggle with sin. Some of us struggle with it in our sexuality, some of us in other areas (or all of the above). I don't believe that one is greater than any other.

Christine

02-10-2007, 12:13 PM

But what, exactly, a homosexual lifestyle *is* apart from the sexual aspects is rarely expounded on, so I'm left with the impression that it's the sex and that's it.

I know you were asking Kristen, but I wanted to answer this from my perspective as well.

I believe that God doesn't want us to be lustful after anyone besides our spouse. So a "lifestyle" in regards to sexuality would also include lustful thoughts and feelings.

Brooke

02-10-2007, 12:17 PM

Thank you for expounding on the other points I was questioning. It does seem at times that many who are very vocal in the religious front put homosexuality or sexuality in general at the forefront of Bad Behavior and put themselves above such things. Knowing that others within the same group feel that it is a nothing more than a failing, and we all fail in different parts of our lives, everyone of us, makes it easier for me to understand the context, though I still disagree that homosexuality is necessarily a failing.

I don't have much time to share my thoughts on the original question, but I want to say that this type of dialogue is what Jo and I envisioned for this site. Even though I disagree with Kristen and Christine on a lot of spiritual views, what I admire is that they both 'walk the walk', they don't just 'talk the talk.' I admire that they will both admit that they are not perfect and sin just as the rest of us "non-believers" sin. They are far from the "type" of Christian that I've witnessed for years - holier-than-thou, looking down on you and judging your every move. They, to me, are a true embodiment of the word Christian as they don't just spout off at the mouth, but they live their life that way 24/7 - not just on Sundays.

I love reading these threads and realzing how eyes are opening on both sides of the fence on all types of issues and that we are adult enough to have an intelligent conversation like this and think freely. I'm sure that sound super-sappy, but after having been constricted in what I felt I could say on message boards for years, it is wonderful to see this and know that I can speak my mind. Whether or not I am co-owner. LOL

That's all, just rambling and realizing how great it feels.;)

off-kilter

02-10-2007, 12:19 PM

I know you were asking Kristen, but I wanted to answer this from my perspective as well.I was actually asking you first, so I appreciate your answer!

Okay, so my lifestyle is just as sinful as any homosexual's because I do, on occasion, feel lustful thoughts and feelings toward men who are not my spouse. I'm not actually sure I *could* stop my thoughts and feelings and not too sure I'd want to unless I felt some kind of irrepressible urge to follow those thoughts/feelings into actions that would hurt my husband. It's an interesting viewpoint.

Erika

02-10-2007, 12:30 PM

as regards paedophilia and beastiality, they are vastly different from homosexuality. Love implies consent. You cannot have love unless it is given freely by both parties. Paedophilia isn't about love. Sex between adults and children does not have consent. Not to mention the maturity level is vastly different. There is no equality in that relationship because the adult always holds the power in it. (that is without even touching on the rape issues.)

The same can be said for beastialtiy. Animals cannot consent thus the sexual act is one of rape.

off-kilter

02-10-2007, 12:52 PM

I want to mention that I don't think homosexuality or heterosexuality are necessarily restricted to love. I don't really suppose for one minute that the Rev loved his male prostitute in any sense but the physical, and there are plenty of heterosexual relationships that do not ever branch into an emotionally deep realm.

I also don't agree that love must be a mutually consensual thing. I can love someone who does not love me back, and I can also feel sexual attraction that is not returned. Neither negates the reality of my feelings, nor do they necessarily have anything to do with one another.

Sex and love are, in my mind, two separate things that overlap in many areas, but are not strictly defined by each other.

Children and animals cannot give proper consent and lack of consent is rape, whether that's understood by the child or animal or not. Consensual heterosexual and homosexual sex acts divide the burden of right or wrong (if there is a burden) equally, so it is not the same as pedophilia or bestiality where the adult human is solely responsible.

teawhisk

02-10-2007, 01:10 PM

Can homosexuality be "cured"? My answer is, umm... yes and no, but not in any way Haggard means.

I believe that same-sex attraction is involuntary. We don't choose who we find sexually attractive. I don't think a homosexual can stop having same-sex attraction any more than I can stop finding men sexually desirable. Being tempted is not a sin. So in this regard, no, homosexuality can't be "cured."

However, we do have control over who we sleep with. We are responsible for our behavior. A lesbian can find women sexually desirable but not sleep with them. So in this regard, homosexuality CAN be "cured."

Personally I think Haggard is reasoning from the wrong premises and therefore comes up with the wrong "solution." He assumes that being tempted is in itself a sin, along the lines of a mental illness. But yet he doesn't seem to think that heterosexual temptation is a sin that somehow can be "cured."

and I do get confused about why Christians fight so hard to put a ban on gay marriage, but aren't up in arms about the number of people having unmarried sex.

Because that would hit too many of them where they live. Heterosexual misbehavior is more tolerated in Christian groups because most people are heterosexuals. If I'm not sexually tempted by another woman it's easy for me to find lesbian sex displeasing. On the other hand, if my Christian sister has an affair and I've been sexually tempted by men other than my husband, who am I to judge?

Everybody, no matter what belief system they ascribe to, resists drawing the moral line too close to home. Human nature dictates that we're very quick to scream about the sins of others, but not so quick to start holding up our own behavior for examination. It's comfortable for me as the married heterosexual to sit here and get all disgusted over gay sex, but do I want to discuss how certain types of sexual encounters between married couples might be sins? Why no, I do not.

Erika

02-10-2007, 01:29 PM

Just reading through my second post and just wanted to add that while I said you cannot have love unless it is given freely by both parties what I meant was that it isn't love if you try and force it from the other party, ie with paedophilia.

(Tired tonight and have spent ALL day with a very demanding 6 month old :giggle)

Lori

02-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Everybody, no matter what belief system they ascribe to, resists drawing the moral line too close to home.

There was recently a case in MI where our Attorney General, a person who I absolutely cannot stand, tried to have a particular crime punished particularly harshly because, along with committing a felony, the couple involved was also having an adulterous affair. Obviously this was contested, and it made it to a court that decided in the AG's favor that the very old statute about adultery was still applicable and adultery is a crime. Ironically, the AG had divorced several years early as a result of cheating on his wife (he never contested that claim). Obviously, he doesn't believe that he deserves to be in prison because of his affair, and yet he has no problem making adultery a crime when it suits him. (He also decided to ban universities from offering benefits to same-sex partners of employees, because of the threat homosexuality poses to "the family," as opposed to the threat of, say, cheating on and divorcing your spouse, or leaving people without medical coverage.)

I have no problem with churches teaching that homosexuality is a sin, or anyone holding that belief, but I do find it difficult to understand why people object to gay and lesbian individuals and couples being afforded the same rights and privileges as any heterosexual individual or couple when it comes to the larger society where people have many different opinions about homosexuality.

Beka

02-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Talking about "curing" homosexuality puts such a negative spin on the behaviour. And there shouldn't be anything negative about it. You love who you love, whether it be someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex. Some people will only be attracted to one or the other but there is also a grey are and various degrees of bisexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be cured because there is nothing wrong with being so.

totally agree with Erika- it can't be cured anymore than hair colour or eye colour because to me ones sexual orientation is genetically predetermined (and i do believe there is significant research to indicate as much) so as i see it it can be masked over just like hair colour can with dye and eye colour can with contacts but what sexuality you are is what you are no matter how you try and live your life to show otherwise.

Momfoolery

02-10-2007, 01:55 PM

I have to agree with Jejune. I don't believe homosexuality is a disease in need of a "cure." I'm equally unbothered by hetero people living together (or just having sex) without being married. I've tried and tried, but have never been able to fathom why some people care at all who different people choose to love and/or have sex with, of course that's provided both (or all) of the participants in the love and/or sex act are adults and have given consent freely. I've always believed that {UnknowableNameOfDeity} is completely unconcerned about the sharing of physical pleasure between consenting adults.

Kristen

02-10-2007, 02:04 PM

Okay, so my lifestyle is just as sinful as any homosexual's because I do, on occasion, feel lustful thoughts and feelings toward men who are not my spouse. I'm not actually sure I *could* stop my thoughts and feelings and not too sure I'd want to unless I felt some kind of irrepressible urge to follow those thoughts/feelings into actions that would hurt my husband. It's an interesting viewpoint.

Well, lust could be a whole 'nother thread, but a quote from Martin Luther could be helpful here. In regards to lust, he said, "You can't keep the birds from flying around your head, but you can keep them from making a nest.". Which basically means, you can see a hot shirtless guy at the beach and notice that he is physically attractive....but you can keep yourself from undressing him mentally, you can keep yourself from imagining having sex with him, and you can keep yourself from looking at him again and again. I can walk past the Abercrombie and Fitch store and not drool over the pecs on the guys on the wall, I can avoid getting magazines that have shirtless dudes all over the place(can you tell my stumbling block is shirtless men? LOL), etc, etc. and I can do this, not in my own strength, but with the strength of the Lord, and not to feel holy and good about myself, but because directing my sexual thoughts and desires towards my husband and my husband alone is glorifying to God. and when I fail, which I will and do, there is grace and forgiveness for me.

Jesus said that if we lust after someone, it's like committing adultery with them in our hearts. It's hard to avoid, especially in a culture like ours, but hey, the Corinthian culture back then was an awful lot like ours, and so I don't think we can use the culture as an excuse. It just takes a little more effort. and men, I think, have a much harder row to hoe with this than we do, because of their propensity towards lust, and because of the plethora of nearly naked(or naked) women readily available for their viewing purposes.

So yeah, as regards homosexuality I'd agree that lusting after men would be sinful, not just having sex with them. Just like me lusting after some hot guy would be sinful, even if I didn't go and hop into bed with said guy.

Kristen

02-10-2007, 02:09 PM

Momfoolery-I'd be in the same place as you, had not the God of the Bible talked specifically about sex and what is and is not ok. It's not my own personal dislike for gay sex, or unmarried hetero sex that makes me think it's wrong. God definitely said homosexuality is not ok, and said that heterosexual sex is for marriage and marriage alone. and also, that in marriage, couples are supposed to have sex on a regular basis(aside from mutually agreed upon breaks for fasting and prayer) in order to help keep the husband and wife from being tempted to stray sexually.

I'm assuming that you don't believe in the God of the Bible, though, given how you refer to God. :giggle

Jejune

02-10-2007, 02:20 PM

I think it's also important to note that there seems to be a large range of interpretations of the God of the Bible. ;)

Momfoolery

02-10-2007, 02:20 PM

...I'm assuming that you don't believe in the God of the Bible, though, given how you refer to God. :giggle

Spot on! Although I was raised by Catholic parents, and attended an excellent Catholic girls high school, I've known since the age of five that I wasn't a Catholic myself. I used to stand silently every week during the portion of the Nicene Creed in Mass when I was meant to be proclaiming that I believed "in the One holy catholic and apostolic Church" because I knew in first grade that I didn't believe one denomination was right and by extension that everyone else was therefore wrong. I've always found too much which rung true and holy in MANY faiths to be able to call myself a follower of ONE faith. I actually believe that everyone is right, for their own self, but that there is no wrong faith save for those that harm others.

And if I'm wrong, I figure I'm booked for a great table in the VIP section of Hell (which I don't believe exists, excepting for that we create for ourselves here on earth). :partyhat

Lori

02-10-2007, 02:35 PM

I think it's also important to note that there seems to be a large range of interpretations of the God of the Bible. ;)

:yup The issue, in terms of religion, I think, is less what the Bible says about homosexuality (although that is a question, since specific sex acts are not the same as homosexuality), but first, whether someone believes that the Bible reveals God's will in any way, and second, in what way it does that.

I wouldn't deny that there are prohibitions against specific homosexual sex acts in the Bible, but I don't believe that the words of the Bible were dictated by God or directly reveal God's will. So I view those specific prohibitions as cultural and historical, just as many other biblical prohibitions are.

But that's why, even if it were argued that the Bible is a valid basis for laws in the U.S. (which it generally isn't considered to be), it still wouldn't be a simple issue, because there are so many different views about both what the Bible says about homosexuality and how what it says about certain sex acts should be applied to homosexuals in committed, loving relationships today.

Kristen

02-10-2007, 03:45 PM

I think it's also important to note that there seems to be a large range of interpretations of the God of the Bible. ;)

True...I could have said something more along the lines of, "What I believe to be the God of the Bible." :giggle

I wasn't trying to say, at that point in time, though, that what I believed was indeed the God of the Bible(although I do think that, of course!). I was just assuming that momfoolery meant something more like, "a vague heavenly being" rather than God as He is referred to in the Bible....basically assuming she doesn't believe like I do, which was a correct assumption.

Onyx

02-10-2007, 09:34 PM

Talking about "curing" homosexuality puts such a negative spin on the behaviour. And there shouldn't be anything negative about it. You love who you love, whether it be someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex. Some people will only be attracted to one or the other but there is also a grey are and various degrees of bisexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't need to be cured because there is nothing wrong with being so.

Damn straight (in a manner of speaking :giggle)

I really hate how when people talk of "curing" homosexuality, it is like it is a horrible disease. It is a natural, normal, inherent way to be, not something like the "mumps" or :spam (Sorry just felt right ;)

Onyx

02-10-2007, 09:35 PM

Marzipan

02-11-2007, 02:06 PM

I don't think being homosexual can be "cured" any more than having red hair or brown eyes can be "cured." I believe that it's part of someone's biochemical makeup and isn't bad or wicked or wrong outside of the context of some religious groups. Certainly nothing for science or governments to go meddling in, particularly when we've actual worthy causes that deserve our time and attention.

Marzipan

02-11-2007, 02:26 PM

Okay, I can't figure out how to edit this, and I accidentally submitted my attempted ETA as a quote, so please forgive the double post.

On the biblical front, most Christians I know don't follow most of the Levitical laws that were strictly observed by the Orthodox Jewish community in which I was raised. The sentiment, from what I understand, is that the coming of Jesus signified a new era and that Jesus was the fulfillment of the covenant. But what covenant? I was never clear on that. I'm not picking at Christians, but I really have never been able to understand why some laws were "in" and some laws were "out." And then there are the laws from the bible that, to my knowledge, no Judeo-Christian sect seems to follow. We don't stone witches or adulteresses anymore, for example. We don't force rape victims to marry their attackers. We, as a culture, have agreed that such laws are outdated and barbaric. The bible can be used as a plausible justifaction for all sorts of terrible things, just as it is for all sorts of good things. On which side of the line a particular issue falls is often a reflection of the times. And we seem to do our very best to evolve at a pace on par with our own tolerance levels and our own sense of moral superiority.

Lori

02-11-2007, 02:33 PM

totally agree with Erika- it can't be cured anymore than hair colour or eye colour because to me ones sexual orientation is genetically predetermined (and i do believe there is significant research to indicate as much)

I don't think being homosexual can be "cured" any more than having red hair or brown eyes can be "cured."

I tend to think of homosexuality as more like temperament than like eye or hair color. Hair and eye color is genetically predictable, whereas homosexuality isn't. But, sexual orientation does seem to be relatively stable throughout life, just as temperament is. We know that you can discover a baby's temperament really early, and it's very unusual for someone's temperament to change. We don't know what causes it, though. It might be genetics, it might be womb environment, it's probably a combination of several factors. I don't see being attracted to the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex as any more morally charged than being an introvert as opposed to being an extrovert, but I'm not sure that either is as genetically simple as eye color.

In the end, though, I don't think it matters whether or not people are born gay or not. Even if all of the evidence indicating some sort of biochemical component to homosexuality were invalidated, it still wouldn't justify discrimination against gay or lesbian people. People freely choose their religion, and yet we understand that it's not a basis for discrimination or denial of rights, even though many people disagree with the religious choices others make, to the point as seeing them as sinful or immoral. Even if it were somehow proven that people "choose" to be gay, it wouldn't make discrimination against gay and lesbian people and couples any more morally or legally justifiable.

Marzipan

02-11-2007, 02:47 PM

Well, hair and eye color aren't totally predictable or gentically simple, but I do see what you mean. It's a very valid point, and my example was only to illustrate that I consider ihomosexuality to be of the same neutral status as hair and eye color as far as good/bad.

I utterly agree with everything you've posted.

Lori

02-11-2007, 02:50 PM

Marizpan, I got what you were saying, but I think that sometimes the idea that homosexuality is "genetic" is taken by people to mean that it's inheritable in a straightforward way, and since it doesn't appear to be, then they think that that must mean it's a "choice."

But, like I said, I think the whole discussion around homosexuality gets way too bogged down in the issue of nature versus nurture, when I think that, at last in the public sphere, it's a matter of rights, and so why someone is gay is pretty much irrelevant.

Marzipan

02-11-2007, 03:06 PM

I think that sometimes the idea that homosexuality is "genetic" is taken by people to mean that it's inheritable in a straightforward way, and since it doesn't appear to be, then they think that that must mean it's a "choice."

Okay, I see what you mean. I used biochemical as opposed to genetic in an attempt to prevent that, but the attempted distinction is likely not what I had hoped for. At any rate, I agree wholeheartedly. The issue (at least as I see it) isn't so much the "why" as the "well, here it is, so let's just not be assholes about it." ;)

Jejune

02-11-2007, 06:56 PM

I have asked about the new covenant before, and I admit, I don't fully understand yet either. I wonder, are there people from different sects who can tell us their particular sect's take on the matter? I know that many diverse Christian groups agree on the matter of homosexuality, but I can't find comprehensive reasons as to why this is. I certainly can find Biblical quotes that disapprove of specific acts, but they have tended to be acts of violence usually, or in other cases, placed alongside various laws that no longer seem applicable.

Lori

02-11-2007, 07:27 PM

I have asked about the new covenant before, and I admit, I don't fully understand yet either.

From my understanding, there are a few ways to understand the idea of "new covenant." One way to take it is that, in the "old covenant," God had a list of rules which had to be followed for salvation. In the "new covenant," God saves through grace. Personally, I have a lot of problems with that understanding, because any Jewish person will tell you that the Torah is not a set of rules that must be followed, but a gift from God to his people. The law is followed out of joy because God has already saved his people, not as a requirement for salvation. This understanding, as far as I know, is basically a dispensationalist view, which sees God relating to humanity in distinct ways at different times.

Another basic way to interpret it is that the "old covenant" was with the people of Israel while the "new covenant" is with the whole world.

I know there are other ways to look at it, too, but I'm not familiar with them.

I wonder, are there people from different sects who can tell us their particular sect's take on the matter?

The Episcopal Church is pretty divided over the issue, which I find sad. As I mentioned on another thread, most mainline Christian denominations (of which the ECUSA is one) allow for a great deal of interpretative freedom, and both believing that homosexuality is inherently sinful and believing that it isn't are within the bounds of acceptable biblical interpretation. I definitely don't think it is or should be a non-negotiable, on either side. I can completely understand why certain perfectly valid interpretations of the Bible could lead someone to believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, and I respect their right to believe that gay and lesbian relationships should be treated the same within the church as heterosexual relationships. I wouldn't want any pastor who believes that, for example, to be forced to perform a same-sex union, or a congregation that overwhelmingly feels that way to be forced to have a pastor in a gay relationships. On the other hand, I think the view that homosexuality is not inherently sinful can also be drawn from perfectly valid biblical interpretations, and I wouldn't want any pastor or congregation who feels that way to be barred from blessing same-sex unions or welcoming gay and lesbian couples into the life of their church like any other couple.

I think that Walter Wink's Homosexuality and the Bible (http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm) is a very good overview of one argument for why homosexuality is not inherently sinful. There is also a fantastic (and pretty short) book by Jack Rogers, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Bible-Homosexuality-Explode-Church/dp/0664229395/sr=8-1/qid=1171247334/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3191508-9104955?ie=UTF8&s=books), that approaches the question from a few different angles. I particularly like the Rogers because he not only talks about how to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality, but also what the rationale behind interpreting the Bible in that way is.