homosexuals; what do you want/expect from me, a Christian

[MrVisible]

And now, a few words from the American Psychiatric Organization, from its Factsheet on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues (Caution: PDF file):

The potential risks of Areparative therapy are great; including depression, anxiety and selfdestructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors.

…

The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation have been challenged (3,4,5,6). To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of “reparative” treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of “reparative” therapies. The literature consists of anecdotal reports of individuals who have claimed to change, people who claim that attempts to change were harmful to them, and others who claimed to have changed and then later recanted those claims (7,8,9).

From the article APA Maintains Reparative Therapy Not Effective:

“It is fitting,” commented APA President Rodrigo Muñoz, M.D., “that this position opposing reparative therapy has been adopted on the 25th anniversary of the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM. There is no scientific evidence that reparative or conversion therapy is effective in changing a person’s sexual orientation.” He added that “there is, however, evidence that this type of therapy can be destructive.”

The statement also comes at a time when conservative religious groups are intensifying advertising campaigns that spread a message that homosexual desires can be overcome through conversion therapies and Christian transformation ministries.

For an excellent overview of various organizations’ positions on the subject, I highly recommend the American Psychological Association’s Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel.

[lynn73]

*Originally posted by Priam *
**Check this link out, ThoughtPolice

I’m not sure about everything in it, but it seems to have very legit sources and also links to other sites. Hope it helps **

Sound journalism, grounded in facts and biblical truth

[Priam]

*Originally posted by His4ever *
**http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/06-10-00/national_1.asp **

From WorldMag.com Mission Statement
To report and analyze the news on a weekly schedule in an interesting, accurate, and arresting fashion, and to combine reporting with practical commentary on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.

Hardly any less biased than my source. Plus I could’ve drawn, as another poster did, on several large psychiatric and medical organizations.

[Guinastasia]

It. Never. Ends.

:smack:

[MrVisible]

So, His4Ever, what are we supposed to learn from the article you posted a link to?

[MrVisible]

Yeah, Guinistasia. I’ve often compared the process of debating this issue to a posessed game of Whack-A-Mole. But take heart; if we keep whomping the little suckers, someday the evil machine that keeps making them pop out of their holes is bound to break down.

[Rubystreak]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
** I would prefer that gays who do believe would commit themselves to celibacy and think about giving the seminary a shot. **

I don’t even know where to start with this. When I was a kid, I’d always hear the phrase “JESUS IS LOVE.” Didn’t stay motherly, brotherly, straight, gay, whatever love, just love. My best friend and his boyfriend really love each other. Any increase in the amount of sincere love in this world is a good thing, is it not? Are you proposing that my friend and his boyfriend should end their loving, supportive relationship in order to be celibate and alone for the rest of their lives? I really do no know how you could feel good about such a request. If that’s what your God wants, then I have no use for your god.

Telling gay men to become priests in order to cope with their gayness is beyond my ability to address, it is so bizarre to me.

As for America being a theocracy, it’s not. But I think being able to propose your own personal beliefs as policy for a nation is a strong point of democracy. After all, it’ll only succeed if a majority of people wishes it so.

You are proposing to legislate against human relationships between consenting adults who hurt no one. That’s not what government is for, IMO.

[Rubystreak]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
** I would prefer that gays who do believe would commit themselves to celibacy and think about giving the seminary a shot. **

I don’t even know where to start with this. When I was a kid, I’d always hear the phrase “JESUS IS LOVE.” Didn’t stay motherly, brotherly, straight, gay, whatever love, just love. My best friend and his boyfriend really love each other. Any increase in the amount of sincere love in this world is a good thing, is it not? Are you proposing that my friend and his boyfriend should end their loving, supportive relationship in order to be celibate and alone for the rest of their lives? I really do no know how you could feel good about such a request. If that’s what your God wants, then I have no use for your god.

Telling gay men to become priests in order to cope with their gayness is beyond my ability to address, it is so bizarre to me.

As for America being a theocracy, it’s not. But I think being able to propose your own personal beliefs as policy for a nation is a strong point of democracy. After all, it’ll only succeed if a majority of people wishes it so.

You are proposing to legislate against human relationships between consenting adults who hurt no one. That’s not what government is for, IMO.

[TheArchmage]

Mangetout - I pretty much agree with MrVisible and PriceGuy, regarding your original question. I have no need for anyone to apologise for their beliefs or others of their church, but I think we should simply be treated in every way as equals.

As for the marriage issue - I think it could be better represented by arguing for the same rights for defacto couples as for married couples - since marriage is a religious institution anyway. I have no desire to be married, per se - though I would not be against a ceremony of some description - but the idea that defacto=married in rights and that defacto could be any couple combination, regardless of gender.

As I have proudly pointed out in a previous debate, this is now a reality in my state (Western Australia). The antidiscrimination laws are such that discriminating against someone on a variety of grounds (including marital status or sexual orientation) is likely to get you fired or charged - and this applies to government laws also.

[Esprix]

Gracious my - I need to post to this thread soon, don’t I?

Esprix

[ThoughtPolice]

His4ever,
Thanks. I checked out that link earlier. Obviously, it is biased, which is okay.

I also appreciate all of you others who have cited various links.

This debate will never end. All websites and all studies have built-in biases, BECAUSE HUMANS, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, ARE BIASED. I am biased, and so is everyone on this planet, in one way or another.

I believe the Bible is correct and that homosexuality is a sin against our Creator. I don’t want to ban homosexual marriages. Briefly, that’s my position.

[Siege]

ThoughtPolice, what bothers me most about the whole “homosexuality is sinful” arguement is that those who promote it give me the impression they consider homosexuals more sinful than, say, a man who beats his wife or a woman who walks out on her husband because she’s fallen in love with someone else. Under Christian doctrine, all of us are sinful, and, of all the sins singled out by Jesus, homosexuality is not among them.

Respectfully,
CJ

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
**Gracious my - I need to post to this thread soon, don’t I?

Esprix **

That would be fabulous

[ThoughtPolice]

cjhoworth,
I agree and disagree with you, and you make some good points.
(1)Jesus did single out fornication - something homosexuals do - as being sinful. I will give you “book and verse” if you prefer.
(2)A homosexual act is no worse than beating one’s wife.

We all sin, and there is forgiveness. However, if one continues in sin, there is no forgiveness. It is the continual practice of a sin - beating one’s wife is a good example - that one will not be forgiven for, for one has not repented of that act if one continues in it. Repentence is required for forgiveness. Repentance is godly sorrow for what one has done, and the resolve not to do it again. This does not mean that one will not stumble and do it again. It means that, eventually, one will overcome that sin.

So, I agree with you, and I disagree with you.

[Mangetout]

So… if homosexuals were allowed to cement their committed relationship in the institution of marriage, would that provide them an escape from being defined as fornicators?

[lynn73]

*Originally posted by ThoughtPolice *
**His4ever,
Thanks. I checked out that link earlier. Obviously, it is biased, which is okay.

I also appreciate all of you others who have cited various links.

This debate will never end. All websites and all studies have built-in biases, BECAUSE HUMANS, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, ARE BIASED. I am biased, and so is everyone on this planet, in one way or another.

I believe the Bible is correct and that homosexuality is a sin against our Creator. I don’t want to ban homosexual marriages. Briefly, that’s my position. **

Yes, the link is biased toward my position, just as the others post links biased toward them. I deem mine to be just as valid as they deem theirs to be, although they don’t share this opinion. You’re correct, the debate on this will never end. I do agree with your position except I won’t support gay marriages. Nothing personal, I just can’t in good conscience do that.

In Christ,

His4ever

[Rubystreak]

Mangetout: Ah, there’s the rub. Gays are stuck in a Catch-22: they can’t marry because their love is sinful, and by not marrying, they’re committing the sin of fornication. This may be part of the reason why certain factions do not want gay marriage legalized-- they would lose one of their major points of criticism.

Marriage is not just a religious institution. It is very much a civil contract, which affects inheritances, taxes, insurance, and guardianship of children. If you don’t want gays to be married in your church, that’s fine. However, saying you don’t want them to be allowed a civil union seems very unkind and unfair. That is denying them legal rights based on your subjective morality, and that’s not what America is supposed to be able

I don’t know that Jesus ever singled out gays for special discussion, so it seems arrogant to me that some people think they can speak with authority about his attitude towards homosexuality. He was surprisingly tolerant of the outcasts of his society, and treated everyone who was sincere about loving God and loving his neighbor with compassion. I do not talk Paul’s word for anything; Paul never knew Jesus, and he very much had his own agenda.

[vanilla]

*Originally posted by ThoughtPolice *
**cjhoworth,
I agree and disagree with you, and you make some good points.
(1)Jesus did single out fornication - something homosexuals do - as being sinful. I will give you “book and verse” if you prefer.
**

Please do. In the Bible I currently have, Jesus’ words are in red .
I’ve read teh “anti-gay” passages and none of them are in red.
Or are you saying Jesus told someone to write that?

[tracer]

*Originally posted by TheArchmage *
As for the marriage issue - I think it could be better represented by arguing for the same rights for defacto couples as for married couples - since marriage is a religious institution anyway.

Well … marriage has been made into a religious institution, but secular marriage is awfully common, too – and given the human propensity to pair-bond with ones mate, I’d be willing to bet that marriage pre-dates any religious institutionalization.

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by Rubystreak *
**I do not talk Paul’s word for anything; Paul never knew Jesus, and he very much had his own agenda. **

<Sigh> This gets thrown around on the Board a lot, and people who want to argue about Christianity should pay more attention to its founding. Paul did know Jesus. Acts and his own epistles explain how he had a vision of Christ which turned him from a persecuter of them to a missionary. If a poster is not Christian, he of course won’t believe that Jesus could appear to someone in such a way, but then why is he arguing Christian doctrine?

UnuMondo