Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
Longitudinal studies prove that easy divorce was disastrous for children
Divorce has always been available under Anglo-American law but one party had to advance a good reason: adultery, abandonment, physical cruelty. “No-fault divorce” means that you may leave a marriage without proving a good reason. Anyone can leave at any time regardless of the consequences to the children and even if the reason is simple boredom.
Many people resisted this change and rightly so. Feminists treated “no-fault” as if it were a boon to women, how sad. Well we have “no-fault” now and there seems to be little chance that things will change. People used to argue that it was better for children to live in a “peaceful” single-parent home than to continue in a strife filled home with two unhappy parents. Longitudinal studies have now shown that to be untrue. But, no one is reading the longitudinal study and nothing will change because children have no political clout and very few people are looking out for them.
For additional data, look at the black family, a total social disaster that no program of social welfare can fix because no one can stop out-of-wedlock births under current law and there is no social sanction for such behavior.
So it will be with same-sex “marriage.”
Note 98: Just so I understand what you’re saying, would you suggest that the law deny single parents the ability to adopt so long as they are single and only grant them benefits if and when they decide to marry?
I don’t deny that group homes can be temporarily beneficial for children who would otherwise be living in abusive situations, but would you insist they remain in a group home (where numerous children are cared for by one or more people of one or more genders who may or may not have any relation to each other) as opposed to being placed with any single-parent or same-sex household? (I’m not sure how living in a communal-like setting is preferable to living in a home, so I’ll have to read up on this.) If so, would you also prefer that the children remain in a group home as opposed to being adopted by two men or two women who are cohabitating in a non-romantic relationship (such as father/son or mother/daughter)?
This is an oft-repeated fallacy. By this logic, every couple choosing to raise a child is depriving them of something or someone. Perhaps Jim is an excellent father. A couple choosing to have a child without Jim is depriving that child of Jim (especially if they live too far away for him to help out.) Perhaps Jacobse is a wonderful father. Anyone choosing to have a child without him is depriving that child of Jacobse. They are, by your logic, normalizing the idea that Jacobse is dispensable.
Ridiculous? Yes, but no more ridiculous than the statement you made. Every family is different. If a couple chooses to have one child, they aren’t “depriving the child of siblings.” If two little people have a child, they aren’t normalizing the idea that tall parents are dispensable.
Unless you’re kidnapping kids, you’re not making the statement that a parent is dispensable. A lesbian couple who adopt a child are providing that child with two mothers. They aren’t depriving the child of a father any more than they are depriving the child of Jacobse, or Jim.
Now, you can make an assertion that fathers are important. Lots of people do. But when a couple adopts a child whose father isn’t caring for her, they’re not depriving her of a father.
How, specifically, will this damage occur? Will the children grow up and be cannibals? That would be pretty horrible. Or is there some other specific example of what you think will happen to these people when they grow up.
Uh, Missourian? You don’t think same-sex couples should adopt children, because that dispenses with a mother or a father, but you think that a perfectly reasonable solution is to raise kids in group homes where they have neither a mother nor a father? You would deprive children of both a mother, a father, and a family to protect them from committed same-sex couples?
That seems a little extreme. Is that the position of other Orthodox or conservative thinkers on this board? That orphanages are the solution to “depriving children of a father?”
It really doesn’t seem like you have the interests of children in mind, Missourian.
Missourian writes: “The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers have strong political agendas.”
But their positions on this issue are informed by literally decades of studies. Perhaps on this issue they are politicized AND right.
Missourian: “If you cared about children you wouldn’t be so ready to normalize the idea that either a mother or a father is dispensable. Any good done to individual children has to be offset by the massive damage being done to generations of people right now.”
Your arguments work just as well again parenting by single people. In fact, they work better, because the research shows that children in two-parent families, same-sex or heterosexual, tend to do better than children in single-parent families.
But I don’t see anyone here going to the barricades over banning adoption by single people. Or imagine the following situation: a married couple with a child is divorced, the mother receiving custody of the child. Six months later dad remarries. Should the father automatically be granted custody of the child merely in virtue of the fact that the child would then be in a two-parent family?
In this issue I only ask that all these situations be decided on a case by case basis. You look at the mental and physical history of the people involved. You look at employment and finances. You look at the general situation at home, and all other relevant circumstances. My only argument is that homosexuality should not automatically be a disqualifying factor.
I think Fr. Hans even largely agrees with me here. In post 42 JamesK gave an excellent example of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child that would be better cared for by them than by others. Fr. Hans responded: “I think the two men are doing the right thing. It’s an exception I can live with.”
The only difference is that I don’t see it as an “exception.” I see it as a process in which the potential adoptive parents and their home situation is thoroughly evaluated. If the home of a same-sex couple — or any other home — is not a good environment for a child, then by all means they should not be allowed to adopt. Period. But if it’s a good situation, and the child is likely to do well there, then I don’t see a problem.
I don’t think I’m an ideologue or a fanatic on this issue. I just want to have individual cases evaluated on their own merits.
Note 89. Phil’s missive had a paragraph I need to quote completely:
Not only do you not understand children, you don’t understand women either. You try valiantly however to conflate the distinction between male and female although cleary this is more troublesome because the biological disimilarity can’t be erased by sophistry alone.
No Phil, the biological disimilarity creates a complementarity that any kind of homosexual relationship cannot replicate. This is self-evident, and you admit as much by trying to reduce the plumbing to nothing of consequence. I suppose if you think that a relationship is primarily sexual (heterosexual or homosexual), then sexual pleasure is the only function of the disimilarities. You say as much when you charge me with presenting marriage as “something undefinable…the mystical complementarity of man and woman.”
So I am right. Your are not really arguing for gay “marriage”, you are arguing for the the moral sanction of homosexual coupling. In your view, marriage is nothing more then a sexual relationship between heterosexuals, and since homosexuals pair up, this can constitute a marriage as well.
Do you know why so many people reject gay marriage Phil, even people who will let you live in any homosexual arrangement you want? Deep down they know what you have revealed here: homosexuality is primarily about sex. Despite the examples of a committed relationship here and there (although most, as you know, are not monogamous), most homosexuals practice unrestrained licentiousness. You know it, I know it. And this unpleasant little fact, as angry as it might make you, is what people think about when they get a voice in whether or not the legal definition of marriage should include homosexual coupling.
I know how you will respond. Instead of addressing the licentiousness, you will retort that heterosexuals behave the same way. (I know this because you approach all troublesome distinctions by trying to negate them through conflation.) Nevertheless, to a certain extend I agree with you. The cultural legitimizing of heterosexual promiscuity opened the door to your effort to sanction homosexual coupling. It started in the fifties with a cultural nod toward adultery. The winking at adultery was a common narrative subtext in the movies of that era. That tells us adultery was already widespread — at least among the cultural gatekeepers. It blew apart in the sixties with the sexual revolution when fornication was touted as free love. Now homosexuality is dominant. (Next, btw, will be bestiality.)
Yes, I do frame these questions in a larger cultural narrative. So do you for the simple reason that moral principles can’t stand naked in the public square. Your narrative is victimization, and you co-opt the language of the civil rights narrative to grant your points cultural legitimacy. I notice above the narrative has shifted. Now you identify with the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players. Like the Black leadership, I can’t see these guys (solidly heterosexual) going along with your appropriation of their story.
Moreover, these cultural elements don’t deserve the dismissive sneer you give them. In fact, you borrow liberally from the cultural tradition whenever it suits you. It’s the gound of your polemical argument that homosexual coupling replicates traditional heterosexual marriage. In real life of course, the abolition of traditional marriage won’t result in a transormation of homosexual liscentiousness. Most homosexuals could care less about pairing off for any extended period of time, or raising children for that matter. The likely result is that heterosexual committments will be undermined even further (portending even more danger for children) for the simple reason that homosexuals will still remain about 2% of the population.
Like I said upstream, homosexual marriage is not your goal. The moral sanction of homosexual behavior is. That’s the same reason homosexual activists press so hard to get into public schools. Ostensibly it is about sex education. In reality it is about lifting the moral onus against homosexual behavior.
I could go on about another topic but it might really send you into orbit. I believe the relentless push for normalization has more to do with the insecurity and — dare I say it? — internal self-loathing that heterosexuals see in many homosexuals rather any structural discrimination against homosexuals in the larger culture. This isn’t a personal attack Phil (although I would not be surprised if it were taken that way), but you need to know that although most heterosexuals are fine with a live and let live attitude, they also see a shared pathology of sorts; one that sometimes evokes a sense of compassion but also informs the rejection of the unqualifed endorsement that you seek of the homosexual lifestyle. This factor is something most heterosexuals keep to themselves.
Note 105–
A quick response. I’m not sure if you misunderstood me intentionally or unintentionally. I don’t think that relationships are just about penises, or testicles, or testosterone, etc. The hypothetical question, “So, is it about the penis, Jacobse?” (had I phrased it that way) would have been an effort to elucidate your view, not my own.
…and you responded as I predicted, with no apparent sense of irony. While pretending to find fault with what I said, you make it clear that you agree with me: the problem you have with same-sex couples has nothing to do with any single attribute, or any group of attributes. It’s the problem with being an intellectual religious conservative on this issue while trying to justify your stance. Someone less intellectual than you might simply agree: “yes! what i care about is penises, and couples that don’t have them are wrong! Couples that have too many of them are wrong!”
You know, as well as I, how ridiculous that would sound if you said it. But the one who is focused on sex here is you. I’ll happily admit that a man is more than his penis, or his hairy chest, or his lack of functioning mammary glands. A woman is more than her ovaries, or her breasts, etc. But when it comes to two people, in a couple, you draw a line between some couples and others. This line is not drawn based on any single attribute. It’s not based on any two attributes. It’s not based on any combination of attributes. It’s based on something that, you say, just is. It is, in your words, self-evident, which is apparently code for “no one ever needs to explain it or put it in words.”
I understand that, as a man of faith, your religions are beyond rationality. Your reasons have nothing to do with any identifiable attribute. Your reasons just are. So why rationalize? Why pretend that your beliefs are based on anything other than your strong, chosen faith?
Note 104, I do object to single parent adoption
Yes, Jim, I do object to single parent adoption. We have alternatives to that.
First, we can return to the time when real families were honored and supported by society above other types of bonding or sexual activity.
We could support adoption by married couples with tax benefits or other financial assistance so that more married couples could adopt. We could also improve the condition of group homes for children, which can do very, very well. See Boy’s Town. Group homes can provide guidance from both male and female counselors.
Science is slowly fighting back against the false equivalence between males and females. Beyond reproductive functions, males and females have differing psychologies and differing skills and aptitudes. Shssssh, musn’t mention that research.
Single example. Everyone who looks at the data which has been collected for decades, knows that men outnumber women in the high reaches of mathematical ability. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t some women with high levels of mathematical ability BUT that no matter what we do 75% of the top mathematicians will always be men. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t encourage women to study math, I think women should be doubly encouraged to study math because it trains the mind in logic if nothing else.
Studies have also shown that women’s brains react more intensively to the sound of a baby crying than do men’s. Funny, maybe men and women are complimentary creatures who work together well as a unit, a pair. What a bizarre idea.
Homosexual conduct is the culture of narcissim, infertility and death. It denies the most basic and fundamental fact of our natures, our division into male and female. The laws of nature don’t need to be enforced, they always hold true. Those societies that support and reward fertility will grow and those who celebrate narcissistic sexual behavior will slowly die. As noted, several indigenous European populations are dropping below replacement rate and they won’t be with us very long. Get ready for sharia.
What Britain has done to its kids
Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2851984.ece#2007-08-12T00:00:01-00:00
Remember:
Easy divorce does not hurt children
Co-habitation without marriage does not hurt children
Single parent households do not hurt children
Same-sex coupling does not hurt children
Nothing hurts children, they are just like pets oblivious to who raises
them and oblivious to who is here today and gone tomorrow.
I am sure that we will soon be told that polygamy doesn’t hurt women or
children.
Don’t worry, nothing to worry about here. What a happy future we have.
To trace the destruction of a well-functioning, cohesive society read ”
The Abolition of Britain” by Peter Hitchens. Read how moral rules were turned on their heads and people engaged in selfish, harmful and immoral conduct became “victims” and people who sought to uphold moral standards became villans.
Note 106: At least you’re consistent, Missourian. I respect that.
Note 104: ” Despite the examples of a committed relationship here and there (although most, as you know, are not monogamous), most homosexuals practice unrestrained licentiousness.”
Having many friends in the gay community due to my involvement in the arts, I can say that the statement is not quite accurate, although there is that element within the community. I would say “unrestrained” is really more applicable towards those who frequent sex clubs and the like (although such behavior is not completely unknown in the heterosexual community either). Most gay men seem to desire long-term, monogamous commitments, and when they are actually dating, they do desire to be faithful, and they make respectable efforts in being so. I do see a trend towards monogamy more in the “white collar” gay community (usually slightly older and more established in their careers) than in those who are into the club scene, where drugs and casual sex are an admitted difficulty that need to be dealt with.
I’m no ideologue. I don’t think that allowing any gay couple off the street to adopt is advisable without verifying their stability and capabilities. I don’t see the objection, however, to looking at each person/couple on their own merits. As with anything in life, I think this is the just and fair way of dealing with things. We must judge people on their particular virtues and merits, not on the qualities of any social class they happen to belong to.
Missourian, read the article you linked to. Not a good cultural prognosis.
JamesK, deconstructing Note 108
Point One: “verifying their stability”.
Does this mean that you concede that at least some kind of stability is a good thing for children?
Point Two: “looking at each person/couple on their own merits”
This just leads to another question. What are “the merits?” Who decides what is desirable in a parenting person/couple? If just some single individual decides “on the merits” what guidelines do they apply? Shouldn’t the guidelines be determined in a democratic manner, that is, established by legislature.
Don’t you understand that your “solution” is no solution at all?
Point Three: homosexuals as a “social class”
You do realize that this comment implies that you have bought the entire homosexual political/social/moral agenda hook, line and sinker. How trusting of you. How readily you are willing to change something which has been a constant in virtuallye very society known to humankind. How nice that you are grown up and won’t be thrown around from one household to another willy nillly
Note 108, JamesK, Redux, Please respond to the questions posed here?
I think that we can conclude from Note 108 that you, JamesK, think that some kind of stability is good for children.
Please tell me how these developments, things which have transpired in a short time (less than 50 years) support the stability that children benefit from?
Availability for divorce for trivial or no reason at all? Help or hurt kids?
Lifelong, “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health” committment by parents?
Help or hurt kids?
A pattern of serial liasons centered on the gratification of the adults, whether married or not, between adults with children
Help or hurt kids?
Co-habitation by adults? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up without a father? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up with out a mother? Help or hurt kids?
Growing up with both parents who provided examples of co-operation and daily selfless love between parents? Help or hurt kids?
Last question, are there any circumstances under which the freedom of adults should be restricted for the benefit of children?
If so, please identify them.
Thanks, JamesK.
The force and depth of the yearning for a parent.
A child’s love many times is stronger than parental abuse.
I have personally been involved in the investigation of dozens of child abuse cases. I have seen small children who have been physically abused forgive their own parents and re-assert a desire to live with their parents. I have seen those small children report that “Mommy is sick and I want her to get well so that I can live with her.” This is the strength of the love of a child for his real mother or real father.
It is this fundamental human need to be connected with one’s own real mother and real father that JamesK and Jim Holman trivialize and shrug off.
Adopted children often move heaven and earth to find their real mother or father.
Once again, even adopted children who had successful upbringings with loving adoptive parents seek out their real parents.
Test tube babies look for siblings and link with them
60 Minutes did a special on the half-siblings fathered by sperm donors who sought each other out and formed a bond. The fact that they shared a parent was important to them. The fact that they there biologically related was important to them. They all reported that they believed they had a special relationship which each other and that this special relationship sprang up almost immediately upon meeting each other for the first time.
Is there any human tie stronger than parent-child? What is the saying? Blood is thicker than water? Who is foolish enough to believe that human nature can be changed? What a price we will pay for this.
So, Missourian, in your opinion, what should gay couples do? Clearly, you disapprove. Do you think that lesbians couples ought to leave their partners so as not to be narcissistic? Do you think that gay men should marry straight women? What’s your answer to this “culture of narcissism, infertility and death?”
Note 133, What should gay couples do?
Spiritual answer. Gay couples should do what we all should do, seek Christ. Ask forgiveness for their sins and ask Christ to order their lives aright. We all should do this daily. I am as much as sinner as anyone and that statement is not merely a pious cliche. I am not qualified to give spiritual advice to anyone so this is as much as I can say.
Political answer. Society can take at least three positions regarding homosexual conduct. First, it can outlaw homosexual conduct and punish it with criminal sanctions. Second, it can refrain from making homosexual conduct between adults a criminal matter while at the same time declining to normalize and legitimize the behavior in its civil laws and social mores. Lastly, it can normalize and actively support homosexual behavior on the same level that it previously supported real marriage.
I have supported the de-criminalization of homosexual conduct between adults. I oppose the official recognition, support, normalization or legitimization of homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct is either a birth defect or a psychological disorder. We don’t celebrate cleft-palates or normalize bi-polar disorders.
There are many reasons for society to refuse to normalize and endorse homosexual conduct. Stanley Kurtz has written extensively on the long-term impact of the legitimization of homosexual conduct. Entire indigenous European populations are shrinking into non-existence. Spaniards and Russians may be extinct in 80 years. I am not aware of any major culture that truly normalized homosexual conduct and gave it the same status as marriage. Society should support people who are willing to make a life-long committment to real marriage. Real married couples may either have children and/or they may provide a home for orphaned children and/or they may simply provide a good example of life-time love for the rest of us. These pairings serve society in the short and long run and should be favored and encouraged by the state.
Yes, I am aware that you are about to pipe up with praise of the life-long pairings between people who engage in homosexual conduct. There aren’t many of them in the world of male homosexuals, although the current political push involves emphasizing long-term pairs. The data doesn’t back it up. These pairings don’t serve society and while I have no interest in breaking up co-habiting people that engage in homosexual conduct, I am not going to honor it.
As to narcissism, what don’t you understand? Narcissim is the love of the self above all others. Attachment to one’s one sex seems to me to be a form of arrested development, a form of narcissim. Men and women are different and complimentary. Love between men and women requires them to reach across a divide and find ways in which they compliment each other. When they pair-bond they complete themselves and create something new and better than the sum of the individuals. Males and females are complimentary. See Gray’s Anatomy for a refresher.
There are many ways in which human beings are capable of gratifying themselves sexually and only one–real marriage– is worthy of societies active support.
I think it was Mother Theresa who said that it was moral poverty for someone to have to kill a child in order to live the life they wanted. I think it is moral poverty for same-sex couples to have to deny a child his or her right to a mother or a father just to pretend to be “normal” parents. They aren’t normal parents, they aren’t “husbands” and or “wives.” The use of the terms “husband” , “wife”, or “parent” with respect to same-sex couples is nonsense and a violation of the intellectual integrity of the English language.
I am sure that I will have the usual blather rain down on me but.. so be it.
Note 114, for “Russians” read “Germans and Italians”
Sorry about the blooper.
Missourian asks: “Does this mean that you concede that at least some kind of stability is a good thing for children?”
More than some … I’d say “much”. We ask questions such as “How long have you been in your current position”, “What is your current income”, “How long have you resided at your current residence” and “Have you ever been convicted of a felony”. We would also ask for several non-family references. We could also ask questions about their views on discipline (physical or otherwise), their own family histories and if they have ever had experience dealing with issues arising from disabilities (if the child is mentally or physically disabled in some way). (A good list of eligibility criteria can be found here).
That being said, while we take reasonable measures to ascertain the worthiness of someone seeking adoption, these methods aren’t infallible. People can lie or misrepresent themselves or simply have had the ability to never get caught. This is why processes are in place to minimize the likelihood of that happening. It’s the best we can do, I think. In terms of who decides the eligibility criteria, it seems that various departments for children services set these guidelines up. These departments usually have an advisory committee or board comprised of specialists who have some professional and clinical experience in child psychology. I’m not sure why this would be less preferable than having the general populace determine criteria by a vote of some sort. If someone has to set up guidelines, I’d rather it be people who have studied these issues for years as opposed to a populace that has not or a group that includes people with psychological problems or criminal histories.
My “social class” reference was simply a way of suggesting we judge people based on individual qualities rather than the characteristics of any group we believe they happen to belong to.
Missourian writes: “Homosexual conduct is the culture of narcissim, infertility and death.”
I think the problem here is that you and the home team are running out of terms to describe non-Christians, or their ideas or behaviors. Other than “infertility,” people here describe non-Christians as narcissists and as members of the culture of death. So I think the homosexuals are in good company.
What is your cure for homosexuality? “Gay couples should do what we all should do, seek Christ.” But that’s your cure for everyone. Christians should seek Christ. Muslims should seek Christ. Non-Christians should seek Christ.
Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is legal, and you say that homosexual sex should be legal as well.
In other words, it becomes difficult to know what actually is the difference between homosexuals and others. You say that homosexuality is either a birth defect or a psychological problem. Here again, homosexuals are in good company.
You say that homosexuals are part of the culture of infertility. Here again, they are in good company, since something like 10 percent of heterosexual couples are infertile — who are then described as “narcissists” if they try to fix that by going to the local IVF clinic.
Concerning infertility, the Apostle Paul recommended that the unmarried remain unmarried, granting marriage on the grounds that it helps people to “avoid fornication.” You say that “When they pair-bond they complete themselves and create something new and better than the sum of the individuals.” But this was not the Apostle Paul’s view at all. Of course we know how many Christians take the Apostle up on his offer of celibacy, which is almost none. Human nature being what it is we would also expect the same response from homosexuals.
You write “Entire indigenous European populations are shrinking into non-existence.” But that’s irrelevant. You’ve just described homosexuals as part of the culture of infertility. Your “cure” for that is that they should remain unmarried, celibate, and infertile. So in some mystical way, when homosexuals stop having sex that’s going to provide an incentive for heterosexual couples to have more children? When Bruce and Tom down the street stop sleeping together, that somehow gives me more children? How does that work? When Bruce and Tom sleep together, the stork gets confused and can’t find my house?
Note 106. Phil writes:
No, I draw a line between heterosexual, monogamous, marriage and all other kinds of relationships. Call any other kind of relationship anything you want, just don’t call it marriage.
To Michael B. and Paradosis,
I agree with what you are saying, however i can’t seem to figure out how a person who is a true homosexual can help it. I know plenty of Homosexuals, because they are more common in my age group (they come out sooner), and its not that they chose to be this way, and they fight and fight it, and it just seems to stick as if by some higher power.
I wish the roads could be paved in gold and the people taste like shortcakes, so lets face it homosexuals are not choosing this gift/omen/Curse it is being handed to them by something else, and they are trying to work with what they got, and as time goes by they are trying to fit in and become exactly what we want them to be (believe this or not), but it just can’t happen. Their is no true evidence of a converted Gay person sure they may seem like they are but they are just masking inside, and they will eventuall cheat on their spouse and leave the family in ruin.
For the sake of procreation i can say we have enough people in this world its actually becoming a problem, so i look at it as some form of population control, because their are to many babies and enough people to care for them.
People in the millenial generation think more like me, and its not that we dont care its that we realize that their are some things you just cannot change no matter what try: Fear, Torture, Mental Abuse, Concentration camps, and after all that oppression people would still come out gay, even though they might have been tortured, which leads me and most people my age to think “damn they really are gay, and not mislead by their parents or anything, but truly gay”.
Older people are stubborn, and they cant handle change, but that kind of attitude is why us younger people take over, and most of us eventually become stubborn as we get older. Their is this saying in a very good song that i like that states “forget what we’re told, before we get to old” which seems to interpret forget what others tell you what you are, because the higher power has given you the seeds to what you are, and only you can plant them.
their are many bad things in this world, and one of them is the inability to learn and grow.
I know who i am, and i know what i have been meant to do, but most people in this world are a bunch of empty heartless people running around in circles trying desperately to find their purpose to life, because they only did what they told, not what they were meant to do.
Yes this sounds like philosphy but think about for a bit, and please dont say you were meant to kill all the gays or jews or whatever, because i know that is a fabrication of Hate disguised by what i am saying as far as purpose goes.
Peace everyone i hope everyone has loved ones, and people to care for, because in the end its your compassion and love for others that cuts through all darkness.
Noe 120, Brent B, how do you know what you are “meant to do”
There are many things that inborn in humans: greed, envy, anger, do we just give in to these because we were “born with them?”
Are you willing to celebrate club-feet and cleft-palates? After all people are “born with them.”
Every homosexual act is a choice. We can act on our urges or we can surmount them and overcome them.
Some people are attracted to children, some people want to have sex with animals. Should we change the laws so that these people don’t need to control their urges?
You are speaking from the vantage point of a corrupted culture that rejects the concept that humans should rise above mere urges, passions and impulses. Essentially you are dismantling civilization and are working towards anarchy where the strong directly oppresses the weak or a totalitarian system of governance. I can see how totaliarian systems get a grip on an entire population.
To Missourian:
No you are missunderstaninding me and i didnt make myself clear so i do apologize.
If somebody likes children that is them, however the child they like generally doesn’t like it, therefore it is harmful by all means.
Greed and all those previously can be generally overcome, however Homosexuality has been proven to stick, and yes it has some bad things to it: Drugs and lotsa of sleazy sexual acts, however like i mentioned most homosexuals are trying to get away from those bad things and try become the best person they can be, so i have to give them credit for that and most people should.
Example take a 26 year old Homosexual Male, and send him to that saved camp where they mentally torture the person until they say they are straight and act upon it. To all those he is cured, but truly he is not people distilled fear into him to try and convert him, and a few years down the road he will be right back where he was, but worse.
Torture them, Murder them, and do whatever you want it will not change it, unless someone plays god and alters peoples mind (that is dark day when that happens).
Like michael B. said they are in pain most Homosexuals, so why would anyone chose that, unless they are Masochistic (in the human world Saddism is a more Common practice).
We have the ability to fix cleft lips and other disfigurements, however we cant fix homosexuality especially if we use fear and hatred to try and cure it.
Alot of people are missing the big picture, and are unwilling to except that they are here to stay, so why not try to make the best of it.
People in the bible days had to make the best of things, so why is it so hard for people to do that today everyone wants the world according to them
Everyone wants the world and wants it to spin on their Axis
Perfect example Of Greed and Manipulation
Their are things and people in this world i do not like, but how dare i play god and try to decide that they don’t belong.
Anybody else want the world according to them good luck, because its not your world, and the world is what you make of it, not how you try to change it.
So who wants to argue that they are god and they know whats best for this world LOL anybody?????
Note 122, Brent M, response
So I take it that you don’t object to pedophilia if the child agrees to participate? Are you sure?
Brent B, you have adopted an unproven underlying assumption; that is, that homosexuality is a “given” about which nothing can be done.
First, every sexual act is a choice. Anyone can decline to participate in a sexual act. Married people may experience an attraction to someone not their spouse but choose to decline to commit adultery.
Single people can experience sexual attraction to others but also can wait until they find their proper married partner. Going without sex is not a death sentence. Many people do for good reason. It is only this society, today, that preaches the life without immediate sexual gratification is intolerable.
Second, until the 1960’s the American Psychological Association defined homosexual conduct as a mental disorder. There is substantial researh connecting certain childhood conditions with homosexual conduct. There is no scientific consensus on whether there is really something called a “sexual orientation.” Propaganda has hamstrung science in this field.
Third, I don’t think there is any particular evidence that most homosexuals are “trying to get away” from a decadent lifestyle. There are some homosexual activists who openly advocate the abandonment of life-long marriage as the ideal for humans. They make no bones about it.
I don’t know what country you live in but anyone who sent someone to a camp where they were mistreated could be arrested in the United States. I don’t know anyone who is advocating “re-education camps.” Please send me to some documentation of this because we need to report it to law enforcement.
You should note that the express teaching of Islam is that homosexual conduct is punishable by the death penalty. This is not the teaching of Christianity. All religions are not alike and it would behoove you to learn to distinguish between them.
Homosexuals enjoy almost total freedom in the United States. Many “churches” have become leaders in the fight for normalization of homosexual conduct. Homosexuality is welcomed and celebrated at most colleges. Homosexuals are elected to local and national government. The incidence of anti-gay violence is rare and greatly exaggerated for political effect. No one declines to prosecute anyone who is accused of violence against gays.
.
It isn’t necessary to have a “cure” for homosexual in order to argue that society should not normalize and honor homosexual conduct. We don’t have a cure for cancer but we don’t celebrate cancer.
The “fear and hatred” nonsense is propaganda. It is churches which call themselves Christian which have lead the pro-gay political agenda in the United States. The governments of the individual states were in the process of de-criminalizes homosexual conduct during the 1990’s. It is possible to de-criminalize homosexual conduct and still not honor and celebrate it. Make no mistake, gay activists are working to include pro-gay teachings in the very youngest of children in public schools.
History shows that people have engaged in homosexual conduct throughout the centuries. I don’t expect it to go away. The question is whether socity should “celebrate” and “normalize” homosexual conduct. Please read Stanley Kurtz on the breakdown of the family in Europe and the dropping birth rates. Public policies have consequences and the normalization of homomsexual conduct has hurt the societies of Wester Europe. Spaniards and Germans may be virtually extinct in 80 years.
We are members of a democracy and we have the right and the duty to shape the nature of our society. Until the 1960’s we had a coherent and cohesive culture, since that time there has occurred a virtual attack on all standards of good conduct concerning marriage, the family and sexual morality. Look at the changes:
Marriage has been trivailized with easy divorce
Cohabitation has been normalized
Serial marriages have been normalized.
Same-sex conduct is close to being fully normalized.
More and more children live in unstable homes. The rates of venereal disease and illegitimacy have sky-rocketed. There are consequences to social policies concerning the home and the family. Previous social policies favored family integrity and the preservation of a stable home for children. Those policies have nearly been thrown away entirely.
Study Britain and read Peter Hitchens book “The Abolition of Britain” to see what has happened to a society which prior to WWII had a very strong and cohesive social order, strong families, low illegitimacy rates, low crime rates and one of the highest levels of literacy in the history of the world. All of that has been dismantled by a Labor government bent on tearing the traditional family to shreds.
You reap what you sow. Britain has very high rates of crime, juvenile delinquency and alcoholism. Few British children grow up with their own parents, this is what it leads to.
We all have the right and the duty to care about what kind of country we live in. The legitimization of homosexual conduct is one more nail in the social coffin. It also will open the door to a social revolution in the other direction. As chaos mounts, sharia will step in to offer “order.”
You can be as cavalier and casual as you want Brent but these changes will affect you. You will have to live in a world where most people are not raised in any kind of stable environment and crime and social disorder will affect you.
Gay activists are working in Canada to deny Christians who believe that gay conduct is immoral the right to religious freedom. A Christian printer who declined to accept a job printing up leaflets promoting “gay pride” was fined and prosecuted. Firefighters have been compelled to attend “gay pride” events against their will.
Why do you think that gay activists won’t and don’t use the power of the state to get their way over others?
Missourian,
When I asked what gay couples should do, you didn’t really answer the question. I mean, you said they should “seek Christ,” but a lot of them do that already. And seeking Christ is just an internal thing (something you do in your heart, spirit, or mind) unless it leads to some real-world choices that you don’t specify.
Realize what you’re critiquing gay couples for causing:
What’s going to stop the shrinking population? Should gay men leave their boyfriends and marry women? How else are they going to repopulate the country?
And while you’re at it, answer this: would you really want your daughter marrying a gay man? A man so noble that he is willing to overlook his sexual attraction to men so that he can “avoid narcissism” and help repopulate America?
Why do people choose to be poly-amorous – a growing movement in the U.S. of people who have multiple long-term partners, even while married?
Why do people choose to be into S&M, particularly as “bottoms” who get bound, gagged, and beaten?
Why would anyone “choose” that?
Why do some women repeatedly choose to be with violent men who beat them?
Why do some people choose to have other dangerous personality flaws that result in all kinds of harm to themselves and others?
A cleft palate is medical condition, not a choice. It requires care.
The above list are all behaviors. A clinical pathology may contribute, or even lie at the root, of them for some people. If so, then proper treatment is in order.
Much homosexual behavior is the result of compulsions caused by various traumas (distant father, controlling/abusive mother, etc.) It may also be socially reinforced or suggested (many feminists encourage lesbian identity in young women for political reasons).
However, to somehow state that homosexual ‘identity’ is as fixed and indelible as a cleft palate is simply daft. It is put to shame by the many people who have dealt with it and other compulsive behavior and have overcome it.
People do strange and awful things for a variety of reasons. Homosexuality is one of those things. It has a lot of causes, and people have to overcome the compulsion on their own. Just like the S&M devotees or anyone else in a twisted, demented lifestyle.
Telling them, however, that their perversion is ‘normal’ is absolutely not going to help the situation.
Note 124, Redux, once again for Phil
Your question is disingenious, Phil, but I will treat it seriously.
Again, I noted that I am not a spiritual counselor so the most detailed advice that I can give is that all persons should seek Christ. Christ is the answer to everything. We need to confess our sins, join with Christ and allow Him to change us.
I would recommend that any inquiring person who has engaged in homosexual conduct seek a qualified and mature spiritual counselor. True faith does result in changes in one’s life, positive changes. The changes brought about by the Christian faith have been amply documented over many centuries. Many people have been freed from addictions, depression and other harmful pursuits. There are no limits to Christ.
This is, of course, a disingenious response. It isn’t really serious. I divided my answer into two segments: spiritual (which was my best response on a person-to-person level) and political (the true debate is about public policy)
So let us turn to public policy. Starting from the beginning. Historians and psychologists have documented that human beings have invented literally hundreds of ways to gratify themselves sexually. Some of these ways involve a loving and mature relationship with a member of the opposite sex. Some of these ways involve members of the same sex, or children, or material objects or animals.
Society has an interest in socializing the next generation. We will either properly socialize the upcoming generation or we will be at the mercy of a near criminal class of human beings. Virtually every society known to historians on every continent has PRIVILEGED marriage. Marriage was an is a legal and social institution supported and favored by the state. Here was the trade-off, the state would sanction and support adults who took on the life-long committment to care for each other and to raise children. Prior to the 1960’s it was not considered acceptable to be voluntarily childless. Raising children and contributing directly to the continuation of the species and the future of society was considered a joyful duty.
All other forms of sexuality were either directly penalized or at least not honored and favored by the state. Essentially raising children is hard work and it involves a lot of personal sacrifice on the part of the adults but it has to be done if society is to go forward.
After the 1960’s the social committment to this nearly universal and ancient paradign started to break down. First the committment to life-long marriage was broken with the onset of “no-fault” divorce. Then the reservation of sex to married life was broken and non-marital heterosexual sex was normalized and legitimized. Later co-habitation without marriage was normalized and the stigma removed. Now the forces in favor of the normalization of gay sex are working hard and making great gains.
This section is about public policy. It is about divorce and family law, about taxes, insurance, inheritance and adoption and child custody. These are the issues that go to the heart of any society.
When society legitimizes and rewards sexual activity outside of marriage the incentives to do the hard work of raising children are removed and fewer people undertake the hard work involved.It is a matter of formulating a public policy that explicitly gives privilege to marriaged couples and to parents
If you want to look at the consequences of nearly total family breakdown look at the Black family. Most Black children are illegimate and marriage is not considered a necessary prerequisite to having children. Crime rates for Blacks are 10 times that for any other ethnic group and juvenile deliquency and poor performance in school is very severe, both absolutely and in comparison to other groups.
Gay marriage is a delusion. Same-sex couple are not married. A man is not a “husband” or a “wife” to another man. A woman is not a “husband” or a “wife” to another woman. Every set of same-sex couples that adopt a child do so for selfish reasons, not in the best interest of the child. Every child consigned to a “gay” household loses the benefit of a mother or a father.
If there are not enough married couples to adopt then the state should provide large financial incentive and assistance to married couples wishing to adopt to allow them to do so. If there are still not enough married couples wishing to adopt, then the state should build group homes like Boy’s Town in which boys and girls are mentored by both adult men and adult females.
First, you presuppose an unproven assumption. You posit the existence of a “gay man.” There are no clear scientific studies that establish that a so-called “gay orientation” exists. It can be shown using the logic of Mendellian laws of inheritance and Darwinian natural selection that Nature would select aware from a trait which is naturally infertile. In other words, any gay gene would be bred out of the population in a few generations.
Until the 1960’s and the take over of a political group, the APA classified homosexual conduct as a personality disorder and research existed which traced this disorder to certain childhood traumas and situations. This research has been discontinued and suppressed for political reasons.
Note 126, Evolution shows that a “gay gene” is impossible, it would be extinguished within a few generations.
If there existed some kind of “gay gene” which produced a “gay orientation” in a adult human being, it would, by Darwin’s logic be existinquished within a few generations.
If anyone here is familiar with Mendal’s law, it isn’t too hard to demonstrate
that any such “gay gene” would have to be recessive and that it would either be suppressed by the expression of a dominant gene OR in those cases where two recessive “gay genes” appeared in the same individual, the natural sterility of that individual would prevent the gene from being passed on.
The possibility of rape of a gay women doesn’t solve the evolutionary problem because the child of such a union would only carry one recessive “gay gene” which would be suppressed by the dominant
“straight gene.”
It really isn’t too hard to demonstrate mathematically and logically, that a “gay orientation” couldn’t survive in nature for very long.
A “gay orientaion” is a psychological disorder arising from some childhood problem no doubt OR it represent the perverse side of human nature that seeks out the bizarre and unusual for thrills and kicks. It isn’t a product of any evolutionary process, that is for sure.
Plenty of prisoners participate in homosexual conduct when that is the only form of sexual release availble to them, then they return to heterosexual conduct upon release. It really isn’t that big of a deal. The human mind can take perverse turns and pursue all sorts of harmful activities for kicks and entertainment. Look at dog fighting for instance.
#124
Thank you CFLconservative for that well-written, cogent dose of common sense.
This should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of life experience and a little perspicacity.
The gigantic secret that is kept under lock and key throughout these debates is the fact that of all the persons who report homosexual experience, roughly half find a way to quit it one way or another and move on to stable heterosexual relationships. You don’t hear much from them since they are largely embarassed by their history and don’t want to humiliate their spouse. The only ones who go public are those for whom a strong born-again episode coincided with their change of behavior. These folks are usually not terribly articulate and are readily pilloried by the MSM.
It is interesting that the psychologist who was first associated with the Am Psychology Assoc and the “mainstreaming” of homosexual behavior has now come to the conclusion that people can be successfully treated and change their behavior. He is no longer a popular guy in some circles.
Questions for you Phil
Why should society support your particular form of sexual gratification?
It isn’t about love because a person can find plenty of love without sex if he or she is willing to love others in turn.
What is so important about your propensity to gratify yourself with another man?
If we honor your propensity to gratify yourself with another man, why not pedophiles? Why not bestiality? Why not polygamy?
Why should we honor it with legal recognition, tax benefits and the like?
Why should we accept the idea that a mother or father is dispensable
when the experience of the Black family in America shows that the
absence of a father in a family is a catastrophe?
You have the burden of proof, not us. No society in the history of the world has honored homosexual conduct, nearly every society has actively suppressed it as a decadant narcissistic habit with no redeeming social value.
Angelina Jolie states she has given up gay sex for Brad
News flash.
. Guess that this lesbian wasn’t the “genetic” variety. Hmm, it might be a choice. Seems that Anne Heche has changed teams several times, none of them under duress.
Sorry about the descent into tabloid journalism, but, I think this is relevant to the debate.
Brent, first of all, just because the Church teaches that some act or other is a sin does not mean that a sinner should be tortured.
The fall of man directly efffected the physical world, sin became part of our bodies
Each person has their own set of besetting sins that are life long struggles
The healing of the Church is living the repentant life which involves not only the individual struggle but with a spiritual father and worshipping together with others.
What the sin is is not all that important, the struggle is. Besetting sins are rarely fully overcome in this life because they are tied to our bodies.
As the Orthodox gentleman who is addressing his homosexual ideation told us, the Church directs him and others like him to celibacy in addition to prayer. The Church also directs widows and widowers to celibacy, service and repentance. In fact there is never a time for sexual license according to the Church even in marriage.
The world gives far too much importance to the gratification of sexual desire. The root cause of the disordered approach to human sexuality is worshiping the created thing rather than the creator–pride, selfishness, self-absorbtion and the gratification of the senses are the result.
The only appropriate place to express sexuality is within marriage.
Missourian states: “It isn’t about love because a person can find plenty of love without sex if he or she is willing to love others in turn.”
Certainly. St. Paul held the state of celibacy as a higher calling than marriage. Since that’s the case, why don’t heterosexuals pick this option more frequently do you think? If love can be found that easily in these sorts of situations, why do you suppose that of the 76.9 million Roman Catholics in the United States, only 46,000 choose to take vows of celibacy (which is around 1/10 of 1% of the male Roman Catholic population — or 1/1000)?
(This is assuming that those vows are actually kept, btw.)
On the one hand, you talk about the greatness of marriage and how life is difficult in old age without a spouse while on the other, you insist that it’s ever so easy to live as a single, celibate person for the duration of one’s life.
Which is it? Personally, I don’t think carnal attractions are to be equated with love (a mistake often made), but it does seem that few can do without the closeness, exclusivity and bonding that can only be found in a romantic pairing. This is just my observation, however.
James K says:
why do you suppose that of the 76.9 million Roman Catholics in the United States, only 46,000 choose to take vows of celibacy (which is around 1/10 of 1% of the male Roman Catholic population — or 1/1000)?
Because the Catholics gave in to the culture, the spirit of the times, especially during the sixties. They used to have many many more in orders. Two of my wife’s great aunts are nuns.
Shoot, the Catholics “fast” for 1 hour before communion…1 hour, and they have the boldness to call it a “fast”. And some Orthodox think we need to “reconcile” with this “church”…;)
James says:
why don’t heterosexuals pick this option more frequently do you think?
Because we live in a de-Christianized society, one where a sort of neo-paganism is firmly rooted…
Christopher, does the Orthodox Church not make celibacy among its clergy an option? Do you suppose that the Orthodox Church would have as many men among its clergy if celibacy was the only option and if not, would you insist that it’s because the Orthodox have “given in to the spirit of the age”?
I’m not sure how you can critique Roman Catholics for not adhering to a level of conduct you do not expect from within your own church. This is not consistent.
(If I’m wrong about this policy, please feel free to state as such.)
note 135: Your wrong 🙂
If not the “spirit of the age”, whats the reason?
Before you answer, don’t tell me the usual modern story about how we are not above our lusts – that IS the spirit of the age…
Christopher, according to Rev. Stephanopoulos , “Orthodox priests are often married men, although they must wed before ordination”.
I’m not sure what the “right” answer is here. Are you saying that all married Orthodox priests are married because of some personal weakness? Your post was a bit muddy – you might wish to clarify since it seems to be a bit of a personal attack on much of the Orthodox clergy who, according to Church doctrine (and Scripture, for that matter), have no reason to be ashamed of their married state.
Missourian,
Anne Heche doesn’t count she is a mess and only did that as a publicity stunt, and Angelina Jolie well i dunno whats wrong with her.
I was hoping you would have chose better candidates than Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie (keep in my mind they are both actresses)
And who is to say Anne Heche isnt still a lesbian, but she is suppressing it, and eventually she will end up in someones backyard naked screaming at the top of her lungs.
I know a perfect cure for Sexual desires its called the ole chopping board, but what men would do that ;0), so to be quite blunt and to reality very few men resist the urge, so lets talk shop, and say its ideal to only have sexual relations in a marriage, but that isnt going to happen, so lets look at another alternative.
Oh to Christopher:
Paganism is a very old religion, and their is no such thing as Neo-Paganism its a false term used for anyone who goes against a particular religion (a below the belt punch).
Our society isnt de-Christianized its a bloody melting Pot, so its got a little bit of everything including Satanist (poor goats :0( ), so try rephrasing that term into something a little more factual, so that we stay consistent to the overall goal here which is to argue until we all agree to disagree.
Hi Tom.
The gigantic secret that is kept under lock and key throughout these debates is the fact that of all the persons who report homosexual experience, roughly half find a way to quit it one way or another and move on to stable heterosexual relationships.
Now that we’re moving into a scientific debate, where do you get this stat?
It’s probably obvious, but in post #139, the middle sentence is a quote. I meant to put it in “block quotes.”
note 137:
What? You mentioned Roman Catholic’s. When did I talk about Orthodox clergy?
Plenty of resources about Orthodoxy on this site though if your interested…
note 138:
their is no such thing as Neo-Paganism its a false term used for anyone who goes against a particular religion
Neo-paganism is a perfectly servicable term, and goes along way in describing what so many in our culture are becoming. Your definition of it is classicaly liberal, and so may be termed “neo-pagan”…;)
Note 126–
While it’s refreshing to read an Orthodox Christian who isn’t afraid to wholeheartedly endorse the notion of Darwinian evolution, your science and logic are still a little off.
First, of course, it’s important to understand that it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that either there is a “gay gene” or that “homosexual people” do not exist. It’s true that we understand little about the science of–what’s a term I can use that you won’t find loaded? “sexual preference?”–or love.
Sexual preference may be the result of a number of factors. These factors may be biological but not genetic. The factors might be genetic. And yes, some factors may be environmental.
An easy comparison is handedness. In discussing handedness we can avoid political and religious rhetoric and simply look at science. I think we can agree that handedness is a “preference,” for one hand over the other. If handedness were just arbitrary, you’d expect humans to be right- and left- handed at approximately the same rates. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 95% of humans are right-handed. Clearly, there’s more than random chance at work. And there’s more than culture at work, since some human populations favored right handedness even before they traveled the seas to meet each other.
If we move from discussing handedness to sexual orientation, suddenly the discussion is _fraught_ with religious and political implications. (Jacobse will often criticize me for comparing the two, because left-handedness doesn’t have the same “moral consequences” as homosexuality.)
Whatever the actual, specific causes of either handedness or sexual orientation, it’s clear that there are at least some genetic factors at play. Recent research has shown, for example, the following correlations:
Gay men and straight women have an increased number of fingerprint ridges on the left hand.
Gay men are more than three times as likely as straight men to have counterclockwise hair whorls.
On hearing tests, the frequencies lesbians are capable of hearing tend to match the hearing of men, not straight women.
Recent research indicates that a male’s chances of being gay increase with each male child who occupied your mothers womb before you.
When presented with such research, Missourian, several responses are available to you. You can ignore it, and keep insisting that homosexuals don’t exist, and that gay people are exactly like straight people. You can attack the research and the researchers. and make the huge assumption that every single study that has ever been conducted about correlations between sexual orientation and physical characteristics was flawed in a different way. Or you could issue a quick mea culpa and acknowledge that, indeed, while we may not fully understand the science of human sexual orientation, it is premature to make sweeping generalizations such as “It isn’t a product of any evolutionary process, that is for sure.”
There are all kinds of interesting possibilities besides a simple “gay gene.” For example, if a child’s sexual orientation is influenced or determined in utero, it could be that some women carry genes that cause them to make their babies gay under certain circumstances. Or, there could be multiple genes that determine our sexuality, only causing homosexuality in certain combinations.
Finally, Missourian, it’s worth noting that the vast, vast majority of all human beings believe that their own sexual orientation is innate.
If you’re interested, here are some links to studies about the correlations between expressed sexual orientation and uncontrollable physical/genetic factors:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
note 143:
Not meaning to sound flippant, but after I read your post I thought “so” 🙂
sex, sexual behavior is innately moral, as anyone who has been in a relationship understands. It’s part of our relating to each other, and whether that relation is “good” or “bad”. You keep going around the same circle, but most folks, or to put it has you would “vast majority of all human beings” do not discount the moral factor.
Instead of using handedness, try anger. Would you say anger is an “innate” human trait/behavior, with biological, genetic, and cultural factors. Of course. Does that make it “ok” to express it as I see fit? Of course not.
sexual deviancy will not be accepted because it is innately “wrong”. the vast majority of all human beings have understood this, thus the reason why most philosophies, religions, and cultures have rejected it through time.
Wake me up when you find the “anger gene” and argue that anger is then merely a “personal preference”…;)
Note 143, Phil, you are scientifically confused
Note 126–
I am always free to use the logic of my debating opponent. He cannot object to it.
If you remember from previous posts, I stated that my opinion was that
homosexual conduct resulted from either a) a birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
I chose to discuss the impossibility of the existence of a “gay gene” because it is something which is relevant to the discussion. No modern biologist will posit that there exists a “gay gene” since it runs totally counter to the Darwinian posture of modern biology.
There is research among aninals, sheep to be exact, which shows that if certain chemicals which are normally produced by a pregnant ewe is absent during gestation any ram produced by that pregnancy will not mount females.
Since rams are bred mainly to mount ewes such rams have little economic value. Researchers found that supplementing the nutrition of pregnant ewes
virtually eliminated the instance of non-mounting rams. This is consistent with my previous statements that homosexual conduct might be a birth defect. However, it is a defect and it should not be celebrated or honored.
I already covered this in previous posts. I consider homosexual conduct to be the caused by a) birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
Actually you don’t know what you are talking about. Handedness is a great deal more than a “preference.” It is hard-wired into our neural channels.
The comparison is not apt. Handedness plays a very different role in human life. Left-handedness is not likely to have a major impact on the ability of the human to survive and procreate. Homosexual conduct does a a major impact on the propensity of humans to procreate until just very recently with the legitimization of artificial means of reproduction.
Yes, imagine that. What a good deal of the debate about homosexual conduct is about is whether society can establish and support any kind of moral standards when it comes to sexual conduct. The normalization of homosexual conduct and its legitimization through law would go a very long way to the total destruction of all moral order in sexual relations. All the way through your comments there is a condescending tone regarding the fact that there are people, secular and religious, who don’t take sexual conduct causually and think that the rules surrounding sexual conduct are important.
We all know that the sector of the male population that engages in homosexual conduct is promiscuous beyond the average for heterosexual conduct. Promiscuity is a hallmark of the bathhouse culture. Supporting the normalization of homosexual conduct is just another way to support the abolition of any moral guidelines when it comes to sex.
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are not a scientist, and you haven’t had a decent scientific education. As I said and as you have ignored because you really don’t understand science or biology, homosexual conduct is caused by a) birth defect or b) psychological disorder or c) moral disorder.
What you have shown are correlations. These correlations due not prove or disprove causation. They are merely correlations. A birth defect can correlate with other phenomenon. For example, the mental defect which is the hallmark of Down’s syndrome correlates with a relatively harmless defect in the structure of the eye.
Again, you have no ability to understand or interpret scientific studies, as is apparent by your comments. They are scientifically illiterate.
You haven’t made a scientific case for anything. The mere existence of a correlation between one thing and another does not prove causation. I can made a valid scientific case that there is no such thing as a “gay gene” for the obvious reason that Nature does not select for sterility. The condescending tone is amusing since anyone with training in science can deduce that you have have had none or that you slept through class.
In the first case, the disfunction in utero would be classified as a birth defect. This is a possibility that I have acknowledged from the beginning. Again, we do not celebrate cleft-palates, club-feet or missing digits resulting from birth defects. We correc them if we can.
As to the idea that homosexual conduct could be caused by multiple genes the same Mendellian argument applies You don’t understand even the most basic ideas of genetics and you have displayed that repeatedly. Same argument applies whether the hypothesis is single gene or multiple. Nature does not select for sterility. You can’t get past that fact.
Again, even if the desire for homosexual conduct were caused soley by a birth defect, it wouldn’t make the conduct desirable or moral.
Well, the vast majority of child abusers think that the minimum age of consent for sexual activity should be lowered or abolished. Check into the Man Boy Love Association. The vast majority of Muslims think that God has authorized them to beat their wives. The vast majority of Nazis thought that they were doing the world a service when they killed Jews.
Again, a correlation is not causation AND a correlation is totally compatible with the concept that homosexual conduct is a birth defect. Repeat after me NATURE DOES NOT SELECT FOR STERILITY.
Note 138, Brent,
Missourian,
Well, Brent, I disagree. Part of the national debate centers on the scientific question of whether homosexual conduct is the result of genetics. Is a person “born gay” and therefore unable to change the “fact” that they are attracted to their own sex?
If we find people who participated in homosexual conduct who later, without coercion, marries someone of the opposite sex and voluntarily has a child,
then we have found at least ONE PERSON for whom homosexual conduct was a choice.
Anne Heche and Angelina Jolie are perfectly legitimate examples even though they do not seem to be very pleasant people to me. I would call them narcissists of the highest order.
As to whether Anne Heche is suppressing her “lesbianism” that begs the question. She voluntarily joined a man in marriage. As did Angelina Jolie.
There is simply no evidence that either set of behaviors was coerced or even influenced by anything except the personal caprice of Anne and Angelina.
There are simply too many documented examples of poeple who chose at different times of their lives to have sex with women and then later to have sex with man ( or vice versa). Homosexual conduct in most prisons in situational, the innates will tell you that.
Brent you have to decide the type of issue you are talking about. First, do you even think it is worth the time to posit an overarching set of principles that should guide human conduct. I don’t mean this disrespectfully but your sole guiding principle seems to be expediency. If all sanctions are lifted human conduct will descend to very low and barbaric levels.
By the way, murder is illegal and has been for millenia in the West, we still haven’t stopped all murders. Would you suggest that we “give in to reality” and legitimize murders because after all we can’t stop all of them.
Frankly, I don’t see much in your discussion except a willingness to abandon any attempt at buildling a moral society. I don’t see any recognition of the cost that society pays when moral rules concerning sex are abandoned.
Remember that the Black family wasn’t destroyed by slavery, it survived slavery quite well. It was destroyed by the welfare state.
Very few Black children grow up with a father and the result is catastrophic.
Try reading some essays by Bill Cosby, he’ll explain it quite well. This is first and foremost a moral issue. The rules against out-of-wedlock motherhood have been abandoned by modern American Black culture and the result is
apparnet for all.
Hi Christopher,
Re: your comment of “So?” I was responding to Missourian’s suggestion that there’s no such thing as a “gay man.” There are, in fact, a lot of biological traits that gay people seem to possess in strikingly greater numbers than straight people, and no one chooses the pattern of their hair whorls, or the length of their fingers, or the frequencies that they can hear. So, despite what Missourian said, the evidence points to some kinds of genetic factors playing a part in whether a person will be attracted to members of the same sex.
You’re welcome to call it a “choice” when someone decides to engage in a sex act, but it’s a little ridiculous in this day and age to insist that no one is gay, or that there aren’t homosexuals.
In terms of anger, sure– that’s a human emotion, and it probably is affected by genetics, biology, and culture. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some people who are autistic, does it?
Phil, answer honestly. Are you homosexual? Do you have sexual relations with men? This is not a rhetorical trick.
Note 145:
So, despite what Missourian said, the evidence points to some kinds of genetic factors playing a part in whether a person will be attracted to members of the same sex.
I also lean toward more that it’s culturally ‘created’, however I do grant there could be a genetic/biological factor. On a purely personal level, I can’t say I get it in the least. Lust is something I understand all too well, but not same sex attraction? I look at a hairy ape of a man, and there is not one little tiny bit of the end of my finger nail that thinks ‘attractive’ thoughts 🙂 😉
Still we (being persons, not determined genetic machines) determine our moral response to all life ‘circumstances’. Autism, birth defect, whatever, we can have a courageous, loving response, or wallow in self pity and loathing. Same for sexual deviancy. It’s a moral challenge, not a genetic one. Just as I choose my response to my sexual ‘fate’ in life, all others do as well…
To Christopher and CFLConservative,
Im not a Liberal nor a Conservative, and the term Neo-Paganism is poor excuse of a term created for the use of scapegoating.
Lets all put blame on Paganism for the way people are, and not because of the lack of proper organized religion, and the constant blame game.
Everyone always wants to blame on someone or something rather than take responsibility.
Their is no such thing as a liberal or a conservative, because if you do a full side by side comparison they add up in the end as far as their thought processes, but you know its easier to create groups of people, because that is human nature ;0) .
Reading all of these blogs shows that you guys have alot of knowledge, but really lacking in plain old common sense, and whats really going on out there.
Like i stated in a previous blog it doesnt matter how hard you try its not going to go away, and obviously their some form of reasoning behind that sort of like an intentional Anomaly, so like it or not everyone is going to have learn to deal with it, and try to make the best of it.
We made the best of black people a long time ago in case some of you had forgotten if it were that era right now we would talking about black people, not homosexuals. With that trend in mind i can tell all of you “liberals” and “conservatives” that you are going to have to cope, because they havent been able to stop same sex relations yet, and i dont they will anytime, soon so live and let live.
Oh and for CFLconservative in regards to all those examples:
You cannot say that those mentioned things result in homosexuality, because if that were the case the gay popluation would be so much higher than it is now, unless it secretly is.
My approach to homosexuality is like my approach to any other group of people. i may not care for their style and ways, but they may also not care about my way of things, so does that both mean we are in the wrong, because if we are gauging whats right and wrong based on the bible, then women should be in the kitchen, and are nothing more than box to pop babies out and cook and clean. Do most of you agree with that, because if you dont you have already Frayed away the bible, and also does anyone eat any form of shellfish??
The bible was a mere guide, and gods intent was to help us start law, which did not include homosexuality and many other laws, so therefore what we are gauging our beliefs on is what our parents taught us, not what is really right from wrong, because in all actuality we do not really know what is right or wrong, but rather we us common sense.
Common sense says that it of course is not right to go and stab someone to death for the heck of it, or dont run over a baby, or don’t hurt others for no reason. Common sense is a guide for you to do the right thing, not worry about others and what they are doing.
Has any gay male/Female every came up to you out of nowhere and tried to have sex with you i doubt that, and the only thing they are forcing upon us is that we play fair, and let them be, just like we let black people be (they are not slaves anymore).
I can go on and on about this, but most of you on here continue to say the same thing: Its destructive to Traditional marriage, or its not meant to be (Male anatomy must always collide with Female anatomy), but on the contrary the way i see it if gay people can get married and keep a semi stable relationship then for us who aren’t gay we should be able to do it as well (possible correction to the falling of marriage).
I do not condone any type of actin that is intentionally harmful to anyone, however their are things that we do that may harm others unintentionally, but that is the human way (we are destructive in nature).
Look at this way you can waste you time and effort to try and stop homosexuality, and it will not do you any good look at fred phelps and his website godhatesfags.com he is a prime example of how far you can easily go by holding hatred and fear in you, and i know all of you on here are intelligent and nice enough to not agree with Fred Phelps and his insane saddistic methods.
Continue supporting traditional Marriage, but dont support it by ragging on homosexuals as bad examples, because you are only creative a negative stance for the support of traditional marriage.
I.E.
“Support traditional Marriage to show those Homosexuals how wrong they are”
Is that what traditional marriage is all about?
I thought it was about love and procreating (procreating isnt always neccessary and not feasible for some $$$wise)