Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: horsethief on March 17, 2012, 08:04:40 PM
-
If Tommy's health condition is declining then that should be no surprise to any of us here. Tommy engaged in behavior that was detrimental to his health. Homosexuality is negative behavior and clearly has results that shorten a person's life. No person was born that way. It is clear rebellion against God.
-
Behavior is a choice.
Gender preference is not a choice. There is no evidence that people can chose their gender preference.
Homosexuality is determined by gender preference, not by behavior. I once worked closely with homoswexuals. Some were celebate and had been for several years. All of them acknowledged their basic homosexuality.
The basis of sin that is charged against us is rebellion against God. There is a list of Biblical texts that indicate that God does not charge us with sin without knowledge and/or conviction by the Holy Spirit. See: 1 John 3:4; James 4:17; John 9:41; and John 15:22.
All of us may be born into a state of sin that requires the corrective action of God in our lives. But outside of that personal rebellion against the convicting power of the Holy Spirit God does not charge us individually charge us.
Yes, sin exists outside of individual responsibility. But, it is rebellion against knowledge that results with us being charged with sin.
Some would say that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is a result of sin. But, I cannot imagine that any would say that God charges the new-born with FAS with personal sin.
-
It sounds as if Horsethief has read SP on this subject and as old as I am I can state that SP is correct on this. and Gregory with all the scientific issues or statements or whatever it causes one to ride the fence for however people are born comes from a lot of scientific theory.
After the child is born and changes that come about after birth usually are caused by extreme fanatical parental care and fanatical diet. The rest is plain and simple to me that being "born different" is caused by extreme fanatical living before hand. I can give you first hand evidence from watching in horror a relative from birth to now waiting death. He was not born that way.
If you want to look at scientifically as in biblical days of Sodom and Gomorrah
They were told in Lev not to mingle the seed and don't mess with it as they did the animals and disgusting amalgamations and all God's creations. Well they did it so therefore you see this behavior.
and what are they doing today?? Scientifically engineered seed, animals for diet, and now you have where "straight" is being trampled on and God's law to an extent "political disaster". I don't like straddling the fence for none of it. These individuals have not been treated as they should have been in life from the beginning one way or the other and thankful for those that can overcome it and horrifying for those that can't.
We all have different patterns of sin to overcome but this pattern is from the reasons given in SP.
God gave the choice of gender and not man to decide what gender he was born afterward. It's what happens to the child after its born according to SP. and that is a really heartfelt sorry for those who have lived it and given that special trial. God knows their trials.
Why do the Jews know this and present it on their tv health programs and we had this info since the 1800's. Their stance is the same as EGW.
-
It's a sickness Johann. It's happened too many times in our SDA institutions. At 3abn, the people who knew of Tommy's behavior were afraid to speak up because they had already witnessed how Danny Shelton sacked Jean Fiscallini and then did everything possible to trash his reputation even after he was gone. That's what cult leaders do to people who stand up and expose them for the criminals that they are.
That is exactly what happened to David Dennis at the hand of the brethren at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists after they sacked him. Is this a trend in Adventism? It appears that there is a great deal of similarity between the functioning of the leadership of the GC and of 3ABN.
-
Snoopy, I don't know if I could completely agree with you on this one. I know of people hgh up in the SDA church that do not act this way and who strongly recommend their colleagues not to let these type of behaviors slide, even if it's detrimental to the SDA church. The sickness I speak of is the ignoring of the behavior and the complaints that surround it, then when something really bad happens, the denial of the complaints and the inevitable cover up that follows.
-
Snoopy, I don't know if I could completely agree with you on this one. I know of people hgh up in the SDA church that do not act this way and who strongly recommend their colleagues not to let these type of behaviors slide, even if it's detrimental to the SDA church. The sickness I speak of is the ignoring of the behavior and the complaints that surround it, then when something really bad happens, the denial of the complaints and the inevitable cover up that follows.
It's OK to disagree with me, horsethief! I still like you! But I'm curious - do you know the story of David Dennis?
And just to clarify, I shouldn't have made such a broad generalization - I know you are right that there are many very upstanding folks in the SDA church administration. But my personal experience and opinion is that there are some striking simiilarities between the operation of the GC (as its own legal entity, NOT as the "world church") and 3ABN.
-
That is exactly what happened to David Dennis at the hand of the brethren at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists after they sacked him. Is this a trend in Adventism? It appears that there is a great deal of similarity between the functioning of the leadership of the GC and of 3ABN.
It no more a trend in Adventism than anywhere else. It is the nature of fallen, unregenerate human beings to excuse sin in themselves and those they are close to.
-
That is exactly what happened to David Dennis at the hand of the brethren at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists after they sacked him. Is this a trend in Adventism? It appears that there is a great deal of similarity between the functioning of the leadership of the GC and of 3ABN.
It no more a trend in Adventism than anywhere else. It is the nature of fallen, unregenerate human beings to excuse sin in themselves and those they are close to.
Very good point. I agree.
-
I'm not aware of the David Dennis situation. Yet 3abn was fully aware of Tommy's sexual appetite prior to him becoming production manager and prior to his 'KID'S TIME' appearances.
Homosexuality is sin. There is no way to get around that. Being sexually active within that world will shorten a person's life.
-
Tinka: I said:
Gender preference is not a choice. There is no evidence that people can chose their gender preference.
Not once did I say that people were born homosexual.
There is a major difference between saying that gender prefernce is not a choice and in saying that people are born homosexual.
Science clearly supports the idea that gender preference is not a choice.
Most people would equate a statement that a person was born with an X condition as a statement that the X condition was genetic.
The evidence from science that homosexuality is genetic is NOT conclusive. From that standpoint, I would not be able at this point in time to say that homosexuality is genetic.
If you have studied Embryology you know that animals and humans are born with conditions that are not genetic. There is a school of thought that suggests that homosexuality is sometimes related to such issues. But, that is not conclusive.
if you have studied psychology you know that some of what people become is due to post-natal development. There is a school of thought that attributes some homosexuality to such. But that is not conclusive.
Personally, I subscribe to a probable multi-factorial eitology of homosexuality. I say that in part due to the time I once spent working closely with homosexuals. By the way, I joined each week a group of HIV infected patients and shared a meal with them. The majority were homosexual adult males. Some were not. Some were SDA. Some were celebate. Some were female and we had a few children.
When I was working with homosexuals we had several hundred people we were clinically treating. IT became very cler to me that: 1) There could not be one common etiology for their homosexuality. 2) Their gender preference was NOT their choice. It was given to them by forces/circumstances outside of their control.
The position of the SDA church, whether you agree or not, is that homosexuality is not a sin in itself. Rather, it is behavior that is a sin.
-
If we are going to discuss homosexuality we need to understand how the term is defined. Most definations ofhomosexuality fall into two catagories:
1) Gender preference
2) The Commission of homosexual acts--IOW behavior.
As you may guess, I accept the first.
In any case, there are significant issues the arise from the defination that one accepts.
Those who accept the 2nd are able to claim cures for homosexuality. Those who accept the 1st typically reject cures as being typical.
Those who accept the 2nd have to deal with naming a person as a homosexual who at one point in their life engaged in some homosexual behavior and then left that to behave solely in a heterosexual manner. I personally tink it is wroing to label a person as homosexual who has experienced an isolated instance of homosexual behavior. There are many who fit into this catagory.
Do I deny the power of God to change a person? No! But, I will suggest that God more often works to help a person to control their behavior than God works to change their gender preference. The life of the Christian church is filled with people who have found that their gender preference did not change.
But such is not limited to sexuality. I have a friend who has been free of tobacco use. Yet, he is the first to tell me that there is not a day that passes without him feeling the desire for the tobacco that he once used.
-
Gregory,
Colorado does not permit discrimination over sexual orientation, at least in regards to some things.
Would Colorado get bent out of shape if someone discriminated over sexual behavior?
This is a question I've had for many years.
-
Bob: Yes. My assumption is that the behavior is legal and that no exception in the statute applies.
-
Perhaps you misunderstood my question. It's a take off of the distinction you were making between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior.
As far as I know, the various statements certain places put out state that they do not discriminate against sexual orientation, which would have to do with attraction, not necessarily behavior. I've never seen a statement which says that they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual behavior.
So, if someone discriminated on the basis of behavior, but not on the basis of orientation, would they get in trouble with the state of Colorado? If so, then is not the use of the word "orientation" instead of "behavior" a sham, since then it would be the behavior that society is being forced to accept, not the attraction?
-
Gregory sorry for the misunderstanding and no I have no education in the topic and in most areas that I don't- I am completely satisfied with the comments of EGW and the causes. But.. I do respect medical people and their help for those with the issues of variety.
But the experience I saw was this.
A mother took complete possession of just one son. No other siblings. He was absolutely a beautiful baby boy. But the baby was on her schedule and cried and waited for her timing. They lived with my folks. My mother was never allowed to have relationship with her grandchild as the mother was constantly at his side of control and even the father had no say or attachment because of total control of mother. The child was disciplined strangely and at times seemed sadistically. He would go to my mother for her to pick him up in screaming times but she was not allowed to give attention. My folks soon moved away.
He never had a piece of candy, any sugar content of anything, never a drop of milk was raised on everything soy bean, tofu etc. He was never allowed to be free to play with cousins, boys or girls without supervision at his side and for only minutes until time to go. At Birthdays, he watched the rest have a little cake and ice cream and never allowed a morsel. As he grew we heard tales of him doing what they felt was sadistic things to his parents. for no reason coming up behind them and hitting them hard with something. Hmmm, now how could that happen. also he later told a cousin that he was allowed to see his parents in bed when he was about 5 was talking he talking about it.
He then went to church school but not without his mother. She was room helper everyday until eighth grade. No he would not be allowed to go to academy. Public high school was the next option. That was throwing him into oblivion of not knowing anything of being free with other students. By then the difference was being noticed as his mother always had him do things that women do and men don't. and you know the rest of the story as I wrote but this is heart wrenching. I was always extra special loving to him as his pattern of trial was forced on him but nothing I could do or the rest of family. and I truly believe that all sorts of things coming from any directions in these manners is what a lot have to deal with from birth and many should never have had children with parental fanatical ways. Parents are no longer together after son got sick Now I trust Jesus will deal with this in ways of only He can do and I cannot begin to understand. Just what happened with vividness. and now you can understand how I feel about an adult that takes liberties with a child. even if their so called gender they choose to be, they must know not to put this on to someone else. but some do.
The only way of healing is to completely give self to God in what ever way they are left in by competent christian medical help if they prefer. But again the "born into" bodily definitely is the same as any other defect caused as other defects are caused. Did the diet help to do this.. yes I believe it did and did the writing of EGW come into play here, yes I believe it did. The Jews right out on their programs of health state that "eating so much soy makes little girls out of your boy". Then on top of that they Scientifically work the seed. So therefore I do not eat the manufactured vege meat but create my own. Yes this is a very cruel world for many and I hope many can know that there is better one coming.
-
Bob:
No one should corelate the laws people pass with the the opinions of scientists. This is true in many areas of life.
-
No one should corelate the laws people pass with the the opinions of scientists. This is true in many areas of life.
I'm not sure if I understand your response.
I think I even talked to a Colorado government agency about this question, and I think they told me that orientation meant orientation, not behavior. But I don't think I've seen anything written on this issue.
-
This miscreant Tommy Shelton chose to be a homosex and attack children. He knew it was wrong regardless of his environment. His oyster-brained brother knew it was wrong too. That's why he tried to cover it up. This has been going on for years. With Tommy out of the picture, there's one less wart on the back side of socety.
-
Horsethief:
We are not excusing TS. We are not defending him. You are correct in your statement as to the choices that he made in what he did.
As to your statement regarding his choice to be a homosexual: He did not have the choice as to his gender preference any more than you had a choice. That is where it is at. If you think that either you or TS has a choice as to gender preference, that is simply wrong.
-
The question asked is: How is Tommy Shelton?
I do not know, but according to the information I have seen it should be his birthday in a few days on March 25.
This information is given only for the purpose of sending him a friendly greeting:
Tommy Shelton
Offender ID 2021892
Fairfax County Adult Det CTR
10520 Judicial Drive
Fairfax VA 22030
The information was given to me by phone when I called the number given to obtain such information.
I also tried to call the number of the Detention where he is, but it seems like you cannot speak to anyone there without some kind of clearance.
But let's try to give him some kind of encouragement in connection with his birthday.
-
Horsethief:
We are not excusing TS. We are not defending him. You are correct in your statement as to the choices that he made in what he did.
As to your statement regarding his choice to be a homosexual: He did not have the choice as to his gender preference any more than you had a choice. That is where it is at. If you think that either you or TS has a choice as to gender preference, that is simply wrong.
Gregory, I don't know how you can say with absolute certainty that Tommy did not have a choice.
If we consider the area of tobacco orientation, tobacco preference, there is no innate, natural craving for tobacco. But if someone engages in the use of tobacco, they will develop a craving for tobacco. The first choices to use tobacco were the choices that resulted in creating the preference for tobacco. Later on they may feel that their cravings come without any conscious choice on their part, but when we look back at the start of the habit, that's where their choices definitely created the preference.
So I don't think we can say with absolute certainty that Tommy never ever had a choice regarding his perverted cravings.
-
There is a lot of science that informs us about addictions. Tobbacco is addictive. For many of the addictive substances we understand that physiology that makes that substance addictive.
The physology that exists for the addictive substances is totally absent from the development of gender preference. That is a known fact. You did not develop your gender preference by any mechanism known as part of the addictive process.
The etiology of homosexuality is not developed to the point of certainty. And, we cannot say with certainty that all homosexuals have the same etiology. Personally, I think that the etiology may differ and that they do not all have the same origon. Regardless of what some may claim, it cannot be said with certainty that homosexuality is genetic. It may be that in the case of some there is a genetic factor. However, if that is true, that does not mean that the claimed genetic factor is definative. There are conditions of the human existance that are the result of multliple genetic factors and in which no one genetic factor is the cause.
It has been suggested that certain prd-natal factors that are not genetic to the child are part of the etiology of homosexuality in some. Perhaps? But, the science is not conclusive on this.
It has also been suggested that specific social influences on the very young child may be a factor. If so, sicence is not currently conclusive on this point.
Whatever the true etiology of homosexuality, I happen to beleive that gender preference is fixed in the young child well before that person is able to make choices about their gender preference. With that beliefe, I can believe that gender preference in not a cooice of the individual. However, I can say that the individual can exercise choice in their behavior. I do not excuse behavior.
-
Bob asked:
Gregory, I don't know how you can say with absolute certainty that Tommy did not have a choice.
There is a fundamental construct behind your question. That construct is that homosexuality is determined by behavior. That is accepted by probably many. But, it is one that I reject. you will probably say, and I will agree with you on this: Peole do have choice in how they behave. Homosexuals have a choice in how they behave. From that perspective, if you define homosexuality by behavior, they have a choice to be homosexual or not.
NOTE: Homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same. A person can be a pedophiliac but not be a homosesxual. A person can be a homosexual and not be a pedophiliac.
I am quite willing to say the TS had a choice as to how he behaved. But, I cannot say that he had a choice as to his gender preference.
As I understand it, TS has been convicted to a crime that has placed him in prison. But, that conviction is not enought to tell me whether he is a homosexual or whether is is a pedophiliac, or whether he is either. His conviction is only enought to tell me that the evidence that he had committed a crime against certain plaintiffs was enough to result in a conviction. My intention is not to go beyond that in any statement that I make about hilm.
But, in my thinking it is neither a criminal act, nor a sin to have a specific gender preference. While I do not know how TS developed his gender preference, whatever that may be, I am clear in my mind that he did not chose his gender preference any more than I chose mine.
-
absolute certainty
In science is probably never 100% certain.
Typically scientists give resulte to either a 95% certainty or a 99% certainty, never 100%.
So, from tht perspective, I do not claim 100% certainty for my view. : :)
-
absolute certainty
In science is probably never 100% certain.
Typically scientists give resulte to either a 95% certainty or a 99% certainty, never 100%.
So, from tht perspective, I do not claim 100% certainty for my view. : :)
Is this science - on what may make you fat?
http://sciencenordic.com/new-theory-co2-makes-you-fat
-
But, I cannot say that he had a choice as to his gender preference.
While I do not know how TS developed his gender preference, whatever that may be, I am clear in my mind that he did not chose his gender preference any more than I chose mine.
I have a problem with your statements as they are. While you say that you can't say that Tommy had a choice, you say with certainty that Tommy didn't have a choice. I can't see why you don't simply keep the question open, rather than shutting the door tightly on the possibility that he did have a choice.
Two points may be raised at this juncture:
1) Rom. 1:26, 27 portrays homosexual behavior as being a choice.
2) Sometimes the choices that lead to homosexual attractions may be seemingly unrelated to sexuality. The rabbit I had which turned into a lesbian pedophile when the cage became overcrowded, and that went back to normal when some of the bunnies were removed, would be a case in point. Thus the choice of environment, such as city vs. country living, could affect one's desires, even though that choice seems unrelated.
-
The physology that exists for the addictive substances is totally absent from the development of gender preference. That is a known fact.
Gregory, what are your medical educational qualifications to back up the "facts" that you like to throw out into the discussion with such absolute certainty?
Maybe you are not aware that medically accepted facts change from decade to decade due to new findings.
-
Bob, I have always said the homosexual behavior is a choice.
-
Artiste:
Of course medical facts change. I think that I have been very clear that sicence does not have a current answer for the etiology of homosexuality.
My educational qualifications: I am not going to get into a battle of credentials. They are of interest in a discussion. I have previously given them and I will let them rest at that. Some of the biggest nuts are people with credentials.
It is fine with me for you to form your own opinon as to the truth of what I say. I have openly identified some aspects of what I have said in which some people disagree with me. But, if you know and understand the literature on the subject you know and understand why I make some of the statements that Imake.
So, it is up to you. Decide that I am off the wall if you will. That is fine with me. Or, agree with me and that will be O.K. also.
:) :) :)
-
Bob, I can't say that anyone has a gender preference choice because I am clearly of the opinion that people do not have a gender preference choice.
-
What is the criteria? Recently a psychiatrist was disqualified for a university/hospital position because he did not believe in evolution. Was that a scientific evaluation?
-
Johann, you tell me. I do not know anything about your example so I cannot comment on it.
I once was asked to advise on a SDA nurse working in a government hospital who was up for discipline. She clamied that I was an agent of the devil because I did not support her desire to pray with patients. It is true that in a government hospital you cannot force prayer on a patient who does not want it. But, her prayers were only a side issue. The central issue was that she refused to adminster the medications that the physicians ordered for the patients and she urged them to exercise their ethical right to refuse to take them from other nurses. The bottom line is that my intervention kept her from being charged in a Federal court that would likely have sent her to prison. Instead, she was discharged.
If you know enough about the psychiatrist to comment, do so. I do not and therefore will not comment.
-
Johann, you tell me. I do not know anything about your example so I cannot comment on it.
If you know enough about the psychiatrist to comment, do so. I do not and therefore will not comment.
I only have the information given by the media which stated it was because he did not believe in evolution. The case was later evaluated by authorities who ruled that the hospital had discriminated illegally. By then the psychiatrist was no longer available for this position.
-
I had a friend who was homosexual. He begged God for years to make him attracted to women instead of men. In his early twenties he gave up and plunged into the "gay lifestyle" with multiple partners. He eventually contracted HIV. He still could not stop what he was doing. He eventually developed a relationship with a man who was married. He said he knew he was killing that man's wife and he still couldn't stop. Finally he gave everything to God and asked God to change him. No, he didn't suddenly become attracted to women. He remained attracted to men. Yet by the power of God he was able to live celibate for the last two years of his life. He died of AIDS in 1995.
I agree with Gregory. Who you are attracted to is not a choice. What you do about it is a choice.
-
Exactly. That has been the experience of many in the SDA church.
As I said, at a time when I was working closely with homosexuals, some were SDA and some were celebate. But, those who lived a celebate life, remained sexually attracted to people of their gender and they continued to consider themselves to be homosexual regardless of the fact that they were celebate.
-
Think with me for a moment:
You are attempting to witness to the love of the Lord to a male homosexual. You have helped him to see that homosexual conduct is outside of the will of God. Your homosexual friend is convicted. But, he is struggling. So, you take the next step, and you say to him: "You prefer male sexual partners because you chose to prefer males as your sexual partner. If you want to advance in spirituality, you need to chose to be attracted to women. You can do it. It was your choice to be attracted to men and it can be your choice to be attracted to women.
That message is likely to be devasting. It is likely to result in the person giving up on spirituality.
-
What I can't stand are these homosexes who want to flaunt themselves and tell everybody that they are gay. They get on their facebook or whatever social media and tell of their sexual episodes and gross out everyone and they think they are being completely normal.
Well, it ain't normal, it's WRONG! The plumbing don't fit and it never will.
-
Gregory,
Back to my tobacco comparison, would you tell a smoker that their attraction to cigarettes is totally a choice in the here and now, and that if they choose to do so, they can cease to have such an attraction? I doubt it.
But one can't say that the smoker's attraction is not the result of his or her choices in the past.
I don't see how anyone can say that no one who has homosexual desires could not possibly have those because of any choice they made in the past. It's too absolute to say that no one at any time has such desires today because of any choice they ever made.
-
Bob, I agree with what you have said in your 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Tobacco useage is an addiction. There is known physiology behind addictions. We know how nicotene affects certain nerve cell systems in the brain. We know how cocaine makes changes in brain chemistry. In some cases we can measure these (sometimes after death).
These addictive changes in physiology do not exist in homosexuality.
As I have said several times. We do not conclusively know the etiology of homosexuality. Some investigators are looking at genetic factors. Others are looking at pre-natal influences that are outside of the genetics of the child and others are looking at social factors. But, at this point in time, none of these can be said to be conclusive.
While there are those wh disagree with what I say next, the best that one can say is that gender preference is not a choice. Maybe 10 years from now the evidence will be different. But, I can only go with what it is now as I understand it.
As to your 3rd paragraph, you are not alone in your opinon. There are those who agree with you. In my opinion, the basic issue that lies behind these two opinions is one of defination of the word homosexuality. Maybe someday all will agree on a common defination, maybe not. Check any standard dictionary and you will see that two definations are given. One will relate to desire or gender preference. The other will relate to behavior. The dictionaries are accurate in that they present words as to how they are understood. They reality is that people are large understand homosexuality in two different ways. One way is as I understand it. The second is as you appear to understand it. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. O.K. That is how it is. At this point in time, probably neither of us will convince the other as to what is correct.
-
Gregory, we seem to be talking past each other. You seem to me to be addressing the question of whether homosexual attraction is always the result of a choice. I have not been arguing for that idea one way or the other. I have simply been arguing against taking the extreme position that homosexual attraction is never the result of any choice, whether present or in the distant past.
Your response regarding tobacco seems to only address the chemical dependency of tobacco, not the habit portion of the addiction. Thus, your response appears to fall short of addressing the individual who has not smoked for 5 years, but who still has a desire to smoke.
If you acknowledge the possibility that 10 years from now, the evidence may be different, then why take the extreme position today that no one has ever made a choice that led to having homosexual desires?
What about my rabbit that was only a lesbian pedophile when the cage was overcrowded? Does not this suggest as a possibility that the choice to be around certain environmental factors could lead to certain desires?
You acknowledge that behavior is a choice. Well then, would not the choice to indulge or not indulge in certain behaviors have an effect on at least the intensity of one's desires in the future?
The evidence you refer to, is it universally acknowledged without exception by scientists, or are there scientists of a contrary opinion that present contrary evidence on this question?
-
Studying this week's Sabbath school lesson and 57 years experience in marriage gives me a different horizon from which I look at this question of homosexuality.
In connection with the lesson, which deals with the Biblical perspective of sex between a man and a woman, and basing on my own experience, I conclude that sex and love is closely connected. This means I must study and define real and true love also as related to sex.
True love is not defined by the satisfaction nor the achievement I obtain in the relationship. The real satisfaction is only obtained by giving your whole self to let your spouse reach the best and highest that is possible through your whole relationship.
If my relationship was based mainly on whom I am physically inclined to be attracted to, this sublime pinnacle, as I have experienced it, would never be reached.
The Song of Solomon shows how important attraction is to initiate love, but to my understanding that attraction is formed by yourself under divine guidance. If that principle is not understood there is nothing which regulates it, and your sexual attraction might be tuned to a dog or another animal of which there are a number of accounts from agrarian environments. They might not be available where you live, but I have come across a number of these. I even recall some accounts given by our professor of biology at Emmanuel Missionary College, now Andrews Universities, in the 1950-ies.
-
:) Horsethief,
Straight out and forward - lol almost as I.
There is absolutely no confusion in the broad picture of Choice. Diet, habits and the SP give all the cause of Homosexuality. I don't need a scientific reasoning for the big picture of what happens to understand that when things are not normal in parental and surroundings you got a child in confusion.
Treatment and care also (or environment) if you want to call it that contributes to this at very early age probably before 3 to newborn. Family, traits or genetics from foul life and the child will have to make choice by knowing other surroundings if it even has that choice before damaged.
Attraction to another man or female is because you have been made inferior in someway and can't be what they are (you believe). So yes you will have attraction to something you think you are not because of how you were treated from the start. That is just common sense opinion.
Somebody had to take the masculine identity away or the feminine traits away. That is how some families operate. A big bully for a dad or an overbearing mother. So bad that there is no idenity left. Some can overcome and some cannot. What a shame, and the Lord will hang a rock around their neck in the end for their gift of child that was given. Whooh!! But for sure the horrible stigma put on these children God gives them the choice! and choice is still there or conscience is not more and then they resort into TS. or the likes of it. The victims need to hold their head up and overcome as their trial is hard. They are still loved the same of God even as all was taken from them causing them to be confused.
-
Ihave been out and about with little time to reply to the several comments that Bob has made. So, I will limit myself to reply to the following at this time:
The evidence you refer to, is it universally acknowledged without exception by scientists, or are there scientists of a contrary opinion that present contrary evidence on this question?
Yes, as I have stated, there are those who disagree with me. Some of them are scientists who have published their views and research that they have done along with their conclusions from their research. They are a minority group. There are generally several issues with their research and publications:
1) The news media has commonly gone beyond what the scientists have actually concluded. As a result, a careful review of what they have actually claimed is often much less than what has been claimed by the media.
2) Often the subjects who are said to have changed their orientation were bi-sexual in the beginning rather than homosexual.
3) It has often been behavior that has changed and not gender preference.
4) The subjects have often continued to fantisize about homosexual behavior even when engaged in heterosexual behavior--still showing same sex gender preference.
5) Often the change in behavior has been to a lower level of sexual relationship with someone of the same gender.
Some years back a pair of authors pubished a study that was claimed to show that sexual orientation could change. I wrote on that study and found that all of what I have stated above existed in that study. Expecially true was the issue of the media reporting much more than the authors claimed. I was asked by one magazine to expand the brief piece that I had written into an longer article. But, I declined to do so sue to a lack of time at that time.
However, I will give you one example of such a scientist.
Robert Spitzer published a paper in 2001 that has been claimd by the media to prove that homosexuals could change their orientation and become straight. Spitzer had the scientific credentials. I do not challenge that. HE became very disturbed as how his paper was being reported int eh media. In an interview on CNN on May 9, 2001, he was directly asked: "... are you saying that a homosexual can choose to be strainht?" Spitizer's response was: "No, I'm certainly not saying that."
A careful analysis of Spitzer's work shows that everyone of the issues that I have listed above were present in his study, as well as some others issues.
I am not willing to say that a person who is engaging in heterosexual sex and who at that very moment is thinking in their mind about homosexual sex with someone of the same gender has changed their gender preference.
I am not willing to say that a person who changes to a less explicit level of homosexual encounter with someone of the same gender has changed their gender preference. On this point, the SDA denomination has suffered some major wounds. In the interests of protecting the privacy of individuals I will not say anything further on this point.
-
Bob said:
What about my rabbit that was only a lesbian pedophile when the cage was overcrowded? Does not this suggest as a possibility that the choice to be around certain environmental factors could lead to certain desires?
The question that Bob raises is a critical one (and a valid one) and it has been well considered by those who study homosexuality. The reality is that some humans react in a maner somewhat like Bob's rabbit. Those humans generally, when theyget out of their enviornment (such as a prison) give up their homosexual behavior and return to heterosexual behavior.
So, what is the answer?
If you subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is defined by behavior, the above clearly shows that homosexuals can be cured and become straight. I do not accept this defination of homosexuality.
If you, like me, subscribe to the idea that homosexuality is defined by gender preference, you will say that the return to heterosexuality demonstrated that their gender preference never changed and for that period of time you only had heterosexuals who on a temporary basis engeged in homosexual behavior but remained heterosexual to the core.
-
Gregory,
Everything that you just said in your next to last post seems to pertain to whether or not one can choose to stop having desires that one has already been having. Nothing appears to address the point I raised as to whether one's choices in the past could be why one is having such desires today.
-
Gregory, we seem to be talking past each other.
That happens a lot in human communication.
That happens with me at times.
I belive that it happens quite often here inadventtalk.
I came to agree with what you have stated some time back. :)
You are correct, Bob. :)
-
Gregory,
There is something wrong with that term "gender preference." It seems to condone the "preferring" of something that God has condemned.
-
Ok. I have been reading this the past few days, and it's disgusting. People do not chose to be "gay" anymore than a person choses to be "straight".
It is not a choice. I also find it hard to believe that a God of love would punish someone for being the person whom they are. If he does do that......then why create the person to be that way?
Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not something that you can just stop.
-
One problem, Alex, is the following:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (Rom. 1:26, 27).
If there is no choice involved in the matter, Paul would not have used words in these verses that indicate choice.
We are all vile sinners, and God will punish us for acting out who we are, regardless of what sin we are addicted to. There is no difference in the end.
God did not create us to be a vile sinner.
-
We are all vile sinners, and God will punish us for acting out who we are, regardless of what sin we are addicted to. There is no difference in the end.
How does this statement reconcile with a God of love?
-
Here's the thing..........If we believe tha sin affected even man's DNA to allow for everything from simple imperfection to diseases from birth, then we have to allow for every variable within the disenigration. The text is merely describing baiscally the anatomy of something that is a sin. Initially men were nto to kill each other, be envious, steal, lie, etc. But with sin ALL of this happens. The only choice that is made is to sin over obedience to the Word of God.
One problem, Alex, is the following:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (Rom. 1:26, 27).
If there is no choice involved in the matter, Paul would not have used words in these verses that indicate choice.
We are all vile sinners, and God will punish us for acting out who we are, regardless of what sin we are addicted to. There is no difference in the end.
God did not create us to be a vile sinner.
-
Bob....are you serious? So, homosexuality is an addiction? Please show your proof.
-
Seems to me that sexuality in and of itself could be considered an addiction, regardless of homo or hetero. A heterosexual individual could be addicted to sex just as much as a homosexual person could be. Any behavior can be addictive if one allows it to take over their life - just like gambling or shopping...or drugs or alcohol.
-
Perhaps....but that does not mean people chose to be gay. There is a HUGE difference between being homosexual and engaging in sex. Bob seems to believe homosexuality in itself is an addiction. I do not believe that is the case.
-
Snoopy, you are correct.Sexual behavior can be addictive. I do not challenge that. One can find both heterosexuals and homosexuals who are addicted to sexual behavior.
But, one can no more say that homosexuals, as a class, are addicted to sexual behavior than one can say that heterosexuals, as a class, are addicted to sexual behavior. Yes, you did not say that they were.
Alex, you are correct, homosexuality is not in itself an illness. Science has failed to demonstrate that homosexuality can be cured.
One can no more state that a person who engages in homosexual behavior is a homosexual than one can say that a person who engages in heterosexual behavior is actually heterosexual.
Homosexuality a choice?: Depending upon what research you consider, there is a general belief that from 3% to 10% of the male population is homosexual. Yes, there are those who disagree with those figures. Some think less and some think more. But, most fall into that range as I understand it. My question: If homosexuality is a choice, why would anyone think that in the current state of moral values the figures would be that low. I would think that if it were a choice, it would be a higher per-cent of the population. Just a thought.
-
We are all vile sinners, and God will punish us for acting out who we are, regardless of what sin we are addicted to. There is no difference in the end.
How does this statement reconcile with a God of love?
I should have added, unless we repent and confess, and allow Jesus to bear our sins. :)
Another way to see God's love is that He doesn't play favorites. We are all on the same level.
-
Perhaps....but that does not mean people chose to be gay.
I'm simply arguing that it is an extreme position to say that no one's choices have ever resulted in homosexual desires.
I know someone who told me that he got in trouble at a very young age in school for doing things he shouldn't have been doing with girls. He didn't say what, and I have never speculated.
It was at least a few years later after that when he said that he first felt attracted to guys.
I don't know his whole history, but my guess is that if he hadn't have grown up in the inner city, if his home life had been better, and if he hadn't have started doing whatever he was doing at such a young age with girls, he would never have had trouble with homosexual desires. The first two factors would have concerned others' choices, not his own. The third factor would have been his own choices at a young age.
-
Deleted. I Decided to let others post before I do.
-
What's disgusting is when these homosexes go and flaunt their perverse behavior and expect people to condition themselves to be open minded and think it's normal and natural. There's nothing normal or natural about it. There's nothing wholesome or healthy about their vile activities either. I especially hate when they get on their facebook and tell people what they do.
It's sinful and sickening.
-
Hatred: You are clearly making a significant investment of your emotional energy in homosexuality. What are you getting out of your emotional investment?
-
This hate towards homosexuality is sick. It really is. I have struggled with homosexuality myself. I believe I have always had a desire to be with men. Does that make me sick?
-
It's hating the sin, not the sinner.
And yes, homosexuality is deliberate, sinful behavior. It's a choice of rebellion against Christ.
You can pull this "HATRED" card on me & say "you're problem is your hatred" all you want. But there is no excuse for someone who engages in this type of behavior. It's no excuse to say they were naturally inclined that way.
I love women. But I love and respect my parents and my Jesus as well and I knew I needed to hold off on having sex until I was married. There's rewards in that.
-
Call it what you will. You are making a significant investment of emotional energy in homosexuality. There is a reason you are doing so.
No, I would never say that your problem is your hatred.
Please note: I have never excused homosexual behavior. At the same time I do not roast in hell, so to speak, the individual who is homosexual.
-
It's a choice I made, deliberately by God's grace. Anyone could do the same, even if their tendencies are different.
-
I have struggled with homosexuality myself. I believe I have always had a desire to be with men. Does that make me sick?
Alex, The Christian life is often one of struggle. Your struggle may not be the same as mine. But, it is neither better nor worse that what I may have to struggle with. God does not draw the same distinctions that we often apply to named sins.
-
Horsethief: You're comments are unchristian, deliberate, and uncalled for.
Gregory: I appreciate you being the voice of reason, yet again.
-
Hi Alex,
You know I am your friend and if I might say something I hope you will not be offended.
If you read back these posts you will see how I (just a lay person of trying to use common sense and experience ) see the situation.
First of all I want to say that when I saw your picture how attractive you are and very much would attract a woman. Maybe you need to contemplate back to early childhood as far as you can and think of how you felt and when.
Think of how your brother, mother, and father might have related to you if even they did. Were you encouraged to be everything you could be or downgraded, chided, or whatever that took your feelings away? Some of the sympathizers on here said you never told the truth. Well if that did or does not happen then I know for a fact you were in situation at young age that --that scenario "developed" exactly that --if not --something to where you were constantly put down to where as a being of little use. That alone causes a person to lose identity and lose self worth and undermine their sense of "wholeness". Then comes along a predator and preys upon a child that is vulnerable and believe me they can tell and know that is the one they will get away with as they try to give the attention that is lacking. They scour and premeditate victims to know what they can do to devour to degrade even more to where their evil deeds are made to give some feelings to victims when all it did was rob true identity. and that is the way you have to think of it. He robbed you!
But now that you have the mixed feelings you can very well contribute to what happened to you at early age. and yes it "developed" into what it did and the way I understood Bob to mean is that it works like other addictions but maybe there was a different word to use instead of additions "maybe sexual high feelings" that were wrongly developed by a perp, but sort of that way as the perp developed the rest of confusion.
Now that the criminal act was done to you and no one protected you I can see what it has done and of course that is exactly why the dude is now in prison where he belongs. You have to understand Alex that most people know just how bad this damages a child that the law clearly know it is so bad it will be criminal actions against the child's identity.
But now you can go forward and I know one cannot forget but concentrate what you really are, what God made you and take a good look in mirror and know the past is gone and you are a great specimen of man. Not everyone has had a nurturing family, but you can be one.
.
That is your choice now. Please know you have that choice yet. When you put things in the past, you do like Jesus and let them drop to the bottom of the sea never more to bring it up. When you dwell on it you live it. I know you have to go through more court but after that start a new and yes don't give a way for the chance of renewal and having a great family all your own. Just never talk about it again that is the first step as it is only yours and Jesus thing and he commands to put it away as he does. If you do not do this then you don't believe that God forgives you and all. I hope the court gives compensation to this new beginning if you so choose.
Bury it and you along with many others in their own horrific patterns will be the over comers as I have to learn to overcome different pattern. I am so sorry Alex and sorry for all children that have to have this sort of thing "developed" and that is why I have let loose on these sympathizers, justifiers and that family that covers their selves in the SDA church and look to see all their seemingly "rewards for it". Now lol do you see one of my bad patterns?????? Guess it aint so funny for me. But my life has been children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren and anybodies children. Had great experiences in life. and now spout off about it. lol It might mean to leave all behind and look to new surroundings if possible if not --show em. Your were a child, you are not to blame. Only as others have suggested as adult you can now choose as you have "contemplated" all.
-
Alex... My comments are unchristian? How's that? How are they uncalled for? Are you suggesting censorship? That a person cannot express themself freely?
-
Alex, people who express the level of emotion that Horsethief has expressed have generally personalized the issue on some level. In that personalization they have commonly either experienced some actual loss, or they are fearful of a potential loss. Out of that context, they are having a struggle.
I do not know horsethief. I have no idea as to either what may be going on or what that sense of loss may be. I do not suggest anyting specific as it would be outside of any objective evidence to suggest anything specific.
But, the lovel of emotion expressed in these posts clearly shows some intense pain.
The statement that one hates a specific sin is a clear give-away of emotional involvement and actual or potential percieved loss.
Rather than calling something "un-Christian," which it may be, it might be better to feel some empathy for horsethief. Although I can understand the feelings that have probably swept through you as you have read the posts on this subject.
-
Gregory... You analyze someone from behind a computer screen, from some comments made online? Where does that skill come from?
-
Gregory... You analyze someone from behind a computer screen, from some comments made online? Where does that skill come from?
Punching buttons? :console:
-
Horsethief: If I were to do a comprehensive assessment of you it would be much more than what I have said. Furthermore, I only do assessments face to face, never either by e-mail, internet or over the telephone.
As to where my skills come, I have clearly stated them in the past. So, I have no need to go over that agin.
-
Okay, but then you've got me pegged with your online analysis, so you believe.
"the level of emotion that Horsethief has expressed have generally personalized the issue on some level. In that personalization they have commonly either experienced some actual loss, or they are fearful of a potential loss. Out of that context, they are having a struggle."
I don't have no struggle with any of this. What difficulty I have is when I hear and read people insisting that a loving God accepts miscreant behavior and no longer considers it an abomination. That's on them though, not me.
But what is most bothersome is when there is a suggestion, as in Alex's earlier posts, is that I shouldn't be typing my opinions because they are clearly objectionable to him. "Uncalled for" as he states. We all know Alex's plight and support him in his pursuit of justice. But if he doesn't like an opposing viewpoint, then that's just too bad. He should consider settling in Cuba or North Korea if he believes someone can't speak out. I'm not going to let his objections, just because he is a major player in this 3abn lawsuit, silence me or make me soften my statements.
-
I don't have no struggle with any of this. What difficulty I have is when I hear and read people insisting that a loving God accepts miscreant behavior and no longer considers it an abomination. That's on them though, not me.
That is not what people have posted here. If you think such as been posted, your have clearly misunderstood what has been posted.
-
Okay, but then you've got me pegged with your online analysis, so you believe.
"the level of emotion that Horsethief has expressed have generally personalized the issue on some level. In that personalization they have commonly either experienced some actual loss, or they are fearful of a potential loss. Out of that context, they are having a struggle."
I don't have no struggle with any of this. What difficulty I have is when I hear and read people insisting that a loving God accepts miscreant behavior and no longer considers it an abomination. That's on them though, not me.
But what is most bothersome is when there is a suggestion, as in Alex's earlier posts, is that I shouldn't be typing my opinions because they are clearly objectionable to him. "Uncalled for" as he states. We all know Alex's plight and support him in his pursuit of justice. But if he doesn't like an opposing viewpoint, then that's just too bad. He should consider settling in Cuba or North Korea if he believes someone can't speak out. I'm not going to let his objections, just because he is a major player in this 3abn lawsuit, silence me or make me soften my statements.
No one has asked you to stop making your statements, Horsethief. Your statements come across as full of hate. As I state prior, as someone who has struggled with homosexuality, I know first hand that it is not a choice. That is my point. However, it is up to me whether or not I pursue my homosexuality desires.
I do not believe that God judges someone or hates them or will send them to eternal hell because they are attracted to the same sex. You seem to disagree with me and that is fine.
My argument is people do not chose to be homosexual. It is not a choice, and addiction, nor is it a disease.
-
My argument is people do not chose to be homosexual. It is not a choice, and addiction, nor is it a disease.
Correct. It is none of the above. But, saying so does not give people license to behave.
-
In the Bible "sodomy" is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.
(I Corinthians 6:9; 10).Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.
The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
-
Deleted. I decided that this post did not say anytling important. :) :)
-
Alex,
I read your other posts and it caused immediately a really big question of which it never entered my mind till I read your recent posts.
Maybe you did not quite understand where I was coming from and that is my fault as words don't come together for me like they used to. although I am still very cautious to try to read other people word for word and sometimes don't get it right too.But...what I was suggesting is how the attraction to other men could have happened? I probably spelled it out into many words the long way around but I feel beyond that this choice has had to be "developed" since birth etc. But what I am sort of reading between the lines of your points is you feel you were born this way and that is your choice to be or not to be active . I don't know if you realize that it seems that you sort of bring out that could be your very own preference? and nothing along any suggestions of what "developed" this.
If that is the case then TS knew and you were willing and then that would sort of present a whole new ball game here as your early age wanted to experience what you failed to realize how you came into that position. That is why I suggested you contemplate everything as much as you could to question Why are you at this position now! Why would you go after the criminal part? - If....that was your preference. That would make a really big difference if that is what you prefer. Then TS should not be in jail! on just your account that is! I read others had complaints against him and maybe do not take the same view???? I am very curious about this.
-
As I state prior, as someone who has struggled with homosexuality, I know first hand that it is not a choice. That is my point. However, it is up to me whether or not I pursue my homosexuality desires.
None of us choose to have all the desires that we have. But Alex, would you agree that the intensity of some of our desires can be tied to choices that we make? For example, a recovering alcoholic could have a more intense desire if he chooses to go into a bar ... just to visit some old friends ... just once.
And since it is a choice whether or not you pursue homosexual or other types of desires, is it not therefore sometimes a choice how long the desire lasts? For example, if one somewhat pursues a desire by thinking a bit about it, does that not intensify the desire? So do we not have some control in Christ over the intensity or duration of our desires, even though we still may battle with our desires until Christ returns?
-
No. I do not agree.
-
May not a young homosexual who was molested by someone of the same sex feel just as much resentment over having been abused as a young heterosexual would feel about having been molested by someone of the opposite sex? Children have the right not to be used by predators - whatever the child's gender or orientation.
This is entirely aside from the question of whether homosexuality is negative. I'm talking about repecting the rights of the child.
Contracts, for instance, entered into by minors are not legal because minors are understood not to have the experience and judgement of an adult. That is why there are laws protecting minors. The minor is not able to give the informed consent that an adult might. Children are in a constant state of learning abut life by what they experience and are innocently open to learning in this way. Sometimes they have positive mentors , but sometimes people take advantage of the openness of children. Children should be protected by society until they are mature enough to be wary of those who have no scruples about using them for selfish purposes with no regard to the welfare of the child.
Does not an adult often think back over his or her childhood (whether it has been good or bad) with a whole new mind set?
-
May not a young homosexual who was molested by someone of the same sex feel just as much resentment over having been abused as a young heterosexual would feel about having been molested by someone of the opposite sex? Children have the right not to be used by predators - whatever the child's gender or orientation.
This is entirely aside from the question of whether homosexuality is negative. I'm talking about repecting the rights of the child.
Contracts, for instance, entered into by minors are not legal because minors are understood not to have the experience and judgement of an adult. That is why there are laws protecting minors. The minor is not able to give the informed consent that an adult might. Children are in a constant state of learning abut life by what they experience and are innocently open to learning in this way. Sometimes they have positive mentors , but sometimes people take advantage of the openness of children. Children should be protected by society until they are mature enough to be wary of those who have no scruples about using them for selfish purposes with no regard to the welfare of the child.
Does not an adult often think back over his or her childhood (whether it has been good or bad) with a whole new mind set?
You are so right. This discussion did not belong to the discussion about Tommy Shelton. That was a question of molesting a minor regardless of gender.
-
My impression has been that there have been more young men who have been in Tommy's churches that struggle in this area than in the general population. That tells me that there is a possibility that Tommy's abuse has caused part of this problem.
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
I think it is possible that the pedophile priests have ultimately been the cause of a lot of the modern gay rights movement. Not sure what Benedict would say about it, but that's what I think.
-
Is the time coming where the doctor turns to the happy mother and father after delivering their new baby and says "CONGRATULATIONS! It's a GAY!?"
Nah... I don't think so, thankfully.
This notion that boys are born with a natural inclination to be sexually attracted to other boys and later to other men is just an excuse. It's still an abomination. There's no escaping that.
-
Last year the police in our area were trying to catch someone who traveled around molesting horses sexually, leaving them with wounds. We never heard if the police caught the culprit. Was he born with a preference to horses rather than humans? Or did that develop with him at a later age? Should authorities provide him with a stable where he could "love" his own horses rather than molest other horses?
I should add that Icelandic horses is a smaller breed than most other horses.
-
Last year the police in our area were trying to catch someone who traveled around molesting horses sexually, leaving them with wounds. We never heard if the police caught the culprit. Was he born with a preference to horses rather than humans? Or did that develop with him at a later age? Should authorities provide him with a stable where he could "love" his own horses rather than molest other horses?
I should add that Icelandic horses is a smaller breed than most other horses.
Johann, that is just wrong and sick, though it did make me laugh.------ I think we are discussing something that will only fully be known when Christ comes. As for the right and wrong of it (homosexuality) there is no doubt that the ACT OF HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin. But (ALL) sin cherished will cause separation from God, gossipers, liars, Adulterers, fornicators etc...
-
Is the time coming where the doctor turns to the happy mother and father after delivering their new baby and says "CONGRATULATIONS! It's a GAY!?"
Surely you do not believe that a homosexual has anatomical differences with a heterosexual! :( :(
-
I'm not saying that Gregory and you know that. What I am saying is that the suggestion, or rather the insistence that gay people should be treated like a minority group in our society because, as many in the gay community insist, they are born with a same-sex attraction and thus should be allowed special preferences in our society is misguided and wrong.
I have heard it said that the struggle that gays are supposedly having with employment, seeking same-sex marriage and receiving health benefits for their partners is akin to the civil rights struggles that the blacks experienced in overcoming the racial barriers that they faced. Well no, it is not the same and it is demeaning to minorities in our society who really have struggled to overcome unjust racial barriers.
-
A sociologist told me a number of years ago that there were movements afoot to make pedophilia a sexual orientation. Tommy Shelton would probably like it if it were made illegal to discriminate against pedophiles.
Johann's discussion about horses raises the question as to whether that too could be considered an orientation that people are born with.
What about Natural Born Killers? Is that an orientation too that some people are born with?
What we are born with or not born with is never an excuse for sin.
-
The following is a brief piece that I wrote several years ago evaluating a research study on whether or not homosexuals could change.
R: 070928
Revision # 2 of Homosexuality Study
Two questions are raised by the media reports that recent research shows that homosexuals can change their orientation: For the first: Is the media accurately reporting the conclusions of this study? Second: Are the conclusions considered to be valid and reliable? This aspect considers what the authors set out to test, how the research was conducted, and whether or not the conclusions were supported by the actual research.
Has the media accurately reported the conclusions of this research?
Here are some of the comments, taken from a larger story in The BAPTIST PRESS, and written by Michael Foust, on September 14, 2007:
In what some are calling groundbreaking research, a new four-year study concludes it is possible for homosexuals to change their physical attractions and become heterosexual through the help of Christian ministries. . . . .
Thirty-eight percent of the subjects followed in the study said they had successfully left homosexuality, while an additional 29 percent said they had had only modest success. . . .
These findings contradict directly the commonly expressed views of the mental health establishment that change in sexual orientation is impossible, and that if you attempt to change it’s highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt,. . . NOTE: This statement is a quote from Jones.
The fact that it is a long-term study makes it superior to the most recent other work in this field.. . .
My comments on the above follow:
1) Groundbreaking & superior: It may well be that this study is superior to any other study that has reached the same conclusion. It may also be groundbreaking I will not argue that point.
2) Change in orientation/physical attraction: The first hypothesis that the authors attempted to test was that it was impossible for a homosexual to change their orientation.. Here is what the authors actually said on this subject:
"First, we did not find that everyone can change. While these findings firmly refute any notion that change of sexual orientation is impossible, saying that change is not impossible in general is not the same thing as saying that everyone can change, that anyone can change or that change is necessarily possible for any given individual.
Second, while we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) ‘conversion,’ our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. The change reported was not simple. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated."
I will suggest that we have a clear statement, in the above quotation that homosexual orientation did not change as reported by the media.
3) Media reports of 38 percent success rate: The authors actually report that a 15 percent success rate, at Time 3, which they defined as “substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and functioning.” They then reported that an additional 23 percent were able to live chaste lives “without overt sexual activity.” I will suggest that at best the authors are reporting a 15 percent success rate and not a 38 percent success.
Can this research be considered to be valid and reliable?
1) In my thinking one fundamental flaw is the thinking that orientation may be determined by behavior. If one is able to change their behavior, they are no longer homosexual, even if they are still erotically aroused by homosexual situations. I, and many others take the position that homosexuality is not determined by behavior, but by orientation.
2) The authors of this study make the following statement:
"Those who propose that change is possible almost universally agree that change of sexual orientation is a very slow process, with substantial change taking five years or more to solidify."
However, after stating the above, the authors go on to state that they studied their participants for a maximum of four years, with some studied for lesser amounts of time. I will suggest that while their study is both interesting and important, the fact that they did not follow up for longer periods of time reduces the value of their study. My suggestion is that a study of this nature should take 10 years.
3) Scientific studies typically cannot study a population. Rather they study a sample. It is expected that the sample studied will faithfully represent the population that is considered. The sample in this case consisted of people who wanted to change, and in addition, sought help to change from organizations affiliated with Exodus. Thus, the sample was self-limiting, and in no way can be considered to faithfully represent either the homosexual population or the population of those who wanted to change. It clearly excluded people who may have wanted to change, and sought help to change from programs not affiliated with Exodus. I will acknowledge that it might be impossible to identify a sample that faithfully represented the homosexual population. But, this flaw potentially reduces the validity and reliability of the study.
Even with this admission, problems remain. The authors acknowledge that they cannot be certain that their sample faithfully represents the Exodus population. Rather, they simply state that it is a good snapshot.
4) In a scientific study it is important that all members of the group being studied be given exactly the same course of treatment. The authors acknowledge that different programs to attempt change were used on different subjects. Perhaps this was not important to the purpose of this study. But, it clearly calls into question its reliability, and affects its validity.
5) One major flaw in my thinking is that the authors relied on self-report. As a hospital chaplain I am well aware that patients typically under report their use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. As this sample was solely comprised of people who wanted to change, I have to assume that their self-report was skewed in the direction that they wanted to go. That is to say that it is skewed in the direction of reporting success in change.
It is believed by many that it is possible to measure change by psychophysiological measures to assess sexual arousal and orientation. The authors of this study rejected this for several reasons. The first is that they did not see this as possible from a practical sense. I agree with them on that. In making that statement I have to say that the validity of this study is reduced.
In addition they question the validity of psychophysiological measurements. They are entitled to hold that view. I will suggest that such a view is not held by the majority of the researchers. These authors fail to make a conclusive case for their position.
They also have taken the position that the most typical method of psychophysiological measurement carries with it certain moral deficits. I understand their position. However, because they rejected this often accepted method of measurement, their validity is reduced.
6) In their measurement of success, the authors established the standard of chastity which they decided was living happily without overt sexual activity. I will suggest that a better measurement would have been a requirement the participants live happily without overt homosexual activity. Although I do not believe that behavior is a good measure for orientation.
7) In homosexual research, one major issue involves the question as to what is homosexuality, and whether or not a subject is actuality homosexual. In this study the authors consider that 45 out of their 98 subjects were “Truly Gay.” This factor reduces the study validity substantiality.
Summation: The authors are to be commended for the research that they have done. As they had a clear bias (God can change orientation) when they began the study, they are to be commended for reporting conclusions which did not perfectly support those conclusions. Exodus is to be commended for funding it. Overall, this study probably did reach a new standard for scientific design when compared with previous studies which purport to show that homosexuals can change their orientation. However, it was not a perfect study. It can be challenged on both validity and on reliability. As such, it should not be said to be conclusive. More research needs to be done.
NOTE: References to the positions of the authors are generally taken from: EX-GAYS? A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF RELIGIOUSLY MEDIATED CHANGE IN SEXUAL ORIENTATION, a paper for the American Association of Christian Counselors (9/07/2007), and posted on the Internet.
Gregory Matthews
-
Here is the nitty gritty coming from simplicity.
IF this "sexuality" problem could not be overcome then why is it addressed Bibically the consequences if we do not overcome??
I do not care in the least of man made or medical studies on this particular issue given out by media or other that serve to superseed the Word and serve what purpose other then they mostly discourage or give impossibilities and confusion of surplus reports one way or the other. To give professionally uneducated people on this topic facing such dilemma a feeling of no hope and not to begin to understand from reports whether it is possible or impossible for their own selves.
Just keep it simple and what has been simply put to our Instruction. Pretty simple reasoning instead of constantly scientifically reading man's opinions of their self boasting intellect on tests reports or what have you. So what good is it to know whats going on --on Mars??? Our knowledge we can trust in simplicity coming from "All we need to know"--for now.
In fact, that is the problem on these post and the differences in peoples decisions where they stand on issues now being discussed here and other threads. They look for ways and means to suit their professionally trained opinions and just are not able to put away their intent to scientifically put between lines and add or take away what is not there. The biggest problem I see in Adventist is that they take sentences and paragraphs out of context and it takes the whole cover to cover and all the context of all writings and when, for what and which people intended for that circumstance.