He's CURED! Haggard is now completely hetero!

I believe that there are varying degrees of sexual preference but that ingeneral there is a biological factor and the stronger the preference towards one gender or another the stronger the biological factor. From what I've heard about this its not genetic but developmental primarily having to do with conditions in the womb. I would agree that even with those developmental issues its not envrionmental factors later in life probably play a role but in many cases it seems like a preference for homosexuality occurs in spite of the environment.

For instance there are people who grow up in an environment that shouldn't be conducive at all to homosexuality where they are taught that it is wrong and social stigma and other penalties are associated with it. Even with those people still end up being attracted to the same gender and even act on that attractions, sometimes at great risk.

 

Rhester;

Having debated with you here on Clutchfans and also meeting you in person I respect you personally and I also aplaud your honesty in making this statement. For me though I cannot aggree with the sentiment that homosexuality is a hurtful behavior. IMO if consenting adults knowingly and respectfully enter into a loving relationship I don't see how that is hurtful whether it is between two of the opposite or same gender.

I know that you are not judgemental and that your belief is not one of hate. I fully believe that you act and are motived with compassion but I'm sorry I cannot agree with the sentiment and I don't accept that a compassionate God would consider such relationship hurtful.

 

I agree. Very few people are "pure biological" homosexuals if you base it on a continuum like the Kinsey scale....

There's a mixture of factors, and our society that prefers to label things black and white makes it much worse. If you're stuck with a label, then you do your damnest to fit that label, or you choose its opposite. For male culture at least, bisexuality biases opinions towards the homosexual angle.

This issue is messy because the biological and cultural arguments blur the line. If you're born gay, culturally one will think you're totally gay and vice versa. What that means is that if you're born straight, then homosexuality is abherant behavior. There is no born gay with straight behavior or born straight with gay behavior. It's all or nothing. It's another example of people using science to justify their cultural perspective. It might not matter that cultural pressures influence scientific studies.

I believe in Michel Foucault's premise that people are too hooked up on labels because labels give power to their words and expression. It doesn't matter that one only eats vegetables until he proclaims himself a vegetarian. Does a person who stole something 15 years ago make him a thief? I guess in a religious position, one could say that every choice is a defining moment. I would say that all of those defining moments are of equal importance and what makes one shine more than the rest is ultimately up to the person.

Nonetheless, sexuality is more than a choice like choosing what to eat. It's a basic drive that shouldn't be repressed. Haggard might be a homosexual. He looks like a 4 trying to be a 1. I guess he's being judged because he put himself in that position both professionally and personally...

It's not who you choose to have sex with but the sex itself. Wholesale denial leads to unexpected consequences. If Haggard isn't completely out of his phase, then his denial could be the cause of future drug abuse. I can only imagine the challenge of those Catholic priests have to deal with when they're forbidden to have future sexual relations or to marry.

So I disagree with you that homosexuality is hurtful behavior. To what degree and how much is a different matter. Instead, I believe the wholesale repression of sexual desires ultimately leads to more hurtful consequences.

 

agreed

very nice post Sishir Chang

 

im sure some do, but i wouldnt go around making unsubstantiated generalizations such as "most non religious households probably DONT have issues with their children being a homosexual".

i disagree w/ your statement and i was simply asking you to provide something to back your opinion - that is all.

and the russia/china example is extremely weak. by your standards i suppose most non religious households probably have issues with their children listening to american pop music or wearing blue jeans, because that stuff was banned by the communist governments.

 

I do believe in moral absolutes (don't commit murder, don't rape etc.). I'm not going to say that my mom's food absolutely tastes better than your mom's food.

I don't see it as an insult, it's just my neat way of characterizing people's beleifs and views into a convenient package and then working my way from there using that as a starting point. I try not to judge anyone, but I find myself at fault for that when it comes to certain people whose views I've heard before in other threads. That's just the staight honest truth.

 

For instance there are people who grow up in an environment that shouldn't be conducive at all to homosexuality where they are taught that it is wrong and social stigma and other penalties are associated with it. Even with those people still end up being attracted to the same gender and even act on that attractions, sometimes at great risk.[/QUOTE]

That actually correlates with the psychology example. There are two categories, one is innate and the other is environmental. Both are scored on a scale of 10. If the inner musical talent is 0 or very low, then even if you throw the kid into a piano school for 20 years, they'll never do anything with it. Vice versa, if the talent is a 10 or around there, they could probably slap together some coke bottles and create music out of that even if they lived in a ghetto neighborhood.

 

Didn't I say it was unsubstantiated from the beginning and that it was a wild guess?

no you asked me what led to that OPINION. If you want to say my facts are weak, that's fine, but I wasn't attempting to make a factual statement. If someone says, I'm going to make a wild guess here, chances are they most likely aren't looking for it to be considered published material.

 

no there isn't...why are we arguing this again? We seem to agree with each other on that.

I meant that if someone doesn't believe there is such a thing as abolutism and then uses that CONCEPT (not specifics) to try to goad you into a neatly painted little corner, I just don't see the discussion going on any further than that.

It's like me asking someone from CAIR do they support Hamas (which has doen a lot for the Palenstinian people whole the corrupt Fatah was in place) or not. They can't really answer that question as a yes or no without asking me first why am I asking the question and most likely wouldn't asnwer yes or no because of the intricacies involved with the answer.

 

I understand- I knew we disagreed, and I also am aware of how very sensitive this issue is. I do not think there is any profit in trying to prove something is wrong or hurtful. I wasn't trying to do that. There is so much need for understanding, love and truth in our world. I deal with people every day that have great pain deep in their hearts, they come from all backgrounds, races and there circumstances are different.

I try to care about all people, not because I am a caring person, but because of God's love. I know I fall short and I only hope I didn't come across harsh, hateful or unkind in my posts.

I find that when we focus on win-lose or lose-lose issues that the lose side misses the love we should give one another.

I obviously believe God had a specific design in mind for sexuality. In His design is security, acceptance, love, grace and truth.

I believe God sent His Son into a world He loved.

That would include a woman who has a sexual preference for animals and a man who rapes little boys.

I do not understand that kind of love, but I do know that God is full of compassion and heals pain and hurt in the deepest part of our hearts.

I have no stones to throw at anyone.

-Hope we can meet again sometime.

 

^ God may love all but humans don't which is what troubles me about the debate on homosexuality. The problem I see is that for non-homosexuals it is something that is strange and makes us uneasy, heck I get uneasy seeing two guys making out. As long as that is considered strange though there will always be some level of hatred towards homosexuals. Again I appreciate your honesty and know that your actions and thoughts are compassionate and not harmful but I find it troubling that even someone like you would find homosexual behavior to be hurtful or even, although this may not be intentional, lumping it in with bestiality or pedophilia.

Perhaps it takes God to love pedophiles but that doesn't mean we shouldn't tolerate homosexuals who are fully consenting and respectful adults. What I worry about is that we as humans aren't as magnanimous as God and will continue to hate and despise that what seems strange to us.

 

Sishir, God does not like the act of homosexuality and views it as a sin in the same category as stealing, lying, etc., which is what rhester is talking about. Jesus hung out with robbers and thieves, but it does not mean that he condoned their actions. The problem with some of us Christians is that in condemning the act, we tend to lump in the person committing it also, and that is wrong. We all have tendencies in us to want to steal, lie, and even kill, and maybe even commit homosexual acts. IMO, the real debate is that we want the act to be recognized as a sin, and everyone else wants to say that it is not.

I will say this, some Christians really get too hung up over this issue and make it out to be bigger than it actually is. After all, I'm positive there are more acts of lying and cheating happening every day then homosexual sex. If someone I work with or play ball with is gay, it doesn't bother me at all. I might disapprove of their lifestyle (if they practice it), but really, I lie probably more often than they have sex. The only argument I would get into with them is if they are Christian or claim to be one and refuse to reccognize the act as sinful in nature.

EDIT: Of course, if you're not Christian and wind up arguingwith a Christian who echoes my view on this, then you're probably going to wind up comparing oranges to apples.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument I concede that homosexuality is a sin. There are Christians who don't, by the way. The problem is that many Christians make homosexuality into the most important sin, or one of the most importatn, and spend a disproportionate amount of energy worrying about it, decrying it, and railing against it.

Yet Christ himself, never really directly addressed that issue in a specific way. However the bible does include far more instances of Christ directly talking to divorce. Yet divorce is generally accepted(even if people don't like it, or wish that it were so prevelant). Few christians and preachers that lash out at homosexuals and homosexuality spend even a fraction of the energy speaking toward divorce as they do speaking toward homosexuality.

 

He speaks about divorce.

But he absolutely RAILS on lack of generosity and being judgmental. The only story he tells of anyone "in hell" that i'm aware of is the rich man who refused to help the poor man who sat outside his door.

And you're right. The modern church has blown sex completely out of proportion. I read a blurb of a book the other day that suggested that if we were to rewrite the Ten Commandments today given the way the modern church is that "don't have sex" would be repeated over and over again...and the very last commandment would be, "no seriously..really don't have sex."

speaking of that FB...new book hits the shelves in March: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/e...ervan.9780310263463&QueryStringSite=Zondervan

 

You basically just echoed my post yah know. There really is too much time spent on the issue of homosexuality.

The only reason why I think homosexuality has been such a hot topic in Churches recently is more of a reactionary thing to the recent outspoken nature of the homosexual community and their supporters.

I've been to quite a few Churches and I don't think I've heard maybe 2 or 3 sermons that mentioned homosexuality, and only one of them was a full blown sermon on it. If there is a large furor over a particular issue, I think the instigator (not a bad way, just the person who starts it) is usually someone from the homosexual community. A few exampes would be gays wanting to march in St. Patrick's Day parade, or gays wanting to become bishops. This "aggressive tactic" was not always approved from an article I read once on one of the founders of DLJ (used to be a top Wall Street investment firm) who also happened to be gay.

And yes I know it has no always been the case, and that the Church in the past has been the instigator of conflicts between homosexuals and the Church, but as of right now, this is what I see as happeneing.

 

Hotballa;

I'm not a Christian and don't share the belief that homosexuality, the people or the act, is sinful. I'm not even sure I believe in a compassionate all powerful being but believe that compassion is for us to create which to me means tolerating that which is strange as long as it isn't hurting anyone.

You're entitled to your belief and I don't claim superiority. Its obvious that people like Rhester, MadMax and yourself find great strength from your beliefs and they make you better people. I don't want to change your beliefs but am just stating my own.

 

don't worry, I'm not going to attempt to debate with you why it is a sin. I highly respect your opinions, and thank you for the courtesy you show when discussing things with me. I know it can be a sensitive subject.

 

absolutely.

That is hilarious. It's very true. I guess it is something that resonates with a lot of people. It resonates in a lot of different ways with different people.

I can't wait. I'm almost scared to read it because IMO the bar was set very high with the first book, and so I am semi-expecting to be disappointed.

 

Everything about the Ted Haggard affair causes me to be sad. At this point, it is nothing but sadness and tragedy. Think of his wife, his children, and what he must be going through. Think about the thousands of people that are confused and disillusioned because of what has been done. Think of the guy that was involved with him, and the pain he must feel. I find no humor in this, none; only sadness. May God have mercy.