A Southern Baptist convention during the summer of 2007 revealed a desire to see more research in the area of whether homosexuality is caused by genetic factors (as science and research indicates), or personal choice (as the Bible indicates).
They expressed their concern for the issue and pressed to see more research done on this subject. Not, however, to re-examine their own views of homosexuality being a "sin," but rather to see if there is some sort of "cure" we can come up with for it.
That is the single most fucking hypocritical BULLSHIT I have ever heard of.
Now, I just might not have any idea what the hell I'm talking about, but I thought something defined as a "sin" was something that you had to choose to do. For example, you'd be hard-pressed to find a preacher who would consider accidentally killing or harming someone to be a sin, because it wasn't your fault. But homosexuality, because it is said in documents written thousands of years ago, even if it is proven to be NOT a choice, caused SOLELY by genetics, and NOT anyone's fault, will STILL be considered evil.
If sexual orientation is NOT a choice and it IS influenced solely by genetics, rather than "an unhealthy relationship with one's parents," than HOW can it be considered immoral? That's like saying being black is immoral, or being born into a Muslim family is immoral. BEING GAY IS NOT THEIR FAULT. I feel terrible even saying it like that, because it implies that homosexuality is actually a "fault" that needs to be blamed on something.
What bothers me is not that they think homosexuality is wrong. You can think that if you want; I really don't give a shit. What bothers me is the idea that they have clearly stated that even if homosexuality is proven to be genetic, they will STILL not think twice about calling it a sin. And thinking that discriminating against gays is not only okay, but morally justified:
"Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of:
- employment.
- to protect the (presumably heterosexual) "family."
- to protect other social institutions."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sbc.htm
If you look for a cure to the genetic sexual orientation of homosexuality, you are, by definition, agreeing to three things at once:
(1) You are admitting homosexuality is genetic
(2) You believe homosexuality to be immoral
(3) You condone the idea that people should be tortured in hell for eternity because of something that wasn't their fault to begin with
Punishment without reason other than "God says so." Which is something that nobody should EVER question because the Bible is ALWAYS correct on EVERYTHING. There's no POSSIBLE way it could be wrong, even if science says otherwise. Who the hell cares about things we KNOW to be true, let's just focus on the things we can only BELIEVE to be true. Sorry, but I prefer facts over faith.
"Homosexuality constitutes a parasitic relationship with society. Homosexuals consume resources while performing none of the necessary obligations of an organism within a species (i.e. - reproduction). Homosexuality's existence is a threat to the continued existnce of the human race, and must be dealt with appropriately. While I'm unsure of the nature of genetic cures, and whether homosexuality is a genetic condtion at all, it seems to be the most prudent first step. If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail."
That is taken directly from a debate in "Conservapedia," a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. I WISH I was misquoting someone. The person admits they don't really know anything about the subject at hand, they just know that gays are evil and that we should kill them because of an explanation that amounts to "they don't reproduce."
Neither do I, along with the millions of other single guys who wear condoms. Neither do people who are sterile. Or people that choose not to have children. Or people who do not have the financial means to support a child. Should we kill all of these people, too? Only leave people that are actively baby-making?
I don't know what I ever saw in this religion. Actually I do. It probably had something to do with the same thing that our government uses to take away our freedom in the name of national security in an effort to control us better: Fear.
When we fear terrorists, we will run to the government, asking them to use any solution they can. Tap our phones? Search our houses? Kidnap citizens and hold them without any sort of fair trial? Go ahead! Anything to protect us!
What's that? I'm going to hell? No! That scares me! Of COURSE I'll run to Jesus for shelter. What do I have to do? Follow everything the Bible says? Whatever, I just want to go to heaven.
Then I started to think for myself.
Why don't we look for a cure for something that is actually a problem? Like AIDS? Or cancer? Or being a shameless hypocrite? Maybe hypocrisy is genetic.
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
Remember the guy I quoted above who wanted to eradicate homosexuals Hitler-style with rifles? Well there you go, everyone. The Bible says it's okay.
And people actually wonder why I left Christianity.
Whoa there, that was passionate.
I think you avoided the idea that there is a difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions. It is natural to want to hurt someone when angry, yet wrong; just because you feel like doing something, it does not make it right.
That guy on Conservopedia was an idiot, by the way.
Oh, and Christians believe the part of the Bible you quoted from was part of the "lower law", because its in the Old Testament, where the law of Moses was followed. Christians cannot be judged by it.
I'm very aware of what Christianity teaches. Doesn't change the fact that God still condoned it at all. Just because it was "a long time ago" doesn't make it justified. People might not have known about genetics and such as much as we do today, but if God exists, he would have. And yet God still condemns something that you cannot blame anyone for.
Which is something I can only compare to Hitler.
If you think homosexuality is not immoral, that is something I won't argue. But you keep confusing action with genetics. Homosexual action is not the same as homosexual tendency; they have no choice when it comes to being gay, but do have a choice when it comes to homosexual activity. It may be difficult, I know, but that's not what you brought into the discussion--all I'm saying is the way you consider Christianity immoral in this regard makes no sense. Christianity is not condemning people for something they have no control over.
Oh, that the Lower law happened a long time ago is not what justifies it in the eyes of Christians; I'm sure you know that. Viewing Christian beliefs through your non-Christian frame creates an exaggeration of Christain beliefs; you are using your preconceptions to bypass Christian conclusions, which are essential in deciding the morality of Christians.
I know, I know, you are just making a point. Fair enough. But as a Christian, I'd rather you not exaggerte our beliefs, as you did in the blog. When you start to make exaggerated points and believe them too, trouble starts. Thats is all I ask :-)
No. The whole point of this blog entry is this: You cannot claim to base morality based on things that people cannot help.
You're confusing being a homosexual with "having homosexual tendencies." You're arguing that even if someone is born gay, they must resist it their whole life, because loving nobody is better than loving someone of the same sex.
I'm not "exaggerating" anything. If someone is born with (this is the word society uses, so I'll use it here) a sociopathic nature, and does not have the same mental abilities as us to discern from what is societal-benefiting (moral) and what isn't (immoral) -- that is to say, they cannot tell right from wrong -- how can we blame them when they do something like murder people?
We cannot, from a sane mind, call an insane person "immoral." They aren't acting by the same laws of choice as we are.
I used to be a Christian. I was that guy preaching on the streets. Now I'm an atheist. An atheist who still goes to Bible studies weekly. I understand Christianity perfectly; even better than some Christians. Just because you can fill two paragraphs with big words doesn't mean I'm misrepresenting Christian views.
"Christianity is not condemning people for something they have no control over."
We are imperfect beings being expected to exercise perfection. Everyone is born a sinner, and all sinners go to hell. Yes, Christianity does condemn people for things they have no control over. It just doesn't sound as nice when I say it like that. Jesus was tempted too, I know, but he was both God and man. We are just man. Fleshly, sinful, degenerate, helpless humanity. Expected to be 100% perfect or we die and go to Hell.
That Christ offers us an alternative makes no difference. The fact still remains: Christianity believes that God designed a system with a 100% failure rate in which everyone goes to Hell. We don't have the choice not to sin; we were born into imperfection.
Whoa there, that was passionate.
I think you avoided the idea that there is a difference between homosexual feelings and homosexual actions. It is natural to want to hurt someone when angry, yet wrong; just because you feel like doing something, it does not make it right.
That guy on Conservopedia was an idiot, by the way.
Oh, and Christians believe the part of the Bible you quoted from was part of the "lower law", because its in the Old Testament, where the law of Moses was followed. Christians cannot be judged by it.
...between "homosexual feelings and homosexual actions" is in the heads of religious fanatics who think that a life of loneliness and celibacy is a "good" thing. It is really pretty twisted to suggest that a higher power (and I will refrain for the moment of delving into the core fallacy of religious belief, which is of course the baseless argument for the existences of supernatural boogems) would create a human being simply to suffer a life of denial and estrangement. Frankly, the only difference between the guy on Conservopedia and you is that he was just a little bit more blunt in the way he expressed his opinion. The idiocy of those opinions are however the same.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
We both posted the same thing at the same time.
Blackout: "It is really pretty twisted to suggest that a higher power would create a human being simply to suffer a life of denial and estrangement."
Me: "You're confusing being a homosexual with 'having homosexual tendencies.' You're arguing that even if someone is born gay, they must resist it their whole life, because loving nobody is better than loving someone of the same sex."
Go us!
Reading the first paragraph of your blog, I was under the impression that this convention wanted research into homosexual genetics to DISprove the existence of the "gay gene," which I believe does not exist. I am a huge proponent of "nurture over nature," and think that homosexuality is not caused by genetics. Besides, what evolutionary benefit would come from such a gene? I'm not condemning homosexuality, but since homosexuals do not reproduce, why would us humans, or any other animal, evolve a gene that actually caused them to be unable to reproduce? It's counterproductive to the success of a species; that success is measured by a species' ability to survive, adapt, and expand through reproduction.
However, I don't think that homosexuality is fully a choice, either. I know that my view won't be well received, since it's not politically correct (remember, I never care for that PC stuff, but that's for another blog), but I've always seen homosexuality as a psychological phenomenom, one which may be reversible or "treatable." There are "ex-gays" in the world who were "changed" (I'll avoid the word "cured") through family support, self reflection, and even therapy.
Besides, what evolutionary benefit would come from such a gene?
The same evolutionary benefit every other genetic mutation has been for - the potential advance of the species. Genes mutate all the time. Generally speaking, such mutations only persist into normalcy because they benefit the species and get passed on. However, thanks to technology allowing us to not be prone to nature, things like harsh weather and predators, we've essentially stopped our own evolution by eliminating natural selection.
There are also theories that homosexuality is a form of population control. Fewer people that can reproduce equals fewer members of the next generation and more chances that the population would stop growing.
There's also the fact that many homosexual couples (animal and human alike) become adoptive parents, fulfilling a very important role in the species society if allowed to do so.
There are "ex-gays" in the world who were "changed" (I'll avoid the word "cured") through family support, self reflection, and even therapy.
The success rate is less than one half of one percent. There may be people that were changed, but it amounts to about 100 people. The other million or so were either unchanged or turned to celibacy.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Good point about human beings triumphing over genetics... if the "gay gene" actually was real, it would probably owe its existence to an evolutionary accident. Also, this would imply that such a gene was a relatively recent addition to the human genome.
As for the population control theory, I'm more skeptical of that. As well as gay animals- I've never heard of such a thing. I know that many animals partake in activities which in human society may be deemed homosexual, but no animal leads a homosexual lifestyle, or chooses mates of the same sex under normal circumstances. I have heard that animals under stress or in an environment devoid of the opposite sex (such as in zoos) may start "acting homosexually" (for lack of a better phrase).
While the "population control" theory is not widely used or accepted and is therefore not often heard of, gay animals are very, very common.
Roy and Silo, for instance, who have refused any females.
Or Wendell and Cass.
It's also common among other animals, including Black Swans.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Evolution doesn't always produce genes that are "beneficial." What benefit is there for different individuals of a species to have different color eyes? Humans have blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes, green eyes, black eyes... why? Since I can't figure out the reason, I'm going to conclude that the gene that gives people different colors for eyes doesn't exist.
When wild animals experiment with homosexuality, were they just not raised right by their parents? Did their daddy not love them enough? Do they just have a psychological disorder?
You have to remember that the fact that you don't understand something has no relevance to its meaning, existence, or truth.
And about being changed: Suppose you're a smoker your whole life, and you try and try and try and can't quit because you're physically addicted to it. Then your mother, who is very close to you, dies of lung cancer due to the same addiction. Suddenly, because of this deeply emotional event, you quit cold turkey and never have a craving.
Same thing happens with religious experiences. When someone "finds Jesus," it's the same type of event. Only I'd argue that it's completely not real, and all inside your head, but that doesn't stop your brain from believing that it's real. You suddenly have the willpower to do something you couldn't normally do. Like completely fool yourself into believing that you're no longer gay because God changed you.
Here is a great link that discusses the scientific theories surrounding the evolutionary origins of homosexuality...
Homosexuality: A Paradox of Evolution
But on a practical level, what does it really matter if gay people are they way they are because of their biology, or because of their choices? Generally speaking, no one owes you any explanation or justification for the path that they take to achieve happiness in their own lives. In this country (the U.S.A.) at least, the freedom to pursue one's own happiness is a cornerstone of American socio-political philosophy, and is considered to be a fundamental right. And, fundamental rights in this country are afforded to citizens regardless of their personal characteristics, including both their biological AND ideological identities. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)...
We protect the rights of citizens to be free from discrimination because of their identity whether that discrimination is based either on a condition of biology (such as race) or on a condition of pure choice (such as religion). Thus and on a practical level, the question of "nature vs. nurture" is really pretty pointless.
On an intellectual level, the question IS relevant, but I contend that the "research" being conducted at the direction of the Souther Baptist Convention is anything BUT intellectual. All that they are REALLY looking for is a new way to justify their discriminatory positions...one that satisfies a somewhat more sophisticated membership that is more scientifically savvy, and less likely to accept the 2000+ year old fallacies without question.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I'd argue that their research is much, much less than intellectual. Even counter-productive to their efforts. If they prove that homosexuality can be cured by genetic engineering, then haven't they proved that homosexuality is genetic?
I fully agree with the other point, as well. I don't think homosexuality is entirely 100% choice or entirely 100% genetic. It's not something that can be broken down and simplified to hell like everyone seems to want to do.
Why am I an atheist? Was that a choice? Not really; I can't help that I don't believe in God. I can't wake up tomorrow and decide to believe in God, because I am convinced God isn't real.
Is it genetics? Some of my genes probably gave me a predisposition towards an interest in philosophical knowledge, thus thrusting me into religion and subsequently atheism. That doesn't mean my genetics caused anything.
Could someone tell me where in the bible it says that being gay is a personal choice?
The one verse that I know relating to homosexuality is this one..
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
Now, Leviticus was written in a place and a time that was very different from our own obviously. The rules in Leviticus are numerous, one even says you cant wear garments that have a blend of more than one materials. So why do CERTAIN sects of Christians and Jews choose to pick up on certain verses and rules and leave other ones as unimportant?
Also, I think it is important to keep your brain functioning as you read the bible, and read it in its historical context. Leviticus was written for a very small and threatened population of people. Why are there some of the rules there are? Why would it be so awful for a man to sleep with a man? Perhaps the priests that wrote this book wanted the population to continue growing and thus made the people believe it was wrong to act on homesexual urges if they existed.
I belive in a creator and that Jesus is my path to this creator and praying to God and Jesus brings me peace and joy. I find i can identify with Jesus in some ways and strive to be like him because he was such an incredible person and healer and friend as well as having an amazing connection to the divine.
I dont believe everything in the bible is fact, but not fallacy either. The divine played a big role in the creation of the bible, but people ultimately wrote it down, and I do believe God was moving among the people and parts of the bible are stories and metaphors about the peoples experiences with God.
The last thing I think God and Jesus would want is for the bible to be used as an excuse to hate gay people. God is Love, not hate....I think the greatest commandment was to love , love God, yourself and your neighbour as yourself
Your argument basically consists of "I believe that things in the Bible might not apply for today."
Just because you believe this doesn't mean that all of mainstream Christianity does. It's not even an exaggeration that most of Christianity does not think that homosexuality falls within the bounds of "morality," that is, that it is wrong. For plenty of Christian groups, me claiming that they think that it is wrong is to say the least.
You're making a general argument against the absolute literal interpretation of biblical writings and teachings (some of them, anyway). This blog is about how trying to find a cure for homosexuality in the name of Jesus is complete, 100% hypocrisy.
The whole blog is summed up in this:
If you look for a cure to the genetic sexual orientation of homosexuality, you are, by definition, agreeing to three things at once:
(1) You are admitting homosexuality is genetic
(2) You believe homosexuality to be immoral
(3) You condone the idea that people should be tortured in hell for eternity because of something that wasn't their fault to begin with
If the Bible indicates that homosexuality is not a choice, and is genetic (as you're implying), then it simultaneously condemns them to be tortured for eternity in Hell for simply acting on their natural urges their genetics gave them. Which not only means that the Christian groups I was talking about in my blog are hypocrites, but the entire homosexuality issue in the Bible is hypocritical.
I am just trying to say that not all Christians read the bible "literally" throughout and that I dont think God would want it used as a reason to hate on different groups of people
Who cares if it is genetic or personal choice....gay people do not need to be cured in my opinion
That's the problem, though, a very large, and very vocal, majority of the Christian church does read the Bible "literally" and does use it to condemn and hate gay people.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Well then this blog is not aimed at you. It's aimed at the people who do believe that homosexuality is something that needs to be... "cured." Or exterminated.
people who consider homosexuality to be a sin, it cannot possibly be genetic, because that would mean God made a flawed creation. If God created something predisposed to sin, it would offer quite a problem for many.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse
That's the same line of "reasoning" that led the church to torture, imprison and kill scientists who dared to say that the earth was round instead of flat, and that it circled around the sun instead of sitting at a fixed point in the center of the universe.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
to many people, it is easier to hold to a belief stringently than to actually do anything to work toward that belief. It is to easy to call yourself a "Christian" and use that as an excuse to discriminate or as a reason for ignorance. What's hard is to actually live up to Christian doctrine -loving your neighbor, helping the poor, or caring for the sick is hard work. It's easier to just attack those who are different from you.
"How can we win where fools can be kings" Muse