Rev. Kent Philpott was a key player in the birth of the ex-gay movement.
In the mid 70’s, there was a growing movement to recognize the civil rights of gay men and women. There were challenges to sodomy laws, pride celebrations, and open politicians. Even the way in which gay persons were percieved changed; “Gay” came to be an adjective of what someone was rather than the older term “a homosexual” which suggested what someone did.
It was in this time and place of transition, around 1973 in the San Francisco bay area, that a preacher, Philpott, first decided to bring together gay people who had conflict with their religious upbringing into a support group for overcoming their shared “affliction”. The outgrowth of this meeting became Love In Action which was probably the first ex-gay ministry. (Later LIA joined with EXIT, Outpost, EAGLE, Metanoia and other new ex-gay groups springing up around the country in what eventually became Exodus.)
In 1975, Philpott took the stories of participants in his group and published The Third Sex?: Six Homosexuals Tell Their Stories, the first ex-gay testimonials. As with many such testimonials, ultimately none of the six had actually become heterosexuals. However, the readers across the nation did not know that and this book caught the attention of Christians seeking a solution to the “homosexual problem”.
One of Philpott’s ex-gays – known in the book as “Ted” – was John Evans. John later wrote an article describing his early involvement and ultimate disillusion.
On May 5, 1979, I, along with the three women in the book, sent a notarized letter to Logos International, the publisher of The Third Sex? The letter informs them that the claims in the book were 100% false. We demanded that he stop publishing the book immediately.
As is the usual response to former ex-gays, their objections were ignored and the book continued to be printed and distributed.
As time went by, Philpott played a lesser role in LIA and gradually disappeared from any form of leadership in the ex-gay movement.
Now, however, we find that he is ready to return – at least in some limited capacity. According to the Marin Independent Journal, Philpott’s church, Miller Avenue Baptist Church in Mill Valley, CA, is starting a Homosexuals Anonymous program.
It is interesting that Philpott’s church is selecting HA rather than an Exodus affiliation, but I hesitate to read too much into that choice.
There is a considerable difference, I believe, between the two philosophies of these two different organizations.
I’ve been through both programs, and what I found was the Exodus program was more about identity reassignment while the HA program was more about behavior modfication. (At least back in the 80’s)
Based off the AA model, HA creates a paradox within the individual attending. You acknowledge you’re a homosexual, but then you must learn to contain your gayness and make yourself accountable. Now for alcoholism, this is a good thing. Alcoholism is obviously a destructive behavior and remains mostly a social pressure and an external temptation. Identity as being an alcoholic is always reinforced and remains there for the life of the participant. You’re taught that once you’re an alcoholic you’re always an alcoholic. At any moment you could fall off the wagon.
What is being “judged” within AA is that Alocholism is obviously “bad” and causes no benefits for the person trapped within this issue. Frankly, I agree. What are the benefits of being really, really drunk? A rotten liver? Car crashes? Domestic violence?
HA participants however, like myself, rapidly found that the identity issue was the root problem. Not “all” homosexuals were unhappy or hurting themselves. There was obvious evidence that some people could be happy, productive citizens and be gay too. Some actually got healthier acknowledging who they were rather than trying to contain it.
HA has to pass judgement on Homosexuality as being a social “wrong” in order for it to be effective. The problem is, if you strip out religion from the picture, there really is no reason why being gay is determental to one’s health. STD’s and social drug addicition are not caused by being gay, they are caused due to the pressures of trying to find acceptence and love in a world that hates us.
Thus on one hand we we’re blurting aloud that we were homosexuals, but we could do nothing with it. The big problem there is, the people typically leading HA groups had no real understanding about what “identity” is and continued to “treat” homosexuality much in the same way alcoholics treat alcohol. They’re just not the same.
Like most alcoholics, the HA members would continue to constantly reinforce, “Hello I’m Brian and I’m a homosexual” while constantly trying not to act on it. It was hell. Ultimately, the only thing that kept us in check was the community, not a change in who we were…and thus a co dependance between the group and the participant was born. The very dynamic you’ll find in every HA group out there. Its not a bad thing for those who are really weak…but ulimately HA doesn’t really teach self acceptence at all.
HA acknowledges identity and side steps the issue, while Exodus (at least back then) attempts to attack the identity question up front. I generally found the Exodus programs more true to the “cause” but I found the means in which they attempted to change identity to be immoral. Identity modification was based on harsh behaviorial modification and a healthy does of shame, guilt and fear within religion.
I will give one thing to HA. The director that was running it didn’t treat homosexuality with as much contempt as the exodus group did.
Nowhere is the tortured attempt to adapt AA principles to sexual issues more humorously obvious than in what has to be done to the 12th step. which would otherwise encourage people trying to avoid particular sexual situations to nevertheless practice these principles in all our affairs.
Ye gods…
it’s an addiction!
it’s a disorder!
it’s an emotional affliction!
it still belongs in the DSM!
I fully respect the experience from you who posted here.
Can’t argue with you whatsoever.
But whenever anyone ex gay or someone defends the ex gay industry, the diagnosis, methods and results….
are all over the place and ineffective because it’s all over the place.
As said here: without the religious belief, there is no necessity for changing really.
And emotional exhaustion is inevitable when trying to explain and justify yourself to an industry that refuses to acknowlege you legitimately exist.
With that exhaustion comes vulnerability to their claims…and disciplines.
I was reading an article in the NYTimes about the researcher involved in the “Lorenzo’s Oil” story.
And the conflicts he had within the research community.
He is quoted as saying the delicacy of dealing with the desparate.
He had to be “cautious about spreading false hope, and to spend the bulk of research effort on collecting evidence, not anecdotes”.
One can understand the desparation of a parent when faced with a genetic disease that robs it’s victims of physical function and eventually their lives.
When one engages the ex gay industry, they chronically lace their motive with doom and urgency…where such are not only in evidence, but are not exclusive to a person who is gay.
There ARE results to substance addiction, even if it’s dopamine.
There are results to the mentally ill and sociopathic.
And their activity is a traditional response to homosexuality (which has produced a generation of the ‘brokeness’, they often speak of).
But rather than saying their agenda is to ‘break’ a gay person.
They claim that being gay is being broken.
But the truth is, the ex gay industry is also a ‘gay breaking’ industry.
As a straight outsider who has tried to offer a non biased examination of their activity and method…I was refused.
Indeed, most of our information comes from those like yourselves who went through their program.
Professional peers, reporters and observers…are not welcome.
Yet, they advertize that they have all the answers, can liberate and are very effective in their results.
But the fact remains, they generate their own industry by being socially and politically active against laws and support to keep gay people FROM being broken or compromised in any other way.
They don’t allow transparency of their activity and they aren’t subject to the Federal Trade Commission regarding their claims,materials, standards and practices.
They are not a church, nor are they a school.
So the purpose of their existence is pretty much without merit for many reasons.
I first came to this site because I wasn’t getting any help from LIA/Exodus/or Desert Stream or Living Waters…or NARTH.
I don’t think it’s wrong to demand some EVIDENCE, not anecdotes from these groups.
I don’t think it’s wrong to have a federal commission examine what they do and the claims they make…for a profit.
And…I don’t think it’s wrong to have the world demand EXACTLY why their existence is necessary…and have stronger proof that this singular characteristic…exclusively, has the results they claim.
Of course they couldn’t do it.
But so far, it doesn’t seem that the government and powerful peer boards have yet demanded that this of them.
Nor will they.
I don’t think its realistic to expect the government to force ministries like Exodus to report their success rate because success is a subjective matter of opinion here. What is success? Behavioral modification or true hetrosexual mental, emotional and identity reversion. Personally, I would say “complete reversion” should be the true end result. The problem is, that’s completely unrealistic and only now are groups like HA and Exodus realizing this.
Its better for groups like Exodus to keep their numbers unknown because ultimately its not a number that keeps them in business. Anytime a success rate is “fixed” they then become accountable. Too low of a number and they’re accused it doesn’t work. To high of a number and they risk being sued when it doesn’t happen. (Or they really have to prove success) This is why the 30-50% success rate claim works so well. Its nice and “grey”. Rather odd for a group of individuals who insist on such ridged black and white interpretations of scripture.
The problem is, Exodus and Narth want the public to have the “perception” of objective results through questionable “subjective” means. If there was a method to produce quantifiable “objective” and “consistant” results, the process would only reinforce the exact position they don’t want to ultimately prove…that homosexuality has a viable root or genetic cause.
Therefore, imo, ambiguity and deliberate uncertainty is desired in order to shift the weight of failure back onto the struggling ex-gay rather than the ex-gay organization itself. Isn’t it easier to say:
“John Smith failed the program because he didn’t try hard enough.”
or
“John Smith faith wasn’t strong enough.”
These kinds of statements energizes the entire guilt and shame structure of the group and thus trapping the ex-gay participant in a cycle of perpetual hell and removing the “blame” of failure off the ex-gay organization.
Brian J.
Thank you for sharing your experiences with HA.
I think they have made some changes since you participated, especially in their initial introductions. The FAQ from their website now states:
Personally, I think that all sounds rather irrational. But, what do I know… I’m not a “dignified person”.
If H.A. believes that there are no such things as homosexuals, wouldn’t a name change be in order?
Thanks for the update. Glad to hear that they’ve made some changes since 1987. The program then was horrible. It seems however that they’ve taken the side stepping one step further.
Judging by what you’ve posted, A.A. and H.A. shouldn’t even be compared to one another anymore. Its certainly not how I remember it. IMO, H.A. requires a completely different name rather than piggy backing on the A.A. “bandwagon”. The entire core teachings of A.A. focus on accepting the one thing that most alcoholics refuse to acknowledge in the first place.
I’m an alcoholic, and I have a problem.
That admission is what energizes the entire A.A. corrective healing process. H.A. seems to skirt that issue and says, “You’ve never been a homosexual, you’re just a confused heterosexual and we’re here to help.” Imagine telling a drunkard, you don’t really have a problem with alcohol, you just have alcoholic consumption disorder. Oh and that buzz you’re feeling?…That doesn’t really exist because you’re really sober.
Lets examine this statement:
“It is the paradox of Homosexuals Anonymous that people who became members discover in time that by God’s grace they are not what they thought they were. The discovery of this grace ensures their restoration as dignified people.”
This statement does the following:
1. Reinforces the position of the member being a victim. To say that you’re “not what you thought you were” suggests that somewhere you’ve been lied to or deceived. Where did this lie come from? The media, socieity, the devil, sin, poor judgement, personal choice, or whatever. The problem is, you’re removing the member’s ability to stand up for himself and be accountable for his actions. The victim mentality is paramount to appeasing the ego’s “story” and soon, “the story” becomes that person’s entire identity.
2. Makes a moral judgement call. If Heterosexuals are “dignified” people then homosexuals obviously are not. The problem is, that’s stereotyping all homosexuals into a single catagory and not all homosexuals “act” the same. To be anything but a heterosexual is wrong. When combined with the “victim mentality”, the member is placed in a situation that reinforces his “bad” decision making abilities. Not only were you “lied” to, but you obviously can’t make sound decisions. Here, let us think for you.
3. Makes grand promises. The language, “ensures” places false hope on the member and puts him back into that cycle of, “if I only try hard enough, I’ll be healed.” The bird with the broken wing syndrome is very popular in Ex-gay circles. Problems start to occur when the bird starts to realize that he may never be able to fly again. Then what? Either he runs back to his story driven identity (which the ego loves), or he starts to question.
The one thing I can somewhat agree with Elizabeth Moberly on is that homosexuality is a “healing” process. The question though is what is it truly healing? Moberly suggests that its healing the relationship between the child and the parent of the same sex. Well, I take one step further and sexuality in general, whether it be homsexual or heterosexual is the method in which our relationship to God and to ourselves is fully understood. If God wants to use homosexuality in a persons life to better relate to that “child”, then who are we to step in and interfere with that process.
Hi. My name is Aaron, and I am a homosexual addict. I would walk the streets looking for a score. Maybe a gay snort, or some queer H. Getting homosexuals into the needle was hard, and they would not go down easily. As time went on, I realized that I needed more homosexuals to function. I would spend so much time in alleys trying to find more homos. I even overdosed on queers once–made me sick. I was vomiting pride flags and sweating parades. In the end, I am free. I don’t need any homosexuals anymore to survive.
Ultimately, these groups do not keep or publish success statistics or evidence of any kind is two fold:
1) Everyone knows that if they did, they would be demonstrated to be utter failures. The reason for their existence would be called into question, which leads us to…
2) The main reason the groups exist is to give credence to the religio-political cause of denying LGBT persons full civil rights. As long as these religio-political groups can point to the unverifiable success of ex-gay movements, they can harness public support for their bigoted cause, because change is [allegedly] possible.
The moment the public sees that the emperor has no clothes, well… you can figure what that would portend for the fundraising, the control, the power, the very existence of the religio-political ex-gay industry.
The main reason the groups exist is to give credence to the religio-political cause of denying LGBT persons full civil rights. As long as these religio-political groups can point to the unverifiable success of ex-gay movements, they can harness public support for their bigoted cause, because change is [allegedly] possible.
Let’s be careful to distinguish between the political activist overgroup, Exodus, and the individual ministries and participants.
While I do believe that Exodus’ leadership sees their primary purpose as an anti-gay lobby, I think that many of the local ministries are sincere and think that they are helping people. Of course, we don’t hear about them because they don’t spend their days lying to legislators.
If Exodus stopped being political activists, I suspect that their funding and their visibility would be significantly diminished. But the ministries would still try and help people who have same-sex attractions and wish that they did not.
But the ministries would still try and help people who have same-sex attractions and wish that they did not.
For all that we have said here, I still wish that part of this “help” included the understanding that being gay and living their lives accordingly is not going to send them to hell. These ministries have the power to do that in most cases.
And yes, I understand that there are some for whom this leap will never materialize, but I can still wish for it.
I’m against homosexual & lesbian activities 4 reasons unrelated 2 Rev.Philpott, but I agree with hm. VD is high among any who r promicous. Rev. Philpott doesn’t hate homosexuals-he wants them 2 stop engaging in their sexual activities. It’s not hating pot users 2 b against pot use. The Bible & Koran forbid homosexual & lesbian activities & u r not a good Christian if u engage in sexual activities which r verboten.
Even if sexual proclivity doesn’t change, the sexual activities must b prevented or we must help people quit if they’ve started. I’m n/i in whether there’s an inborn cause 2 engage in these sexual behaviors, just as I’m n/i in whether pot smokers or talented but abrasive & mean musicians like Ozzy Osbourn r born that way. I wouldn’t want my kids 2 engage in homosexual behaviors just as I wouldn’t want my kids 2 use drugs or turn out like the Osbourns.
As I noted in another post, we don’t judge people 4 their proclivity, we r against the behavior. That’s what Rev. Phlilpot is against & 2 him, ending homosexual & lesbian activities is the same as ending pot use.
Now I know the predictable replies. U will write about how homosexuals didn’t choose their feelings, but I’m n/i in that-it’s about ending the sexual behaviors, even if the proclivity or feelings 2 engage in the behaviors doesn’t change. U will predictably write that my writing is childish & that it’s not comparable 2 pot use & Osbourn behavior, but I don’t c it that way.
Ok, Ilikesnow, I l’ll say it: ur writing is childish and being gay is not comparable 2 pot use, it’s only comparable 2 being str8. I’m a good Christian and don’t believe that my “activities” r verboten. Good Christians (those saved by God’s grace) sometimes disagree on what the Bible teaches — or r good Christians only those who agree with u?
ilikesnow: If you know how “we” are going to respond, why did you post in the first place? My guess is you’re reacting out of your ego. I put a lot of emphasis on the entire “ego” thing because I find it to be source of a lot of conflict in this world. The ego always desires to be “superior” or “right” in some shape or form in order to reinforce its survival function in human consciousness. The rise of fundamentalism is proof that more and more people are acting out of the ego rather than some form of higher consciousness.
The problem with egoistic thinking like yours is, its usually self centered. The ego never really has the opportunity to understand the trials and tribulations of other people because the ego really doesn’t care about anyone outside of itself. As long as it thinks its right or superior, it feels safe. What you should try to do is look beyond yourself.
Think for just a minute. Your analogy of comparing homosexuality to pot use is an insult to everyone struggling with homosexual desires. You’ve effectively summarized the gay man’s struggle with personal identity, attractions, love, purpose, shame, guilt, society’s pressures, spiritual well being, and all of his internal conflict with pot smoking. A little unfair of a comparison don’t you think?
The mistake you’re making is you’re objectifying a person’s sense of being with a particular action. Not only does this dehumanize the homosexual but it gives people the license to judge without knowing the entire story. Imagine saying to a person with tourette’s syndrome that they’re evil because they’re socially disruptive or spout profanities. I suppose in your world, the person with epilepsy is demon possessed too?
Every gay man I know struggles with massive internal decision making processes in order to understand what the hell is going on inside of him. You however, have not done the work. For you, heterosexuality is the norm. You’ve never once had to try and understand why you are straight. The result is an insensitivity to the gay man’s plight and its easier for you to simply look at a person’s actions and say “see…look how bad that person is.”
You must be careful not to immediately assume you know what’s automatically right or wrong for an individual. The scriptures are there to help us understand moral absolutes but lets remember that we are not here to say or do things that causes another brother to stumble. I believe it was Paul who was shown the vision on the roof top of a sheet containing a number of prohibited foods. God then responded, “don’t call anything I’ve made unclean”. Homosexuality for you is obviously unclean and participating in it for you would obviously be sinful. But is it sinful for the man that is homosexualy oriented? That’s the big question.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one that believes that there are no moral absolutes. I think there are. But unless we’re allowed to use the grey matter that God gave us to look at circumstances in relationship to scriptures we’re nothing more than mindless puppets fullfiling a role. Might as well convert to Calvinism now and believe in predesitination.
You tell ’em Brian J and Michael!
This what I mean that as a heterosexual woman, I am in NO place…and no heterosexual is, to say such a thing as ilikesnow just said.
It does smack of the supremacist’s dictum that homosexuality is all bad.
Basing it on a Scriptural observation and not real life.
Yeah, homosexuality is unnatural for a heterosexual, but not for a homosexual.
It’s unnatural for me to use my right hand. Even though most of all society’s structural organization is around right handedness, it doesn’t make right handedness supremely correct, nor my left handedness wrong.
However, awkwardness and lack of skill in such a world is to be expected where no room for left handed accomodation is common.
Fitting a square peg into a round hole, isn’t the flaw of the peg.
But the hand that’s guiding it where it doesn’t belong.
Left handers are not flawed or unskilled people, we’re just different.
That’s a simpler measure of something else that’s similar, and at one time was irrationally unaccepted and a lot of people’s skill was damaged from being forced to be right handed.
However, it’s no less illogical or reasonable to see homosexuality as such a feature as well.
Different, but normal and acceptable.
It’s all the other baggage, that being gay is wrong, or a flaw, or damage to a heterosexual or some other negative and undesirable connotation does speak to ignorance and no will to see it any other way.
Prejudice is defined by resistance to ALL evidence that would eliminate that prejudice.
Mores the point, unlike preventing someone from become addicted to pot…
what’s the use, positive outcome or results that justify keeping someone from being gay?
So, as far as anyone can see-there is no real need to keep people from being gay, and no reason a person shouldn’t be gay, and no necessity to NOT have gay people in the world.
Those that see no ‘purpose’ to homosexuality, don’t understand there is no ‘purpose’ to heterosexual supremacist principles, and empirical evidence they do much, much more harm with it.
Hmmm…I was just thinking a little more on the prejudice bit.
It’s true, it is about resistance of evidence contrary to beliefs and prejudice.
Why would someone, who comes from a religion that’s supposed to be bound by compassion as well as truth, be resistant to facts and reason?
I have often said, that the once believed issues that gay people were dysfuntional or incapable of the same qualities and competence as straight people were not true, that it would be good news to those less informed.
Or fearful of gay people.
That this industry really isn’t in the business of allowing free choice is what disturbs me.
They target young people just beginning to learn about their orientation and hopefully adjust to it in a healthy way.
They make the parents the agents of this so that the child HAS no other options to resist or do anything BUT the bidding of the parents.
Often under some kind of threat or coercion.
I don’t think such ministry (ex gay)should be allowed to target anyone under 18 whatsoever.
These industries keep confirming that their aim is gentle, and appropriate.
But not really.
And again, theirs is a traditional response, that’s hurt more people than it’s helped.
And the reasons why you have all mentioned.
I can’t argue with you, nor disagree.
But I have long lost patience with those who try to justify what they think of gay people and how they treat them because of their religion.
But I know it’s not consistently applied in more important arenas, like the political one.
If we could point to consistency, and therefore trust such people with our civil lives, that would be one thing.
But we have learned all too well, that there is much abuse of that majority power in all areas of life.
And religious people are not now, nor have ever been entitled to do so.
ilikesnow-> The Bible and the Koran agree on several things, including the requirement that those who stray from the faith should be killed. As Sam Harris is fond of quoting:
I never cease to be amazed by hundred-percenters who skip over the egregious explicit requirements only to concentrate on the rather fuzzy ones that just happen to support their own homophobia.
Isn’t ecumenism a far greater threat than homosexuality?
PBCliberal
You’ve tapped into my next line of thinking.
Homosexuality is viewed by different cultures in different ways. This is a result of the prevelent worldview that pervades each individual society. There are many worldviews, but I’ll just boil it down to two.
Theism vs Monism.
Theist religions like Christianity, Islam and Judiasm have always had more prohibitive outlooks on homosexuality as opposed to the Monist style relgions like Hinduism, Buddhism, New Age and a number of eastern practices. The reason for this is how the theist and the monist perceive the world around them. To the theist, distinction and separation is crucial to understanding the world while the monist tends to work towards removing distinction and integrating all things into a common continuum.
Theist: God/Man, Good/Evil, Male/Female, Matter/Spirt
Monist: Relativity (Man is a part of God/God is part of man), fewer absolutes (if any), no gender, matter and energy are the same but in different forms.
When a Christian observes homosexuality in action, he/she sees a blurring in the binary distinction of gender. This distinction, counters the rules of solo scriptura (the bible) and unfortunately gets magnfied through the phenomenon of egoistic and fundamentalistic thinking. As a result, the prevailing fear of the Christian theist is if the distinction between gender is removed, the distinction between other absolutes will be removed. Thus homosexuality is then seen as tool of the devil to introduce ambiguity and morbid uncertainty into theistic beliefs.
If you look at the more monistic religions, particularly the New Age ones, we see examples of beliefs proclaiming that Man is God and there is no such thing as right and wrong. This petrifies the Christian and alarm bells start ringing.
This grey mess, the fundie/theist believes, will ultimately result in the destruction of society and the order in which civilization is built upon.
Thus what ultimately is threatened here? The ego. Particularly the group ego of Christiantity as a whole. What does the ego do best? It tries to protect itself from destruction and death. (Death that they believe comes through acceptance of homosexuality). Add in the fact that “no life” is produced in a homosexual union and it only proves the point even further to them.
The only way that homosexuality can integrate itself into Christianity is to take a step of faith and believe that God actually created gay men and women for a purpose. From there, we have to make the next logical assumption and believe that if God created gay men and women, then how could he possibily deny them the ability to love one another.
The most common rebuttle from the Christian side is that homosexuality is a bi-product or consequence of living in a sinful world and Christians will stand fast in saying that homosexuality must be a choice and must be caused by environmental means. Any deviation from that line of thinking means a deconstruction of their beliefs on the primal level.
Lazy writing and even lazier thinking from ilikesnow.
Fitting a square peg into a round hole, isn’t the flaw of the peg.
But the hand that’s guiding it where it doesn’t belong.
Thanks Regan. I just may borrow that some time.
Brian J:
I think you’re onto something here in the grand scheme of things. Your conclusion:
This is a common thread not only in theist extremism but in political extremism as well. Communist nations have classicly excused homosexuality as a product of bourgeois society, which would disappear when socialism was fully in force.
Looking at the grand scheme of things is critical to truly understanding the “why” of social and religious intolerance to homosexuality. Without it, the petty squabbling of who’s right and who’s wrong will continue thanks to the ego driven natures of those groups posing the arguments. Otherwise its just a pushing match for moral superiority.
The next problem, of course, is to determine if and how much religion should influence the lives of those who do not adhere to that particular faith system. Philosophy and religion are obviously critical in the establishment of ethics and morality thus forming the foundation of society. Government can not exist without them…however, when the issue of civil rights comes into play, its amazing how things get thrown out in the name of “knowing God”.
Well, scientific research has given us conclusions enough to see that nature isn’t so binary or absolute.
Experience takes care of the rest.
As you say Brian J, the theist conclusion is that since homosexuality isn’t defined by gender or gender assigned sexuality, then it MUST be based on sin and something bad.
So if you ask a theist simple ‘why’?
They will refer to the text, instead of all the OTHER texts.
They can’t even see the Torah or Koran as a foundation, but not the house.
Foundations may remain, but the house can keep being rebuilt, remodeled and allowed to change colors with time.
And no one lives IN the foundation…but in the house where the warmth, food, friendliness and family are.
Those texts were the beginning, not the middle and end.
We’re still writing the human story, over and over and over again.
I’m frustrated that when it comes to gay life, it’s as if there is only that basic foundational statement and nothing new has assured us of the place of gay folks in our lives and beyond.
And since our freedom is to choose which faith we follow and to what degree, such freedom must be accorded to LEARN about and coexist with gay people.
To live in such fear of even that, there really is no excuse.
There are more and more opportunities to see that gay folks have helped build the house and seek peaceful coexistence in it.
But we’re faced with religious people who don’t want the ‘peaceful coexistent’.
Again, let them just try and explain why.
Would it be fair to expect that their use of religious text is for a reference to the blue print….and not a shield to shy away from their responsibility to the entire house?
Well now you’re talking about questioning the very sovereignty of God. Something most christians will never debate…even the most liberal. Christianity is a hierarchial religion. Your simple of question of “why” is easily answered with “Because God said so” and who are we to question God?
The problem with that mentality is why would God go through all of the trouble to create the human race only to cripple them in their ability to evolve, grow and understand? We don’t desire that for our children, why would God desire that in His? As His creation, we cannot share in the actual divine essence of God (ie become God), but we can become more like Him by developing His attributes within us. We share in His likeness, but we can never actually become Him because the creation is always subordinate to the creator. (A theist’s position)
I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian and we believe in the process of theosis. Theosis is the ever present belief in the growth of the believer to become more God-like. God became man so we can become like God. Protestants have a similar concept called santification. However, just how far does theosis go? I would like to think all the way up to the point of becoming so much like God that we’re nearly indistinguishable. Our growth continues throughout all eternity. But unlike the monist, I don’t believe we blend back into the “force” or the “circle of life” after death and our individuality is reabsorbed or lost…rather, I believe God created all of us for our diversity in order to satisfy His own curiousity and desire for love. To suggest this implies that God “needs” us, but I believe its not in such a way that suggest dependence or that he’s something less than omnipentent, but rather humanity is destined to be the very “soulmate” of God. Its a love affair my friends…and although I can not claim to know the exact reason for why God created us, I can only assume that He simply wanted some company. 🙂
Thank u 4 ur thoughts but I’m not Christian nor am I Muslim. I was born in the land of KamaSutra, yet India as of 2004 has laws against H&L activities. Dr. Chris Kempling victimized in Canada because of having the boldness 2 write about the harms of h&l behaviors mentioned that there r Hindus & Sikhs who r against homosexual behaviors, so 1 can b against homosexual behaviors 4 reasons unrela8 2 religion. Rev. Philpot brings up the fact that Christianity like Islam says these sexual behaviors r verboten & there r many things in religions which r verboten.
I used 2 b liberal but I’m now a born again Conservative on the topic of homosexuality & believe that even if sexual orientation doesn’t change, it’s best to prevent h&l behaviors & I’m also against sodomy & oral sex. When I was young, I used 2 read Hustler magazine & go 2 XXX theaters back in the late 1980s. I don’t understand y they show lesbian sex scenes in porno movies. Porn stars have 2 take VD shots because they have sex with many.
Rev. Philpot is against pornography, oral sex & sodomy & Rev. Philpot is also against Viagra & vasectomies. Rev. Philpot is a good Reverend because he is against these behaviors. I don’t believe old people should b allowed 2 have a sex life & no1 over 45 years old should b allowed 2 have sex unless it’s procreational. If homosexuals r impotent then they can’t have sex anymore & Rev. Philpot would agree with that. Impotence is good 4 them.
There’s only 1 sexual behavior which is good & all else is verboten. I agree with Rev. Philpot that it’s either straight orthodox sex or no sex. Celibacy is good 4 homosexuals & lesbians. If a man is performing oral sex & sodomy on a woman, than they both r engaging in bad sexual activities.
Finally, I’ve already mentioned that a main reason I’m now against h&l behaviors & side with Rev. Philpot is because homosexual groups only toler8 views favorable 2 their sexual behaviors & engage in censorship & in some cases even violence against those who r against their behaviors. Also using the sexual behavior of Bonobos is bad. Bonobos r also known 2 pass gas while dining & sometimes even throw turds @ eachother. It’s a bad argument 2 use animal behavior 2 justify what people should do. Rev. Philpot & Focus on the Family r right when they say it’s wrong to use animal behavior as a guide.
*Does a double take at ilikesnow’s comments.*
I’m sorry, but I really cannot take most of your comments seriously ilikesnow. Some of the things you say are so out in left field that I find myself wondering if the only reason you are saying these things is to get a rise out of everyone here.
“Finally, I’ve already mentioned that a main reason I’m now against h&l behaviors & side with Rev. Philpot is because homosexual groups only toler8 views favorable 2 their sexual behaviors & engage in censorship & in some cases even violence against those who r against their behaviors.”
So I ask you this, is violence against gays and lesbians permissible? I do not recall any gay or lesbian that has used violence against those that hate same-sex behavior. However, there are plenty of instances that the reverse is true. Gays and lesbians have been murdered simply for being who they are.
ilikesnow-> You can take any position you want (even to deny others the same freedom), but when you appeal to the authority of Christian and Muslim doctrine, you can expect an doctrinal argument regardless of how you classify your own beliefs.
Trying to find answers to human sexuality in the behavior of animals was very popular in the anti-gay crowd until research began to show how pervasive homosexual activies are among the beasts. Fauna became bad examples faster than Ted Haggard became persona non grata at the National Association of Evangelicals.
I am absolutely fascinated by your take on all this.
ilikesnow:
You certainly have a strange way of expressing yourself, but you’re certainly welcome to your opinion. I find it interesting that you define yourself as a “born again conservative”. If your not a Christian, it seems strange terminology to define yourself that way. But hey, to each his own.
I also find it interesting that you, being from India, don’t seem to know your nation’s own history and spiritual background on the subject of homosexually. Yes its true that India still has laws against homosexuality on the books, but a large number of those laws were brought to your country by the British.
Of all the countries and religions out there, Hinduism seems to have the greatest range of opinion on “the third sex”. Even the god Shiva is described as having both male and female natures at the same time. If I recall correctly Shiva contemplated his own femininity.
Now that I know your background, I’m not surprised by your conservative opinions on sexuality. However, you should realize that you’re not going to find many Americans, Christian or not, that will agree with your prohibition against non-procreative sex. Traditional Catholics…maybe…but even they have been liberated with the advent of Vatican II where the Pope acknowledged that sex is a natural result of a loving relationship. So No sex after age 45? Ummmm….lol, that will never fly.
As for referencing the animal kingdom… This brings up an entirely different set of arguements and questions. As humans we possess faculties that animals do not have but this doesn’t not mean that we cannot learn about our biology from the animal kingdom. Naturally occuring homosexuality within the animal kingdom is a testament to the diversity found in God’s creation. If homosexual behavior or actions are found within nature, its illogical to think it can’t be found within the diversity of humanity.
Well, ilikesnow…Brian J brings up a good point.
The indigenous peoples of Middle Asia, Africa and the Americas didn’t have an issue always with gay people until the colonialism of these nations by Europe and THEIR Christian values and influence.
And I say, that considering how universally and symbiotically homosexuality is throughout all humankind and human history, there is no evidence that said homosexuality has destroyed entire countries, people or cultures.
Gay people have not banded together as a political machine and created armies that colonialized or conquered on any level.
Nor forced any heterosexuals to submit to their bidding by saying that heterosexuals MUST become homosexual and submit to the will of ordinary human beings disguising that will as belonging to God.
However, religious people are STILL waging bloody, oppressive campaigns the world over.
The usual victims mostly being women and homosexual people.
The LEAST war, power and violence driven members of the entire populations of the world.
So seriously, ilikesnow…you might believe now that gay sex is dirty and undesirable…but dangerous to the people of the world on a scale that justifies the oppression and violence against gays…and women?
Don’t think so.
Brian J said “Philosophy and religion are obviously critical in the establishment of ethics and morality thus forming the foundation of society. Government can not exist without them”.
Brian that’s certainly not true for religion.
To quote from the following:
https://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
18] In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction
[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
Regan…
You are correct that there has never been a formalized “gay” political machine that has marched and conquered the lands of heterosexuality, however, many religious extremists would argue that most of the world’s “conquers” have been homosexual. Without a doubt they would point to Nero, Ceasar, and most recently the abundant theories on Hitler. Many believe that the scriptures describe the antichrist as being a male that avoids the affections of women. (Hence therefore he must be gay). Could it possibily mean he’s celibate instead?
Its also common thought in christian conservative circles to blame the fall of the Roman Empire on the moral decay brought upon by the disintegration of the “family” unit…and what do they think destroyed the family? Ding Ding Ding… you guessed it. Homosexuality. Fast forward 2000 years to modern America (aka the 21st century Rome) and the battle cry sounds awfully familiar. Homosexuality threatens the tradition of marriage and the foundations of our society. Therefore, it must be curtailed, if not erradicated, at all costs.
When all of these things combine with the various differences in theological world view, homosexuality rapidly becomes the flash point of the arguement, especially for those expressing a theist’s position.
Non western cultures, however, don’t seem to have this particular mindset engrained in their collective group consciousness. Homosexuality is usually seen as an unfortunate but naturally occuring variant of human sexuality. Depending on the culture, some “third sex” people are either marginalized and tucked into the background or they’re revered and considered special. Unforutnately, neither position tends to help the homosexual’s cause of just wanting to be treated like everyone else. Whether pariah or mystical saint, the position modern societies need to implement is that homosexuality just “is” and it can’t be erradicated. History proves this to us.
When removed from religious context, homosexuality is benign and there is absolutely NO logical reason to persecute those who are gay. This is why we have the separation of church and state.. to protect those who hold different beliefs than the existing government in power and to prevent people from being abused because of religious reasons. The answer to the “gay marriage” problem, at least on the civil rights level, is to remove the label of “marriage” and reserve that term specifically for those conducting relgious ceremonies. Non-religious based civil unions or domestic partnerships should be equalized in all rights to that of “marriage”. If a gay man wants to get “marriage” in his homophobic church, the church has the right to say no. That’s not what we believe. Thus a distinction is made within religious circles, as it should be, but not within the civil rights level where ALL people should be treated equally.
“ilikesnow” as long as a behavior isn’t hurting anyone there is no moral justification for opposing it.
As long as non-procreative sex occurs between two conscenting adults who hurt no one all that matters is that they safely enjoy the experience. People have a right to freedom from religion. I’d sure like to see you at 45 and hear what you have to say about the idea that no one over that age should be allowed to have sex. You remind me of a young Mick Jagger saying about playing rock and roll “I’d rather be dead than doing this when I’m 40.” No doubt he’s had to eat those words many times since he turned 40 and continues to rock well into his 60’s.
Brian J at Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 2:27 pm
Brian, religious institutions don’t own the word marriage and there is no need to forfeit that term to them, its a secular term. The religious word for marriage is “matrimony”. That’s their word and they’re welcome to it.
well that’s the first I’ve heard that Philpott opposes viagra and vasectomies.
As for Kempling, I am not Canadian and don’t know how their laws work. As best I understand the case, Kempling was a public school employee who wrote anti-gay letters to newspapers.
Rather than stick with his personal opinions or making factual statements, Kempling wrote denunciations based on stereotypes and made such claims as
– which even Exodus doesn’t claim.
The school and his fellow educators expressed concern that Kempling was making statements that were hostile to a segment of the student population and that it would be unfair to force students to attend class or seek guidance from such a person.
Perhaps the quote that – for me – is the most relevant is this:
In other words, he refused to be a teacher that taught the curriculum or that was tolerant of students that did not fit his definition of “moral” or “normal”. To me it seems pretty reasonable that the school administration and his fellow teachers didn’t want to subject students to this man.
It is relevant that most of his activism was outside the classroom. And, indeed, the Canadian laws are not as protective of speech as the American laws.
However, I suspect that I would be quite concerned in having a vocal KKK member teach at a school. I would be concerned that his activism outside the classroom would create an environment that would make it impossible for a black student to learn from him.
The school district tried to reach an agreement with Kempling whereby his writings could continue as long as they were not in the geographic area or were within a religious setting. In this way it minimize the likelihood that his religious condemnations would reach children who were his students.
Instead, Kempling started advertising his services as an ex-gay therapist and went on the radio to do a local interview.
The school reprimanded him with a letter and told him that this was incompatible with making sure there was no “poisoned environment” for students in the elementary school and that it impeded his ability as teacher and guidance counselor.
Kempling sued claiming that his religious freedoms trumped any concerns that a school may have about gay students being subjected to a hostile environment. He believed that his directive from the Holy Spirit outweighed any concern the school may have for students. He claimed his faith required him to make public denunciations of homosexuality.
The Canadian courts were not convinced. They were swayed by the school’s emphasis on a safe learning environment.
Interestingly, throughout the process, it was not gay people that were “persecuting” Kempling but rather the school and the teachers association. And throughout the process Kempling never seemed to express any concern about students whatsoever.
In the US, laws are different and the courts may have been more sympathetic to Dr. Kempling.
And personally I might find his complaint more compelling if he were a high school teacher. Or if he had made any effort to shield kids who were likely to come under his authority from his religious condemnations. Or if he had not linked his public proclaimations to his position at the school. Or if his proclamations were factually accurate. Or if his objections were based on reason rather than revulsion. Or if he had been disciplined because of his belief rather than because of the methods by which he expressed them. Or if he hadn’t used his “persecution” as a jump board for a political campaign.
A good summation of the case can be found here
Randi…
Thanks for the interesting read. Let me clarify my statement for you. It is my personal belief that ethics and morality are directly contributed to the advent of philosophy and religion in human history. Without these two “sciences” the development of the various codes and laws that form the basis of government would cease to exist. (Or at least be substantially different that what we have today).
I tend to agree with your article about the disfunction theistic societies experience. The problem, however, isn’t in the validity or value of the laws created by a theistic worldview, but rather they way those laws are implemented and constantly interpreted in modern day.
This lack of proper implementation is observed when the “church” or the theistic element of the governement that is buttressing the government failes evolve with the advent of new knowledge. Tradition, for all its value, can also limit the development of a society as much as keeping it intact. This is the reason why a society based solely on a “sola scriptura” belief system is bound to have issues. The Bible, for all its value, is fixed in time by those who wrote it. I believe the bible is still relevent to day, provided one reads it knowing the author’s audience and its original intent. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that understanding of God is provided by three primary foundations:
1. The Bible/Scriptures
2. Church tradition and the works of the early fathers.
3. Personal Experience.
If one fails to implement all three, you’ll wind up with one of the following:
1. The Bible Only: Fundamentalism
2. The Church Only: Legalism
3. Personal Experiences: Cults
This brings me back around to the issues of “group ego”. The church tends to react on the advent of new knowledge that counters tradition previous determined to be true with hostility. Why? Because the essence of its survival is being challenged and the ego responds defensively. It would be nice if the Church would follow its own advice, but we are human and the ego prevents us from doing a lot of things that should be readily apparent.
Non theistic societies aren’t immune to these types of problems, they just manifest them in different ways.
Thanks Randi.. you’re right. Marriage is a “common” term. The sacrament of matrimony is a better term for religious purposes.
Randi,
Your comments in the other thread about “innateness” of morality are interesting. I could acccept the idea that at some level innateness could provide the development of ethics and morality at some level. However, I think it would only go so far. Philosophy and religion would eventually come into play where “innateness” leaves off.
I guess a lot depends on your position on Original Sin. If you’re a western Christian, its likely you believe that humans are inheritantly evil and thus are incapable of relying on the goodness or “innateness” of mankind to provide the foundation for a sound government. Our “rebelious” and “guilty” nature inherited from Adam would override any attempts at creating things like ethics and morality. Eastern Christians have a different viewpoint on Original Sin and believe humans are inheritantly good, but are corrupted through living in a fallen world. Although we don’t inherit Adam’s “guilt”, the sin that entered the world would ensure ALL fall short of the glory of God. Either way, human governments will always be subject to problems. (a general christian perspective)
Innateness however faces the same problem that philosophy and religion face. Implemention, interpretation, and enforcement.
Whatever the source of government is, without a method to address those three problems, mankind is sure to struggle with conflict and “chaos”. Government is man’s way to place order to chaos.
Christians look towards God as the means to counter these basic problems. Being all powerful, there is no futher need for question. Thing is..God just doesn’t seem to like “handing” the keys to the kingdom to his creation so easily. Free will is testimony to that….why should government be any different.
Brian, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “ethics and morality are directly contributed to the advent of philosophy and religion in human history.” Do you mean philosophy and religion arise from ethics and morality or that ethics and morality arise from philosphy and religion? To some degree I’d agree with the former but not the latter. Its my belief that religion arises from people’s attempt to explain a complex world’s existence and the desire of those in power to control the masses. I don’t believe that without religion “the development of the various codes and laws that form the basis of government would cease to exist.” – the research I’ve quoted suggests otherwise.
Brian, I just finished reading Richard Dawkin’s book
The God Delusion. He says and I agree the idea that an innocent baby inherits the wrong or guilt of some distant ancestor isn’t credible. Some time ago I found this encouraging article online, it really warmed my heart:
Study Shows Babies Try to Help By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Thu Mar 2, 4:16 PM ET
Moderator Edit (DR): body of article removed – please don’t post entire articles in the comments section.
Randi..
Your example about the babies is really cool and as I mentioned earlier, fits quite fine within the Eastern Orthodox belief that human beings are inheritantly good…not evil.
As for ethics and morality…what I’m suggesting is that the advent of philosophy and religion is foundational to the formation of government, while ethics and morality’s origins, I believe, are traced to the exploration of asking the greater question of “why”.
Philosophy attempts to answer the question of “why” through reason, while theology and religion incorporates the concept of God.
Take any ethical or moral dilemma…how about “Don’t kill people” and without philosophy or religion we really don’t have a reason NOT to kill people. We should just be able to act and react on instinct like an animal. If my neighbor bothers me, I’ll just kill him so I can be free to live my life the way I want to. The difference is we’ve been granted the gifts of consciousness, intellect and the spirit of God where our animal friends have not. We are different. Maybe God encoded that sense of morality on our genetic code.
Unless you answer the question of “why” through philosophy or religion, ethics and morality are harder to define.
Your position that the inherit “innateness” of morality could be ok in a controlled environment. (aka Adam & Eve in paradise) However, as an Orthodox christian, I am taught that the fall of man brought sin into the world. This necessary “rebellion” is what initiated the process of growth within human consciousness and our relationship with God. (That is my personal belief) I believe it grieves God that it had to happen that way, but without it we stagnate.
Knowing this, God takes the opportunity to utilize the human condition to bring out true growth and free will within his creation. I believe he wants His creation to love Him by choice, not because we’re told to.
The inherit “innateness” of the “good” within babies is very incouraging to know because it shows the true potential of the human race. They represent humanity in its truest form….but we’re not to remain babies forever.
Brian said “Take any ethical or moral dilemma…how about “Don’t kill people” and without philosophy or religion we really don’t have a reason NOT to kill people. “.
That’s not at all true. If I don’t want someone to kill me I have to avoid killing others and creating an environment where that is what people do. Cooperation is advantageous to the survival of my and other’s genes whereas antagonism and an environment of revenge killings is not. Natural selection has encouraged us to not cavalierly kill our neighbours.
Are you telling me the only thing that is holding you back from killing others is your religion? I don’t think so. If this was a case we’d surely see atheists are far more likely to be killers than religious people, but if you look in prison you see the vast majority of people there believe in god and religion.
Randi said:
Natural selection has encouraged us to not cavalierly kill our neighbours.
That’s an absurd statement on the face of it considering how recent is our history of violence – natural selection has not had time to deal with that at all.
If this was a case we’d surely see atheists are far more likely to be killers than religious people, but if you look in prison you see the vast majority of people there believe in god and religion.
I’m trying very hard to remain civil, but that statement is preposterous. Have you even one authoritative study which backs that up?
Your bad habits are resurfacing and the ice is very thin. Save your anti-religion crusade for your own blog, it’s not relevant here.
Well this thread has degraded into useless territory and went far off topic a long time ago. Ilikesnow, I find it difficult to take you seriously. Your last comment has been deleted because it was one long string of negative statements having absolutely nothing to do with the article. Your earlier comments will suffice to let us know how you feel.
Comments are now closed.