Gay columnist Dan Savage has examined a recent event involving the receipt of ricin-laced letters by several gay bars. He theorizes that an embittered gay man must be the perpetrator.
The letters strike me as having been written by a very bitter man—by someone who came out, expected that gay life would a glorious cycle of song, and was shocked to discover that gay life—just like straight life—comes with no guarantees. In the years after coming out he learned that some people, gay and straight, can be a**holes; that gay men were not, despite the hype, his “brothers.” I wouldn’t be surprised if this person had a meth problem and a string of failed relationships. He’s someone who has probably, through the choices he’s made, succeeded in making a complete hash of his life. But he doesn’t want to take responsibility for his choices so he blames gay people in general, and gay life, and the bars, and pins his personal failures on the “community.” (He’s a blood brother to those guys who come out, spend ten methed-out years on their backs in bathhouses, and then decide that gay life is depressing and squalid and sinful before they “come out” as ex-gays.) [emphasis added]
That last emphasized part caused worlds to collide, as it prompted professional ex-gay second-in-command Randy Thomas of Exodus International to comment on Savage’s blog as well as his own.
As someone who is contentedly stable as an “ex-gay” … I find your caricaturization of the potential terrorist as possibly a “blood-brother to … ex-gay” implies a deep ignorance of who we, as a whole, really are.
For the most part, we are intelligent, balanced, stable, tolerant of what we may not personally accept and loving. We looked at what identifying as gay and all of the predetermined relational options of what that means and said, “no thanks.” Some of us have experienced orientation shift and others haven’t … and we are all living out our faith and life as we see fit. I and everyone I know, have no desire to force others into our line of thinking.
I hope you realize that even though we have strong moral, public policy and spiritual disagreements … we don’t have to be a depressed psychotic terrorist simply because we don’t agree with you or have your blessing.
I don’t care if the man/woman is a religious zealot. I don’t care if they do turn out to be ex-gay. I don’t care if they are a gay activist trying to fake a “hate” crime. Whoever did it is a psychotic who deserves a lot of jail time for making terrorist threats.
And no matter who they are I pray they will find a peaceful resolution to their inner conflicts … while in jail. 🙂 I have made it a matter of prayer that while our gay friends and their friends are drinking in the face of danger … I am praying for their safety and genuinely care that they have the freedom to assemble in peace and safety.
Mr. Savage, please don’t stigmatize “ex-gay’s” in such a way. And before someone says that I shouldn’t stigmatize gays either … you are right and I try not too. But again, strong disagreements doesn’t equal to profiling a psychotic person with a negative generalized view of what an “ex-gay” believes or experiences.
Sidenote: I quote “ex-gay” because I hate that label.
Randy completely misses Savage’s point. He isn’t saying that ex-gays are more likely to be terrorists or have specific negative characteristics. He’s saying that when people enter into something with unrealistic expectations, they ultimately set themselves up to fail. Randy seems to have forgotten that his own ex-gay testimony, as well as many of the ex-gay testimonies from the men on Exodus’ website, are rife with the characteristics present in Savage’s profile. Randy might be “contentedly stable as an ‘ex-gay'” now, but his gay days describe exactly the kind of gay man that would grow discontent and unfulfilled by “the gay lifestyle.” A self-described “slut,” Randy insinuates that he was patronizing gay bars at 14 years old. He lived a life of drugs and promiscuity that left him empty. Then he decided to trade one extreme for another and go from being a promiscuous “liberal” “sexual deviant” to a socially and politically conservative Christian Biblical literalist.
If anybody “caricaturizes” the ex-gay life, it’s ex-gay organizations like Exodus, who publish the same tired stories over and over again. It isn’t possible for us to be “ignorant of who [ex-gays] really are” because Exodus gives us the personal testimonials of ex-gays themselves. And the same descriptions of gay life appear in every article:
In 1976 I began dating a man that I knew. Having found my “Mr. Right,” I was ready to settle down into a lifelong relationship. But that “lifelong” relationship lasted only six years…Since I couldn’t have what I thought I wanted, I compromised my life. Now I was willing to become involved with men who did not want a committed relationship. I was willing to go out to the strip clubs and, in an alcoholic blur, drown my sorrows and lost dreams.
By the time I was 29, I was sick of the drugs, alcohol and prostitution. I [had] been sleeping with two or three people every night for almost ten years.
When I finally left the church in disgust, I left home and plunged headlong into the gay lifestyle. The sight of men dancing with each other and publicly kissing made me feel so good. I felt like I was finally in a place where I belonged. I was new on the gay scene; soon everyone was asking who I was and who I was dating. I went to house parties, orgies, got hooked on “poppers” and started drinking. I was like a kid in a candy store with no parents around!
[A]t nineteen, I found out that a neighbor of mine was gay. I had never had an opportunity before this but had told myself that I would follow through if ever propositioned. He soon showed me all that the gay life had to offer. I soon was in one relationship after another. While at times I was in relationships that seemed to be enjoyable and satisfying, they never seemed to last, while others left me feeling as if I were a prostitute.
I met a much older man and we planned a date for the following week. He lavished attention on me, and I loved it. But after a few times together, he seemed to lose interest in me; the next week, I saw him with another guy who looked even younger than me. I found it difficult to enter into a long-term relationship with other men. One time I asked a group of gay friends, “Don’t you think it’s a little strange that all we talk about and think about is sex? Is that what the average heterosexual is like?” No one responded, but I knew that what we were experiencing wasn’t right.
I went wild and plunged into the gay night life. I moved to Amsterdam, especially because I knew that the Gay Games were going to be held there. I developed a large circle of friends and was thoroughly immersed in the night life. After living like this for about six months, something began to feel like it was eating away at me inside.
I became disillusioned with gay life, realizing that I was never going to find “the one” and live happily ever after. Surprisingly, this truth was told to me numerous times by many long-time life partners I knew. I knew them because they met me in bars, at parties, or on the internet and took me home to sleep with them. I lived this way basically from age 16 to 21, miserable but truly believing there was nothing else out there for me.
[At gay bars] I felt acceptance for what had been my greatest source of shame. I savored not having to hide the fact that I was gay. I also became addicted to anonymous sexual encounters, which lacked the relationship that I was really craving—but, for 10 minutes or so at a time a portion of my need was satisfied.
I made up for lost time and jumped head first into the gay lifestyle. I was out and proud. I went to the Metropolitan Community Church and was determined to be a different kind of gay man – moral, upright and nonpromiscuous. I failed miserably and completely from day one.
Dan Savage is exactly right when he says that the difficulties that naturally accompany being homosexual are exactly the same as those that naturally accompany being heterosexual. They are the same difficulties that naturally accompany being human and attracted to other human beings. There are no guarantees, and life is what you make it.
As evidenced by the quickly progressing deaths of gay bars around the country, there is more proof than ever that the path of coming out doesn’t terminate at a nightclub party. My queer friends are meeting others like them at school, at their jobs, through mutual friends, and at religious events – just like their straight counterparts. Going to a bar or “clubbing” for us seems to be something to do as an aside if and when you are in the mood, rather than a means to satisfy a need. But yet again, not everyone likes bars. For some, they aren’t even entertaining enough to patronize as a novelty once a year.
While it can be healthy to put faith into a higher power, one must still take responsibility for their own decisions and never forget that G-d helps those who help themselves. Blaming the whole of one’s problems on their sexual orientation is the easy way out of facing their true issues.
Emily – – – Thank you for a gracious balanced explanation of how you interpret this situation. I feel you are correct in your assessment and you outlined it beautifully. Sex in itself is neutral, how one regards it will either take one to heaven or hell in one’s experience, and that is personal choice.
Studying addiction over the years, there has been one component left out on the general interpretation of the sexual addiction scenario. That is; that to go from one extreme to another, from “slut” to romantic and physical celibacy, is just the other end of the spectrum, and is also considered an “addiction”.
In most cases, both ends of the sexual spectrum “hate” the center point, the sexual natural self. “Struggling” at both ends of the spectrum can bring isolation leaving no porthole for authentic loving relationships to enter and flourish on the sexual emotional level. Neither end of the sexual struggle addresses the real problem, sexual self hate. The travesty is that most people do not know that their addiction to sex, isn’t the real addiction. The truth is most are suffering from an emotional addiction to self hatred, that takes on an external physical icon called sexual addiction, reflecting the true inner problem.
I believe it is important for religious “ex-gays” to realize that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle. Religion, is a chosen lifestyle. Therapeutically, religion can be very uneffective and damaging with regard to these problems.
Straights get caught up in sex addiction like anyone else, but their therapy is not about never having sex again or holding someone dear, it’s simply redirected to be funneled through a loving relationship, truly the most fulfilling Christ centered and resolution oriented approach. I wish this for all gay people “struggling” in self hatred about their sexual selves.
This person who is writing these ricin letters, it is a cry for help. They too are also addicted to some form of sexual self hate. I hope this person gets the help they need to resolve their inner frustrations, instead of taking it out on others.
I wish you and staff a happy new year.
Devlin Bach,
I agree that religion is a chosen lifestyle. But why do you believe homosexuality is not?
I’m afraid, Alex, that you’re making the very elementary mistake of confusing two different things, namely orientation and behaviour.
Homosexuality as such is not a lifestyle but a sexual orientation, and is generally no more chosen than is heterosexuality. You don’t decide that the people who are going to be sexually attractive to you will be people of your own sex (or of the other sex). In other words you don’t choose your sexual orientation; you discover it. Even if you decide that you don’t like your sexual orientation, that doesn’t mean that you can change it, as you might decide to change or abandon your religion. It may change of its own accord, of course, but such cases – in men, at any rate – are extremely rare.
Your sexual behaviour – what you may like to call a lifestyle – is something that you choose. But there are as many possible homosexual lifestyles as there are heterosexual ones.
I’m sorry to jump in like this, because it wasn’t me that you asked the question of, but I can’t resist it when people ask questions which are based on patently confused thinking.
William,
Thanks for explaining, but the only thing I’m confused about is what Devlin Bach meant. I am aware of the difference between orientation and behavior, but in DB’s post, he said, “I believe it is important for religious ‘ex-gays’ to realize that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle,” and I just wanted to ask him what he means by that – whether he means “yes, homosexuality is a lifestyle, but not a chosen one” or “homosexuality is not a lifestyle at all.” I’m assuming it’s the latter, but I just wanted to make sure 🙂
I REALLY take issue with this quote from an Exodus testimonial:
I personally KNOW moral, upright and nonpromiscuous gay men. I can also add “religious” to that mix. And to say embodying these qualities makes one “a different kind of gay man” is insulting at best and slander at worst. It is a false dichotomy.
I consider myself to be “moral, upright, and nonpromiscuous.” I am living proof that yes you can be gay and have those things. Oh, and did I mention religious?
by the way, in my cursory look at the stories, virtually all of them came from people who worked with or were affiliated with Exodus in some way – ex-gay for pay.
Devlin– brillian description of the situation. It is self-hate that is the problem, not the behavior, hwich is a symptom.
Wow, what a great piece! Thank you.
These ex-gays drank, drugged, and fornicated themselves into oblivion, and then blamed their sexual orientation on their unhappiness. Umm, hello?
How sad.
Again, great article. It’s a new angle I never thought about before.
Devlin,
As a LCP in training I found your explanation of the psychology of sex addiction fascinating. Do you know of any written resources I could get ahold of to further my study in that field. I have met many a person on both ends of the spectrum and I have also concluded that people who suppress their sexuality are also pathological. It’s so true that when we move from one extreme to the next we’re not really healing but exchanging one coping mechanism for another. Great post and I hope to hear from you about those resources!
Hey Alex,
Your latter assumption is correct, I do not see homosexuality as a lifestyle, chosen or otherwise. I see homosexuality, all sexuality and it’s expression, as an inborn human trait, an attribute to be observed lived and expressed rather than battered isolated and judged.
Like a scientist, I view sexuality and human nature in terms of observation, and that’s pretty much where it stops. Then there are those that add the extras, the unfortunate painful drama.
So statements such as, homosexuality is a lifestyle, holiness is the opposite of homosexuality, homosexual sex is an “abomination”, these are mental error statements that can cause people to seek anesthetics in the form of sex food drugs alcohol or celibacy addictions, due to error statements piling up causing emotional overwhelm. Then depression, laziness, procrastination etc sets in. The mental computer now has viruses. The virus lives in the form of memorized error statements. These error statements cause people to hate parts of themselves within. Unfortunately people are easily programmed. Such programs cause mental disorders. They are easy to correct with the proper tools.
I hope this clears up anything where I may have been confusing.
Hey Tom,
I honestly can’t remember which book I read the opposing extremes regarding addiction in. I think it may have been Pia Melody’s book Facing Love Addiction. It stuck to me like glue and then I started to see the actual significance of it. It has been very helpful in my practice to resolve all the avoidance mechanisms (aka coping skills) that dance around the centerpoint problem.
I’m sorry, but that prescription is just as condescending and presumptuous as the ex-gay theories that most gay men are the products of overbearing mothers and distant fathers. Don’t try to psychoanalyze people you’ve never even met. It isn’t becoming, and unless you’re actually a doctor or researcher in that field, you don’t have any room to talk. It’s scary the amount of damage that can be done by people who read a few books and then start spouting their opinions.
I too like Emily, am disturbed by Randy’s statement here:
especially because of this statement before that:
He readily admited that being gay was his greatest source of shame. Yet the Metropolitan Community Church is a church that affirms the gay community. If I were to attend MCC in Malaysia thinking that my existence as a transsexual is being my greatest source of shame, I believe I would not even survive a day there because I will still carry the baggage of thoughts from previous churches that being who I am is so sinful and my bandaged mind would still be telling me that God hates me. So it does not really matter which church I go to; I will fail in my own mentality of self loathing and rejection before I even face anyone, except at the corners of gay bars that would definitely not judge me and find me “sinful”.
Adding to that, if I go into the church hoping to be “moral, upright and nonpromiscuous”, in a Christian sense, a senior would probably ask me, am I doing it with my own strength or with God’s strength? I can be “moral, upright and nonpromiscuous”, I know I can attending any church I want because I know I please God by just being honest with who I am, and with that there are no longer barriers between me and the church; besides I love myself for who I am so much now; I strive to be a good girl for my family, my friends and Our Saviour.
Thank you for clarifying, Devlin!
Out of curiosity, has anyone here ever confronted Randy Thomas or other Exodus leaders about why the testimonies on their website seem to talk only about promiscuity, shame, drug/alcohol abuse, anonymous sex, gay clubs, disillusionment with “the lifestyle,” etc.? If so, what kind of a response did you get?
Devlin,
thanks man, you really helped me draw some lines between the dots. The idea of emotional and opposite addictions is a new concept for me, and I see it in me, and it makes sense.
Jay,
Your anger is really evident in your post and the statements you say do not make sense. I don’t see any sweeping statements in Devlin’s reported sex addiction model that would indicate similarities to the all or nothing stance that homos have distant fathers and overbearing mothers. The idea of why people are gay, and how some Bible text can breed sex addiction, are also two entirely different subjects.
Whether he is a health care professional or not, the model stands for itself, and I am glad i was here to read about it. I learned. Regarding damage by reading a few books and spouting opinions, one of the most famous books for doing that is the Bible, of which you are an avid reader via your blog. It breeds many obnoxious hot head no-it-alls. Pipe down and listen, you might just learn something.
Emily, I really cannot add to or subtract from this. I can sort of see what got Randy torqued up, but it doesn’t take a super-careful read to see where Dan Savage is really going. (And because I consider DS biphobic, I’m never exactly one of his defenders.) I didn’t think about the lack of “God” language in the threat letter until reading this.
Years ago SPIN (a music magazine that aspired to be a younger, hipper Rolling Stone) sent a journalist to ex-gay meetings and gatherings. One conclusion she came to struck me. I’m paraphrasing here, but it was something very close to: “When the guys talked about their former gay lives, they never said, ‘I had a boyfriend who I loved, and we were together ten years, and we hung out in the dog park and went to the theater a lot and teased each other about our tastes in music.” It really *is* never like that on the Exodus website, either, is it?
I am also thinking of a song on Montgomery Gentry’s latest CD called “I Pick My Parties.”It’s about men approaching midlife and realizing that while they still want a good time, sometimes they have to say “no”, calm down, etc.
It’s not about being gay or bi or straight. It’s not about sexual orientation at all. It’s about being smart and responsible, and learning what’s good for you, and growing up.
Or, you know, you can spend the rest of your life bitter and lashing out at everyone who you think “hurt” you whether they set out to or not. Whatever.
Jay and Don, let’s keep it civil and not assume too much about each other’s motives and instead concentrate on the facts. Most of what Devlin said sounds more like personal opinion or experience and should be taken as such. The bit that starts with “The truth is…” is more along the lines of a statement of fact which probably should have a reference to back it up. There is nothing wrong with posting opinions, suppositions, even just something that came to you in the shower, as long as none of that is offered up as fact without an authoritative reference.
Thanks.
Don,
My problem with Devlin is the fact that he is offering these opinions without any reference to back it up, or any credentials as to why he should be considered an authority on these matters. I have no problem with opinions being offered as opinions, but Devlin is not making that distinction. I have no problem with people repeating something they’ve heard or read as long as they give the proper credit, but Devlin isn’t doing that. I have no anger towards him, but I have had run-ins with him before on my blog so the tone I take with him is not out-of-the-blue.
If his prescriptions about celibates and ex-gays resonate with you, that is fine, just like it’s fine if the NARTH theories about gender identity resonate with an ex-gay. I don’t agree with either, but I don’t mind if someone uses them to help themselves as long as they don’t make sweeping generalizations about the rest of us. I know they are two different subjects, but it’s the way they’re being approached here that I find similar, not the subjects themselves.
Personally, as a celibate person, I can’t see Devlin’s comments about celibates or conservatives as anything less than condescending. He seems to have fallen into Exodus’ trap of making an idea about an entire group of people that colors his interactions with the individuals that happen to belong to that group. Why would I, a celibate person, want to talk to Devlin if I knew that he sees me as someone who is an addict and a self-hater? It’s the same problem that Exodus has, because what gay person would want to talk to them if Exodus has made clear that they think gays are promiscuous, drugged-up, and unstable? You see where I’m coming from here?
David,
Noted. Thank you.
I think I might have found a man who fits the Dan Savage/Ricin profile. The following gem was posted on Randy’s blog, with Randy’s gem of a response:
I wonder why Randy travels around conservative gay blogs. I’m guessing it’s so he can use their views about things like hate crimes legislation (something traditional conservatives oppose for ALL categories) or constitutional interpretation (which gets narrower the more conservative a person is) to say “see? THOSE gays ‘agree’ with us [anti-gay/ex-gays]. What’s the matter with the REST of you? Why don’t you all think the same, anyway?”
But I’m speculating.
As a college student, I’ve met plenty of gay people, and only one or two fit the “drugged up” or promiscuous mold that pervades ex-gay testimonials (there are far more heteros I’ve met that fit that mold). Most are, well, just normal men and women (imagine that). They are also very tolerant, and even respectful, of my views and I’ve had wonderful conversations and good friendships with lots of them. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. As people become more comfortable with being themselves (and granted, the college environment could be a bit unique in this regard), they are both less likely to “act out” by making bad choices or be intolerant of those with different views.
I have to agree that many ex-gay testimonials seem to have a similar template–coming from drugs and promiscuity, etc. Though I know this is a source of consternation for some ex-gays that I have talked to because they don’t fit these templates and don’t feel they can relate. So, there are many ex-gays that don’t have that dysfunctional background, but still have decided not to be in homosexual relationships.
I, for one, was never promiscuous. I have had relationships with only four women. I knew all of them as friends for at least several months before ever getting into a romantic or sexual relationship with them. I also met most of them at Christian events and not gay bars. In fact, the only time I have ever gone to a gay bar was with some straight friends who wanted to go dancing, and they found the gay bar was less of an annoying meat market than the hetero bar down the street. I am not a bar kind of person. I also have never had any kind of drug or alcohol problem. Nor have I ever been diagnosed with any kind of mental health issue like depression etc.
The reason I decided, after mulling it over for about 10 years, to no longer be in lesbian relationships was not because I was dissatisfied with my relationships with women, but because I felt the Spirit prompting me that this is not what God wants for humanity. So, out of love and respect for God I am following His direction.
I have to agree with Jay that Devlin’s views are a bit peculiar. Devlin, perhaps you can clarify? You write: “That is; that to go from one extreme to another, from “slut” to romantic and physical celibacy, is just the other end of the spectrum, and is also considered an “addiction”.
So, you are saying that physical celibacy is an addiction? Does that mean Mother Theresa was pathological because she chose a celibate life to serve the poor in India? What about people who haven’t found a suitable mate? Do you think they should be out having casual sex in the meantime?
I also find the theory very male oriented. For women, there is much more at stake emotionally and physically when it comes to sex. There may be very good reason a woman would not want to be having sex, especially if she does not have a committed partner. And there are no guarantees that we will all find a committed partner in this life–whether gay or straight.
There is much more to life than sex–even though sex is a good and pleasurable thing. To classify folk who are choosing not to have sex as being pathological or as having an addiction is very odd and illogical to me. Also, this theory seems to fail to make the distinction between repression vs. simply refraining.
Karen K said:
This is the type of statement which can immediately block any kind of bridge to understanding on this issue. Is it really necessary that one pronounce ones own take on the will of God for humanity as universal in order to explain a personal decision between ones self and the Holy Spirit? If you feel that God wants you to be celibate, why not just say so?
The next step is so often a crusade to make the rest of the world conform to our own personal convictions, and that leads to Exodus International, et al. These convictions may be perfectly valid for you (or you may understand differently still in another 10 years), and even for someone else, but shouldn’t the others have the freedom to their own relationship with God?
Only Devlin can say what he meant with respect to that last question, but I certainly wouldn’t agree with that either. However, pushing the example all the way to Mother Theresa is unnecessarily absurd as well. If I understand correctly, what Devlin is suggesting is that, at least for some people, the extremes of sexual behavior (i.e. promiscuous, anonymous, frequent sex, etc and abstention from even the idea of sex) are both a response to the same issue, hatred of the sexual, intimate part of who the person is.
I don’t know how much there is to back this up, but without reference I’m not considering it as fact. However, it does remind me a bit of the lives of some alcoholics — their lives end up centered either around abuse of the substance or the struggle to abstain from it, but often not about the issue that caused them to drink in the first place. It’s not a perfect analogy, but an interesting thought.
KarenK has problems with Devlin’s assertion that “to go from one extreme to another, from “slut” to romantic and physical celibacy, is just the other end of the spectrum, and is also considered an “addiction”.”
I’m not an expert in addiction. But I do know that recovering alcoholics often speak of “dry drunks.” Those are alcoholics who stop drinking, often cold turkey, but without resolving any of the underlying issues of their addiction. The illness of alcoholism continues to manifest itself, not through drinking, but other forms of denial and controlling behavior.
I believe Devlin was pointing out the same pattern in some ex-gays: they go from one extreme to another, from dangerously promiscuous behavior to complete celibacy, without examining and resolving the real issues driving them to be self-destructive. They are the sexual equivalents of dry drunks, often with the same anger and controlling behavior. By projecting their self-destructive tendencies onto “the gay lifestyle,” they are able to continue denial of their own personal issues.
I did not understand Devlin to say that physical celibacy in any form, for any type of motivation, is an expression of addiction. No more would I say that everyone who abstains from alcohol is a dry drunk.
There’s such a wide spectrum of opinions isn’t there?
Normal for one person, is not always normal for another. I think I do disagree with the comment that there is more at stake for women to have sex than for men. I think that completely depends on what the individual invests (emotionally and physically) in their sexual partners. Male or female, top or bottom, etc etc.. that doesn’t matter. Men are just as capable of having sex be an extension of their emotional feelings for a person.
But I think all in all, we need to be respecting the other’s opinions. For some, it is completely normal and respectable to have a healthy sexual expression… for some, it is not honourable to God. It is all good. You need to act on your own person convictions.
Clarification
Jay,
I have not in the past seen you as a sex or celibacy addict or a self hater. My post was not directed at you personally. It was a result of a brilliantly constructed article by Emily that was very thought provoking. Nor do I believe nor profess that all sex addicts, including ex-gay sex addicts, swing from physical sexual addiction to celibacy addiction. However, I do believe some do. From Exodus’ evidence, that is what they profess to teach. My statement “the truth is . . .” has more to do with the fact that all addicts have some sort of erroneous thinking in their minds that cause emotional turmoil, and that turmoil is more often than not, some sense of self hatred, or more popularly put, self loathing which all stem from an error in thinking.
I am a belief buster. That is what I teach and I constantly do research. If a belief is causing someone angst, I have found it is erroneous in nature, and could be connected to several other beliefs that impact the same frustrating outcome. Erroneous beliefs underlie addictions. Addictions are used as anaesthetics to induce a false sense of joy, intending to anaesthetize the pain of the erroneous belief. When the aesthetic wears off, the impending struggle with the erroneous belief ensues, relentlessly.
In the area of sexual addiction, there can be any number of stacked beliefs that cause one to self medicate with physical sex, pornographic sex and sexual celibacy. Some causes of pain the anaesthetics quell, can be anything from religious persecution to job loss to poor self image and on and on. All these carry some sort of error thoughts i.e. I’m bad, I’m evil, God hates me, all erroneous and mentally damaging. The celibacy addiction part may throw you as celibacy itself is not an addiction. But anything can be used to try to escape the inevitable fact, that an underlying inner painful error thought is the culprit, not the outer ‘acting out’ visible action-oriented addiction. Clear the inner error thought and the outer addiction falls away automatically. The mind no longer has a need to quell a pain that no longer exists having found the unobstructed joy it seeks. Patient healed and happy. These are my personal findings (along with others) over years of teaching and counselling, and I have found them to be clearly accurate and true.
Sweeping statements . . .
My attraction to you has been your writing. And in the process I have gotten to know your beliefs through your blog. I find error thoughts (in my opinion) in your thinking around gay sex. You have a sweeping world wide professing belief that having same sex physical sex is an abomination to God, for everyone. That is “condescending” and “assumptive” to many people, and in fact, is the basis for the current gay/religious cultural war, which you support whole heartedly by holding,vocalizing and teaching that belief. So much so that you broke up with your boyfriend intending to never have gay sex again. You then turned to celibacy. Is the celibacy an addiction? Maybe. Does it medicate a frustrating pain inducing error thought regarding gay sex? Possibly. Then there is the pornography aspect. You say you are celibate, but it seems via your blog, you traded in a potentially full loving sexual relationship with your now ex-boyfriend for joining porn stars in visual internet sex. Your decision for celibacy does not seem to rate the Mother Teresa point of view, which I find admirable on her part. Your Christian ideology (you) makes multiple defamatory sweeping statements against mankind. And you all treat it like Bambi in the woods, jumping from tree to tree completely unaware of the damage caused from the fire burning behind you, that you set! I find that reprehensibly irresponsible and terribly disappointing. Is it not the basis for all religious wars? Do you see how you hurt people with this “sweeping” archetype?
“Struggles”
You “struggle” a lot from what you report in your blog. Struggles are red flags for erroneous thinking causing emotional decline i.e. isolation, depression, lack of motivation. Though you may think that a belief is true with all your heart and mind, if the body/soul is telling you otherwise, the belief is erroneous. Then besets the “struggle”. If a belief is error free, it will resonate mentally emotionally physically and spiritually without dissonance. I think you may see this proposed “sin” of gay sex as an evil to be punished via a life time of sex love and relationship lack. I see the erroneous perception of gay sex not as an evil to be punished, but a mistake to be corrected. Contrary to popular religious belief Jay, you were not put on this earth to be unhappy. What would be the point of that?
A formidable challenge . . .
In the past I have thought of asking a conservative Christian religious ideologist to ‘back up’ factually, the belief that same sex with men (or women) is an “abomination to God”. It is a belief you profess as true and I think you feel it came from ‘authority’. You have also intimated that all who engage in gay sex are “sinners”, which would elude you believe gay sex is a sin for everyone. You also profess to “live and let live” which presents a dichotomy. How about we go to “where angels fear to tread”. Prove to me in a few true rational fully accountable unreproachable statements, that this belief is authentically true for everyone and therefore teachable to the masses to uphold the happiness of mankind’s mental emotional physical and spiritual well being. I think I have done ‘back up’ on your concerns about me. If not, I’m sure you will let me know. How about you back up this belief as true and honest fact, with the best you can deliver.
Karen, I hope this clarifies your concerns. If not please let me know.
Peace
Unfortunately, it is just such an assurance which Joseph Nicolosi gives to validate his absurd reparative drive/triadic family theories. While your ideas may prove an interesting starting point for discussion, Devlin, let me again make it clear that such comprehensive claims need independent, authoritative backup to be taken more seriously than personal opinion. That is standard procedure here.
Let’s also be careful that personal attacks are not made (knowingly or not) under the cover of psychoanalytic theory. As I mentioned above, it seems unnecessary, even inaccurate, to apply ones own convictions to all of humanity. But it is also inappropriate, certainly here, to ask someone to prove their faith — any faith — and it’s validity.
I’ve actually struggled with pornography (off and on) since high school, just like many men (straight or gay) my age. I say “struggle” because many men can pick up a copy of Playboy or go to some explicit website and don’t believe that it’s wrong at all. However, I see the world differently, thus if I have those impulses, I struggle against them. I also have been doing very well in my struggle against pornography for the past few months. It’s not really anyone’s business, but I just wanted to make the clarification that I didn’t trade my boyfriend for porn stars.
So I believe that violence is wrong, but if someone angers me to the point where I want to strike them, and my body wishes to react in that way, then obviously my belief is wrong and thus I should just get ready and deliver the punch, right?
Or if a man believes that he should be faithful to his wife, but his body longs to hook up with his secretary, then obviously his belief is wrong and he should get ready to commit adultery, right?
I could go on, but I honestly don’t think I needed to give those two examples in the first place to point out the flaws in that particular bit of logic.
Devlin,
Thanks for your clarification. That does help. I do believe that some people are truly repressed in the way that you describe. And I am glad that you qualified it as “some.” Certainly, there are ex-gays who do not fall in your extreme category of repression simply because they choose to refrain from sexual activity.
The concern I have is with the subjectivity that is involved in what is classified as “addiction” in your theory. You say that such dysfunction stems from error in thinking. I agree that much dysfunction stems from thinking errors. When I was a therapist–I leaned toward cognitive therapy which very much recognizes thinking errors as a major player in many pathologies. However, who decides what is the error? There are commonly recognized errors in thinking such as delusions around being Spiderman or believing everyone on earth should love you etc. However, you have taken Jay’s religious beliefs and said that they are erroneous and therefore he is subject to this psychopathology (potentially).
A good therapist knows that one needs to maintain objectivity in working with clients, including recognizing that clients may have various worldviews that differ from the clinician, and that one cannot simply consider a person pathological because they have a belief that is different from the one the therapist holds. That’s why diagnostic criteria has to be clearly spelled out. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–that includes addictions–clearly states what factors must be present to qualify as an addiction.
It would be unethical for a therapist to diagnose someone with pathology based on one’s personal subjective beliefs about religious doctrine, or personal views about sexual ethics (unless it is universally recognized as pathological such as the Jim Jones phenomena or rape)
I also would differ with another point you make. You state: “Though you may think that a belief is true with all your heart and mind, if the body/soul is telling you otherwise, the belief is erroneous.” First of all, what is the heart and what is the soul? And what is the difference? Also, what would it look like for the body and soul to “tell us otherwise”? What specific symptoms? You seem to indicate that any kind of anguish would suggest that a person is holding to an erroneous belief. Yet, anyone who has made a hard decision in their life can tell you that doing the right thing doesn’t always feel good. For example, it might become clear in a relationship that as much as one loves a particular person, both people’s lives are going in different directions and there needs to be a break-up. That could be painful, leading to depression and even physically feeling sick. In fact, normal, healthy grieving often doesn’t feel good.
What about somebody who falls in love with his best friend’s partner? Everything in him may be screaming to act on that. It “feels so right.” It would cause anguish to deny oneself. Yet, the noble thing would be to not betray one’s best friend, even if that causes some suffering. In fact, doing the noble thing can often put us in a place of suffering. In the same vein, I have done mental health evaluations on sociopaths who felt quite at peace and undisturbed by their criminal behavior.
Yes, its true there is a mind, body connection for when it comes to health. It is also true that anguish does not necessarily indicate error in thinking, any more than peace necessarily indicates everthing is always as it should be.
Dan–when I was referring to more at stake for women emotionally and physically, I definitely wasn’t meaning to deny that the stakes are not also high for men as well. I think they are high for both. Rather, I am referring to psychological studies that show that men are able to have casual sex in a way that most women cannot. Women are wired in such a way that sex causes deep emotional bonding in a slightly different way than seems to be for men. Also, if the woman is straight, the physical stakes are much much higher in that it can lead to pregnancy, childbirth, or making anguishing decision around abortion and subjecting oneself potentially to an abortion. Etc.
Agree David
And perhaps the best place to start for that ‘independent, authoritative backup’ would be to first show that, in fact, sexual addiction even exists in the first place. It’s being talked about as if it is a fact, with much of the ‘talk’ being circular.
There is no such diagnosis as sexual addiction. It has become a common enough term, in some circles, but that only begs the questions: what foreign substance has been introduced into the body upon which a physical dependence now exists? Hmmm? Where did the term originate, and who is (overwhelmingly) the source of the claims about this addiction?
(Clue #1: anti-sex, highly conservative, controlling and professionally-un(der)qualified American religious ‘counsellors’.)
To give but one example anyone can try: take the (most popular) on-line ‘screening test’ for ‘sexual addiction’. It will invariably suggest you need expert help. Any wonder, with the absurd and highly contentious/value-laden questioning that goes on.
Try taking that ‘test’ if you are a healthy, sane lesbian in a great relationship of 8 years but who unfortunately has an anti-gay family. Darnation, failed the “Has anyone been hurt emotionally because of your sexual behavior?” question.
Or, “Do you often find yourself preoccupied with sexual thoughts?” … urrr, yes… I’m human. Shoot me now, that’s apparently a warning sign you are a sex ADDICT. (I’m sure even the previously mentioned Mother Theresa failed that question!)
Or, bad news for all gay men in many parts of the World: “Are any of your sexual activities against the law?” and “Do you hide some of your sexual behaviors from others?”
Or, answer it as if you were (say) a 30 year old woman who has been left with 3 children to support, few jobs skills or opportunities and who has temporarily gone on the game …
Your answers HAVE MET … the criteria that indicate sex addiction is present. The following dimensions of an addictive disorder appeared in your answers: Affect disturbance: significant depression, despair, or anxiety over sexual behavior
Well, durh. And utterly meaningless. Survival prostitution is not an addiction, nor is struggling with the fact you are gay in an anti-gay society.
If it is compulsive behaviour that is being talked about, then simply label it ‘compulsive’. People make all sorts of stupid, irrational, unwanted or compromising decisions in life — and because they happen to do it with sex does not make them a ‘sex addict’.
Life would be all too tedious if you didn’t give into a harmless (or possibly even ‘foolish’) impulse every now and again. A little of what you fancy does you good 🙂
Blimey, I need a drink. (Maybe not: it’s 11am, and a work Thursday.)
I guess, I still disagree with that assumption. I know many women, straight and gay, who can seperate emotion from sex, much better than I can. Men may not need to worry about pregnancy, abortion, etc. , but we need to worry about our own bunch of issues that surround sex, that many women do not need to worry about.
I know it is hard to understand the opposite sex, but I don’t think it is fair to say there is more at stake in female sexual expression. I still stand behind my statement that the stakes emotionally and physically depend on the individuals investment in the other, and their feelings and security in themselves.
I don’t mean for it to be a personal debate here. I just read the statement and thought… hm. I don’t know if I agree with that?
I think you can get addicted to ANYTHING. (and bear in mind this is my OPINION here.) But in my experiences around addicts, as well as talking to my own mental health doctors about addiction, tells me that it is not the substance but the behavior toward the substance. Some substances are inherently addiction-causing because of their chemical structure (e.g. Nicotine found in tobacco). But people can become addicted to gambling, collecting objects obsessively, or eating certain foods. Some people have addictive personalities which makes dependence more likely.
The difference between addiction and “habit” or “just enjoying doing something a lot” in my mind becomes the difference between whether or not someone’s “habit” becomes negatively life-altering to their self or others.
via Dr. Michael Herkhov:
And before you accuse him of being a conservative chastity-belt waver:
Like mental illness, addiction can easily be misunderstood. They are both linked to the brain and the brain is a puzzle we’ve barely even found all the pieces to, let alone put them together.
I do agree that there is a difference between addiction and compulsion, but IMHO both have a place in the realm of sexuality and greater mental health.
According to resent research, the entire issue may be more biological/genetic that we ever realized.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/science/13tier.html
[David’s link] … human love is set off by a “biochemical chain of events”…
aah, so that’s what happened as I rode passed and he smiled at me. No, wait: that was a combination of instant lust and blinding gorgeousness. Does that still count?
Emily — I get what you’ve said. But I am leary of the A-word, especially with regard to sexual behaviour (and many other behaviours). I’m strongly preferring ‘compulsive’ or ‘dependence’ etc, if only because it causes more precise descriptions. I’ve also not lost the use of good words like ‘habit’, ‘greed’, ‘something they really enjoy’ etc etc etc 🙂
Having been accused of being “addicted to homosexuality” because I was adamant there was no hope in hell’s chance of me voluntarily breaking my relationship… well, you know what I mean about the imprecision of the A-word and it’s subsequent misuse.
(One of us is not addicted to New Zealand chocolate, either. All his claims aside.)
David,
Duly noted.
————–
Let me get this . . . umm . . . straight. Jay is gay and had a boyfriend he refused to have gay sex with bringing on the pain of breakup. He thinks gay sex is an abomination, yet he digs watching the abominable gay sex act online, resulting in pain in the aftermath. He publicly adjoins with gay sex nazis when it comes to other people’s gay sex lives, yet thinks he is a live and let live kinda guy, yet causing pain to the people who enjoy gay sex. He presumes he’s celibate, I assume to get kudos from his hopefully approving God, yet wags his condemning finger at all gays who have valid strong loving sex lives with a partner. Again pain. Pain pain pain. Guilt. Guilt. Guilt. Jay calls it struggle. Fine. So my question is to you, Devlin. Did you somehow miss the memo? Were you looking the other way? This is what some right wing sexual extremists do. This is how they think. This is Who. They. Are. These people live their lives, and some make their money, in my opinion, on twisted analogies. Yes doing “Bambi”. Nicolosi does it. Exodus does it. Anita Bryant did it. It’s nothing new. If intuition serves me, gay Jay, or anyone in his camp, could no longer belly up to your proposals than screw a female whore on a Saturday night. Some can shrug their shoulders, make the sign of the cross, wave their arms to Jesus, and walk away. I’ve accepted this as part of life, can you? Be that as it may, my suggestion to you is just relax and let time take it’s course.
Jay,
I saw your post to me, and I am glad I waited to answer you. You came in here swinging at Devlin for making sweeping statements which he clarified. Yet it would seem you have the same thing on your plate, which you have not clarified. You have glazed over Devlin’s proposal and questions, cherry picking his post to you. Can’t you do the same honor and answer him completely? Aren’t you calling the kettle black? It looks like you’re skating. Please. Prove me wrong. Right now, I cannot see the light in your ordeal, at all.
Don, I’ve tried to curb the personal attacks and smears in this thread but it continues with your comment. You could easily have made your points without being insulting to Jay and Devlin, or smearing the particulars of the formers faith. You would also have a much better chance of getting a reasonable reply to benefit the discussion.
As for Jay, while I don’t feel the need to live as he does (celibate), little in your description of him rings true with my perception of him at all. He has commented here frequently, and even posted once. I respect his personal beliefs precisely because he has never tried to foist them on me. He seems incredibly open about his life, which is why you know so much about his issues.
Let’s just be as civil as possible and do what we can to create a reasonable discussion. We all have our moments when emotion takes over judgment, but this one is getting a bit old.
Jay,
I am 18, I am captain of my high school football team, and I’m gay. My boyfriend and I have a complete full deeply loving relationship. We sleep overnight together on weekends. We also attend a gay affirming church. We are also planning college together.
I see from your blog that you would not attend our gay affirming church because we are sinners. You also call my sexual relationship with my boyfriend sinful and an abomination in the eyes of God.
With your comment on this thread regarding tolerance and “a generational thing”, if you came into my church and called me (us) those things, do you think I would not react?
Trip
Hey Trip,
I think I just need to clarify things a bit. I would not attend a gay-affirming church not because it has sinners in it, because every church has sinners in it, since every human being is a sinner. I wouldn’t attend such a church because of the doctrinal differences between its beliefs and my own. I’m a conservative Reformed Christian, and I don’t know of any denomination which holds to those precepts and is also gay-affirming. If I did, I would consider attending, but at the same time, the differences of our beliefs concerning homosexuality would be something to consider.
People usually want to attend a church that fits their doctrinal beliefs, even for seemingly trivial issues such as the type of baptism or communion that is used, so of course I would probably not go to a church that disagreed with my beliefs concerning human sexuality. I’m not saying that the church is illegitimate, any more than saying that the Roman Catholic Church is illegitimate. I just disagree on too many issues, so it’s not really productive to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, especially when it comes to finding one’s spiritual community. Why is that wrong?
Now, I also have never met you, so I don’t think I’ve personally said anything about you or your boyfriend’s relationship. Yes, I do believe that homosexual sex is sinful, because that’s what I view God’s Word as saying. However, I don’t try to judge other people. I simply share my beliefs and I move on. I have many commenters in committed relationships with their partners and we have respectful dialogs with each other in spite of our differing beliefs. I’m sorry you’re offended by my beliefs, but they are my own and I’m not asking that you believe in them.
I don’t know you, so I don’t know how you’d react to me in person. I was simply saying that most people my age (I’m 20) are tolerant of other views. I’ve told my beliefs to my gay friends before (including my ex-boyfriend, who is still a friend of mine) and it has led to some wonderful discussions and actually deeper friendships, because we may disagree with each other but we respect each other as friends. Yes, I’ve gotten some angry reactions, but I do my best to respond with peace and non-judgment, and it works out. If I came into your church and said the things you offered here, I would expect you to react. However, I wouldn’t do that. I respect other people’s beliefs (I respect people in general), and that includes you. Thank you.
Thanks for your response Jay.
Other doctrines aside, I’m talking only about a sexually gay affirming church, which you say you would not attend because of sexual sin.
What I hear you saying is, you are not judging those who have gay sex, but you do think they are sexual sinners and sexual abominations.
How do you set judgement apart from that and think your are not offending balanced gay sexually loving people? That’s kinda like saying, I love you as a person but your after school job sucks, your clothes make you look like a dork and your car is trash. Do you see the shame there?
How do you rationalize that Leviticus abomination line in the Bible, with all the other odd things about their sexual practices packed in those verses that don’t apply today?
I personally have no issue with your beliefs for you only. But I see you saying all who have gay sex are sinners. That changes the dynamic. How does that make you any different from the tv preachers that say the same thing? Could you please shed more light on that?
I know a few sexually confused gay kids here at my non religious school. How would you advise them if they came to you for help? Would you tell them they are abominations in the eyes of God and will go to hell if they continue, and to repent and go celibate?
Thank you too
Jay, you are more than welcome to believe what you want. But you are most certainly not more than welcome to stumble others because of it. The Apostle Paul and the daughter of Jephthah didn’t model their singleness as proof for others that it was a must. And you definately are in no position to do so either. Especially when the position you assertain follows the “traditions of men” even at the expense of Truth. You seem to confuse beliefs with facts. And your religion is obviously responsible for your beliefs. But unfortunately, it’s also responsible for denying you the facts. The Scriptural and historical facts. To prove this, I challenge you and your “religious” beliefs against the historical and biblical facts as retained within scripture and history. Please give me your response to an article I wrote which exposes the “religious” beliefs you subscribe to for the felonies for which they undeniably are. Here is the link:
https://exgaywatch.com/2008/11/xgw-digest-november-21-2008/#comment-40678
Once there, scroll down to November 26 at 9:28pm. I look forward to our discussion!
This is going to sound cliched, but I would never say that anyone is an abomination. The Bible never says that. I believe that God finds certain sex acts abominable (included heterosexual fornication and lust of all kinds, mind you), but there is a separation between the sinner and the sin.
I don’t need to get into an entire discussion about my beliefs concerning Leviticus, the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant, and all that stuff. It would take too long. My beliefs are pretty much summed up by the Side B portion of the Gay Christian Network. Here’s a link to the main essay there.
Well, I do. I say that all human beings are sinners. In fact, if you’re a Christian, you do as well. It’s one of the main beliefs of Christianity (after all, why would Christ die for our sins if we didn’t all have them?) More than that, unless you’re a Universalist, being a Christian means that you say that all those who don’t believe in God, or worship another god, are reprobate and need to be saved by Christ. That’s a very tough statement and people are liable to be offended by it, yet I think many Christians find they can have atheist or Muslim or Hindu friends quite easily.
I mean, how does one say, “I believe that the religion with which you were raised, and which your family believes, is totally wrong and leading you to a path of ruin?” It’s difficult, but to me, that’s a far more profound and offensive statement than saying, “I consider you a Christian brother, but I think that this particular thing you’re doing is sinful,” which is what I’m saying to you.
Now, in either situation, neither person has to listen to a word I say and I would respect that, and continue to be friends with them, because I don’t think friendship is dependent upon having the same beliefs. There’s no way that any two people are going to be able to have a relationship without offending one another. The most we can do is be patient, calm, and respectful.
I mean, surely, as a Christian, you’ve come across other Christians who you thought were sinning, even if they didn’t think so, right? Did you value them less or consider them less Christian? It’s basically the same with me. Yes, I have my beliefs about what is and isn’t sin, and I’ll share them with people, but I don’t know people’s hearts and I don’t judge their relationships with God.
To Tru Agape: So wait, simply sharing my story and beliefs (when asked about them, no less) means that I’m “stumbling others?” That makes no sense. I don’t hold myself as a model for anything, and I don’t confuse beliefs with facts. I’ve said all along that the things that I have are my beliefs, nothing more. If you can find a comment where I said anything else, I’d be very surprised. And I wouldn’t look forward to a discussion, if I were you. I’m a busy college student and I don’t really have time to debate things I’ve debated before. The link that I showed Trip, which is earlier in this piece, should speak for my beliefs well enough.
Tru,
When you write these words to anyone who disagrees with you, “you are more than welcome to believe what you want. But you are most certainly not more than welcome to stumble others because of it. The Apostle Paul and the daughter of Jephthah didn’t model their singleness as proof for others that it was a must. And you definately are in no position to do so either., don’t you realize that people of good will and good faith who have grappled with the issues and come to a different conclusion as yourself could say the same of you? That you’re not more than welcome to stumble others because of your beliefs?
I looked at your article and it’s just a rehash of the Boswell thesis. All of the historical revisionism that you espouse as truth has existed only since the 1950s, and more prevalently since the 1980s, with John Boswell’s seminal publication about homosexuality in the middle ages. It’s one in a long line of individuals attempting to implant a new and “advanced” interpretation on Scripture that justifies them living a life that God proclaimed as sinful. It’s been going on since the beginning of Christianity, and it’s not surprising that most heretical teaching has had a sexual component attached to it. Words of Clement of Alexandria, one of the Early Fathers of the Church are very apropos to your article, to your beliefs, and the entire beliefs of the MCC. It’s clear that the primary motivation behind this revision of Scriptural and historical Church teaching has been done and entered into to support living a life that fully embraces all aspects of homosexuality living, with no prohibition against active sexuality. Boswell was a homosexual man who desired to find evidence to support his way of life, a life the Roman Catholic Church, (of which he was a member) taught was immoral. The MCC was formed to be a church that embrace homosexuality, fully and completely. It has really no other purpose for its existence, when one looks at its history.
Here’s what Clement said about changing Scripture to suit one’s desires:
Those who drag in a doctrine of moral indifference do violence to some few passages of Scripture, thinking that they support their own love of pleasure; in particular, the passage “Sin shall have no authority over you; for you are not subject to sin but to grace.” But there are other such passages, which there is no good reason to record for these purposes, as I am not equipping a pirate ship! Let me quickly cut through the attempt. The admirable Apostle in person will refute their charge in the words with which he continues the previous quotation: “Well then! Shall we sin because we are no longer under Law but under grace? God forbid!” With these inspired prophetic words, at a single stroke he undoes the sophistical skill at the service of pleasure.
Boswell, Mel White and the like have done “violence to some few passages of Scripture, thinking that they support their own love of pleasure.” This has all been seen before: heresies which justify sexual sins by distorting Scripture have been rampant throughout the history of the Church, and this current one is just like all the ones that have gone before. There’s nothing new under the sun. These theories are just another case of using sophistical skill at the service of pleasure.
It’s apparent that your post consists of generalities, and espoused correlations between my article and the unspecific correlations that you attempt to equate my words with the postions taken by those whom you referenced in your response to me. I am not interested in noise or sound bites. And I am definately not interested in the broadened conclusions you build your position on, of which the specifics of the historical facts would out handily dispute you. Such a post as yours only helps to validate that the devil of your untruthful position is in the details. Details you seem to be more comfortable evading by relying on generalities and unfounded suppositions. You can keep your reliance of Boswell and Mel White, to base your rebuttle. I didn’t need those references to portray the facts. And I don’t respect you using them to cover up your own inability to recognize the facts as retained in scripture and history. If you want to dialogue about the error of your position and your post, then I am more than prepared and equipped to do so. And I hope that you will be able to say the same. And as we begin our interchange I want it to be absolutely clear to you that my position is not based on a belief, as you mistakenly project. My position is nothing more than a realization of the facts. So please do not make the mistake again of assuming that the postion I defend is merely a belief. A belief that is only relavant to the beholder, subject to subjectivity. That my friend, would be the characteristics of your position. Not mine. And as our dialogue continues, this fact will become more clear to you. Now at this time I will ask for you to take accountability for your words and to defend your accusations against my position with the evidence that supports your claims. And I want the details. Not the blanket rhetoric you and so many of the so called “Christian leaders” so conveniently gravitate to.
To Jay,
You claim that you don’t confuse your beliefs with the facts. Well that statment of yours in comparison to the beliefs that you profess is such an oxymoron. Because if your statement were true, then the facts alone would prevent you from clinging to the belief you present. Consider the following as an example.
“Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality”. – a position many “Christians” support.
Is such a statement a belief or a fact?
For starters, the statement “Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality” is not a belief I hold, and even cursory examination of my blog and my discussions with other people would show that I’m not the kind of person to hold to those kinds of beliefs. Even if it was something I believed, it would still be a belief, not a fact.
After all, the statement implies that Sodom was destroyed by God. Thus, it can’t even possibly be in the realm of facts, since God’s existence is a belief held by individuals, not a fact. By extension, any speculation about God’s motivations in destroying Sodom (which I believe were based in Sodom’s general wickedness, not sexual practices) also lies in the realm of beliefs. There can be no scientific evidence to show that God exists, and though there might be historical evidence that a city such as Sodom existed (and was even destroyed), there can be no evidence to prove that God destroyed it or why He destroyed it. Thus, any beliefs about that are just that: beliefs.
That’s what I meant when I said I separate beliefs from facts. I believe that God exists. However, God’s existence is not a fact, because it can’t be proven. Thus, any beliefs that I have about God’s nature, including what I believe He finds sinful, are also just beliefs. They aren’t facts and I don’t treat them as such, no matter how tightly I hold to them.
Instead of addressing the perspectives of your psycho-analysis about the implications you claim about the destruction of Sodom and the existence of God, I, for the time being, only want to focus on one particular thing. And that is your response to the unscriptural assertion that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality. Are you saying the opposite of what “traditional Christianity” attempts to portray, namely, that the Scriptures don’t equate or even reference this city in association with homosexuality? What position do you hold? Because what ever “belief”, you claim you seperate from facts, the reference that all proclaiming Christians would use as their source for whatever positon one holds in regards to homosexuality is none other the Inspired Word itself, the Scriptures. And it is here where I hold your position up against.
I’ve already answered this, Tru. I clearly said, in my first sentence, that I don’t believe Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. In my second paragraph, I said that I believe God destroyed Sodom because of the general wickedness that was there. I don’t think the Scriptures really link homosexuality and the destruction of Sodom. Many Christians do, but I’m an individual with my own set of beliefs.
After all, the men of Sodom were asking to rape Lot’s guests. Yes, those guests happened to be male, but if they had been female, do you think that the proposed rape would have been any less wicked? I do not, and I don’t think God saw it that way, either.
But I don’t really see how this discussion is relevant to anything.
Actually this discussion is more relavant than you may currently realize. I am also aware that you stated your position regarding Sodom and homosexuality the first time. But before I continued, I wanted to make sure that there was no ambiguity in that remark so that there wouldn’t be any room for you to back track later, if you so chose. Now with that said, your last post adds a measure of validity to my position. And if you don’t see this now, you will eventually. It also gives my article that I linked, which “Dan from Michigan” pathetically ignored, some form of credibility (however slight it may appear) from an oposing view such as yours.
But I don’t want to leave this topic prematurely, so consider this: What do you say about religions and “Christians”, who actually try to change Scripture to make it look as if Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. To quote “Dan from Michigan”, would you agree that it does“violence to some few passages of Scripture…”?
Tru,
I’m not going to engage in a debate with you about your beliefs, (and yes, they are beliefs, as Jay so clearly pointed out–anything that is not ascertainable through scientific means remains only a belief or hypothesis. It is possible to talk about the facts of how a particular word was translated, but the construal of a moral code from those facts remains a belief, since first and foremost, we cannot prove that God exists, and secondly, we cannot prove, factually, that He ever said anything at all. That’s just common sense, so anything we ever say about what God said can only ever be a belief.)
I entered this discussion for one reason: to pose a question about the belief that homosexuality is approved by God, and to perhaps stir some curiosity among those still trying to answer that question for themselves, as I once was, long ago. We are all imbued with rational minds. We all must use our rational mind to weigh the evidence and to be guided by our consciences.
There is a young man who has commented in this thread who attends a gay affirming church. He has only ever lived in a time and era where it was possible to find a church that affirms homosexuality. I have begun to wonder how many men and women will actually pursue learning the history of A), where gay theology has come from, B), whom its authors were, and C), what the Church has historically said about the subject.
A fascinating study is to seek out a history of heresies within the church, since its inception. There are numerous heresies that were motivated largely by a desire to pursue sexual activities that had always been taught as immoral. I leave this comment in this thread, with the assumption that it will be attacked, but I leave it nonetheless, for someone to read who is like I was, over 20 years ago, desperately seeking out answers. I desire to share the fact that heresies have existed from the dawn of Christianity that have used Scripture to justify immoral living, as Clement pointed out in Sromatesis, his refutation of heresies written in the second century A.D. I hope and pray that it might give a young man or woman pause to think more deeply about trusting in the validity of a gay affirming theology that has only existed since 1950. Five decades is a very meager track record for basing a belief that homosexuality is acceptable to God, when there are two millenia of weight in the other direction, where we are called to deny our the desires of the flesh, and to take up our Cross daily and follow Christ. No one denies that Scripture teaches those truths, and for me, my daily cross is to have homosexual desires that I cannot fulfill, out of obedience to Christ, and that is the daily cross I have chosen. I am convinced that this is the message of the Gospel to men and women who struggle with homosexuality: deny your desires, and come to the foot of the Cross, in all your pain and sorrow at unfulfilled desires and submit your will to His, saying Thy will be done, not mine.
Once again you gravitate towards generalities. What’s the matter do the details scare you? This whole interchange that we should be having is not about the existence of God and the evoutionary argument of whether his existence is factual or merely a belief. You are subltly trying to change the nature of this discussion and it’s not going to work. The fact that our discussion is even centered around wheter or not homosexuality is a “sin” should clue you in that I am not here to argue agains the validity of the scriptures or the belief within its divine author. That is the reason why that if you go back and examine my posts you will find that I almost always used the phrase the “facts as retained in scripture”, or the “facts as retained in history”, because it should be absolutely obvious to you that the belief that both of share is in God and his inspired Word. So there is no dispute in regards to that. So starting now, I would appreciate it if you would put to rest this tired tangent about the psychosimatic discussion about the belief in God and his existence being factual or not.
Now from this point forward let’s continue only the discussion of the biblical facts as retained in history and the scriptures. And as I have solidly and accurately told you and will continue to tell you, it is not my position that carries the burden of being a belief. It is yours! And the facts as retained within Scripture will prove this. And sooner or later, you too will realize this as well if you don’t already.
To begin , I will present you with this: Since you like to quote the Church Fathers, show me one church father that used 1. Cor. 6:9 in regrads to homosexuality. After all it is one of the scriptures that “Christians” today often quote.
Dan,
don’t be so dramatic. we’re not going to “attack” you. And man, for a religion that rejoices so much at the “end of sin” by a mystical sacrifice, Christians sure do know how to make themselves spiritually suffer.
And I’ve studied many heresies, nearly all of them had to do with the nature of the godhead. I don’t remember any of them having to do with wanting to be able to marry their partner of the same sex.
Additionally, just because something remains some way for 2000 years does not automatically give it validity. If that were the case, Jews would still be openly blamed by the majority of Christians for Deicide; and we’d have to watch our backs extra careful on Good Friday.
Speaking of Jews, Walk up to any well-studied Orthodox Jew and ask them if for 2000 years someone can have all the evidence in front of them and still hold fast to the wrong conclusion. All they will then have to do is ask you who the Messiah is.
You say “later” as if we’re going to continue this discussion. I’m sorry, but if you’re going to be disingenuous and put me through the effort of writing several paragraphs just so you can pull a “ha, got ya!” moment later on in a debate, I’m not game for that. I don’t deal with those kinds of manipulative tactics from people in real life and I refuse to deal with them here.
I would like to hear back from Trip, if he’s still reading, but I really don’t have time to deal with your disingenuous debate style, Tru. Have a nice day.
Jay,
I don’t like those gotcha moments either. Which is the reason why I cover my bases as I go. I’ve been engaged in too many conversations in the past where ones have backtracked to inadvertantly repackage what they already said. So If you see this “technique” I use as your opportunity to make a “staged exit” from what I can promise you will be an uncomfortable conversation for the postion that you hold, then it dosen’t give the belief that you hold the credibility it requires. Because I can assure you that I will most certainly highlight the fallacies and the unscriptural elements regarding the damaging belief you hold and share. And that’s a fact! If your position isn’t biblically strong enough to be tested in the same manner the Bereans tested Paul’s words, then it isn’t worthy of even being considered as true by any self respecting Christian, now is it?
Dan, the purpose of XGW is not to provide you or anyone else with a soapbox to proselytize others. When appropriate and germane to the discussion, you are free to share your particular beliefs and understanding of the world but not in such a way that you denigrate or browbeat someone else concerning theirs. Your attitude throughout this thread is laced with condescension and intolerance, assigning motivations to others and to entire denominations. If you fancy yourself a prophet, please go elsewhere. If, on the other hand, you can discuss issues with others without such obvious disdain for all views but your own, you are welcome to participate. Please decide which is most important to you.
You are convinced, Jay is convinced, Tru Agape is convinced, and all of different things or of differing degrees. There will always be those who have different opinions on peripheral issues in Scripture, and those who deny it entirely. Again, it is not the purpose of this blog to declare one right and the other wrong, but only to deal with matters of faith as they intersect ex-gay issues. That is our common goal, the rest has its place elsewhere.
On the other end of the spectrum, it seems absurd that Jay is being pummeled for simply having a different opinion. And he only expressed it when asked, rather than trying to force-feed it to the rest of us. And while it seems perfectly acceptable to inquire about what and why he believes something, this rapid-fire baiting is not. He believes something and he is living according to it as best he can. He is not requiring that others do, nor is he a hypocrite to my mind. Short of completely homogeneous national thought, I don’t know how much more one could ask.
Let’s get back on track please.
Jay and Dan,
I’m sorry if I came across rather strong. As you can see, I am very passionate about this topic. And am even more passionate about calling out the religious positions commonly held about homosexuality that aren’t supported in Scripture or history. But behind every opinion is a beautiful and wonderful human being who has been created in the image of God. And I’m sorry if I in some way forgot that in regards the two of you.
Peace!!
Hi Jay,
I agree that God cannot be proven to exist. It goes into “airy fairy” for me. I don’t see Jesus the same way because he lived and was a tangible human being that taught unconditional love. Therefore I solely find the 613 laws in the five books of the Torah which contains Leviticus, were all laws set down by Moses, a man, to dictate ancient Hebrew behavior. Right on. He had people to create structure for, and like many today, he was homophobic and wrote law with an iron fist called “God”. Great strategy.
That today is illegal and for obvious good reason.
I know the gay sex thing in Leviticus was just a sex law put on the books of that time, just like the sodomy laws that were just struck down recently in our current society. But most people don’t know the idea of an unprovable God, and when “God” is tied into anything negative, it packs a severe wallop to beat down and fool the uneducated or potentially hypnotized.
But I also don’t see you giving this extended belief about the unprovability of the existence of God to your posters either, or even to me after you called me a “sinner” for having gay sex. It is fact that there was a law on the books criminalizing gay sex in the Old Testament, just like there was one today. Is it a sin against a God we can’t prove exists? Kinda maybe hardly. Nope! If Jesus teaches unconditional love, then his teacher would even teach greater things. If there is a God above Jesus in ability, I don’t think he would be much into tyranical sex laws with death for punishment.
You seem to stick to the airy fairy part of the “gay sex is a sin against God” fairy tale to pack your wallop against yourself and others regarding gay sex. Why not entertain the “fact” that is was only civil law now stricken from the books, inapplicable to American law, (we are not Hebrews) and leave the factless unprovable God stuff out of it? If you can’t God-prove what you believe around gay sex, then what’s the point? Why would you choose to live under a several thousand year old other country Hebrew Law anyway? You seem too bright to not see the oddity in that.
I think you could really gain by running the same sinness you have about gay sex, on left handed people for one full week. Or do a mach several times every day, relentlessly. Just walk up to them and look them in the eyes and say, ‘you know I really think you are great, but do you know you are a sinner with that left handed writing you do? God greatly disapproves of that’.
I think once you get the absurdity of this anti Jesus gay sex ponzi scheme you’ve joined into, you may become more palatable to yourself and the world around you.
I believe lies are as powerful in their effects as is the truth. And a lie always hurts. By calling me a “sinner” you have supported and projected a baseless unprovable lie. Trust me, I don’t take offense. I am well too educated in the art of control through shame. You would NOT BELIEVE my father’s antics with me some times!!! (laughing)
So Jay, I have a question for you, one I want you to please fully answer. (and the other questions above) Then I have to go meet Shane for our study night together.
Lets say hypothetically my sexually active gay-confused school friend Mark, (a real friend of mine) who came to you for advise, just committed suicide. Here’s the down:
Mark’s mother sees blood coming from under the bathroom door onto the hallway floor. She opens the door to find Mark partially blue and dead, laying in a pool of his own blood. Mark is her only son. Mark’s parents never had a problem with Mark being gay. Now he’s gone forever.
Mark’s suicide note reads,
“Jay who I trusted, said I was a sinner for having gay sex. It really hurt when he said that. He was the last straw. I feel so guilty, it’s killing me. You all are straight, I’m not. I feel so alien here. I can’t live in a world that judges me so harshly. Please don’t hate me for leaving. I can’t stay here any longer. Mom, dad, I love you and I’m really sorry. But I’m not welcome here and I just gotta go. Goodbye, Mark”
Now. His parents want to talk to you. I want to talk to you. We show you the note. You read it. You look up into our very sad eyes. What would you say to us?
Thanks for being here,
Trip
Trip, clearly you have been beaten over the head with the sin accusation plenty in your life (your father) so I can understand your sensitivity to Jay’s view. But I just got done asking that we show more respect in this discussion and you write the above, among other things, which takes us back in the other direction again. Did you even read what I wrote?
Again, I understand how one can feel after being on the other end of judgmental people, but Jay is simply owning up to his own understanding of Scripture. Unless he is attacking you with it, he’s just being honest. You give him far too much power over your life with your inability to accept his opinion as just that.
Tru Agape,
I want to say how much I respect and appreciate your study of the different views of Scripture. While, I have come to a different conclusion than you in my own studies of pro-gay theology, I appreciate that you take the time to seriously engage with Scripture. Many people on both sides do not even bother to make the attempt at study of these issues. But, I can see that you have taken considerable time to thoughtfully think it through.
I read your linked article. I agree that Sodom has been taken out of context to focus exclusively on highlighting homosexual sin. I don’t think that Scripture necessarily precludes homosexuality from being one of the many different possible sins of Sodom, but the passage has certainly been abused to single out homosexuality.
As for arsenkoitai–I didn’t see you mention it in your article, but there is good evidence to suggest that Paul created a compound word from the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18:22 which includes “arsen” and “koitai” which suggests when Paul is using arsenkoitai he is thinking of Leviticus 18:22.
Since, I know this is probably not the place to get into a theological discussion on this particular thread, I am wondering if you might be willing to dialogue with me on the various scriptures on my blog. I just recently finished about four posts pertaining to my reflections on pro-gay theology and reasons why I have landed where I am so far. I would welcome your thoughts. I always learn best from those who see things differently than I do. My first post in the series begins here: https://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/jesus-on-homosexuality/
In C.S. Lewis’, The Great Divorce, he describes a character who is being harrassed by a lizard on his shoulder.. The lizard represented sexual lust. An angel came along and offered to kill it for him, but the man was reluctant at first to allow the angel to do so. Finally, the man agreed to let the angel kill the lizard because he was so harrassed by the evil thing. The angel grabbed it, broke its neck, and as it lay on the ground dead, the man transformed into this luminous being and the dead lizard transformed into a beautiful stead onto which the man mounted and rode away toward heaven. For years after reading this, I believed that my homosexuality was that same lizard of lust that needed to be killed. But no angel came along to do that for me. I prayed, begging God to free me from my homosexuality. I read and memorized scripture hoping that its influence on my mind and heart would cleanse me from my homosexuality. I submitted to many sessions of exorcisms, hoping to have that lizard cast off my shoulder. All along the way, it whispered hateful things into my ear. I believed I was someone less because of this lizard on my shoulder. Finally, an angel came to me ( cancer) and as I struggled to live, this angel destroyed the lie that I was somehow less of God’s Child because I was gay. The angel destroyed that lizard, and what came from that was a renewed sense of my worth in God’s sight. The lizard died–and my sexual compulsion transformed into something beautiful. My love for God and my wonderful life partner are a testimony to that
Karen K,
Thank you for response. And thank you for your invitation to dialogue with you on this topic matter. I would like to particpate and look foward to doing so. Since this particular blog isn’t the place for such a discussion, i won’t respond to your comment about arsenokoitai and its proposed relationship to Lev.18:22 via Paul here. But I will repost a portion of the article that I already wrote that addresses your prespective by default. But my comments about it and the other pats of your post (your use of the word “precludes”) will be made on your blog. Again thanks for the invite!
below is the excerpt:
Carelessly, anyone attempting to justify ‘arsenokoitai’ being changed or even compared to homosexual, male or female, has first failed at recognizing the cohesive relationship the Scriptures maintain, and then, simply put, failed to translate! The first red flag should have been the fact that ‘arsenokoitai’, unlike the word “homosexual”, does not bear any reference to females. That’s interesting, especially when one considers that so-called Christians try to co-relate Romans 1 with the 1 Corinthian passage to support their erroneous claim. But despite such an unscriptural effort, a glaring omission inadvertently arises. Because while the Romans passage uses a Greek word translated by most as “likewise” to compare the rebellion of “both” sexes, addressing those women who ‘exchanged’ the natural use of themselves, it’s actually only the men whom the passage records as being ‘burned out’ with lust after one another after ‘leaving’ women. More importantly, however, is that the account in Romans never once uses the term ‘malakoi’ or ‘arsenokoitai’. And by the same respect, neither 1 Corinthians nor 1 Timothy utilize the wording found in Romans 1. Yet, coincidently, the same writer, Paul, wrote all three of these books! In fact, it’s worth noting that not even the early “Church Fathers” used 1 Cor6:9 or the two words found there in conjunction with homosexuality or Romans 1. That dishonest practice had yet to formulate, and it wouldn’t become a part of “Sacred Tradition” until centuries later. All the while, not even the structure of the words themselves ever allowed for such a comparison, this fact even being realized by “modern translators” as early as the penning of the Latin Vulgate which literally interprets ‘arsenokoitai’ as ‘liers with males’.
All along, however, it was the original biblical setting of the Romans 1 passage itself that provided the framework and dimension to Paul’s words found there to give it its perspective; because even history contextualized this passage in association with rampant orgies, bestiality, and idolatrous sexcapades. In fact, even within the Mosaic Law, the Levitical Law Code remained contextually accurate regarding the Canaanite culture of its day by addressing the idolatrous sex rituals its male priests engaged in. Hence, the absence of any reference to females. And the explanation of the Law, also known as the book of Deuteronomy, emphasizes this idolatrous theme by this time warning all of Israel against becoming temple prostitutes and cross-dressing, inturn, keeping itself apart from the pagan practices that lay ahead. So fittingly, Paul’s denunciation in Romans for their ‘passions of dishonor’ is something all Christians, gay, straight, or transgendered, agree with! All of this, however, presents a sharp contrast to the reaction Jesus had towards the faithful centurion who asked that his ‘pais’ be healed; or the interaction between the Gospels and the Ethiopian eunuch (or as some presume to hastily finalize: “court official”)………………
Tru Agape,
Great! Looking forward to the dialogue over on my blog. I would be interested in what you think of the premises in the four posts I have written thus far. I will look forward to seeing your comments there. Thanks for engaging!
If I get some time today, I would like to address this issue in depth. but for now, I will say this. The bible means what you think it means, nothing more and nothing less. Some things are clear– no divorce except for adultery, plus the Pauline exception. Except that we frequently ignore them because they are inconvenient, like divorce, or contravene any basic sense of decency.
Some things are completely unclear– the so called absolute prohibitions against homosexuality, which are absolute or prohibitions only if you have already decided that they are. The evidence for that is questionable, and frequently circular in shape.
Some things appear to be clear, but they are not. “Don’t work on the Sabbath” depends on whether you think Saturday or Sunday is the Sabbath. And for Americans, whether Wal-Mart is open or not. “Judge not lest ye be judged” also seems to be clear, except for the good “Christians” who think they are only reporting, not judging. Convenient.
And some things– slay all the unbelievers, as in Deuteronomy– we flat out ignore– because we don’t give authority to ancient texts that contravene any basic sort of morality that doesn’t involve telling other people what’s right in the eyes of the lord, or doesn’t have to do with sex.
All of that ambiguity alone– and there is a great deal more– should be sufficient to inform any thinking person, whether believer or not, that the bible’s applicability to modern life may have much to do with faith, but very little to do with morality.
JC said nothing at all about homosexuality, but he did say “feed the poor”. How many children died in Darfur while good Christians were attacking my marriage as sinful?
Some months ago, I had an online conversation with a pastor on these very pages. He claimed that the bible was quite clear on the subject (it is not) and that Jesus himself condemned the sin of Sodom, which was homosexuality. How did he know this? Because he could cite a passage where Jesus condemned the sin of Sodom. Because it was “well known at the time” that the sin of Sodom was sexual in nature, and that the sin was homosexuality. and how did he know this? Not from the bible, because Jesus NEVER MENTIONED THIS OH SO IMPORTANT subject.
So how did he know it? Because some other writer, whose name and time he could not or did not cite, said it was. Well, so much for biblical authority on this subject if you must go to other books that are not the authoritative bible in order to prove biblical authority. Circularity upon circularity.
In short, he pulled it, as we say, out of his ass. and like all things that come from there, it stank– of corruption and at least moral rot. He already knew what he believed to be true. all the rest was just a detail.
and so it goes for a good deal of what passes for authority on moral matters from those who would cite their bibles as incontrovertible truth that their beliefs are the incontrovertible truth. Circularity upon circularity.
Those who would condemn gay people, claiming that they speak for G when they only speak for themselves, used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty. But we no longer burn witches, because we know that they do not exist, and because, as I already said…
…we don’t give authority to ancient texts that contravene any basic sort of morality and decency, that doesn’t involve telling other people what’s right in the eyes of the lord, or doesn’t have to do with sex.
more to follow if I have time.
David,
I hold similar views as Jay, however my interpretation of a side B Christians halts me from verbally calling anyone a sinner for having gay sex. I take side B as my own views that hold only to me. Otherwise I would just be another Rick Warren throwing gasoline on the fire.
Trip’s posts are pretty benign from my viewpoint, especially with Jay calling him a sinner for having gay sex. He demeaned Trip’s relationship, does that bring anyone closer to unconditional love? In Canada, public hate speech is a criminal prosecutable offense of up to 2 years in prison short of it being religiously based. When it comes to separation of church and state law, emotions really don’t give a rats ass.
I think if you are going to come down on Trip, a similar message needs to go to Jay to stop throwing that age old sexual belief dagger. It does not help anyone to get closer. If you see calling someone a sinner for having gay sex as some little ‘ol off the shelf belief with no fire in it, well that would be surprising. You may not react but thousands do, like the ones protesting Prop 8.
I’m sure if Jay is put off by Trip’s post he will let him know. I personally have found a lot to think about from Trip’s words. He sounds very rational and grounded. I certainly hope you haven’t scared him away.
This is my view as well, though I am not side B and do not agree with Jay on that issue.
“Anti Jesus gay sex ponzi scheme” is not a benign way to refer to another commenter’s beliefs. Jay answered a question and went out of his way to try to be honest and not offend. He didn’t demean anyone, he simply stated his own beliefs. I have no idea what Canadian law has to do with it unless you suggest that what he said should actually be illegal. I find that notion absurd, even for those who really are haters.
Again, he didn’t throw anything. It is apparently the fact that he believes something which is causing all the fuss, because he certainly hasn’t pushed it on anyone (if he did I would ask him to stop). There is a presumption here that we are adults and can discuss things with which we disagree in a civil manner. Prop 8 is not about what others believe, it is about rights which are being denied. The Mormon church already thinks I am lost because I’m not a Mormon, so why should I care what else they think of me?
Are you serious?
I don’t agree with Jay’s beliefs on homosexuality. I don’t think I’ve ever told someone they were sinning, and I don’t think it would accomplish anything good if I did. But then he only said that when he was asked what he believes, so what should we expect, that he lie? If you want to know why he thinks that way, ask him (but don’t get mad at the answer). If you don’t care, then don’t.
In the mean time, he’s a great example of someone who has the same beliefs concerning his sexuality as those at Exodus, but has taken what seems to me a much more authentic course of action. He doesn’t worship heterosexuality, he doesn’t believe if he works real hard and prays that he will become heterosexual and he hasn’t devoted his life to an ex-gay program detached from reality and calling everyone here “gay identified.”
Instead, he is just celibate. It’s his life, and he has that right just as we expect the right to live with the person we love. It is a far more honest answer to my mind, and I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with it. There are going to be people whose beliefs will not let them accept their homosexuality, even 100 years from now I suspect. I would rather they emulate Jay than Randy Thomas.
I was put off by Trip’s post, not because I was offended, but because of the hypothetical suicide situation which was just a tad over the line of reasonable discourse. I don’t usually use such appeals to pathos when I debate, because it’s awfully hard to respond to it rationally.
I think it’s important for you to realize how my conversation with Trip started before you insert yourself. I made a comment (in response to one by Emily K) about how tolerance among people with different beliefs is likely a generational thing. I didn’t say anything about homosexuality or sin in it. Trip responded to that comment by bringing up issues that I have written about on my own personal blog. He essentially asked what I thought about homosexuality and sin, and I answered honestly. Perhaps I answered a little too bluntly, but I wasn’t throwing a dagger; I was just answering a question. For that matter, I was answering a question that that he already knew the answer to, since my blog has about two years of archived posts in it, and anyone is free to read it and find out more about my beliefs.
The fact of the matter is that no matter who you are, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. For instance, I’m a Calvinist. Non-Calvinists can say some pretty nasty things about the doctrinal beliefs that I hold dear and that I see as central to my being. Should I tell them to stop throwing daggers at my spirituality, or that their rants aren’t helping me reach “unconditional love?” No. I should respect their opinions as just that — opinions. As long as they don’t try to keep me from practicing my faith (just like I don’t support measures like Prop 8), we can have a reasonable discussion. It doesn’t really matter how anyone chooses to respond, either. They can ignore me, and I can ignore them, or we can both learn from each other and move on. In any case, people should be free to say what they wish.
And like I’ve said several times, Trip and I disagree on what does and doesn’t constitute a particular sin. That does not mean I have made any sort of judgment about his relationship with God. If he says he believes in Christ, that’s good enough for me. I’ll still speak my mind but I see him as a Christian friend.
Now, aside from that, it’s always good to meet another Side B guy. Feel free to comment on my blog or e-mail anytime. Trip, you too, for that matter. Adios.
The Mormon church does not believe you are lost because you are not Mormon. Evangelicals believe you are lost if you are Mormon. Get it right!
Careful Jay. Even a statement like that, on an ecumenical blog like this, has the power to isolate.
David,
I respect your comment, however my father has never called me a sinner. I used the ponzi scheme (pyramid programs) as an analogy. If you can get enough people to buy into a product, in this case sexual shame, the guy at the top makes out, in this case with a free ticket to heaven.
Jay wrote: “I consider you a Christian brother, but I think that this particular thing you’re doing is sinful,” which is what I’m saying to you.
I’m no so much concerned with my own sensitivity towards being slammed as a sexual sinner, but that of the sexually abused, particularly ones who take their lives over Jay’s brand of religious sexual interpretation. Because one may boast within their self perceived righteousness, that does not mean they are clear. I would direct Jay to the new post made today on your web sight. Thanks for putting it up, it really smacks of rational thinking and could be helpful to many.
Denny,
You are right on and I appreciate your ability to walk within yourself on this issue.
Jay,
You have skirted almost every question I have put to you. It is unbecoming and does not speak well of your character. In light of this, the invitation to your blog seems trite.
I ask that while you are in your sexual war against yourself i.e. your “brokenness”, that you publicly refrain from calling others broken like you through your sexual, I’m a sinner you’re a sinner, mentality. Like myself, others are sexually balanced and would no longer try to cut off our sexuality than cut off a foot or an arm. They are all physically equally important. Like I would say to Rick Warren, your personal “Christian” sex war is your issue, noone elses.
My gay friend Mark, who is vulnerable and does have suicidal thoughts at times, read your posts here. It took us hours to calm him down. Your lack of response to my mach shows me your compassion is mostly caged within your intellect. I’m uninterested in cleaning up your imbalanced sexual fallout, but I will do so with those that present themselves to me, as that is my job as a student of Jesus and a compassionate human being. Think as sexually negative as you like, just don’t think it on others who think more clearly than you do about sex. If you continue anger and conflict will continue to follow. I urge you to make “I, me” statements, instead of “you, them” while in your “sexual brokeness”.
Like an obstinate child, until you evolve to refrain within and shore up your boundaries, I am leary of welcoming you at my table, as I would not want a “scene”. We are adults here. I ask that you at least attempt keeping your meat and potatoes on your own plate while visiting others, and keep your fork and knife held tightly to your own hands.
I wish you the best in your recovery.
Good day,
Trip
I apologize, I misinterpreted your earlier comment about your father.
I didn’t hear anyone describe such a concept and I don’t think it’s fair to characterize what Jay said he believes as such.
This is becoming a personal discussion between Trip and Jay, so I’m going to do something I rarely do and ask you to take it off the blog if you wish to continue. Trip seems to know how to contact Jay if he wishes.
I am uncomfortable with the implication that this discussion is connected with the well being of your friend. If he indeed has suicidal thoughts, you should make sure he is taken to professionals immediately. It is unreasonable to assign such a Sword of Damocles over what is said here.
Since everything germane seems to have been said, I’m going to close out this thread to further discussion. Thanks to everyone for your participation.