Friday, April 13, 2007

Hiding Behind God? by calling homosex a sin? More Mudball Blasts on Mudville

LD is over there wallowing in Mudville blasting away at two Blade writers --one who defended the war in Iraq as necessary to preserve our western way of life --and one who defended the Blade writer named Barb who defended General Pace in his comments on homosexuality and adultery in the military.

One of the new commenters in Mudville said people like Barb, in her Blade letter, were hiding behind God. Below is MY response to that:

People who see homosexuality as I do aren't hiding behind God, as one blog commenter said. People either believe the Bible on the subject of human sexuality or they do not. And the Bible doesn't incline me to hate or give me license to hate those who disagree. We are even to "love your enemies" and be willing to be "persecuted for righteousness' sake" --which only happens when we stand up for righteousness --and who more than the Bible has a right to define righteousness and sin -- at least for those who believe in the God of Judeo-Christianity --which is probably most Americans.

Public policy does and should reflect the majority's view of right and wrong. Otherwise, we sanction anything that the minority believes is OK for them. So there IS a cultural war going on--a battle over definition of good and evil --and how far personal liberty can go in a humane and decent society, fit for the rearing of good and functional citizens.

The Bible says all sex outside hetero marriage is sin --and people who sin sexually (and Jesus said everyone has done so in his heart/mind) need to flee temptation that starts in the mind --and pursue that which God has sanctioned/ordained --celibate single-hood or monogamous marriage --for which our bodies are designed. the first is a difficult road, i think, and the priests of the catholic church have found it so. The second is also difficult, judging by our divorce rate, but not when both spouses are committed to Biblical precepts and practice them.

God said it is not good for man to be alone --and so made him woman --so they could procreate and not be alone. "Male and female, created He them" --"in His image." We are marvelously designed for this union--a union which Jesus says joins our souls --at least temporarily. He said this in regard to using a prostitute which he condemned --as does the Old Testament --over and over in the Book of Proverbs, for one.

If we follow the research at the u. of Ga. --that said 80 percent of one group and 44 percent? of another group of presumed-to-be straight men responded to both gay and straight porn, and conclude that's an indicator of latent homosexual attraction for those men --then where would the human race be --if 62% of the men were preferring homosex? (80% in the one group --44 % in the other) (feel free to correct my math) we'd be husbandless and childless, most likely. Because, despite the push for gay adoption, MOST men haven't the desire to be "moms" in every sense of the word, doing a good job at that --can't seem to wake up in the middle of the night for the feedings--and also work hard during the day to make a living. Two parents are better with different roles. Heck, that's why so many women dump so many husbands --because they are fixated on their computer porn and their video games --and not helping with the kids and the house. If both have to work, both need to help at home. That’s fairness. I've always said that both should help with kids until they are in bed, no matter who is winning the bread. Children benefit by involvement with both the male and the female parent.

My life as a Mom and Wife is full -though they are grown and only one is still hanging on here at home-finishing a 2nd degree that hopefully gives a career --the functional home ideally is a loving mental health center like no other. Marriages work when men and women follow the biblical precepts on marriage --he loves her sacrificially --she respects and submits to his leadership. If he loves sacrificially that means she gets her way and ALSO leads A LOT! Because she is the "helpmeet" --not the slave to be subjugated. As he does, she has a brain, too. If she respects him, he's not apt to look outside the marriage for sex, love, OR respect --because it's in his house. that is, if HE'S following biblical precepts of fidelity and fleeing temptation to adultery of any orientation. (Sobriety, being free of alcohol's dulled inhibitions and poor judgment and nicotine's irritability helps.)

The man who is strong against temptation to sin is the strongest man of all. God wants to help us all be strong like that --even in this area of first homosexual thought and involvement.

You say you don't mind people being homosexual --but if you are raising children --do you really not care if someone tells them at school or on tv that they might happen to be homosexual --and should explore the possibility --and then would you not TRY to teach and chaperone such that your child will have a normal, hetero- sexual self-image --and incline him/her to make a hetero choice instead of allowing him to get involved during his immaturity with same-sex (or other)sexual exploration?? --especially with an experienced homosexual who sets out to teach him about gay sex? before he's even had a chance to find some confidence as a person? when he's adolescent? Do you want a confused pubescent/adolescent child whose libido is driving him all over the place to be craving and finding sexual experience of anykind? in particular, homo-sex?

Liberals think if we just condone all sexual lifestyles, that all will be well --no guilt. Fact is, people who go that route find it holds a lot of misery, social, physical, emotional, often economic -- that can't be covered with a leaky or fullproof condom.

According to one study (on NARTH website) the gays living in Europe, in more gay-tolerant countries, have just as much mental illness and use of counselors as the ones living here --who blame their troubles on society's homophobia.

Jesus gave us good advice: "A man should leave his parents and cleave to his wife."

An MD I know says homosexual orientation is not proven to be genetic by any research thus far. A father's role is critical in development of both boys and girls --and mothers, too, can do a lot of damage if they make their sons their 'girlfriends.' See my blogs on the topic. Homosexuals don't procreate in sufficient numbers to pass homosexual genes along. Science has explored all sorts of genetic rabbit trails and can't find the "missing link."

Maybe we have a gene for immorality and sin tendency--because, according to the Bible --we ALL got it in our human nature because of the first rebellion against God's expressed will.

We do know now that addictive substances and activities cause brain changes --my husband just told me about a patient who got over all his serious drug addictions immediately when he accepted Christ as his Savior --believed and repented and called on the Lord --in the context of pentecostal revival, i believe. His own grandfather gave up a nicotine habit easily--the cravings were just removed --when HE converted to Christ. The Bible does say, "Be ye transformed (changed?) by the renewing of your mind." This reformed smoker was a man of prayer who would rise early in the morning, every day, and pray for his family, friends, enemies and world.

"There is none righteous, no not one." "all have sinned and come short of God's glory."

For which we all need to repent. To do so, we need to agree about our sinful states --not condoning sin --not having pride parades for any of it.

God knows our struggles against sin and is willing to help by renewing our minds. Remorse is the first step. He'll do the rest.


Barb said...

PS --I worded wrongly here --some might think I said women's work at home is not equal to the bread-winning work. O yes, it is. It's WORK to be a stay at home Mother,housekeeper, laundress, cook, babysitter, teacher, chauffeur, secretary, civilizer of kids, etc. But I always figured that IF I had SOME downtime in my day --some tv time, e.g. and reading time --that a husband should have some, too --but ideally, after all the feeding, homework, bathing, story-reading, playtime and nighttime prayers are done. Then BOTH can share in some downtime together. His time with kids should be seen as fun, not just responsibility and work--which it ALSO is if you do it all day.

steve said...

There is much scientific evidence that Homosexuality is a genetic inherited trait. Some of the most compelling evidence are studies of twins. I personally believe that it could be a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome. Just like Down syndrome, genetic homosexuals have a certain facial structure and body type that is unmistakable.

The research on monozygotic twins isn't a slam-dunk so to speak, but there is a definite correlation between genetics and sexual orientation.

That's not to say that all homosexuals are genetic in nature. I'm sure there are many that have made it a "lifestyle" choice.

Barb said...

for you, Steve, a re-posting with addendums:

Dr. Francis S. Collins, is the head of the Human Genome Project. He concluded that while "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many HUMAN BEHAVIORAL TRAITS [WHICH HE CALLS HOMOSEXUALITY--CAPS ADDED TO HIS QUOTE FOR EMPHASIS]…for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive." [unlike racial and other physical characteristics and talents, i add]

He wrote: “An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."

I surely agree with him that no gene evidence to date shows homosexuality to be hard-wired but I don’t think it’s proof of genetic influence –to observe that a gay twin has a gay brother 20% of the time –BECAUSE SINCE THEIR GENES ARE IDENTICAL, he should have a gay brother 100 per cent of the time to prove genetic link to me. MOre compelling is the evidence from the study that 80% of the time a gay identical twin does NOT have a gay sibling. Which Collins says is a weaker genetic predisposition than the others he listed above. Usually there needs to be a 50% correlation in twins raised separately to announce a genetic link (I think my husband was the one who said that --genetics was a med school area of excellence for him.) (I wouldn't use me for scholarly footnotes! "I think" factor not being real reliable.) However for Dr. Collins work, and other excellent resource material on this topic, go to NARTH website.

I suspect it is more something environmental about being a twin that is an influence on homosexuality --something about the parental or sibling relationship. e.g. possibly, is one twin usually less dominant and is he the one who ends up gay --feeling inadequate and intrinsically different and sissified next to brother? And is he treated differently --like the girl child? also did his brother do him but not because he felt identified as gay? Also, I would ask, how large is our study sample, of gay male twins in australia where this work was done?? How large can a sample of gay twins be if they were raised apart as a good twin study would require --how often do twins get separated at birth wherein at least one of them ends up gay to qualify for the study? not that often to make a huge sample, I would think --as it is, the info I have does NOT say they were raised apart. The likelihood of 20 per cent of twins being BOTH gay is even less remarkable if they are from the same household.

I also maintain that in our culture, non-macho body type, stereotyped nerd qualities of scholarly, indoor interests, fearfulness, ineptitude in sports, artistic talents, interests shared with women as in fashion, sewing, and cooking, over identification with doting or domineering mom, women who treat sons like girlfriends, drawing him into her thinking about girl interests including men, qualities of mom that make a man hate women, --any combo of the above could logically incline some fellows with those qualities to be ridiculed and rejected by peers or male parent, to feel intrinsically "different" , to be ostracized by more macho males --and come up with a craving for same sex affirmation and affection --that turns sexual in the confusing and emotionally difficult developmental years.

Dr. A Dean Byrd, writing about Collins' work, notes: “ The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism. Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues."

Byrd: “Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by gay activist Dean Hamer, who recently declared the discovery of the "God gene" [this same gay author also is associated with earlier disproven claims that he had discovered “the gay gene"]. Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," (that are still believed today) but was "wildly overstated" --just as his announcements of finding a gay gene marker --for which research irregularities and announcement of a gay gene, the National Institute of Health for whom he worked called him on the carpet.

all the studies purporting to find a genetic role in homosexuality, have been debunked or flimsy at best.

Even Newsweek writers came to that conclusion not long ago.

The gay gene is a media myth that the mass audience believes --

Moreover, gays would have to father children to pass on their gay gene. Hamer suggested a maternal genetic link --claiming gay uncles had gay nephews --but that's one of the Hamer research findings that didn't hold --I'm guessing because he didn't rule out the fatherless-factor of gay nephews --was gay uncle chief role model and possible molester of gay nephew in the cases studied. At the time hamer's announcement came out, I phoned the NIH media dep't. to ask them those questions about his research. Next thing came a small column in the blade stating he was reprimanded --didn't say for what --by the NIH. I always liked to think I helped on that one.

Paul said...


Some further notes on your "as the body was designed" comment:

From the moment of conception through all of our lives, the developement of our physical bodies is substantially controlled by what has been encoded into our DNA, and the way our DNA gets modified during our lives. The process of aging, for example, the summation of all the DNA replication errors that happen in our lifetime. Some are due to viruses, others due to environmental damage, and some due to causes we don't yet understand.

Sometimes replication errors happen in the womb, resulting in kids being born with all manner of deformaties. Among those deformatives are malformations of the sexual organs. I've heard it said that from a biological standpoint, gender is not so much a binary state (fully male or fully female), but rather a continuum.

My brother and his wife once cared for a foster baby who was born with what they then called 'ambiguous gender.' The baby had no external genitalia, and at the time (1950s), medical science had no way of ascertaining the gender of the baby. There have been many many cases of babies who are born with attributes of both genders. The family is usually adviced in such cases to pick a gender for the child, and sexual reassignment surgery is performed soon after birth.

The horror of such surgeries is that we are still figuring out how much all those hormones present in the womb contribute to the development of the brain, and to what extent the properties of the brain and the development of the mind are influenced by interaction of genetics and those hormones. As a consequence, babies who will grow up to be pschologically male will have had their male genetalia amputated, leaving them in a horrible limbo. And at times, the reverse is true, psychological females are left with male organs.

We have to be careful what we condemn, for sinful acts lie across a whole spectrum as well. The Ten Commandments instruct us not to kill other humans, yet in both the Bible and in times since, wars have been fought and killing occurred on a mass scale. Does that mean there are times when killing is okay, or is it always wrong? How do we know where to draw the line? How about my nephew, a Marine in Iraq who, after watching his best buddy blown up literally next to him, chased down the bomber and beat him to death (he was courtmartialed by the way).

We seem to have a particular issue with homosexuality right now in the religious community. Almost any other sinful act can be forgiven. It would hard to find a congregation without members who have divorced and remarried without biblical justification. Every day that couple stays married, they are continuing their sinful behavior. Yet few congregations would expel such members, and in fact would have no difficulty putting them in leadership roles.

I'd rather err on the side of compassion. A Marine friend of mine once had a t-shirt which said "Kill Everyone and Let God Sort it Out." How about if we substitute "Love" for "Kill" on this one?


Barb said...

Welcome to my Wire, Paul.

I'm in a rush now --can't believe where my time went. Be back later to comment on both of your comments.

Barb said...

First of all, I'm pretty sure my hubby who knows these things told me that incidence of ambiguous genitalia are extremely rare --not the percentage of homosexuals in the population. And homosexuals are hardly ever people with scrambled chromosomes or ambiguous genitalia.

The people you describe are certainly entitled to some sexual orientation confusion --and the only ones entitled to some choice in the matter of their sexuality. They, too, can be taught to be moral people in choosing to be one or the other at puberty if not sooner if their upbringing doesn't match their hormones and chromosomes. I don't know much about these exceptions except that they are far fewer in number than homosexuals without such an excuse.

The evidence is much greater that external factors affect sexual self image and eventual orientation. Parents and society, education and media, all bear a responsibility to teach children to be kind to one another regardless of whether kids are stereotypically masculine or feminine or inbetween. --And they bear responsibility to cultivate self image that matches their anatomy --to help kids feel and be normal --to be glad for their given sexuality as male or female -and to be moral --or at least to know what morality is according to Bible-based religions.

As for your divorce and remarriage example --without the biblical grounds of adultery to justify the divorces, maybe such people should NOT be in church leadership. we also say if they were not truly Christians before, when they divorced --they have a fresh start in new relationships.

Also, if someone is the abandoned party, even without adultery, he/she should be free to re-marry.

I think it's wrong when an adulterer leaves a wife in one church and takes up with his new one in a different church. The adulterer and new wife lack biblical grounds even though HIS adultery occured. But we don't ask people about their marital history when they come to us for membership, typically. We leave that between them and God.

Homosexuality IS different --confusing and a bad example to children. Divorce and remarriage is bad enough --without biblical grounds is worse --but neither of these conditions caused by sin justify a pedophilic, homosexual, or incestuous relationship --which are forbidden perversions. We call adultery and divorces sinful, but not perverse, unnatural nor indecent to children and relatives. Sin is sin and it all separates us from God --but I really think some sin is worse than other sin --in its consequences based on God's intention for our bio-design.

I believe the "thou shalt not kill" has been translated "thou shalt not murder." War is not considered the same as murder --if you have to stop a bully from harming others and he won't stop himself, if war is the only way it is a just war

liberal_dem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

"I'll fly away, O glory, I'll fly away --some glad morning......I'll fly away."

I believe we'll never time travel --but Jesus did walk through walls in His resurrected Body.

and the past can be recorded as in video --and the Lord says every deed and thought is recorded and will be revealed --UNLESS, Thank God, we put our sins under Christ's blood, removing them from God's sight and weight of judgment against us forever.

liberal_dem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barb said...

I tell you what I believe --pertaining to what you say --so how is this "butting into" your life?

As I recall, you are the one who chose me to write about on Nov. 30, 2006 --maligning my character.

I have no right to rebut in that instance? It's called "butting into your life" ???

You are a strange one --I'll give you that.