Busting the myth that gays can't change....

[SimplyMe]

i believe gays can be freed from the bondage of homosexuality. they can live joyous lives without engaging in homosexual acts or unions and without endorsing said behavior. sometimes this is in the form of celibacy and sometimes it is in the form of a hetrosexual marriage. gays, just like hetrosexuals, are imperfect creatures afflicted with things not of God. having a temptation is not sin, acting on it is IMO. i have thoughts about lust but use the word of God to combat them. i am not perfect in that battle but i don't just give up and say it is ok to do.

So, which is it, is homosexuality "bondage" or is it a temptation? That you use the word "bondage" you imply that people who have these temptations are controlled by sin, IOW they are evil. Especially when your comments are in response to a post that talks of those that are celibate but are still told they need to be "cured" or to "recover" or, as you have stated "freed from bondage".

 

[silentreader]

I don't believe that I claimed there was a right to marriage, rather I claimed there is a right (protected by the 14th amendment) to equal treatment under the law. It is this equal treatment I'm speaking of and the fact that marriage is denied on the basis of gender (unequal treatment).

there is nothing guaranteeing that equal treatment can force society to re-define societal institutions. using your argument, polygamy could be allowed because it is not equal treatment. society defines what is allowed, then equal treatment is administered. not the other way around. if society wants to create homosexual unions based on consensus then so be it. but the equal treatment argument is not what fosters the new institution.

i bet the racism card will be played within 5 minutes of me saying this (maybe not by you per say).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

i believe gays can be freed from the bondage of homosexuality. they can live joyous lives without engaging in homosexual acts or unions and without endorsing said behavior. sometimes this is in the form of celibacy and sometimes it is in the form of a hetrosexual marriage. gays, just like hetrosexuals, are imperfect creatures afflicted with things not of God. having a temptation is not sin, acting on it is IMO. i have thoughts about lust but use the word of God to combat them. i am not perfect in that battle but i don't just give up and say it is ok to do.

It simply doesn't occur to you that maybe homosexuals arent in any bondage or in need of deliverance therefrom, does it?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

there is nothing guaranteeing that equal treatment can force society to re-define societal institutions. using your argument, polygamy could be allowed because it is not equal treatment. society defines what is allowed, then equal treatment is administered. not the other way around. if society wants to create homosexual unions based on consensus then so be it. but the equal treatment argument is not what fosters the new institution.

i bet the racism card will be played within 5 minutes of me saying this (maybe not by you per say).

Whats wrong with polygamy, assuming all those involved provide mutual, equal, informed consent?

Got anything other than "but its different to the way I grew up"?

 

[silentreader]

So, which is it, is homosexuality "bondage" or is it a temptation?

homosexuality is a condition born of the fall of man. that is innate IMO. that does not mean it is natural, it is not of God by rather a product of the fall of man. bondage to homosexuality comes from acting on temptation.

That you use the word "bondage" you imply that people who have these temptations are controlled by sin, IOW they are evil.

if they act on them they are in bondage to sin. that does not make them evil. that is your claim not mine. i claim they are just imperfect as am i.

Especially when your comments are in response to a post that talks of those that are celibate but are still told they need to be "cured" or to "recover" or, as you have stated "freed from bondage".

celibacy is freedom if it coincides with a heart condition that realizes homosexual acts or unions are sin. being celibate and not believing as such is still sin. God looks at the heart, not just the action.

 

[silentreader]

Whats wrong with polygamy, assuming all those involved provide mutual, equal, informed consent?

Got anything other than "but its different to the way I grew up"?

it is against the Word of God.

 

[silentreader]

It simply doesn't occur to you that maybe homosexuals arent in any bondage or in need of deliverance therefrom, does it?

if they are celibate and believe that homosexual sex or unions is sin then yes they would be free. otherwise God says they are in bondage to that which they agree with.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Yet again, nowhere in my post have I stated otherwise. I made no claims as to where the temptations came from. The part about God's will is that it is God's will that they not sin, that God does not call temptation sinful. The question is why does one need to undergo therapy simply because they have these temptations?

I don't hold that all healing help is equal. So, if you're going to lump all reparative therapy into one pot and not even differentiate organizations that are Christian faith based or have evidence of good fruit, then we aren't talking about the same things. I have also responded to another poster with sharing that if a soul is obedient to God in an area, but still does not have Christ as Lord, it is vanity.

Besides, the organizations that come to my mind welcome by open invitation, it isn't a 'need to undergo' issue.

Now, some here have argued that we do have therapy to help people deal with addictions -- yet the fact they are addicted shows that they have at least done the "sin". The difference with homosexuality is that many, if not most, of those that go to reparative therapy are those that have never sinned in that way, they merely have the temptation. And this is because they have been taught, and are encouraged by reparative therapists to believe, that they are somehow broken or evil for having these temptations despite the fact it is not one of their sins.

Addiction is one way a comparison can be drawn; however and as you point out, it has that implied context of the person having done something physically in the past. But I wouldn't object about that detail when we both seem to recognize that the particular comparison there has that aspect. If you like, feel free to compare it to greed, lustful thoughts or something that doesn't have a compounding component.

But also, I'll point out now that Jesus and His disciples taught that if it is giving into temptation within the heart, the person has committed the act. The legalism involved with saying we don't sin because of a technicality of not physically doing something doesn't fly according to Christian scripture. Same is true with doing something in the name of Christ, but not having Him as Lord or for alternative reasons.

Again, as your scripture says, why are we not teaching them to "flee from sexual immorality" rather than trying to "recover from homosexuality"? Recovery, especially for someone that has not engaged in any form of homosexual act, implies the person is sinful for simply having the temptation -- that is my point -- and that is what homosexuals learn from people who make these claims.

There is the context of repair and healing being similar to consider, but perhaps the following will clear up any disconnect involved with legalism when we say we don't sin if we don't 'physically do' something:

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

it is against the Word of God.

Polygamy? Um, $10 says you can't find a Bible verse that says polygamy is bad, although there are MANY Bible verses showing polygamy in a favourable light.

Abraham and Solomon were both Polygamists, for example.

But hey, why to use your God given gift of sentience and rational and critical thought for attempting to understand deeper truths...

"what's wrong with X?"
"Its against the Word of God!!!"

Yep, no deeper understanding required

 

[EnemyPartyII]

if they are celibate and believe that homosexual sex or unions is sin then yes they would be free. otherwise God says they are in bondage to that which they agree with.

Where does God say that?

 

[SimplyMe]

there is nothing guaranteeing that equal treatment can force society to re-define societal institutions. using your argument, polygamy could be allowed because it is not equal treatment. society defines what is allowed, then equal treatment is administered. not the other way around. if society wants to create homosexual unions based on consensus then so be it. but the equal treatment argument is not what fosters the new institution.

i bet the racism card will be played within 5 minutes of me saying this (maybe not by you per say).

Actually, society has been forced to redefine societal institutions and tradition because of equal treatment. And, or course race will be brought up when it is the prime example of the social institution we are talking about (marriage) being forced to change because it was not equal treatment (being denied on the basis of race).

If I had wanted to, I could have even claimed the decision that forced that change, Loving v. Virginia, also claiming that marriage is a right -- but I didn't feel like derailing the thread further.

Polygamy is merely a straw man, again, it was denied by the Supreme Court precisely because it was found to be harmful to society. Courts have even recently (e.g. Bronson v. Swensen) upheld that the state has continued to prove that there are compelling reasons to deny polygamy. However, no such compelling reason has ever been given against gay marriage -- this is the reason that those opposed are so desperate to get constitutional amendments passed against it.

 

[silentreader]

Polygamy? Um, $10 says you can't find a Bible verse that says polygamy is bad, although there are MANY Bible verses showing polygamy in a favourable light.

there are no verse showing polygamy in a favorable light. if you have some, please post them

Abraham and Solomon were both Polygamists, for example.

i see you tend to confuse the stubborn acts of man with the Word of God. just because the Israelites engaged in polygamy doesn't mean God can't use them or bless them as people. God knew He was dealing with imperfect people. it also doesn't mean God endorses it.

But hey, why to use your God given gift of sentience and rational and critical thought for attempting to understand deeper truths...

"what's wrong with X?"
"Its against the Word of God!!!"

Yep, no deeper understanding required

if you would like to debate the issue of polygamy please feel free. i will be glad to provide exegesis showing it is not the will of God but of man. in the end though, i will be saying 'it is the will of God'. do you believe in God? does His will matter to you? if you answer no to either of those questions then don't bother since my exegesis will not be accepted regardless of the proof i provide.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

there are no verse showing polygamy in a favorable light. if you have some, please post them



i see you tend to confuse the stubborn acts of man with the Word of God. just because the Israelites engaged in polygamy doesn't mean God can't use them or bless them as people. God knew He was dealing with imperfect people. it also doesn't mean God endorses it.



if you would like to debate the issue of polygamy please feel free. i will be glad to provide exegesis showing it is not the will of God but of man. in the end though, i will be saying 'it is the will of God'. do you believe in God? does His will matter to you? if you answer no to either of those questions then don't bother since my exegesis will not be accepted regardless of the proof i provide.

I believe in God, and I believe he wants us to be happy. Therefotre, I believe he doesn't condemn things randomly without a reason.

As there is no reason to condemn either homosexuality or polygamy, I don't see anything to suggest that God condemns them

 

[silentreader]

Actually, society has been forced to redefine societal institutions and tradition because of equal treatment. And, or course race will be brought up when it is the prime example of the social institution we are talking about (marriage) being forced to change because it was not equal treatment (being denied on the basis of race).

If I had wanted to, I could have even claimed the decision that forced that change, Loving v. Virginia, also claiming that marriage is a right -- but I didn't feel like derailing the thread further.

the problem here is that the ideal marriage that had been passed down since the beginning of time did not have any issue with mixed race marriage. isolated instances of overstepping the bounds of law do not mean it was routinely done.

there is no societal precendence for homosexual marriage.

Polygamy is merely a straw man, again, it was denied by the Supreme Court precisely because it was found to be harmful to society. Courts have even recently (e.g. Bronson v. Swensen) upheld that the state has continued to prove that there are compelling reasons to deny polygamy. However, no such compelling reason has ever been given against gay marriage -- this is the reason that those opposed are so desperate to get constitutional amendments passed against it.

society does not need to show scientific proof of harm to deny something. many things cannot be proven scientifically and certainly not over a short period of time (how long have homosexual union studies been going on?...not long).

 

[silentreader]

I believe in God, and I believe he wants us to be happy. Therefotre, I believe he doesn't condemn things randomly without a reason.

given the oevrwhelming evidence in the Bible, i hardly think it was random. i think you don't understand that God wants us to be holy first and foremost. happy is a secondary effect of holiness. but our sinful nature desires us to be happy in the world in the short term and at odds with God.

As there is no reason to condemn either homosexuality or polygamy, I don't see anything to suggest that God condemns them

besides tons of Biblical exegesis. i understand why you just ignore it, it is inconvenient.

 

[SimplyMe]

homosexuality is a condition born of the fall of man. that is innate IMO. that does not mean it is natural, it is not of God by rather a product of the fall of man. bondage to homosexuality comes from acting on temptation.

I think we can agree that simply having attraction to the same sex is not bondage.

if they act on them they are in bondage to sin. that does not make them evil. that is your claim not mine. i claim they are just imperfect as am i.

No, it's not my claim. It's the implication every time someone tosses out without qualifiers that homosexuality is bondage, as you did. It's the implication that homosexuals need to be healed, need to be freed, or need to be "cured". There are plenty of those who have attractions to the same sex that will can tell you their personal stories of how they have been subjected to this, even before they ever had sex.

celibacy is freedom if it coincides with a heart condition that realizes homosexual acts or unions are sin. being celibate and not believing as such is still sin. God looks at the heart, not just the action.

We can agree to disagree on whether same-sex unions are sin. But again, the difference is that teen-aged heterosexuals aren't automatically assumed to be "in bondage" or that they need to be "cured" simply because they have sexual thoughts. Many Christians do believe that of homosexuals and it is one of the assumptions behind reparative therapy.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

the problem here is that the ideal marriage that had been passed down since the beginning of time did not have any issue with mixed race marriage. isolated instances of overstepping the bounds of law do not mean it was routinely done.

there is no societal precendence for homosexual marriage.

MEGA HUGE WRONG!!! The institution of marriage has changed many times over the years... consider, for starters, the difference between aranged marriage and marriage today in the free world... as for no societal precedence for homosexual marriage, thats just plain incorrect... want links?

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't hold that all healing help is equal. So, if you're going to lump all reparative therapy into one pot and not even differentiate organizations that are Christian faith based or have evidence of good fruit, then we aren't talking about the same things. I have also responded to another poster with sharing that if a soul is obedient to God in an area, but still does not have Christ as Lord, it is vanity.

Besides, the organizations that come to my mind welcome by open invitation, it isn't a 'need to undergo' issue.

I'm talking about the OP. The OP is specifically about the study done by Dr. Spitzer that studied Christian based reparative therapy groups. The other groups are off-topic and not being discussed here.

Addiction is one way a comparison can be drawn; however and as you point out, it has that implied context of the person having done something physically in the past. But I wouldn't object about that detail when we both seem to recognize that the particular comparison there has that aspect. If you like, feel free to compare it to greed, lustful thoughts or something that doesn't have a compounding component.

But you do not get addicted to something by merely thinking about it. Addiction only occurs by action. This is why the comparisons to addiction inevitably fail. As for greed or lustful thoughts, I've never heard of any form of therapy designed to "cure" people of those temptations or thoughts nor ever heard them classified as "addiction".

But also, I'll point out now that Jesus and His disciples taught that if it is giving into temptation within the heart, the person has committed the act. The legalism involved with saying we don't sin because of a technicality of not physically doing something doesn't fly according to Christian scripture. Same is true with doing something in the name of Christ, but not having Him as Lord or for alternative reasons.


There is the context of repair and healing being similar to consider, but perhaps the following will clear up any disconnect involved with legalism when we say we don't sin if we don't 'physically do' something:

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

No legalism on my part, I merely mentioned homosexuals that have temptation. Why is it that when talking of gays it automatically becomes assumed that they are guilty of "adultery in his heart" but we make no similar assumptions, nor of a need to "cure", heterosexuals who are equally tempted with sexual sin?

 

[selfinflikted]

[/font]

the problem here is that the ideal marriage that had been passed down since the beginning of time did not have any issue with mixed race marriage. isolated instances of overstepping the bounds of law do not mean it was routinely done.

there is no societal precendence for homosexual marriage.

Ha! You would not have said this fifty years ago. You would have said (and I quote) "God didn't intend for the races to mix! It's immoral and goes against god's will! Here, let me show you in the Bible, it says right here..."

Don't try to pull that here. We can see through this.

 

[SimplyMe]

the problem here is that the ideal marriage that had been passed down since the beginning of time did not have any issue with mixed race marriage. isolated instances of overstepping the bounds of law do not mean it was routinely done.

there is no societal precendence for homosexual marriage.

False. Marriage has changed many times according to needs and culture. If you truly want to be historical, marriage was about money and having someone provide for your daughter. The daughter being assumed by most cultures to be unable to provide for herself. Often the reason for the marriage was the money that exchanged hands or the political advantages it might bring.

Additionally, there have been long standing taboos in many cultures about marrying outside your race or nationality that only in modern times have been removed.

Last, there are societies that have allowed and blessed same-sex marriages in history.

society does not need to show scientific proof of harm to deny something. many things cannot be proven scientifically and certainly not over a short period of time (how long have homosexual union studies been going on?...not long).

Again, false. The burden of proof is on the state to show the compelling interest; without that compelling interest being proven equal rights is given the advantage.

What you are advocating is actually circular logic; we cannot prove that gay marriage is safe so it cannot be allowed until we test, yet we cannot test because gay marriage is not allowed so we can't prove it is safe for society.

Again, there is a reason that the anti-gay marriage people are pushing for constitutional amendments -- they know that they have no valid reason to legally (per our Constitution) deny same-sex marriages.