Can You be Born Gay? Charles Dobson doesn't think so.

[LibraryOwl]

Hello, everyone. Im eagar to jump in and offer my three cents on this, too, and I'm sorry I can't have taken the time to read everybodys posts, since im just joining the discussion. And yet it bothered me to see that you were all focusing on this question, because, well, is it really the heart of the matter?

The way, you see, that I see things is in this light: that there are three strands running through the entire homosexual issue, their being the moral, the psycological, and the political. You seem to be focusing on the psycological, and, well, isin't that rather a forum of debate for psychologists? Even then, what studies they have as of yet produced, ought we to regard them as mere dabbling beginnings, and sly hints at the truth?

We who know a little of psycology understand this best,

1. That there is a moral difference between right and wrong,
2. Yet that there are also certain elements, apart form the moral choice, which man's mind operates with, so that we may say "minnie means well, yet she is very jittery and becomes intimidated when people speak loudly"
3. So that it is the duty of the Psychologist not to deal with Minnie of meaning well or not meaning well (that is the duty of the Minister, or the parent if she is young, or her husband if she is married.) But that it is his duty to deal with her being jittery and easily intimidated when people speak loudly.
4. And if he can deal with a gay person (not his choice of wether or wether not to commit sodomy, that is again in another realm) and his fantasies with being with other men, well, at least let him try. And if psychologists, by mutual agreement, should recognize that the homosexual impulse, being a sexual one, is far too powerful to swuelch by therapy, then what of that? If they can come to consensus, then let them by consenssus govern.

But more importantly, by all means, condemn not these men for what they think of doing. Condemn them for what they do do, for that is a fault of concious moral choice if they should be given to evil, but to subconciously fantisize of doing evil, who knows where that comes from? Whehter it is by bad elements resulting of abuse, or poor parenting, or birth or e'en demon possession...

But who cares? Everyman, as Sophicles says, "dreams of sleeping with his mother, yet in his waking hours he knows these dreams to be silly, an what of them?"

So what then if men dream of sleeping with men. Some men, even, who have never dreamed of sleeping with men actually do sleep with them, and those men, straight as they are, are surely more damned than some gay teenager blundering around with his fantasies.

I, even, I confess, have had such thoughts a few times before, and once quite recently I had such a thought, but it was a mere conception in vaporus nowhere, which was quickly squelched by my right moral concience. I feel no guilt for any silly dreams that ground me in the darkness while I sleep in my bed.

I don't care whether its genetic or not. If thats the way they want to live, its cool with me.

Honestly RS, I most thouroughly congradulate you for realizing how silly the genetic issue is, even though I really and respectfully disagree with you. I suspect any conversation we might spark here should be far more interesting than any academic-journal-mumbo-jumbo. Would you mind, for the benefit of the gentlemen, expounding your position so that we may discuss it?

 

[Robinsegg]

Here's an idea . . . Christians believe that the sin nature (basic sinfulness which leads all people to rebel against God) is hereditary and passed down from Adam to all humanity. Thus, do we believe that sin is genetic and therefore okay? No. We see that sin is natural and bad. So, Christians do not see that something is good/okay just because it is natural or genetic. We see that following God's laws is difficult and that His ways are best for us.

Thus, for those of us who believe that homosexual activity is sin, even if it is natural, it should be struggled against in the same way that we should struggle against the urge to gluttony, gossip, rebellion against parents and lying.

Rachel

 

[Texas Lynn]

Lynn, Thanks for the observation, and correct though it is, last I checked, it is merely correlation and not necessarily causal. You know the old problem about ice cream sales and beach drownings being positively correlated.

Of course. i was merely giving an example, though of course not a perfect one. And you are right-in social science we mostly cannot prove causation, only correllation.

But on a specific level, haven't you ever known someone that you trusted, enjoyed similar interests, who was objectively attractive, and yet you weren't attracted to that person? It's happened to me a fair number of times, and I've even tried, with her support, to try transmuting friends into more than friends, often with dismal results.

I am a heterosexual male, and yet I am not attracted to all women, or even most women. In fact, it would be easier to list the specific individuals that I was attracted to (admittedly a fairly sizable list) than to come up with any kind of rubric which would rationally distinguish those women I am attracted to from those I am not on the basis of universal laws.

Then again, maybe that's just me.

Your experience is not ususual. Certainly all LGBT people are not attracted to all same-gendered people, but, due to ignorance some engage in self-flattery assuming such is true regarding themselves as assumed objects of desire from LGBTs they know.

 

[Obsequey]

wow, excellent post, RJF

 

[I'ddie4him]

Ok, Thread has been cleaned and several posts removed or edited.

Please keep the rules in mind when posting, Keep it civil and decent. If the rules are not adhered to thread can be closed permanently.

 

[CaDan]

Here's an idea . . . Christians believe that the sin nature (basic sinfulness which leads all people to rebel against God) is hereditary and passed down from Adam to all humanity. Thus, do we believe that sin is genetic and therefore okay? No. We see that sin is natural and bad. So, Christians do not see that something is good/okay just because it is natural or genetic. We see that following God's laws is difficult and that His ways are best for us.

Uh, no. Not all. That idea only gained traction with Augustine's speculations.

 

[MrPotatoHead]

needs a woman to fight his battles for him, some marine. lovey-dovey with the abominators, some Christian. a 15-year old telling me to grow up? LMAO

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Cleaned - I declare the thread troll free.


Carry on and please post on topic along with the rest of the forum RULES.

 

[Adventistguy]

Well, going by scripture and scripture only, I would say that homosexuality is NOT condoned by God. I mean, if it was ok, why would Paul condemn it in Romans 1:26-27, and why would God pronounce judgement against people who practice such abominable things in His sight in Leviticus 18:22? That's a problem with alot of Christians today...we are starting to become too politicaly correct. If God said something was evil yesterday, it's evil today. He doesn't change.

 

[BelindaP]

Just a friendly reminder. This thread is not to discuss whether it is right or wrong, but to discuss Dobson's article and whether homosexuality is genetic or not.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well, going by scripture and scripture only, I would say that homosexuality is NOT condoned by God. I mean, if it was ok, why would Paul condemn it in Romans 1:26-27, and why would God pronounce judgement against people who practice such abominable things in His sight in Leviticus 18:22? That's a problem with alot of Christians today...we are starting to become too politicaly correct. If God said something was evil yesterday, it's evil today. He doesn't change.

I think this comment is somewhat off-topic to the OP. However, I wonder whether you think diseases and such are evil?

Is blindness evil?

Did God say leprosy is evil?

There are a lot of evils that happen to people in this fallen world. If homosexuality is genetic, or acquired before birth, are homosexuals more worthy of condemnation than people born blind, or people who are afflicted with diseases?

 

[Adventistguy]

Nope. Disease and such are just as they are...disease. Homosexuality, however, is a LUST. The Bible clearly calls it as such. Paul has this to say in Romans 1:27: "Likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their LUST for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due."
Look, with all due respect and not trying to offend, I go by the Bible. It's pretty obvious from this single passage that God does not condon homosexuality(believe me, there are more in scripture). God says in Leviticus it is an abomination to Him. Therefore, I stand by what God says, and I am not ashamed of it.
Now, here's something else: I am NOT one of those kind of Christians who hate homosexuals. For we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God(Romans 3:23). Homosexuality is a sin to overcome, just as everyone has to overcome sins. Love should be shown at all times to all people. I just definatly don't believe for a second Christians should accept that which God says is an abomination.

 

[BelindaP]

Back to the OP, please.

 

[Adventistguy]

And to answer the question of this thread: no, I do not believe people are born gay. We are told people are born gay by gay advocates, who also say gay people cant change and have no chance of changing, but if you go to a site called exodus-international(you can google it and find the website), that statement will be shot down.
God be with us all!

 

[Adventistguy]

Oh, and @BelindaP- Sorry I got off topic on your thread. I just read that little note on the first post you made. I just get worked up when trying to say what scripture says on an issue.

 

[BelindaP]

It's OK. We all have things we get worked up over. So, have you read the article? If so, do you have any opinions?

 

[Adventistguy]

Yes, I read the article, and no I don't still don't believe anyone is born gay(just as Mr.Dobson says).

 

[Texas Lynn]

Homosexuality, however, is a LUST.

If you believe that, do you also believe heterosexuality is "a LUST"?

 

[ReverendDG]

And to answer the question of this thread: no, I do not believe people are born gay. We are told people are born gay by gay advocates, who also say gay people cant change and have no chance of changing, but if you go to a site called exodus-international(you can google it and find the website), that statement will be shot down.
God be with us all!

And you need to google more on exodus then, it has been found that not one of the people that go through exodus are happy or stay the way they came out of exodus

infact many of the people that started exodus revert, because homosexuality has nothing to do with the activity of sex and has to do with the attractions you have for other people

who you have sex with has very little to do with how you feel about people, sex infact is only a reflection of it, not the whole of it

i don't get why the anti-gay folks don't get this, do they not understand this or do they not want to?

 

[SimplyMe]

Because the APA division on human sexuality is rather partisan and has been condemned by not one, two or three but rather four of the APA's former presidents as being biased and scientifically incompetent, the research is this area has been a quagmire that moves forward about as quickly as molasses. One of the few studies that has been done that is conclusive was done by none other than Dr. Robert Spitzer himself, and found that for a very least some, change is a proven possibility. (

Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation (Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003, p.403-417 ).
​

A couple of problems: First, this committee does not make policy. Homosexuality issues have been voted on by the entire 150,000 members of the APA. Nor does your claim of this committee being so biased explain why every major medical organization has statements out similar to the APA.

As for Spitzer, it has several flaws. The largest is that these people who were "cured" all self-reported in a single interview. Worse, most of these people were recruited (about 250) over a year and a half by various ex-gay ministries. Which then begs the question, if there are thousands "cured" yearly, why does it take a year and a half for these groups to find 250 to participate in a study "proving" ex-gay groups are effective? Further, wouldn't you expect a much higher cure rate, something over 50%, when these people were being hand picked by the various ex-gay ministries?