When those nice people from Exodus International invite me to follow the example of many before me and to give up my gay lifestyle and orientation, I am equally incapable of resisting. I know that I am incapable of resisting, because I went to their meetings (I can tell what I was incapable of resisting by looking back after the fact) and because I now am married (to a woman) and have had three children with her. And I find her sexually attractive. So, come to think of it, I was born to be a former gay.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
But I was born gay
...and therefore am not responsible for resisting my biological impulses. I am a robot, an automaton, a slave, provoked to specific actions (namely, sex with other men) by my genetic makeup, with which I was born. I was also born with a latent hatred for sheep, CRTs, and politicians whose names begin with "P" (either first or last name). I therefore have no ability to resist when the voices in my head genes tell me to hack up sheep with a rusty chainsaw, to pour Mountain Dew on my friends' and co-workers' computer monitors, and to plan to force a change to the position of Speaker.
When those nice people from Exodus International invite me to follow the example of many before me and to give up my gay lifestyle and orientation, I am equally incapable of resisting. I know that I am incapable of resisting, because I went to their meetings (I can tell what I was incapable of resisting by looking back after the fact) and because I now am married (to a woman) and have had three children with her. And I find her sexually attractive. So, come to think of it, I was born to be a former gay.
When those nice people from Exodus International invite me to follow the example of many before me and to give up my gay lifestyle and orientation, I am equally incapable of resisting. I know that I am incapable of resisting, because I went to their meetings (I can tell what I was incapable of resisting by looking back after the fact) and because I now am married (to a woman) and have had three children with her. And I find her sexually attractive. So, come to think of it, I was born to be a former gay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
I like extra helpings of stupid with my hatred. It goes down much smoother and I don't gag as much.
Hmmm.
The Gay Pride movement is just a bunch of Hypers; Phelps followers dressed, um, gaily?
And it seems just as tolerant...
There is no reputable evidence that opposite-sex sexual attraction can be confected in homosexual individuals. Such individuals can act however they wish; an opposite-sex sexual attraction cannot be conjured where none exists.
JN,
That is not true. I know many people whose personal experiences refute your statement.
This is probably because those individuals interacted with Exodus International, or a similar type of organization, and a charlatan associated therewith vomited up nonsense about homosexuals living in sin and just begging to be thrown into the fire pit of hell (a place, incidentally, which I deconstruct in my own latest blog post). The individuals upon whom the vomit was spewed, perhaps being receptive to it, decided to change their lifestyles and ignore their still-existent homosexual desires, while pretending heterosexual desires suddenly manifested.
This is probably because... nonsense...vomit... spew... pretending...
You couldn't say those things if you actually knew such persons. Do you know anyone who has successfully (and happily) transitioned?
JN,
The provocative language you use belies your usual denials of moral non-committalism.
Besides, if ppl are directed by their genes to be gay, then they are thus directed to be ex-gay too.
I consider the hell threat, no matter the context, despicable in and of itself, much as I find the torture some serial killers inflict upon their victims abhorrent. I am so constituted that torture, and vivid threats thereof, repulses me. I am yet further repulsed by those Christians who tell people they are living in a state of vile sin (for which hell, of course, is a looming threat) for romantically loving somebody who happens to be of the same sex. This Christian behavior is not objectively immoral, of course, but it does make me throw up in my mouth a little.
And you have nothing to say to anyone who digs torturing ppl, thinks Hell is a great idea, and asks you to prove his beliefs on these counts wrong.
The inconsistencies you display are numerous, and throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover your tracks is unconvincing.
JN,
Also, believe and feel that whatever you like is repulsive - torture, hell, morality, immorality, amorality, whatever. Your initial commment made an appeal to "reputable evidence". This is what I commented on, and what the original post was getting at.
I am a robot, an automaton, a slave, provoked to specific actions
Wait, I thought you were a Calvinist...
But seriously, I think it's pretty uncontroversial so say that you don't get to choose what turns you on. I imagine that whatever features, in either physical features or personality, that attracted you to your wife over other women were not based on conscious decision.
I certainly never one day said to myself "You know what, I'm going to find long brown hair, a buoyant personality, and a sarcastic sense of humor attractive," it just sort of happened that way, I'm guessing through a combination of genes and upbringing. It could have been just as easy for me to find brown hair and sarcasm repulsive (or, you know, women in general.)
And I understand that your point that a blanket "my genes made me do it" basically leads to moral nihilism, but it seems that attributing physical attraction to genetics is a whole lot different from attributing criminal acts to genetics, as the former is usually harmless in a utilitarian sense.
On a seperate note, I clicked on the "homosexuality" tag and noticed that this has been a topic of interest of you, writing about ten posts or so on it during the course of the past year.
Now, I know you are simply defending what the bible teaches. And indeed homosexuality is condemned in about four verses, and about 1.5% of the country self-identify as homosexual, so it is certainly relevant.
So I naturally assumed that a sin that is condemned in about a dozen verses and affects sixty seven percent of the country would be of even MORE interest to you. Yet strangely, when I searched your blog for "gluttony" I got ZERO results. Zero posts condemning the consumption of sodas and sugary latte drinks, zero posts on deep fried chicken, and zero posts on what a gluttonous sinner Rush Limbaugh (and now that I take a look at him, Matt Slick too) is.
I found this extremely odd under the assumption you are just proclaiming the clear teachings of God's word. It's almost as there is something else at work in your subconscious mind that steers you towards this particular topic. But I'm not going to be so unseemly as to speculate what that is.
I suppose the relevant question is this: considering that homosexuality is a sin committed by a miniscule fraction of the country, and gluttony is a sin committed by, well, basically all of us in this land of overabundance, why so much attention on the former and zero on the latter?
Ah, the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Makes me want more Cheetos.
Anyway, I talk about this b/c Western homosexuals are so loud and proud, demanding recognition for their relationships. Sin has to be called out as sin, otherwise repentance will not occur.
Also, the homosexuals like to boast that 10% of the population is gay. I'm glad to see that you see thru those flawed statistics at least.
I also talk about this b/c my genes make me do it. I can't do otherwise. I know that's true, b/c I look back on what I did, and I know that I have no choice but to do what my genes tell me to do.
Ah, the two wrongs make a right fallacy.
Huh? Are you saying that you are wrong for ignoring gluttony?
Anyway, I talk about this b/c Western homosexuals are so loud and proud, demanding recognition for their relationships.
Allow me to introduce you to the "fat positive" movement, and the many books that are published telling people its okay to be fat. They are also loud and proud, demanding acceptance of their gluttoneous lifestyle. And as someone who once struggled with weight, I would be extremely enthusiastic if you devoted a fraction of the space you spend on homosexuality on these people.
Sin has to be called out as sin, otherwise repentance will not occur.
But again, almost everybody in America commits the sin of gluttony, and almost nobody commits the sin of homosexuality. Gluttony is so prevalent it is practically woven into the American culture in a way homosexuality is not. You don't see gay bars on every corner, but you do see sellers of deep fried food on every corner.
You would be calling out a greater amount of sin if you devoted even a SINGLE POST to gluttony. But instead you seem to like devoting more thought to "dude on dude" sin rather than "dude on food" sin. Perhaps you would do yourself some good on reflecting on why you are inclined thinking about homosexuality so much.
Also, the homosexuals like to boast that 10% of the population is gay. I'm glad to see that you see thru those flawed statistics at least.
What I said was that 1.5% self identify as gay. How many are actually gay is a more difficult thing to nail down. And while it is almost certainly more than the amount who self identify, I do disagree with the "ten percent" estimate, as that seems to play fast and loose with the definition of "gay" (I really don't think some girl's brief expiriment in college counts)
I also talk about this b/c my genes make me do it.
Oh, I know. I'm sure if you were capable of not being a hypocrite, you wouldn't be one.
If I had a blog, I'd host it! Sorry.
Check out this timeless passage from C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" that compares the sexual appetites with the food appetites.
http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mc15.htm
jft,
Even if I were wrong to "ignore" gluttony, that says nothing about homosexuality.
It's not OK to be a glutton. But I have my interests and others have theirs. I don't have time to spread myself to cover every single evil, injustice, or sin in existence in the world.
Anyway, feel free to lecture me on morality when you have some semblance of an objective moral foundation.
Here you go, though.
Rhology,
Re opinions and passion:
"Those who, having opinions which they hold to be immensely important, and their contraries to be prodigiously hurtful, have any deep regard for the general good, will necessarily dislike, as a class and in the abstract, those who think wrong what they think right, and right what they think wrong."
--John Stuart Mill
Seth,
Re reputable evidence:
You should consult with the experts: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf
Here is a germane excerpt:
"We concluded that the early high-quality evidence is the best basis for predicting what would be the outcome of valid interventions. These studies show that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE and did not report significant change to other-sex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare."
Re: JS Mill.
So what?
One can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts.
You don't act like it when you talk about moral reprehensibility and use all those words you used.
Which is why I quoted Mill.
His observation gets at the heart of my provocative language.
Opinions on which I confer immense importance, and actions which I deem prodigiously hurtful, and which run counter to my opinions, warrant strongish language.
But you have no way to prove to a disputant that the thing you think is hurtful is indeed hurtful.
Which is why my opinions are not facts, nor do I pretend they are or otherwise mask them as such.
JN,
You should consult with the experts:
If an expert tells me there is no such thing as a green pen, and yet I have a box of green pens sitting on my desk, what am I to think? Either I can't tell the difference between 'blue' and 'green' or the 'expert' has a limited or supressed understanding of the topic.
"Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare."
As a man of science, you should know that it findings such as these are weighted by the test group, the applied methods, and other inherent biases. I have no doubt that altering sexual proclivities (biological and behavioral) is indeed rare using Godless or ambigously pluralistic approaches to sexuality.
Anyway, feel free to lecture me on morality when you have some semblance of an objective moral foundation.
I'm not lecturing you on morality, I'm lecturing you on being inconsistent given your worldview's presuppositions.
That's allowed, right?
You're basically doing what you claim liberal Christians do: focus intensely on some elements of scripture and complete ignore other ones.
Big difference. The libs I critique don't believe certain biblical doctrines. Disagreeing with the teachings.
At best you've identified hypocritical behavior on my part.
If an expert tells me there is no such thing as a green pen, and yet I have a box of green pens sitting on my desk, what am I to think? Either I can't tell the difference between 'blue' and 'green' or the 'expert' has a limited or supressed understanding of the topic.
Or, to stick with your analogy, a blue pen was declared to be living in vile sin, and thus threatened and frightened—probably by the specter of hell—into masquerading as a green pen, and thus it proceeds with the masquerade. Again, I hasten to add how hideously abusive I consider it to be to threaten somebody with images of hellfire and eternal torture, and how depressing I find it when people crow about the effectiveness of threatening people into submission.
As a man of science, you should know that it findings such as these are weighted by the test group, the applied methods, and other inherent biases. I have no doubt that altering sexual proclivities (biological and behavioral) is indeed rare using Godless or ambigously pluralistic approaches to sexuality.
This was not merely one secular study, though. The American Psychological Association undertook a meta-analysis: The group's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation reached its conclusion after its review of 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007. It also seems highly doubtful to me that any of the studies were avowedly godless, insofar as, to my knowledge, only religious organizations and associations attempt to change people’s sexual preference (a most kindly service, of course, since the creator of the universe is highly preoccupied with what one mammalian species does while naked).
masquerading as a green pen... threatened and frightened...
Agreed. I would not consider that an effective counseling technique. I would expect negative results if subjected to that kind of manipulation.
the effectiveness of threatening people into submission...
It is sad and unfortunate that some people have been subjected to such treatment at the hands of false or misguided "Christians". I am sorry if you were exposed to that stuff.
only religious organizations and associations attempt to change people’s sexual preference...
Untrue. Do not Cosmo, Bravo-tv, Abercrombie and Fitch, Kinsey, NAMBLA, Hugh Hefner, Rosie O'Donnel, the White House (Bush/Obama), and the State of Massachussets/Texas attempt to influence my view on sexuality? There are many voices.
Avowedly godlesss...
I don't mean Godless research studies, I mean Godless or pluralistic counseling techniques.
Honestly, Seth, I think you are trying to put a nice(r) face on something that, in truth, is very unpleasant indeed.
Let us just do a little hypothetical, OK?
Suppose that I am a gay man. Further, suppose I am in a committed, romantic relationship with another man. We love each other very much, and our intention is to marry and spend the rest of our lives together. Neither of us doubts our love and neither wants to "convert."
However, let us suppose that one or the other of us comes into contact with a Gay Converter. Being friendly and forthright individuals, we discuss our love and our plans. And, to be clear, I mean the kind of Gay Converter you recognize as being responsible, capable and interested only in effective, proper techniques.
In your estimation, which of the following sentiments would accurately describe the Gay Converter’s feelings? (Choose as many as you like.)
1. My lover and I are living in vile sin.
2. The creator of the universe is personally perturbed by our romantic relationship.
3. My lover and I would be better off if we ended our relationship and each tried to find somebody else.
4. If we persist and live out our days together in love, we can very probably expect to be perpetually tortured in the afterlife.
5. If our love results in our perpetual, unending torture, it will be a just, good and righteous event.
It might not be an effective “technique” to focus on the hellfire and brimstone stuff, but it underlies the entire noxious enterprise.
JN,
...which of the following sentiments would accurately describe...
[*] An [actually effective] Christian approach applies to a Christian who is working to undersand homosexual feelings/behaviors. Their participation is voluntary. That is, for example, how the groups I know that are associated with Exodus Int. typically operate. Thus, the people are already willing to explore a Christian perspective. Thus, in response to your points:
1. You'd have to accept a Christian definition of sin first, before you could want to "not sin".
2. I'd bet The Creator is more perturbed by the lack of relationship Him.
3. A Godless heterosexual relation isn't necessarily better than a homosexual one.
4. One who isn't interested in being with God in this lifetime might expect that eternal fate anyways, whatever the sexuality. Why live forever with someone you don't want to be around?
5. If that love or any other draws you away from God or convinces you of false things about who He is, then it would be just for God to judge accordingly.
it underlies the entire noxious enterprise.
As a potential "converter" my first concern would be helping you to know God and that He has your best interest in mind in all things. The secondary issue is the details of your lifestyle.
[*] An [actually effective] Christian approach applies to a Christian who is working to undersand homosexual feelings/behaviors. Their participation is voluntary. That is, for example, how the groups I know that are associated with Exodus Int. typically operate. Thus, the people are already willing to explore a Christian perspective.
Would you acknowledge that the “willingness” of which you speak would not apply to teens who might be sent to some kind of reparative therapy camp by their parents? Much the same way as our society has decided children are too young to consent to sex, or too young to vote in elections knowledgeably, would it not also be the case that, when one is a minor whose maturity has not yet been fully reached, one should not be exposed to mindless theological inculcation in the form of sexual-orientation-modification experiments?
1. You'd have to accept a Christian definition of sin first, before you could want to "not sin".
Not the point, actually. I was curious to know, vis-Ã -vis my hypothetical, in the judgment of a Gay Converter, whether my lover and I would be living in a state of vile sin.
2. I'd bet The Creator is more perturbed by the lack of relationship Him.
Granted. But, still, the actions my lover and I undertake while naked would, indeed, perturb the creator the universe, correct? The architect of the cosmos would be miffed by what we are doing while naked, right?
3. A Godless heterosexual relation isn't necessarily better than a homosexual one.
Still, though, am I correct in saying the hypothetical relationship of which I speak is forever irreconcilable to godliness? That is, am I correct in saying that the loving relationship of which I speak, in and of itself, permanently and irrevocably, is abominable, on the Gay Converter’s view?
4. One who isn't interested in being with God in this lifetime might expect that eternal fate anyways, whatever the sexuality. Why live forever with someone you don't want to be around?
I am not sure the “someone you don’t want to be around” description is accurate, inasmuch as many atheists, me included, truly see no difference between the Christian god and the numerous other invented gods of past and present days. It is not that I “do not want to be around” the god of the Bible any more than it is the case I “do not want to be around” Ba’al or Amun-Ra. Whatever the case might be, it seems the answer to my question is yes: On the basis of the hypothetical relationship of which I speak, my lover and I would be consigned to a fire pit of eternal torture and savagery. What beneficence.
5. If that love or any other draws you away from God or convinces you of false things about who He is, then it would be just for God to judge accordingly.
Precisely. So, as I say, on the basis of the hypothetical relationship of which I speak, my lover and I—who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody—would be consigned to a fire pit of eternal torture and savagery quite reminiscent of something that John Wayne Gacy or Gary Heidnik might devise. To prostrate oneself before such a pristine conception of hideousness… I dunno… I find it sad.
As a potential "converter" my first concern would be helping you to know God and that He has your best interest in mind in all things. The secondary issue is the details of your lifestyle.
But if, for some reason, I am not amenable to your exhortations, or your preachments do not persuade me, and thus I return to my loving same-sex relationship, god, who, of course, has my best interest in mind in all things, will consign me to hell to serve out my infinite sentence of agonizing torture. Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty.
mindless theological inculcation...sexual-orientation-modification experiments...fire pit of eternal torture and savagery. What beneficence...who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody...To prostrate oneself before such a pristine conception of hideousness… I dunno… I find it sad...Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty.
This is exactly what I mean. Your inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to your stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; you know exactly what you're trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what you think? Give me a reason to think you're right.
Rhology,
This is an impasse to which we have come on several occasions and, in truth, I am not sure our views are reconcilable.
You seem to hold that if one does not believe one’s opinions to be facts, one has no particular reason for stating one’s opinions at all, let alone passionately. I see no reason to hold such a view.
I do not mistake my opinions for facts, but, nevertheless, certain of my opinions are very important to me…are quite fundamental to my constitution. These opinions animate me and, when I express them, I do so passionately and with whatever rhetorical force I possess.
Rhetorical forcefulness, however, does not mean I am deluded in the illusion that my opinions are facts.
Would you acknowledge that the “willingness” of which you speak would not apply to teens who might be sent to some kind of reparative therapy camp by their parents?
(a) The Ex. Int. affiliated groups I know of have an age limit for participation, I think it is 18, but perhaps 16. I'd have to double-check.
(b) It is a legal right and parental obligation to inculcate your own children, whether as Christian, Wiccan, or Martian.
whether my lover and I would be living in a state of vile sin[?]
Living apart from God fulfils the definition of sin, sexual or otherwise. All sins are vile, even small ones like white-lies.
The architect of the cosmos would be miffed by what we are doing while naked, right?
Miffed? No. He tends to be unmiffable. Concerned for you? Yes. Concerned for the harm afflicted (intention or not) on others? Yes.
the loving relationship of which I speak, in and of itself, permanently and irrevocably, is abominable?
Permanently? No. Eventually you'll die, as will I. Dead people commit no abominations. Irrevocably? Were you to be spared on the day of Judgment, it would be as Jesus says in Mk 12:25, "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." So sure, the details of your sexual experience could be revoked.
What beneficence
A Univ. Cal. San Fran. site says, "Beneficent actions can be taken to help prevent or remove harms or to simply improve the situation of others...Physicians are expected to refrain from causing harm, but they also have an obligation to help their patients." So, sure why not?
who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody...
Uhh, if you feel this way then why are you signing up (and paying) for Christian counselling?
and thus I return to my loving same-sex relationship, god, who, of course, has my best interest in mind in all things, will consign me to hell to serve out my infinite sentence of agonizing torture...
Hell is extended to humans, but was not created for them. You won't go if there is any other way to reconcile you to God. David adultered and murdered, but wasn't judged for those things. The thief on the cross next to Jesus died a thief (and the NT says no thieves go to heaven), and he wasn't judged as a thief. So you'll also have to find a way to escape the Judgment, as those guys did. Best wishes!
A thought on not liking the definition of certain sins... When in Japan, you take your shoes off at the door. Or, keep your shoes on and stay outside.
I am perfectly satisfied to do so, Seth.
I have no desire to reconcile myself to Christianity, because, on the currently available evidence, I recognize Christianity to be factually false.
As such, my interest in discussing hell and the like is not better to understand it but, rather, to point out its palpable odiousness as a tenet of theology.
JN,
I understand and sympathize with what you are communicating. I wasn't always a Christian, certainly had my share of stretches of being a lousy one, and I still find some aspects of it hard to reconcile. I guess no faith would be needed if all the details made perfect sense, eh?
Hell certainly is one of those palpable and odious tenets of the theology. Jesus' crucifixion being an acceptable blood sacrifice to atone for sin is another one that is hard to swallow.
All said, I do appreciate the convo.
I appreciate the conversation, as well.
It is always interesting to see where one's life path leads.
As I have told Rhology before, I am not *committed* to atheism but, rather, to a belief that evidence is the best, more accurate way to approximate truth.
There are conceivable evidences that would persuade me, but none has yet materialized.
By way of examples:
(a) All Christian Bibles could become indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating.
(b) Christian prayers--but no other prayers--could have a statistically significant effect on bodily healing that would be well-evidenced in the scientific literature.
How about:
(c) The founder of Christianity Who claimed to be God would predict His own death and resurrection, and then perform it.
Or
(d) All other competing worldviews could be demonstrated to be internally inconsistent, thus failing the first and most fundamental test for truth?
We have talked about the worldview thing at great length, hurling several thousand words at one another, so I will leave that to one side for now.
I do not accept the Resurrection claim as sufficient evidence for a few reasons:
1. The very book in which the Resurrection is attested to contains claims that I recognize to be palpable nonsense. Matthew claims that a horde of zombies roamed about Jerusalem. Lot's luckless wife was turned into a pillar of salt. People attain impossible ages: Adam, 930 years; Noah, 950 years; Abraham, 175 years; Sarah, 127 years (less ludicrous, but still). Jesus is alleged to have been born by what can only be presumed to be parthenogenesis.
2. The very book in which the Resurrection is attested to contains scientific untruth, since it contradicts the fact of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. As you have noted, Jesus and Paul both hung their hats on a rather specific account of Creation. That account we now know to be false. The Son of Man was... mistaken?
3. The very book in which the Resurrection is attested to boggles the mind insofar as the world it describes bears no resemblance to the world with which we are familiar. The Bible's world is full of prodigies and wonders... full of remarkable and unmistakably divine goings on. At present, though, god's absence from his own universe is the most conspicuous fact given by observation. Inasmuch as that is the case, the Bible's credibility is injured.
Yeah, the bible has some pretty crazy stuff in it.. I resoundly assert that you'd have to be a regenerated Christ-follower (and a self-admitted fool to the rest of the thinking world!) to actually accept most of it.
Cheers to being thought a fool!
Post a Comment