Homosexuality is changeable

[OpenYourEyes]

In response to this member's post:

I'm curious...this is a question for Christians who oppose same sex couples because they understand the Bible to state that God feels homosexual relationships are unnatural and a sin.

When science eventually proves that homosexuality is not a choice and is a trait governed by genetics and influences on the brain during early gestation...will all those who state that God opposes homosexuality as it's unnatural still feel that way? i.e. when science proves it is natural for those people as they were born that way. Hence we can assume God made them that way. Will those Christians still say the Bible says it's wrong? Or will they consider the possibility that the Bible has been misinterpreted?

Marriage is an important moral issue and since you posted 2 years ago I felt the need to ressurect your thread.

Christian thinkers here and elsewhere have already responded to your homosexuality objection but I will also add a scientific study into the mix.

Here are the facts:
- Homosexuality is a sin (1 Corinthians 6)
- It has not been proven that homosexuality is innate nor regulated only by biology. Sexuality develops throughout the early years of life so culture, psychology, and nurture plays a role.
- There is increasing evidence that homosexuality is changeable and I'll elaborate with a scientific peer-reviewed study...

Dr. Stanton L. Jones and Dr. Mark A. Yarhouse completed a study a few years ago and here's their conclusion:

"we found considerable evidence that change of sexual orientation occurred for some individuals through involvement in the religiously�mediated change methods of Exodus Ministries (23% by self�categorization)." (Pg. 8 Discussion section).

Here are the links to read more..
1 http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... -Final.pdf
2. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/usmt20/c ... 011.607052

As an extra here is a debate where Dr. Michael Brown defends traditional marriage while destroying arguments for same-sex marriage..
Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. Eric Smaw..http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kcncyKCi3vk

[OpenYourEyes]

Here is Jewish historian Josephus explaining marriage in Jewish law/culture:

But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife: and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male.

From Josephus - Against Apion book ii- paragraph #25
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/apion-2.html

Notice the recurring theme among Jewish authors regarding male and female sex acts being in accordance with nature (God's design or purpose?) which goes w/ Romans chapter 1.

I believe that based on my post #18, Romans 1, 1 Cor. 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, and some of the 1st century Jewish writers (goes w/ Romans ), it's reasonable for me to conclude that the Bible or even Jewish culture overall forbade same-sex desires and acts.

[KCKID]

Since you're back online and STILL making reference to the Bible calling homosexuality 'wrong' and your calling this 'a fact', would you care to respond to post 5?
The post reads:

My interest in your post mainly concerns the scripture that you chose to condemn homosexuality. I'm assuming that you're referring to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10?

Well, let's see . . ."(9) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The above is taken from the KJV ...a version of the Bible that did not contain the words "homosexual" or "homosexuality". In fact, that term was not used in editions of the Bible until 1946. From then on, however, the terms "homosexual/homosexuality" began to be used quite regularly by other Bible authors that chose to jump on the "let's corrupt the scriptures" band wagon.

The member Bluethread responded to you on this point. The KJV did not use the word homosexual because the term did not exist during the 1600s when the KJV was completed. The term homosexual was coined in the late 19th century.

Yes, but I'm fairly confident that you would naturally assume that I already knew that. And I did, of course. However, it doesn't matter WHEN the word was coined ...what matters is that the term WAS used to replace words in the original passages of scripture that DID NOT refer to homosexuality as we today regard that term.

What I would like to know from those who are quite content to use this corrupted term is this ...what word or words in the above passage from 1 Corinthians 6 is "homosexuality" actually replacing? Is it 'the effeminate'? Is it 'those who abuse themselves with mankind'? If so, please offer a rundown of what 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind' actually means and as to how one or the other in their original Greek form equates to "homosexuality".

Effeminate (malakos) refers to "a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness". It can also refer to pedastry
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 3120&t=KJV

In other words it does not refer to homosexuality as we today define that term. Just come out and say that. And, regardless of how unnatural ‘things’ might have appeared to the people of those times, they were in ignorance of many such ‘things’ than we today are. It stands to reason that taking any such ancient manuscript and attempting to use it as an authority or a guide to present-day life is rather foolhardy.

The phrase, "abusers of themselves with men" (arsenokoitēs) refers to a sodomite.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G733&t=KJV

Are you referring to the ‘man-made’ interpretation of ‘sodomite’? As I’ve said many times before as well as in my previous post to you, ‘sodomite’ refers to a (sacred) male prostitute according to Strong’s Bible Concordance. It does NOT refer to or condemn homosexuality per se just as female prostitute doesn’t refer to or condemn heterosexuality per se.

As for the (apparently) made up term by Paul, arsenokoitēs, NO ONE appears to know with any certainty WHAT that word means. Let's be honest here! So, equating that word with ‘homosexuality’ to the exclusion of other possible meanings (who knows what the stupid word means?) is deceptive and merely supportive of a personal anti-gay stance.

Both of the words you're referring to make reference to homosexual acts, and one is more general than the other.

Well, I would say that ALL references in the Bible with regard to specific ‘acts’ (good or bad) involve the practices of heterosexuals or homosexuals, i.e. ‘acts’ associated with human beings. So, what do you mean by ‘homosexual acts’? I mean, are there any 'acts' that are exclusive to homosexuals?

Be careful . . .

Besides just definition,

But …your definitions are based on scriptures that are ambiguous to begin with, i.e. they can mean any of several things or none of the above.

we should also factor in theology and historico-cultural context. Same-sex acts are condemned in Leviticus 18:22

EVERYTHING is condemned in Leviticus so I have no idea why we keep coming back to this ancient and bizarre Levite Holiness Code that NO ONE could keep even if they wanted to!

And Paul respects the OT law in that he knew that the moral precepts still applied.

That’s okay. What would one expect of someone living in those times? Is there any relevance in this for we of today? For the most part I would think not.

<snip> . . .Plato’s views not really relevant to the issue . . .

Oh, by the way ..."homosexuality" is defined as those that are sexually attracted to others of the same gender and has nothing to do with right or wrong. In other words, one's innate sexuality is 'sin-neutral'. It was only when this term began to appear in versions of the Bible after 1946 that "homosexuality" was given a 'new' definition, a definition that equated the term with "sin"!!

Pretty disgraceful, don'tcha think . . .?[/color]

Assuming that you are right, that doesn't mean that same-sex acts aren't considered a sin.

It likewise doesn’t mean that same-sex acts ARE considered to be sin. By the way, what, precisely, IS the particular sin of two consenting adults of the same gender practicing intimacy? Also, speaking of ‘sin’ …why is it that Christians appear to devote so much time to the ‘sin’ and the ‘sinning’ of others when the Bible makes it quite clear (from the writings of our good buddy, Paul) that NONE are righteous, no, not one (Romans 3:10) …?

So perhaps 1 Corinthians 6:9 should've mentioned the same-sex acts instead of using the word homosexual.

Perhaps Paul should have been less ambiguous with his words and considered future bigoted and homophobic scholars who would be using them to say whatever they wanted them to say. Then again, Paul would have had no idea that his letters would later be compiled and collated into a book that would become known as The New Testament. Food for thought for those who consider Paul's words to be 'divine'.

[OpenYourEyes]

[font=Arial]Here is a story to reflect upon by a Christian mother who wishes she knew then, what she knows now, regarding the mistaken belief that a gay person can be 'cured' or 'changed' :

On the night of November 20, 2001, a conversation held over Instant Messenger changed our lives forever. Our twelve year old son messaged me in my office from the computer in his bedroom.

Ryan says: can i tell u something

Mom says: Yes I am listening

Ryan says: well i don’t know how to say this really but, well……, i can’t keep lying to you about myself. I have been hiding this for too long and i sorta have to tell u now. By now u probably have an idea of what i am about to say.

Ryan says: I am gay

Ryan says: i can’t believe i just told you

Mom says: Are you joking?

Ryan says: no

Ryan says: i thought you would understand because of uncle don

Mom says: of course I would

Mom says: but what makes you think you are?

Ryan says: i know i am

Ryan says: i don’t like hannah

Ryan says: it’s just a cover-up

Mom says: but that doesn’t make you gay…

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: but u don’t understand

Ryan says: i am gay

Mom says: tell me more

Ryan says: it’s just the way i am and it’s something i know

Ryan says: u r not a lesbian and u know that. it is the same thing

Mom says: what do you mean?

Ryan says: i am just gay

Ryan says: i am that

Mom says: I love you no matter what

Ryan says: i am white not black

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: i am a boy not a girl

Ryan says: i am attracted to boys not girls

Ryan says: u know that about yourself and i know this

Mom says: what about what God thinks about acting on these desires?

Ryan says: i know

Mom says: thank you for telling me

Ryan says: and i am very confused about that right now

Mom says: I love you more for being honest

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: thanx
"...
Source: http://justbecausehebreathes.com/[/font]

The story was sad but I dont agree with some of the actions taken by the mother. The study that I posted clearly acknowledges that conversion therapy or reparative therapy does not work for everyone but it still shows that sexuality is changeable. Cognitive-behavioral therapy and drug abuse programs also dont work for everyone despite being well established practices accepted by science. Choice, adherence to the therapy, and how deeply someone is involved in the behavior they are trying to change all play a role in success.

The study from post#1 was done using therapy from religious organizations but with further research of what works, how it works, finding good people to use as successful examples, I believe we will only get better at how to help gays who want to engage with the opposute sex. It also would not hurt if more professional therapist/psychologist would get involved in setting up these therapies since they would have more clinical experience and knowledge than some programs that rely only on Christian ministers.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

There are several problems with your claims based off of this study as presented I will stick with the 2 most obvious.


1. The study has not been reproduced
2. Exodus International was used for their sample of individuals


The first problem is rather obvious if you can't reproduce a study there is likely a factor unaccounted for in the original study or something else is off. In other words without being able to reproduce your work it holds very little merit even if it does raise some questions. Further experimentation and testing would be requisite before touting such a study.

Second Exodus International has closed it's doors on the grounds that their program has caused irreversible harm to those it wished to help and that their efficacy was falsified. Here is an apology from the president and founder of the company.

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.

and

Never in a million years would I intentionally hurt another person. Yet, here I sit having hurt so many by failing to acknowledge the pain some affiliated with Exodus International caused, and by failing to share the whole truth about my own story. My good intentions matter very little and fail to diminish the pain and hurt others have experienced on my watch.

Is it really all that surprising that they could not reproduce this experiment when they were using bad data?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 22 by OpenYourEyes]

By "help gays who want to engage with the opposite sex" you mean "get rid of gays". Homosexuals engage with the opposite sex all the time; they don't live in single sex societies. By "therapy" you mean "repressing" and by "it would not hurt" you are just wrong.

There is a reason they're mostly run by Christian ministers - because the most prominent who want to remove homosexuality are Christian ministers.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

This is the damned if you do, damned if you don't argument that is common among hyper-literalist bibliophobes.

No because sodomy would work just fine whereas homosexual does not. The word simply does not fit that is like you saying its ok to translate

妹妹
Mèimei as person, when Meimei means sister. You would either be an ignorant or dumb translator to translate meimei as person.

Yes sisters are persons but so are brothers mothers fathers etc.

likewise yes homosexuals perform sodomy but so do bisexuals heterosexuals and homosexuals also perform other acts aside from sodomy. Hence it is either dumb or ignorant to use such a word in translation.

Since, I was originally responding to the inference that the term "homosexual" was not in the KJV because it did not apply, I didn't bother to whether it would have been, had the term existed. Your insistence that the term sodomy refer only to anal sex is to ignore the more general usage. To avoid getting into a long drawn out discussion of how the term "sodomy" has been used by different countries at different times, lets take note that the term "sodomy" does not appear in the KJV either.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

Quick question does homosexuality describe accurately anything written in the Hebrew or Greek?

If it does please give me the greek or hebrew word that it matches.

Alternatively do these words have better translations?

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

Quick question does homosexuality describe accurately anything written in the Hebrew or Greek?

If it does please give me the greek or hebrew word that it matches.

Alternatively do these words have better translations?

As you have pointed out, the term was not devised for the purpose of accurately representing what is in the Scriptures. It was designed for modern scientific and political purposes. So, it is not surprising that the term is not a perfect fit with terms used in the Scriptures. In fact, it is only used in paraphrases, with the exception of the NIV, which is really a cross between a paraphrase and a translation. I really do not think that there is a place for such a term in the Scriptures, but it fits better than all the "gender identity" jargon, that has followed in it's wake. Quite frankly, all of this blurring of the lines in sexual behavior has made much healthy fraternal behavior more difficult, if not nearly impossible.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 22 by OpenYourEyes]

By "help gays who want to engage with the opposite sex" you mean "get rid of gays". Homosexuals engage with the opposite sex all the time; they don't live in single sex societies. By "therapy" you mean "repressing" and by "it would not hurt" you are just wrong.

There is a reason they're mostly run by Christian ministers - because the most prominent who want to remove homosexuality are Christian ministers.

Something just came to mind, although someone may have brought this up before ....of those males that claim to have been 'cured of their homosexuality' through Christian 'reorientation therapy', I wonder how many Christians would be overjoyed at the prospect of an 'ex-gay' marrying their sister or daughter ...?

Hmmm . . . . . .

[bluethread]

Something just came to mind, although someone may have brought this up before ....of those males that claim to have been 'cured of their homosexuality' through Christian conversion therapy, I wonder how many Christians would be overjoyed at the prospect of an 'ex-gay' marrying their sister or daughter ...?

Hmmm . . . . . .

Maybe the same way they would feel if she married an ex-adulterer. Does that make adultery inherent and therefore social acceptable?