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

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

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

Leave it to the Christian to be beholden to the past.

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

I hate to tell it, but "Christian" and "thinker" is as goofy a notion as "Joey" and "he ain't him no doofus".

There ain't the first Christian "thinker" who can show his god's a-sittin' there, much less as to match up to his "thinkin'" on it.

Here are the facts:
- Homosexuality is a sin (1 Corinthians 6)

Here is THE fact...

You're incapable of showing you speak truth in this regard.

Show us your god gives him the first tinker's dang about this issue.

- It has not been proven that homosexuality is innate nor regulated only by biology. Sexuality develops throughout life so culture, psychology, and nurture plays a role.

What has been proven is the Christian's inability to show he speaks truth when he dares to claim he alone knows the thoughts of a god he is entirely incapable of showing to exist.

- There is increasing evidence that homosexuality is changeable and I'll elaborate with a scientific peer-reviewed study...

There's increasing evidence to indicate folks'll swear up and down they speak for a god they can't show exists.

Dr. Stanton L. Jones and Dr. Mark A. Yarhouse completed a study not 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).

Well how 'bout that - "Them gay folks that entered into 'em a gay-hating religion, well they swore up and down it was, they wasn't them no gay no more!"

Argumentum ad Ted Haggardum.

...
As an extra here is a debate where Dr. Michael Brown defends traditional marriage while destroying arguments for same-sex marriage..

I have no doubt the bigot respects arguments that support his bigotry.

Where "bigotry" is defined as "a complete and utter inability to show one's god exists, but danged if he won't carry on like he does anyway, and don't it beat all, that'n there's god hates him the exact same folks it is that incaple-of-showing-he-speaks-truther is a-sittin'g there just a-hatin' all he can".


What's to challenge here?

"God hates fags!"?

I propose he hates them fags just as much as he hates "brother-better'n-you" who is incapable of showing he speaks truth.

I propose he hates those throne-sitters-upon, who by their bigotry, demand we pull that chair right out from under 'em, and stop short of hittin' 'em over the head with it, lest we be seen as big ol' gay folks ourselves.

I propose God hates what the bigot hates.

I propose God hates what the liar hates.

The liar hates the truth.

Now, let's see how much of the truth this OPer can present.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

I don't see the relevance of any of those three points.

1) Why does it matter whether or not a specific Biblical character disapproves of homosexuality?
2) Why does it matter whether or not homosexuality is natural or regulated?
3) Why does it matter if sexuality is changeable?

How do any of these relate to morality?
How do any of these relate to marriage?

I find it highly plausible that sexuality is changeable, straight up false that homosexuality doesn't occur naturally, and am entirely indifferent to what a fictional character thinks of it.

[Zzyzx]

.
Topic moved to Religion and Sexuality -- where it fits

Caution is advised regarding preaching and failing to substantiate claims.

[KCKID]

Here are the facts:
- Homosexuality is a sin (1 Corinthians 6)

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.

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".

Thank you.

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 . . .?

[bluethread]

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]

No more disgraceful than leaving out the fact that the term "homosexual" did not even exist in 1611, when the KJV was published, but first appeared in a pamphlet favoring the legalization of sodomy in 1869. So, if anyone is responsible for associating the term "homosexuality" with the Lutheran sin of sodomy, it is Karl-Maria Kertbeny, not modern bible translators. Those translators were just updating their translations to reflect the change in terminology, which is what is often seen as an absolute requirement by many bibliophobes.

The latter is even more interesting, because these modern terminology absolutists would probably be highly offended if paraphrases came out using the word "gay" instead. To me this exposes the practice of some sociologists of defining deviancy down, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it. His thesis was that all societies have a static number of deviants. Since all societies have a static number of deviants, creating "homophobia" as a deviant behavior requires homosexuality to be normalized, which equates with the interjection of the term "homosexual" into the dictionary in the first place. That is to normalize sodomy by giving it a Greco-Latin name, thus making appear more scientific and therefore more acceptable. Such is the etymology of the term "homosexuality" and it's "disgraceful" use in attempts to influence society.

[Wootah]

Reply.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to bluethread]

So the whole point of creating the word homosexual was to normalize sodomy?

Sodomy was not even consider a deviant behavior in the west until the rise of Christianity stemming from the associated Hebrew culture. The word did not exist in greek or roman because they simply didn't care about the dichotomy between same sex and opposite sex sex was just simply sex whether it was with the same gender or not.

More to the point this argument stems from a male specific viewpoint on homosexuality as if Lesbians don't exist. As sodomy is not paramount to Lesbian sexual encounters.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

So the whole point of creating the word homosexual was to normalize sodomy?

"During 1869, in the course of these writings, Kertbeny published the term (in German) "homosexual" (which, along with heterosexual, he first used in private correspondence on May 8, 1868), as part of his system for the classification of sexual types, as a replacement for the pejorative terms "sodomite" and "pederast" that were used in the German- and French-speaking world of his time." Wikipedia

Sodomy was not even consider a deviant behavior in the west until the rise of Christianity stemming from the associated Hebrew culture. The word did not exist in greek or roman because they simply didn't care about the dichotomy between same sex and opposite sex sex was just simply sex whether it was with the same gender or not.

I did not say that the term "sodomy" was not derived from the Scriptures. Of course it was, and that is my point. KCKID was making the assertion that "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"!!" I was pointing out that the original usage of the term, in 1869, was as a replacement for "sodomy". Therefore, the later versions of the bible were not giving the term "homosexuality" a 'new' definition, but were simply acknowledging Kertbeny's original preference, when he coined the term.

More to the point this argument stems from a male specific viewpoint on homosexuality as if Lesbians don't exist. As sodomy is not paramount to Lesbian sexual encounters.

No, "this argument", if indeed you are referring to my posts in this thread, stems from KCKID saying, "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"!!" When some people do not like a term they coin a new term, or redefine an existing one, in order to mold it's meaning to their liking. This is what KCKID seemed to be saying that the bible translators after 1946 were doing. I contest that based on the fact that the translators were simply choosing to use a term, that had been in usage for some 75 years, by those who opposed anti-sodomy laws and that term was actually the one that was designed to give a "new" connotation, if not definition to the same activity. Can you show my refutation to be wrong?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

Kertbeny

was a psychologist and any terms pejorative or not would not work for a clinical classification of sexuality. It's why psychologists don't call schizophrenics crazy(because they are not crazy just the way their brain functions causes a distortion on perception and the two hemispheres of the brain can have communication failures thus disrupting speech and thought patterns) or why we don't call humans people in taxonomy but homo sapiens


putting sodomite in a textbook just wouldn't work it wasn't the need or desire to replace pejorative words with non pejorative words it was a desire to classify sexuality in a medical sense. They were not trying to change language overall.
which is why you don't see people running around saying "wassup homosapien" vs "wassup dude"

Can you show my refutation to be wrong?

To some extent you make valid points. My main bone to pick was the connotation of the word homosexual in the sense of redefining things. KCKID is right in the sense that there was an attempt to take a medical term and make it a pejorative. You are right in the sense that the word homosexual and heterosexual arose for the lack of a better word that was needed at the time.

However, I have to disagree that the word in of itself was created for the sole purpose of redefining words for the express purpose of fighting sodomy laws.

The translators then in this case were either incredibly ignorant on the meaning of words and translations since most of the hebrew and greek texts refer to the act and not the orientation. Also as an addendum homosexuality refers to women as well. So to translate sodomy to homosexual would be either incredibly dumb/ignorant on the translators part or trying to redefine the nature of sodomy as a sin to be more inclusive of acts that are homosexual in nature but not necessarily sodomy.