All Comments (214)

In the end it was Mr. Ragan's choice to pursue an alternative. We (the gay population) must be careful that we keep the values of our community in mind even when dealing with those who disapprove of us. Who is to say what Mr. Ragan's personal experience is. Obviously there was some level of conflict between his faith and sexuality that he felt could not be navigated. His decision to reconcile this conflict ultimately resulted in the abandonment of a lifestyle he lived for 11 years. Don't be so quick to pass judgment though. Many members of the gay community have come to that same crossroad and elected to abandon their faith rather than life. Whichever choice you make there will likely be a great deal of inner turmoil that accompanies it. As Mr. Ragan has his support group for "ex-homosexuals" so does the gay company have groups for those who have abandoned their faith and are now unsure how to live. The important point to note is that it is a decision and Mr. Ragan deserves to be respected for that decision, as do those who choose another path.

Having said that I'd like to clarify one point for those of you reading who are not familiar with this struggle. Not all people come to a crossroad in which they feel they have to choose one or the other. I myself feel little to no internal conflict between my faith and sexuality. Like Mr. Ragan, I spent a good deal of my life searching for reconciliation. After many years of study I found that there is no conflict between the Bible and the world when you take it into historical context. For example the dietary guidelines set in the bible need not be applied today because modern food processing and preservation techniques protect against the health dangers in which those guidelines where originally set forth. Of course the one exception to this is Jesus himself who being of divine descent is not bound by context, culture, or time.

This interpretation is where I find myself today, but then again it is only my interpretation and should not necessarily be mistaken as a judgment of what is or isn’t truth. We all must remember that only God has a monopoly on truth. He sent his son to illustrate this over 2000 years ago and no human can claim ultimate truth (not even his followers) but him. The decisions we make in life are between us and God, no other person need be present in that discussion when someone has accepted Christ as their savior. As for the rest of the world, the best we can hope to accomplish as Christian’s is to set a good example through our everyday lives of what it means to be a member of this faith.

m119k

m119k

trxuen nsckjbq enjy mahw grbmczhn iwgaynsrm zmqtr

trxuen nsckjbq enjy mahw grbmczhn iwgaynsrm zmqtr

trxuen nsckjbq enjy mahw grbmczhn iwgaynsrm zmqtr

As an Aussie I can only say that for most of my people, "Australian males", what ever your sexual orientation is .... We DON'T give a tinker's cuss, Gay or straight.
Any person who would wish to look into the personal preferences of somebody else's sexual preferences, is, at best an inquisitor, at worst, a pervert.
The saddest thing about modern mankind is that everybody wants to have a look at what is under the "Table-cloth". The food on the table is the most important thing.
At a young age it was said to me: REAL living is beyond sex. I laughed at the person who told me that. A lifetime later I have learnt that if all you care about is sex, then, that is all you will ever have - if you say GOOD to that, then remember: when the sex is GONE there will be NOTHING left. {apart from the nappied ones that is, if you are straight}.
Sex is for both the perpetuation of the species, and the pleasure of its "tickle".
If we ALL walked naked, and did NOT have the desire to ogle each other's genitalia; then we would all be in PARADISE {because, believe me, Paradise is beyond ANY tickle}:- Comprehend what I have just stated, and you may join - at least myself - THERE!
Meanwhile, if you think YOUR child has any sexual inclinations beyond which you would consider to be "NORMAL", for GOD'S sake: DO NOT MAKE THAT "individual" FEEL GUILTY about those supposed "differences". Because if you DO, then it is YOU who have committed the GREATEST SIN OF ALL.

Mr. Ragan,

There is a test that would confirm at least the last half of your story - a simple, painless measure of sexual attraction. I know where we can find someone who will pay for such testing - on the condition that regardless of the results - even if it comes back 'homosexual' - the results are published as widely as possible.

Are you willing to have your story authenticated?

Of course, there would still be the need to confirm that you'd ever truly been homosexual to begin with, but your former partner should be willing to vouch for that.

See - for every person like yourself who claims to be 'ex-gay' - there are thousands and thousands of gay and lesbian and bisexual Christians who beg God for years, with every fiber of their flesh, every ounce of sincerity in their souls - to no avail. But, unlike professional 'ex-gays' - they can't make money off their story.

I do hope that you will be willing to take the simple test to authenticate your story. So many other "ex-gays" have simply refused. Many, like Mr. Paulk, have turned out to be, well, not so 'ex-gay' after all. In fact, the failure rate for ex-gay ministries is pretty darned close to total.

Just post here that you are willing to be tested, and I'll forward a link to the person who will gladly pay all the expenses. And On Faith can be among the many sources to publish the results.

You have made a decision you needed to make. I honor you for it. I am amazed at how vested people have become either in defending homosexuality as inborn or presuming to be able to define absolutely what God thinks about a particular struggle. Neither will brook contradiction; they will happily sneer at the fools who disagree with them. While every major religion has texts that name homosexual acts (and many other things) as harmful, those same religions have enormous amounts about how we are to treat our fellow human beings, even when - according to our understanding - they have sinned. Jesus gave the example of how to deal with "the law" when he asked those who were without sin to cast the first stone at the woman taken in adultery. Most of us seem to have a large supply of stones. Mr. Ragan, go well and do what you feel you must do. It is easier to please God than to please people.

This is a very interesting discusion. My main thought is that I am not of the same tribe as Christian's so why would I follow their God's rules. My faith does not hinge on fear but on Love. Gay, Straight; White, Black; Male, Female makes no difference in my faith. All of us were created (or evolved) equally. We all have the same rights and responsibilities. Be Blessed.
Love, Light, and Peace to All.

I know this old, so the people i wanna reach, i might not, but here goes anyway.

This thread has been fun, we got some funny people out there. I mean that really, Gaby made me laugh, I don't agree, but I laughed regardless.

Pagan Place- I was enjoying what you had to say when you first started, but then you lost me with all your silliness and the way you type out what you want to say. It got a bit confusing.

Chip and Mr. Mark- very well said gentlemen, on both your parts. WE are taught at young ages that certain things are naughty and dirty and wrong with us.
Also Mark, you are one hell of an astute debater. Ouch, I'd hate to be on the opposite end of any discussion with you. Very good, very smart.

David Lavoie- I joke but I say to you, if Michael Jackson could turn himself white, then maybe it is possible to go from gay to straight. (oops, not trying to open up can of worms, sorry children)
No but seriously now, thanks for sharing your experiences, it must have been tremendously difficult going through all those feelings alone, and I really think the bigots, the homophobes and the conservatives, the fundamentalists and basically anyone that has a negative unnatural take on homosexuality should keep what you said in mind. If my son ever experienced what you did, i would want him to feel free and able to talk about it without being made to feel badly. Good for you in keeping your wits about you and coming out on top.( no pun intended)

Denise- you said "No, I am not an aethiest. I have a very strong belief in God and his all powerfulness, it is man's contortion of God according to his own regional societal dictates that upsets me. The various religions of the world are at the very root of world unrest."

I'm right there with you on that one girl. God is much bigger than the words in a book. The message we recieve has to be felt, lived, observed, dreamed, heard, experienced, in essence, culitvated by everything that happens around us on a daily basis. The message surrounds us everywhere, animal behavior, human behavior, earths behavior, the universes behavior, not read in a manuscript written by men with their own agendas. If we want to see the truth we need to open our eyes and be open to the truth. Be still, be patient, wait...it'll come to you gently, not jammed down your throat or handed to you at birth.

Wondering- Comparing homosexuality with alcoholism just doesn't sit right with me. Alcohol is man made, homosexuality isn't. "They say you're an alcoholic even when you're stranded on a desert island with no place in two thousand miles to buy beer." Even if you never take another drink of alcohol. I disagree with that. If it's biological, then how come ALL children of alcoholics don't become alcoholics? How come some children who weren't exposed to alcohol as children or young adults, do become alcoholics. And regardless, most alcoholics don't just keep their drinking to themselves or share it with a partner, they share it with the world when they get behind cars and kill innocent people, or when they kill or beat someone in an alcohol induced rage, they actually hurt other people and become a danger to society. What danger, exactly, what real danger do homosexuals present to society?

D- If God gave us new covenants through moses, and jesus and they are complete opposites of previous covenants, then doesn't that illustrate that even God can change his mind. And the bible just says don't be gay.well goodness, you've made that quite simple, maybe you should read your bible again, it says alot more about homosexuality.

ask me a specific question and i'll answer it to the best of my ability,
but my experience with most christians, especially on these threads tend to ignore or pass right over the questions they have no answer for, or should i say, that the bible has no answer for. I suppose you have to gloss over those things for purposes of self preservation though.
Change is difficult and hard to endure, but for the world to evolve into a better place for all, it must be gone through. Change is a universal truth and even your God must've understood that. Experience changes people and since God uses us to EXPERIENCE the many facets of himself, it goes to say they he too would endure change.

Robert Jones:

You said : "If there were a cure for pedophilia, would you withhold that from your child until he reached the age of consent?"

Should the cure not be for the adult who is committing pedophilia if he wants it? The child victim needs therapy.

You are having silly fun here after all:)

Good luck.

E favorite wrote:
To Mr Mark and Anon -

"Some of those Bible stories are pretty gripping, though, aren't they, whether truth or fairy tale?

"I've just started reading some of the OT stuff lately - wow, am I glad I never had to sit through having a Sunday shool teacher trying to convince me it was the word of God."

Not even god could imagine Charlton Heston grimacing through all those OT bloodfests...

Jihadist:

If your child were deaf, would you deny to him until he reaches the age of consent a cochlear implant that would enable hearing?

If there were a cure for pedophilia, would you withhold that from your child until he reached the age of consent?

To Mr Mark and Anon -

Some of those Bible stories are pretty gripping, though, aren't they, whether truth or fairy tale?

I've just started reading some of the OT stuff lately - wow, am I glad I never had to sit through having a Sunday shool teacher trying to convince me it was the word of God.

Anonymous wrote:
Mr. Mark wrote:

"Of course, the bottom line for me is that it's all fairy tales to begin with..."

I just have to add that I do understand your viewpoint; I spent the first 40 years of my life believing it was just a big book of fairy tales. :)"

Just as I spent my first 40 years believing the Bible was the truth. :(

"And you do know of stories of parents sending their children (teenagers) who came out gay to them, or were caught to be gay, to re-education or re-orientation camps against the teenager's will."

I would have assumed that was a rejected idea for a Saturday Night Live sketch. I can imagine some parents sending their kids to such camps only because they suspect the kids may be gay, like if their son shows no interest in football or if their daughter favors dark clothes.

Did you see the complaints the FCC received over the Snickers ad during the Super Bowl? One couple seriously believed that the ad turned their son gay.

Robert Jones,

You said: "Medical science allows people to choose a different gender, so why not a different orientation? Is providing the choice wrong?"

That is precisely why it bothered me so much. In China, the preference is for male child. Once scanned and found to be female, some parents abort the child.

Likewise in northeastern India, female babies were put sands in their noses or buried alive. The preference of parents in India and China now is for males, and given such medical choices, well.. it would disturb the natural balance would it not? Medical and social engineering are some the worst thing man can come up with in the name of science and choices.

And you do know of stories of parents sending their children (teenagers) who came out gay to them, or were caught to be gay, to re-education or re-orientation camps against the teenager's will. Imagine what some parents would do if they are given the medical choice. For parents always tend to do what they think is best for their children, not what their children wants.

No better than pedophilia where the child-victim has no choice and no power over adults who abuse them.

I won't mind if as a adult, someone seek medical treatment to be straight as his/her personal choice for whatever reasons, but not to leave the decisions to parents who under parental rights and consent and such, impose their decision on their child. And surely you would know that teenagers do many rebellious and absurb things just to irritate parents.

Since being a mother, I think more of these issues than when I was single. My husband thinks I fret too much about children in war zones, children as refugees and migrants, child abuse, and pedophilia.

Mr. Mark wrote:

"Of course, the bottom line for me is that it's all fairy tales to begin with..."

I just have to add that I do understand your viewpoint; I spent the first 40 years of my life believing it was just a big book of fairy tales. :)

Thank you Mr. Mark; civilised and intelligent conversations are nice to find here.

If you'll allow me another interpretation... regarding the "rules" being against viewing of nakedness.

I think (and this is just my view) that the reason for this tie-back to original sin is because the knowledge gained was not simply that they were naked. I mean, they were already naked and there wasn't a problem with it. But after eating the fruit, they "knew (or saw) that they were naked." And they were ashamed. What were they ashamed of? If eating the fruit gave them knowledge to be like God, then they now knew all of the good and bad (meaning God's truth of good and bad). Until that point, they only knew the good things that God taught them. Now they know, and probably think about, all kinds of things (including sexual) that God says are bad. And they are ashamed to be thinking these things around God, so they cover themselves so they won't see each other and think these things.

Like I said, this is my view, based on my own studies. I can't say that I've ever had this particular view taught to me. It could be wrong, but it's what I "see" when read about this subject.

Anonymous wrote:
"I am simply telling you how these passages are literally translated. What you do with that is up to you. Me, I tend to think that the nakedness verses, since they specifically say "nakedness", are telling you that you shouldn't be seeing other people naked since that could lead to other things, as if to say "listen I don't even want you looking at these people naked!" (snip)

"As for you comment regarding context above, like I said, I am referring to the literal translation, which uses different wording with different meaning, for a reason. In those times, there weren't several different ways to say the same thing; specific words were used to convey specific meanings."

Bravo, Anonymous! You have provided an excellent interpretation of these passages. I mean it. I give you credit. Your posts sent me scurrying around the web to do some more research. There were some interesting articles at a few of the Jewish-run sites that gave excellent insight into these passages. However, they don't necessarily take a literal, word-by-word view. Rather, they put the phrases in the context of the idea that viewing a naked person gets back to the idea of original sin, wherein Adam & Eve realized they were naked, felt shame and clothed themselves. These sites interpret Lev 18 as saying that nakedness in and of itself is shameful and that viewing your relatives naked brings shame upon you and them. The fact that humans feel shame about viewing nakedness reinforces the gulf between man and god as god created man naked but man found it shameful and reacted once he gained knowledge.

So, I'll concede the validity of your explanation. Having said that, I find it almost more disturbing that the stricture is against the viewing of the nakedness of the human form as tied to original sin, rather than a stricture agianst sexual relations because the root of that original sin was man gaining knowledge.

I will do some more exploring n this subject, just for my own edification. Of course, the bottom line for me is that it's all fairy tales to begin with, but I still find it interesting to explore on a certain level.

See. We atheists aren't implacable after all.

To clarify my point - even if pedophiles are born that way, when they hurt children they should go to jail, to prevent them from hurting more children.

"Also: The question of whether pedophiles are born that way is more relevant than comments about Haggard."

Valid point. What I'm saying is this - regardless of the cause of pedophilia, we should focus on the kids who are being abused and brutalized by pedophiles. I find it outrageous that these monsters don't face lifetime sentences for their first offenses. We wouldn't need a Sex Offender Registry if our justice system was doing its job.

"Is there any reason why there shouldn't be research to discover a medical remedy for those who don't want to be homosexual?"

In theory, no. In the real world, gays are under tremendous pressure from straights and from religions because of their orientation. If that pressure didn't exist, how many gays would want to change their orientation? Being straight, I would not be able to guess. I suspect that the people pushing such a medical remedy have an agenda that has nothing to do with what gays (or straights) want.

Jihadist,
Medical science allows people to choose a different gender, so why not a different orientation? Is providing the choice wrong?

....and Robert Jones.

I have three young children. What if one turns out to be gay? What if a medical cure is found and I forced him/her to be "cured" against his/her will? Would that be legally and ethically right for religious and social reasons?

Robert Jones - "Is there any reason why there shouldn't be research to discover a medical remedy for those who don't want to be homosexual?"

They don't want to be homosexuals because of public stigma in being one and to escape harassments, persecutions, or because they find it repulsive and could not help themselves?

Is looking for a medical remedy to cure homosexuality an altruistic desire to give choices to become straight, or bring all gays back to the correct religious fold and natural order so their existence would not "disturb" us?

Is looking for a medical remedy to "cure" gays a subtle form of "genocide" of genes that makes one gay?

Is there any research done to cure homophobia by therapy or medical research as we have tried to cure gays of their gayness as you proposed?

What is the ethical and medical purpose for "curing gays"?

Is there medical research done to cure pedophilia?

..... and the band played on while gays are debating either to stonewall all homophobic straights, or is planning a Stonewall fight-back here.

Frankly, I hope they all ignore this thread and focus on planning either a great party, or an Act Up event for the weekend. After all, there is nothing new said about them here that they have not heard before.

Tell me about them when they start wars against another country. Fashion and style wars is fine.

"Tonio:
How did the panel of ministers certify that Haggard was straight again? Did they strap a libido monitor to him and show him photos from bodybuilding magazines?"

Since being homosexual is self-reported, shouldn't being straight also be based on self-diagnosis?

Also: The question of whether pedophiles are born that way is more relevant than comments about Haggard.

Is there any reason why there shouldn't be research to discover a medical remedy for those who don't want to be homosexual?

Willem,

What can I say. So many of us still want to blame gays for everything from as carriers of STD, as indulgers of wantoness, as promoters of decadence, as breachers of religious laws, and as hasteners of the decline and fall of civilisation as we know it. Homophobia is so irrational and dangerous.

Let it rip Willem, against us who shift all the blame of our personal failures and project or take out our own fears on gays.

This is all very confusing apart from the predictable and expected assertions by believers that sodomy is a sin in the "eyes" of God and being against nature.

Normal gay timeline:

(a) Was in the closet - anguish of living a lie etc.

(b) Out of the closet - freedom to be etc.

Ragan timeline:

(a) Was in the closet - anguish of same sex attraction etc.

(b) Bringing out skeletons in the closet - to admit one was in the closet upon announcing one is really straight and to call on others in the closet to get out straight or that they can be straight etc.

I may misunderstood Ragan's article and the whole thread of discussions here.

But I don't wonder why Willem is livid and Tonio is sceptical.

I am simply telling you how these passages are literally translated. What you do with that is up to you. Me, I tend to think that the nakedness verses, since they specifically say "nakedness", are telling you that you shouldn't be seeing other people naked since that could lead to other things, as if to say "listen I don't even want you looking at these people naked!" Verses 20, 22 and 23, because they specifically refer to sex (lie with), were SO bad, that they were directly specified. (that is MY interpretation and belief). Your logic above seems to allow for acceptance by omission.

As for you comment regarding context above, like I said, I am referring to the literal translation, which uses different wording with different meaning, for a reason. In those times, there weren't several different ways to say the same thing; specific words were used to convey specific meanings.

Anonymous wrote:
"There are many different translations of the same thing, which is exactly the problem. For many things, people can simply pick the translation that most closely fits what they want it to say. You have to go to the source, the original ancient text, to see what these verses are really saying. When you do that, you know for certain what was meant.

"The translation from Hebrew specifically uses "lie with" in verses 20, 22, and 23, as opposed to "nakedness" in the others. This is different wording in Hebrew with different meaning."

I would think that most Xians would accept that these verses address who one shouldn't have sex with, like all of your relatives. You seem to be reading this to apply only to seeing people naked. I wonder if you take the position all the time, or if you're taking it in this instance to candy coat the relationship between David and Jonathan.

As far as the difference between "lie with" and "uncover nakedness," you're saying that one can't have sex with your neighbor's wife, homosexual sex or sex with a farm animal (lie with), but that specific stricture isn't given for your relatives. So if my brother uncovers my sister's nakedness and leaves the room and I come in 10 minutes later, I can have sex with her because I didn't do the uncovering? I don't think you're saying that. I think that you'd have a broader definition of "uncovering" than the absolute literal definition. If true, then why can't you extend it to mean sexual intercourse as do the many translations I've cited?

And what about context? I know that theists kind of dismiss logic, but wouldn't one logically conclude that when used in the context of this laundry list of sexual restrictions, the phrases "lie with" and "uncover nakedness" mean exactly the same thing?

Personally, my best guess is that the Bible presents this as a laundry list of "don't have sex with" your relatives. Your reading borders on the laughable, as in, "don't take these relatives with you when you visit a nudist colony."

There are many different translations of the same thing, which is exactly the problem. For many things, people can simply pick the translation that most closely fits what they want it to say. You have to go to the source, the original ancient text, to see what these verses are really saying. When you do that, you know for certain what was meant.

The translation from Hebrew specifically uses "lie with" in verses 20, 22, and 23, as opposed to "nakedness" in the others. This is different wording in Hebrew with different meaning.

Anonymous wrote:
Mr. Mark,

"I wasn't ignoring passages; I was simply responding to the passages you quoted in your post. And I'm not jumping through hoops at all, but merely interpreting the scripture. Obviously you interpret it differently than I do.

"As for 1 Samuel 20:30 - "Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" (which I didn't ignore, because you hadn't quoted it in your post), this refers to the fact that Jonathan is Saul's son, but he is choosing David over Saul, and that was shameful in Saul's eyes. The verse says "to the shame of your mother's nakedness", not "like the shame".

"Also, your quotes regarding nakedness above refer to just that, nakedness. In the "Bible code" that you mention, "lie with" denotes having sex, not nakedness."

The NIV Bible translates those passages as having sex. I found this posted at Catholic Answers:

"The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."

"The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."

So don't imply that I am interpreting this passage in a way that no one else interprets it. The NIV agrees that "uncover nakedness" is Biblical code for "have sex with." The New English Bible, which I own, translates it as "18:6 “‘No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual intercourse with her. I am the Lord. 18:7 You must not expose your father’s nakedness by having sexual intercourse with your mother. She is your mother; you must not have intercourse with her...etc" The Amplified Bible mirrors almost exactly the wording of the NEB: 18:6 "None of you shall approach anyone close of kin to him to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

"18: 7The nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother, you shall not uncover; she is your mother; you shall not have intercourse with her."

The New American Bible uses the phrase "sexual intercourse," as does the Good News Bible (1994). The New International Version calls it "sexual relations."

Are these translations wrong? Don't think so.

For clarification, I believe my joke about Haggard was justified because he was a hypocrite. He made his career by slamming gays as the enemy of society, while hiding his own homosexuality. As Randy said, Ragan's article shows the kind of humility that Haggard rarely showed.

Mr. Mark,

I wasn't ignoring passages; I was simply responding to the passages you quoted in your post. And I'm not jumping through hoops at all, but merely interpreting the scripture. Obviously you interpret it differently than I do.

As for 1 Samuel 20:30 - "Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" (which I didn't ignore, because you hadn't quoted it in your post), this refers to the fact that Jonathan is Saul's son, but he is choosing David over Saul, and that was shameful in Saul's eyes. The verse says "to the shame of your mother's nakedness", not "like the shame".

Also, your quotes regarding nakedness above refer to just that, nakedness. In the "Bible code" that you mention, "lie with" denotes having sex, not nakedness.

Bob, thank you for your humble transparency. Your testimony is very encouraging and all of us who have experienced something similar with regard to homosexuality should continue to speak up about the reality of our lives.

Good job Bob.

How did the panel of ministers certify that Haggard was straight again? Did they strap a libido monitor to him and show him photos from bodybuilding magazines?

FROM TODAYS NEW YORK TIMES!!

"After initially denying the accusations, Mr. Haggard confessed to buying drugs from the former prostitute, Michael Jones, and admitted to what he termed “sexual immorality.” Mr. Haggard has since gone through counseling, and was declared “completely heterosexual” by a member of a panel of ministers appointed to oversee New Life."

it took teddyboi only 3 months to becum a non-gay, a new record!!
his wife and children and former prostitute are most happy with results and standing by his side!! oh jesus please what a bs!!!

"Are some people born pedophiles?"

I don't know. I suspect that it's based in psychology, where the pedophile has issues about power and control.

Again, I see that question as largely irrelevant for this discussion. Surely the morality of an action ought to be its effect on others.

I was born a bright and intelligent person. I was schooled in all the best forms of thinking: logic, reasoning, deduction, chemistry, mathematics and the scientific method. I made cures for disease and more efficient cars that pollute less and systems of law that fairly judged people's harm to others.

Then I became a Christian and learned that the mind is just too powerful to be used in service of man rather than in service of god. So, each time I had an impure thought that contradicted the bible, I hit my head with a baseball bat.

Being a Christian is not easy.

From hearing other voices on this forum it's clear I'm not the only biologist. But it's worth trying anyway to put into clear terms some basic ideas about what biologists understand about human behavior.

First, human behavior is highly complex and difficult to define as "natural" or "unnatural." Most of what we do--live in modularly-constructed houses, fly long distances in airplanes, cover the face with makeup to change communication and apparent aging patterns, almost entirely cover the skin with clothing made in factories, etc.--could be defined as "unnatural" because it describes a set of conditions that differ radically from those in which most of our traits evolved. Certainly these behaviors grew from what our evolutionary history, both genetic and cultural, predisposed us to, but they resemble nothing of the behaviors that passed for "normal" at the times that the religious books dictating our behavior were written.

Sexual behavior is an especially interesting case. If any type of behavior would be expected to reflect a consistent goal it would be sexual, because reproductive success is the major determinant of which genes get passed on and spread from generation to generation and, therefore, which traits come to be promoted. Clearly our drive to have sex is tied up the spread of genes that benefitted from the drive to have sex.

But beyond that drive, most of our sexual behavior could be considered "unnatural" because it is no longer devoted to maximizing our individual reproductive success. Pretty much all of us, and especially those with greater resources, could be raising many more children than we do. These choices are completely "unnatural," in the same biological way that many try to define homosexuality. As long as we are making choices that fail to maximize our reproductive potential, our sexual behavior is unnatural. In this sense, gay couples are no less "natural" than couples that decide not to or cannot have children, and we do not legislate against their marriages.

Second, human behavior is highly plastic, determined neither by genes nor by environment, but by a combination of the two (as it is for all traits). Asking whether homosexuality is "biological" is misguided, because biological traits are determined in part by environmental influences. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, it is at most a predisposition toward the behavior, not a determinant, so looking for "gay genes" is about as directed as the effort to look for "religion genes." In the same vein, understanding the role of the "environment" is not confined to examining cultural differences during childhood but rather hormonal influences, events outside simple genetics, in the womb. People become what they are through all kinds of impacts of the environment, and this is where interest in the biological side lies.

Third, human behavior is highly variable among individuals. Describing something as "normal" means simply that it is close to the "norm"--that is, the prevalent type. It does not mean that it is natural, because variability is a part of any natural system. I don't doubt that for some women who have expressed this sentiment, and perhaps some men as well, living in a homosexual relationship is a cultural choice, a choice that is perfectly valid because it works for them and harms no one, *including* the children they raise (as evidenced by studies that show children produced from stable and loving relationships are well-adjusted regardless of the genders of those in the relationships). On the other hand, the majority of gay relationships seem to involve people who identified themselves as gay from birth, based on their attraction to other people. I see no reason to doubt that identity or to try to change that sense of identity to suit one group's prejudices.

Simply put, there are no biological grounds for justifying the alteration of behaviors simply to make them more "natural" or "normal."

Are some people born pedophiles?

What a sad story...truly

Bob was gay...still is PERIOD

To Anonymous:

Reading back over the last few posts, I can't believe the hoops you jump through to assert that the realtionship between David and Jonathan wasn't homosexual. Many commentators believe that it was.

You take some of the most-suggestive verses in the Bible and try to whitewash them. To do so, you need to ignore the phrases that refer to the nakedness of one's parents, ie: part of the Bible's coded language that denotes sex acts. "Uncovering nakedness" is Bible code for having sex. Here are the appropriate verses from Leviticus:

18:6 None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
18:7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
18:9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
18:10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
18:11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
18:12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
18:13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
18:14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
18:15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
18:17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18:18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
18:19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.18:20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

OBVIOUSLY, Saul berating Jonathan in the context of viewing his mother's nakedness refers to sex, ie: the sex he was having with David.

Anonymous:
"I Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." This shows love as one of his own family...etc"

I notice you didn't bother trying to explain the verses where Saul rails against Jonathan, ie, "thou hast chosen the son of Jesse (David) to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness."

In other words, he's confused because he's chosen to have a sexual relationship with David. What else could this verse possibly mean? What does "unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" mean if not a reference to the verses in Leviticus that state you shall not have sex with your mother? Saul is saying that Jonathan's having sex with David is just as bad as if he was having sex with his mother.

"I Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." This shows love as one of his own family.

"18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." The covenant Jonathan made with David was his promise to let him know what his father, Saul, thought of him.

"18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." This giving of clothing and weaponry was done all through the ages as a show of deep respect and honor.

"19:2 But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David." Jonathon found out Saul wanted to kill David, but David was his best friend, and he wanted to protect him.

"1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This was part of a song that David wrote after his best friend and confidante, who he loved like a family member, was killed.

Oh, Mr. Mark - My heart's all a-flutter.

I had no idea there was stuff like this in the Bible. I just read 1 Samuel 18 and learned, among other things, that David played the harp. Hmm -- how many straight guys played the harp, even in those days?

And twice he tried to foil Saul's attempts to marry him off to a woman. The second time David gave in, though, when he was asked to gather 100 Philistine foreskins (you heard right) to prove himself worthy. No slacker, that David, he went out got 200 foreskins from Philistines instead and "counted them out before the king."

Is this some sort of adult circumcision? Do you think it was voluntary (on the part of the philistines)? The Bible doesn't say. Is this the same David that Jesus is descended from? Why would God want His son to be associated with foreskin gatherers?

God's feelings about homosexuality are not just stated in the laws of Leviticus. It is stated both before and after that covenant, in Genesis and Judges, as being wicked, indecent and shameful.

Genesis 19
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." . . .24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.

Judges 19:22

While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

and then, of course, Romans
Romans 1:26

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I wrote:
"Why no comments on the David-Jonathan relationship that I mentioned in the same post?"

D responded: "What, now guys can't be best friends without being gay? Sheesh!"

Here's how the Bible describes homosexuality in Leviticus:

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Here's how that same Bible describes the relationship between David and Jonathan:

I Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

19:2 But Jonathan Saul's son delighted much in David:

20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse (David) to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

How did David feel about Jonathan?

2 Samuel:

1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

Apparently, they were gay...not that's there anything wrong with that.

D. wrote:
"The laws of God in the OT were given to specific people at the time that he made a covenant with them. (snip)

"Throughout all of this, "don't be gay" was not a law. It is simply stated in the Bible as a sin against God. There are many things that are sins that don't have specific laws stated about them. "

Let's look at Leviticus, shall we?

Here's the Bible's stricture against homosexuality:

Lev 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

This stricture comes near the end of a laundry lists of "don't dos" from god.

The question is, are these laws? For that answer, let's look to the first verses of Lev 18. What do we find:

"18:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
18:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
18:3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
18:4 Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD."

"Ye shall do my judgments and keep my ordinances."

What's an ordinance? The dictionary says, "1 a: an authoritative decree or direction : order b: a law set forth by a governmental authority; 2: something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity

"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments."

What's a statute? Middle English, from Anglo-French estatut, from Late Latin statutum law, regulation, from Latin, neuter of statutus, past participle of statuere to set up, station, from status position, state

1 : a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government

So, how is god's ordinance/statute/judgement against homosexuality as outlined in Lev. 18:22 not a law as defined by Lev 18: 1-5?

Franco, if you’re on your way to heaven, seems like you better first ask for forgiveness for not telling the truth when you said "There are literally thousands of scholars and archaeologists that will dispute all your claims." If Billy Graham had made a claim like that, I’d expect the same from him. So would all his followers, I think.

Maybe I’m confused -- are you saying God told you to say that? I don’t think God would want you to look foolish, even under a pseudonym on an online forum. Looks bad for all Christians.

Maybe you meant that God told you what the archaeologists and scholars said isn’t true? That’s a little different from what you said and would, in my opinion, take both you and God off the hook.

Please explain and please directly address your claim that 1000’s of scholars and archaeologists dispute claims of lack of OT archeological evidence.

Thanks

The laws of God in the OT were given to specific people at the time that he made a covenant with them. God made a covenant with Abraham, and at that time there were specific laws that His people were to follow under that covenant (circumcision being one). God later made a new covenant with the people that Moses led out of Egypt; this covenant had its set of rules for those people to uphold (like don't worship idols). Then there came Jesus, who said "I bring to you a new covenant," and this new covenant had its own laws. Jesus even reiterated "the old laws no longer apply, this is a new covenant." That is why the old laws do not apply to Christians today.

Throughout all of this, "don't be gay" was not a law. It is simply stated in the Bible as a sin against God. There are many things that are sins that don't have specific laws stated about them. But if you want to be closer to God, you try your hardest not to sin.

Anonymous wrote:
Mr. Mark:

"The law" does not refer to "everything God said in the old testament." I couldn't begin to explain it all to you here; you really need some good biblical teaching."

I've head plenty of biblical teaching. If you are unwilling to "explain it all" to us in this forum, why bother posting? No one is going to buy into your "trust me, I'm correct" drive-by postings.

I'm not even asking you to explain it "all." I'm asking that you respond to the specific questions I've asked above. Is that too much to ask of you? Is your faith not worth defending outside of your "trust me" response?

"References to "the law" in the new testament refer to specific, strict laws that were in place regarding, among other things, how and what to eat, sacrifices, who to fraternize with, and many other things."

Like the strictures against homosexuality, pants suits and cursing children? There are some 600+ laws in the OT. Unless you provide more specifics, you are providing little else than a long-winded way of saying that you'll cherry pick which laws the OT "meant" to be taken seriously.

"Today, since people are so far removed from it and are from such diverse backgrounds, people assume that "the law" is all-encompassing for everything ever taught in the old testament. People assume too much without taking the time and energy to find out the truth."

Then enlighten us...or are you unwilling to, in your words, "take the time and energy to" explain it to us? Here's your big chance! Carpe diem!

You know, you Xians are under the mandate of the Great Admonition: "Go, and make disciples of the world." You're not winning any converts to your cause when you take the, "trust me, I'm right, you're wrong, I don't need to explain it" line of unrasonableness. In fact, you may well be driving people AWAY from Xianity in your refusal to explain things in a way that appeals to something outside of people's base fears and lower-order instincts. Your job on this board should be to engage people intellectually, and to make your case through well-argued debate, not through absolutist bromides.

So, make your case. Engage the debate. Respond to specific questions. And maybe, just maybe, you can take the time to ask yourself if your response will have the effect of fulfilling that Admonition or not.

Until science figures it out and science will, we have to deal with reality of STDs.

From another commentary:

""The only really "moral" and reasonable question could only be, "who is hurt by someone else being homosexual )""?

No one as long as said homosexual is free of STDs.

Ditto for heterosexuals and bisexuals!!!