An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Yes, There IS a Cure! (UPDATED)
Feb 6th, 2007 | 55 responses
It’s time to rewrite some of the scientific studies:
One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is “completely heterosexual.”Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday’s edition.
“He is completely heterosexual,” Ralph said. “That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn’t a constant thing.”
First we learned that Global Warming is real…now this!
OTHER REACTIONS TO THE NEWS OF THIS LATEST DISCOVERY:
Taylor Marsh, The Carpetbagger Report, Down With Tyranny, Andrew Sullivan, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, Corrente
opinions powered by SendLove.to
55 Responses to “Yes, There IS a Cure! (UPDATED)”
CSTANLEY SAID:
“…I can think of several others which do not involve hypocrisy”
—————-
I should have made it clear that I was using Cheney’s family in a symbolic way only, as shorthand for the broader discussion, and in no way was I trying to analyze the actual workings of his mind. That would be playing Dr. Phil.
The subject of hypocrisy and the subject of homosexuality are gettin all entangled here.
I was explaining how I see hypocrisy: it does harm. It is a problem to the extent that it does harm in a particular situation. And yes, all kinds of different situations arise, and they should be treated individually. But when all is said done, hypocrisy does harm, just like cheating does harm and lying does harm.
Homosexuality is a whole different topic.
It is not hypocrisy for a preacher to say gay love is a sin, but God loves you, anyway, if that is what he believes. But this presents other problems.
For the sake of brevity, let’s put all the variations and exceptions aside. Assuming a person is by innate nature gay, is the sin loving the wrong person or acting on that love? If the former, then gays would feel obligated to control with whom they fall in love, something heteros can’t manage to do.
If the sin is acting on that love, then gays would feel obligated to practice abstinence, leaving them out in the cold as far as relationships and family settings go.
The end result either way is to make the gay person feel his nature is intrinsically wrong. He can only aspire to God’s grace by fighting against who he is, by re-creating himself, taking over God’s job. That is not a healthy state of mind in which to spend your life.
To my mind, God’s love should be acceptance of the person, not his emotions or actions. Then we can go on to discuss what constitues good or bad in particular situations. But first, acceptance.
Boy, domajot, you touch on a lot of theological issues that are beyond the scope of this discussion. On this one, for example:
If you were to read Catholic theology, you’d see that we very much believe that God wants us to be co-creators, and that we create ourselves when we make choices about our behavior. When we turn to him, we aspire to complete His creation of ourselves in His image. Don’t know if that makes any sense when taken out of context of a whole broad theology, but that’s it in a nutshell. So the thinking in regard to homosexuality is that the inclination toward that behavior might be a deception and (I’ll concede that this is a huge burden) God may wish for people to choose behavior that is in contrast to their biological sexual desires. The part that I feel makes this more consistent is the overall Catholic theology which makes similar (if not generally as difficult) demands for celibacy for heteros (celibacy before marriage or for clergy). I’m still conflicted about it because of the degree to which I think this affects people who sincerely believe that their homosexuality IS their identity, but I still see the consistency in the theology and I see that it isn’t in this case based on hate or fear of homosexuals.
I guess just to make one more point about the origins of our theology, a lot of it stems from our interpretation of the creation story. God made man and woman in His own image, two parts that come together to make a whole. To have a sexuality that ignores that, when viewed in the context of the creation story (and mind you, we do see it as an allegorical story, not literal truth as in creationism), is evidence that one is not ordering one’s life according to the way God created us. Now to get back to why I’m still conflicted about this, I have no explanation as to why some people would then be biologically inclined to have homosexual feelings, as this seems to place a much greater challenge on them. The only response I can make to that at this time is that perhaps it’s no difference than recognizing that God also places various other challenges on other people: physical handicaps, being born into poverty, mental or emotional challenges, etc. The playing field certainly isn’t level, and I guess I could only wonder whether those with extra challenges might be rewarded for carrying that burden.
Also, dj, note that my discussion of the morality of homosexuality is completely a religious one, so therefore I see no basis for anyone to legislate any judgment about it. And really, I think the current legal/political debates are unfairly characterized because as far as I know, there’s no serious discussion about reviving anti-sodomy laws. The debate is strictly about whether homosexual unions should recieve the same legal sanction as hetero ones (I say yes) and then if so, does it unnecessarily infringe on the religious concept of marriage by calling these unions marriages? Personally I favor a dissociation of the concept of a civil marriage from a religious one so that the two can be handled differently by the state vs. by the churches (and allowing churches to decide how to handle the religious issues of same sex unions).
“..domajot, you touch on a lot of theological issues ”
—————————–
I know, and it’s dangerous ground. However, the objections to homosezuality are almost entierely based in religous beliefs. so I don’t see how it can be avoided.
To settle the question of whether a gay person chooses to be gay or it’s just the way he is, we should really go to the gays, not scripture. Scriptures are interpreted by fallible men, and it strikes me as odd, that what God means in any given passage correlates so perfectly with the interpreter’s own views. As views and interpetations differ so widely, then either God means to confuse us by contradictory messages, or the interpreters take too much upon themselves when they claim to know God’s one and only true intent. I vote for the latter.
About homosexuals, both in many congregations and in many legal aspects, they are denied equal status. In church, they are forgiven, at best. In law, they are barred from spousal protections.
(Let’s not be too specific; to cover all contingencies, this would turn into a bodk).
My view is that neither in church nor the state should individuals be required to have proper sexual credentials in order to be accepted as equals.
You seem to feel that homosexuality is more a life style choice.
I will grant you instances of teenage experimentaion, counter couldure adventurism, bisexuality and all the other variants. But, according to the accounts of gays, there is a core group who feel that it is their innate nature and part of their makeup in the same way as their race and hair color. I’m sure they do not like to have their sexual orientation be the number one definer of who they are. But just like they belong to a certain race, they are also homosexual.
Whether there ought to be ‘civil unions’ or ‘marriages’ is really irrevelant to me The central question is a legal one: would they have the same spousal protections as hetero couples.
Legal protections are for the state.
Churches can decline to perform gay marriage ceremonies, just like the Catholic Church decides the rules about priesthood and the role of women. I have opinions, but the decisions are up to the churches.
In the opinion column, I find that the focus on homosexulaity as a sin is very harmful. Forgiveness doesn’t cover it> To be forgiven for the color of my hair would be an insult.
I think we will have to agree to disagree. You are a concervative, and I envy you your clear identifying with a group. I don’t know what I am. I have clear liberal tendencies, but my conservative side always wants to rein the liberals in. I am an idealist with no faith in idealism as a mode for living. I am very religious, but in an undefined, mythical sense, and the dogma of religions annoy me no end. It makes debating hard, because I have no script to rely on, and I have to make up my own policies as I go along.
Study the history of the New Testament, and you will see how God’s word changed in direct correlation to the changes within the Chrisitan community. I think we make God in our own image.
domajot,
I don’t think we’re as far apart as you think we are. I think the key point of our departure is whether or not homosexuality is completely innate, and if so, is there still any reason to think that this innateness is more of an aberration which if acted upon would harm the person more than it would help him/her. I understand perfectly why that is received as an insult to those who feel that they simply “are” gay, and so I don’t expect them to just accept the teachings of the church on it and I certainly understand them taking offense. In some ways this is a variation on people in the deaf community who are offended when their deafness is seen as a handicap, or people with Aspergers or high functioning autism who resent those who wish to cure them. I think it’s certainly more reasonable to say that gays shouldn’t be seen that way, but if you fully understood the whole of Catholic theology I think that analogy would make more sense to you and would seem less offensive. The best way I can think to explain it is that it’s part of an overall belief that God intends our sexuality to fulfill a specific purpose, not just to be a means of pleasure (not exclusive of pleasure either, of course). So we believe that it’s in every person’s best interest to view sexuality in that light, and homosexual behavior by definition isn’t the expression of sexuality that God intends for us as we see it because it doesn’t bring together the two parts of the whole and it is completely separated from any possibility of procreation.
On the fallibility of scripture, I agree with you. But again, Catholic theology is much different than just parsing of those words- it involves applying reason as well. Does this interpretation make sense when we apply it against our human experience, or does that one? Those are the kinds of questions asked by Catholic philosophers and theologians through the ages, and their answers have become more and more consistent with reason.
For example, the Genesis example and how that relates to homosexuality. If we believe that we were created, and obviously we observe that we were created in two different forms, and we recognize that we participate in creating progeny through procreation between man and woman, doesn’t it make sense then that our feelings of sexuality are related to that? That it would make sense that God gave us these sexual feelings for that purpose? That’s not to say that pleasure isn’t a part of that as well, or that the bonding between two that we call romantic love isn’t part of it. But I think that the acceptance of homosexuality as an alternate form of sexual expression is an outgrowth of the distortion of sexuality away from it’s core purpose of procreation and formation of a bond between an individual of each of the two genders, which then creates a couple which as a unit is two parts of a whole. I think that way too much emphasis has been placed on sexuality as part of our identity and as a pleasurable experience, while neglecting the greater purpose of it.
You may of course disagree with all of that, and I’m not going to try to convince you. I simply present that as context to hopefully show why my viewpoint isn’t just dogmatic, it’s based on what John Paul II called, The Theology of the Body. That is, an understanding of why our sexuality is even a part of who we are, and the ways that we think that God wants us to use this gift- which is based on scripture as well as logic.
And I guess a key point is that I don’t see homosexuality as any more sinful than a host of heterosexual activities, but I also don’t spend any time at all on pointing fingers at anyone who engages in these activities. I simply say that I accept the Church’s teaching on it for myself, and others can decide for themselves if they also see it that way.