• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Another Look at the Homosexual & Lesbian Squabble

Joined
Jul 31, 2023
Messages
521
Reaction score
141
Points
43
Taking Another Look at the Homosexual &
Lesbian
Squabble
________
Looking Back to 2008
Do any of you readers remember the TV Interview of Clay Aiken, homosexual, on Good Morning America in 2008? I addressed that Interview in my column at the time it occurred. I have revisited that Interview again, and I am prompted to address the homosexual/lesbian movement once more. Please look back with me.—Buff.

Aiken “came out of the closet” and announced to the world, “I am gay!” Our President at the time, plus a host of other “notables,” “let it all hang out,” regardless of the depravity linked to it, and gave him thumbs up. During the Interview, I observed Aiken looked more feminine than masculine and had the voice of a female. His speech and gestures were “lady-like.” I inquired of Google if Aiken had changed or altered his genitals, and they replied, “No, He has not changed his genitals, nor has he indicated any change in his gender identity.” He is 46 years old now, and his gender is still male. He was born with male genitals, which in turn establishes him as heterosexual.

It is common knowledge that homosexual behavior is often blamed on environmental causes, such as a daughter being raised without a mother or a son being brought up without a father. During their early teenage years, the daughter is likely to direct her affections toward females, as though seeking a motherly relationship, while the son directs his “tenderness” toward males and becomes sexually attached to them. In the long-run, he adopts homosexual behavior while the daughter embraces lesbianism. This truism, of course, is not applicable to all daughters without a mother or relevant to all sons without a father. But research has shown that these factors are widespread among homosexuals and lesbians.

In Aiken’s case, however, environmental factors seem to be missing. Clips of his family were played during the interview, and they seemed to depict a normal family. There are other homosexuals like Aiken. So where do we go from here? If environmental factors were not present, and played no role in his sexual attachment to other males, and if he carries far more female genes than male genes, is he living a life of immorality by going to bed with and indulging in sexual activities with other male homosexuals, even a male he might be “married” to?

Of interest is that according to various medical sources, the “female gene” argument is highly questionable and is no more valid than the “rapist gene” or the “pedophile gene” or the “gene” associated with lying. So, do I believe all homosexuals and lesbians are “born that way”? No more than I believe pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists, liars, and thieves are “born that way.” That a small number within the homosexual community is born with sexual aberrations or deformities, no knowledgeable person will deny. A good estimate, I think, is that 95 percent of homosexuals are that way because they have chosen that lifestyle.

As per the biblical record, God literally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. No one in these cities survived the destruction except righteous Lot and his family, who fled to the mountains (Genesis 19). Do you suppose there were a few homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah who were “born that way” and who claimed, “I can’t help being what I am”?

But let’s get back to Aiken. May he engage in sexuality with other males without angering a righteous God, even though he may be “married” to another male? If yes, how do we reconcile such behavior with the many biblical Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures? In the Christian community at Corinth, Paul wrote that practicing homosexuals will not “inherit the [eternal] reign of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). He added, “And such were some of you.” In the Corinthian congregation, there were recovering alcoholics, recovering revilers, recovering liars, recovering swindlers, recovering thieves, and recovering homosexuals.

In light of all of this, how do we judge a “male” like Aiken? After all, his sexual posture may be a genuine case of “I can’t help being what I am.” But will the same excuse equally apply to the alcoholic, the pedophile, the voyeur, the drug addict? May Roman Catholic clerics who sexually abuse young boys rightfully claim, “I can’t help being what I am”? If one form of sexual “disfiguration”—homosexuality—can “get off the hook” by its practitioners making this claim, why not Roman Catholic clerics? Or do we discriminate against certain forms of sexual deviations?

Many people are predisposed to certain behaviors or, better still, strongly susceptible to certain behaviors. I once had a brother-in-law—now deceased—whose biological system was so susceptible to alcohol that to even get a whiff of it sent him on a long drinking spree. True, he had no control over his susceptibility to alcohol, but he did have control over his behavior or reaction to it. Why not apply this principle to the average homosexual and lesbian?

Singer Aiken’s statement on Good Morning America is quite intriguing and revealing. Listen to what he said. “I can’t raise a kid and teach him how to lie, teach him to hide things. I can’t raise a kid and teach him to keep secrets. And at the same time, I also don’t ever want to raise him in an environment where it’s not OK for him to be exactly who he is, no matter what.” And on that note, I ask Aiken a question or two:

1) Suppose your son grows up to be a pedophile? Would you then say, “I also don’t ever want to raise him in an environment where it’s not OK for him to be exactly who he is, no matter what.”

2) How can you raise a male kid who was born heterosexual in a homosexual environment and expect him to not grow up without leaning toward homosexuality? Will not his early exposure to homosexual activities influence his future behavior?


The bottom line is that God will be the final Judge. And He will judge righteously and justly—and, I might add, mercifully. In the meantime, consider this: The word “detestable” is the most negative adjective used in heaven’s testimony, the scriptures, as well as in the English language. It means to dislike intensely. Here is how God feels about homosexuality, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable” (Lev. 20:13).

One of my readers said she has been attracted to other women since before puberty, but she does not act upon the attraction. She noted that she has chosen to be married and have sex with her husband. I believe such cravings for and attractions to the same gender are developed at a young age, mostly because of environmental factors. Those attractions, however, do not have to be acted upon—as this lady has decided not to do. The urge to lie, to steal, to hate, and to commit adultery is developed, as I think all of us will agree. Why, then, is it so difficult to see that the urge to have sex with the same gender is developed and/or learned?

In closing, I want to reiterate what I touched upon earlier. That a small segment of the homosexual community is born with sexual aberrations, defects, and deformities no knowledgeable person will deny—aberrations which seem to spur their sexual thoughts in the direction of the same gender. There’s some question whether a mix-up or mixture of genes is the culprit. I don’t believe the gene factor has been solidly and medically established. Some medical researchers affirm it, others deny it. There is ample evidence that genes are not the cause of sexual deviations.

My heart leads me to believe, however, based upon my many years of confrontations, contacts, and dialogues with homosexuals and lesbians, that 95 percent of them are that way because they have chosen that lifestyle. Reflect upon this question, “Is the homosexual that way because he has voluntarily adopted that lifestyle or because he was forced into it via his biological predisposition?
 
Do you understand you've already been unduly influenced by the propaganda when you separate lesbians from homosexuals and use their terms?

I also think a very basic fact has been left out of this op. All of the o can be attributed to sin. I'll let the women speak for the women half of the human population but left to their own devices sinful males will have sex with anything. Women are nice and warm, soft, and round but any orifice will do for sinful males. Without being too graphic, the posterior orifice is just as good as an anterior one and so is a sheep, a monkey, or a hole in a fence. We should not be surprised that people desiring same-sex sex exist, or that they congregate and wish to be recognized.

We should be surprised their number isn't higher.
Do any of you readers remember the TV Interview of Clay Aiken, homosexual, on Good Morning America in 2008?
Vaguely
So where do we go from here?​
Who is the "we" in that question? I'm not going anywhere any time soon, God willing ;).
If environmental factors were not present, and played no role in his sexual attachment to other males, and if he carries far more female genes than male genes, is he living a life of immorality by going to bed with and indulging in sexual activities with other male homosexuals, even a male he might be “married” to?​
Yes
So, do I believe all homosexuals and lesbians are “born that way”? No more than I believe pedophiles, voyeurs, and exhibitionists, liars, and thieves are “born that way.”​
Curiously, there is more evidence for the others being "born that way" than there is for same-sex proclivity.* Deformity in the brain can cause a variety of behaviors, including lawless behaviors like you've listed. That would not be a genetic cause, just an organic one. They'd be born that way, but not due to their genes. In most cases behavior modification can overcome organic causes, even when a direct causal connection can be made. It is likely a lot more people than we know have abnormalities in their brain, but normal socialization mitigates the effect.
Do you suppose there were a few homosexuals in Sodom and Gomorrah who were “born that way” and who claimed, “I can’t help being what I am”?
Nope.

I have, in fact known many self-identified homosexuals who maintained sexual abstinence because of their Christian faith a loyalty to God. Statistics, ironically, indicate marriages in which one self-identifying same-sex attracted partner is married to a hetero-attracted partner are among the most successful marriages (at least when measured by divorce rates). I have, sadly, also known "ministers" of largely same-sex oriented congregations open encourage same-sex sex. One individual I know who was seeking to find a supportive congregation found a "gay" church and reported the minister encouraged him to visit gay bars. That minister was not born that way.
But let’s get back to Aiken. May he engage in sexuality with other males without angering a righteous God, even though he may be “married” to another male?​
May he? Depends who you're asking. God will say no.
If yes, how do we reconcile such behavior with the many biblical Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures?​
There is no "if yes" so the question is a red herring. It's answer is always no.
In light of all of this, how do we judge a “male” like Aiken?​
We do not judge Mr. Aiken. We do not judge Mr. Aiken because to do so would be idolatrous. None of us have the power or authority to judge the creature in place of the Creator. We can, and should, judge the behavior and provide both an alternative and a means for moving from sin to righteousness.

And we should start with ourselves.
After all, his sexual posture may be a genuine case of “I can’t help being what I am.” But will the same excuse equally apply to the alcoholic, the pedophile, the voyeur, the drug addict?​
ROTFLMBO! No, the same "excuse" would not be applied equally but comparing these behaviors is false equivalence. Alcohol and other drugs (AOD) radically change physiology, and the dependence on many drugs has been documented to have either organic correlation or causation. Many alcoholics, for example have a biological ability to tolerate the toxins that occur when alcohol is metabolized. Some may brag they have a high tolerance for alcohol, but the more likely truth is they have a (very real) tolerance for toxins. Comparing AOD and same-sex attraction or homosexual identity is an apples to oranges or (apples to zirconium) comparison.
May Roman Catholic clerics who sexually abuse young boys rightfully claim, “I can’t help being what I am”?
Nope.

The mention of RCC clerics is ironic because males with same-sex attraction have entered the priesthood as an adaptation to manage their sexual desire for centuries (possibly since the inception of the monastic system) so there have probably been a higher percentage of same-sex attracted males in the clergy than the general population but very few of them acted out. I'm a little fuzzy on the stats but I think about 88% percent of all cleric abuse in the RCC was same-sex abuse but only 2-3% of all priests abuse. Studies place the same-sex attracted population of priests between 30-50% of the priesthood. Entering the priesthood would appear to be an effective means for managing that particular sin for most.
If one form of sexual “disfiguration”—homosexuality—can “get off the hook” by its practitioners making this claim, why not Roman Catholic clerics?​
Hmmm... "disfiguration?" "off the hook"? I'm gonna through the flag to indicate a foul and call all of that a red herring. No one gets "off the hook" for sodomizing young boys. They may not get arrested and prosecuted by the legal system here on earth, but everyone stands before God, especially clerics. The fact is shame is a more widely used device than the legal system.
Or do we discriminate against certain forms of sexual deviations?​
Might want to clarify that because if I find a pastor or priest has been acting upon any sexual impulse with any of my children I will decisively discriminate. In the other op you wrote about homosexuality I posted about deviance and deviants. There are a lot of deviations that are not deviant.
Why not apply this principle to the average homosexual and lesbian?​
Because, as articulated, that "principle" isn't a principle. It's a false equivalence.
Singer Aiken’s statement on Good Morning America is quite intriguing and revealing. Listen to what he said. “I can’t raise a kid and teach him how to lie, teach him to hide things. I can’t raise a kid and teach him to keep secrets. And at the same time, I also don’t ever want to raise him in an environment where it’s not OK for him to be exactly who he is, no matter what.” And on that note, I ask Aiken a question or two:

1) Suppose your son grows up to be a pedophile?
I'll visit him in prison.
2) How can you raise a male kid who was born heterosexual in a homosexual environment and expect him to not grow up without leaning toward homosexuality?
Who is the "you" in that inquiry? My wife and I happen to be educated and trained specifically in the arena of education and behavior management so it's not a valid comparison to compare the average parent to me, nor to generalize for you to all other parents. Your point, however, is that environment is enormously influential. Bad company corrupts good character and the blind leading the blind leads to mistakes and tragedy.
Will not his early exposure to homosexual activities influence his future behavior?
Yep. Probably. We're watching it happen. We'll know in two or three decades. Sadly, it takes that long for the research to get processed objectively and honestly and the majority of the industry that governs both the methodology and the information is liberal (80-90%) and non-Christian (55-65%). That has a great deal to do with the reason society is in this position in the first place.
Why, then, is it so difficult to see that the urge to have sex with the same gender is developed and/or learned?
Partly because the underlying debate over nature versus nurture has been raging for centuries with neither side winning. If there is an organic cause it will eventually be discovered but that will not change the fact same-sex sex is still sin. As genuine as the concerns in this op may be, the fact is it is all a bit of a distraction because God does care whether any behavior is genetic or socialized if the behavior is sinful. The wages of sin is death and there are no lesser penalties for one sin versus another. The only way to escape the penalty of sin is to be saved by God by grace through faith.
Reflect upon this question, “Is the homosexual that way because he has voluntarily adopted that lifestyle or because he was forced into it via his biological predisposition?
Same sex attraction is more complicated than a simple choice and biology is not the only determinism in life.



For those interested in reading some scientific research on the subject, Mark A. Yarhouse is a (conservative evangelical) Christian psychologist who spent most of his professional life researching the subject. He taught at Regent University and Wheaton College (make of that what you will). I won't provide any spoilers other than to say I alternatively question and agree/disagree with some of his findings and personal beliefs.




* Scientifically speaking, "homosexuality" is an identity, not a behavior. Same-sex sex is behavioral. There are many males and females who engage in same-sex sex but do not self-identify as homosexual. Biblically speaking, the Law specifies the behavior, not the identity. The law specifically states a male "laying" with another male the way he would with a female.
.
 
We do not judge Mr. Aiken. We do not judge Mr. Aiken because to do so would be idolatrous. None of us have the power or authority to judge the creature in place of the Creator. We can, and should, judge the behavior and provide both an alternative and a means for moving from sin to righteousness.

And we should start with ourselves.
And THERE is the point. What the Bible says will not see the Kingdom of God, is not according to proclivity, environment, desires or appearance, but according to activity and/or affectations. If God says it is an abomination, he is not talking about the person but the deed and its sinful pursuits. I hesitate, therefore, to call anyone a homosexual, just as I hesitate to call anyone a liar, who are also condemned and will not see the Kingdom of God.
 
And THERE is the point. What the Bible says will not see the Kingdom of God, is not according to proclivity, environment, desires or appearance, but according to activity and/or affectations. If God says it is an abomination, he is not talking about the person but the deed and its sinful pursuits. I hesitate, therefore, to call anyone a homosexual, just as I hesitate to call anyone a liar, who are also condemned and will not see the Kingdom of God.
None of us know Mr. Aiken and to discuss him with judgment and derision to others would be gossip. I don't know whether my comments on @Buff Scott Jr.'s previous thread on the subject were read, but the Law regulated same-sex sex as a capital crime which could be meted out only if and when two or more witnessed existed. Applied to the example of Mr. Aiken, he's exempt from earthly prosecution until he starts having sex in public.
 
I also forgot to mention something relevant to the op's content on the socializing impetus. Many same-sex relationships begin for the beginner with an older person persuading (seducing) a younger person. Former-liberal-progressive-turned-conservative commentator Tammy Bruce wrote about this propensity in her biography (she also observed conservative Christians turn out to be really nice people once you get to know them ;). Former lesbian university professor Rosaria Butterfield has written several books addressing this op's concerns, as does the book, "Engendered" by Sam Andreades, although it's mainly about heterosexual marriage. It was one of World Magazine's books of the year the year it was published. As far as the current LBTQIACRZY politics, a must read is Christian apologist Nancy Peacey's "Love They Body." She's calling the cr@p what it is, cr@p! Everyone should be reading Pearcey, btw. My wife and I have given "Total Truth" as a gift to both Christian and non-Christian friends and received expressions of appreciation from all.
 
Makesends, if I might add a comment or two on your remarks about the term "judge." You said, "We do not judge Mr. Aiken. We do not judge Mr. Aiken because to do so would be idolatrous. None of us have the power or authority to judge the creature in place of the Creator. We can, and should, judge the behavior and provide both an alternative and a means for moving from sin to righteousness."

In my post, I said, "In light of all of this, how do we judge a 'male' like Aiken?" As you probably know, the term "judge" carries numerous meanings. Suppose I had used the term "regard" instead of "judge"? Would that, in your understanding, be acceptable? "Regard" is one of the many substances of "judge." Well, that is precisely what I meant. I was not thinking in terms of passing sentence when I penned that statement. Only God has that power. Or suppose I had employed "surmise," another output of "judge"?

Was Paul judging (passing sentence) upon homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, and drunkards in I Cor. 6:9-11 when he said, "And such were some of you." Or was he simply issuing a fact or conclusion? Note, too, his remarks on homosexuality in I Tim. 8-11.

We can play around all day long with a particular term and get nowhere in reaching a sensible comprehension of the subject at hand. But thanks for your input.​
 
Makesends, if I might add a comment or two on your remarks about the term "judge." You said, "We do not judge Mr. Aiken. We do not judge Mr. Aiken because to do so would be idolatrous. None of us have the power or authority to judge the creature in place of the Creator. We can, and should, judge the behavior and provide both an alternative and a means for moving from sin to righteousness."
I did not say that. @Josheb did. I quoted him and commented on it.
In my post, I said, "In light of all of this, how do we judge a 'male' like Aiken?" As you probably know, the term "judge" carries numerous meanings. Suppose I had used the term "regard" instead of "judge"? Would that, in your understanding, be acceptable? "Regard" is one of the many substances of "judge." Well, that is precisely what I meant. I was not thinking in terms of passing sentence when I penned that statement. Only God has that power. Or suppose I had employed "surmise," another output of "judge"?

Was Paul judging (passing sentence) upon homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, and drunkards in I Cor. 6:9-11 when he said, "And such were some of you." Or was he simply issuing a fact or conclusion? Note, too, his remarks on homosexuality in I Tim. 8-11.

We can play around all day long with a particular term and get nowhere in reaching a sensible comprehension of the subject at hand. But thanks for your input.​
Speak to Josh.
 
In my post, I said, "In light of all of this, how do we judge a 'male' like Aiken?" As you probably know, the term "judge" carries numerous meanings. Suppose I had used the term "regard" instead of "judge"? Would that, in your understanding, be acceptable? "Regard" is one of the many substances of "judge." Well, that is precisely what I meant. I was not thinking in terms of passing sentence when I penned that statement. Only God has that power. Or suppose I had employed "surmise," another output of "judge"?​
If Aiken professes a salvific relationship with God through His Son, then he is regarded as a sibling in the faith and expected to conduct himself according to his profession. I would not, however, regard non-Christians in like manner. I don't expect non-Christians to behave as Christians. I expect them to behave as sinfully sin-loving sinners and treat them as scripture direct, beginning with Colossians 4:5-6 and Romans 12:9-20, with the understanding that part about "heaping coals" is understood to mean rekindling an individual's warmth and sustenance in Christ, not solely materially.
 
Back
Top