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

[bluethread]

[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"

However, Kertbeny used the term in a political pamphlet against a law with a specific definition. That term was not slang, like dude, but legal. Kertbeny could have very well argued that sodomy is not wrong based on his views on the activities that included legally. What he was trying to do in the pamphlet was change the perception of a particular activity by changing the name.

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.

So, you are saying that Kertbeny was not motivated by a personal bias, but the translators were? That is my point. In the scientific age, naming something based on Greek and or Latin terms gives it an amoral connotation. That may be useful in a clinical setting, but putting it in a political pamphlet is similar to using the term "homosapien" in place of the term "dude", except the term "dude" has no legal definition, as the term sodomy did. Kertbeny was not arguing that the term "sodomy" was confusing, but that the desire to engage in it is inherent and therefore should not be illegal.

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.

I did not say that was the sole purpose. However, that was one of the purposes as noted above. The point is that the term "homosexual" was not redefined by the translators, but was used as a replacement for sodomy, as it was previously used for some 75 years.

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.

This is the damned if you do, damned if you don't argument that is common among hyper-literalist bibliophobes. If the translators use the closest term to the actual Greek and Hebrew terms, that is not acceptable, because it is not understandable to the common man. If the translators use a term as it is commonly used, it is seen to be inaccurate. This is the understood problem of all translations of any literature. Arguing that a translator is "redefining " a term, when it is used as the person who coined the term used it or how it is commonly used, is misstating the case. If one believes that either "homosexual" or "sodomite" is not accurate, one can look to the Hebrew and Greek. However, claiming that the translators are redefining a term when they use it as it was used by the person who coined the phrase is simply biasing the discussion against the translators and giving the originator and common users of the term a pass. This latter is my point.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

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

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

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

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

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

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 2 by JoeyKnothead]

You have not addressed my scientific peer-reviewed source. The implications of homosexuality being changeable is my focus here.

[Aaron Lindahl]

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

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

Ryan says: can i tell u something

Mom says: Yes I am listening

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

Ryan says: I am gay

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

Mom says: Are you joking?

Ryan says: no

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

Mom says: of course I would

Mom says: but what makes you think you are?

Ryan says: i know i am

Ryan says: i don’t like hannah

Ryan says: it’s just a cover-up

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

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: but u don’t understand

Ryan says: i am gay

Mom says: tell me more

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

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

Mom says: what do you mean?

Ryan says: i am just gay

Ryan says: i am that

Mom says: I love you no matter what

Ryan says: i am white not black

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: i am a boy not a girl

Ryan says: i am attracted to boys not girls

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

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

Ryan says: i know

Mom says: thank you for telling me

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

Mom says: I love you more for being honest

Ryan says: i know

Ryan says: thanx

We were completely shocked. Not that we didn’t know and love gay people – my only brother had come out to us several years before, and we adored him. But Ryan? He was unafraid of anything, tough as nails, and ALL boy. We had not seen this coming, and the emotion that overwhelmed us, kept us awake at night and, sadly, influenced all of our reactions over the next six years, was FEAR.

We said all the things that we thought loving Christian parents who believed the Bible – the Word of God – should say:

We love you. We will ALWAYS love you. And this is hard. REALLY hard. But we know what God says about this, and so you are going to have to make some really difficult choices.

We love you. We couldn’t love you more. But there are other men who have faced this same struggle, and God has worked in them to change their desires. We’ll get you their books…you can listen to their testimonies. And we will trust God with this.

We love you. We are so glad you are our son. But you are young, and your sexual orientation is still developing. The feelings you’ve had for other guys don’t make you gay. So please don’t tell anyone that you ARE gay. You don’t know who you are yet. Your identity is not that you are gay – it is that you are a child of God.

We love you. Nothing will change that. But if you are going to follow Jesus, holiness is your only option. You are going to have to choose to follow Jesus, no matter what. And since you know what the Bible says, and since you want to follow God, embracing your sexuality is NOT an option.

We thought we understood the magnitude of the sacrifice that we – and God – were asking for. And this sacrifice, we knew, would lead to the abundant life, perfect peace and eternal rewards. Ryan had always felt intensely drawn to spiritual things; He desired to please God above all else. So, for the first six years, he tried to choose Jesus.

Like so many others before him, he pleaded with God to help him be attracted to girls. He memorized Scripture, met with his youth pastor weekly, enthusiastically participated in all the church youth group events and Bible Studies and got baptized. He read all the books that claimed to know where his gay feelings came from, dove into counseling to further discover the “why’s� of his unwanted attraction to other guys, worked through painful conflict resolution with my husband and I, and built strong friendships with other guys – straight guys – just like the reparative therapy experts advised. He even came out to his entire youth group, giving his testimony of how God had rescued him from the traps of the enemy, and sharing – by memory – verse after verse that God had used to draw Ryan to Himself.

But nothing changed. God didn’t answer his prayer – or ours – though we were all believing with faith that the God of the Universe – the God for whom NOTHING is impossible – could easily make Ryan straight. But He did not.

Though our hearts may have been good (we truly thought what we were doing was loving), we did not even give Ryan a chance to wrestle with God, to figure out what HE believed God was telling him through scripture about his sexuality. We had believed firmly in giving each of our four children the space to question Christianity, to decide for themselves if they wanted to follow Jesus, to truly OWN their own faith. But we were too afraid to give Ryan that room when it came to his sexuality, for fear that he’d make the wrong choice.

Basically, we told our son that he had to choose between Jesus and his sexuality. We forced him to make a choice between God and being a sexual person. Choosing God, practically, meant living a lifetime condemned to being alone. He would never have the chance to fall in love, have his first kiss, hold hands, share intimacy and companionship or experience romance.

And so, just before his 18th birthday, Ryan, depressed, suicidal, disillusioned and convinced that he would never be able to be loved by God, made a new choice. He decided to throw out his Bible and his faith at the same time, and to try searching for what he desperately wanted – peace – another way. And the way he chose to try first was drugs.

We had – unintentionally – taught Ryan to hate his sexuality. And since sexuality cannot be separated from the self, we had taught Ryan to hate himself. So as he began to use drugs, he did so with a recklessness and a lack of caution for his own safety that was alarming to everyone who knew him.

Suddenly our fear of Ryan someday having a boyfriend (a possibility that honestly terrified me) seemed trivial in contrast to our fear of Ryan’s death, especially in light of his recent rejection of Christianity, and his mounting anger at God.

Ryan started with weed and beer…but in six short months was using cocaine, crack and heroin. He was hooked from the beginning, and his self-loathing and rage at God only fueled his addiction. Shortly after, we lost contact with him. For the next year and a half we didn’t know where he was, or even if he was dead or alive. And during that horrific time, God had our full attention. We stopped praying for Ryan to become straight. We started praying for him to know that God loved him. We stopped praying for him never to have a boyfriend. We started praying that someday we might actually get to know his boyfriend. We even stopped praying for him to come home to us; we only wanted him to come home to God.

By the time our son called us, after 18 long months of silence, God had completely changed our perspective. Because Ryan had done some pretty terrible things while using drugs, the first thing he asked me was this:

Do you think you can ever forgive me? (I told him of course, he was already forgiven. He had ALWAYS been forgiven.)

Do you think you could ever love me again? (I told him that we had never stopped loving him, not for one second. We loved him then more than we had ever loved him.)

Do you think you could ever love me with a boyfriend? (Crying, I told him that we could love him with fifteen boyfriends. We just wanted him back in our lives. We just wanted to have a relationship with him again…AND with his boyfriend.)

And a new journey was begun. One of healing, restoration, open communication and grace. LOTS of grace. And God was present every step of the way, leading and guiding us, gently reminding us simply to love our son, and leave the rest up to Him.

Over the next ten months, we learned to truly love our son. Period. No buts. No conditions. Just because he breathes. We learned to love whoever our son loved. And it was easy. What I had been so afraid of became a blessing. The journey wasn’t without mistakes, but we had grace for each other, and the language of apology and forgiveness became a natural part of our relationship. As our son pursued recovery from drug and alcohol addiction, we pursued him. God taught us how to love him, to rejoice over him, to be proud of the man he was becoming. We were all healing…and most importantly, Ryan began to think that if WE could forgive him and love him, then maybe God could, too.

And then Ryan made the classic mistake of a recovering addict…he got back together with his old friends…his using friends. And one evening that was supposed to simply be a night at the movies turned out to be the first time he had shot up in ten months…and the last time. We got a phone call from a social worker at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle asking us to come identify our son – that he had arrived there in a coma, in critical condition. We spent 17 days at Harborview, during which time our whole family was able to surround and love on Ryan. We experienced miracle after miracle during that time, things that no doctor had any medical explanation for. God’s presence was TANGIBLE in Ryan’s room. But that is a long, sacred story that I’ll have to tell another time.

Though Ryan had suffered such severe brain damage that he had almost complete paralysis, the doctors told us that he could very well outlive us. But, unexpectedly, Ryan died on July 16, 2009. And we lost the ability to love our gay son…because we no longer had a gay son. What we had wished for…prayed for…hoped for…that we would NOT have a gay son, came true. But not at all in the way we used to envision.

Now, when I think back on the fear that governed all my reactions during those first six years after Ryan told us he was gay, I cringe as I realize how foolish I was. I was afraid of all the wrong things. And I grieve, not only for my oldest son, who I will miss every day for the rest of my life, but for the mistakes I made. I grieve for what could have been, had we been walking by FAITH instead of by FEAR. Now, whenever Rob and I join our gay friends for an evening, I think about how much I would love to be visiting with Ryan and his partner over dinner. But instead, we visit Ryan’s gravestone.

We celebrate anniversaries: the would-have-been birthdays and the unforgettable day of his death. We wear orange – his color. We hoard memories: pictures, clothing he wore, handwritten notes, lists of things he loved, tokens of his passions, recollections of the funny songs he invented, his Curious George and baseball blankey, anything, really, that reminds us of our beautiful boy…for that is all we have left, and there will be no new memories. We rejoice in our adult children, and in our growing family as they marry…but ache for the one of our “gang of four� who is missing. We mark life by the days BC (before coma) and AD (after death), because we are different people now; our life was irrevocably changed – in a million ways – by his death. We treasure friendships with others who “get it�…because they, too, have lost a child.

We weep. We seek Heaven for grace and mercy and redemption as we try – not to get better but to be better. And we pray that God can somehow use our story to help other parents learn to truly love their children. Just because they breathe.
[/font]
Source: http://justbecausehebreathes.com/[/font]

[OpenYourEyes]

[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.

Gay rights advocates have long claimed that the Bible is unreasonable for calling homosexuality wrong since homosexuality can not be changed. God "created" gays the way they are so-to-speak. The absolute claim that nothing can be done, now or ever, to change sexuality is pure speculation and the study I presented shows that some change is possible.

[KCKID]

[Replying to post 13 by Aaron Lindahl]

Oh my, what a very moving and tragic story. And all for the want of parents not having accepted their son (not at first anyway) for who he was but, rather, preferred to follow their definition of the print from a book. Would that people in such situations toss their dangerous religious teachings out the window where they belong.

Thanks for presenting it.

[KCKID]

[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.

Gay rights advocates have long claimed that the Bible is unreasonable for calling homosexuality wrong since homosexuality can not be changed. God "created" gays the way they are so-to-speak. The absolute claim that nothing can be done, now or ever, to change sexuality is pure speculation and the study I presented shows that some change is possible.

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

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

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

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

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 . . .?

[KCKID]

While I appreciate the dialog that has occurred between DanieltheDragon and bluethread it's still unclear to me WHY the terms "homosexuality" and "homosexual" were seen fit by the authors to replace the original Hebrew terms, i.e. 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind'. Those terms are, at best, ambiguous and certainly don't appear to represent a description of homosexuality as we refer to the term nowadays.

As for the term "sodomy" ...that word appears nowhere in scripture. That would surprise Christians if they only knew! But, they don't appear to know. So, why would the term "homosexual" replace a word that never existed in scripture to begin with? Not only do I find this confusing, I also find it to be very wrong that the majority of Christians really believe with all their hearts that "homosexuality" is a term that is accurately portrayed as such in the Bible and that "homosexuality" is 'a sin' condemned by God.

One more time ...the word 'sodomy' is NOT and NEVER WAS found in scripture. The definition given to that word is man-made and incorrectly references the alleged but bogus charge by many that Sodom (and Gomorrah) were destroyed by 'rampant homosexuality'. While 'sodomite' IS a term used 4 or 5 times in the Old Testament this term DOES NOT refer to the inhabitants of Sodom AT ALL! A 'sodomite' (according to Strong's Hebrew Lexicon) is 'a (sacred) male temple prostitute'. A 'sodomite' is connected to pagan idolatry and the practices associated with pagan idolatry. When the Bible makes reference to 'there were sodomites in the land' it is referring to 'those that practice idolatry' and NOT homosexuality!

Why are Christians being fed either lies or purposely being kept in the dark with regard to this topic?

[OpenYourEyes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both of the words you're referring to make reference to homosexual acts, and one is more general than the other. Besides just definition, we should also factor in theology and historico-cultural context. Same-sex acts are condemned in Leviticus 18:22 and Paul respects the OT law in that he knew that the moral precepts still applied. Also, the Jewish culture of that time understood sex to be a matter of nature or design as set forth by God. And sex was for male and female intercourse. I'll cite contemporaneous Jewish writer:

"And let the man who is devoted to the love of boys submit to the same punishment, since he pursues that pleasure which is contrary to nature"
The Works of Philo (Special Laws chapter, paragraph 7, line 39 )...http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book29.html

The quote above shows an unmistakable correlation with Romans chapter 1.

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 . . .?

Assuming that you are right, that doesn't mean that same-sex acts aren't considered a sin. So perhaps 1 Corinthians 6:9 should've mentioned the same-sex acts instead of using the word homosexual.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 14 by OpenYourEyes]

The Bible would be unreasonable for calling homosexuality wrong as it provides no reason to justify it.

It would be incorrect if it did claim homosexuality were wrong, both socially and legally, as well as ethically (being that the only difference is the sex of each individual, meaning that the Bible would either be specially pleading or inconsistent).