"gay Christian"

[RZehr]

Question: If I took "gay" out of the phrase "gay Christian", does it get easier? How many people object to "a Christian who is gay" as a description of someone who struggles with same-sex attraction, but chooses to be celibate?

I would be happy to accept "a Christian who struggles with homosexuality" as a definition. When my brother was a Christian, that is how I would have described him.

How about "a Christian who experiences (or struggles with) same-gender attractions"?

Sure.
I believe homosexual attractions are exclusively from Satan. (plenty heterosexual attractions are from Satan as well. But not all.) Thus, these attractions should be dealt with the same way, and resisted just the same as any sin. If it isn't a strong attraction, and it is never acted on, how is this person homosexual? If it is a strong attraction, then why isn't it a struggle?

If homosexuality is simply genetic, maybe something like Turner Syndrome, then it should be much clearer scientifically than it seems to be. But I think the research dollars will never be spend on researching it, probably because society is moving to accept it already, which seems to be the main thing the LBGT activist care about. I believe all the other talk about identity is just fluff and/or confused people. But I could be wrong.

[MaxPC]

If homosexuality is simply genetic, maybe something like Turner Syndrome, then it should be much clearer scientifically than it seems to be. But I think the research dollars will never be spend on researching it, probably because society is moving to accept it already, which seems to be the main thing the LBGT activist care about. I believe all the other talk about identity is just fluff and/or confused people. But I could be wrong.

RZehr, you'll be glad to know that recent studies out of Johns Hopkins and other credible institutions now indicate that there is NO evidence of a genetic link/causality for homosexuality. Here's an article with links to those studies. Note in the article that one study conducted by a lesbian activist with a PhD also refutes the genetic theory. Fascinating.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/ ... way-belief

[Bootstrap]

Note in the article that one study conducted by a lesbian activist with a PhD also refutes the genetic theory. Fascinating.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/science-tech/ ... way-belief

I strongly agree with the study they cite, but not with your summary of what it says. I think it says that science doesn't have an explanation for sexual orientation.

Here's they study they are reporting on. I don't think it refutes the genetic theory, but it does say that so far, nobody has found sufficient evidence for it. The difference is important - the "gay gene" hypothesis hasn't really been proven or disproven.

Sexual orientation and gender identity resist explanation by simple theories. There is a large gap between the certainty with which beliefs are held about these matters and what a sober assessment of the science reveals. In the face of this complexity and uncertainty, we need to be humble about what we know and do not know. We readily acknowledge that this report is neither an exhaustive analysis of the subjects it addresses nor the last word on them.

Some of the most widely held views about sexual orientation, such as the “born that way” hypothesis, simply are not supported by science. The literature in this area does describe a small ensemble of biological differences between non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals, but those biological differences are not sufficient to predict sexual orientation, the ultimate test of any scientific finding. The strongest statement that science offers to explain sexual orientation is that some biological factors appear, to an unknown extent, to predispose some individuals to a non-heterosexual orientation.

That's not exactly refuting the notion that there is a biological factor, but it is definitely saying that if there is, we haven't clearly identified it yet.

The study is much louder and stronger on gender identity and transgender issues.

The suggestion that we are “born that way” is more complex in the case of gender identity. In one sense, the evidence that we are born with a given gender seems well supported by direct observation: males overwhelmingly identify as men and females as women. The fact that children are (with a few exceptions of intersex individuals) born either biologically male or female is beyond debate. The biological sexes play complementary roles in reproduction, and there are a number of population-level average physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. However, while biological sex is an innate feature of human beings, gender identity is a more elusive concept.

In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex. The findings that do exist often have sample-selection problems, and they lack longitudinal perspective and explanatory power. Better research is needed, both to identify ways by which we can help to lower the rates of poor mental health outcomes and to make possible more informed discussion about some of the nuances present in this field.

Yet despite the scientific uncertainty, drastic interventions are prescribed and delivered to patients identifying, or identified, as transgender. This is especially troubling when the patients receiving these interventions are children. We read popular reports about plans for medical and surgical interventions for many prepubescent children, some as young as six, and other therapeutic approaches undertaken for children as young as two. We suggest that no one can determine the gender identity of a two-year-old. We have reservations about how well scientists understand what it even means for a child to have a developed sense of his or her gender, but notwithstanding that issue, we are deeply alarmed that these therapies, treatments, and surgeries seem disproportionate to the severity of the distress being experienced by these young people, and are at any rate premature since the majority of children who identify as the gender opposite their biological sex will not continue to do so as adults. Moreover, there is a lack of reliable studies on the long-term effects of these interventions. We strongly urge caution in this regard.

[KingdomBuilder]

Kind of refreshing to hear the scientific community admit that "we don't know", isn't it?

[Bootstrap]

Kind of refreshing to hear the scientific community admit that "we don't know", isn't it?

Real scientists do that a lot. But most people who tell you "what science says" want science as a source of authority, not as a path of inquiry.

[MaxPC]

Kind of refreshing to hear the scientific community admit that "we don't know", isn't it?

Indeed, with the advances in genetic research, the fact that there's an increasing number of studies which have conclusions stating that there is "no evidence" carries a huge amount of weight within our field. Science protocols very rarely endorse an absolute conclusion. Instead we'll couch our findings with phrases such as "No evidence" to allow room for findings at a later date.

When there is a preponderance of "no evidence" findings, that impacts the direction of future research and its funding.

[Bootstrap]

Indeed, with the advances in genetic research, the fact that there's an increasing number of studies which have conclusions stating that there is "no evidence" carries a huge amount of weight within our field. Science protocols very rarely endorse an absolute conclusion. Instead we'll couch our findings with phrases such as "No evidence" to allow room for findings at a later date.

When there is a preponderance of "no evidence" findings, that impacts the direction of future research and its funding.

Absence of evidence does not mean that the hypothesis must be false. To use Karl Popper's famous example, if the hypothesis is "All swans are white", then failing to find a black swan does not prove that they do not exist, it just proves that I haven't found one yet. My car keys and my glasses exist even if I fail to find them. But until I do find them, I can't really prove that.

From a scientific standpoint, I think one of the problems here is that we don't really have a clearly formulated hypothesis - what exactly do we mean by a "gay gene" or "identify as female"? How would you test for that? Different studies for "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" seem to be testing very different things.

And maybe the science isn't the most important thing. If someone gets married and cannot find a way to be sexually attracted to their spouse, saying it might be genetic doesn't help much. You try to find ways to make it work - if it's genetic, this might be a little like learning to write with your left hand (if you are right handed) or your right hand (if you are left handed), but if it's not genetic it probably feels the same way. In either case, it may be awkward or it may not succeed at all. There are sexless marriages where people just haven't figured this out no matter how hard they try - and in some of these marriages, both partners are heterosexual. In most churches, these people are ashamed to share what's going on with just about anyone. Is there a way we can walk with these people? Hint: don't start by saying "science says your problem doesn't exist". And don't promise that Jesus will fix every difficulty if we just have more faith. My first wife decided she was gay and left me, eventually marrying another woman after living with her for 12 years. Jesus didn't fix our difficulty with sex. This was something we were not able to discuss with many Christians, and the only ones she found who would talk about it openly were the gay activists in MC-USA, who told her this was about discovering who she really is and stepping out to reclaim her true identity. I often wonder if the outcome could have been different if there were people who could listen to what she was experiencing and walk with her, without rejecting biblical teaching, but also without shutting her experience out.

If someone is single and just doesn't feel attracted to women, there's no reason to force it. It's unlikely to change easily in a marriage.

[HondurasKeiser]

I've read this thread intently and kept quiet till now but feel the need to voice a thought or two. I myself have felt attracted to the same sex all my life. I was raised in a traditional Lancaster Conference church and while my congregational teaching was clear on the sinfulness of acting on homosexual attraction; I never at any time felt unloved or rejected either as I kept silent about my orientation as a teenager or after being more open about it in my 20's. At various points in my life I have identified as gay not so much because I was engaged in any sort of "gay lifestyle" but because it very often made it easier to communicate my sexual attraction for men to people that weren't Christian or that found the idea of "struggling with same-sex attraction" an unwieldy and foreign idea. I've always identified as Christian/Mennonite though and the very act of calling myself a "gay celibate Mennonite" very often invited queries and double-takes from non-Christians. I've kept mum about it on this forum (and MD for the past 5 years) because I don't see it as fundamental to who I am i.e. it isn't my primary identity. Were it not for this thread and even more specifically, those wondering how common these silent homosexuals are in our congregations, I probably never would have felt the need to mention it.

I'd be willing to flesh out my ideas about this topic in more detail if that's where this thread goes but in sum my thoughts on this wider conversation are as follows: it's a categorical mistake to identify as gay (Christian or otherwise); likewise it's a categorical mistake to identify as a heterosexual. The terms are invented, and very recent inventions at that, do not conform to reality and only serve to saddle people with unrealistic expectations about their identity. Both christian philosophers and secular queer theorists agree that the terminology we use, that has so permeated our culture, vocabulary and world-view, i.e. the terminology of gay/straight-homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual etc. are themselves social constructs of the late 1800's, designed to peg people into sexual pathologies so as to distinguish them from the norm...in this case heteronormativity. A more accurate description of reality, one in use prior to the German psychologists of the late 1800's, one that is coming in our secular/progressive civilization and one that is frankly Christian is the affirmation that all of us are capable of anything and that our actions, while sodomistic or otherwise, do not define us.

I realize this is all confusing and rambling so I may just stop there.

[Bootstrap]

Keiser, I appreciate the courage and transparency that went into writing that. We really do need to hear from faithful Christians who have lived close to these issues.

[mike]

Thanks for sharing that, HK. I appreciate your tone and your frankness, and I believe you are probably correct in your opinions about modern expressions of sexual identity. I'd be interested in what else you have to say about it.