If you support traditional marriage, how often have you heard, “how will allowing same-sex marriage affect you?” And if you support same-sex marriage, how often have you said this? The thing is that the act of men marrying men or women marrying women doesn’t have much of an effect. It’s the social consequences of making traditional and same-sex marriage equal that poses the potential problem.
(ChicagoPhoenix.com) — The Civil Rights Agenda, a local LGBT rights advocacy group, filed multiple complaints with the Illinois Department of Human Rights Thursday, alleging that the Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A restaurant chain’s “intolerant corporate culture” violates Illinois law and a provision in the state’s Human Rights Act.
“In our current high speed media and social media environment, Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable,” said Jacob Meister, Governing Board President of TCRA and the attorney who filed the complaint. “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”
[…]
His comments make LGBT people, a protected minority class, feel “unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable” at Chick-fil-A restaurants, or “public accommodations” under Section 5-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act, Martinez said.
[…]
“The complainants are a same-gender family with a daughter,” said Martinez. “Chick-fil-A used to be one of their favorite places to eat until Mr. Cathy’s latest statements were reported so widely. Now, they feel completely unwelcome in the establishment.”
The complaint lists several claims of public accommodation discrimination.
“As a result of the foregoing published statements regarding Chick-fil-A’s corporate philosophy, culture and policies, as an unmarried homosexual in a “non-traditional” family unit, I know that my family and I are looked down upon, loathed, unwelcome, objectionable and unacceptable to Chick-fil-A,” stated the complainant in the filing.
Here we have an LGBT activist group filing complaints with the government because Dan Cathy holds a belief that the Christian view of marriage is correct. They argue that it makes homosexuals uncomfortable just knowing Cathy’s view, and those views are legally sanctionable. Nevermind that Cathy’s voiced opinion was about marriage and not homosexuals as people. But because LGBT activists place “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” on the same level as “homosexuals are unacceptable and objectionable as human beings”, they fail to make the distinction between who you are and what you do, thus conflating views on social policy into views on people. This is clearly evidenced by the false claim that, “Chick-fil-A has announced and caused to be published, to hundreds of millions of people, that LGBT people are unacceptable and objectionable”, and, “They have made it clear the lives of LGBT individuals are unacceptable to them and that same-gender families are unwelcome at Chick-fil-A.”. CFA has done no such thing.
The Civil Rights Agenda, the group filing the complaints, essentially argues that by making public your Christian views, you are breaking the law. Unless there are specific discriminatory incidents or policies which have been substantiated, I don’t see another way to interpret TCRA’s accusations. What am I missing, how else should I be interpreting TCRA’s suit and the language it uses to charge CFA as anything other than an attempt to criminalize Christian beliefs on moral and social issues?
Sifting Reality 
Even thinking about homosexuality being immoral and just plain wrong, is considered evil by these people. Oh, but I just don’t see how this hurts anyone, do you? LIARS!
“Social consequences” – really, John?
Even though civil rights was addressed 50 years ago to treat people equally regardless of skin pigment, there are still racists who would like to segregate.
Even when same-sex marriage will be recognized as a legal union to treat people equally in the future, people will still be there to protest that as well.
Civil rights does nothing against you as a white man and same sex marriage does nothing against you in your heterosexual relationship.
Christians do their best to feel persecuted and victimized.
“Consequences of Being Christian” – false. Many Christians accept gay marriage.
“because Dan Cathy holds a belief” – false. Dan Cathy implements corporate policy in a major consumer business.
“it makes homosexuals uncomfortable just knowing Cathy’s view” – false. It makes discriminates on the basis of belief and sexual orientation in all CFA locations.
“they fail to make the distinction between who you are and what you do”
You fail to make that distinction. By putting forward the truly false claim that Dan Cathy is simply believing in public, you are dishonestly ignoring the employees, customers, and widespread advertising campaign he commands. He is not expressing a personal view, he is implementing discrimination as a corporate policy.
That having been said, it’s hard for me to fault a private citizen or even a private business for discriminating. Maybe they should be able to do what they like in their own establishment.
The counterpoint of course is that private business had to be forced by the government to allow blacks to eat in their restaurants in order to silence race-based discrimination to create the better society we have today. That creates the difficult situation that Dan Cathy, John Barron, and other anti-gay Christians may have the same problem that racist shop owners had in the 60s. Freedom of religion is set aside when people want the right to discriminate freely due to their religious beliefs, at least if they want to do so in general public functions and not just in their churches or homes.
Jason
Please quote the policy which is in place that discriminates as you allege. The complaint is that because it is public knowledge that Cathy holds the view that it makes people uncomfortable and because they are uncomfortable it is considered discriminatory.
I am really sick and tired of liberals equating sexual behavior with skin color. How many times do we have to say it – SKIN COLOR is NOT chosen, nor is it a moral issue. Sexual behavior is ALWAYS CHOSEN and IS a moral issue.
There is nothing in common between the two when it comes to “rights.”
Same-sex fake marriage has already cause harm to many, many people who refuse to sanction it, so to say it harms no one is a BIG FAT LIE!!!!
Glenn –
“Sexual behavior is ALWAYS CHOSEN and IS a moral issue.”
Of course the issue isn’t with sexual behavior, is it? No one is trying to legislate against a man and woman having anal or oral sex or premarital sex. It’s not about sex at all. This is against gay marriage – against two people having a recognized loving relationship because of their gender.
Now if you meant sexual orientation, then you hold your view in contradiction to all major mental health agencies. Even gay-cure Exodus has given up the idea that sexual orientation is chosen or changeable.
JB – “Please quote the policy which is in place that discriminates as you allege. The complaint is that because it is public knowledge that Cathy holds the view that it makes people uncomfortable and because they are uncomfortable it is considered discriminatory.”
They’re not just uncomfortable. They’re unwelcome. Quote where in the law a policy has to be on the books to prove discrimination in the workplace. Personal statements of corporate policy by the owner of an organization have the weight of policy and are more than sufficient to create a discriminatory workplace and shopping environment. Shop owners didn’t have to have a “no negroes” sign in the window for it to be clear that the shop was whites only.
I think you missed the part where Cathy has donated $5+ million dollars of CFA profits to openly and unabashedly anti-gay organizations to prevent them from ever being able to have the same civil rights and privileges that heterosexual people enjoy. It’s not an opinion issue, it’s an action issue.
Tafactory
I have a difficult time with the term “anti gay”. What I mean is I don’t trust the one using it to be applying it. For example, some may visit my site and upon seeing my posts on same sex marriage would declare me anti gay, but that isn’t an accurate label for me. Opposing same sex marriage is not the same as opposing of hating homosexuals.
So which orgs did they donate to and what makes them “anti gay”?
I believe Jason is wrong about Exodus. They do not concern themselves with whether or not one is “born” homosexual, but they do believe that one can leave the lifestyle and live a normal heterosexual life, the key word being “normal”. And I wonder if he could give at least a partial list of all those “major mental health agencies” and tell me if they don’t all fall under the umbrella of the APA.
On a wider note, it really doesn’t matter whether or not Cathy speaks for himself or as a representative of his corporation. As long as his corporation does not have any policy directing his subordinates to block sales to homosexuals, prevent homosexuals from employment or any similar activities, they cannot be accused. His donations to whatever organizations he chooses have nothing to do with corporate policy in that regard. What’s more, leftist organizations declaring the recipients of Cathy’s largesse as hate groups do not make them so, nor are they. Real hate groups are those that seek to silence any who hold fast the fact that homosexual attraction is abnormal and homosexual behavior is sinful.
Jason and Tafacory
If they are not having sex, they are not going to be faking a marriage.
Whether or not orientation is inherent is irrelevant. You certainly wouldn’t support a pedophile acting on HIS orientation, would you? No one has to act on the orientation.
A truly loving relationship does not do things to harm the other person, yet it is a fact that homosexual behavior is medically harmful – even to the death of the individual.
Where did Cathy ever say homosexuals were unwelcome at his business? Just because a person “feels” unwelcome, that doesn’t make it so. Laws should not be based on feelings. Again you bring in skin color for your analogy; when will you libs learn that the two are not analogous?
Neither Cathy nor any organizations he donates money to ever seek to deny anyone any civil rights. The problem is that homosexualists demand marriage be treated as a civil right, which it is not. It is an institution requiring qualifications to participate, and the first qualification is opposite sex members.
Glenn –
“homosexual behavior is medically harmful – even to the death of the individual”
What are you talking about? Homosexuality is not considered a disorder of any sort by any professional medical organization. If you mean gay sex, be sure to clarify what you mean specifically since every gay sexual act can be done by heterosexuals. I could assume you mean anal sex, which is no more medically harmful than vaginal sex unless it’s done wrong. You may also mean HIV but that is HIV, not gay sex. I’m also aware of homosexual behavior as stable and loving relationships or kissing or going shopping or taking kids to school. I’m not sure what damage any of those activities has.
First, you’ll have to point specifically to any behaviors that are mentally or physically damaging and that are restricted to homosexuals alone, not heterosexuals.
As it stands, the only damaging behavior is restricting from people the legal rights and social recognition normally afforded to a stable and loving relationships. I think you also defame marriage by reducing it to gender or sex rather than love.
Jason
Since it can be argued that both homo and heterosexuals engage in the same sexual activity what explains the outrageously disproportionate prevalence of stds among homosexuals? Coincidence?
Let’s see, if I say “homosexual behavior,” what the deuce could that mean except homosexual sex!?!?!?! Don’t be so intentionally obtuse.
If you want to claim anal sex is no more harmful that vaginal sex, you are lying to yourself. There is no such thing as being “done right,” and any heterosexual man doing that is abusing his partner. It is indeed a very dangerous behavior; that orifice was not meant for penile penetration.
Homosexual relationships have been proven to be psychologically harmful to those who participate in them. Face it, homosexuals know in their hearts that what they are doing is against God and nature. You deceive yourself to suggest otherwise.
I have yet to see any rights being restricted from homosexuals. That is a lie. Social recognition should never, ever be legislated for a perverse sexual behavior. Such hypocrites homosexuals are when they demand recognition of their relationships (by punishing those who don’t want to give sanction) and yet for the most part they don’t want to sanction polygamy or incestuous relationships. If you sanction one, you cannot logically deny the others. Once you’ve redefined what marriage is, you have no logical basis for denying any other combination of people or people and animals.
Glenn and JB, which particular acts can’t be done by heterosexuals? Anal sex is certainly possible for heterosexuals. And there’s nothing at all wrong. It’s a muscle and can handle penetration just fine, so long as there is proper lubrication. Same with vaginal sex.
And if there were any truth to your claim that homosexual relationships are harmful, then there would be a psychological disorder for it. A relationship is a relationship. Heterosexuals have bad relationships and so do homosexuals. They both have good relationships too. How do you explain the ones that have lasted for decades? Gender mix is irrelevant as a factor of success. Openness, communication, commitment to the relationship, compromise, mutual support, even the 5 love languages, are all considerations for success, but not gender mix.
The only reason homosexuals have any problem is because religious people tell them it’s wrong. If you all would quit being so down on it it wouldn’t be an issue.
That goes for incidence of STDs as well. Stable, loving relationships and the ability to have casual and prospective relationships in the hopes of stable, loving relationships out in the open without having to sneak in corners or do so only in night clubs would be the best way to avoid the dangers of casual sex and casual relationships. All these dangers, I reiterate, are exactly the same among gays and straights. The only difference is the rampant religious bashing, mental and physical, that gays must endure.
And all your claims of ‘harm’ really fall on deaf ears. These harms are not different for gays and straights and most exist only in your own mind. But do they exceed smoking or drinking or car racing or having no health care or being in a loveless marriage? Consenting adults is the standard. Not animals. Not kids. Consenting adults. Where is your commitment to freedom?
Jason,
All I can say is that you are in denial – and I don’t mean that river in Egypt.
As for your “standard” being consenting adults: by what moral right can you demand that? The standard was one male and one female, yet you have decided that isn’t proper. YOu have therefore arbitrarily developed your own standard, for which anyone can disagree. You have made yourself the arbiter of what is moral rather than having an outside source – a moral lawgiver – being the standard. Therefore you cannot logically deny ANY union of number of people, people/animals, live/corpses, or anything else.
Glenn – I deny nothing. I see science and accept its findings about the physical and mental acceptability of homosexuality. Were homosexuality dangerous, I would have no problem saying so. Casual sex has dangers, as does anal sex generally increase transmission of STDs. Neither of those are unique to homosexuality and neither are relevant to committed relationships. I see Christian perspectives both supporting and opposing homosexuality. You hold firmly to anti-gay beliefs and are in denial about the facts and the reasoning. Your beliefs may be justified by your reading of scripture, but applied to the real world, they have damaging consequences to mental health and social welfare.
This ‘consenting adult’ standard is not arbitrary. Adults are afforded freedom by virtue of their sufficient capacity to reason and their continued ability to operate in accordance with societies rules. To the extent they cannot care for themselves or they break laws set forth by their societies, their freedoms are restricted. This respects personal liberty as a high standard, to be infringed only by great exception.
Similarly, children and animals, by virtue of their limited capacity to care for themselves, have restricted freedoms. This extends to limits on their ability to engage in relationships with adult humans.
This is not me as sole moral arbiter. My assertions are only valid to the extent others in society understand and agree with my logic (and others have certainly stated it better than I). We collectively as a society, through our elected representatives in the US, debate and select laws for general application. As a culture, we collectively apply cultural taboos and mandates in within our groups.
What you find is that science and personal experience have called into question the cultural taboo against homosexual living. Society is recognizing the flaw in ancient taboos against homosexuality and rejecting those taboos in favor of the higher values of freedom and love. Many Christians are compelled to accept gays as well. I hope one day you’ll be able to at least recognize that homosexuality is no worse than eating shellfish and can be rejected just as easily as the Biblical injunction against eating shellfish. (Beware undercooked shellfish, engage in safe sex, no problem)
Jason
What is unique which you are ignoring is the preponderance of stds within the homosexual community. 60 or so percent of new cases of HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea are had by gay men. How do you explain this? The life expectancy is up to two decades less. Nearly half of homosexuals are in therapy.
I ask again, is this a coincidence? Or are gay men just rampantly promiscuous?
But Jason. There is no science that supports the notion that homosexuality ISN’T a mental disorder. If there was, we’d be constantly having it thrown in our faces. There is the obvious fact that there are two genders within our species that are designed, by nature if you will, to be compatible and complimentary for the purpose of procreation and the survival of the species. For a member of one gender to be attracted to a member of the same gender is therefor obviously a dysfunction. The harm would be in that the line would end if it couldn’t procreate. THAT is the initial problem.
Secondly, if one must apply some lubricant in order to engage in a particular activity. then obviously that activity is harmful. For intercourse, the appropriate parts lubricate by design because that is normal activity for the participants.
Finally, the shellfish thing is really weak. God said that the Hebrews were to regard shellfish as an abomination to them, whereas He proclaimed men sleeping with men as they would a woman as an abomination to Him. Massive difference.
Jason,
There is NO science which says anything about homosexuality, except biology – which proves it is deviant and abnormal. Psychology, by the way, has no science behind it, so don’t appeal to psychobabble.
That heterosexuals may practice anal sex has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong – the design of the human body demonstrates that it is wrong. The anus and rectum is easily damaged and all sorts of medical problems result from that behavior. So stop pretending it is natural. That orifice expels waste and is not design for the organ of life.
True Christians cannot support homosexuality without rebelling against God. Those so-called Christians who support homosexuality are liberals and violate much of what Scripture says. They do not represent true Christianity.
There is no such thing as “mental health.” That is a term foisted upon society to take away personal responsibility. The mind is not tangible and therefore cannot be ill.
Facts and reasoning state that homosexual behavior is a violation of the human body, a violation of human sexuality, a detriment to society (as is all immoral sexual behavior), against design and against nature, let alone against God.
Your demand for “consenting adult” is indeed arbitrary as a moral standard. You have no logical basis for it other than your personal opinion. There are countries in the world that gives children as young as 12 the right to consent to sex, but when morality is based on personal standards, you have no right to deny a 7-year-old that right. Your claims about personal capacity for reasoning, etc has no basis in your worldview – you have to borrow that morality from Christianity and God. You then appeal to society, but society is also not the moral arbiter – the Nazi society murdered 6 million Jews as “moral.”
“Science” has not “called into question…”. First, because “Science” cannot tell anything; it’s called the logic fallacy of reification. Second, because scientists have no data to judge morals.
Your canard about shellfish has been responded to with proper exegesis by Christians for decades, and yet you pretend it has not been answered. The two issues are not even in the same part of the Bible. Have you even read the context for yourself? The part of the O.T. which discusses homosexual behavior also condemns bestiality and incest; if you state that by these passages homosexuality is now okay, then you have to logically accept the other forbidden sexual behaviors.
Wow, Glenn – After reading your comments, I really fear the future for mankind.
You nearly lost me at “Psychology, by the way, has no science behind it…”, but I plodded on to see what else comes out of your head.
You think that science is a scam and nothing will ever convince you otherwise. You think that society is incapable of morality without borrowing it from Christianity. You call any Christian who doesn’t support your flavor of Christianity “not a true Christian”.
It’s difficult to take you seriously, but I’m afraid that there are so many more out there that think like you do.
What’s worse, I don’t see too many fellow Christian bloggers out there trying to reel you back in…
zqtx,
In the realm of clinical psychology, which is the realm of the psychology which deals with “mental illness,” there is absolutely no science behind it. You might look at
an article I’ve done in that regards (not that it will change your mind):
You misrepresent me when you say that I “think science is a scam.” Real science is not the pseudo-science used to support psychobabble (or that which preaches evolution).
Society makes arbitrary decisions as to what will be their moral standard. Majority rules, or the group with the most power rules. Which is why the Nazis morally justified genocide against the Jews, as well as the murder of 6 million other undesirables. Every society can establish its own moral laws. But no society has the foundation for morality if they do not follow God’s laws. Their foundation is themselves, and that is a morality which can change at a whim.
The only “flavor” of Christianity which is true is that which adheres to what Scripture tells us. Cafeteria Christianity is that which picks and chooses what it likes in the Bible, and if it goes against their personal feelings, then it is tossed out. That is NOT historical, orthodox Christianity. You will find no real Christians disagreeing with that. If you check with all the excellent theologians you will find they say the same thing. Only the liberals and false believers will disagree with what Scripture says about homosexuality.
I did something wrong with making the link, so here is the link:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/11/psychological-method-vs-christianity_11.html
Mr Bagpipe has no credibility. It’s an apologetics ministry from the Christian perspective, thus by his own adminission, he is interested only in promoting Christianity regardless what the facts really show.
“60 or so percent of new cases of HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea are had by gay men. How do you explain this? The life expectancy is up to two decades less. Nearly half of homosexuals are in therapy.”
I think you are confusing HIV rates with STD rates in general, but you didn’t cite any statistics.
I have a solution to your problems – stop hating gay people, pull them out of the closet and the bath houses, and allow them to engage in stable, loving relationships. All the therapy and negative effects are due to social taboos and anti-gay religious oppression.
The gay community has a higher incidence of being outcast from their community, with LGBTQ youth being tossed out of their homes in epidemic proportions.
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/lgbtq.html
“It’s an apologetics ministry from the Christian perspective…”
DUH!!! Christian apologetics IS, by definition, from a “Christian perspective.” That’s what defending the Christian faith is all about. And I am interested in promoting Christianity BECAUSE of the facts, which all agree with Christianity.
You have no scientific facts to support clinical psychology – and that is a FACT.
You have no basis, no foundation, for your arbitrary moral standards. And that is a FACT.
”I have a solution to your problems – stop hating gay people…”
I know of no Christian who hates “gay” people. They are in the closet because of their own shame, knowing that what they are doing is wrong and abominable. They are in the bathhouses because they enjoy it there. The evidence demonstrates that a “loving, stable relationship” is a rarity among homosexual couples. But no one I know of is trying to deny them of said relationships. Denying recognition of such relationships as “marriage” does not affect the relationship itself.
There is no “religious” oppression against homosexuals, since for the most part religious people have a “live and let live” attitude until the homosexuals push in our faces and demand legal sanction of what they are doing or else get punished.
The facts from your “homeless” sheet only demonstrates that LBGT behavior is an abomination that parents do not want sanctioned, that LBGT people normally become that way from sexual abuse rather than born with any orientation, that they know themselves that what they are doing is perverse and rebellion against God and so feel shame and guilt.
SO WHAT? They SHOULD feel shame and guilt for their behavior in the same way pedophiles should feel shame and guilt for their behavior, and in the same way zoophiliacs should feel shame and guilt for their behavior, and in the same way the promiscuous should feel shame and guilt for their behavior, and in the same way adulterers should feel shame and guilt for their behavior, and in the same way necrophiliacs should feel shame and guilt for their behavior, etc, etc.
The homosexualist demand societal sanction so as to assuage the guilt and shame they personally feel. Rather than correcting the ungodly, immoral and perverse behavior and leaving that lifestyle behind, they demand that society say that it’s okay and normal to practice such behavior and to live such a deviant lifestyle. But even if the entire society finally accepted and sanctioned it, that would still not take away the guilt and shame they feel because they will know that they are still doing what is against nature and against God’s design.
John.
You are right on the money again!
Here’s another example of “live and let live” loving, tolerant, accepting homosexuals.
They are so much better then…. anyone who disagrees with them.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/homofascists.html
Lamont
Yeah, it has never been the goal to have a live and let live society. That was just the first step on the road to compulsory endorsement.
Glenn, I see Mr Bagpipe is your blog. (I actually love bagpipes, so keep doing that.)
Your ignorance about science is staggering and saddening. I don’t pick up the Bible and declare it to be entirely in support of homosexuality. I totally see your point. On the other hand, you can’t even read your own Bible. You say, “you pretend [shellfish vs homosexuality] has not been answered. The two issues are not even in the same part of the Bible. Have you even read the context for yourself? ”
Lev 11:10 condemns shellfish. Lev 18:22 condemns homosexuality. Within 7 chapters of each other is basically the same “part” of the Bible.
The fact that you can look at counseling, psychology, and medical texts and declare them to be non-scientific shows a simple allergy to knowledge. I challenge you to go to your nearest psychologist’s office and tell people who are bipolar or depressed or autistic that the mind has no disorders. I’ve dealt with all of them and they wouldn’t fake it if they had a choice. It’s disgusting for you to be so callous.
And if you are so fixated on the biological perspective, then you’re dead wrong on that front as well. Lube and condoms make anal sex safe. And gays don’t just have anal sex. They do all the non-vaginal things a healthy hetero couple would do. And, again, this isn’t really about sex is it? It’s about gay marriage and your desire to stop loving people spending their lives together. But if you want biology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
And I highlight not just sex but “courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting”
Of course we’re not trying to get to the state of nature either, I hope. So the biological justifications are hardly relevant. Only the fundamentalists are trying to claw their way out of modernity and back to tribal days of chattel marriages, infant mortality, xenophobia, and clergy autocracy.
No Jason, I’m not confusing them. Check my post “does Jesus love lgbt people”
But I really hope you aren’t trying to get me to believe that homosexuals are so promiscuous because they “hated”? Give me a break. What is it about that group of people that they are plagued with sexual diseases where others are not?
And you pose a silly question. That if homosxuality were bad it would be medically and psychologically declared so. It was until political pressure stepped in. Now whenever studies are done which don’t reflect public opinion they are dismissed as bigoted. So how is there to be an honest discussion if activism prevents it?
Jason,
No, “Mr Bagpipe” is NOT my blog. My blog is “The Watchman’s Bagpipes.”
The fact that there are 6 chapters between the two cases demonstrates context. Many subjects are covered in the intervening chapters. I read the Bible quite well, and homosexual behavior is soundly condemned in no uncertain terms.
The issues of what to eat, as with most of the laws of the O.T., were only for the nation of Israel and not intended for any other people. And even the eating laws were cancelled out by Jesus, while the condemnation of homosexuality is confirmed in the N.T.
The laws about sexual morality, in regards to homosexuality, were not limited to Israel, as is plain from the context. Try this article for size, as it uses proper exegesis for understanding the passages about homosexuality.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html
There are no “medical texts” involved with psychology. No medical science is involved at all. You are the one with an “allergy to knowledge,” in that you have accepted the propaganda of the psych industry that there is something actually scientific about clinical psychology. Did you even read the article I pointed you to? One of the primary denouncers of clinical psychology is E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., who is a clinical and research psychiatrist, and was a special assistant to the Director of the National Institute of Mental Health for five years, and who has written several books on the topic. I think he knows a lot more about the subject than you do, and he soundly denounces psychotherapists as “Witchdoctors.” Paul Vitz was (is?) a professor of psychology at New York University and he calls psychology the “cult of self-worship.”
So you just keep denying the lack of science in the field, ignore the facts because they prove you wrong.
The mind can have no disorders because the mind is intangible. Can you touch a mind? Can you see a mind? The brain can have organic, medical defects which can affect thinking processes, but these cannot be treated by clinical psychology.
You can have as much lube as you want but anal sex is never safe. You can love that perversion all you want, but it goes against the design of the body. THAT is a biological fact.
You want to stop loving people from spending their lives together when you deny a father marrying his adult daughter or a mother marrying her adult son. You want to deny loving people from spending their lives together when you deny the right of a man marrying a corpse who leaves a will stating it’s okay. You want to deny a person in love with their ewe the right to marry.
Using animals for defending homosexual behavior is rich. Humans are not animals. Animals have no moral codes, no moral laws, no sense of right and wrong. Humans are a distinct species of creature. Animals also eat their young – so should humans eat their young? Animals will kill each other fighting for a mate – should that be what humans do?
“Modernity” is nothing but a euphemism for moral anarchy.
“Fundamentalists” are those who adhere to the fundamentals of their profession. I’d prefer a fundamentalist pilot if I’m going to be in an airplane. I’d prefer a fundamentalist CPA preparing my taxes. The term “fundamentalist” is seen for some reason to be a pejorative word, but that’s because people don’t seem to understand what it means – people such as you, for example.
Christians never had “chattel marriages” because that is not biblical. Infant mortality rates was improved by Christians while the pagans dropped off unwanted babies on doorstep and currently murder them in the womb. Christians are not xenophobic, and the only clergy autocracy took place in unbiblical religious organizations pretending to be Christian.
John,
Let’s not kid ourselves. Promiscuity is a problem among heterosexuals too. While I agree with most of what you write, I have to take issue with your (implied) assertion that somehow the church has done nothing wrong here.
I read an article by Tony Campollo recently that really changed the way I think about this issue. Here’s the link. It’s well worth the 10 minutes it takes to read:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/campolo.htm
After reading this, I have to ask myself:
Has the church REALLY dealt with homosexuality in the way that Jesus dealt with a similar problem of his day, prostitution?
Has the church REALLY treated homosexuals with the same grace and love that we give to other sinners?
We make a big deal out of homosexuality – but what about divorce? Far more is said in the Bible (especially from Jesus) about divorce than about homosexuality. What about endemic greed so prevalent in US churches today? Jesus spoke pretty harshly about greed. When is the last time you saw Christians protesting greed and trying to make laws against greed?
I just think that we’ve made a big deal out of this one sin while ignoring the others. Society has (rightly) called us on the carpet over this hypocracy. We can stand up for the truth by condemning sin within our OWN lives. I don’t see any biblical rational for condemning sin in the lives of those who don’t even accept the gospel.
I know that some churches have gotten it right on this issue. But many others (perhaps the majority) have failed.
Tumeyn
I’m not suggesting there isn’t promiscuity among heterosexuals. But let’s also be honest that it is a plague in the gay male community. Even among promiscuous heterosexuals the STD rates are not even close. So what it is then?
I also agree homosexuals have not been given the charitable grace as other sins. But as I not in my post “[get] over the rainbow” what other sin is so widely advocated for? What other sin are we told we ought to accept? What other sin is championed in like fashion? What other sin can you denounce and be called hateful, bigoted and much worse? What other sin is being taught to grade schoolers against the will of their parents?
Before we ask why there is such stress on this sin in particular we need to realize the christian response is for the most part defensive and reactionary, not as part of an offensive minded movement.
tumeyn,
Campolo is a rank heretic, and you expect something from him to represent Christianity?!?
The reason Christians have to address homosexuality is because that is being shoved into our faces. While not all divorces are for biblical reasons (the Bible does permit some divorce), divorce has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.
Every Christian I’ve know approaches all sin in the same way, but not all since are equal before God. Some sins required restitution, while others required execution. So it is plain that God sees different seriousness in regards to sin.
Homosexuality is being forced upon the church demanding acceptance, and that is the problem not inherent with heterosexual promiscuity or adultery or any other sexual sin.
Campolo’s claim that no one knows what the word means in 1 Cor. 6:9 is a bald-faced lie, as is his explanation of the 1 Tim passage. This is common for liberals to twist Scriptures as he does. No one ever had a problem with understanding the meaning of these passages until the past few decades when homosexualists like Campolo began to try to deconstruct the Bible so as to justify the unjustifiable. Campolo’s whole dissertation is rife with error, but he is a champion of the homosexual cause so he is seen as authoritative. But there is even doubt that he is a Christian – based on his own conversion story. He certainly bears no fruit of the faith.
”I have a solution to your problems – stop hating gay people…”
Because homosexuals identify themselves by what they do (their actions). To hate what they do is to “hate them.”
But, as you clearly pointed out Glenn, because of their rejection of God (The Christian God) their moral compass has no needle apart from their appetite, which is true of all unbelievers.
The problem is, like tough love, the homosexual (unbeliever) does not know what is good for him/herself. It’s not hate to warn your friends of an impending judgment that will destroy them in an unending hell forever. They don’t even know what true love is, nor who their real friends are do they?
Glenn, I’ll make a few points about your comment:
1) As far as the article indicated, it is actually Campollo’s *wife* who feels that homosexuality is not a sin. Tony Campollo has sympathy for that viewpoint, but he expresses pretty clearly in the article that he disagrees with it.
2) His main point, which I completely agree with, is that there is no biblical basis for pushing homosexuals out of the church. We are all sinners saved by grace. We all struggle with various sins. I should not be in the business of pointing out the speck in other people’s eye and ignoring the plank in my own eye.
3) I really find it frustrating how you play fast and loose with the word “heretic”. If I recall correctly, you have previously labeled Tim Keller and C.S. Lewis as heretics. Who’s next, Billy Graham?
4) The last time I read through the Gospels (which was quite recently), I didn’t notice any particular list of doctrinal imperatives that Jesus demanded his followers to believe. Rather, He commended them to drop everything and follow him with their whole heart. I have often wondered why God didn’t lay the exact doctrine of salvation more clearly in the Bible. (a 10-step process would be great) I’ve come to the conclusion that Jesus really isn’t interested in black-and-white lists. He’s interested in a RELATIONSHIP. He saves his harshest condemnation for the class of people that try to put God into a “checkbox” sort of system (the pharisees and teachers of the law). Your consistent focus on heresy (“who’s in and who’s out”) seems to be dangerously close to what the Pharisees of Jesus’s day were doing.
Campolo is indeed a dangerous and false teacher. I have done two articles about him, as well as linking to an article about him on one of my “Random” articles. The first article demonstrates why Campolo is a dangerous teacher to follow:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2008/06/tony-campolo-dangerous-and-false.html
The second article I wrote about Campolo demonstrates his advocacy for homosexuality.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2008/11/tony-campolo-homosexual-advocate.html
I ended the article with this paragraph, which I think is also currently germane:
I see nothing in Scripture that says we should “affirm” those practicing immoral sexual behavior or that we should be supporting such people in their “struggle for dignity.” Our mission is to take the gospel to them and once they realize they are sinners in need of repentance they will leave that sin behind. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” He didn’t affirm her in her sin, nor was he supportive of her lifestyle.
The article I linked to demonstrates that Campolo is a proponent of the social gospel heresy, as well as being an advocate for homosexuality.
http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=2417
I stand by my statement that Campolo is a heretic, and is a dangerous person to be taught by.
I have one article on my blog which mentions Tim Keller, and what I said about him is that “he seems to be getting very liberal in his teachings.” That is not calling him a heretic. And I don’t have any posts on C.S. Lewis. I seem to remember mentioning him on my blog or another blog stating that he was a Roman Catholic and that he had false teachings when it comes to being a theistic evolutionist, but, again, that is not calling him a heretic.
The Gospels, being more about the Old Covenant and it’s termination with the New Covenant of Jesus, really don’t give much of any Christian doctrine. But the rest of the N.T. does, and there are certainly non-negotiable doctrines which determine orthodoxy. Campolo violates several non-negotiables, not the least of which is his claim to coming to salvation by practicing contemplative prayer. There is only ONE main requirement for salvation, and that is placing one’s faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ for our sin. However, if one is believing in a non-biblical Christ, that false Christ doesn’t exist and cannot save anyone. That is the type of Christ Campolo seems to be following.
Christian apologetics does not “focus on heresy,” rather we have to battles two fight: 1) offensive apologetics of exposing false teachings, whether they be simply bad teachings, aberrations or heresy. 2) Defensive apologetics where we defend the faith against those who misrepresent it. My focus is not any more on one than it is the other.
To marshalart and everyone else who believes that “there is no science that supports the notion that homosexuality ISN’T a mental disorder,” I will direct them to this article by the American Psychological Association, where the people there are MUCH more qualified to make the distinctions about mental disorders.
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
To Glenn E. Chatfield and everyone else who believes that “psychology…has no science behind it, so don’t appeal to psychobabble,” neuropsychology, which is the study of brain functions and how they affect other brain functions, is science which makes use of neuroscience. They study how certain areas of the brain react to certain other psychological aspects, like sexuality. The fact that you reject it as a science only proves that you are irrational and, therefore, unfit to make any argument about anything.
With all due respect rambling,
Homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder due to political pressure, and its not a secret http://www.aglp.org/gap/1_history/ .
Moreover even the APA admits they don’t know what causes homosexuality. Also, there are many reports of former homosexuals, which disputes the born that way defense.
Hey Rambling Imagination,
Did you even read what I stated about psychology or did you just jump to conclusions. I specifically stated, “clinical psychology.” I know there are a whole raft of other psychologies, but I am referring to that which may also be known as “therapeutic psychology” – you know, “Rent a friend.”
Your link provide NO scientific data to support their ideas about “orientation.” It was nothing but the normal psychobabble of changed opinion due to pressure from homosexualists. Previously, before the pressure was brought to bear, the APA called homosexuality a disorder. As a matter of fact, with the new monster DSM, apparently everyone in the world suffers from some sort of disorder!
As long as you misrepresent the subject discussed, and make a strawman argument, I’d say it is YOU who are “unfit to make any argument out of anything.”
Firstly, if you read your own comment, it clearly says “Psychology, by the way, has no science behind it, so don’t appeal to psychobabble.” It seems that you are trying to take back some words that you are not very proud of. Sorry, but you lose there.
Second, you fail to take into account that the times were very different back then. When people still considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder before the 1970s, they did not have near the amount of research equipment that they had later on. This just proves that, as technology grows, the mistakes of different scientists/psychologists come to light and are changed. There is no proof that it was due to any pressure, so that argument is of no merit.
Also, Sigmund Freud (if you have ever heard of him, because it sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about), one of the most respected psychologists/neurologists and founder of of psychoanalysis (psychoanalysis is a branch of psychology AND psychotherapy, if you hadn’t known), is quoted in a letter in 1935, saying “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development.” His word is definitely one that is above most on the subject.
Now, if a few narrow-minded psychologists rejected this theory, then that only helps my argument, because, as it does also prove that it was classified as a mental disorder at one time, it was only classified because they rejected the view, exactly as they had when they more recently changed to the view beforehand. Just because they believed something 40 years ago, before the accepted belief of today, does not mean that they were right the first time (technically second, considering Freud’s view).
As to the link I provided, I am starting to think that you are only calling this “psychobabble” because you have no other argument against it. There are already flaws in your “pressure from homosexualists” argument, which I have pointed out. You are only left with this word that you throw around without the slightest hint, it seems, at how to determine anything about the matter of psychology. The link provided was an article by an association devoted to the research of psychological aspects. The fact that they would write an article and put it on their official website is enough to merit it as a reliable source, and would further give it the weight of scientific proof.
Sounds like a whole bunch of loss you got there.
Rambling Imagination:
Look at the context of all my comments and you will see plainly the psych field I was addressing, including links to my articles on the subject. Not taking back ANY words.
I don’t want to hear the excuse of “times were different back then.” That is hogwash. Homosexual behavior is just as deviant and unnatural now as then. The proof that the change in status by the APA is abundant that it was due to pressure from homosexual advocacy groups, and the homosexuals who were part of the APA.
I’m very familiar with Freud and he was a fraud. E. Fuller Torrey (a name note above in another comment) wrote a book titled, “Freudian Fraud” exposing Freud’s fraudulent methods and ideology. E.M. Thornton (a lay fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine) wrote a book titled, “Freudian Fallacy.” Psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz stated: “One of Freud’s most powerful motives in life was the desire to inflict vengeance on Christianity for its traditional anti-Semitism.” Freud had his own sexual hangups, so to cite him as semi-approving of homosexuality is absurd (Freud thought operating on a woman’s nose would correct any sexual dysfunction she had.) Freud was demented. But, I guess those “few narrow-minded psychologists” who reject Freud’s theory are the demented ones in your estimation.
By the way, it wasn’t me who posted the link to the article you complain about.
Keep going Rambling. Maybe they’ll listen to you. Apparently my basic, undisputed facts from a variety of professional medical and mental health agencies missed their analysis. They met that with firmly closed eyes and fingers in their ears. Except for JB who think that political pressure to review a decision makes it impossible for science to happen. Apparently scientists can’t hear a public outcry, take another look, and correct its findings (especially with the benefit of more out gays to actually speak directly to). And he talks about these ‘reports of former homosexuals’ when leading gay cure leaders aren’t cured.
http://jezebel.com/5856505/fundamentalist-group-admits-they-might-not-be-able-to-cure-all-gays
“I am married, but that doesn’t mean that I am never tempted or that I don’t have some residual same-sex attraction.”
If that doesn’t scream self-loathing depression, I don’t know what does. Not that it matters. Pedophilia can’t be cured, but that doesn’t mean “liberals” and “scientists” condone the practice.
Hey Jason,
You’ve not given any science which demonstrates that homosexuality is an inborn trait or that it isn’t deviant. All you have given is opinions of psychobabblers who have so many theories that they are in constant disagreement.
By the way, I have a personal friend who was molested by a man as a young boy and was then led into the homosexual lifestyle for over 20 years. It was turning to the Lord which helped him leave that life and realize exactly what it was. He has been married for several years now and is a very zealous critic of the claim that homosexuality is inborn and can’t be changed. He lived it and saw the WHYs of people getting into such a lifestyle. Of course he can’t be right, because the psychobabblers, homosexualists, and other liberals declare that no one can change from being a homosexual.
Ok Glenn and others… here’s some evidence. You might have to actually read, but that’s the issue with mountains and mountains of evidence. The answers are all there and you just have to ask yourself why you’re fighting it.
APA page on homosexuality that shows the consensus of mental health experts. Don’t say you don’t have proof when you really mean to say that you reject the proof in favor of that one guy you know or your preconceived prejudices:
http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
Centers for Disease Control studies and conclusions that not homosexuality, but negative attitudes toward homosexuality (that’s you) create mental health problems for the LGBT community: http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm
A UC Davis history of homosexuality and mental health with more than enough cited references to studies and analyses – http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
The American Counseling Association requires practitioners peddling gay cures to provide a disclaimer that the therapy has no scientific basis, explore the homophobia that may be causing them harm, and offer referrals to science-based counselors: http://www.counseling.org/pressroom/newsreleases.aspx?AGuid=b68aba97-2f08-40c2-a400-0630765f72f4
Wikipedia isn’t my first source, but it’s not a bad place to round out a search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
And just for good measure, here, again, is the listing of animals that display gay “sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting”. Obviously homosexual sex and relationships are at least natural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Wouldn’t it just be easier to admit you’re wrong? You can be right about the Bible. The Bible can say that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexual acts are wrong. You can argue with other Christians about that point. I might even agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But being gay or doing gay things is totally normal and functional according to everyone except some religious people. Stop hating them so much and in return, people will think better of you, they’ll be healthier and happier, and the world will be a better place.
Jason
The APA is notoriously pro homosexual. Past members have admitted that the politics have driven their attitudes primarily and not necessarily medical assessment.
Also the CDC doesn’t prove causation. They take one stat on social approval and then attribute all the woes of gays to that stat. They don’t even attempt to prove causation.
The “If animals do it it must be OK” arguement had to sgow up sometime. What an awesome way to support your argument. What other animal behaviors ahould we be accepting in humans?
That homosexual behavior occurs within the animal kingdom does not mean “natural”. It only means that the dysfunction exists there as well. It is neither natural nor normal regardless of what species engages in the behavior.
As to Craig’s last, some animals eat their young. Many mate with siblings or offspring. Those activities ARE natural for those species. Trying to mate with another of the same gender never is.
Craig, notice I threw that in ‘just for good measure’. It’s not a good argument unless Christians say it’s ‘unnatural’. When Christians stop saying it’s unnatural, then we’ll stop pointing out that it shows up all the time in nature, like, for example, in human nature.
JB Said –
“The APA is notoriously pro homosexual. Past members have admitted that the politics have driven their attitudes primarily and not necessarily medical assessment.
Also the CDC doesn’t prove causation. They take one stat on social approval and then attribute all the woes of gays to that stat. They don’t even attempt to prove causation.”
Everyone is notoriously pro homosexual, except of course some Christians like you. When will you see that it’s not the APA or ACA or CDC or all these other agencies that are wrong. It’s the Christians who are wrong. The APA was anti-gay until it conducted studies and reviewed policies and ‘evolved’ its conclusions. Only by virtue of its lack of bias was it able to change its views. Can you? And the CDC does prove causation. The article referenced a 2009 study that showed stronger rejection leads to mental health issues. You reference APA and CDC, but there are more references than that.
You may reject gays by virtue of your reading of scripture, but you will just become more disconnected from reality.
Jason the vote to take homo sexuality of the dsm what about 5050 it wasn’t a near unanimous decision. Funny how the new studies appeared right around the same time protests and riots were threatened
Jason,
That’s great except there are a bunch of things that are “normal” in the animal kingdom (I know we’re animals so don’t get your panties in a twist) that would cause quite a stir if practiced by humans. Why “homosexality” not things like eating your young and humping peoples legs, etc?
Here’s an older article on the vote history – http://www.psychiatricnews.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html
Maybe political pressure more than internal pressure led the APA to reassess their decision, but the decisions they made as a result were correct. Overwhelming Trustee support ratified by a majority of the members were just a few events in 1973. That change in policy was a watershed moment leading to what is now nearly 40 years of recognition by mental health professionals that homosexuality is not a disorder. When will you come along?
MLK protested racial discrimination. Will you use that to denounce the Civil Rights Act? You have to provide some preponderance of evidence for your position, not a conspiracy theory.
Once again for Jason:
Skin color and sexual behavior ARE NOT ANALOGOUS!!!
Skin color is NOT CHOSEN.
sexual behavior IS ALWAYS CHOSEN – no one has to have sex!!!
So the APA (the organization of psychobabblers) says homosexuality is not a disorder. God says it is. Who am I going to listen to? You can call a dandelion a rose but that doesn’t make it a rose.
To begin, I don’t know if you misspelled my name on purpose or if it was an honest mistake. Either way, I would appreciate it if you spelled it correctly in the future. There’s no excuse not to. It’s located right next to my image. And it’s important to me because correctly addressing someone is a sign of respect. Just as I have addressed you as John rather than Juhn or Jewn, I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy.
Next, anti-gay, mostly commonly defined means someone or something that aims to prevent the equal treatment or status of homosexuals in any kind of social context whether it be religious, political, or economic in nature. Anti-gay behaviour has numerous forms. It can be discrimination or name calling or backwards religious beliefs denigrating their value as a human being. Simply put, if you’re against gay marriage, you’re either thinking or acting in an anti-gay manner. You may disagree, and that’s fine.
And lastly, here are some links for you to read about Chick Fil A’s anti-gay attitudes and behaviour. I’ve tried to provide outside sources that aren’t from GLAAD or any other source that is a stakeholder within the debate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp
Tafacory
I apologize for spelling your name wrong, its not my style to do so intentionally. I was responding from my phone and missed the error.
But as to your definition of anti-gay, you’re right, I disagree with that definition. In fact I think it is explicit propaganda to label people who hold moral objections to certain sexual behaviors. I also find it misleading at best, and down-right lying to list the groups HuffPo cited as receiving money as hate groups. That term is applied for the sole purpose of envoking imagry of neo-nazis or the Klan.
Glenn – You keep saying things. You never reference anything. You use weasel words like psychobabble but that just shows you can’t make an argument. Lots of Christians read the same book and claim a personal relationship with the same god you do, so you’ve got no special credibility on that front. But if you want to say “God says so” then that’s fine. Say that. Don’t try to badmouth good science unless you have some cited, credible references.
I provided references to top mental health, medical, and counseling organizations who see sexual orientation as no more a choice or a disorder than skin color. Just for the record though I only made the comparison to show that whether due to race discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination or beliefs, the hurt is due to the discrimination not due to any failure or quality of the victims.
When you condemn sexual behavior and say ‘no big deal, just don’t have sex’, you’re missing the entire point. It’s about long-term, stable relationships. Sex is just nice to have. But if you want to say that your religion condemns gay sex and that people shouldn’t do that, then people will take that under advisement. People in your church may even act on it. You should just recognize the proof I’ve provided (not that I’ve claimed but that I’ve backed up with evidence) that you are likely to do measurable psychological harm to anyone who takes your advice.
Well Jason, I linked you to my articles which give the answers you request. I also cited top notch men in the field who state no science is behind such babble which comes from the psych industry. “Psychobabble” is not a “weasel word,” rather it is descriptive of what the psych industry has to say – babble, nothing but babble from opinions of godless men with no scientific backing.
You have yet to show “good science” which justifies homosexual behavior and lifestyle as just another sexual behavior and lifestyle equal to heterosexual behavior and lifestyle. So I haven’t “bad-mouthed” any science.
The fact that there may be “hurt” with discrimination does not negate the need for discrimination. Pedophiles are hurt by being discriminated against. Murderers are hurt by being discriminated against. All laws discriminate against something. Truth hurts, and the truth that homosexual behavior is morally indefensible may hurt someone’s feelings, but it is the truth nevertheless.
Of course you don’t seem to be a bit concerned with all the actual financial harm brought to those who are against same-sex fake marriage as lawsuits and other charges have cost business owners thousands of dollars in fines, as well as being force to attend indoctrination training, etc, from all the tolerant “queers.”
“Long-term stable relationships” are a rarity among homosexuals. But even if they were normal, that doesn’t make it right. Would you be willing to permit long-term stable relationships among a father/daughter, mother/son, or brother/sister relationship? At least those relationships are correct by nature and biology!
It isn’t my “religion” which says homosexual behavior is abhorrent – it is GOD who says that. And the measurable psychological harm to homosexuals is self-inflicted by the very lifestyle they have chosen.