Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Greg,

The key is whether these things are biological. While we all agree we are born with sinful tendencies, we are not all agreed about how we come to possess those tendencies at birth. Saying “I have a temper because I am Irish” is not proof of anything (any more than claiming homosexual tendencies by genetics), and blaming it on “my dad” (even if it is true though also unproven) is still more likely a nurture issue than a nature issue. My point is there is no evidence, none, for arguing for sinful tendencies from a biological point of view. Everything in scripture points in a volitional direction. This seems to be nothing more than the unsearchable wickedness of the human heart groping for a more modern form of blame shifting that has been going on ever since Eve blamed the serpent and Adam blamed God.

Chip, you rightly point to nurture. There is no doubt this is an important factor in the development of SSA (again, I am not referring to homosexual behavior or sinful thoughts, but rather to homosexual temptations, aka SSA). The difference between us is that you only want to see nurture playing a part, whereas I see the possibility of both nature and nurture.

Do you deny that there are any biological factors at all in certain tendencies, proclivities, predispositions, or inclinations towards certain sins? What about Jacob? As he emerged from the womb he was named as one who “grasps the heel,” as a trickster, supplanter, deceiver. Obviously some of his later actions were learned from the poor example of his father and mother, but it seems that even from birth he had a tendency towards being tempted to deceive.

I can see how it would be easy to think from my posts that I believe the biological factor is overwhelmingly determinate. That couldn’t be further from my position. I am simply arguing against the idea that there is no way biology might be one possible factor that leads to SSA. I agree with you, Mike, and others that environment is probably the most important factor. The rise of pornography and the homosexual culture is why we will no doubt see more and more men in our churches struggle with SSA.

You, Christian, and others are rightly concerned that if we allow any consideration of biological factors we will cede the important ground of determinism that allows a homosexual to say, “See, I can’t help it. I was born this way.” But we already have to deal with other factors that could lead to the same conclusion. Here’s what I mean: I have had extended conversations with another man (different from the one I mentioned above) who is a Christian, married, with children, but struggles with SSA. Why? He traces it back to the time when he was repeatedly sexually abused by a stepbrother when he was a preteen. Would any of us be surprised that such an incident results in SSA? This man didn’t ask for SSA, doesn’t want SSA, and would choose for SSA to go away if he could make such a “choice.” He has prayed that many times in his life, but the temptations remain. Thankfully, although there was a time in his life when he gave in to those temptations, he (as far as I know) has achieved a measure of victory over them now.

The point is, he could very easily say, “See, I can’t help being a homosexual. I was sexually abused as a child and ever since then I’ve been this way.” How would we respond to him? By denying the power of that incident in his life? No, by acknowledging the influence it had in his life, and by pointing him to the stronger power of the Gospel of Christ, the Word of God, and the help of the Spirit.

In the same way, when someone says, “I can’t help it. I was born this way.”, I don’t get hung up on the second statement; I just concentrate on the first. “Even if you were born that way, what does God say?…”

I wasn’t looking for this, but one of my friends posted a link to this article. I found it to be informative. Posting this is not a blanket endorsement of its content. I’m not really interested in debating its content, merely in providing a counterpoint from a Christian worldview.

Excerpts from an article by Stanton L. Jones. Stanton L. Jones is Provost and Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College (IL).

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/Hot-Topics#_ftnref22

“What are we to make of the biological-determination-at-birth argument? First, it must be said that commentators who argue that there is no biological contribution to the causation of sexual orientation (for instance, that it is all choice) are arguing the indefensible. The research points to a clear contribution of biological factors to sexual orientation. But it must also be noted that there is considerable overestimation of the evidence in support of biological causation at this point in time.”

“The etiology of homosexuality is mysterious; on average it certainly involves some biological contributors and it certainly involves some socio-cultural contributors, but how these factors contribute in the formation of individual sexual orientations is mysterious, as is the role of childhood, adolescent, and adult choices made, consciously or unconsciously, that contribute to the solidification of orientation.”

Has anyone done any serious study into the demographic make-up of the homosexual community? I vaguely remember a study some years ago that delineated the abnormally high socio-economic status that made up the general homosexual community nationwide, and the prevalence of homosexuality among the chronic unemployed worldwide, but have no information as to where to find that or similar studies.

I’m sure there’s stuff out there. I did find this link fairly easily, but I don’t know if it gets into the financial/social status. It did strike me that the states with the largest populations of homosexuals were states where political Progressivism/Liberalism held sway (CA, NY, OR, HI).

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

Interesting development pertinent to this conversation. CA is poised to legislate transgendered public schools. Students will be allowed to self-identify in all areas of life from bathroom/locker room use to which sports teams to join. Apparently, the same people who claim sexual orientation is entirely determined by biology are now saying that gender is not in any way a function of biology. So the non physical is determined somehow by the physical, but the physical is subject to non-physical state of mind?

If people are born with a biological tendency toward sexual deviancy or other acts of immorality, how does that affect the church’s views on infant mortality? Do all people who die during birth or infancy go to heaven? Or does God choose some while rejecting others?

The Bible indicates that some infants who die go to heaven. There is no indication that some do whereas others do not. The most obvious conclusion is that all do. That is the conclusion of a wide variety of Calvinist preachers and theologians such as Charles Spurgeon. (I believe Charles Hodge and other Presbyterian theologians taught this, but I don’t have time to do the research at the moment.) Some have speculated differently, but it is only speculation. Since nobody knows for certain, we must leave it to God and await the Day when we are with Him. However, until I know differently, I will assume that all dying infants are received into Heaven, and will comfort grieving parents accordingly.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Interesting development pertinent to this conversation. CA is poised to legislate transgendered public schools. Students will be allowed to self-identify in all areas of life from bathroom/locker room use to which sports teams to join. Apparently, the same people who claim sexual orientation is entirely determined by biology are now saying that gender is not in any way a function of biology. So the non physical is determined somehow by the physical, but the physical is subject to non-physical state of mind?

Lobbyists in NY has also been pushing forms of this legislation for the last few years, although the bills have been defeated each time, although the margins of their defeat seem to shrink each year. The NYFRF (link) has done a terrific job of informing voters in NYS about the bill each time and rallying opposition. This year it passed the state assembly, but not the state senate. Cuomo has already gone on record in favor of that bill, if I remember right.

If there is a silver lining to each of these pushes (other than their defeats), it’s that Cuomo loses support every time he champions legislation like this or the recent Abortion bill written by Assemblywoman Stewart-Cousins that was recently also defeated. But I do not think that it will be enough to cause his defeat for governor the next time he is up for re-election. It would be helpful if the voters in NYS would clean out the cesspool of conflicts of interest and the backroom deals that make up the Legislature, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. We shall see.