±«Óătv

sorry William this sounds like propaganda.

Can you show me peer-reviewed reports which conclude how homosexuality is "naturally" created?

Your entire argument must stand or fall on this.


Master and Johnson, Alfred Kinsey and Peter Tatchell all agree that sexualit yis fluid.

Peter Tatchell knows many people who have changed their sexuality, including an ex-boyfriend that is now married.

discuss.

PB

Robert Epstein argues that sexual identity is fluid - his views have been published in the semi-popular "Scientific American Mind" without controversy. Oliver James in "Selfish Capitalist" dismisses the idea that it is determined at birth.

Many alcoholics would consider their alcoholism aprt of their identity, and would be quite hurt to hear you say otherwise. In any case one is more than ones orientation, and religions like Islam and Christianity would not allow one to identify oneself by sexual orientation. You are in or out of Christ, in the house of peace or the house of Islam.

Your own view on these issues has changed somewhat. That is your right. But please drop the condescending tone William - it is very insulting to those of us who knew you way back when you shared our opinion.

PB

I am glad that you demanding peer-reviewed evidence to back up claims. Perhaps you can now maybe understand how frustrated and disappointed many, many posters here feel when after making many claims about science you could not actually...back them up! Could you emphasis with us and imagine how that makes you look?

"Your entire argument must stand or fall on this."

If that is your view then your entire "argument" about science has...fallen.

Regards

DD

The point that many christians fail to recognise is that the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" does not appear in the bible. This of course does not stop people using it; however what phrases like this do, is highlight that the use of cliche is prevalent in our society. While this is true of both christian and non-christian about a variety of issues, it is particularly important that christians are careful about their words; we after all claim to have a book of revealed truth.

In this particular context then, and to address Williams comments about the phrase being heard as an attack, those of us who say we believe would do well to reflect on some things the bible actually does say about sin, love and sinners.

In the book of Corinthians we are told to have an attitude of self-examination in regard to sin.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus speaks of removing the great planks of wood in our own eyes before commenting on the specks of dust in another's.

Again in another context Jesus suggests that those without sin be the first to throw stones.

Over and over again the tension in the bible results from the fact that we are, first and foremost, confronted with the fault lines in our own lives.

This means then, that those of us who claim to be christians ought to be experts in the criticism of our own sins, and, I suggest, until we have grasped the significance of that dilemma, it might be best to think twice before placing words like sin and love in the same sentence, particularly when directed at others.

Too true Peter!

Indeed there are certain so-called Christians(some may even use this board but I could not Possibly Betray their name, that would be Potentially Biased, so I Probably Better not) who could take a good, hard look at what you wrote.

Regards

DD

Peter would prefer we said: "Love the sinner, hate my own sin". A fair point. Motes and beams indeed.

"Hate the sin and not the sinner", is often ascribed to Gandhi. Putting it like that is probably better, because it doesn't imply that we have to love the sinner, merely not hate him/her.

I would accept the distinction, though I wouldn't use the word ‘sin’. Indeed, in my view religious believers are preoccupied with 'sins' which are really priestly-determined taboos having little to do with morality. By confusing 'sin' with morality, religious leaders have produced a set of inflexible commandments that must be obeyed whatever the circumstances.

I would also agree that 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is often used as an excuse by homophobes who hate gays but who don't want to admit their bigotry.

However, much wrong in the world is done by basically good people, for various reasons including a belief in misguided ideology, obedience to authority, character deficiencies, etc. So we can certainly love the wrongdoer while hating the wrong.

It may be difficult to see how you genuinely love a person when you reject an aspect of their personal identity, but the key word here is 'aspect'. Sexuality is only a part of a person, and for most it may not even be the most important part. There is a wide range of sexual indulgence. Some do it often, and others very little. Indeed, many churches teach precisely this: that gay people should abstain from sex. A pretty harsh rule, sure, but nevertheless one that, for example, some priests obey.

In other words, it is possible to consider certain types of sexual behaviour wrong, yet love the person for all the other good things they do. I am not here saying that I personally believe homosexuality is wrong, for I don't for one moment think it is, but for someone who does it is legitimate to say that "I hate what he/she does sexually but lovehim/her because otherwise he/she is a lovely person who treats others with care and respect.

It is also important to try to maintain a distinction between a person and their beliefs. I could say I love the religious, but hate the religion. Thus while I think religious fundamentalism is an abomination, I don't think that about religious fundamentalists. I think they are merely misguided.

Could I love a communist, a nazi, a Moslem jihadist a Christian, or a Jew? I don't think so. Just being one is crime enough for me especially when they try to enlist me in their cause. Everyone has an idea that they are going to save the world...or worse save my soul. All they want is my help and my money. Oh, one other thing, unlike homosexuals, they DO have a choice in the matter. Remember my old motto, "neither a follower nor a leader be." I don't trust either. I must also add however that Christian missionaries did have their useful place...in cannibal stew pots :-)

Mark:

You forgot to hate liberals and anyone who criticises American policy. In fact, do you love ANYBODY apart from your immediate family?

brianmcclinton
Love and hate are far to valuable and intense emotions to be wasted on large numbers of strangers scattered indiscriminately and dissipated. When people say they love everyone, how much can their love be worth? I save my love and hate for those who truely earn it. Above all, I love myself. I am the best me I know how to be. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. That's how I feel about most people and things. Until I have a good reason to feel otherwise, they are just objects I encounter in my life for a limited period of time. I deal with them as it seems best suits me.

There are people beyond my immediate family that I love but they do not include surviving members of my larger family, people who just happened to be born to blood relatives. Most of them on both sides turned out to be people I found repulsive. That is why my telephone numbers are unlisted. My father was a liberal in the extreme. If he liked you or felt sorry for you, he'd give you the shirt off my back. While I was still in college, I learned from first hand experience with recipients how little real gratitude there often is for those who donate their own time and money to charity. We see it on an international scale in the way recipient nations treat donor nations too. In the United States, charity is a business like any other, much of it no more than a scam. That's what liberalism is about too, the redistribution of wealth to re-engineer society. Rob from those who have to give to those who don't. In the extreme, it's a presription for slavery through the equal redistribution of wealth. Only in socialist countries where it is their religion, somehow those in charge of redistribution seem to live far better than the rest of society. Don't kid yourself, Christianity and communism have much in common. The only real difference I can see is that in Communism, the state will not allow divided loyalty to the church. The catastrophic failure of the USSR and Communist China are proof that the system flies in the face of human nature to be motivated to produce for ones own benefit, not for the benefit of society as a whole. If I didn't have to, I wouldn't work either, I'd spend my life at play. My philosopher...Ayn Rand. Her little book "The Virtue of Selfishness" had much to do with my outlook on life, much to the horror of my left wing parents. While I loved them very much, I didn't think in matters of the world they were particularly smart, not even close to being in the same league as my grandparents who were made of infinitely stronger stuff.

Mark:
I think your parents were wiser than you.

brian, how much wiser could they be? They're both dead now. I know why you like them, misery loves company. Now my grandparents were far smarter, much stronger, and had far more sense. They left Europe and went to America or the rest of my family would never have happened. I have observed that there are two kinds of people in life, those who want to change the world and those who make the best life they can for themselves in the one they find themselves in. Of the two, the first type are perpetually unhappy always looking for "the revolution" when justice will prevail. Usually they lead impotent useless lives but on rare occasion they are positively dangerous. The second type are usually much happier and invariably more productive and ironically usually become much richer no matter how poor they start out in life. And believe it or not, some actually change the world unintentionally despite themselves. Biil Gates is an example.

It is a sign of immaturity and simplistic thinking to divide people in the world into two types.
There is a wide spectrum of opinion and attitudes.

Most people are for change in some areas and continuity in others.

If you applied your logic properly, then you would see that you could argue that most Europeans are happy and prefer the peaceful world in which they live to one that is perpetually at war.

Or we could say that those who make the best life they can for themselves in the one they find themselves in included Iraqis under Saddam Hussein. So why didn't you americans leave them alone. Why did you want regime change in Iraq? Why in your own logic should Americans want to change the world?

"Could I love a communist, a nazi, a Moslem jihadist a Christian, or a Jew? I don't think so"

That's a pity, and it highlights one of the central themes of Christian thinking; that there are no particular kinds of people who need be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no one too dishonourable to be excluded, the doors are open and all are welcome. Christians call it grace, but magnanimity is a good word too.

It's one of the reasons I prefer Jesus to Gandhi.

"Drop the condescending tone...."

There was nothing condescending in the piece above. It was extrapolating logic from the pure facts of science. If you wish to debate that science as PB is badly attempting to do, fine, but condescension doesn't come anywhere near it and your suggestion that it does is gratuitous.

sorry John - hogwash!


The reason it is condescending is that William expects us to swallow that the issue is settled when anyone with a passing interest knows that this is rubbish.


BTW if you think I am arguing the science "badly" then lets see you make your point with science....


A feeble ad hominem is a poor fig leaf to cover up plain ignorance.



PB

brianmcclinton
The smartest people in Europe...sooner or later leave...for places like America. According to ±«Óătv, 10% of native born UK Anglos have left. Eventually they realize that it is practically hopeless to get anywhere there. The thing about hitting your head against a brick wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

As for wars like Iraq or the American Revolution, there are situations where there is no alternative. You either fight or die. There was no escaping the fact that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was going to use them on the US. At least that is how it appeared after you connected the dots from Putin, Tenet, the Dodgy Dossier M5 sexed up, and other sources. I'm not going over that tired road again.

petermorrow
If you want to base your views on what will happen in the next world, that's fine with me. I only deal with what happens in this one. @#$%%$# I'm glad I'm not a Christian.

John Wright


1) I did challenge William's assumption that there is a Scientific Consensus that Homosexuality is fixed and immutable.
It may be in a minority of cases - individuals literally incapable of attraction to members of the opposite sex. But in most cases those who take the label "homosexual" don't fall under that description. They use the label to refer to their preferences and behaviour. Of course, they have the right to label themselves in this way - but my point is that William is deliberately simplifying a complex social phenomena.
2) I used the term "condescending" as A) William is perfectly aware that he is simplifying to stir up debate B) I know he enjoys stirring controversy and C) I am trying to help him to do this
G Veale

In fairness to William, I should point out that I agree that Mrs Robinson's comments are, for want of a better word, homophobic. (Or heterosexist. Take your pick).
It does not matter one iota whether or not Homosexuality is "disgusting" to someone's taste. After all some people may find the idea of a love affair with Mrs Robinson as an unattractive proposition. But I don't forsee anyone inferring that there is a moral objection to love affairs with Mrs Robinson - at the very least Mr Robinson would be entitled to one. The elderly are entitled to passionate embraces, and eveything that follows thereafter. I just don't want be around at the time. (Presumably, my tastes on this matter will change as I get older).

However, thanks to Steven Nolan's obtuse questioning, Mrs Robinson did seem to object to Homosexuality on grounds of personal taste. This was not a moral or religious objection.

What is horrendous, as a matter of taste and morality, is manner in which Steven Nolan is conducting this "debate".

Graham Veale
Armagh

Indeed.

Will, what's the biz on this Belfast bar that's hosting a "Come as Iris Robinson" transvestite night?

Most transvestites I know have better dress sense and make-up skills. Should this be postponed until 31 October?

Graham:

I am not sure what part of Stephen Nolan's questioning you found obtuse, but on the central issue of the term 'abomination' it was she who was being obtuse. At first she refused to explain what she understood by this word. In other words, she presumed that we all knew what it meant. But clearly in such a controversial area the meaning of the word is crucial to the debate and she had a moral duty to explain what she understood by that word. Words are weapons and a mystique surrounding them can create strong emotions and misunderstandings.

Nolan referred to the dictionary, a perfectly reasonable approach, which used words such as 'disgusting, 'vile' and 'nauseating', and she agreed 'absolutely'. He was not 'putting words into her mouth' but merely seeking clarification which he was entitled to do. She was trying to avoid clarification. The obtuseness was therefore hers.

He could have probed her further on some of the other 'judgments' in Leviticus. For example, Leviticus 11: 10 says that eating shellfish is also an abomination, but it doesn't say whether it is a greater or less abomination than homosexuality.

Leviticus 25:44 states that it is OK to possess slaves, provided they are purchased from neighbouring heathen nations.

Leviticus 15:19 allows no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness but offers no advise on how a man is to know it.

Leviticus 1:9 states that when I burn a bull on the altar of the lord it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord but doesn't say how I should deal with complaining neighbours.

Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight.

Leviticus 19:27 expressly forbids trimming hair, including the hair around the temples. There shall be no marring of the corners of my beard (which I don't have).

Leviticus 11:6-8 states that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. Does this mean that I can only play football if I wear gloves?

Leviticus 19:19 forbids the planting of two different crops in the same field.

Leviticus 24:10-16 orders the stoning to death of anyone who blasphemes or curses.

Brian
Oddly enough, I agree with you. The word "abomination" was being examined outside it's theological context. Let me put it to you this way - for me to enter a pole-dancing club would be an "abomination" and "unnatural". I would be using sex in a way that God did not intend. Even if the girls in the club were not being exploited - and odds would be that they were - from the Christian point of view I would be sinning, as I would be using God's gift in a way that it was not designed for.
Of course to the secular mind that will sound quite odd. Yet, even though it might seem a very attractive proposition, it would be an abomination for me to use my sexual instincts for my own selfish gratification. It is unnatural, as it goes against God's plan.
Now if Iris or Steven meant abomination in that sense, I wouldn't have an issue. But neither seemed to understand the theology behind the term. Which is why I called Steven obtuse - he doesn't understand the Christian mind at all. Do you feel he has led a healthy debate this week?

By the way, if it doesn't take the thread too far off the topic, the "judgments" in Leviticus are certainly worth discussing. I can certainly understand how you could be amazed at how I consider a book with these commands authoritative!

Graham Veale

John: Thanks for your valiant effort to defend this post from the accusation of condescension. At the risk of appearing condescending (!), I couldn't myself see where exactly I had crossed that line. Now it seems that I am being judged condescending for claiming that "Homosexuality is fixed and immutable." This leaves me even more confused because nowhere in this post have I made that particular claim. The claim that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is "naturally occurring" is certainly not equivalent to the claim that homosexuality is fixed and immutable -- any more than heterosexuality is fixed and immutable (or gender, for that matter).

Also: One commenter here seems to think I am deliberately simplifying in order to stir up a debate about this subject. I doubt that this post could reasonably be read as a simplification; there are, it seems to me, serious questions to be asked about the internal logic of the statement being examined in this post. This post explores those questions. Simple as that.

I hope that is reasonably clear.

William
If I have genuinely offended or confused you I apologise.

Graham Veale

William

With luck you will have read my apology before you see this reply.
As I made clear, I was trying to provoke a response. But on rereading my initial post, I did cross the line between critcizing a persons views and the person themself. Hopefully you can forgive the sinner if not the sin.

Which is, after all a catchphrase, and will not stand up to the penetrating insights of Analytic Philosophy. I don't know of anyone, anywhere who would claim that it is a phrase that would withstand academic scrutiny. This is where I felt you were being unfair. (Especially when your views float up from the deep end of theology and logic, and tell me that I need to become aquainted with the views of the scientific community.)

I know what people who use the phrase mean - that there is a difference between who we are, and who we were meant to be, or that there is more to a person's nature than it's flaws. Of course a rigorous sin/sinner distiction cannot be held to in Christian Theology, but the catchphrase is used to promote an attitude, rather than sum up a set of beliefs.

Your argument did seem to presuppose we have no control over our sexuality. (In any case I was hardly judging you).If you are not arguing that sexuality is fixed and immutable, what exactly is your point? Once mutability enters the equation, so does responsibility - we have some control over our social environment. In any case we can also decide how to identify ourselves - by what we feel, or what we believe. Simon LeVay has cautioned against using biology and psychology as a means of dodging personal responsibility for our orientations (heterosexual or otherwise).

In my defence "Gender" and "Sex" are used interchangeably in scientific literature, and not everyone is willing to see the social constructivist view of gender as obviously true, or even helpful. Across academic disciplines there is confusion and debate on this issue, so you can understand how your original post led me astray.

One area where we agree is that "loving the sinner and hating the sin" does not promote tolerance if used in public discourse. I feel this is because our understanding of "sin" and "sinner" has diminished. And I think we can agree that "nauseating" and "disgusing" are terms best left out of the debate.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Oh, and thanks for challenging my opinions. I haven't enjoyed myself this much in years.

Graham Veale

Graham says:

"I don't know of anyone, anywhere who would claim that ['love the sinner hate the sin'] is a phrase that would withstand academic scrutiny. This is where I felt you were being unfair."

But it's patently obvious what the phrase means, Graham, something which you acknowledge yourself in the next paragraph. And what it means is certainly capable of being scrutinised in the way William did above; again, I can't understand your objections. If you wish to be a good polemicist, you may want to avoid this kind of quibbling which is hugely difficult to defend.


"(Especially when your views float up from the deep end of theology and logic, and tell me that I need to become aquainted with the views of the scientific community.)"

Findings in science inform good theology and are processed by good logic. I don't understand the separation you want to make here. Or are you suggesting that a conversation on homosexuality should take place without reference to what we know about it (which comes through science)?

Graham, I am happy to accept your apology, even though you seem to have retracted half of it in a subsequent posting.

In any case, you write that "I don't know of anyone, anywhere who would claim that it is a phrase that would withstand academic scrutiny." The phrase you are addressing is "love the sinner, hate the sin." If by "academic scrutiny" you mean the internal logic of the expression when used under the circumstances I have identified, then I agree with you. But I have to tell you that others nevertheless maintain that the expression can stand up to scrutiny.

I repeat that I have *not* argued that sexuality is "fixed and immutable" (incidentally, these two terms are, I think, synonymous); I merely not (and this is a fact) that most medical and psychiatric bodies now accept that sexuality is a naturally occurring aspect of a person's identity. Is it possible that someone with predominantly homosexual arousal patterns can later manifest predominantly heterosexual arousal patterns; and it is possible that someone with predominantly heterosexual arousal patterns can later manifest predominantly homosexual arousal patterns. Not very much, morally or theologically, follows from either of these outcomes. It doesn't follow, for example, that a person is able to "choose" one outcome successfully (or the other). In other words, there are many factors which influence the unfolding of a person's psychosexual identity -- choice is not the only factor, nor is it clear that it is even a causally efficient factor. What is agreed by every therapist and scientist -- including reparative therapists -- is that the sexual orientation of the vast majority of people (vis-a-vis the predominance of their sexual arousal patterns) remains consistent across their lifetime.

You say, "if mutability enters the equation, so does responsibility." This does not follow, for the reasons I have just explained. Mutabilty does not necessarily imply choice (if could be produced by other non-chosen factors across changing environments), and choice is necessarily before the concept of responsibility can be invoked.

Oh, and thanks Graham for the conversation. That last post, via a phone, has a few typos, for which I apologise; but hopefully its meaning can be decrypted. All the best.

Hi Graham:

You say to Brian:

"By the way, if it doesn't take the thread too far off the topic, the "judgments" in Leviticus are certainly worth discussing. I can certainly understand how you could be amazed at how I consider a book with these commands authoritative!"

I agree that Brian may well be amazed, and, if he responds, I wish you well!


Brian:

More questions about the bible I see. Does your thirst for biblical knowledge know no end? Your ability to quote from *bits* of it is impressive! Your interpretation however is, again, what shall I say...? curious. In ref to Leviticus 15:19 for example, in the county where I live, men and women communicate with one another!


Marcus

Having a spot of bother with spontaneous random typing? I feel I ought to say that the Kingdom of Heaven has already arrived.

"BTW if you think I am arguing the science "badly" then lets see you make your point with science...."

I agree 100% with JW on this on this one. Don't forget we have the evidence to back this up.

Graham:

In #20 you say that the word 'abomination' was being examined "outside its theological context". You also admit that Iris Robinson didn't understand the theology behind the term. But these faults were hers, not Stephen Nolan's. You are obscuring the issue. It was she, not Nolan, who called homosexual acts an 'abomination' and therefore the onus was entirely on her to explain what she meant.

If she didn't understand 'the theological context', then she was talking nonsense, according to your logic. You mean to say that this Christian was quoting scripture but didn't know what she was talking about? Is this a common failing among Christians?

Incidentally, 'the theological context' is not an objective truth. There is sex in the Bible which God sanctions that has nothing whatsoever to do with your interpretation of the purpose of sex.

Moses encourages his men to rape captured virgins. "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27).

Graham Veale

How refreshing it is to see a poster who can aplogise or maybe recognise they got the wrong end of the stick, then flying off the handle. If only certain posters were like you-but I could not Possibly Betray the name, that would of course be Patent Balderdash.

Regards

DD

William
I'd like to give your comments some thought (a few hours anyway), but can I clarify I wasn't retracting any of my apology. I was trying to explain how I mistook the tone in your post. But the error is all mine. And my jibes are all half in jest - (can I make that clear to any Iris Robinson fans logging in)

Graham Veale.

John
I've no ambition to become an effective polemicist. I'm just posting a few comments.

Brian
Christians quoting scripture without thought is a common failing - I'm as guilty as anyone else. This has nothing to do with level of education - a little care and time would rid us all of the fault. I'm afraid the best argument against Christianity remains Christians.

I will post on your other comments, but you discuss matters in such a civilised way I find it difficult to believe your defending Steven Nolan's interviewing technique.

All the best
Graham Veale

Graham, you said you wanted to provoke a reaction. That's being a polemicist. Nothing wrong with that.

Welcome to W and T, by the way.

Graham:

I don't think Stephen Nolan went far enough in probing her attitude. Iris Robinson referred to scripture in order to denigrate homosexuality but refused to explain what the reference actually meant. He quoted the dictionary and she agreed with the definitions. But these are mere words.

Sometimes I think we atheists know more about Scripture that some Christians. The word 'abomination' is problematic as used in the Bible.

I do know that it also describes eating shellfish and all fowls that creep as abominations in the same Book. Does this imply that, really, an 'abomination' is no big deal? Is it just a matter of taste? The author (s) of Leviticus doesn't like eating shellfish or birds and he doesn't like gay sex either.

Well, no, seemingly not. There is no punishment specified for the eating of shellfish, but there is for homosexuality, i.e. death
(Leviticus 20:13).

Clearly, this is a special kind of abomination, far, far worse than the abomination of eating shellfish. Nolan should have asked her:

(1) Why does the word 'abomination' cover both something that occasions no punishment at all and one that results in death?

(2) Does she believe both parts of Leviticus 2O:13 - the abomination and the death penalty for it. Or has the abomination of gay sex now, 2,000 years later, been relegated in importance to that of eating shellfish? Do Biblical Christians nowadays believe that there should be any punishment for gay sex?

John
Fair point - but I don't aspire to be good at polemics.

Thankyou for the welcome, and the comments. "Love the sinner and hate the sin" won't stand up to rigorous analysis, any more than "a stitch in time saves nine", "too many cooks spoil the broth", or "turn the other cheek". Judge these statements by how useful they are, not their internal coherence.
However I do think that it is appropriate to ask if "love the sinner, hate the sin" was a useful turn of phrase for Iris Robinson to use. I suspect that many evangelicals knew what she meant - but that outsiders would feel somewhat patronised.

Of course, it is entirely possible that Iris Robinson used the phrase to appeal to a particular constituency, knowing that it would alienate another. In which case she was being very shrewd indeed.

Graham Veale

Brian

Are you arguing that the Old Testament passages are so patently absurd that they have no literary or moral merit? Or that the Ancients were foolish and child like in their worldviews, and we can dismiss their insights?
When studying Islam or Buddhism I always find it helpful to be as generous as I can when interpreting their teachings - I'll always assume the writer is more intelligent than I am (which, in my case, is a very safe assumption). That way I gain something from another's perspective. I also feel that any objections I have left will be better grounded.
So do you find anything good or helpful in these Ancient Texts?

Graham Veale

Brian
In any case, in my understanding in the Ancient Near East the sentences described in law codes were not mandatory. A wise judge was better than a wise law, and the legal codes simply outlined how far the judge could(not should) go.
The consequence of eating unclean food was ceremonial uncleanness. And the Scriptures make it clear that the Law was meant to be a burden (this would be the New Testament view. And I am only committed to defending the whole canon of scripture, not selected parts). In other words, we should be expected to find some parts of the law to be unnecessarily burdensome.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Oh, and I'm not trying to take the bad look of Iris Robinson by criticising Steven Nolan.

Graham:

Stop trying to avoid the issue. What do you mean by referring to a 'theological context' in relation to the 'abomination' of homosexuality? Do you think Leviticus is right in describing it thus and should there be a punishment?

Why is it that so many Christians seem unable to give direct answers to direct questions?

You waffle on about the literary and moral merit of the Old Testament. What relevance has this to the issue at hand? Do you mean that 'abomination' is a colourful term?

And what is the moral merit of punishing homosexuality by death?

I shan't hold my breath to get some, dare I say it, straight answers.

William
There doesn’t seem to be a great distance separating our viewpoints – we may be having a violent agreement!
I came across the term “fixed and immutable” some years ago in the American media. I’ve always assumed it meant “fixed (from birth or early childhood) and (for the rest of one’s life) immutable”.
We should keep in mind that many researchers don’t like the concept of indeterministic free-will at all, and automatically conclude that if something is not biologically determined, it must be socially determined (or something similar). This must colour their view of human responsibility.
But I accept that very few people directly choose their sexual orientation. I’ve just finished reading Daniel Nettle’s “Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are” and “Happiness: the Science Behind Your Smile”. Nettle would argue (roughly) that we do not choose our characteristics (eg. how Neurotic or Extravert we are), and certain boundaries are set by our genetic makeup and early environment. Furthermore, the evidence is that on average, personality does not often change over a person’s lifetime. But, he further argues that this does not mean that they cannot change, and that in fact, we can make some changes to our personality.
I think that this leaves us saying that our personalities are decided by nature, nurture AND the choices that we make. This gives us a level of responsibility. A person who is not Conscientious enough, or is too Agreeable can make some effort to change. They can make choices about their company, ambitions and routine. This gives us some indirect control over our personality.
Now, I’m not for one second suggesting that Sexual Orientation is a dimension of our personality, in the same sense as, say, Conscientiousness. But I think a similar model of responsibility applies. We have some choice over our environment, which plays a role in our “arousal patterns”. We can choose to experiment, or not to experiment, or what company we prefer, or our life-goals. Very few of us set out to attain a particular arousal pattern, but many of the choices we make may have some overall bearing on our orientation.
If Simon Levay and Peter Tatchell are both worried that we are taking the element of human responsibility out of human sexuality, (and LeVay, as you know, has laboured very hard to establish a biological connection) then I don’t feel it is unscientific or homophobic to invoke the concept of responsibility.
I hope that makes my position a little clearer. I imagine that you would be less inclined to invoke responsibility. I can’t see a clear way of resolving the issue one way or the other. But I think it is very important to avoid the two extremes, one suggesting that orientation is a matter of genetics, and the other seeing it as a simple direct choice. And following the debate this week has led me to believe that some in the media would like to see those as the only options. Thank you for highlighting the complexity of the debate.

Graham Veale
Armagh

For reasons that escape me my apostrophes have turned into question marks - apologies, and a warning to other posters

Graham Veale

Graham, thanks for this comment. You view seems to have moderated slightly, and I agree with much of what you have written here. I remain unconvinced about your use of the moral term "responsibility". If you are saying that gay people, like heterosexuals, are responsible for their decision to visit certain bars or look at certain images, that is clearly the case. If you are saying that gay people are responsible for feeling sexually aroused by same-sex imagery, I can't see how that would be the case (and more than heterosexual people can be said to be "responsible" for the imagery they find sexually stimulating). Best, I think, if we avoid responsibility language in respect of sexual orientation.

Brian
Yes, I waffle quite a bit - by this stage Nikki (my wife) would have thrown a salt cellar at me.
Some short stright answers
1) "Abomination" was replaced with "detestable" by the NIV, and with good reason - it can simply mean "offensive". For example in Gen 43v42, and Gen 46 v 34, both of which are talking about what Egyptians (not Israelites) find offensive.
2) In the Levitical code it would not imply that God finds an activity nauseating. God was just stipulating that certain activities were to be taboo for religious reasons.
3) Why did the King James Version use "abomination"? I don't know enough about the history of the English language. It certainly is not the best word for translating the Hebrew into contemporary English.
4) The death penalty was available for many minor offences, like trespassing, but only mandatory for murder. There was no criminal justice or penal system available to those living in the Ancient Near East. So, no, I wouldn't want to base modern criminal law on a Religious Law that was meant to be burdensome, and was designed to cope with a relatively anarchic and feral social environment
5) Which is to say, no, homosexuality should be not be criminalised any more than astrology.
6) I value human freedom of conscience, and the right to privacy. Unless freely accepted, the Gospel I am committed to benefits no one. And the New Testament clearly forbids me from using force to impose my religious convictions on others.
7) Post 21 explains how evangelicals typically use the term "abomination" - as a shorthand for all sin. No one sin should be singled out. I don't hear the word used much anymore. (Until this week). But if you were to have asked me "what would an evangelical mean by the word abomination?" I would have simply answered "sin". That's how I've heard it used in sermons.
8) Why Iris Robinson did not stop Steven Nolan and state that every sin is an "abomination" is beyond me.
9) After all that the short snappy answer is "abomination=anything that offends God". I put include jealousy, selfishness, gossip and thinking the worst about others at the top of the list.

Graham Veale
Armagh

William
Thanks for the replies. I haven't moderated my position, just clarified it.
I should make it clear that only God knows how responsible we are for our feelings, and that many people end up with same-sex attractions without wanting or pursuing them. And I wouldn't necessarily hold that they are any more unnatural than many of my heterosexual desires, (if we use the term "natural" in the way I outlined in post 21.)
I don't have access to the computer over the weekend-others can now get a word in edgeways - but this was a very nice introduction to W+T. I'm sorry I charged in all guns blazing, but that Nolan show put me in such a bad mood...

Graham Veale
Armagh

Hi Graham

I hadn't noticed that you were waffling. What you said seemed pretty clear to me. Now I understand that we may have a certain degree of common 'religious' language to share that others may not be familiar with, but your point about being "committed to defending the whole canon of scripture, not selected parts" is very important.

I have stated previously on this blog that I am more than willing to engage as openly as possible with questions about christianity and belief, but that that engagement must be on the basis of understanding the 'big picture' of biblical christianity. Trying to read one part without the context of the whole leads to misunderstanding.

I entirely agree with your wish to explain/defend all of the bible and all of the story, to do it any other way makes no sense.

To those who complain that this is an attempt to avoid answering questions I simply say that no one tries to understand the culture of a nation by referring to one point of law or one example of their tradition. This would only lead to the misunderstanding of a people and a nation. The same is true of biblical christianity.

Graham writes:

"7) Post 21 explains how evangelicals typically use the term "abomination" - as a shorthand for all sin. No one sin should be singled out. I don't hear the word used much anymore. (Until this week). But if you were to have asked me "what would an evangelical mean by the word abomination?" I would have simply answered "sin". That's how I've heard it used in sermons.
8) Why Iris Robinson did not stop Steven Nolan and state that every sin is an "abomination" is beyond me.
9) After all that the short snappy answer is "abomination=anything that offends God". I put include jealousy, selfishness, gossip and thinking the worst about others at the top of the list.

I am not convinced that the the Hebrew word "toevah" ("abomination", KJV) is just another way of saying "sin". The term toevah has a specific, limited meaning in Hebrew writings and particularly in the book of Leviticus. In fact, the term (as Hebrew scholars accept) is not a moral term at all, it is a cultic ritual term. The term toevah really means "ritually unclean" -- in other words, if an action is called toevah, it means you cannot come to worship in ancient Israel after committing that act until you have been ritually purified. Thus, according to the Bible, eating pork or prawns is "toevah"; and having sex with a menstruating woman is toevah; and men laying with men as with women is toevah.

I think complaining about homosexuality is toevah.

William
Yes, I thought about adding a point that clarified that the way in which evangelicals use "abomination" does not cohere exactly with the way that Leviticus uses the term "toevah". I think the meaning isn't always limited to "ritually unclean" - after all it can be used to describe financial corruption, or making sacrifices in the wrong spirit - but yes, I was trying to make the same point in laymans terms as you are when I wrote point 2.

I then thought about adding a point about the use of King James language in Evangelicalism, and another point asking whether "abomination" is a helpful term to describe sin. In my experience, that is what Evangelicals mean by the term.
I was then going to add another point about Mark 13 v 14...but I think Brian wanted a much shorter answer.

In any case, to clarify, what Leviticus means by "toevah" and what Evangelicals mean by "abomination" are not the same thing. "Abomination" (and words like "vile") just seemed to pop up as a way of describing sin in a lot of our sermons. I don't ever recall it being used of homosexuality. I can only recall hearing one sermon on homosexuality. That was very recently.


Graham Veale

Hi Graham:
Thanks for your reply (#45). I hope that in revenge you don't turn your wife into a pillar of salt.

Your view on homosexuality do seem far removed from the Bible, though. You think gay sex is on a par with astrology; the Bible thinks it is 'vile', 'unclean' etc. You think it should not be criminalised; the Bible thinks 'they shall surely be put to death' (Leviticus 20:13).

Surely, there is a big gap here? Or am I missing something? (Graham, Peter?)

Are civil partnerships for gays ok, even if not you cup of tea?

Brian
You did read the part about the Old Testament being written in Hebrew? And about how all sin could be called "vile"?
I'm not putting Homosexuality on a par with Astrology - I don't have a league table of sins, and neither does Scripture. I'm simply pointing out that anyone who takes the New Testament seriously cannot use Leviticus (in isolation from the rest of the Bible) to inform modern laws. In fact it's my commitment to Scripture that prevents me from doing so.
Civil partnerships? My problem is that they were restricted to sexual relationships, and to partnerships. So siblings, adult children living with parents, friends who choose to share a house should also have the same legal rights as those in Civil Partnerships. Of course, this would cost the government a great deal in terms of taxation.
I also have a concern that society will tolerate Gay relationships only insofar as they conform to typical heterosexual patterns. The underlying assumption is that homosexuals are okay, so long as they just want to be like everyone else.
So I would argue that they are certainly unfair, and possibly unwise. My bottom line, though, is to mind my own business.

Freedom of conscience, the right to privacy and civility in public conduct. That would be my mantra for a pluralist society. We have the first two


Graham Veale
Armagh

William

Come on - the APA dropped diagnosis of wanted homosexuality as a mental health problem in 1973/4 because of political campaign - not new research.

In fact, all the professional research up until then was completely against the new position. It was simply a political campaign and a change of policy by a trade guild - no new evidence had been determined to justify the change in position.

There were mountains of research before that which showed highe success rates in helping people with unwanted homosexuality to change.


For example, world renowned sex therapists Masters and Johnston reported permenant success rates of 72 per cent in helping clients who wished to lose same sex attraction, even up until the mid 1980s.

There are mountains of similar successful studies in professional journals prior to 1973/74.


So come on William, open up a bit you are an expert in this field and are well aware of all this stuff.


PB

Just a word about the 1979 Masters and Johnson research that has been offered here as evidence that conversion therapy works.

One commenter says the study claimed an impressive conversion rate of 72 per cent.

In fact, William Masters and Virginia Johnson claimed 50 to 60 per cent, which is still impressive, which they said was sustained for 5 years after 'treatment'.

It's been 37 years since that research, and lots of other studies have looked at the Masters and Johnson methodology and findings since them.

We now know that their figures were based on a sample of only 67 people, and only five of those participants began the study with homosexual orientation (that's just 7 per cent of the participants).

It also appears from longer studies of the five in this study that none of these five 'converted to heterosexuality.'

To be fair to Masters and Johnson, their 1979 research was not dealing with reparative therapy (as it is now known), so it is inappropriate to use their findings in that context.

William

in what circumstances, if any do you think homosexuality might be sinful?

in what circumstances, if any do you think homosexuality might be holy?

PB

Original PB

I think that is unfair.
1) William has to conduct a radio programme where he has to maintain some semblance of neutrality.
2) I'm coming from a conservative enagelical position. Williams' reading of the scientific evidence could be lifted from a text-book on Evangelical Ethics. (During our discussion, I was actually amazed at the consensus on the scientific evidence). So, I cannot see how he can be accused of presenting the scientific evidence in a biased manner. Once his position is explained, I can't see a problem.
3) The disagreement is over the moral implications of the scientific evidence. I wish I had been as gentlemanly in my discussion of the morality as William was.

Graham Veale
Armagh

Thanks Graham

I am not exactly sure what you think is unfair here.

Do you mean because of the questions in post 55?

Do you mean it is unfair to ask his personal opinion?

I can see your point but on the other hand William continually gives theological analysis on this subject so why can he not analyse this question?


Why only a "semblence" of neutrality as you put it?



I can tell you I have checked with several sources and Masters and Johnston did indeed have a 72 per cent success rate (Enc Brit and wikipedia with wikipedia sources quoted) and their work and its result endure as far as I can see, but I am willing to be corrected if sources are given.



If I may rephrase the question for William, do you think that biblically speaking homosexuality is not sinful in any particular context?


Graham I think I have followed this blog perhaps longer than you and the pattern I notice is homosexuality is raised very frequently and without fail it is always to challenge the conservative position to change or justify itself.

And I am not sure what you mean when you suggest there is consenus on the evidence? Among professional bodies I would agree but not amongst all professionals and not among all the published research.

sincerely

PB

Will

ref post 27

I think this is a clear illustration of the bias on this blog.

Will says that just because people are known to change sexuality it does not follow that they can "choose" to do so.

I have to say it would be equally true to say that it does not logically follow that they are not able to choose to change sexuality.

Why only argue from the one side of this argument Will?

I'm still challenging you to cite the source for your interesting refutation of Masters and Johnston programme with 72 per cent success rate.

many thanks - and thanks for a very interesting thread.

PB

PB

PB
I have noticed homosexuality being discussed a lot on this blog, and I'm only a recent arrival. I understand it is of concern to Anglicans at the moment, but there are other issues.
I have hinted that a story on tje DUP's attitude to Environmental Policy is being overlooked.

Graham Veale

William

Did you ever manage to find the source to substantiate your claim in post 54?

It seems you are in error here but if I am I would like to know and own up to it.

I double checked my figures and they seem sound.

It appears to me that your source is biased against the Johnston and Masters research, which appears to have been typical of many programmes at that time. Perhaps you were reading a pro-gay revisionist summary?

It has been referred to as "a golden age" of so called homophobia in the mental health professions, as so many papers were published in professional journals showing that people changed their sexuality. Surely they can#t call be wrong???

It appears to me that our liberal climate encourages us to jump to the conclusions that such people were never really gay, without giving a hearing at all to the idea that they may have actively changed.

In fact if we know sexuality changes and we know many people would like to change their sexuality (as we do) it would seem unethical (and in fact it is unethical for psychiatrists) to refuse sexuality change treatment to such patients.

Would it not be more ethical to professionally explore how those who change do change and what lessions can be learned for those who want to change?

This need not presuppose that all gays should change sexuality of course.

But the liberal agenda dictates that no such research or debate should even be considered, perhaps in case this invites a moral exhortation that ALL gays should change.

However this position imposes a fascistic information blackout on gays who DO wish to change ( a recognised condition that may be ethically treated by psychaitrists).

So those gays who do not wish to change conspire with the liberal media to hinder gays who do wish to change from hearing an open and balanced debate on the matter.

That is actually discrimination against a section of the gay community purely on the grounds of their sexuality and associated aims.

I must of course put this all in context by pointing out that it is not fair to single homosexuality out as a sin.

All sexual activity outside marrige is sin, by the NT, which means a great many folk in the church are sinning too.

Sex before marriage and mental adultery rarely get a mention from pulpits anymore but people involved in these need God's grace to change and be restored as much as anyone else does.

Not really fair to single out one group for special condemnation as such, I dont think that is how God sees it at all.

in reply to who ever wanted to see peer-reviewed reports which conclude how homosexuality is "naturally" created ±«Óătv NEWS
Scans see 'gay brain differences'

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.

As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay
Dr Qazi Rahman
Queen Mary, University of London

Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.

This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.

A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.

When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.

In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.

A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.

In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.

The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.

The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.

'Fight, flight or mate'

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.

The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.

"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.

"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."
Story from ±«Óătv NEWS:
and to add to that one
±«Óătv NEWS
Non-sex genes 'link to gay trait'
Multiple genes - and not just the sex chromosomes - are important in sexual orientation, say US scientists.

A University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, say there is no one 'gay' gene.

Writing in the journal Human Genetics, they said environmental factors are also likely to be involved.

The findings add to the debate over whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice. Campaigners say equality is the more important issue.

Non-sex genes

Much of the past genetic research into male homosexuality had focused solely on the X chromosome, passed down to boys by their mother, according to lead researcher Dr Brian Mustanski.

His team looked at all 22 pairs of non-sex chromosomes of 456 individuals from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

There is no one 'gay' gene.
Lead researcher Dr Brian Mustanski

They found several identical stretches of DNA that were shared among gay siblings on chromosomes other than the female X.

About 60% of these brothers shared identical DNA on three chromosomes - chromosome 7, 8 and 10.

Complex trait

If it were down to chance, only 50% of these stretches would be shared, said the authors.

The region found on chromosome 10 correlated with sexual orientation only when it was inherited from the mother.

The most important thing is that lesbian and gay men are treated equally.
Alan Wardle of Stonewall

Dr Mustanski said the next step would be to see if the findings could be confirmed by further studies, and to identify the particular genes within the newly discovered sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," he said, but added that other factors were also important.

"Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one 'gay' gene.

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "It's an interesting study that contributes further to the debate.

"Regardless of whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both, the most important thing is that lesbians and gay men are treated equally and are allowed to live their life without discrimination."

Story from ±«Óătv NEWS:
and one more
Womb environment 'makes men gay'
A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely due to biological rather than social factors.

The research is published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Professor Anthony Bogaert from Brock University in Ontario, Canada, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men with either "biological" brothers, in this case those who share the same mother, or "non-biological" brothers, that is, adopted, step or half siblings.

These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men
Professor Anthony Bogaert

He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.

'Maternal memory'

Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

"But the question of mechanism remains."

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, commenting on this and other studies, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."
Story from ±«Óătv NEWS:
ill be more than happy to give you this links if you so wish