Wednesday, July 4, 2012


I am moving a discussion about the causes of homosexuality from Anglican Down Under to here.



    Shawn said,

    'There is no proof that homosexual compulsions are an orientation. In fact using the term "orientation" is again, ideology, not science.'

    Shawn, I have no interest in ideology. I'm a pastor and a father, trying to make sense of the experiences of real human beings who tell me what they've been through. I've no personal axe to grind; my own instinctive theological disposition is rather traditional evangelical Anglican, but I find that people are rather more complicated than the nice tidy 'liberal/conservative' dichotomy that seems to shape your entire worldview.
    This, I promise, is my final attempt to refute the obvious mistaken-ness of Shawn's postings on homosexuality on this thread.

    Shawn says - in response to Tim's statement, backed by personal experience and not social theory:

    "There is no proof that homosexual compulsions are an orientation. In fact using the term "orientation" is again, ideology, not science."

    My final response,to this assertion, is this:

    Is there any proof that the hetero-sexual activity involved in the process of 'wife-swapping' is more a matter of compulsion than innate orientation?

    (Shawn's theory on this please? then my dialogue with him is done)
    FROM RON SMITH – lightly moderated re ad hominems
    On the evidence of Shawn's bull-dozing ... stance repeatedly pushed by him on this site. I hereby promise that I will from this moment onwards, cease to take him seriously in anything he says, and will not comment on his [] comments about the intrinsic nature of homosexuality.

    He has made his mind up and that's his position for ever and ever. Not even a visit from the Archangel Gabriel would change Shawn's mind.

    I just thank God for you, Tim. You speak from personal experience of what it means to be related to an intrinsically 'Gay' person. Thank you for your generosity in sharing.

  2. Tim,

    Please understand that my comment about ideology was a general one about the issue, and not aimed at you personally, though I can see, given the way it was framed as a response to a statement from you, how it could have been taken that way.

    I respect, that in your case, you are simply trying to sort things out on a personal level, and that for you this is not about ideology. Nevertheless, terminology such as "orientation" IS ideological, not science. I have known enough gay people, many as close and personal friends, to know that the claim "they are born that way" is far too simplistic to be taken as settled truth.


    I think your the last person posting here who should be talking about bulldozing.

    "He has made his mind"

    And so have you. So?

    "Not even a visit from the Archangel Gabriel would change Shawn's mind."

    Would it change yours?

  3. Just a final point on this issue from me.

    The issue of whether or not people are born "gay" is not relevent to the issue of what the Church should teach. Even if it could be conclusively proven that some people are born with homosexual attractions, for me this makes no difference, because the issue is what does the Word of God teach.

    In a way, Ron's comment about the Archangel Gabriel coming down and revealing God's opinion is ironic, because the orthodox view is that this HAS in fact happenned, in a sense. God HAS come to us, condescended to us, and given His opinion. That is what the text of Scripture is.

    Not everything that occurs in nature is good. This is why a Biblical worldview is so important. In that view, creation, while originally good, is fallen and corrupt. Thus merely because something occurs in nature does not make it good and right.

    Earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts and cancer occur "naturally".

    And there is some evidence that both pedophilia and the psychopathologies that go into making serial killers may be partially genetic.

    Thus, merely because something occurs in nature does not tell us anything about whether or not it is good and right. We need a higher authority for that, a higher authority by which we can make moral/value judgements.

    For Christians that higher authority is Scripture.