Questions

[Spoticus]

Hey everybody, as I’m a celibate homosexual and was wondering if someone could clarify some issues for me.

As a prelude I would like to state that I am in no way here to debate or criticize. I am here to here hear your views about homosexuality.

I have read some literature written by Dr. White. I’ve seen the videos that were recently put online. The position of Soulforce (insofar as I understand it) is that homosexuality is: not a choice and a natural human feeling, and homosexual relationships are valid alternatives to heterosexual relationships.

I fully agree with the first two, and am currently seeking the truth for the third.

The feeling I get from your literature is that it is the belief of SoulForce that homosexual relationships are amoral because homosexual feelings are natural and are not chosen.

My question is: How do you make the jump between homosexual feelings being natural and homosexual relationships being amoral? Many human emotions are natural, and at the same time are lead to immoral behavior. It is natural for humans to fear/hate that which they don’t understand, and I (as a homosexual growing up in a very conservative environment) have been victimized by such “normal” human reactions to the issue of homosexuality. There are many emotions that are very natural, yet acting upon them is wrong. Greed is one of them, hate, jealousy, anger; all of these natural human feelings can lead to sin if acted upon.

So, again, How does homosexuality being natural automatically imply that acting on those feelings is alright?

Again, I am not looking for debate in any way shape or form; just some clear answers.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Spoticus

My question is: How do you make the jump between homosexual feelings being natural and homosexual relationships being amoral? Many human emotions are natural, and at the same time are lead to immoral behavior. It is natural for humans to fear/hate that which they don’t understand, and I (as a homosexual growing up in a very conservative environment) have been victimized by such “normal” human reactions to the issue of homosexuality. There are many emotions that are very natural, yet acting upon them is wrong. Greed is one of them, hate, jealousy, anger; all of these natural human feelings can lead to sin if acted upon.

So, again, How does homosexuality being natural automatically imply that acting on those feelings is alright?

Hi Spoticus,

You being up a matter which I thought about when I was coming out and dealing with my fundamentalist environment.

One word you used caught me eye. Here's how one source- Answers'.com defined the word: a·mor·al (?-môr'?l, ?-m?r'-) adj. 1) Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral. 2) Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Do you mean to use the word in its first meaning? Is so, the answer to you question is in the definition itself: 'amoral' is not the opposite of 'immoral' (im·mor·al (?-môr'?l, -m?r'-) adj. Contrary to established moral principles.)

What we're talking about here is something that goes much deeper than the emotions, which are mutable. Being gay is just that, a state of being and carries with it no more meaning that hetersexualty does. This is hard for heterosexuals to understand, because, human beings, being what they are, tend to be very self-referential and think and want everything to be just like they are. And there are more straight people than gay people in the world. To be reductionistic about it: straight people often get hung up in matter of conformity and forget- and don't understand- the nature (to uuse a pun) of diversity. And contrary to popular opinion and misinformation, gay people- especially those of faith-care a great deal about moral matters.

A close observation of nature tells us that there is much diversity- homosxuality is one characteristic of that diversity. But diversity, I hasten to point out, is not the same thing as perversity. That's the trap many find themselves in. To be different is not to be bad. Plain and simple.

Being gay causes no one harm like getting angry and killing someone. They are not of the same order at all. And it is the order of things that is the issue as well: Often these matters get turned around in the stangest ways. For instance- those who dreamt up the Defense of Marriage Act- to point out one such act of misperception- are defending nothing. It is illogical on it's face: gay people aren't stopping anyone from getting married. Being gay doesn't cause anyone to go out and get divorced.

I don't know that this answers your question in any depth, but there are others much more skilled in these matters than I. You are sure to get many a cogent reply.

Daniel

[Emproph]

A functional productive relationship of consent, 1st -contains no malice, and 2nd -generates Love.

Like Daniel said, homosexuality is no more an emotion than heterosexuality is. I think many people who equate homosexuality to an emotion or a perversion do so through, kind of like what you said, -the eyes of what they don’t understand.

Pride and fear of death have a lot to do with the idea of Biblical inerrancy. I think the reason the homosexual thing bothers them so is that there is so much empirical evidence that says otherwise (born that way, immutable etc.), in addition to the millions of eye witness testimony of people like us. That’s why they have to paint us in every negative categorical light possible. Granted, if same sex attraction caused evil, it would be a legitimate concern. But even if same sex attraction was caused by evil, same sex attraction itself does not cause evil. It’s an important distinction.

Essentially it creeps them out that they don’t know what to do with us, if they’re wrong about us they might be wrong about salvation, and therefore might not be “safe,” from hell, or worse, eternal extinction.

The negative emotions you listed are not natural in the spirit of Love. So the question is, what is your motive, to harm or to Love? If God is Love, then a relationship based on sharing Love, is of God. Not of anger, jealousy, greed etc.

Not to minimize the very real perception of confusion and evil, but whose in charge of the universe? The idea of eternal hell or eternal extinction, or the reality of a God of Love who only allows for all ideas?

As long as gay marriage is illegal, they can say homosexuals are promiscuous. As long as we’re denied True Love in our lives, they can say homosexuality causes alcoholism and suicide. Point being, in order to protect their own salvation, they need for homosexuality to be a sin.

This is about your understanding of your relationship with God, and NOT their misunderstanding of your relationship with God. Do you understand?

[keltic63]

Spoticus,
in return, perhaps you could help us understand how one arrives at the conclusion that being homosexual is fine, but having homosexual sex is not, thus gay people should remain celibate.

When Jesus spoke about lust in Matthew 5:28, he said that looking lustfully at someone was the same as committing the act. In that sense, it doesn't really matter if a gay person remains celibate because their thought life, or what's in their heart, is just as bad as committing the physical act.
Does God create entire classes of people that are restricted from enjoying the full experience of being human, including sexuality? Is God sitting up there saying "I know! I'll make a whole group of people with sexual attractions to members of the same sex, THEN I'll tell them they aren't allowed to have sex." ????

If we say that a homosexual orientation is naturally occurring and thus not better or worse than being heterosexual, how can we say that acting on one's homosexuality in a physical way is wrong when we do not say the same thing about heterosexual sex?

[Zerbie]

What's important is not what feelings we have but what we do with them. In other words, if you are going to act on a powerful emotion such as anger or such as raw sexual attraction, then what matters is HOW you express those things, and what you do in the world with those expressions.

Anger is neither wrong nor right. It just happens. It gives us information about how we are perceiving the world and how we've been treated. When angry we can either take it out on some innocent bystander, or buy a gun and gun down the person we hold responsible, or we can take steps to eliminate the problem by peacefully confronting that person. or if it is part of a larger social pattern, by engaging in a community or political group that seeks to reform the problem. So anger is a motivator, but what we choose to do with it can vary greatly person to person or moment to moment.

Likewise sexual feelings and attractions - the feelings themselves simply occur. What matters is what we do with them. Do we pursue relationships that end up mutually destructive, do we over-engage in so many sexual relationships that we close ourselves off to the wider possibilities of relationships? Do we fear our feelings so much that we never express them and thus withhold our love from the world and deny ourselves the possibility of being loved in return? or do we cultivate one relationship deeply, lovingly, giving all our attention to our partner and receiving all of their devotion in return?

[NathanATX]

Originally Posted by Emproph

A functional productive relationship of consent, 1st -contains no malice, and 2nd -generates Love.

Like Daniel said, homosexuality is no more an emotion than heterosexuality is. I think many people who equate homosexuality to an emotion or a perversion do so through, kind of like what you said, -the eyes of what they don’t understand.

Pride and fear of death have a lot to do with the idea of Biblical inerrancy. I think the reason the homosexual thing bothers them so is that there is so much empirical evidence that says otherwise (born that way, immutable etc.), in addition to the millions of eye witness testimony of people like us. That’s why they have to paint us in every negative categorical light possible. Granted, if same sex attraction caused evil, it would be a legitimate concern. But even if same sex attraction was caused by evil, same sex attraction itself does not cause evil. It’s an important distinction.

Essentially it creeps them out that they don’t know what to do with us, if they’re wrong about us they might be wrong about salvation, and therefore might not be “safe,” from hell, or worse, eternal extinction.

The negative emotions you listed are not natural in the spirit of Love. So the question is, what is your motive, to harm or to Love? If God is Love, then a relationship based on sharing Love, is of God. Not of anger, jealousy, greed etc.

Not to minimize the very real perception of confusion and evil, but whose in charge of the universe? The idea of eternal hell or eternal extinction, or the reality of a God of Love who only allows for all ideas?

As long as gay marriage is illegal, they can say homosexuals are promiscuous. As long as we’re denied True Love in our lives, they can say homosexuality causes alcoholism and suicide. Point being, in order to protect their own salvation, they need for homosexuality to be a sin.

This is about your understanding of your relationship with God, and NOT their misunderstanding of your relationship with God. Do you understand?

AWESOME POST!

[pnggrad79]

I, like you, grew up in a fundamentalist, Baptist household where everything is a sin. To admit I was gay was like turning the world upside down, and I honestly believed that because I wasn't celibate and I thoroughly enjoyed not being celibate that somehow that stamped my ticket for hell quickly, because that is how I grew up. I rationalized and justified for a long time, spent hours on my knees repenting of my egregious sin.

It wasn't until I was taught the Scriptures don't say a thing against same sex attraction. What it condemns is sexuality when used in the context of rape, or idol worship. It was like a weight lifted off my shoulders. I was free and didn't need to feel guilty about it and didn't need to be celibate. Keltic is right, why would God make you that way, then turn right around and tell you that you can't do it. Doesn't make sense.

I am not going to sit here and say, go ahead, have sex and have it often, because I know the dilemma you face. What I am going to say is search the Scriptures and talk to some people who have done so, and then pray about what it says and what they say. You won't feel comfortable until you do.

[Spoticus]

I think you guys are shooting a little wide. I was trying ask a very precise question, and was hoping for a precise answer.

Keltic illustrates the argument that I have a question about

"If we say that a homosexual orientation is naturally occurring and thus not better or worse than being heterosexual"

hmmm.... I guess the statement that I have a question about it a little different. Let me revise for clarity

"Homosexual orientation is naturally occurring thus homosexual sex is no better or worse than heterosexual sex"

This is the general position of SoulForce as I understand it.

My question is. How does on justify the "thus" in that statement. What is the bridge between "This desire is naturally occurring" and "These actions are good." I'm really looking for a succinct and logical answer.
I'm really not asking for a broad sweeping dissertation on the morality of homosexual love. Please refine your replies to the aforementioned question.

And please remember. I am not here to debate or argue, I have to admit I felt a little agitation in some of your posts. All I want is someone to clarify the position of Soulforce in a clear-cut manner.

Thank you for your time

[Spoticus]

Yes Jamie, you have a point about me being "celibate." By celibate I mean that I have never been with anyone, and I am not currently seeking relationship. Also, I am not certain if I am called to lifelong celibacy (as in the St. Benedict type of celibacy. )

In regards to the rest of your post. The "I don't think we can provide that type of answer for you." Would have been sufficient.

We could contrast homosexual sex with other interesting moral conundrums and hypothetical scenarios all day long. But homosexual sex is not moral or immoral based on it's association with any other topics.

I think we can agree on that. For instance, most conservatives say homosexual sex is wrong b/c some homosexuals are overtly promiscuous. A ridicules correlation because that entirely disregards the fact that some aren't promiscuous.

My point being: Just as homosexual sex is not necessarily immoral because of the fact that promiscuity is immoral, homosexual sex is not necessarily moral because of the fact interracial marriages are moral.

Eventually you have to examine an issue as a stand alone entity.

I'm trying to narrow my examination of the issue down to that one aforementioned question, not expand the issue into a convoluted mess of rabbit trails. Because quite frankly, it's all been said before. If I want to contrast homosexual relationships with interracial marriage I can Google it. If I want an in depth look at the scriptures that pertain to homosexual sex I can Google it. If I want Dr. Dobson’s view on homosexuality or Mel White's view on homosexuality I can Google them.

If I have a succinct question that pertains a specific logical conclusion drawn by you folks here at Soul Force I'll ask you about it... I guess that's why I'm here.

[keltic63]

OK, Spoticus, I'll try again.

I am homosexual and I know that as hard as I tried to change it, deny it, cover it up, or even get married to "straighten" me out, it is impossible for me to be anything else but gay. When I came to the realization that
a) God loves me and wants me to be the best "keltic" that God ever created and
b) God's plan for my life is to be in a loving relationship with another person, and in this case another man,
c)that scripture has been twisted to keep me in a state of inferiority and the truth of scripture is that homosexuality is not a sin,
d) and that the deepest love that can be shared between 2 people is sexual intimacy
it was then that I knew loving someone and demonstrating that love in a committed relationship and physical way was appropriate.

Originally Posted by spoticus

"Homosexual orientation is naturally occurring thus homosexual sex is no better or worse than heterosexual sex"


My question is. How does on justify the "thus" in that statement. What is the bridge between "This desire is naturally occurring" and "These actions are good." I'm really looking for a succinct and logical answer.

All other things being equal, a perfectly viable, if somewhat rare, difference occurs, why is it not reasonable to act on one's orientation (not desire) ? the thus is heterosexuality occurs naturally, and it is appropriate, expected even that humans will build physical relationships with each other based on that orientation. homosexuality occurs naturally, it is appropriate that a homosexual find another homosexual and build a similar relationship.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by Spoticus

We could contrast homosexual sex with other interesting moral conundrums and hypothetical scenarios all day long. But homosexual sex is not moral or immoral based on it's association with any other topics.

I think we can agree on that. For instance, most conservatives say homosexual sex is wrong b/c some homosexuals are overtly promiscuous. A ridicules correlation because that entirely disregards the fact that some aren't promiscuous.

My point being: Just as homosexual sex is not necessarily immoral because of the fact that promiscuity is immoral, homosexual sex is not necessarily moral because of the fact interracial marriages are moral.

Eventually you have to examine an issue as a stand alone entity.

Spoticus, I have to say I really disagree with the idea of homosexuality having to be examined as a stand alone entity. The human journey is one of progress and working against one injustice helps us to understand another. That's why leaders of the civil rights movement for black Americans are able to connect the dots to the civil rights movement for GLBT Americans. They saw how clever arguments were used against their equality and they're quick to recognize such arguments now.

Also, Spoticus, in your last post it sounds as if you're putting the fundamentalist argument of promiscuous-homosexuals-so-no-marriage-equality on the same plain as GLBT activists' case of interracial-marriage-struggle-parallels-our-struggle. In other words, they should both be dismissed from the dialogue on homosexuality.

I can't agree with that. I feel the fact that the scenario I presented was not hypothetical but just some 30 years in our past makes it very relevant and I hope other activists continue working to draw the parallels between interracial marriages not being recognized with our marriages not being recognized.

In other words, I'm not trading my queen or bishop for their pawn.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Spoticus

I have read some literature written by Dr. White. I’ve seen the videos that were recently put online. The position of Soulforce (insofar as I understand it) is that homosexuality is: not a choice and a natural human feeling, and homosexual relationships are valid alternatives to heterosexual relationships.

I fully agree with the first two, and am currently seeking the truth for the third.

Spoticus,

At the risk of inundating you with various thoughts, none of which may be helpful, I see that the matter of "valid alternative" is on your mind. While not a theological answer, I would reply that I've been in a relationship with a man for 14 years- it seems perfectly valid to me- and while I work to have this relationship legally sanctioned (I don't necessarily mean sanctified) in the goold ol' USA, I don't need anyone's validation to make it meaningful.

Can gay men have successful relationships? Yes. Are they doomed to a life of meaningless sex and one-night stands? No.

You'll talking to the pudding here.

Life is what you make it.

(sp edit)