Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter savedbygrace92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should I accept you personal interperation of scripture?
You should never accept anyones interperation of scripture. God gave you a mind to think with, ears to listen with. You must research for yourself. There are many scholars for you to consult with and fellow worshipers and Church leaders to consult. You must put in effort to seek what is the truth to you. Just because someone says something to you, does not make it true. Gods word is there for you. You must learn how to recieve God’s love for you. There are so many resources, just open your heart and learn all you can. God will reveal himself to you. The Bible will show up not to hate or judge, but you must find it for yourself.
 
So “science” is determined by social norms? It should be noted that there was NO science backing this decision-it was changed based on a vote where only a plurality of members supported it. the breakdown was:

*On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854*

Science is determined by the Scientific method, not social norms.
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

Perhaps the American Cancer Society should vote that cancer no longer exists!
 
I guess it is easier to claim something than it is to support it.
Man, by God’s design, is capable of great accomplishments. There is no science without God. But in that design, to which we are fearfully and wonderfully made, man is capable of even greater things because of God’s grace. When we think of grace, we often think of God’s favor, or His mercy. Yet grace is even more than that. Grace is God’s ability; an excellence or power granted by God.

God never created us to accomplish any work without His grace. If He had, we wouldn’t have needed Jesus! We could have saved ourselves through our own works. But God didn’t set it up that way. Ephesians 2:8 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” In other words, we were saved by God’s ability and our faith in that ability.

God wants us to depend on His grace, His ability, in every situation in our lives. Oh, how we’ve spent too much time trying to accomplish everything in our own ability, rather than spending time in the presence of God and doing it through his ability! Without His grace, we can burn out. But God doesn’t want us to quit, or burn out. He wants us to depend on His grace!

In Zechariah 4, Zerubbabel had a great project ahead of him. His project was to complete the task of rebuilding the temple, despite opposition from the neighboring Samaritans. Additionally, the people he had to work with were greatly discouraged, apathetic and many had turned away from the Lord. Certainly, it would have been extremely difficult to accomplish the task in their own strength. But God, in His great love, lays out the plan on how the temple is to be rebuilt.

Zechariah 4:6-7

6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.

The plan on rebuilding the temple was to be accomplished not by their own strength or power, but by God’s power – His ability, or his grace. The task that seemed like a mountain would become a plain. What seemed so difficult in the natural would come forth by shouting grace to it. What tasks are we facing today that seem so difficult that could not change if we only shouted grace to it?

Now notice the following verse in the same chapter.

Zech 4:8-9

8 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

9 The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also finish it; and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto you.

In verse 6-7, God lays out the plan to accomplish the task by grace. Yet in verse 9, is says that Zerubbabel will finish it with his hands. Zerubbabel couldn’t just throw up his hands and say, “Ok God, you do it” and sit back and have a lemonade! No, God’s way has always been to work through us. The difference with grace is the power working through us, which is His Spirit. And we know the power of the Holy Spirit – the same Spirit which raised Christ from the dead. We should have no doubt in God’s ability.

Whatever we do in life, we need to depend upon his grace, otherwise we are laboring in vain. Ps 127:1 says, “Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it.” Laboring in vain means that we might work ourselves into the ground, and still not yield the desired outcome. When we rest on His ability, the outcome is always fruitful.

The apostle Paul knew the secret of grace. In the face of opposition, God gave him a revelation.

2 Cor 12:9

“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”

Why is this verse so important? Because Paul truly depended on God. He recognized that whatever came against him, he didn’t have to fight it in his own strength. He trusted in God’s ability and strength to continue in the work of the ministry. How are we to get to the other side of whatever we are facing? The same way – by grace through faith (by God’s ability and our faith in that ability).

Just as we operate in faith, we need to operate in His grace. How can we activate the grace of God in our lives?

(1) Simply ask for it. God will not withhold any good thing from those who walk uprightly. Hebrews 4:16 says, “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” God’s ability is ever ready for us. We need only ask.

(2) Be humble. Pride will always get in the way of God’s grace. Think about the person who is lost, driving around for hours trying to find a certain location, when they know they could just stop at the gas station and ask for directions. What keeps them from just stopping? Usually pride! The “I know how to do this” or “I can handle it” attitude never cuts it when it comes to grace. If you could do it yourself, you would have done it by now. God’s ability works best in a thoroughly yielded vessel.

James 4:6

“But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

(3) Know the Word. When you know the Word, you’ll be fully persuaded of God’s ability. In fact, the more intimate knowledge you have of God, His ability will be multiplied in your life. 2 Peter 1:2 states, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.”

2 Cor 9:8 says this: “And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work.” God wants you and I to be everything he created us to be. Science is apart of God’s grace, not seperate from it. God’s grace, His ability, is truly amazing. Draw upon it in every and any situation. God’s best is ahead of you, as you take hold of His grace
 
So “science” is determined by social norms? It should be noted that there was NO science backing this decision-it was changed based on a vote where only a plurality of members supported it. the breakdown was:

*On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854*

The weight of the scientific evidence it there. You do not have to accept it. You might be one of those people who believe that the Sun orbits around the earth. I have never heard anyone claim that the Bible says cancer does not exist. I have never met anyone who says cancer does not exist???

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

Perhaps the American Cancer Society should vote that cancer no longer exists!
 
I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State.
No. That’s not why, nor is that what it is, but most people aren’t receiving an adequate civil government education in or out of school these days.

Separation of Church and State does not refer to the diversity of values and religious views in American society. It refers to the prohibition of a single government-established & endorsed religion. That’s what the country’s founders were leaving behind in Europe. Separation of Church and State protects religions by allowing all of them, not just one of them, to have their voices in society in any contemporary issues (and legislation) of interest to them. Just as non-believers are allowed to try to persuade government officials on any matters, so are believers allowed (and no less so).
 
It is not up to me to change your mind, only you can change your mind, if you are willing to open and learn. Only you have that choice.
Tony,

Homosexuals are people. Homosexuality is an abomination. Homosexual behavior is aberrant behavior. My mind has been changed and is in transformation. I choose not to listen and engage those that direct my attention as you do. I am engaged in the Splendor of the Truth. You may want to read Veritiatis Splendor and see if you can engage your mind in change that has value, significance, and long lasting reward. I am not interested in and am not open to opening my heart, mind, lungs, kidneys or any other part of my created body to the homosexual agenda. I ask you to bathe in the Splendor of the Truth.🙂
 
Tony,

you are incorrigible
Dan Grelinger;9395951:
Are you for real? Really? Are you for real?

“I would encourage you to learn the meaning of arsenoloitai.”

“It does not mean homosexual.”

“That word has no meaning.”

How can you encourage someone to learn the meaning of a word that you think has no meaning?

How can you say a word that exists, was created for some purpose, and was used for that purpose, has no meaning?

How can you say what a word does NOT mean, if you suggest it has no meaning? How could you even know?

No ancient Greek writer used the word to mean lesbian or homosexual. There were a number of ancient Greek and Latin words Paul could have used in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 if God intended to prohibit committed gay and lesbian partnerships

Malakoi usually referred to intellectual weakness or moral weakness or some kind of softness which implied effeminacy but malakoi was rarely, if ever, used to refer to Homosexuality. Arsenokoites occurs only 77 times in extant Greek manuscripts

in the first 2100 years of Greek history. It is therefore an extremely rare word. In 1 Cor 6:9, Paul is the first writer we have on record as using the word.

“Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of
themselves with mankind" (arsenokoitai).

Although scholars are unsure of its provenance, there are two reasonable possibilities for the origin of the Greek word, arsenokoitai or arsenokoites.
  1. Hellenistic (Greek speaking) Jews coined the word from the Septuagint
    a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, based on use of the two roots of the word in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Leviticus 18:22 - meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikos

Leviticus 20:13 - hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos

Arseno is the Greek word for man and koite is the Greek word for bed, used euphemistically to mean having sex. We say ‘he slept with her’ when we mean, had sex with her. In the same way, koite-bed was a euphemism for having sex.

If the prohibitions of the Levitical Holiness Code informed its meaning, arsenos koiten condemns shrine prostitution, based on the context of Leviticus 18 and 20.

Philo lived at the same time Jesus lived. During the life of Christ, Philo understood Moses, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, to be condemning shrine prostitution.

Philo’s understanding that the arsenokoit stem refers to shrine prostitution is 2000 years old. It is not a modern argument from gays and lesbians. Instead, it is the common first century Jewish viewpoint. Gays did not make up this viewpoint and it did not originate with gays therefore it is not historical revisionism by gays seeking an alibi for their sin.

If the arsenokoit stem from Leviticus 20:13, arsenos koiten, gave us the Greek word Paul used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (most anti-gay Christians believe Paul borrowed the word from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13), then understanding arsenokoites as a reference to shrine prostitution was a common understanding in the first century, when Paul used the word in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10.

The modern attempt to make Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 a prohibition of all homosexual activity is far from what Moses and God intended and far from ancient Jewish understanding of these verses.

The Jewish viewpoint articulated by Philo is 2000 years old. It was not invented by gay people as an excuse for sin. Understanding arsenokoites to refer to shrine prostitution is a commonly accepted meaning of arsenokoites in the first century.

Arsenokoites also condemns pederasty and incest, given the interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in Sanhedrin 54a and Philo.

Shrine prostitution, pederasty and incest are not analogs of a committed faithful monogamous partnership between two men or two women.

Paul coined the word, arsenokoites,
borrowing from the Greek words of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. If this is true, arsenokoites must have indicated a sin which confronted Paul’s readers, with which they were so familiar that it was not necessary for him to define the word. The best historical possibility for its meaning is shrine or temple prostitution.

Some modern scholars insist that shrine prostitution did not occur in ancient Corinth. Whatever the outcome of that argument, Philo, who was intimately familiar with cultic religion in the first century, identifies Cybele or Ceres worship with the shrine prostitution Moses referenced in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

Because Paul did not define the word arsenokoites when he used it, the meaning must have been clear to Paul’s first century readers.

Philo leaves no doubt about the meaning of arsenokoites. For first century Jews, it was a given that the arsenokoit stem referred to temple prostitution. The first century cultural and historical understanding is that arsenokoites refers to shrine prostitution, in which male worshipers engaged in anal sex with male priests and female priestesses of the fertility goddess.
Incorrigible. One word does not make the truth other than what it is. Homosexual behavior is aberrant and you provide evidence why same sex marriage must be opposed.
 
Tony,

Now I see the root of the problem. You are United Church of Christ.
savedbygrace92;9336491:
Forgive me if this sounds like a dumb question.

I understand why the Church thinks same-sex marriage or relations are wrong and I can agree with the Church on this teaching. If everyone in the entire world felt this way about same-sex marriage, that would be great and there would be no debate over this.

However, people think differently are were raised differently with a diverse pool of ideas and beliefs. Not everyone is a devout Catholic—that’s why we have this separation of Church and State. I honestly feel like “the bad guy” for fighting against gay marriage.

I don’t feel like I have any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives. The LGBT community have gone through enough **** already and I feel bad trying to oppose their desires to get married (no matter how wrong it would be) by telling them that I’m against it because of my personal and faith belief,

Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.

It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation)—advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?

Let’s not even go into some of the Bible’s most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man’s obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the “biblical family values advocates” actually read their Bibles?

When you attend a wedding at church, what passages of Scripture do you expect to hear? Congregations occasionally invite me to speak on the current same-sex marriage debates, and I ask them this question. Their answers are remarkably consistent.

Someone invariably mentions 1 Corinthians 13, the famous “Love Chapter.” Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage.

Others call out, “Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16; NRSV). Another moving passage, but it’s certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi.

The second creation story in Genesis comes up: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, but he isn’t exactly discussing marriage. Instead, his topic is divorce (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). When ministers read the Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I’d rather not hear about divorce at a wedding

Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there’s no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9.

The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:1-11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage. My church, the United Church of Christ, has developed a new wedding liturgy, but it retains this common formula: “As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God’s reign of love.”

So we know Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding? That’s the best we can do? No wonder it’s common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn’t have much to say on the topic.

Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about “biblical family values” as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as “biblical family values” because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.

It’s high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul’s letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it’s certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: “Do not seek a wife” (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation) – advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?
Tony,

Thank you for illuminating what the United Church of Christ does to the mind of someone seeking…this was the most thoughtful piece of information you provided.
 
Gosh, the scientific evidence is so overwhelming.

I’ll give you a historical background.

Modern attitudes toward homosexuality have religious, legal, and medical underpinnings. Before the High Middle Ages, homosexual acts appear to have been tolerated or ignored by the Christian church throughout Europe. Beginning in the latter twelfth century, however, hostility toward homosexuality began to take root, and eventually spread throughout European religious and secular institutions. Condemnation of homosexual acts (and other nonprocreative sexual behavior) as “unnatural,” which received official expression in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and others, became widespread and has continued through the present day.

Religious teachings soon were incorporated into legal sanctions. Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as “wickedness not to be named”). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).

By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D’Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).

Even within medicine and psychiatry, however, homosexuality was not universally viewed as a pathology. Richard von Krafft-Ebing described it as a degenerative sickness in his Psychopathia Sexualis, but Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis both adopted more accepting stances. Early in the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral, that it was not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society (Robinson, 1976).

Sigmund Freud’s basic theory of human sexuality was different from that of Ellis. He believed all human beings were innately bisexual, and that they become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of their experiences with parents and others (Freud, 1905). Nevertheless, Freud agreed with Ellis that a homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology. In a now-famous letter to an American mother in 1935, Freud wrote:
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too…

“If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed…” (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).

Later psychoanalysts did not follow this view, however. Sandor Rado (1940, 1949) rejected Freud’s assumption of inherent bisexuality, arguing instead that heterosexuality is natural and that homosexuality is a “reparative” attempt to achieve sexual pleasure when normal heterosexual outlet proves too threatening. Other analysts later argued that homosexuality resulted from pathological family relationships during the oedipal period (around 4-5 years of age) and claimed that they observed these patterns in their homosexual patients (Bieber et al., 1962). Charles Socarides (1968) speculated that the etiology of homosexuality was pre-oedipal and, therefore, even more pathological than had been supposed by earlier analysts (for a detailed history, see Lewes, 1988; for briefer summaries, see Bayer, 1987; Silverstein, 1991).

Although psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality once had considerable influence in psychiatry and in the larger culture, they were not subjected to rigorous empirical testing. Instead, they were based on analysts’ clinical observations of patients already known by them to be homosexual.
This procedure compromises the validity of the psychoanalytic conclusions in at least two important ways. First, the analyst’s theoretical orientations, expectations, and personal attitudes are likely to bias her or his observations. To avoid such bias, scientists take great pains in their studies to ensure that the researchers who actually collect the data do not have expectations about how a particular research participant will respond. An example is the “double blind” procedure used in many experiments. Such procedures have not been used in clinical psychoanalytic studies of homosexuality.

A second problem with psychoanalytic studies is that they have only examined homosexuals who were already under psychiatric care – in other words, homosexuals who were seeking treatment or therapy. Patients, however, cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. Just as it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions about all heterosexuals based only on data from heterosexual psychiatric patients, we cannot generalize from observations of homosexual patients to the entire population of gay men and lesbians.
Tony,

If you spent as much time as you have on homosexuality on things like the following:

Where did the Bible come from?

If the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, where is this Church?

If the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages, by which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the Bride of Christ, where is this Church?

Then you may find yourself complete:)
 
Hooker’s (1957) study was innovative in several important respects. First, rather than simply accepting the predominant view of homosexuality as pathology, she posed the question of whether homosexuals and heterosexuals differed in their psychological adjustment. Second, rather than studying psychiatric patients, she recruited a sample of homosexual men who were functioning normally in society. Third, she employed a procedure that asked experts to rate the adjustment of men without prior knowledge of their sexual orientation. This method addressed an important source of bias that had vitiated so many previous studies of homosexuality.
Code:
Hooker administered three projective tests (the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test [TAT], and Make-A-Picture-Story [MAPS] Test) to 30 homosexual males and 30 heterosexual males recruited through community organizations. The two groups were matched for age, IQ, and education. None of the men were in therapy at the time of the study.
Unaware of each subject’s sexual orientation, two independent Rorschach experts evaluated the men’s overall adjustment using a 5-point scale. They classified two-thirds of the heterosexuals and two-thirds of the homosexuals in the three highest categories of adjustment. When asked to identify which Rorschach protocols were obtained from homosexuals, the experts could not distinguish respondents’ sexual orientation at a level better than chance.

A third expert used the TAT and MAPS protocols to evaluate the psychological adjustment of the men. As with the Rorschach responses, the adjustment ratings of the homosexuals and heterosexuals did not differ significantly.

Hooker concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.

Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.

Although some investigations published since Hooker’s study have claimed to support the view of homosexuality as pathological, they have been methodologically weak. Many used only clinical or incarcerated samples, for example, from which generalizations to the population at large are not possible. Others failed to safeguard the data collection procedures from possible biases by the investigators – for example, a man’s psychological functioning would be evaluated by his own psychoanalyst, who was simultaneously treating him for his homosexuality.

Some studies found differences between homosexual and heterosexual respondents, and then assumed that those differences indicated pathology in the homosexuals. For example, heterosexual and homosexual respondents might report different kinds of childhood experiences or family relationships. It would then be assumed that the patterns reported by the homosexuals indicated pathology, even though there were no differences in psychological functioning between the two groups.
Homosexuality remains aberrant sinful behavior regardless of what the Psychological world says, be not conformed to the world, for the Kingdom is not of this earth.
 
Removal from the DSM…

**In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association’s membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board’s decision was ratified. **Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM’s third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual’s dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, “Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread… [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well.”

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).
This is completely wrong. Gay psychiatrists were the reason the DSM IV removed homosexuality from the DSM. You are not well informed. This suggests that most of your other so called research is also flawed and should be disregarded as poor research.
 
You should never accept anyones interperation of scripture. God gave you a mind to think with, ears to listen with. You must research for yourself. There are many scholars for you to consult with and fellow worshipers and Church leaders to consult. You must put in effort to seek what is the truth to you. Just because someone says something to you, does not make it true. Gods word is there for you. You must learn how to recieve God’s love for you. There are so many resources, just open your heart and learn all you can. God will reveal himself to you. The Bible will show up not to hate or judge, but you must find it for yourself.
You and I have both read Scripture, both studied, both looked at other sources and both prayed for guidance yet we disagree on how to interpret Scriptures stance Homosexual behavior. how do we resolve that?
 
Homosexuality remains aberrant sinful behavior regardless of what the Psychological world says, be not conformed to the world, for the Kingdom is not of this earth.
I support you having your beliefs, the Bible and science do not, unfortunately.
 
You and I have both read Scripture, both studied, both looked at other sources and both prayed for guidance yet we disagree on how to interpret Scriptures stance Homosexual behavior. how do we resolve that?
Cmon now Bob, you read the Bible, I read the Bible and Tony reads the Bible…the Bible says…“take it to the Church”…now that should solve everything…
 
I support you having your beliefs, the Bible and science do not, unfortunately.
Tony,

Then you can explain all this to Jesus in the after life…you followed science and your own personal interpretation of the Bible. You can say you did it all in His name. I imagine that is enough.

Homosexuality is,abberrant always will be aberrant, and is the reason for fighting against same sex marriage as it corrupts minds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top