Here again we see where the divorce between philosophy and theology has not well- served the church. The basic tools of philosophy, in analyzing language, defining terms, and properly categorizing is so crucial in helping the church to think rightly. Theology requires her handmaiden philosophy to apply itself well and actually achieve sophia.
One problem you will encounter with placing "gay" on par with "gender dysphoria" is that the latter is a disorder, and people today do not want to recognize that "gay" is a disorder, i.e. not a good part of the order that God intends.
How do gay, celibate Christians tend to address this concept? Do they reject or accept the idea that they suffer from a disorder? I have not read enough of their writings to answer the question myself.
Clark, I think some folks who deny that "gay" is a disorder also want to change the name of gender dysphoria for the same reason!
Among Side B folks, I don't see a denial that same-sex orientation is disordered. Friend of mine, David Frank, himself same-sex attracted, commented on "Our Unnatural Nature": "I actually find "disordered" desire very helpful, as it is more specific and doesn't have the guilt connotation that "sinful" does." He was pushing more strongly for the language of disorder than I was!
The Side B point seems to be to find redeeming features in this experience of disorder. "Rejoice in our sufferings!"
Side A – God intentionally created queer people to have sexual attractions to members of the same sex and blesses sex between members of the same sex within certain boundaries.
Side B – God intended sex to be reserved for the lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, God calls all believers (queer and straight alike) to the vocation of celibacy within community or to a monogamous marriage with a member of the opposite sex. Still this does not erasure sexual orientation. Therefore queer identity is a healthy way of communicating one’s experience and desires.
Side Y – LGBT+ identity and relationships are incompatible with the Christian faith. Therefore, Christians attracted to their own sex should renounce LGBT+ identification and use non-identity ways for explaining their experience. All Christians are called to remain single or enter an opposite sex marriage. Efforts to change a person’s sexual attractions are generally not supported but not always denounced.
Side X – “X” stands for ex-gay. Being oriented toward or sexually attracted to members of your own gender is sinful, a spiritual sickness, and must be repented of and “cured.” Heterosexuality is seen as God’s best for all people. Therefore, Side X Christians usually promote efforts to change a person’s sexual attraction.
With monozygotic twins if the first twin is gay, the second twin is 30% likely to be gay. This would tend to suggest that rather than being 'born this way', some people are born with a somewhat strong tendency to be more same-sex attracted than opposite-sex attracted.
More a proclivity than a disorder. The animal kingdom possesses gay animals. As far as I'm aware, trans dogs or dolphins haven't made an appearance- yet!
We don't know what factors cause some of those twins to become gay and some to not become gay. If it turns out that there are prenatal developmental factors that can affect one twin differently than another, such that the proclivity has actually become cemented in place by birth, then "disorder" would be an appropriate term. We could even discover a prenatal cure in that case, and Side A adherents think "cure" is an offensive term in this context.
As to your last two sentences, they seem to be going in opposite directions, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Re; the last two sentences. It's my observation that the group or type a person is attracted to is more fixed or 'innate' than identity. Most of us have undergone at least a partial reinvention or attempt at self-improvement. Some of us have had changes thrust upon us from major life traumas like car accidents or sudden unexpected familial deaths. Identity tends to be more malleable than attraction.
Interestingly, although homosexuality seems to be mainly epigenetic or polygenic, there are two exceptions. One is a gene sequence for a specific type of pattern baldness. Another is a gene sequence which causes an olfactory defect. The latter is highly interesting. A significant part of attraction seems to be olfactory in nature. Although the last time I checked a couldn't find an online source, there is a particular friction between women with the rhesus negative blood group and men with cleft chins, who apparently emit a particular scent which turns the women off. With good reason. Apparently, if a man with a cleft chin impregnates a women with rhesus negative blood, her body will treat the pregnancy like a foreign invader and 'eat' the foetus. My point would be that attraction is mostly beyond our control, more physical than most would like to admit and even includes strong indicators that smell is an important factor in physical attraction.
I have genuine compassion for most trans people. The aggressive activists are a tiny percentage, and the sex offenders who masquerade as trans really shouldn't be included in the category. But here's the problem- the ideological position that most of the incredibly high rate of post-transition lifetime suicide rates is caused by a lack of societal tolerance and bullying simply isn't true. The only things which seems to mitigate the risk is family support, and then only by a 10% reduction in a 40% to 50% lifetime risk.
There is element of the Emperor's New Clothes to this. A high percentage of the population doesn't want most forms of employment discrimination against trans people, but the percentage of the population which is willing to be 'trans-inclusive' in their dating is incredibly low. Most people want to be kind, and as a Christian my faith instructs me to be compassionate, but there is such a thing as physical reality. One survey showed that amongst the heterosexual population, the figure was 1.8% for women, 3.0% for men. All those cheerleaders for trans in Twitter/X or on college campuses? They're hypocrites. They don't believe it themselves deep down, and women are worse. Have you read about the WPATH files? One of biggest medical malpractice crimes in history.
It was an argument that homosexuality is derived from nature, not nurture. It's highly likely the epigenetic triggers became fixed during glacial periods, as a means of aiding group survival through a greater adult:child ratio. Trans on the other hand is a social construct. In the rare occasions that it emerges in history, it seems to culturally evolve as means of creating a third category for individuals who don't comfortably fit into the dimorphic sex landscape. The second line was a flippant joke to the effect that there aren't trans animals because animals don't have social constructs.
Interestingly, one study showed that the rate of homosexual sons born per population actually increases with each previous male sibling. Probably a function of biological heuristics changing the in utero testosterone environment. A highly useful adaption for prosocial animals which would have had to rely upon meat as a primary source of sustenance for long period during glacial periods
OK. Still confused a bit. First sentence: The animal kingdom possesses gay animals. Second sentence: No gay dolphins or dogs. Was the first sentence supposed to say that the animal kingdom does NOT include gay animals? If not, what's the point of listing only two counter-examples?
>>Yes. The theological conservatives in this debate describe same-sex attracted people as “identifying as gay.
You have identified one reason why I don't use terms such as 'gay' or 'homosexual' (except, occasionally, as here, in quotes). I speak of 'male on male sexual activity'. This gets at the root of the issue.
Modern identity demands recognition of a self-claimed state. Sexuality is about how one relates to the world. The former is inward facing and leans towards narcissism. The latter simply is- it requires no acknowledgement, other than that others stick to the principle of not infringing negative liberty. This, in itself, is not an unreasonable demand.
Here again we see where the divorce between philosophy and theology has not well- served the church. The basic tools of philosophy, in analyzing language, defining terms, and properly categorizing is so crucial in helping the church to think rightly. Theology requires her handmaiden philosophy to apply itself well and actually achieve sophia.
One problem you will encounter with placing "gay" on par with "gender dysphoria" is that the latter is a disorder, and people today do not want to recognize that "gay" is a disorder, i.e. not a good part of the order that God intends.
How do gay, celibate Christians tend to address this concept? Do they reject or accept the idea that they suffer from a disorder? I have not read enough of their writings to answer the question myself.
Clark, I think some folks who deny that "gay" is a disorder also want to change the name of gender dysphoria for the same reason!
Among Side B folks, I don't see a denial that same-sex orientation is disordered. Friend of mine, David Frank, himself same-sex attracted, commented on "Our Unnatural Nature": "I actually find "disordered" desire very helpful, as it is more specific and doesn't have the guilt connotation that "sinful" does." He was pushing more strongly for the language of disorder than I was!
The Side B point seems to be to find redeeming features in this experience of disorder. "Rejoice in our sufferings!"
Thanks. Can you summarize the Side A, Side B, Side Y nomenclature for me?
From https://freemethodistconversations.com/four-christian-views-on-sexuality/
Side A – God intentionally created queer people to have sexual attractions to members of the same sex and blesses sex between members of the same sex within certain boundaries.
Side B – God intended sex to be reserved for the lifelong covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. Therefore, God calls all believers (queer and straight alike) to the vocation of celibacy within community or to a monogamous marriage with a member of the opposite sex. Still this does not erasure sexual orientation. Therefore queer identity is a healthy way of communicating one’s experience and desires.
Side Y – LGBT+ identity and relationships are incompatible with the Christian faith. Therefore, Christians attracted to their own sex should renounce LGBT+ identification and use non-identity ways for explaining their experience. All Christians are called to remain single or enter an opposite sex marriage. Efforts to change a person’s sexual attractions are generally not supported but not always denounced.
Side X – “X” stands for ex-gay. Being oriented toward or sexually attracted to members of your own gender is sinful, a spiritual sickness, and must be repented of and “cured.” Heterosexuality is seen as God’s best for all people. Therefore, Side X Christians usually promote efforts to change a person’s sexual attraction.
With monozygotic twins if the first twin is gay, the second twin is 30% likely to be gay. This would tend to suggest that rather than being 'born this way', some people are born with a somewhat strong tendency to be more same-sex attracted than opposite-sex attracted.
More a proclivity than a disorder. The animal kingdom possesses gay animals. As far as I'm aware, trans dogs or dolphins haven't made an appearance- yet!
We don't know what factors cause some of those twins to become gay and some to not become gay. If it turns out that there are prenatal developmental factors that can affect one twin differently than another, such that the proclivity has actually become cemented in place by birth, then "disorder" would be an appropriate term. We could even discover a prenatal cure in that case, and Side A adherents think "cure" is an offensive term in this context.
As to your last two sentences, they seem to be going in opposite directions, so I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Re; the last two sentences. It's my observation that the group or type a person is attracted to is more fixed or 'innate' than identity. Most of us have undergone at least a partial reinvention or attempt at self-improvement. Some of us have had changes thrust upon us from major life traumas like car accidents or sudden unexpected familial deaths. Identity tends to be more malleable than attraction.
Interestingly, although homosexuality seems to be mainly epigenetic or polygenic, there are two exceptions. One is a gene sequence for a specific type of pattern baldness. Another is a gene sequence which causes an olfactory defect. The latter is highly interesting. A significant part of attraction seems to be olfactory in nature. Although the last time I checked a couldn't find an online source, there is a particular friction between women with the rhesus negative blood group and men with cleft chins, who apparently emit a particular scent which turns the women off. With good reason. Apparently, if a man with a cleft chin impregnates a women with rhesus negative blood, her body will treat the pregnancy like a foreign invader and 'eat' the foetus. My point would be that attraction is mostly beyond our control, more physical than most would like to admit and even includes strong indicators that smell is an important factor in physical attraction.
I have genuine compassion for most trans people. The aggressive activists are a tiny percentage, and the sex offenders who masquerade as trans really shouldn't be included in the category. But here's the problem- the ideological position that most of the incredibly high rate of post-transition lifetime suicide rates is caused by a lack of societal tolerance and bullying simply isn't true. The only things which seems to mitigate the risk is family support, and then only by a 10% reduction in a 40% to 50% lifetime risk.
There is element of the Emperor's New Clothes to this. A high percentage of the population doesn't want most forms of employment discrimination against trans people, but the percentage of the population which is willing to be 'trans-inclusive' in their dating is incredibly low. Most people want to be kind, and as a Christian my faith instructs me to be compassionate, but there is such a thing as physical reality. One survey showed that amongst the heterosexual population, the figure was 1.8% for women, 3.0% for men. All those cheerleaders for trans in Twitter/X or on college campuses? They're hypocrites. They don't believe it themselves deep down, and women are worse. Have you read about the WPATH files? One of biggest medical malpractice crimes in history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbUsSN5RKXQ
Thanks for the interesting comment, which I tend to agree with in full.
But I was asking about the last two sentences in your last paragraph, which seemed inconsistent:
"The animal kingdom possesses gay animals. As far as I'm aware, trans dogs or dolphins haven't made an appearance- yet!"
It was an argument that homosexuality is derived from nature, not nurture. It's highly likely the epigenetic triggers became fixed during glacial periods, as a means of aiding group survival through a greater adult:child ratio. Trans on the other hand is a social construct. In the rare occasions that it emerges in history, it seems to culturally evolve as means of creating a third category for individuals who don't comfortably fit into the dimorphic sex landscape. The second line was a flippant joke to the effect that there aren't trans animals because animals don't have social constructs.
Interestingly, one study showed that the rate of homosexual sons born per population actually increases with each previous male sibling. Probably a function of biological heuristics changing the in utero testosterone environment. A highly useful adaption for prosocial animals which would have had to rely upon meat as a primary source of sustenance for long period during glacial periods
OK. Still confused a bit. First sentence: The animal kingdom possesses gay animals. Second sentence: No gay dolphins or dogs. Was the first sentence supposed to say that the animal kingdom does NOT include gay animals? If not, what's the point of listing only two counter-examples?
>>Yes. The theological conservatives in this debate describe same-sex attracted people as “identifying as gay.
You have identified one reason why I don't use terms such as 'gay' or 'homosexual' (except, occasionally, as here, in quotes). I speak of 'male on male sexual activity'. This gets at the root of the issue.
Modern identity demands recognition of a self-claimed state. Sexuality is about how one relates to the world. The former is inward facing and leans towards narcissism. The latter simply is- it requires no acknowledgement, other than that others stick to the principle of not infringing negative liberty. This, in itself, is not an unreasonable demand.