Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2k7xXxdUJ0

Of course they aren’t “equal in every way” … the question is why should the differences merit differences in legal standing?

As a follow-up, and as just one of several examples I could cite, our own government’s Dept. of Veteran Affairs thinks you are making facts up as well:

What impact does gender socialization have upon men who have been sexually assaulted?

…

Because of ignorance and myths about sexual abuse, men sometimes fear that the sexual assault by another man will cause them to become gay. This belief is false. Sexual assault does not cause someone to have a particular sexual orientation. (emphasis mine).

This guy, a leading researcher on dealing with men who were sexually abused, also disagrees with you. (Select the lilnk on the left side labeled “Myths about Boyhood Sexual Victimization”). He has also written several books and articles addressing the issue, apparently, but unfortunately I can’t find any copies freely available on the web to point you to.

“On these blogs, lots of folks want to imply that your statements aren’t valid by requiring somebody’s thesis in support. I don’t have time for all of that just to participate in the conversation. But I did provide sources that will satisfy those of you who genuinely want to learn more about the issues.”

That’s a cop out. You made a fairly strong statement, and it’s not unreasonable to ask for support. I actually spent some time (including digging through the link you provided to lovewonout) and couldn’t find something to support the statement.

You made the assertion, it’s incumbent on you to support it.

I’ll go a step further than just imply your claim isn’t valid. I’ll assert outright your statement:

“Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort.”

Is out-and-out false. Feel free to show I am wrong by citing as many peer-reviewed studies as you can find.

I’ve said before (in various places) I am not tethered to the term “marriage” either way. If some form of civil designation with all the same legal rights that marriage has is provided, I’m ok with it (although is does smack a little of “separate but equal”).

For those of you who want lots of footnotes, sources, citations, etc., I have already provided links to groups that can give you all of that. On these blogs, lots of folks want to imply that your statements aren’t valid by requiring somebody’s thesis in support. I don’t have time for all of that just to participate in the conversation. But I did provide sources that will satisfy those of you who genuinely want to learn more about the issues.

For those of you who are very involved, there really is no substitute for attending a Love Won Out conference itself. The scientific data combined with the personal testimony is a heck of a powerful combination.

Perhaps I’m not reading this right, but are you worried that gay benefits/partnerships/marriage are problematic because they might lead to some sort of downswing in procreation?

Is the US (or the world, for that matter) in danger of running out people? Because the last I checked, humanity was acting out “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” but with DNA instead of brooms.

If that really is a concern, you really should be more worried of straights like me who are actively pushing the “child-free” agenda.

Love and commitment is about more than just procreation.

Yes, we have an interest in future generations, but given the current population can you, or anyone else, really claim we are somehow failing in that regard?

I have no problem whatsoever with encouraging heterosexual marriage. I don’t see any reason at all why such “encouragement” needs to come at the expense of other forms of commitment.

Tim,

Not going to address your full screed, but …

1. Could you please provide some citations for your claim:

“Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort.”

I have no problem finding reputable studies which find gays abused as children are more likely to engage in abuse themselves as adults, but that is true of heterosexuals as well. I have been unable to find a study anywhere which claims an “overwhelming” number of gays were themselves abused as children.

2. “While you do hear of homosexuals who engage in long-term relationships, the actual statistics on the sexual practices of homosexuals is astounding. … They bounce from partner to partner in search of fulfillment failing to realize that they are looking where it cannot be found.”

You do realize the first sentence of this paragraph completely contradicts the end of the last sentence, right?

Given the difficulties gays in our society face, and the stigma as well, it’s not surprising they have a harder time finding committed relationships. However, as you concede, it’s certainly achievable for them, even if it takes longer for some.

Some, of course, never find fulfillment and end up in an endless series of meaningless relationships. That’s not unique to the homosexual community.

3. “In essence, trapped in a lifestyle that they themselves know, albeit subconsciously in many cases, is wrong, they crave the recognition and approval of society itself. That is why they spend so much to defeat marriage protection initiatives, etc.”

Perhaps …. just maybe … they’d like to have access to the same dignity and familial rights (such as, say, hospital visitation rights if a partner is critically ill) that heterosexual couples take for granted?

Thank you for your long and thoughtful post. For the sake of argument, I concede your statement that “most scientists and doctors” have found the root of homosexuality is abuse, etc. Further, as I have noted above, I do believe in Scripture, and do belive that homosexual nature is a result of the fall.

The issue we have been talking about (that is way off of the original point, thanks in large part to me ) is whether the GOVERNMENT can decide whether you get married. Your post, doesn’t address the issue at all. If you want to say that homosexuals can’t get married because homosexual behavior is bad for you, etc., then I think you would have to be logically consistent and say that the government should outlaw homosexual relations COMPLETELY. Is there something about marriage that would make it more unhealthy?

Ok, so the unhealthy recognition must lead us to a large government. What about the immoral part? Well, I can think of a lot of things that are immoral, and resulted from the fall–lying, drunkeness, Gluttony, laziness, pride, etc. Does the Government get to decide on these also? Why? Don’t you think that lying to everyone would surely result in an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle?

x4mr: I can’t tell if your post is supposed to be sarcastic or truthful. You call it “interesting” and “fascinating” but then go on to make fun of the whole discussion, of which the comments on your blog reiterate, by being suprised that people would be ‘passionate’ about this.

Remarkably, none of these posts contain the greatest truth about the topic, which is surprising given the conservative nature of this blog.

Homosexuality is unhealthy and immoral.

It is a sexual deviancy and the last several decades have seen a sustained effort to normalize it by portraying it in our media and through other means so that we will all be numbed to it. Nevertheless, it remains an objectionable behavior to the majority of folks because it is wrong.

Now I am all for hating the sin and loving the sinner, and I am fortunate that I have gotten to meet and speak with several former homosexuals who, whether through newfound faith and/or professional counseling, left that lifestyle and found their way into healthy, normal, heterosexual lifestyles, complete with spouses, kids, etc. Their words and warnings are worth considering because in everyone’s rush to look cool or not look judgmental, we are abdicating our responsibility to remind those who need it that what they are doing is wrong. We should be showing them and helping them to find their way back to the lives they should be leading.

Doctors and scientists who have researched and written/spoken on the issue report that for the overwhelming number of folks who were or are still gay, the roots of their behavior are traced back to abuse of some sort. Trust issues, particularly with father figures, uncles, brothers, etc figure most prominently, for both male and female homosexuals. Comfort and safety is then sought where it would not normally be sought, and a lifestyle is entered into that more often than not fails to fulfill the person. Small wonder, since it is the wrong lifestyle.

While you do hear of homosexuals who engage in long-term relationships, the actual statistics on the sexual practices of homosexuals is astounding. They average several times the numbers of sexual partners of heterosexuals and their relationships last a correspondingly smaller period of time. They bounce from partner to partner in search of fulfillment failing to realize that they are looking where it cannot be found.

Where it gets interesting and crosses over into the political and social arena is that what most of these folks are looking for is loving acceptance. It is what was taken from them early in their lives. The abuse that they suffered made them feel unworthy and often made it impossible for them to have loving, trusting relationships. The resulting insecurity and need for acceptance is why so many in the gay community are so militant about demanding marriage, benefits and anything else that they can get that conveys normalcy and equality.

In essence, trapped in a lifestyle that they themselves know, albeit subconsciously in many cases, is wrong, they crave the recognition and approval of society itself. That is why they spend so much to defeat marriage protection initiatives, etc. For those of us who are trying to pass those things, we are pushing an issue of importance to us. For those who oppose it, they are trying to validate not only a lifestyle, but their very lives themselves.

That is a powerful motivator.

No one should sit as God in judgment of others. But that does not mean that we are not allowed to make judgments at all. What would be the point of knowing right from wrong if we were unable or not allowed to share it and teach it to others. The key is to share it and teach it in a loving and forgiving way. The path away from the gay lifestyle is described as a long journey to forgiveness of self and loving of self. Do not do the sinner the disservice of telling them they aren’t sinning. Do not make it that much harder for them to find their way out of that lifestyle by subsidizing it, teaching it, encouraging it, pretending it is equal and healthy and normal as a heterosexual lifestyle. Just remember that hating the sin is a lot easier than loving the sinner, so you have to work that much harder on the loving part.

If you want more information, check out a “Love Won Out” conference the next time one is in town. You can learn more at http://www.lovewonout.com/ and you can also visit websites for groups like Exodus (http://www.exodus.to/) that are helping to lead people back to the lives they want.

Yes, I am sure that gays can raise children in a stable home. But I would venture to guess that it’s probably a bit more difficult for them on the procreation front. It’s not an indictment of gays, it’s an acknowledgement that the likelihood of having children is enhanced when the couple is actually physically able to do so. So as a society we encourage heterosexual marriage for that reason.

How many children born to heterosexual couples don’t grow up in “stable two-parent” families?

A lot.

Also, some number of committed gay couples raise children in stable homes (unless you are going to claim it’s impossible for a gay couple to provide a stable home), and the children don’t so any greater incidence of mental problems, grade problems, etc., than children raised in a stable traditional home.

I.e., it’s not the gender of the parents which counts, it’s the stability and “caringness” of the environment they provide.

No, I didn’t miss the point. I know where you are trying to go with this. It doesn’t fly.