A. If the guy is homosexual, he shouldn't be approaching the issue of homosexuality with far greater sensitivity than he has. No one needs his holier-than-thou mantra, especially given that he is, in fact, less holy than thou.
b. If, as a Christian, he believes homosexuality is a sin and he just committed that sin, he must publicly confess (given he publicly condemned) that sin and not compound it with lies. At least Ted Haggard eventually did this. Being in the leadership of the church means '...always having to say your are sorry...'
c. As a hypocrite, he should resign. The last thing the church needs is hypocrites amongst its leadership.
Last edited by upsideguy; 05-08-10 at 06:05 PM.
He should be mature and simply come clean instead of insulting everyone's intelligence.
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi
I almost always fall on the side of what people do in private ain't none of my business. I think that is mostly true here too, except some of this is too funny.
Rentboy...that had me laughing almost hysterically.
A gay guy authoring books on how to raise strait kids...too awesome.
The excuse that he was trying to cure the guy...truly priceless.
Question for those without an addblocker: what kind of adds this thread getting? I remember before I switched to Firefox that any thread about gays used to have the most awesome adds.
By and large, most ministers are not child molesting closet gays and it is a damn shame that due to the nature of how things are reported it seems otherwise. I really do think most social conservatives at least try and live to the standards they espouse, with greater or lesser success.
And what are the motivations for wanting to rid oneself of homosexuality? Is it truly because the person believes they are ill, or because of social pressures? I mean, people are only as functional as their surrounding community permits them to be. I can walk down the street in Vancouver holding hands with a guy and not get harassed; but maybe in a small town on the interior of BC I would get attacked, which, as a teenager, might give me pause to think that there is something wrong with me to deserve it. That is how the seed of abnormality gets planted, coercing people to seek "cures" for something that isn't even an illness.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, here is my gay lover Paul. We've been together for 22 years.
Gay marriage is a contentious issue for the U.S. The debate arose in Canada earlier in the decade and was swiftly dealt with. Yeah, there are pockets of conservatives in Canada (particularly religious ones) who would love nothing more than to have it overturned, but the majority don't care. And actually, it's a non-issue now. Churches that are against it have the right to not perform ceremony, and gay married couples, much like straight married couples, lead low profile lives, especially if they have kids.
I really think that people who hate homosexuals are just hating a concept. They have some idea in their mind of what it means and are aligned against it, but most of them have not befriended a gay person, gotten to know them, and had the chance to see what normal lives they live.
In other words, I think the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. There are more important things to worry about. Anyway, I don't want this to become a SMS debate; we've both been down that road and it's never ending.
I understand what you mean about individual stories. To me it's sometimes more important to listen to those, and after years of hearing them I have begun to make my own observations about trends. Some of them correspond to science, others do not. Homosexuality was removed from the psychiatric diagnostic books in 1979. I do think the gay rights movement had a lot to do with it, but not in a manipulative way.
It was the gay rights movement that allowed scientific dialogue about homosexuality to happen at all, whereas prior to that era it was considered a mental illness because it conveniently coincided with the prejudices of the mainstream. Once science sobered up to reality, it quickly realized that it couldn't call an aspect of sexuality an illness like that. The prejudices of the mainstream still exist and science, in a lot of ways, is counter-culture to those sentiments; but science can sometimes back up the mainstream. It really depends on the topic.
Let me just say, in short, that I don't think there is systemic bias when it comes to science supporting homosexuality. It is still actively looking for a genetic explanation without regard to the potential consequences if one is found. I have no doubt that we would see a movement - one that would perhaps infiltrate government policy - to exterminate homosexuality from the gene pool entirely.
If science were pro-active in protecting gays, I don't think it would be looking so hard for a genetic explanation. After all, is there intensive research into the heterosexual gene? No, I don't think so. So they're searching for a homosexual gene under the premise that it's a deviation from the normal model: heterosexual genetics. As you can see, science also contains the same biases as the mainstream, that the base, or normal point of comparison, is heterosexuals, whereas the thing that sticks out or doesn't look right is the gays.
I read a study recently that sisters of homosexual men tend to be more fertile and have a higher chance of multiple-baby births. There may yet be an evolutionary explanation for why this happens and we shouldn't be quick to eliminate it.
If being gay is a choice, why do so many fervent advocates of heterosexuality choose to be gay?