Tuesday, March 24, 2009


My last post was inspired by another blog I had visited.

This one is inspired by the same one.

WARNING! My position on this subject is controversial, I know. The opinions are mine, have been mine for over 40 years, and will be mine for the next forty. Take it or leave it. I am closed minded on this issue (as I am on getting hit by lightning).

My subject is homosexuality (Ooooooo! A P.C. untouchable...well watch me touch it!)

First of all, let me define the word "normal" for you.

Normal: conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm;

not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature";

"normal ...in accordance with scientific laws being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"

convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception".

Using this definition, homosexuality cannot be considered "normal" behavior.

That's OK, though, for neither is genius...or idiot-savant, or any of a myriad of behaviors.

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Yeah, I know. It has long been preached that homosexuality is a choice, but who in his/her right mind would choose a lifestyle rife with so much grief? I don't believe it for a minute, and you will never convince me otherwise...so never mind.

Is it hereditary or biological in nature?

For some years "scientists" tried to prove that is is, but their research was shown to have been severely flawed and, in fact, no evidence exists to indicate that it is.

My BS is in Psychology (great initials for a pseudo-science, don't you think?)

Here's what I think, and it is important, if you want to engage in an honest discussion of the subject, to understand my carefully chosen words here: Homosexuality is a learned behavior pattern that results from a series of external and internal stimuli from a person's experience.

It is not alone.

Kleptomania is a similarly developed behavior pattern.

The Christian community is fond of just calling it "sin," and jumping up and down screaming about it, saying things like, "Love the sinner...hate the sin," which all too often they do not mean.

As a student of God's Word for over 45 years, I believe that homosexuality misses the perfect mark of perfection required by God to be in His presence, and is therefore "sin" in the same sense that "hatred" is sin, "pride" is sin, "arrogance" is sin, "gluttony" is sin, and so is every other form of behavior that is not in the center of God's will for one's life.

It is also covered by the blood of Christ the same way other sin is covered: by repentance and by accepting the free gift of salvation from God through the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary and His resurrection.

But in this post I am not addressing the question of sinfulness, I am addressing the behavior, itself.

I have worked side-by-side with uncloseted homosexuals in harmony and without any of their homosexuality "rubbing off" on me.

Homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law. There is absolutely no question in my mind about that.

Homosexuals do NOT deserve special treatment or privilege under the law. There is absolutely no question in my mind about that.

The question has come up in our country about "gay marriage"

In my humble, but correct, opinion, there cannot be any such thing as gay marriage, unless there is a re-definition of the word, "marriage," at which time we will have to come up with a new name for that which has been defined as "marriage" for umpteen thousand years.

The union of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, cohabitation and cooperation has been called marriage since it was ordained by God some time after the creation of all that is from nothingness.

I'm not sure who is in charge of "definitions," or "new words," but they aren't doing their jobs very well.

Because it is represented in a small portion of the population (from 2% - 7%, depending upon who's counting), it may properly be considered abnormal behavior.

Since it is behavior outside of that which serves a "useful evolutionary" function (which, BTW I don't believe in), and is non-procreative in nature, it may be properly considered inappropriate behavior.

(Background for this next statement: I have two male, neutered dogs who regularly engage in what my wife and I call "perverted" behavior. But they are not "gay" dogs, for if given access to a female dog they will eat each other alive trying to get to her...even though they can't accomplish their procreative intent when they do. It is really quite funny to watch).

Although many animals engage in what appears to be homosexual behavior, having been frustrated in their attempt to mate with a female of their species, when given the choice, every male animal will choose a female "partner" over the male...every time.

"Natural" means: that which occurs in nature.

Since there is no such thing as a truly homosexual dog, or goat or ape (which we are supposed to be most like), one can conclude that homosexuality is "un-natural."

Having said all of that, let me hasten to say that the mistreatment of another human being, whether for reasons of "sexual orientation," or skin color, or height or breadth always has been, is now and forever will be wrong.

I can't "fix" homosexuality (if fixing is what is needed), just as I can't "fix" liars, cheats, the proud, the aggressive or any other issue a person might have.

If asked, I will help where I can.

Otherwise, I will leave the homosexual to my God, who is all loving, while demanding perfect righteousness (which righteousness is found only in Christ).

I know this set of opinions will not be popular, to which I give the common, but definitive reply,

"Oh well."


sue said...

Joe - I believe you surpassed the limit of 500 words that was set by anon.

I believe that some gays- I'm not sure the percentage - are born gay.
There are others that embrace that life style in a promiscuous way.
I would prefer that homosexuality did not exist. But it does.

I can't imagine living my life in the closet but coming out isn't easy either.

Homosexuality is here to stay and those that act decently should be treated in a decent way.

Joe said...

Sue: you said, "I believe that some gays- I'm not sure the percentage - are born gay."

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Was it by some scientific report you have read, or is it from a desire to be "nice" to them as a whole? (You do seem like a very nice person.)

Have you ever gone to Disney World or Disneyland during "Gay Week?"

Very, very demonstratively strange.

snaggletoothie said...

Great post. Clearly thought out and clearly and plainly expressed. In fact one of the best posts I've ever read on the net. It reminded me of the writing of C. S. Lewis; and that is about as high a compliment as I could ever give to writing.
I suspect that you can only write so clearly because you truly know what you believe and what your life is founded on.

Joe said...

snaggletoothie: The check is in the mail.

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

I have a few gay friends and one gay family member, and with few exceptions they behave like "normal" individuals when they're out in society. I could care less what they do in their own homes, as long as I don't have to witness it.

But I have grown completely weary of the flamers who flaunt their gayness with that in-your-face style that does absolutely nothing to advance their cause, and in fact harms it.

I truly fear that "marriage" will be redefined someday and that the sanctity of home and family will be weakened.

Today the Vermont Senate passed the S-115, the Freedom to Marry Bill for gays in that state.

I realize this will probably be challenged legally, but it's the shape of things to come. We must remain vigilant, but it's very tiresome to keep up the good fight.

sue said...

Joe - Sometimes when I read, I do so hastily. The second time I read your post it was even better.

I say that I believe that many gays are born that way because of their characteristics (effeminate
manner in men and masculine in women - have you ever seen a picutre of Gertrude Stein? ) and I have read about men who have endured a heterosexual marriage for many years and finally could no more.

These are my opinions.

Please Joe, do not use the word 'nice' when describing me. For me that is an insult. I would rather you call me a b----. I think the word 'nice' is a useless, nondefinitive word.
Although it is true I am n---, underneath lurks a much more ferocious person waiting for the right time to ponce on whomever.

And I really like the way you talk about God, etc. You have become my number one blog to check.

You are like the way you say you like movies: Say what they are going to and then do it.gre

sue said...

I've never been to Disneyland.

sue said...

PCC: 'I could care less what they do in their own homes as long as I don't have to witness it.'

I would say the same of anyone - I don't care to witness what they do in their own homes.

Mark said...

Joe, like you, this is a subject I am very passionate about. But, unlike you, I believe homosexuality is a choice.

You asked, "[W]ho in his/her right mind would choose a lifestyle rife with so much grief?"

This is a rather common defense of advocates for the homosexual lifestyle, and on the surface, it is a viable defense.

Here's my take:

There are some people who want to suffer. I know that sounds illogical, but it's true. There are many documented cases of people who want to suffer.

Some are masochistic. Masochism is a condition usually associated with sexual perversion, as they get sexual pleasure from pain. But it's not always sexual.

Some like to suffer because they feel guilty about something, to the point where they feel they can't be punished enough. Besides Homosexuals, these people include those who intentionally mutilate themselves.

Still others cause themselves to suffer to get attention. This, like the others, is a pathological abnormality, and is the least known. The proper term for it is "Münchhausen's syndrome".

You may be more familiar with the better known form of this disorder, known as "Münchhausen's by proxy", in which the patient makes her loved ones suffer to garner attention for herself. I say "her" because it is much more common with women than with men.

But I digress. I am particularly familiar with Münchhausen's syndrome because I was once married to a woman afflicted with it. She was continually complaining about her problems and her suffering, at one time even to the point of actually exhibiting physical symptoms of pregnancy when she in fact, was barren. This was done for one specific purpose. To get attention. This personality trait cannot be satisfied. They will never get enough attention, which is why they go to further and further lengths to try to accomplish this impossible objective.

These are just three of the various personality types who "would choose a lifestyle rife with so much grief". There are undoubtedly more.

Of course, the answer is, no one in their right mind would choose such a lifestyle, but whoever said homosexuals are in their right mind?

Just my opinion, offered with all due respect.

Tapline said...

Joe, Great Post, I can't say I agree with everything you say, but opinions,,,,everyone has one.....I too believe that a person is born with a certain predisposition to Homosexuality, but as to that premise,,I don't have any proof to back up such a statement. Having worked with juveniles, I have seen some who I felt were homosexual but they chose not to disclose it and other who chose to disclose that they were after a few counseling sessions. Another feeling that I had was that many juveniles act out because they cannot face the inner feelings they have and are confused about their sexuality. ..As far a God is concerned, I say "He who is without sin, cast the first stone.".I ramble,,,,sorry.....

Mark said...

Oh, btw, I agree with everything else you wrote.

I suppose one could make the argument that homosexuality isn't a conscious choice, but at the Last Judgment, will that matter?

Joe said...

Sue: Like it or not, I like nice people, and know a few, among whom I counted you. To a normal, well adjusted human being, that would have been seen as a complement, and that was the way it was intended.

Thanks for the tongue-lashing, though...very tolerant.

TAO said...

First you say that homosexuality is NOT a choice then you go on to say that it is learned behavior.

Obviously, if it is learned then it can be unlearned and THAT would make it a choice to unlearn what is learned.

We all miss perfection in the eyes of God...if anyone of us were perfect by God's standard then God and religion would be irrelevant.

You believe that gays should have equal rights...but not marriage; you probably will want to develop a 'separate but equal' type of logic here.

As far as defining marriage differently that has occurred on a regular basis throughout society's history and mostly by hetrosexuals based upon what is convenient to the majority.

As far as your comment on Disneyland...some of us think Disneyland at anytime is a freak show....

Joe said...

To all:

First we have Sue who thinks a percentage of persons are born gay...though she presents no evidence of that.

Then we have Snaggletoothie, who thinks I'm a great writer (thank you, my friend...You have place me in hallowed company).

Next there is PCC, who thinks gays are basically OK as long as they don't flaunt.

After that there is Mark, who believes homosexuality is a choice.

Tapline also believes that people choose to be gay.

Finally there is good old TAO, who likes to fill in the blanks with his own assessment of what others think ("You probably will want to develop a 'separate but equal' type of logic here."), which I did not address, and who has some valid issues for discussion, and with whose remarks about Disney World/Land I totally agree..

That's EXACTLY what I predicted would happen (see my WARNING in the post).

Guess I was right.

BTW: My conclusions were based on a study I did for the Psychology department of Stetson University, under the guidance of Warren S. Jones, the head of the department.

I studied 150 admitted homosexuals' sociological environments from the time they were 7 years of age until they were 21 years of age (no simple task in 1963, by the way).

My conclusions were based on the results of that study, and that study alone. They were MY conclusions, not necessarily the conclusions of the Department of Psychology (although that issue was never discussed, since the study was designed to teach me how to study an issue, not for the University to publish the results thereof).

I stand by my conclusions...with which you are free to disagree.

(I really HATE when I agree with TAO! He's so obtuse! [But admittedly fun]).

TAO said...

I'm obtuse? Like lacking in sharpness or quickness or intellect?

And your 'knowledge' is based on a personal undergraduate project you did in 1963.

Why not publish you little ditty and let us analyze YOUR sources....since you love to jump Sue about hers...

Joe said...

TAO: Obtuse is an angle. I'm a direct descendent of the Saxons...I know all the Angles.

And in the words of a famous hero of mine, "Well...there you go again."

I never once claimed any knowledge as the result of my study...did I?

I CLEARLY, CLEARLY stated that it was my conclusion based on my study, not some level of knowledge.

I couldn't publish my study if I wanted to...it was done as a lesson in how to develop a study, not as a publishable study.

I actually turned it into an actual study to discover whether or not I knew how.

I must have, for I got an "A" on the paper.

I could do it over, but at age 67...naw.

Besides...I didn't "jump" Sue about her sources, I just wondered how she arrived at her conclusion.

So tell me, Master TAO, do you agree with Snaggletoothie as to his assessment of my writing skills?

I thought not.

Lone Ranger said...

I heard bulimics tried to start a rights movement, but between the cleanup costs after every meeting and the slip and fall lawsuits after their Bulimic Pride parades, they went bankrupt.

What kind of country is this when we allow people with self-destructive mental illnesses to do whatever they want simply because they claim their affliction is a right?

sue said...

Joe - When I read your article I took notice of what you said:

Homosexuality misses the perfect mark of perfection required by God to be in His presence...

Although I didn't make a comment, I thought the same thing that Tao did, that we all miss perfection in the eyes of God.

That's all. Just wanted to mention that.

sue said...

Romans 3:23 - For we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Mark said...

LR, did you hear about the bulimic and anorexic convention?

It was a disaster. The bulimics ate the anorexics.

It's not as bad as it sounds, however. They were back 5 minutes later.

sue said...

How fortunate we that are imperfect are to have Mark and LR lead us down the road to perfection.

Lone Ranger said...

You're welcome. I do what I can.

Joe said...

LR and Mark: Bolemics...funny (I guess if you are one you might be offended...but hey, all humor is both based in truth and offensive to someone. Ever watch Saturday Night Live?

Sue: I certainly agree that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

That includes me and homosexuals, and liars, and theives and hate-mongers, and the arrogant, and so on and so on.

The only solution to the sin problem is the shed blood of Christ at the cross of Calvary and His resurrection (Romans 10:9, et.al.)

David Wyatt said...

Bro. Joe: You said, "The only solution to the sin problem is the shed blood of Christ at the cross of Calvary and His resurrection (Romans 10:9, et.al.)" Amen! & Thank God.

Susannah said...

Amen, amen, amen, amen...the whole thing.

Loved it...notion of sinfulness, the origin of the 'lifestyle' as learned behavior, mistreating anyone - regardless - is wrong, etc., etc.

Great post. Very thoughtful, respectful, honest, but unyeilding. You're my kinda guy, Joe.

Hug that sweet wife of yours & pat those pooches!