Skip to comments.
Homo No Mo’?
A report from the June 10 Love Won Out conference.
National Review Online ^
| June 15, 2006
| Eve Tushnet
Posted on 06/15/2006 9:26:03 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: SoulMan
Let me know if they print your letter.
To: SoulMan
You are misrepresenting things in post 37. She is saying that the psychological treatment offered by ex-gay ministries sometimes fails sincere people. Clearly she is not expecting to pray and have her feelings go away. She is expecting to pray and have her behavior controlled. She doesn't think the desire is itself a sin, so she doesn't know she needs to repent of it.
How do you suppose people repented of homosexuality before psychological treatments were developed? When Paul says, "such were some of you..." where does he mention their psychologists.
I don't want to be too tough on you. Congratulations on your many successes. I am happy that psychoanalysis therapy helped you. I just wish you wouldn't promote the idea that faith isn't enough. It clearly was enough in the Apostle Paul's day. I am especially bothered by the ex-gay movement's push in the public schools. Leave the kids alone. If you want to offer therapies, do it outside of public, compulsory education. You don't speak for everyone. Your cause is noble enough, and much of what you say is beneficial. But your theology is greatly lacking, and I just can't overlook that.
42
posted on
06/16/2006 8:21:27 AM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; SoulMan
Ghost and SoulMan, I think what you both have to say is valuable and deserves respectful discussion (which, thank you, is what we have had so far: isn't that a FReepin' wonderment!)
I want to add that it is possible to sin in thought as well as in word and deed: that is, cherishing and nurturing within you any kind of corrupt thought (whether it be lust, envy, revenge, hatred, contempt of others, pride or whatever) is morally offensive in itself and leads to even worse outward manifestations.
However, involuntary feelings, though they are objectively disordered, are not morally culpable, You can, and should, try with all the faith and skill and persistence and tenacity you have, to banish disordered feelings (and some people, maybe after years of struggle, do so successfully); but if feelings come back un-willed and un-called-for, this constituted a trial, a vexation, and a temptation, but not a sin. You can't be guilty of anything you did not will. No more than you could be guilty of a dream.
Nobody knows what they "thorn in the flesh" was that St. Paul wanted to vehemently to be free of (he felt like it was Satan beating him up) --- but it might have been just this sort of involuntary inward temptation.
43
posted on
06/16/2006 9:33:35 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Miserere, Domine.)
To: Mrs. Don-o
I think you worded that very well. Nice job. I really can't agree with the part about not being morally culpable for so-called involuntary feelings. People don't necessarily choose to be jealous, greedy, angry or hateful. These things are the fruits of our sin nature. I think we become morally culpable when we have the ability to recognize them. We are born with a sin nature yet we are 100% morally culpable for it.
I think you offered great clarity on this. Don't Christians still think Jesus Christ is sufficient for overcoming all sin? If we don't, then what's this whole repentance/faith/salvation exercise all about? If the therapist offers a better plan, who needs Christ? That's where I am coming from. All the Christians I know say that Jesus saved them, not their therapist (And please, I am not saying Soulman is not a genuine Christian. I would have no way of knowing. I am just pointing out an important difference.)
The Christian message is that the Lord Jesus has the answer to our sin problem. He offers forgiveness and transformation. The transformation is from the inside, out.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it sin to seek therapy. I just think the concepts promoted are not scripturally sound. So I don't like the Christian label used, especially when it is touted as a necessary addition to faith in Christ. Faith can't do it. Therapy can. That is the dangerous message, yet they claim just the opposite.
44
posted on
06/16/2006 9:57:06 AM PDT
by
The Ghost of FReepers Past
(Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; Mrs. Don-o; little jeremiah; Antoninus; scripter; Darkwolf377; ...
A Few Points
Ghost wrote: Clearly she is not expecting to pray and have her feelings go away. She is expecting to pray and have her behavior controlled.
My response: Every homosexual passes through a stage where they pray to God to take their homosexuality away and make them like everyone else. This phase is an intrinsic part of homosexual psychological development. Trust me, Ms. Tushnet went through this phase at some point in her life.
Ghost wrote: I just wish you wouldn't promote the idea that faith isn't enough. It clearly was enough in the Apostle Paul's day.
My response: The Apostle Paul didnt live in a complex, post-industrial society with a broken down family structure and 50% divorce rate. If you think about, people had it good in Bible days: strong families, strong interpersonal relationships. People today confront a host of ills and problems that would be unfathomable to people who lived in Bible times.
My next response: I am not promoting the idea that faith isnt enough. Maybe it is enough for some people. Its not for me to say.
I am reporting an objective, empirical FACT. I have seen countless people who believe that their faith will save them from homosexuality. They try to pray their way out of homosexuality. When it doesnt work, they turn bitter and start attacking the ex-gay movement. The article by Ms. Tushnet that started this thread is a perfect example. Believe me, this article is not benign. People will read it, it will affirm their belief that homosexuality is innate and it cant be changed and they will go deeper into homosexual fantasy and behavior. (Read the comment by Darkwolf377 on this thread).
Based on my observations of many years, I believe that to begin to counter the destructive social trend toward acceptance of the lie that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, science and faith have to work together. The great irony here is of course that in this battle, science is on our side. If anyone else has a better idea, I am eager to hear it.
45
posted on
06/18/2006 7:57:16 AM PDT
by
SoulMan
To: SoulMan
I think that part of Eve Tushnet's motivation is very much like yours, though on the obverse side.
Certainly therapy programs work for some people: and may God prosper them. But she has seen people go through ex-gay programs (sometimes for years) and come out beating themselves up for failure because they "still have those feelings." After they finish beating themselves up, they turn bitterly anti-ex-gay: hard-boiled, double-dyed queers.
Tushnet wants somebody out there to say, "You may one of the subset of people who have those feelings --- same-sex attraction --- for the rest of your life. The truth is, you still have to avoid the sin of illicit intercourse. You have to deal with this the way all the rest of us deal with sinful tendencies: intimate contact with the Lord. Scripture, prayer, Sacrament.
Again I say, this goes for all of us. We are a mess. We don't just require therapy. We require a heart transplant. Jesus says, "Here, my beloved. Here's my heart."
46
posted on
06/18/2006 9:01:16 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
To: Mrs. Don-o; DBeers; little jeremiah; scripter
Dear Mrs Don-o,
Do you and Ms. Tushnet believe in the God of the Bible or do you believe in the "Gay" Rights Leaders?
My sense is that both you and Ms. Tushnet believe that "Gay" Rights Leaders are smarter than God.
The Bible says a few things like "Male and Female He Created them," "Be fruitful and multiply" "Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so they become one flesh."
If God does not provide a way out of homosexuality, these statements must be seen as either cruel or idiotic.
In the Bible I read, God also seems to say a few things about human redemption. If homosexuality is not changeable, then the "Gay" Rights Leaders are smarter than God.
You and Ms. Tushnet should pray to the "Gay" rights leaders. Why waste your time and pray to God, who obviously doens't know what He is talking about?
Heck, you don't even have to be literate and able to read the Bible. Look out the window. If nature issues one command, it's "REPRODUCE." Human life as we know it is built on the dichotomy of male and female. Oh, but I guess Ms. Tushnet knows better.
My God does not make promises He cannot keep. if we have failed to help men and women out of homosexuality, it is because we are not yet wise enough, compassionate enough or loving enough. Out faith is not yet strong enough.
My God does not lie.
47
posted on
06/18/2006 9:36:50 AM PDT
by
SoulMan
To: SoulMan
We apparently are having a communication problem here Eve Tushnet and I both oppose, and are opposed by, the "Gay Right Leaders."
Christ never promised that we would be free of temptation in this life. He did and does promise that He will give us the strength to overcome temptation and triumph in His Name.
48
posted on
06/18/2006 10:17:37 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
To: SoulMan
(Read the comment by Darkwolf377 on this thread). Based on my observations of many years, I believe that to begin to counter the destructive social trend toward acceptance of the lie that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, science and faith have to work together. 1.What are the success rates compared to the failure rates of turning someone "ex-gay"? (No conclusive stats? How wonderfully convenient for you.)
2. I guess two of the founders of one of the major ex-gay groups just didn't pay attention to the "FACTS" enough, seeing how they quit their ex-gay life and married each other. (Need I add they're both men?)
3. A show of hands--how many people would let their daughter marry an "ex-gay"?
4.The fervor of those who WANT this stuff to be true is immaterial. Let's see all these "FACTS". Simple enough request, isn't it?
To: Mrs. Don-o
You can't have it both ways. One either has faith or one doesn't.
You and Ms. Tushnet want to say (these are your words):
You may be one of the subset of people who have those feelings --- same-sex attraction --- for the rest of your life
On the other hand you say (your words again):
He will give us the strength to overcome temptation.
Well, which is it? Either faith is worthwhile or we should give up when things don't go our way. Either we are slaves to our desires or not. Either redemption exists or it doesn't. Which side are you on?
I can only judge Ms. Tushnet by the article she wrote for the National Review. She repeats the same old tired cliches seen everywhere in the mainstream media how ex-gay therapies and ministries don't work. There is nothing new here. And I said elsewhere, this article is not benign. People will read it, they will take it as further evidence that homosexuality is innate, that change is impossible and it will drive them into further homosexual fantasy and behavior. If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.
Ms. Tushnet may claim to be opposed by Gay Rights leaders. But at the end of day, she is parroting their message of despair and broadcasting it to the world. She is negating the possibility of change. People will suffer.
If this is her (and your) version of faith and Godliness, I cannot accept it. I have seen too much in my lifetime. I saw my best friend buried before he was thirty because he accepted this message and contracted AIDS.
Beware of the evil that disguises itself as good.
50
posted on
06/18/2006 10:36:12 AM PDT
by
SoulMan
To: Darkwolf377
We have debated these questions before. There are logical answers to each of the questions you raise and I would like the opportunity to address them. I had addressed them in previous posts (you can look them up) and apparently the answers were not satisfactory. I will try again.
However, answering these questions is time consuming, since you are asking for facts and information beyond my personal experience. If you are really sincere, I will take the time to look up some information and get back to you. But I do hope you are sincere.
I don't have the time to do the research now. It will take a few days. I don't have this information at my fingertips. So I hope you will be patient. Let me ask you this, of the questions you ask, which is the most relevant to you, since addressing these concerns in a satisfactory manner is time consuming.
Thanks.
51
posted on
06/18/2006 10:48:52 AM PDT
by
SoulMan
To: SoulMan
Actually, you've answered my question by the inability to send me to accurate, sound research backing this up. Don't waste your time looking up material I've probably already looked at, and which hasn't altered my opinion.
I am sorry if my disagreeing with you on this offends you. You strike me as someone sincere in his beliefs. But the facts aren't with you as far as I can see.
To: Mrs. Don-o
There's something wrong with merely singling out gays as candidates for comprehensive head-bending "reparative" programs; because the sexual disorder in our society is broader than just "gays" with a "problem.". When discussing the homosexual disorder one must necessarily single out "homosexuals". Homosexuality is not comparable to heterosexuality -homosexuality is intrinsically disordered...
There is good reason as evidenced below why the Catholic Church specifically singles out homosexual candidates:
Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
2. Homosexuality and the Ordained Ministry From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".
Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.
Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
53
posted on
06/18/2006 11:01:12 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: Darkwolf377
But the facts aren't with you as far as I can see.
Well, the fact is the FACTS are with me. But more than that, the GOOD FEELINGS holding my girlfriend, kissing her, loving her, seeing how beautiful it is to be loved by a woman, these outweigh any research done by any professor! It's hard to prove statistically but Trust Me It's the Truth!
54
posted on
06/18/2006 11:04:29 AM PDT
by
SoulMan
To: DBeers
55
posted on
06/18/2006 11:05:20 AM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.)
To: SoulMan
Excellent Letter!
Thank you for writing it and posting it.
56
posted on
06/18/2006 11:18:34 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: mikeyc
Ping to post # 36 for your thoughts and perspective.
57
posted on
06/18/2006 11:21:01 AM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: RedQuill
Yeah, I caught that too. :-)
To: Mrs. Don-o
Switching sexual orientations has little or nothing to do with that. A person who experiences only same-sex attraction can still be chaste; while a person who has only opposite-sex attractions can be a pathetic horndog. Setting aside controversy regarding what does and does not work, which method is best etcetera THERE is still one thing very wrong with what the writer of the article puts forth.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not comparable as she appears to argue. A chaste individual that suffers the homosexual disorder is still an individual suffering a disorder while a chaste heterosexual is not in any way disordered.
59
posted on
06/18/2006 12:03:18 PM PDT
by
DBeers
(†)
To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
***Mt 5:27-28 - "You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.***
So, your arguement is that a homosexual sins because his homosexual desire in itself is a sin...
But if he was cured, his transfer of lust to a woman would make him an adulterer...
As a man with exclusively homosexual attractions, just by having those attractions does not mean that I lust for other men. I don't think I have wanted to have sexual engagement with another person in years... and if my 'orientation' was changed, then what would prevent me from lusting for a woman?... hence, your logic doesn't stand up.
60
posted on
06/18/2006 12:43:33 PM PDT
by
mikeyc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson