Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Facts rarely get in the way of the Gay agenda

Listening to the various voices that are fueling the homosexual agenda, you would think a large portion of society identified themselves as gay. Numbers upward of 10% are often given. The facts simply do not bare out such claims, but then again, the homosexual agenda has never been about facts. Even in this sexually sick culture, research shows less than 1.5% of the population identifies itself as gay.

Nevertheless, the homosexual agenda is powerful and politically connected. A few weeks ago Kobe Bryant got fined big money for using a term viewed as "gay bashing". Joakim Noah of the Chicago Bulls just got fined for a similar crime- $50,000 for calling someone an "anti-gay slur". The NBA seems to be particularly sensitive to the Homosexual agenda as some of it's stars are even recording pro-gay public announcements. There is a celebrity machine in this country that is powerful in driving opinion. Much of the awareness surrounding the gay marriage issue has come from celebrities speaking out on the matter. Celebrity advocacy of any kind of marriage is somewhat ironic, don't you think?

Things have gotten so ridiculous in our culture that even siting facts about numbers of people who identify themselves as gay or pointing out some of the illogic of the homosexual agenda gets you labeled "homophobic".

Michael Medved wrote an excellent piece for the USA Today that outlines much of what I am saying here. Check it out below.

Does it matter if only 1.4% of people are gay?

By Michael Medved

The nation's increasingly visible and influential gay community embraces the notion of sexual orientation as an innate, immutable characteristic, like left-handedness or eye color. But a major federal sex survey suggests a far more fluid, varied life experience for those who acknowledge same-sex attraction.

The results of this scientific research shouldn't undermine the hard-won respect recently achieved by gay Americans, but they do suggest that choice and change play larger roles in sexual identity than commonly assumed. The prestigious study in question (released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) discovered a much smaller number of "gays, lesbians and homosexuals" than generally reported by the news media. While pop- culture frequently cites the figure of one in 10 (based on 60-year-old, widely discredited conclusions from pioneering sex researcher Alfred Kinsey) the new study finds only 1.4% of the population identifying with same-sex orientation.

Moreover, even among those who describe themselves as homosexual or bisexual (a grand total of 3.7% of the 18-44 age group), overwhelming majorities (81%) say they've experienced sex with partners of the opposite gender. Among those who call themselves heterosexual, on the other hand, only a tiny minority (6%) ever engaged in physical intimacy of any kind with a member of the same sex These figure indicate that 94% of those living heterosexual lives felt no physical attraction to members of the same sex, but the great bulk of self-identified homosexuals and bisexuals feel enough intimate interest in the opposite gender to engage in erotic contact at some stage in their development.

A one-way street

Gay pride advocates applaud the courage of those who "come out," discovering their true nature as homosexual after many years of heterosexual experience. But enlightened opinion denies a similar possibility of change in the other direction, deriding anyone who claims straight orientation after even the briefest interlude of homosexual behavior and insisting they are phony and self-deluding. By this logic, heterosexual orientation among those with past gay relationships is always the product of repression and denial, but homosexual commitment after a straight background is invariably natural and healthy. In fact, numbers show huge majorities of those who "ever had same sex sexual contact" do not identify long-term as gay. Among women 18-44, for instance, 12.5% report some form of same sex contact at some point in their lives, but among the older segment of that group (35-44), only 0.7% identify as homosexual and 1.1% as bisexual.

In other words, for the minority who may have experimented with gay relationships at some juncture in their lives, well over 80% explicitly renounced homosexual (or even bisexual) self-identification by age of 35. For the clear majority of males (as well as women) who report gay encounters, homosexual activity appears to represent a passing phase, or even a fleeting episode, rather than an unshakable, genetically pre-determined orientation.

The once popular phrase "sexual preference" has been indignantly replaced with the term "sexual orientation" because political correctness now insists there is no factor of willfulness or volition in the development of erotic identity. This may well be the case for the 94% of males and 87% of females (ages 18-44) who have never experienced same-sex contact of any kind and may never have questioned their unwavering straight outlook — an outlook deemed "normal" in an earlier age.

‘Let go’ of one in 10

For the less than 2% of men and women who see themselves as gay, however, the issue of sexual orientation remains vastly more complicated. Within a month of the release of the CDC/NCHS report, one of the world's most respected think tanks on gay life confirmed some of its most surprising findings, without specifically referencing the recent government study. UCLA's Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy offered a new estimate of homosexual identification: concluding that 1.7% of Americans say they're gay, and a slightly larger group (1.8%) identified as bisexual — by definition attracted to both genders and shaping their sexual behavior through some mixture of inclination and preference.

Brad Sears of the Williams Institute defended the accuracy of these numbers, suggesting gay leaders "let go" of previous, unrealistic estimates of homosexual orientation. He told the Associated Press that "with other populations of a similar size of 2% to 4%, we don't question whether there are too many or too few." For instance, no one suggests Jewish Americans should be treated with contempt or dismissed as irrelevant to the Christian majority because they number below 2% of the U.S. population. Nor would the news media shy away from reporting that in an age of religious conversion, choice plays a role in adding to and subtracting from the Jewish community.

Religious identity arises from birth, upbringing, instinct, even destiny, but the fact that it almost always includes some element of choice doesn't entitle the believer to less respect. By the same token, it's no sign of hostility or homophobia to point to recent data suggesting that life experience and personal decisions play roles alongside inborn inclination in the complex, sometimes inconclusive, emergence of the gay and lesbian identity.


woody said...

If you love people, you tell them the truth. The truth is, this act is planly an issue of sin, and sins needs to be dealt with at the foot of the Cross. For Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe!

Jim said...

I've never quite understood why Augustinians insist that sin must be by "choice" in order to be sin. That's an Armenian argument.

We are born inclined to sin. That some folks are born with an innate inclination to homosexual desire relative to any other sin doesn't seem to me problematic. Original sin is original sin is orginal sin.

We should remember that in Romans 1, Paul classifies among those sins equivalent to homosexual sex are: greed, envy, strife, gossip, insolence, arrogance, boasting and disobedience to parents.

Is it possible that Christians talk more about the sin of homosexual sin precisely because it is rare? Safer to focus on that than greed, envy, gossip and boasting. Those sins may cut a bit too close to home for most of our congregations.

Roger Mann said...

Jim wrote,

I've never quite understood why Augustinians insist that sin must be by "choice" in order to be sin. That's an Armenian argument.

That’s not quite true. The Augustinian or Calvinist position doesn’t deny human “choice” per se. It only denies “libertarian free will” or “the power of contrary choice.” The fact that God alone determines our choices doesn’t negate the fact that they are our choices to which we will be held accountable to God.

We are born inclined to sin. That some folks are born with an innate inclination to homosexual desire relative to any other sin doesn't seem to me problematic. Original sin is original sin is orginal sin.

Original sin isn’t merely an inclination to sin; it's also the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin to each and every one of us. But that hardly means that every act of sin, including homosexual sex, is “equally” grave in the sight of God, as you seem to suggest.

We should remember that in Romans 1, Paul classifies among those sins equivalent to homosexual sex are: greed, envy, strife, gossip, insolence, arrogance, boasting and disobedience to parents.

While these sins are “equivalent” to one another in the sense that they all deserve God’s ultimate judgment of eternal death, they are clearly not of the same degree of heinousness. The Bible plainly teaches that some sins are worse than others (Matt 12:31; Jn 19:11), incurring a greater condemnation (Lk 20:46-47) and a more severe punishment (Lk 12:47-48). And homosexual sex is a prime example of a sin that is more heinous than many others listed in Scripture:

First, it is “against nature,” as it is contrary to God’s creation of us as male and female (Rom. 1:26).

Second, it is itself a judgment of God upon men and women for their idolatry: “For this reason God gave them up to [the] vile passions” of lesbianism and sodomy (Rom 1:26-27). God’s giving someone over to homosexuality is an instance of “the wrath of God…revealed from heaven” in this world (Rom. 1:18).

Third, sodomy is the central sin which brought down fire from heaven, destroying entire cities: “Sodom and Gomorrah…going after strange flesh [cf. Gen. 19:4-5], are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

Fourth, sodomy is one of the sins that incurs the death penalty under the civil code of the Mosaic Law (Lev 20:13), which clearly indicates that it is a greater offense than many others.

Is it possible that Christians talk more about the sin of homosexual sin precisely because it is rare?

The reason it is “rare” and morally outrages most people is because it is an extremely unnatural act that perverts the normal sex act between a man and a woman, and is highlighted in Scripture as an “abomination” in the sight of God. While it is certainly not the most grave sin one can commit (Matt 11:24), it is clearly more serious than many other sins we commit on a daily basis.

Another reason I think it is focused on so much these days is because of how blatantly it’s being shoved down our throats as “respectable,” “harmless,” and “loving” (especially to children and young adults), while anyone who opposes it is smeared as a “homophobe,” “hate-monger,” and “bigot.” I’m sure if there were such an aggressive societal push to normalize bestiality and pedophilia, Christians would talk more about those sins as well…

Woody Woodward said...

I think the body of Christ does a egregious injustice when we ignorantly and flippantly refer to the sin of homosexuality as "hate the sin, love the sinner." Having been guilty of this trite cliché myself far too many times, when I got to thinking about how those words might sound to those we are trying to reach, I had to confess, to my this is a hateful approach to witnessing. No doubt sinner, living in sin need not be told it's a sin, but to be shown the love of Christ by actually living for Christ.

Jim said...

Arminian, not Armenian. Duh.

Brother Titus said...

I haven't ever had anyone I personally know (family or personal friends) who's come to me and said, or I've heard had said, "I'm gay." Not one person. But, I do believe one guy from the church I attend came out from that lifestyle choice to become a Christian. But, we're not close. So, I'm not sure what I would do if some unrepentant friend or relative close to me, "came out," other than give him or her the Gospel. Yet, for me, that statement would definitely changer in my relationship with that person. How? I couldn't say at this point.

As far as working with people who identify themselves as, "gay:" As long as I can do my job and they can do theirs, that's ok with me. The company I currently work for has at least two alleged lesbians ("girlfriends") working there. I get along with them fine. One of them is a very likeable, friendly people-person. And, I refuse to go along with the jokes about them.

Jim said...


I don't think we disagree on the "choice" thing.

For some reasons Christians - including Augustinians - have resisted the idea that one can have an inclination toward homosexual sin.

It's always seemed to me that, given original sin - which is inherited corruption of human nature - we all have an inclination to sin. (I grant, and believe, the imputation of Adam's sin as well. The imputation was not pertinent to the point I was making; that's the only reason for not mentioning it in a brief comment on a blog.)

So I just don't see why Christians can't just concede the point and move onto the more important point - that having an innate inclination does not imply the absence of culpability or responsibility for indulging that inclination.

My actual point is that if Christians, or at least the Augustinians among us, would argue consistently with our anthropology, then it just doesn't matter whether homosexual inclinations are "chosen" or not.

The upshot of my argument is to maintain responsibility for the sin qua sin, rather than mitigate it (as you incorrectly suggest). It's the Pelagian anthropology that struggles with the implication of the argument that the desire for homosexual sex is in-born rather than "chosen."

I also didn't suggest that all sins are the same. The sins I reported were taken directly from Ro 1.28-32, where Paul continues the same discourse - in which sins such as gossip, arrogance and boasting are also as the result of being turned over to a "depraved mind" and sins worthy of "death."

Cf., Gal 5.19-21: "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

My point wasn't at all to mitigate the sin of homosexual actions. Rather it is to observe that highlighting the sinfulness of particular sins can be a form of self-deception: E.g., that as long as I don't engage in homosexual sex and participate in an abortion, then I'm all right with God.

We'd never say that explicitly, of course, but when we outline some sins in scarlet, it seems to me that we often start to wink at the other sins.

As an aside - I believe that one reason homosexuality is a issue today is because the church effectively began winking at divorce (i.e., serial adultery) in the 1960s (or perhaps in the 1950s). When the church begins erasing lines and drawing new ones, we shouldn't be surprised if others want to continue the process of erasing lines. And when the church then objects, they ask what's so different from what they're doing than what the church did earlier.

A final note: Try pointing out to a Christian sometime that gossip or boasting is a sin "worthy of death."
Except for the rare individual, I would wager that you'll get a response of rationalization and justification - i.e., how their gossip or boasting isn't a sin. You'll also probably be called judgmental.

These sins have already been "normalized," so we don't talk about them.

Which sin do we need to fear most: the one that we still recognize as sin, or the one that we no longer recognize as sin because our hearts and minds have been hardened to them for so long.