Gay Pastor's(xupc)recent Letter to the UPCI ! ! !

Originally Posted by Thad

Point Six
Citing the fact that there is “no evidence that someone is born with a gay gene” is not only a misguided thought process but a scientifically unsound one as well. The theory that the absence of a “gay gene” somehow disproves a genetic connection to homosexuality is as unfounded as the theory that the absence of a “straight gene” disproves a genetic connection to heterosexuality.

A couple of articles worth reading: http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html and http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

As Christians how do we reconcile the fact that there are individuals who are born with genital and sexual characteristics of both sexes (intersexed)? It is estimated that the number of births in which the external genitals of the child do not match the standard for their chromosomal sex is 1:100. In other words, there are approximately 60 million individuals across the globe whose external genitals do not correspond with their chromosomal sex and who fail to reflect God’s original creative plan. Who are these individuals allowed to marry? Who are these individuals allowed to have sexual relationships with?

What do birth defects have to do with being homosexual?

I do not claim to have the answer to that question but only present it here to demonstrate that the scientific evidence presented in Dr. Norris’s article was too simplified and potentially misleading to the average lay reader.

It was an article, not a book! Homosexuals are just as "sloppy" in their representations when they go around essentially claiming that in every school, workplace, family, etc. 10 percent of the people are homosexual. They're just as "sloppy" when they try to claim that they're born gay, born sexually and romantically attracted to others of their own sex.

We must be honest in acknowledging that there is a broad body of scientific research regarding the influence of both genetics and environment on sexual orientation. Because there is substantial research that appears to validate both sides we cannot simply isolate the body of work which supports only one viewpoint. The reality is that God’s intended plan, as revealed through the creation of Adam and Eve, has been mutated and altered since man’s fall.

Most of that research is flawed and, even where it isn't flawed, it doesn't prove that anyone is born homosexual. God's intended plan has NEVER been mutated or altered but God's created design of male and female did become mutated and altered in some humans subsequent to the fall. These mutations and alterations are still contrary to God's created design and still need to be healed. The presence of such mutations and alterations doesn't give us a right to embrace and act on them!

Point Seven
As far as twin studies go, it is vital that we acknowledge the fact that there are epigenetic variations among identical twins.[/quote]The twin studies are flawed! http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/resear...s/2001_04.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

It is quite reasonable to assume that one twin’s sexual orientation could vary from that of the other just as one identical twin can be left handed while the other is right handed.[/quote]Well, no, it is not reasonable! http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

The statistics surrounding homosexuality among identical twins reveals that there is more likelihood for sexual orientation likeness among identical twins than that of non-twin siblings just as there is more likelihood of same handedness among identical twins than non-twin siblings...[/quote]Again, this is not true. Quoting from http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html: "Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too."

Again, I make this point to demonstrate the overly simplistic approach Dr. Norris took in citing statistics and scientific research regarding homosexuality.

And how often does the leftist media demonstrate an overly simplistic approach in reporting the so-called findings of the various "studies" that supposedly prove some people are born gay?

Point Eight
Last, I would like to briefly address the reference to the DSM (a diagnostic manual endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association) in Dr. Norris’s article. It seems irresponsible to suggest that homosexuality can be altered or changed simply because the APA once listed it in the DSM as a psychological disorder. Mental retardation is currently listed in the DSM yet we would not suggest it is a choice or that it is subject to change. Why then is this a legitimate argument for changing homosexuality?

Behavior can be changed. The argument this character is making against Norris is essentially that no so-called "mental disorder" can ever be altered or changed and no one should try.

It is also worth pointing out that even when homosexuality was listed in the DSM, the APA did not claim changing the behavior as a recommended course of treatment. In fact, the DSM does not claim to identify the etiology (cause) of psychological disorders and certainly does not provide guidance for treatment. The DSM is simply a tool used to classify disorders, identify their symptoms, and offer “guidelines for making diagnoses.”

So what?

Dr. Norris appears to suggest in his article that we should give more credence to past views within psychiatry that defined homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Should we also then embrace past views within psychiatry regarding lobotomies?

So, more recent views are necessarily the correct views? Does this mean that modern views about right and wrong, etc. should be accepted over those of the Bible?

I have worked on Psychiatric units where Christians were labeled “religiously preoccupied” and, in some cases, Schizophrenic because they claimed that God spoke to them. Certainly Dr. Norris would not validate this kind of psychiatric diagnosis.

More evidence that psychology and psychiatry are nothing more than quackery! This character makes it seem as if psychology and psychiatry are absolute truth.

My point is that Christian leaders should be careful in giving substantial credence to organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association due to the incompatibility that exists between many of their philosophies and those taught by the Church.

No credence should be given to such organizations!

Conclusion
Oliver Thomas made a simple yet insightful observation regarding the state of the Church and its approach to homosexuality. “…whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones, the child’s brain structure, or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability…Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you’re powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it’s likely to be.”

Yes, if we get people to believe they're born gay then they get to deny their culpability for choosing to act on their unnatural attraction. This is, in fact, what that wicked worldly philosophy called "psychology" tries to do - remove culpability. A child isn't being rebellious against his parents, he has "oppositional-defiant disorder." A man isn't committing the sin of wrath, he has "intermittent explosive disorder."

How does the Church address the fact that as a child I prayed every night for God to make me “normal” like my brothers and other male friends? How does the Church reconcile the fact that my prayers were never answered? The truth is, if science never finds a link to genetics and sexual orientation, one thing is certain; I never chose to be gay. This is a fact Christianity and its leaders are going to eventually have to accept.

Who the devil does this guy think he is that he thinks God is even required to answer any of his prayers? It's true he never chose to have the unnatural homosexual attraction that developed during his childhood but he did choose to embrace it and act on it in rebellion against God.

The facts are simple yet difficult for many to comprehend. Yet, if we are going to try and understand the facts it will require that those on both sides of the issue step outside of their respective veils of ignorance and discuss homosexuality with empathy, compassion, and integrity.

And step into the truth of God's word where homosexual attraction is contrary to God's created design and where homosexual behavior is sin!