So many people believe that homosexuals are "born that way" and cannot help it. The conclusion they draw is, "This is another civil right" just like race or gender. The truth is, there is no conclusive scientific evidence that "homosexuality" is genetic and that it cannot be altered. I disagree with that conclusion (having investigated all the major studies on genetics and homosexual behavior (a appropriate description), and all the major "propaganda" spread by the major media outlets and some political parties.
Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield holds a Ph.D. in English Literature and Cultural Studies from The Ohio State University. On faculty at Syracuse University in the English Department and Women's Studies Program, with research interests and publications in feminist theory, 19th century British literature, and queer theory, she was nominated for tenure in 1998. After her conversion to Christianity in 1999, Dr. Butterfield served as adjunct faculty in English at Geneva College (Beaver Falls, Pa.), changing her academic research to Christian hermeneutics. Dr. Butterfield is married to Reverend Kent C. Butterfield, pastor of the First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham. The Butterfields live in Durham, N.C., with two of their four children. She loves pouring her life into her church and into homeschooling her children. She is the author of a Christian memoir, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith (Crown and Covenant Publications, 2012). She is working on two new books, one on Biblical sexuality and the other on Biblical hospitality. A motivational conference speaker and friend, Rosaria encourages audiences to develop Biblical fluency, trust in the inerrant and inspired word of God, and think with Biblical compassion and rigor about the cultural and political issues of our day.
Below is a description of her book:
Rosaria, by the standards of many, was living a very good life. She had a tenured position at a large university in a field for which she cared deeply. She owned two homes with her partner, in which they provided hospitality to students and activists that were looking to make a difference in the world. There, her partner rehabilitated abandoned and abused dogs. In the community, Rosaria was involved in volunteer work. At the university, she was a respected adviser of students and her department's curriculum. And then, in her late 30s, Rosaria encountered something that turned her world upside down-the idea that Christianity, a religion that she had regarded as problematic and sometimes downright damaging, might be right about who God was, an idea that flew in the face of the people and causes that she most loved. What follows is a story of what she describes as a "train wreck" at the hand of the supernatural. These are her secret thoughts about those events, written as only a reflective English professor could. Conversion put me in a complicated and comprehensive chaos. I sometimes wonder, when I hear other Christians pray for the salvation of the "lost," if they realize that this comprehensive chaos is the desired end of such prayers. Often, people asked me to describe the "lessons" that I learned from this experience. I can't. It was too traumatic. Sometimes in crisis, we don't really learn lessons. Sometimes the result is simpler and more profound: sometimes our character is simply transformed.-Rosaria Butterfield
Bottom line: Homosexual behavior is just that - behavior. It is a sexual choice, not a condition of birth. It should not be covered as a "civil right" any more the beastiallity is or pedophilia is; it is a personal choice, albeit influenced by social and environmental factors, not an inescapable condition.
Warning: If you want to watch a talk about whether or not homosexuality is biological or learned, don't watch this. This is about how to be a christian and preach to gays and lesbians.
This isn't about homosexuality or public policy, it's about religion. But if I want to get information about whether or not homosexuality is an innate or learned sexual preference, I'll discuss it with a biologist rather than someone with a PhD in english literature or cultural studies. But this talk is about religion and sin, it has nothing to do with biology.
You just don't like her because she is an Ohio State Buckeye! - Ah, the root objection! This clip is about religion (or relationship would be a better description), and it is about a lesbian who is now married and in a perfectly healthy heterosexual relationship. Do I personally believe that a conversion to Christianity had a huge impact on her being able to finally "alter" her choice - yes! However, if you really listen to this with an open mind, she actually was headed that way "before" her conversion. It is also about how to relate and respond to those in the homosexual community in a loving, caring, friendly, and compassionate way and not a self-righteous, Pharisaical way!
You cannot seriously research the "studies" on homosexuality and genetics and arrive at the conclusion that it is an "inescapable" condition attributed solely to genetics, and those are biologists and genetic researchers. The point is that this women or men, whether religious or not (which seems to belie your implied disdain for religion), can change and this is a case where a woman was able to "escape" or change her gender "identification". I suppose someone could just choose on their own. However, the press and many in our country would have you believe that it is an "inescapable condition" and that you have no choice and that society "discriminates" against those that have no choice. If you really want to read about this in an objective manner, read a book (if you dare!) called Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Dr. Jeffery Satinover, a Psychiatrist (a Jewish doctor and non-Christian) on the studies. You can also read the findings of Dean Hammer (which showed a zero concordance rate among females). Or take a note of NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048788
Anyway, the point is NOT religion or religious conversion necessarily (even though this author believes that it can play an enormous role in correcting false, preconceived notions bantered about by the media and other entities, and heralded by other entities that are ignorant of facts and just accept the "drool" offered by those groups without question).
As I've discussed with you in the past, I think there are certainly those that are born with a predilection to be homosexual. I also think some people aren't but have life situations that foster homosexual behaviors. My guess is that she is the latter. Also, for every case like hers I'd imagine there are many more that wish they could be heterosexual, because of societal pressures, but cannot be, because they aren't. cgod's comment below sums up my thoughts pretty well on the subject, which is why I badged it.
And, oh by the way, I believe this clip shows a very compassionate way for folks to address the homosexual community instead of just saying, "Brother or sister, if you continue to practice homosexuality, you are going to "bust hell wide open". This is NOT the way to address people of this choice, and it is SELF-RIGHTEOUS to do other than this gentile way of relating to the homosexual community.
In the sense of the Constitutional criteria of race or something that one is "born" with and it is inescapable (by natural means), no I don't believe homosexuals should be a "protected class" such as race because there is NO concrete evidence, in fact there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that homosexuals are "born" that way and that there is an inescapable state that should become "protected". This clip, whether religious or not, shows that homosexuality is indeed "escapable" and that is the point! It is a choice. So, where does it end? Should bestiality become a protected "right” because I think that I should be able to practice and have protected my "choice" to have sex with animals? Should NAMBLA be protected in their "view" or desire to sleep with young children? I think not! It is a matter of do we want to "protect" sexual choices and preferences as opposed to something that cannot be altered (naturally) such as gender or race!
I don't know if there should ultimately be any protected classes in our system. The argument is that classes need these protection until such a time that the barriers that bias imposes are ground down by public policy and we live in a not racist sexist, biased society. I fully accept that government officials should never act in a biased way toward a class of people and that institutions that receive government money should not act with bias toward any class of people that would otherwise appropriately receive services from those people.
I have a much harder time with the idea that a cake decorator is required by law to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding if they don't want to. Criminalization of personal biases seems to be basically un-American to me.
Of course some homosexuality is a decision, the ancient greeks proved that. Homosexuality, namely mentor relations of a sexual nature between boys and men was the norm in their culture, it's not today, obviously a cultural not genetic relation. I am willing to see if some homosexuality is originates from a non cultural or personal choice origin. Science is slow and we haven't been good at it for very long.
Bigotry toward homosexuals is wrong if you pretend to be a Christian or a Patriot. Persuit of happyness seems to me to include letting consenting adults do whatever they like as long as it isn't harming others. Christian based bigotry toward homosexuality is something I don't really want to get into aside from I am pretty confident how Christ would treat homosexuals regardless of weather he thought they were on the right path or not.
Homosexuals are pretty much indifferentiable from all other people. Bigotry against them, if you believe that people should be allowed to follow their own happiness and that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, is stupid and wrong. Being stupid and wrong is a right that we as americans have, I guess it's part of the cost/benefit of freedom.
You are right about bigotry, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other; it should not be practiced regardless of religious or non-religious convictions. I think your point about the cake decorator is spot on (even though many on the current "progressive persuasion of thought" would disagree with you. As to pursuit of happiness, happiness can be pursued within reason. There is freedom "with responsibility" as opposed to freedom "without regard to consequence to society at large" which is why we have the "rule of law" in our nation (thank God). Otherwise, we would have chaos. As to the way Jesus would treat folks who are practicing homosexual behavior, I believe that the case of the woman caught in adultery would be fitting (John 8:1-10). He did not condemn her, but he did not just "tolerate" or excuse her behavior. Through His compassion, and righteous judgment, she turned away from the behavior because it was "wrong in the sight of Jesus". Many are confused today about this issue. Yes, and everyone should be treated with dignity and respect - well stated!