Trembling Before G-d
It's about homosexual Orthodox and Hasidic (i.e. super-conservative) Jews struggling to reconcile their sexuality with their religious beliefs. It follows several people, including a man dying of AIDS and rediscovering his Orthodox roots, a lesbian couple who've been together for twelve years, the world's first openly gay Orthodox rabbi, and an ultra-orthodox, married Israeli woman who dares not tell her husband she's a lesbian. It also includes the perspectives of several Orthodox rabbis who struggle to find a balance between upholding their religious laws and showing compassion and acceptance to people in pain.
I found the movie moving and very thought provoking. It's not pro-gay propaganda, it offers no pat answers, and it's definitely worth watching even if you're not gay or Jewish. I borrowed the movie from my professor until Tuesday, so if you're in town and want to see it, give me a shout. I may purchase my own copy.
Post a Comment
14 comments:
A friend of mine saw this when it came out and spoke very highly of it:
http://tinyurl.com/3xnbuy
So many people feel the need to decry homosexuality as a choice simply because a holy book says it's wrong (if you look at certain parts a certain way), and since God would never say something was wrong if people couldn't choose not to do it (another problematic argument as you've been pointing out), then homosexuals must be bad people who are choosing to be bad. Since God and scripture can't be questioned or faulted, the fault must be found with the individuals.
Yet there are people like those in this film who are gay and dedicated to their faith even though they recognize that large numbers of people who share it consider them unacceptable as brothers or sisters in it. They aren't the flamboyant, in-your-face straw(wo)men that are claimed to be out to destroy their respective traditions. They're actually just people who are really struggling with the fact that they're gay and they believe, and feel that both are essential parts of who they are.
I haven't had the chance to see it yet. I'd be up for any opportunity.
I feel the need just to post this for informational purposes--revealing some hidden truths in the repertoire of the clinical psychologists--in response to david's comment on your post, Jake.
Modern clinical psychology has a pretty extensive lineup of effective treatments for those individuals who choose to overcome homosexual tendencies. The political incorrectness and other social castigations pursuant to even mentioning such treatments leaves this information largely hidden and often unused. See the APA's website for what they say & how they word things, if you'd like. Methinks that the reason many people who would like to get help end up not receiving it is due to the strong & vocal throng of those who consider such treatments offensive to their orientation. In the end, those who would like help are squashed by the vocal majority, effectively creating victims of radical oppression.
LE
I'm a little confused, LE. If you're saying that the APA's website endorses the view that homosexual tendencies can be overcome through therapy, you must be thinking of a different website than the one you linked to. So I'm assuming you present this website as an example of how this sort of therapy has become "politically incorrect". Now, I don't know too much about "modern clinical psychology", but isn't the APA pretty much the authority on the subject? If the APA condemns Reparative Therapy and Transformational Ministries, what makes you think that there are an "extensive lineup of effective treatments" for homosexuality? Is the APA so concerned with political correctness that it lies about the effectiveness of these treatments?
Regarding "the strong & vocal throng" who oppose such treatments, is there not an equally vocal throng that supports them? And how do those who oppose these treatments stop people from joining them? Doesn't the strong and vocal condemnation of these treatments at least raise awareness of their existence? If a homosexual person really wants to change, I'm sure s/he will have no difficulty finding these treatments, and I doubt s/he will care much what the gay subculture thinks of them.
And if we're going to talk about victims of oppression, I would think that far more homosexuals are forced into such treatments by parents who consider their orientation offensive than are somehow prevented from accessing them by "the vocal majority".
You should see this movie, by the way. I keep forgetting to return it, so I should have it until at least Tuesday, if you're interested.
I guess I should have made myself a bit more clear.
The APA's link that I gave makes no reference about the nature of the effectiveness of reparative therapies &/or transformational ministries--it simply states that they exist. History as to why the APA no longer endorses treatment for homosexuality is as simple as this: members of the APA took a vote. The homosexual community lobbied the APA during their general conference at Vail, Colorado in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the list of "disorders" within the then current version of the manual's axes. If my memory from my clinical psychology history serves me right... the vote won out at a 51% to 49% split. One of the most vocal criticisms of the DSM by professionals is the fact that it is a "historical" document, prone to cultural influences (then again, what one society calls a "disorder," another one may consider an aptitude, so...).
One of the other families of effective treatments for this behaviour is "conversion therapy," which doesn't show up in many places.
And as for the "strong and vocal throng" who support these unauthorised treatments, they are largely silenced, due to fear of losing their license to practise clinical psychology from performing unauthorised treatment procedures. Heck, if they want to even keep their APA membership they have to follow 100% of the APA's stipulations. No clinical psychologist certified by the APA would really dare treat ego-dystonic homosexuality (now classified under DSM-IV as "sexual disorder NOS")
And, as for the "strong and vocal" condemnation of said treatments, the "strong & vocal" part has largely subsided since the 70's, since such treatments are no longer APA certified. There's no need to raise objection to them, since it's easier just to scoff at them & class them into other unauthorised treatments like blood-letting and lobotomising.
If an individual suffering ego-dystonic homosexuality did want to seek treatment, they would in fact come up against a lot of opposition. Treatment would have to be done in secret (the gay community in the US apparently has sought injunctions after groups who perform such treatments, whether or not they claim to be psychologists), and that after a good deal of searching.
As for talking about the reverse--a forced treatment of an individual who does not view their sexuality as problematic for themselves--such a case is very difficult to even arise. As a part of the code of ethics for clinical psychologists, "forced" treatments would only be carried out in such cases when the individual being treated is in severe danger, trauma or in some other way suffering a major mental incapacitation, where "prescribed" treatment would be necessary for proper basic functioning of the individual in everyday life (can you see where this may have been skewed by interpretation in some historical cases?). The code of ethics for clinical psychologists largely inhibits any case of undesired treatment, regardless of what those around the individual/patient think.
Hopefully this helps clarify what I forgot isn't common knowledge? sorry!
LE.
Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying. So members of the APA vote on what is a disorder and what isn't, and treatments for those that do not receive a simple majority are effectively banned? Do Psychologists have a legitimate fear of loosing their licenses if they practice, or even mention, treatments that have only 49% approval? That doesn't sound like very good science.
A quick search for "conversion therapy" turned up an 1997 Washington Post article which indicates that (at least at that time) the APA did not officially consider this therapy "unethical", and did not want to stop the "very visible" coalition that endorses and practices it, but merely to ensure that potential patients are aware of the risks involved.
Practitioners or supporters of treatments for homosexuality are not hard to find. NARTH seems to be the most psychologist-y. Exodus is probably the biggest. I did a quick search on the Exodus site and found FLIGHT Ministries in Edmonton, which I believe I've also read about in the paper. And anyone with web access can turn up many more. If these groups are facing enormous pressure from the APA, they seem to be coping nicely.
I did notice that there has been next to no research into the effectiveness of these ministries. A Dr. Spitzer conducted a study which he believes indicates that a certain (quite small) percentage of cases are successful, although what his study really proves, if anything, is of course hotly debated. The lack of credible studies is to be expected, I suppose. Those who oppose these treatments find the very idea of "correcting" homosexuality offensive, and those who support them (overwhelmingly conservative Christians) have already decided that homosexuality is a perversion, and therefore can and should be corrected. (Of course these are generalizations.) I don't imagine many people would be interested in what a unbiased, professional study might find, if it were even possible to preform one.
For the most part, all we have is anecdotal evidence. (If you have any kind of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these treatments, I would love to see it.) The ministries and therapists themselves, naturally, claim a high rate of success. Skeptics suspect that at most these treatments will merely suppress homosexual desires, and will likely only exacerbate patients' psychological problems.
My comment about forced treatment of homosexuals was based on stories (more anecdotal evidence) of homosexual teens being forced into ex-gay ministries by their parents (eg. Zack Stark), and also the extreme pressure that must be faced by conservative Christian homosexuals to change (which is obviously not as serious, but far more common). Again, I think the pressures put on homosexuals (particularly those who are conservative Christians) to change by bigoted family members, social stigma, and the "strong and vocal" anti-gay throng are at least as strong as the pressures not to change from the gay subculture (which those who don't want to be gay are unlikely to associate with) or the APA (which may not endorse such treatments, but seems to have neither the desire nor the ability to shut them down).
During my undergrad in Psychology I took a class called "Human Sexual Behaviour". In this class we talked a lot about what was "normal" and how pyschologists went about treating sexual issues with their clients.
The APA currently uses the DSM-lV (diagnostic statistical manual version 4) in identifying the factors for a disorder and the appropriate treatment. As with all psychologists depending on your training and your outlook your treatment options are different. The DSM-V did have homosexuality as a disorder until I believe the 1960's, at that point it was removed as there was overwhelming proof that it was not a mental disorder but a genetic condition.
I find it highly suspect that the APA would now approve and condone of treatment towards homosexuality as it does not recognize it as a malady.
As a side note if you have sex more then 7 times a week the DSM-V recognizes that as a sexual disorder. I think one must be very careful when they are looking at disorders and treatments. Just because there is a treatment for something and it is identified as a disorder does not mean that it is an actual problem.
My prof in that class always stressed that what is "normal" is completely cultural and that unless what your patient is doing is harming themselves or others what really is the harm in them doing it. I could not care less if someone loves another person.
There may be treatments for homosexuality however ANY licenced psychologist or group would not be allowed to go use it. Not because it is "taboo" but because it has been deemed unethical and NOT a mental disorder.
Most "treatments" for homosexuality in the 50's and 60's involved giving shock treatment to people as they watched homo-erotic acts on video and in pictures. (how very clockwork orange) Yes it may induce some behavioural changes but it does not change the chemical make up of a persons brain (studies have shown).
A person can make up a so called treatment and claim its efficacy through their own "research" (look at the claims made by scientology and their drug rehab programs). However it does not make it ethical or true. People who are struggling with homosexuality are not struggling with their orientation rather with a culture of exclusion and unacceptance. I find it especially hard when it comes from a supposedly loving and accepting church. Look at your own log in your eye before you start condoning and "treating" the evils of one person.
Kathryn,
I would make a distinction (as, I think, does LE) between seeing homosexuality as a sickness and believing that some people can change their orientation. (I don't necessarily hold either position, by the way, but I am at least open to the latter.) The APA's position, as I understand it, is that reparative therapy may (or may not) be successful in some cases, but that it should be approached with caution, because of the potential for causing further harm. I do not doubt that certain methods of treatment have a high probability of causing further harm (shock therapy, obviously, being one of the most extreme). What is unclear to me is whether any attempt to alter sexual orientation, however gently, professionally, and lovingly administered, will likely do more harm than good. This seems to be the APA's concern.
Again, there is quite a difference between saying that all homosexuals ought to enter treatment and saying that under certain circumstances, if a homosexual desires to enter treatment, s/he should be allowed to do so.
I'm not comfortable with homosexuals who, for religious reasons or otherwise, believe their orientation to be a perversion or a disorder and wish to cure it, but I'm not in a position to say that such a change is not possible. And I think that for devout, conservative, religious homosexuals, such treatment may have the potential to be psychologically beneficial, unless...
1. They enter the treatment rashly, without due consideration of consequences and alternatives
2. They are forced or bullied or shamed into treatment by bigoted family members or clergy
3. The treatment is cruel or unprofessional or administered in a degrading or unloving manner
4. The treatment has little or no chance of success (it seems this has yet to be proven one way or the other)
5. The attempt to change sexual orientation is, by nature, likely to be psychologically damaging.
I think these are the questions (particularly 4 and 5) which need to be answered. My concern, based on the little I know, is that there seems to be very few qualified people asking them, and few people on either side of the debate who are interested in the answers.
I agree with your point of a willing person deciding to enter into treatment. However I think they may be spurred on by the belief that their "condition" is wrong and have false hope in such treatment to cure them.
I have not fully researched effective psychological treatments for homosexual behaviour. Any such research done superficialy on google or otherwise would probably be irrelevant and invalid. It would require an actual concerted literature review on credible published documents.
I think the main point that this whole debate hinges on is whether homosexuality is seen as a mental disorder or a genetic condition. That determines what kind of treatment it recieves. If it is a mental disorder there is hope in finding psychological treatment, if it is a genetic condition then it is purely a medical phenomena.
The APA clearly decided it was not a mental disorder by its removal from the DSM-IV. This view point can be further backed up by the lack of succesful psychological treatment. Treatments that were done back then were more harmful psychologically then beneficial.
In pyschology behavioural conditions can be treated in various ways. With medication, aversion therapy, habituation therapy, and long-term therapy. They are all considered effective and ethical by the APA, as well as have their own individual significant success rate. In psychology as with science you can never prove something only disprove it. Therefore conclusive evidence can be very hard to come by. That is why psychologists deal with "statistically significant" numbers. From everything I have read there is no treatment that has been statistically significant in altering homosexual behaviour.
I know there are many modern treatment options that are seen as kind and progressive. I would however be quite suspect of any such treatment. It is not possible to validate any of their findings as there is no independant body reviewing and guiding the treatment. A benchmark in deciding if a treatment is effective and valid is whether it can be reproduced exactly by another independant person. A reputable publication would never publish any findings if that benchmark is not met. Again I would point to scientology and their "effective" drug treatments.
This then begs the question is it a genetic medical condition. I know much research has been done into that theory and I know there have been many findings. It is funny that in a world so run by pharmaceutical companies (that seem to some times be ethically and morally challenged) there has been no rush to put out the "cure the gay syndrome" drug.
I think it is sad that people hate themselves so much that they feel the need to put themselves through such treatment. However I respect the right of a consenting fully informed adult to do so.
It concerns me that as a society we have made people feel as though they are so unacceptable as who they are that they need to seek out treatment.
Again, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area (so please correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think that homosexuality needs to be a mental disorder in order to be treatable. If homosexuality is the result of some combination of genetics and childhood experiences, isn't it possible that it could be affected by later experiences?
I don't think we can say that because the old treatments for homosexuality were ineffective and harmful, any treatments will be ineffective and harmful. It's possible that we simply need better treatments, and it's possible that better treatments are available today.
Obviously, I haven't done much research, but my understanding is that there has been no attempt to determine the success rate of various treatments for homosexuality, except for Dr. Spitzer's study, which seems to have been more or less discredited. If this is the case, then it seems that there's little to be said about the effectiveness of these treatments.
I am also concerned "that as a society we have made people feel as though they are so unacceptable as who they are that they need to seek out treatment". I maintain that as Christians, our first and most important duty to homosexuals is to love them and fight for their rights and acceptance into society, not to argue over what causes them to be how they are (which is scientists' job, if anyone's) or tell them they're sinners (which is God's).
I am sorry if I was unclear with my points because I think I addressed your concerns.
In regards to having homosexuality only treatable if it is a mental disorder; I said that it is important to make the distinction because that would then affect the treatment. I don't, nor does the highest experts in the land believe it is a mental disorder. If it is a medical condition then it becomes a medical treatment. My point I think I was trying to make was that lots of research has been done into the "cause" of homosexuality and yet no treatment has been found therefore no treatment can be given.
The second point of the nature/nurture combination is an interesting one. Of course there are many different ways nature and nurture can interact with the human mind. If you are exposed to a highly sexualized childhood you are more likely to experiment and be comfortable with sex. However it is the conflict of nature and nurture that most gay people struggle with. Nature is telling them to love same sex people and nurture is telling them that the only normal way to behave is to be straight. I don't think that acceptance of homosexual behaviour has gone so far as to encourage people to become homosexual. In fact I would think most people would rather be straight then have to go through all the hardships that being gay comes with. If you talk to most gay people they will say that they knew they were different from very early on (average age about 5), so it would have had to have been very early childhood experiences that made them gay. In fact children do not have the cognitive ability to be mentally scarred till about the age of 3.
The point about modern day treatments. I said it was impossible to evaluate the validity of the modern day treatments simply because of the methods they use. They do not allow independat researchers to evaluate their methods nor do they keep accurate records and statistics of their treatment. It is easy to say something works if you don't have to prove it and no one can replicate your findings.
I believe any treatment is harmful for the simple fact that it makes homosexuality like a disease people should be ashamed of. It is like saying you are not ok as you are, we do not accept you, go fix yourself first. I do not believe in that sort of environment. To me that in itself is psychologicaly damaging to a person.
I think we're mostly in agreement. I didn't intend to imply that we weren't, only to clarify my position.
You're right that most people won't encounter much encouragement to be gay. Whether this means homosexuality is entirely genetic, I'm not sure.
Five sounds like awfully early to know you're different from the other kids. At that age I don't think I could even imagine ever being sexually attracted to anyone, which makes me wonder what about them is different. (If it's even possible to generalize.) I wonder if they feel different because they're gay, or if there are other factors at work that are responsible for both these early feelings and (eventually) being homosexual. Who knows.
Your make an interesting point about those who treat homosexuality not helping those who wish to evaluate their success. Although there may not be a lot of psychologists clamoring to study these treatments if only the data were available. And the therapists involved don't seem to care much about what the APA thinks, so perhaps it's not surprising that they don't give out their info. On the other hand, if it really does work, it seems like they'd be doing themselves a favor to back up their claims with real data.
It's probably true that the majority of homosexuals who enter treatment are significantly influenced by the disapproval of others. Nevertheless, I'm sure that there are some people who are more or less accepted as homosexuals, but who (for whatever reason) just want to be straight.
Kathryn, Jacob and LE... I know squat about the APA or homosexuality "treatments", but I know enough biology to strongly doubt that homosexuality is caused PURELY by genetics. Likely, as I believe you guys said, it's some complex combination of nature and nurture, not necessarily the same for every gay person.
I can think of one very good reason someone might seek "treatment"... the holy books of many major religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) say that homosexual acts are wrong. If you are a devout Christian, Muslim or Orthodox Jew, than God Himself is telling you not to have homosex... that's a pretty hard thing to ignore. Some people in this positon choose gay celibacy; others want to have a relationship that is Biblically approved- ie a heterosexual one. (BTW if anyone can convince me the Bible DOESN'T denounce homosex I'd love to hear about it, but the scriptures seem clear to me.)
I certainly agree that Christian society has often treated homosexuals like crap. However, that doesn't solve the problem that our Bible consistenly denounces homosexual acts as wrong. I'm not sure what the correct answer is, but if we claim to believe the Bible is inspired by God, but ignore the parts that are troublesome or cause us to struggle, that's not honest faith.
Finally, I should add I have the utmost respect for a homosexual Christian trying to be "good" follower of Christ, while struggling with both homosexual desire and condemnation from other Christians.
FM: You're quite right that the Christian and the Jewish (and, so I've heard, the Muslim) scriptures seem to denounce homosexuality. Here’s my position:
I’m honestly not sure whether the Christian Bible actually condemns same-gender sexual relationships, but I lean towards no. I do know the Bible doesn't address the issue of sexual orientation - an idea which has arisen only recently. Christians like to talk about “ex-gays” and celibacy and "struggling with homosexuality". No one in the Bible "struggles with homosexuality". They didn't know anything about sexual orientation; all they knew was that good, God-fearing men had sex with their wives, and wicked men had sex with whomsoever they pleased - even other men. The NT makes no mention of committed, loving homosexual relationships because there was effectively no such thing in the first century Roman world. What there was was a good number of orgies and male prostitutes and relationships that we would now call pedophilia.
Since Paul (the only NT writer to make any mention of homosexual acts) had no concept of what we now call homosexuality (i.e. an orientation) or of monogamous homosexual relationships, there is much debate over exactly what he intended to condemn. The words translated "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders" in 1 Cor 6:9 are difficult to translate, but likely refer to the prostitution of young boys. I don't know anyone who is in favor of child prostitution, so I don't see how this passage is relevant.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole biblical case against homosexuality is found in Romans 1. (A passage which I struggle with for more than one reason, and which is by no means easy to interpret.) It's not clear exactly what sexual acts Paul is referring to here, but he does make mention of men abandoning "natural relations with women", which suggests that sexual relations not between men and women are unnatural. I think this is as close as the NT comes to condemning homosexuality.
The choice of the word "natural", implying that the acts he condemns (which are traditionally interpreted as all homosexual acts) are unnatural, is a curious one. Why not say "godly" or "lawful"? (The condemnation would certainly be stronger if the implication was that these acts are ungodly or unlawful.) Biologists tells us that homosexuality does occur "naturally" in some animals, and psychologists tell us that human homosexuality is largely genetic, not chosen. (Some Christians deny both these claims, presumably on the basis of this verse.) It is unclear to me in what sense, if any, homosexuality can be called unnatural. There are a few ways we can go with this.
1. Maybe the experts are wrong and homosexuality is unnatural.
2. Perhaps Paul has made the common mistake of confusing unnatural with uncommon or unfamiliar. Like most heterosexuals, Paul probably had some difficulty imagining that a dude could really be attracted to another dude. The obvious explanation is that these people are perverts. But I know that many of my readers do not accept that Paul could make such an error.
3. If we believe that Paul had some special, Spirit-given insight, we could conclude that the people he's referring to really were acting on unnatural, perverted desires, to which they were "given over" by God (yet another difficult aspect of this passage). If we also accept that, as experts now believe, homosexuality is largely genetic (i.e. natural to that person) and not a result of abuse or choice or wickedness, this seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about homosexuality in general, but about specific, contemporary sexual perversions which happened to be of a homosexual nature.
4. Of course, it’s possible that I’m reading way too much into Paul's word choice, and by "unnatural" he just means "wrong".
I looked up the word translated here as "natural" in my concordance, and it occurs in only one other verse, in which it is translated "creatures of instinct", and is part of a very negative description of false teachers. So it seems the Greek word translated "natural" means something along the lines of "instinctive" (genetic?) and is by no means a synonym for "good". So even if we assume that the word "unnatural" is meant to apply not only to the perverted acts of godless Romans but to homosexuality in general, it is (by itself) hardly a stinging critique.
Also, consider the related word which is translated as "nature" in 1 Cor 11:14. Paul believes that "the very nature of things" teaches us that it is disgraceful for a man to have long hair. Infallibility notwithstanding, I don't know anyone who agrees with him.
It's curious that we automatically dismiss the long hair ban as cultural, even though long hair is still long hair, and yet when we find the same reason given for the condemnation of grotesque, exploitive homosexual acts, many of us insist that what was once "unnatural" (whatever that means) is still and will always be "unnatural", and that this applies even to very different, loving acts of which Paul had no knowledge, and which resemble the perversions he condemns only in terms of the anatomy involved.
The problem is the context. The reference to homosexual acts falls smack in the middle of one of the most scathing condemnations of wickedness in the whole New Testament. The reader can be forgiven for concluding that homosexuality is not only evil, but is indicative of the worst kind of evil. And of course, many Christians have come to exactly this conclusion.
More compassionate, informed Christians do not accept that homosexuality is a tell-tale sign of utter depravity. We’ve noticed that most homosexuals are no more “inflamed with lust” than are most heterosexuals. We don't consider homosexual attraction to be a "shameful", and we don't believe that it is a result of idol worship. (Although male temple prostitutes were apparently common in Paul's day, so he likely noticed a strong correlation between idolatry and the "unnatural" sexual acts he condemns. If you believe Paul's writing is infallible, you can take the further step of saying that this specific brand of immorality was a divine punishment for the idolatry of Paul's contemporaries, but of course, this will only be accurate of practitioners of that specific ancient religion.)
So I don't think the theory that Paul is speaking of homosexuality in general fits the text as nicely as many believe. Those who take this view must explain why homosexuals are not particularly given to "every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity... envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice", or being "gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful... senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless". Some will respond that homosexuality is an indicator not of extreme personal wickedness but extreme cultural (or even general human) wickedness. It's probably true that Paul isn't thinking of a group of people in which every person has every vice in the list, but the New Testament gives us no indication that there were Christians among those who God "gave over to shameful lusts" (although there were apparently former male prostitutes in the Corinthian church). Neither is there any biblical mention of these "unnatural" lusts among God-fearing Jews. Additionally, the text seems to indicate that these lusts are a direct consequence of idolatry. If the Romans 1 passage is meant to apply to all homosexuals throughout all time, it is difficult to explain how devout, un-idolatrous Christian kids end up being gay.
It is true that there is a correlation in the Bible between homosexual acts and general depravity, but it is simply not true that all [members of the group we now call] homosexuals are depraved. And every time the scriptures condemn a sexual act between men, it is an act would also be condemned were it preformed between men and women. We don’t need to say that homosexuality is wrong in order to explain why God condemns Roman practices of prostitution, pedophilia, or orgies, any more than to explain His condemnation of the gang-raping, uncharitable Sodomites. I can see no indication that the few Biblical passages addressing homosexual acts are meant to apply also to monogamous homosexual relationships, in fact I find this interpretation difficult to support.
I recommend Real Live Preacher's post on the subject, which formed the basis for these thoughts. In a (miserably unsuccessful) attempt to keep this brief, I've focused on the one passage which I believe forms the best case for condemning homosexuality, whereas he takes a broader approach.
Some Christian writer I read pointed out that homosexuality is biblically condemned in several cultures (Mosiac Isreal and Romans come to mind) but I dont' remember the verses so it doesn't help much.
Homosexuality and scripture is not something I have really studied; I was just pointing out why many Christian homosexuals feel the need to change... so I will bow out of this discussion until I become informed.
Post a Comment