Yes, apparently the Pew Report concludes that while Christianity is slightly less popular overall in USA these days, the number of lesbians, bisexuals and gays who regard themselves as Christians, is rocketing! More here.
One of the most learned voices in Christendom on the subject of the sinfulness of homosexual practise, is Dr Robert Gagnon. Accordingly, he’s rather disliked by those who do not like Gospel truth. Some like to call him a bigot, a hater, unkind, blunt, conceited. And yes, sometimes he speaks rather “matter of factly” about things that others might find very personal or sensitive. But he’s not unloving, as I think this interview loudly demonstrates –
There is a new movie being made, called At The End Of The Day. It’s a comedy about church tensions regarding the LGBT issue, and it’s made by people who don’t regard gay sex to be sinful. There is a blog and Facebook page that promote it, and it seems that the producers have engaged Facebook to advertise for donors to fund the production.
The producers unashamedly state that the movie is part of their mission of seeking increased acceptance of homosexuality in the church. If you review some of the marketing materials they have prepared, you find there are various messages they are putting out that might be called “gay apologetics”. They call for love, and compassion. They even get technical and refer to the meaning of original Greek words used in the Bible, and to fancy theological frameworks such as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. A casual observer can easily gain the impression that these people are sincere Christians who know what they are talking about!
But do they agree with the Bible? No. For some evidence, or read their notes here, or go to 40-43 minutes into the corresponding podcast found here: http://endofthedayfilm.com/7/ and listen to them explain how contrary to the standard Christian approach, they say they don’t regard some of the relevant Scriptures, to be reflective of what God stands for! Gosh people, if you don’t regard the Bible as authoritative, then Christianity can be whatever you define it to be. You could start worshipping the flying spaghetti monster and still call it your form of Christianity!
In response to this WSJ article, one Andy Webb wrote recently on Facebook –
The Law of Unintended Consequences or the Unintended Consequences of the Law?: This is fascinating: One of the arguments used to press for the legalization of gay marriage was that it wasn’t fair that gay couples didn’t have access to all of the married partner benefits offered by corporations to heterosexual married couples. As a result, many corporations offered those benefits to homosexuals who simply registered a domestic partnership. But now that Gay marriage is legal in 37 states, and set to go nationwide in June, companies are telling their homosexual employees that now they have to abide by the same rules their heterosexual employees do – get married or lose your benefits.
The “problem” with that is that as surveys have shown, while most homosexuals want both corporate benefits and gay marriage to be legalized, they don’t actually want to get married. As Homosexual advocate Dan Savage has argued, “monogamy is boring.” So, they are now arguing that having to get married to have married partner benefits is actually “discrimination” and many companies, terrified of being labeled as homophobic, will respond by dropping the marriage requirement entirely for both homosexual AND heterosexual couples, thus further undermining marriage and further incentivizing and norming temporary and non-monogamous relationships. Experts are agreed that unstable relationships are disastrous for children, and some sociologist are now arguing that as the majority of American children are born out of wedlock, the “elite” children of marriage have an unfair advantage. Given that American adults have indicated that when it comes to sex they want to be able to act like they’re freshmen in a party college for their entre lives, how soon before the government concludes that they should be the primary guardians of children to shield them both from the negative consequences of their parent’s behavior AND prevent some children from having those “unfair advantages”?
Holland has had gay marriage for over a decade, yet only 20% of gay couples there have chosen to marry (as compared to 80% of heterosexual Dutchmen) similar stats can be found in Massachusetts. There tends to be an initial “novelty” surge and then the same-sex marriage rate declines. There is also a huge disproportion between the number of Lesbian and Gay Male marriages. Lesbians are simply far more likely to marry…. I’m struggling to remember the Pew figures but I remember reading in 2013 that 3/5ths of all gay marriages reported nationwide were female-female. It’s possible that will change, but unlikely especially given millennials growing lack of interest overall and the decline in both stigma for remaining unmarried and the decline in social benefits for doing so.
And if you think that is scary, the non-discrimination push (I percieve society’s move towards same-sex marriage as having arisen from a new and illogical drive for non-discrimination) gets worse. Check this article out –
In debates about whether homosexuality is healthy, people will often cite the American Psychological Association, commonly referred to as the APA. They are a body that is widely respected, and carry a fair amount of influence in terms of standards used by psychologists today. Various pronouncements and decisions they have made in recent decades in regards to whether homosexuality is a disorder, have acted as historical marker posts as society has changed it’s position on sexuality. Some have claimed that the APA are in part a bunch of gay activists hiding behind white medical coats. Others have countered that such claims are largely vacuous conspiracy theories.
The following video clip adds interesting commentary to this controversy –
Do you have any further insight on what is raised in this clip? If you do, please comment away!
Insider side note: yes that’s Katy at the table too, looking pretty!
Some Scriptural revisionists like to claim that historic Christianity was in no way opposed to same-sex marriage. They will sometimes even quote Jewish authorities, implying that Judaism the Jewish roots of Christianity had no qualms with the practise.
So what do Jews really think about it? Well, it depends which Jew you ask. But some are very opposed to it, as illustrated here:
Basically everyone knows that sex comes with risk of transmission of dangerous disease, and that for gay men there is a higher risk of transmission of incurable disease (Im thinking HIV). Some tend to downplay this though, with throw-away lines like “just use protection.” There are even HIV groups which suggest the end of HIV is in sight. However, a 2013 report reveals that gay men who use condoms for anal sex, still get sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and the more sexual partners they have, the more likely they are to acquire an STI. The EMIS 2010: European Men-Who-Have- Sex-With-Men Internet Survey, states –
It is noteworthy that using condoms for anal intercourse with non-steady partners had little effect on newly-diagnosed STIs, particularly when compared with the impact of the number of sexual partners. The impact of multiple partners might be explained partly by the fact that most STIs – unlike HIV – are easily transmitted via oral sex. Condom use is not routinely recommended for oral sex and condoms are not often used by MSM during oral sex.
And of course not all gay european males use condoms consistently anyway (p. 115). The EMIS report even graphs the likelihood of European gay males catching various STIs from gonohorrhea to HIV, based on the number of sexual partners in one year. Condoms help reduce transmission, but the reality is that STIs are often dealt with by way of medication, after the STI has been caught. This approach comes with big risks, because not all STIs come with obvious signs that they are present, and some STIs can damage your internal organs, or even kill you. The ol’ “just use protection” line, is ringing hollow.
Another complaint you often hear from the gay community, is that their suffering is based on discrimination. You might gain the impression that if there was no discrimination, gay people would have no problems. Well the EMIS report presents an interesting insight into this area. On page 15 of the report, there is a graph depicting the degree to which gay men in a given county are out of the closet, in relation to a proxy measurement for HIV prevalence for that country. The authors of the report suggest that the degree to which gays are out of the closet, is also an indicator of the degree of anti-gay sentiment for each country. If you listen to gay activists (whom you might have noticed, tend to blame gay suffering on ‘discrimination’), you might conclude that countries which are more ‘gay-friendly’ would experience lower HIV rates. But the graph reveals that in fact countries where gays are more likely to be out of the closet, also experience some of the higher proportions of HIV cases.
This finding has also been backed up by another study. A separate study from New York University’s Center for Health, Identity, Behavior & Prevention Studies (CHIBPS) found that “younger average age at sexual debut with another man was also associated with a greater likelihood of HIV seroconversion.” In other words, the younger a gay man is when he becomes sexually active, the more likely he is to contract HIV. Logically, in cultures that are more “gay-friendly”, the age at which a gay person becomes sexually active is likely to be earlier, since there is less risk of backlash from society. And we know that there is a trend of gay men coming out at younger and younger ages, on average. So it’s not a surprise when an abstract on the CHIBPS report states “HIV infections continue to rise in a new generation of young, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (YMSM) despite three decades of HIV prevention …”