In my continuing blog conversation with Pastor Dave Glesne, one of the major hurdles is in even discovering a level playing field from which to converse, especially in terms of scientific data, cultural life, and biblical understanding. http://www.larsclausen.blogspot.com

I appreciate the work going on here.
Lars

Perhaps not, but it sure makes English language kinda mushy and ill-defined. Using Anon’s reasoning, people can use words to mean whatever they want them to mean and not be “wrong”. A psychotic person could “understand” that purple midget demons are coming through the radio — and be right.

I could say “I am Adolf Hitler”, by which I mean “I’m a nice guy” and I plan to “cut my ears off with a pocket knife”, by which I mean “take a bath and shave this afternoon”.

We have a similar problem when we use words like “change” and “choice” and “heterosexual” — and leave the meanings fuzzy. How would we convey the truth of the Gospel if we were sloppy about what the words mean? I find it interesting that Jesus is called “the word”. Clearly stated and understood words are what ministers use to call “sinners” to “repent” and “accept Christ as Savior and Lord”.

So, I think it’s very important that people try to come to some degree of mutual understanding about the words that make up the English language. That’s why God invented dictionaries — by which I mean “Joseph Nicolosi deserves the Nobel prize for discovering the cure for gayness.”

There is no direct proof that homosexuality can never be a choice. That biological factors likely play a role influencing sexual orientation does not prove that choice cannot also be involved: ‘it is possible to construct a hypothesis whereby both “gay genes” and a desire to be homosexual are necessary for a person actually to become homosexual’, notes Simon LeVay (Queer Science, p. 244) People who feel that their sexual orientation was a choice may understand choice differently from most people, but this does not necessarily mean that their understanding is wrong.

People have claimed lots of things. Once again, claiming or believing something does not make it so. Not all beliefs have equal validity even if one believes them very strongly. One can be sincerely wrong.

Or they can be using the term “choose” in a different sense than most people understand the word.

Let’s look at your quote from Simon Levay: “…insisting instead on the right to fulfill ourselves affectionally – in what ever directions our needs compel us, however contrary to the social norm they may be – is both honest and courageous, an act of utter freedom.”

Pay attention to that phrase “in whatever direction our needs compel us”. He seems to be talking about the courageous choice to live in accordance with one’s “compelling need” (what I call orientation) even if society says that only heteroseuxality is legitimate.

“Myth #7: When we call our queerness a choice, that must mean we’re really bisexual.

“Reality: Some of us are certainly bisexual, but others of us will tell you that we are not attracted to the opposite sex in the least. Some of us may have experienced attraction to the opposite sex in the past and ceased to do so, but others of us state in no uncertain terms that we have never experienced the slightest attraction to the opposite sex in all our lives. What we all have in common, however, is that we feel that our attraction or non-attraction results from choices we have made and/or continue to make.”

What can it possibly mean to “choose” to be attracted to the one sex if you have never been attracted to the other in the first place? It seems that the site, at least sometimes, is working from a different sense of “choose” than me.

It seems there is at least a modicrum of politics going on here. I don’t mean “politics” in the Liberal vs. Conservative sense, but rather in the sense that people will sometimes “claim and name” something in order to gain a certain sense of personal and social empowerment.

One thing I certainly agree with, is that, in many many cases, an individual indeed “choose” to love another individual. In my case, for instance, I am “oriented” toward my wife. On that level, at least, I can agree with the sense of “choice” that the site seems to work with.

Tim Fisher
Minneapolis, MN