DISQUS

DCM I'm in a position to hear from a lot of guys with sexual addictions, and homosexuality fits all the general criteria in terms of origins & results. Such addictions only differ substantially from each other in terms of what their object is.

People are used to thinking of homosexuality as something that's there *instead of* heterosexuality. But, like all sexual addictions, it is actually present *on top of* normal sexuality -- if you use "normal sexuality" with the correct definition of either monogamy or celibacy.

For example, I had a friend who was gay and had tried to do the "forced change" thing by getting (heterosexually) married, without ever dealing with his issue; typically, he got divorced & then embraced his "gayness" fully. What he didn't realize, but I observed, was that, if his addiction to men was taken away, then he would have been a more normal & healthy example of a married heterosexual than, say, the guy who drools over every babe who walks by.

This is why it's possible to have "ex-gays." They have not changed into something totally different than what they were; they have merely dealt properly with something that severely got in the way.

You may speak of monogamous gay relationships, but these are actually an extreme exception. Some gays (including one well-known writer whose name I don't have handy) have said that gays should *not* pursue gay marriage, because it validates marriage in general as being the norm. I don't agree with this thinking (i.e., that marriage shouldn't be validated as normal), but at least it takes an honest position: basically, that if you're going to reject a value system, you shouldn't try to claim its benefits.

Bob Ellis They must have just been in your imagination.

Bob Ellis "Many other" former homosexuals who have successfully and consistently managed to confine their sexual activity to heterosexual activity as God intended.

Bob Ellis They haven't been through the comments system at all.

Maybe because they don't exist...?

Bob Ellis No, you're confusing the real world with the liberal fantasy world. The liberal fantasy world is a gray one where there are no rights (except what liberals claim they are) and no wrongs (except to call a liberal wrong--that is wrong), where people are free to be as immoral as they like without being bothered by judgments and consequences.

That is an illusory world, the mist of which will disappear when one passes from this one into the next and faces the Ultimate judgment and consequences.

Bob Ellis You should give it a try sometime.

Bob Ellis Granted, they are not good examples of sexual purity and responsibility...but many others are.

As for the rest...did you hear that roaring sound overhead again?

Bob Ellis I just want you to face the reality of what a marriage is and is not, and stop trying to live in a juvenile "Cuz I want to" fantasy world.

I haven't reduced marriage an iota; in fact, I have stood unwaveringly for everything that a marriage is.

Holding fast to the reality that you can't make a cake without flour in no way reduces the beauty, taste or content of a cake. Adhering to the required ingredients for a cake (as with the required ingredients to make a marriage) is what makes it possible in the first place.

You can't substitute sand or sawdust for flour when making a cake, and you can't substitute a second man or a second woman when making a marriage.

Bob Ellis Did you just hear the sound of something like a jet going by overhead? That was the sound of the truth going over your head.

As I said, the mental exercise will do you good. Try again if you'd like. Just don't veer off in fear when the truth looms immediately ahead...

Bob Ellis I think you're smart enough to figure out just what I meant, the implications of it, and from that, the answer to your own question.

Well...given what I've seen from you in the past, maybe not. But I'll leave you wrestle with that. The mental exercise will do you good.

cinemaphile85 Aw dang, I tried posting those sources for the second time, and wouldn't ya know it, they STILL didn't make it up! That is such a weird coincidence!

Should I even bother trying a third time?

Bob Ellis You are proof that apologetics are necessary for even the most self-evident truths, provided those truths condemn your error.

Bob Ellis Yes, like Christ when he branded the liars and propagandists of his day for what they were: snakes. And when he knocked over some tables in the temple.

You chuckle at the unpleasant truth because you realize the claim that homosexuals are somehow denied the same rights as everyone else is a load of hogwash. And you hate it when someone points that out.

Bob Ellis I don't need to cite sources to prove the obvious. I don't need to cite sources to convince you the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't need to cite sources to convince you that if you smash your finger with a hammer, it's going to hurt like heck. You're free to deny reality and believe otherwise, but only an idiot or a propagandist asks for documentary proof of the obvious.

You claim that thousands of years of marriage, family, sexual and moral practice should be ignored. Since you insist on adopting a position that runs counter to thousands of years of experience, common sense and nature, the onus is on you to prove your contention.

Bob Ellis How many children have we saved from this garbage by making it illegal and thus harder to access? We probably cannot calculate the number it is so large.

I have a friend who has for some time been trying to beat his addiction to pot. It's hard enough for him to stay clean, even with the hurdles of having to sneak around to get it. It would be exponentially more difficult if he could just go down the street and purchase it in open daylight.

We'll never stop everyone from self-destructive tendencies, but a healthy society should do everything it can to make things like recreational drug use as difficult as possible.

Bob Ellis A good start would be not making things any worse by loosening existing enforcement.

Bob Ellis Yes, we really should be an intoxicated society. All the malaise, self-destruction and harm to others that comes from intoxication would be welcome, too.

Bob Ellis Not as rare as monogamy in the homosexual community--not by far. Can you say, "Hen's teeth?" I knew you could.

You could make a case for outlawing heterosexual relationships...except for the fact that God ordained it to be that way, our sex organs and nature practically scream at us that it's supposed to be that way, 97.1% of the population acknowledges with their behavior that heterosexuality is normal, and the behavior common in the homosexual community only serves to further endorse the correctness of married heterosexual relationships. Yep, except for those inconsequential things, you certainly could.

Rational societies don't make rules, laws and define accepted practices based on exceptions rather than the rule.

Bob Ellis Yes, it's even higher than the divorce rate seen among heterosexuals. And that 50% divorce rate figure is slightly misleading; that figure comes from the fact that there are some people who get married 3, 4, or more times and skews the numbers--these are people who were never serious about their vows and know nothing about marriage to begin with. And even with these anchors around our ankles, the homosexual dissolution rate is still higher.

The fact that homosexuals tend to make even more of a joke of commitment, monogamy and fidelity is a good reason to to further water down the institution of marriage by allowing them to call their unions by that name.

But as I've said, there are a host of other, better reasons not to lend any legitimacy to homosexual behavior by allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage," the best being that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage, and a homosexual relationship by definition excludes one or the other necessary elements to form a marriage.

Bob Ellis Oops, you keep forgetting that it takes a man and a woman to form a marriage!

Besides, the data already coming in from places where this sort of insanity has been legitimized is indicating that homosexuals have an elevated rate of dissolution of their relationships. Not surprising since we've also recently begun to learn that more often than not, even when homosexual couples claim they are "monogamous," they're still involving outside sexual partners. You're not going to stop the spread of disease if you're not even honoring the definition of "monogamy," much less "marriage."

Bob Ellis That's a good point about the mob; the majority frequently doesn't get it right.

But they often do. And it's interesting that everything points to the validity of rejecting homosexuality as moral and normal. From the moral condemnation from God, to the design for human sexuality that God made clear from the beginning forward, to the obvious correct and incorrect use of our sex organs, to the problems with disease and injury which can come with these practices--even without the promiscuity factor--to the mental and emotional toll this behavior usually takes on people...everything just points to the conclusion that any reasonable person can see: it's ill-advised.

If you are honest about the rate of truly monogamous relationships in the homosexual community, you will admit that you are very rare. Report after report after report--many of them compiled by people favorable to homosexual behavior--shows phenomenally high rates of promiscuity, fleeting relationships and very little monogamy of any kind. And this behavior is simply one of many reasons why people should be counseled to avoid this behavior.

If God said there was something immoral about left-handed people, I have enough confidence in him from everything I've seen from him being right and true and good that I would take him at his word that he had a good reason for it.

But he didn't did he?

Maybe there's a reason he had no moral condemnation for left-handedness (because there's obviously nothing immoral about it), while he had loads of it for homosexual behavior (violating his design for human sexuality...in addition to the mountain of practical reasons to avoid it).