It’s apparently the burning question of the British General Election. Our society is obsessed with sex, and especially homosexuality. Or at least our journalists give that appearance. They seem to think that it is their responsibility and duty to ask any politician who is a Christian what they think of gay sex. Of course they don’t ask Sadiq Khan, or any Muslim politician – but that’s another story!
This weekend they have been particularly busy. After the Tim Farron debacle, we have seen the resignation of the Conservative MP Andrew Turner, and Theresa May being asked by Andrew Marr “is gay sex sin?”
Andrew Turner, Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, expressed the view in a question-and-answer session in a local school that he thought homosexuality was wrong 
and dangerous for society. The Guardian were quick to pounce. This of course is to commit the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy against the Holy State. Our media are absolutely certain that to say gay sex is a sin, is itself the unforgiveable sin. Labour’s election chair immediately pontificated – “There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.” Mr Turner has resigned. The thought police have done their job.
Amidst the general outcry and faux pas outrage as the shibboleth question of our culture is used to discriminate against anyone who dares to think differently, there have been occasional glimpses of sanity and light. Nick Cohen’s fascinating article in the Guardian on Tim Farron for example. Defend Tim Farron, a True Liberal even if it makes us Quesy Amongst many other good points he pointed out the stunning hypocrisy of our politicians:
Jeremy Corbyn worked for Iranian state television and spoke at Khomeinist ralliesin London. Everywhere he went, he looked a willing collaborator with a regime that flogs and executes gay men, treats women as second-class citizens and imprisons trade unionists.
If Corbyn was questioned on this, which he never is, he might say he does not approve of every aspect of Shia theocracy. But he worked for it, and was paid by it, and never found the courage to speak out on Iranian television for the victims of its oppression. A liberal society that condemns one politician who bothers God, but gives a free pass to another who works for a queer-bashing, queer-killing regime is so lost that it may never find its way home again.
Teresa May
was very clear on the Andrew Marr show. Is gay sex a sin? No. She couldn’t answer why people use foodbanks but on that one issue she knew the answer. Politically she was being astute – Pinknews, the Guardian and the Twitterati were waiting to pounce if she had got it wrong.
The “is gay sex a sin?” question is the shibboleth question of our culture. It is the equivalent to the “have you stopped beating your wife – yes or no?” question. You say yes and you admit to having previously beaten your wife. You say no and you admit to currently beating your wife.
How would I answer this question? Let’s imagine…..
Journalist: Is Gay sex a sin?
- What a fascinating question! In one sense I’m glad you asked it – because it appears as though you accept the whole idea of sin. Of course I’m not very sure what you mean by the question. Are you asking is gay sex harmful? Well you can go and do your own research and you will find that there are a considerable number of STDs and other harmful side-effects of gay sex. After all that’s why we just had the Scottish government say they are going to fund the prep drug in order for it to prevent gay men who have multiple partners and engage in unsafe sexual health practices contracting HIV. But I suspect that’s not what you’re talking about.
I suspect that you are asking is gay sex wrong or immoral? And again that is a very interesting question. Because it presupposes that there is right and wrong. Before I answer that question I would need to ask you if you thought there was any sexual practice that was wrong?
Journalist: I’m the one asking the questions. Why can’t you just give a straight yes or no answer?
- And because I’m the one actually answering, I’d like to know what you are actually asking! I suspect you’re not really asking a question at all – you’re just making an accusation, looking for a cheap headline, trying to stir up some kind of fuss. But given that you’re an intelligent man do you think it possible that we could have an intelligent discussion? So could you answer my question? Then I promise you I’ll answer yours.
Journalist: Obviously there are some sexual practices that are harmful and abusive and therefore wrong.
- Thank you. Again that is very interesting. How do you know? Who determines what is harmful and abusive? Is being married to 3 women right or wrong? Should you ask Boris Johnson or Nick Clegg if adultery or having multiple partners is right or wrong? What does that have to do with their politics? Why should sex with a 17 year old be right but sex with a 15 year old be wrong? Is bestiality wrong? Incest? Or sex in the middle of the street? Who determines what is right and wrong?
Journalist: Society and the law.
- But who are society? And who makes the law? By definition it would appear that the rich, the elite and the powerful are those who make the law. What if society decides one day that homosexuality is wrong, would that make it wrong? What if society decides that the Jews need to be removed? Or the Chinese enslaved? Or babies in the womb killed? Who determines what is right and wrong?
Journalist: Now we are getting way off the subject! What is your answer?
- Actually no. Now we are getting to the very heart of the subject and so I will give you my answer.
I am a Christian. I am an IKEA Christian. What I mean is this. I’m not a very practical person and so when I go to IKEA and buy a chair, I come home and I’m the type of person who counts all the screws, reads all the instructions and follows them to a T. In other words I obey the maker’s instructions. To me that’s the same with life. My basic position on homosexuality is this:
- Homophobia in any form is wrong for any Christian. Why should we be afraid of a sexuality – or indeed of any person or group of people? As a Christian I fear only God. I regard all human beings as made in the image of God and all are to be treated with love and respect whatever their ‘sexuality’. I know that there are many people who struggle with issues of identity and sexuality and I don’t think the solutions are as simple as people often make out. But to discriminate, bully or abuse anyone because of perceived sexuality is wrong.
- God made us as sexual beings and gave us the gift of sex to be used within the context of marriage, and only within the context of marriage. Marriage of course being between a man and a woman. This was done for mutual benefit, the procreation and upbringing of children, and the good of society. Any sex, of whatever type, out with the sacred bond of marriage is wrong. You use the word ‘sin’. Sin is that which goes against what God desires. It is not living up to his standards, or deliberately going against them. In a confused and broken world we are all sinners, whatever our sexuality. That’s why we need the Christian gospel, but is also why we should not throw away the laws of God, including the laws on marriage, which are given for human flourishing and benefit.
- You may disagree with this. But you need to remember that this is the foundation upon which our Judaeo-Christian Western civilisation has been built. Please don’t call me a bigot, or imply that I am somehow backward because I don’t accept your ill thought out and ultimately harmful view of human sexuality.
- Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you have a fully thought out, through and worked out philosophy of human sexuality and what it means to be a human being? Maybe you have examples of societies where the Christian view has been rejected and those societies have flourished? Or maybe what you are proposing is some kind of liberal fantasy that is never actually been worked out in reality?
Journalist: But what about Teresa May? She is a vicar’s daughter and a Christian. Are you saying she is wrong?
- She is completely wrong. And it’s not just me who says that. The orthodox Christian view is the view of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Islam and most Protestant churches, including at least officially the Anglican church (although I grant you that in the latter case that doesn’t mean all that much!). I’m not in a position to comment on Theresa May’s Christianity. For all I know it could be the cultural type, or the therapeutic deistic type, she may even be a confused believer. I cannot judge her, but I can judge her comments.
Let me explain it this way. In the early years of the Christian church there arose a severe persecution by the Roman Empire against the Christians. Why? The Romans were usually pretty tolerant about different religions, so why pick on the Christians? It is because Christianity challenged the sexual, societal and political views on which the Roman Empire was built. Christians didn’t kill their own unwanted children, they didn’t sleep with whoever they wanted, they didn’t engage in temple prostitution or other forms of sexual immorality. And when they were asked to bow the knee not only to Jesus, but also to Caesar, they refused. And so they were slaughtered. They could so easily have said we will bow to Caesar in public, but in our own hearts and in our own gatherings we bow only to Jesus. But they refused to do that. Today modern Western society is regressing, not progressing, to a Greco/Roman/Pagan view of the world. Sadly there are many ‘Christians’ who are just going along with the flow, and many who either don’t see it or have just given in to the bullying and pressures that come from that. But not all of us have bowed the knee to Baal.
Journalist: But what harm does it do? Why not just live and let live?
- Again what a fascinating question. Because that is precisely what you are not allowing us to do. If a Christian does not accept your view of human sex and sexuality you mock, intimidate and bully in order to exclude. You won’t let us have our views (the views on which this society was built) and be involved in public and civic life. Remember the quote above ““There is no place for bigotry and hatred like this in modern society and no one holding these views is fit for public office.” You call us bigoted and hateful because we uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ!
- To be honest it’s not so much that we are concerned about ourselves – we won’t obey you, whatever you say! In a world of illiberal conformism, we are the real radicals! We are concerned about the victims of a sexual philosophy (and I’m not talking here particularly about homosexuality which is only a minor part of this) that causes so much harm. Do you know what the biggest problem in our society is? It’s not whether people think gay sex is or is not a sin. It’s the destruction of the family. The state will never replace the family as the basic building block of society. But the shallow, selfish and superficial view of sex as a recreational pastime to be indulged in by whoever, with whomever and wherever you want, has created chaos – especially amongst the poor. That’s why we have so much homelessness, broken families, STDs, and even in the 21st-century the return of slavery in Britain – the vast majority of which is sex slavery. When I look at the sex obsessed, disease ridden, pornography swamped, perverted, cheap and abusive society we have become, where prostitution is now termed ‘sex work’, I don’t see a great deal of positive fruit from this new sexual philosophy – do you?
Can you see why I’m upset? I find your line of questioning and the general mockery and smug superiority of our cultural elites really depressing. You don’t debate. You don’t discuss. You assume, and in your blindness you cannot see the harm you are doing to all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable. Your middle class bourgeois morality inherited from Bertrand Russell, the Bloomsbury group and the so called sixties sexual revolution, may be fine for the wealthy, but for the poor and our society as a whole it has been a disaster.
I guess you have to answer to your bosses (I’ve had many journalists who have said that they can see my point and even basically agree with it, but they would not dare write anything outwith the party line – as you say ‘it would be more than your job is worth’! So much for critical thinking and freedom of the press!). But one day you will have to answer to a greater than your editor, or even than your peers and family. One day we will all stand before God and he will ask us what we have done with all the tremendous gifts he has given us – life, beauty, music, art, sex, food, science etc. And, because we suppress the truth by our own wickedness and think we can make it on our own; we will have to admit – we’ve screwed it up. We’ve screwed up our lifes, we’ve screwed up God’s planet and we have created a hell on earth. Unless of course there is another way – which there is….and that is the way of Christ.
So sorry for the length of this answer – but yes given all that is said above – gay sex, like heterosexual sex outwith marriage, is sin – but its just one of many many sins we all commit. Anything outwith the revealed will of our gracious and loving God is sin. To ignore this is like buying a petrol car and deciding that you can’t see any harm in filling it with diesel. I know there are a lot more questions that arise out of this but that will have to wait for another day. Thanks for listening to me….lets see how you turn that into a 100-word soundbite!
Footnote: Of course the above conversation would never happen – because our media generally operates in a circular vacuum with little thought given to the deeper issues of life. Some day, somewhere, someone is going to make a stand and challenge the current zeitgeist…meanwhile we just pray and watch Romans 1 being acted out in our midst.
Why are Christians such homophobic bigots
Ah, backing off when it gets difficult, eh? Reading in context is advisable, which is why I would read the NT passages on homosexuality in the context of the first century church dealing with temple prostitution and read the advice re head coverings in a particular cultural context. i suspect that sadly you bring to your reading and interpretations a particular patriarchal view that limits the powerful work of the gospel. You will always be popular, because patriarchy is enduringly so. It’s just sad.
No – not backing off at all…I wouldn’t be so cocky if I were you! I love the way you assume knowledge of first century church dealing with temple prostitution….are you an expert in this area? Have you studied first century church history or culture (I have – and indeed was taught by one of the world experts)? You also seem to assume that you know my motives etc…fyi I don’t hold to a patriarchal view but don’t let facts get in the way of your prejudice. As regards the 1st Century church and the New Testament – as it happens I am currently preparing a sermon for Sunday on Romans 1:24-27. And no it does not refer to temple prostitution (that is just a dishonest reading into the text from those who are desperately trying to square the circle of remaining faithful to the Bible and going along with todays zeitgeist!). Paul follows the teaching of Jesus about marriage being between a man and a woman – it may seem a strange thing to say but I tend to follow the line that Christians are people who follow the teaching of Christ and don’t tell him that he got it wrong!
No, I’m not ‘cocky’ if you mean overly confident and assuming I know all the answers. I do know that these areas are much contested by historical and theological scholars and that the interpretations you prefer are not the only ones. What makes me curious is why some prefer one interpretation and some the other. My personal view is that patriarchy and notions of masculinity drive particular interpretations, but I see you deny holding a patriarchal view!
I think it’s time we drew this correspondence to a close, as we are not likely to agree! Thank you for engaging with me.
Jenny – it’s not a question of the interpretations I prefer as though we are given a smorgasbord of choices according to our own preferences. I have read a great deal in this area and part of my university degree was the study of early Christianity and first century culture. There is such a thing as truth – and it’s not what we choose to make it according to our particular preferences. It is very clear what the Bible says – the only thing that is causing confusion are those who wish to accommodate the Bible to our current cultural zeitgeist. It has nothing to do with history, evidence or facts. It’s just blatant cultural prejudice.
Exactly.
This isn’t a matter such as the independence of Scotland, about which we will have differing views, this is a matter clearly laid out in Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.
Patriarchy enduringly popular? Perhaps you’re thinking of certain non-Christian cultures, but in the modern post-Christian West? about as popular as rug-burn, I would say
This is my final word on this subject, Curlew. Perhaps read http://juniaproject.com/let-my-people-go/.
Thank you David for engaging your powerful intellect & wonderful Good humour in defence of Truth, In a world without moral absolutes where everything is relative & goes, Just so long as it is not Christian.
Or you could have followed this shorter route:
Mr Farron could have followed Jesus’s example and responded to the question with a question: “What does the Bible say?”
If the interviewer answers correctly, the response is, “You have answered your own question.”
If he cannot answer, the response is, “Then neither will I tell you whether gay sex is sinful.”
If he gets the answer wrong, he can be told to do his research before he asks questions about which he is ignorant.
“Gay” and “sex” are both euphemisms in this context, so you could also ask what the journalist means by the phrase.
So many ways of escape not used. What do you mean by “sin” would have worked too.
Very good Peter.
Depending on the person I’m discussing this with I often use the analogy of smoking after establishing a definition of sin, i.e. any act that’s contrary to the well-being of the person himself and/or those his act affects (theft, murder etc. ). So smoking is and should be discouraged (and is more or less banned). We love the smoker but not his smoking.
Hi David! This is a great post on an important subject. As a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of God, I have felt compelled to speak out about issues such as homosexuality and LGBTQ+ gender confusion in recent weeks both on my blog and on my YouTube channel.
The pride celebrations in London recently demonstrated how widespread the sexual chaos has become. Even businesses like Starbucks, Barclays, and Tesco were ‘proudly’ supporting the event. I recently took the difficult decision to come off Instagram, because they were constantly pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda.
I agree that without a Biblical worldview there will only be gender chaos and confusion, which is destroying the institution of the family and leads to the worship of sex rather than the worship of God.
I talk about some of the main issues in my most recent vlog:
https://youtu.be/ufFXRSp_PVA
And in this blog post I wrote about how even the BBC is embracing gender confusion:
https://perfectchaos.org/2017/07/03/the-bbc-embraces-gender-confusion/
I’m happy to subscribe to your blog, David, and will look forward to future posts. Peace and blessings, Steven.
What a thoroughly horrible set of comments. Please present your credentials on human sexuality so that we may understand your deep confusion.
I love the way that the militant secularists ‘argue’. If you don’t agree with them you are horrible and confused! I note that you never present your case with any rational or evidence – its just your prejudice. As for my credentials – I am a human being – and I read and think a great deal about these things. As for confusion – anyone who defends society saying that are 56 genders and that people can get to choose their own gender – is already well on that road! Is it too much to ask you to think?!
I love the way that theists use straw-man arguments. The fact that I dont agree with your poster has little to do with the post being horrible and confused. It IS horrible and confused.
I never present my case with any rationale or evidence? Hmm the rationale is clear. The evidence is out there.
Credentials? well they are no more than mine and I read a good deal and think about these things too. So, David whose word do you take? The word of a man who straw mans 56 genders into reality to make a point? No I dont thnk so.
People very often DO choose their own “gender” without any help from secularists and the biological world is full of examples of a spectrum of biological gender being expressed.
The problme with you David and those of your ilk is that you prefer to put scripture before reality. The bible before what the science really says about gender.
And I know many people who work in the medical field and not one of them would claim that there are 56 genders. Your problem is lack of science education.
When religion can stop interfering in the sexuality of others then I might give up trying to educate you.
Anyone reading this Mark will be stuck by the obvious. You just repeat the accusation and call names without offering any justification for your position or any evidence whatsoever! I’m not the one who claims there are 57 genders – it was Facebook. And no – people don’t gt to choose their own gender much as you want want them to be able to. I am a man and there is nothing that can change that. I am putting reality before your crazy messed up ideology. Please feel free to educate me – at the moment you seem to be struggling with basic education for yourself. Let me make it easy for you – how many genders are there?
This is becoming horribly ad hominem.
I was saddened if not surprised to read your comments. By implication you are saying 2000 years of Christian teaching are ‘horrible’ & ‘confused’. While your comments reflect the political correctness of today very well, they demonstrates a shocking ignorance of & or disregard for history. For example the very ability to read and comment in these threads, is thanks in the main to the Christian education that the Scottish Church began. You may not like the fact that God is & He has clearly made His thoughts on such matters as sexuality very clear, but it does not change the fact that God is your God. You may not acknowledge it but that makes not a jot of difference to almighty God.
You would do well to learn what pleases & displeases Him, rather than that which pleases man’s 21st century selfish wicked desires.
Respectfully,
What are “credentials on human sexuality”?
An evidence based understanding of biology? Rather than what you would wish to be the case based upon your religious misconceptions.
Oops…another almighty faux pas…you do realise that under modern gender ideology (admittedly not science) gender has nothing to do with biology which is incidental. You can choose to believe that if you wish – but it is a belief not based on any evidence….Your ideological misconceptions seem to be getting in the way. Maybe you had better stick with facts?!
Also of course, David, evidence based biology does not support any purpose or reason for any other ‘coupling’ than the basic male/female one. So his argument falls apart on that score too.
There is no faux pas at all David. I am well aware of the distinction. The trouble for you is both biological sex and gender identity is supported in the literature. Perhaps that is why I seem to recall putting “gender” in quotes.
Tell me, how many genders do you think there are?
Which literature? When you say ‘literature’ you mean the literature that agrees with you – any that doesn’t – especially by those who have some expertise in the field (Jordan Petersen for example) is immediately targeted to be shut down. So in this Orwellian thinking of the new Progressivism you shut down anyone who would disagree with you, and then lo and behold ‘all the literature’ agrees with you. Any that get through the net can of course be safely sidelined by being called right wing or religious. Its such a comfortable and brain dead world you live in. You never have to move outside your box. Oh – and in case you are not quite able to make that nuanced thinking you talk about – I am not arguing that gender is only biology, but I am arguing that it always includes biology. In terms of how many genders – I thought you would be able to answer – what with your credentials! But to help you – there are two – male and female. There are a small number of people who are intersex because of a physical abnormality – we would no more encourage people to become that than we would encourage them to have one leg! And there are people who suffer from the psychological condition known and genderdysphoria – feeling that they are trapped in the wrong body. Of course within the next year – after all the political pressure from the imperialist Western Liberal Elites the DSM will remove is a psychological condition – but that is because of ideology and political pressure not therapy and science. You are aware that Trans has already moved on to gender fluidity whereby next year I will be able to walk into a post office, fill out a form and declare my self a woman – thereby making myself available for all kinds of quotas sports etc…and you support this madnesss. The destruction of humanity is the ultimate fruit of secular humanism.
Here is the beginning of the wiki entry on gender –
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or an intersex variation which may complicate sex assignment), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] Some cultures have specific gender roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra (chhaka) of India and Pakistan.
A nuanced reading of this and the literature which is referenced in it explains to the intelligent reader that the answer is not simply a binary choice of male or female. Nor is it 56 varieties. Try thinking.
Now this is getting embarrassing. You claim to have ‘credentials’ to pronounce on this most complex of subject – and it turns out that your credententials are ‘nuanced’ reading of Wiki! Wiki would never dare publish anything which went against the current unscientific ideology. You won’t know that because you have just gone along with the flow and followed the sheep – but anyone who dares to question trans ideology is immediately made subject to a level of abuse which makes the cybernats seem sedate! Meanwhile back in the real world it was FAcebook that said there were 56 – maybe you should write them and complain about their lack of nuance? You play the old trick of saying that if people agree with you they are intelligent, if they don’t they are not. But the Emperoror has no clothes. PLease please try thinking…it would be so good to see some evidence of that instead the emotive ideological and often abusive posts you put on here.
I asked you, “What are “credentials on human sexuality”? That was because you had used that four-word phrase yourself.
Your purported answer to my question was, “An evidence based understanding of biology.”
You then went on to add, “Rather than what you would wish to be the case based upon your religious misconceptions.” That addition was neither relevant, nor evidence-based itself. I have.
Please explain how an “evidence based understanding of biology” and “credentials on human sexuality” are the same thing.
EVEN the BBC?! What do you mean, Steven Colbourne, when you refer to “even the BBC” “embracing gender confusion”? Where have you been? Do you not expect, by now, the BBC to be at the forefront, of any embracing of gender confusion? I certainly expect this!
The BBC aren’t the last people I’d expect to embrace gender confusion. They’re the first I’d expect to do this.
David wikipedia doesnt publish anything. What are your credentials?
I am not interested in what Facebook thinks. Nor is the DSM.
The embarrassment is all yours.
See that atttempt to be pedantic doesn’t work. Wikipedia does publish things on line. It allows people to write and amend etc at will – with no credentials (which seem so important to you)…It is not a credible source..FB just reflects the culture. Still waiting for any of these credentials you boast about? And still waiting to hear how many genders there are? Apparently 2 is so old school and 56 is ridiculous. So how many?
It isnt pedantry at all. Wikipedia is built by people and entries reflect the construction by people with credentials. That is why Wiki insists on references. It is an entirely credible starting point for an overview. The meat of the argument is in the references.
I dont boast about credentials its just that yours are no better than mine and given your odd beliefs in other areas its hard to take you seriously.
The delicious irony David is that as far as biological gender is concerned we dont disagree too much on the numbers. The number isnt relevant nor determined but it is certainly >2. The delicious irony is that I havent said what I believe and yet you have still managed to try shoehorning criticism in – becuae I am one of those dangerous secularists who doesnt have the biblical credentials you have..
The are where we differ is acceptance of what people want to see themselves as. You just dont want to allow these individuals the rights the most decent human beings would freely offer.
It is clear from the length of time you have been banging on about this that it is you and your ilk who are obsessed with gay sex and matters sexual in general. What on earth has it got to do with you? Why should you care? Because you think the bible lays it all out so clearly? That its a binary choice and everything else is wrong.
But then if you read and understood the real science you would know better. Sadly you wont ever.
Not much of an argument! If you had read the ‘real’ science you would believe as I do?! The real science does not of course teach that there are multi-genders. It is the political and philosopical views of queer theory which teach that. And you are wrong. And of course I don’t believe that you really accept whatever anyone identifies at. Do you really believe that the Norwegian woman who self-identifies as a cat, is a cat?!
do you then (as a decent person) think anorexic people should be encouraged to go on believing themselves dangerously overweight?
No I dont. Another false equivalence.
Saying “not much of an argument” is no argument at all.
“The real science does not of course teach that there are multi-genders.”
Define multi-genders David.
I am wrong? Why because you say so?
The Norwegian woman (if she exists) – false equivalence Im afraid. Do try harder.
Multi-genders = many genders. (basic English and logic)
You said that you accept people as they want to be identified. I tell you of a woman who wants to be identified as a cat. You refuse to accept her? Like to explain the logic of your position – if there is one?
“You said that you accept people as they want to be identified.” – Where exactly did I say this?
“The area where we differ is acceptance of what people want to see themselves as.”
This is not the same thing David and you know it. You are playing word snake again.
I couldnt care less what people identify as. What I do care about is the state recognising that there are good medical / psychological reasons for allowing people to do so – within limits. You want to regulate the state with the bible.
“…… good medical / psychological reasons for allowing people to [identify as what they like] – within limits…..”
What medical reasons are those, and what psychological reasons? on what scientific evidence? according to whom?
Within what limits? Limits to be decided on by whom, and on what grounds? The grounds to be decided by whom, and on what evidence?
Those are questions for qualified clinicians and psychologists and not theologians.
I’m a psychologist, and a theologian, and a pastor, and I’m with David on this one.
Dear David, ‘mgordon42′ clearly believes that green is blue and all should agree with him. I suggest that it is time that you take Jesus’ advice to the 144 when he talked to them about those who would not listen…
mgordon –
“No I dont. [think anorexics should be encouraged to believe themselves fat] Another false equivalence.”
False – how? Could you explain?
Because anorexia can lead to death or other poor outcomes if untreated. The same does not apply to someone identifying as gay or intersex.
MGordon,
I don’t think think the comparison that Curlew thought apt, was between the delusional body-image psychosis of anorexia, and either the mental condition of an exclusively “gay” sexual orientation, or the actual, physical abnormalities of the different examples of intersex presentation in infants. The apt comparison was between anorectic delusional and the delusional (or at least metaphysical) belief that one had, trapped in one’s male body, a female soul, or vice versa, that presents as gender dysphoria.
Gender dysphoric delusional thought systems induce the patient to engage in gender fraud (which poses a risk to others*). They also call some patients to seek genital mutilation surgery (which obviously harms the patients themselves if they get their wish). Genital mutilation makes possible even more heinous gender fraud*. These are all poor “outcomes”.
John
* Should a bloke be allowed to know if his “girlfriend” (or “bride”) is also a bloke?
https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2017/07/08/gra/
“…can lead to death or other poor outcomes” . By “treated” in this case you must mean something like “given help in accepting reality”.
Going down the trans route can also lead to poor outcomes and sometimes death, as you presumably know.
The big difference is that some would use the law to prevent those people from accessing the kind of help that gives hope and life to anorexics. Instead, even the youngest are offered “treatment “of a radically opposite and harmful kind – their choice of invasive drugs, invasive surgery or both.
Wouldn’t it make sense at least to try the non-invasive route first? It can work for anorexics.
There you go Mark, I think Dominic Stockford has answered your other point when he says
“…I’m a psychologist, and a theologian, and a pastor, and I’m with David on this one….”
Why do I have a hunch that his judgment on the question would NOT be acceptable to you??
I was going to point out that it’s not enough just to invoke “qualified clinicians and psychologists”. It may sound a weighty and important putdown, but – which clinicians and psychologists, and who gets to pick them? What do their qualifications have to be? who gets to decide that, and on what grounds?
Curlew, your hunch is spot on.
Lets be honest here – there are around 2000 university qualified engineers who are convinced that 9/11 was an inside job and controlled demolition. One psychologist who does not go along with concensus is not going to convince me to challenge the concensus. (More might if the evidence were there.) What is far more important than the qualification is the evidence.
The problem is the religious trying to refute the evidence.
Evidence? You haven’t presented any ‘evidence’.
No thats “your” job. You know the one making the claim.
nonsense. You claim “the religious” are trying to refute “the evidence”? Well then, you must at the very least be able to say WHAT evidence they’re “trying to refute”!
Your argument has now lost any pretence at logic. It was you who said:
“The problem is the religious trying to refute the evidence”
Now you are saying that we need to provide the evidence as well as refute it?! You’ve lost your way. The best advice when in a hole is to stop digging, but you’re way too deep for that to help.
No Dominic the evidence is out there – it is you who chooses to ignore it.
Scientific evidence doesn’t speak for itself. It has to be collated and interpreted by scientists, and they do that on the basis of an assumed model of what they take to be the true underlying nature of reality, including human nature. Change the underlying model, and the whole theoretical fabric built upon it will have to be rebuilt also.
When you say “go along with the evidence” I think what you really mean is “interpret the evidence according to a materialist and atheist model of reality” . You’d like your own atheistic presuppositions to be assumed without being made explicit, let alone justified.
I don’t assume them. Why should I? I’ve never seen the truth of the atheist world-view demonstrated, and I don’t believe it can be. Feel free to prove me wrong 🙂
Curlew – the trick is in interpreting the word atheist. For clarity one might say a-theist. Which is to say lacking belief. Most atheist adhere to this. Their worldview is usually unconcerned with their lack of belief although it usually does include it. The truth of the atheist world view? You want me to prove that god does not exist? Really? Many say its not possible to do so philosophically. I disagree. But you wouldnt believe me and why should I bother? I can certainly disprove YOUR god without much effort at all.
Im quite well aware of how science works thanks. Most scientific evidence does speak for itself. Where interpretation is required to make an assessment of reality then we can assume that the evidence is not as strong as would be desired. In this particular case the evidence of harm from restricting peoples choices is quite clear. The evidence that e.g trying to “cure” gayness is harmful is crystal clear- And that is one reason why religions should not involve themselves in trying to effect change wrt to human sexuality.
If you think that evidence needs no interpretation, I recommend some good crime fiction 🙂
But meanwhile, what’s your disproof?