Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

Predisposition and Free Will

Yet another oft-cited argument by SSM supporters is that homosexuals have an inherent predisposition towards the behavior. They claim that it is an innate, inborn quality, perhaps a consequence of some as yet undetermined genetic factor. In any event, having made this claim, they proceed to assert such behavior ought not to be deemed immoral, because it is an orientation acquired by birth rather than by choice. 

Whether such an inherent predisposition exists at birth is debatable. But it is also irrelevant. We all may have the potential for predispositions towards some type of behavior that is wrong. Nevertheless, we are not creatures of instinct alone. As human beings we retain a conscious mind and free will. We can choose to avoid behaviors that are harmful, if we make a deliberate effort. We can also seek out the help of others, if necessary, to steer our behaviors in the right direction. Consequently, from a moral perspective, we are without excuse despite any predisposing characteristics. 

Alcoholics are in many cases vulnerable to the malady because of a genetic factor, discovered in 2004 by medical researchers. This factor, known as the CREB gene because it produces a “cyclic AMP responsive element binding” protein, is responsible in large part for those who have a propensity towards excessive drinking. Does knowing this make it any less wrong to drive under the influence? Or, for that matter, any less wrong to ruin one’s relationships at home or in the workplace by a pattern of excessive drinking? It does evoke sympathy for the struggle that someone may face in trying to overcome such an addiction, but it does not excuse their behavior. 

Kleptomaniacs appear to suffer from an overwhelming impulse to steal. Nevertheless, judicial courts generally do not accept that this condition is an affirmative defense to the crime of theft. 

In a similar manner, some unfortunate persons are afflicted by the psychosis of homicidal mania. Does this excuse their crime sufficiently that they may be released without penalty? Most certainly not. Charles Manson has been imprisoned since 1971 for the Tate-LaBianca murders (“Helter Skelter”), and to the best of my knowledge he is still behind bars today. Those who are found “not guilty by reason of insanity” are nevertheless institutionalized. 

For those who have a proclivity towards gambling – wandering their way down time and again to Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Atlantic City, or their local store to play Lotto – are we to excuse them from the financial and moral responsibility for their own actions? Once again, it is a choice that people make for themselves, notwithstanding any leaning they may have towards such self-destructive behavior. 

In recent times, we’ve even heard the ridiculous argument that violent criminals ought to be exonerated because they are actually “victims of society and their upbringing”. 

The list could go on and on: addictions to drugs or pornography, being too lazy to work, eating disorders, bullying, etc. 

In all of these cases, we could try to absolve the person of any personal responsibility for their behavior by blaming it on a predisposing characteristic. But is this truly just? Barring a claim of absolute mental incompetence, people have an obligation to manage their own impulses. 

In essence we are hearing the time-worn claim, “the devil made me do it”, albeit in disguise. This is a lie. We are not powerless zombies under some irresistible external influence, like you might imagine seeing in a science-fiction movie. We have conscience and free will, despite any inherent inclination towards a particular behavior. Hence, whether or not there is any inborn predisposition towards homosexuality, this factor alone is insufficient proof that we should redefine the parameters of morally acceptable behavior. 

29 Responses to “Predisposition and Free Will”

  1. on 21 Jun 2007 at 1:54 pmGenghis Conn

    Alcoholism. Homicidal tendencies. Kleptomania. Homosexuality. You really don’t see the differences, here? That’s a serious question, btw. I see the differences. There’s a world of difference between behavior that is harmful to oneself or others and loving sexual relations between consenting adults.

    And you aren’t hearing “the devil made me do it.” Instead, you’re hearing “This is who I am.”

  2. on 21 Jun 2007 at 6:09 pmTrueBlueCT

    Two words. “Ted Haggard”.

    Look, I don’t know many homosexuals who wouldn’t choose to be straight, if it were as simple as a choice. Given the burden of being gay, who would ever elect homosexuality?

    Can’t believe you’re peddling this line of hooey.

    Then again, maybe Haggard will be “cured”. Wouldn’t want to be his wife, though.

  3. on 21 Jun 2007 at 7:27 pmDavid

    “time-worn” indeed, there must have been at least an inch of dust on these arguments. I guess I didn’t think you would actually stoop low enough to make such ridiculous and unsupportable comparisons between homosexuality and various addictions. There is no relationsip, they simply are not the same and it is beyond offensive to say they are. How come you left out necrophelia and beastiality? If you’re going to insult why not go all the way? Are their sex addicted homosexuals, yes indeed and drug addicted and gambling addicted and the whole nine yards. And there is also help and tools available for people to deal with those issues. Homosexuality does not need to be cured, it’s not a sickness and in itself is not a moral outrage. How some act on their orientation certainly can be, same with heterosexuals. I don’t need an excuse for my sexual orientation, it just is and always has been despite years wasted on “praying the gay away”, therapy, having demons cast out and all the other things that some of us nearly destroyed ourselves doing to try and please the image of God that was drummed into our head by twisted “spiritual” leaders. And I don’t need you or anyone else to accept who I am either, as you don’t need me to accept your beliefs/actions. But we do need to live together in the same country and the same world and until you folks cease your relentless and unwarranted attacks on us there will be no peace. Live your life but keep your “morals” out of mine, I’ve seen the damage they do. I can’t sit quiet and watch more people destroyed.

    Since “the Devil” is a religious construct the only people who would blame/give credit to him/her/it are those who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own behaviour and need a religious excuse. About the same as those who say “God made me do it” to justify their continuous hateful attacks on those they consider “sinners”.

  4. on 21 Jun 2007 at 9:17 pmDave

    There’s a world of difference between behavior that is harmful to oneself or others and loving sexual relations between consenting adults.

    How easily you dismiss the harmful aspects of homosexual behavior:

    – markedly increased occurrence of STDs
    – physical damage from certain types of “intimate” acts, by using the body in ways for which it was not designed
    – other illnesses like GBS that are strongly correlated with homosexual acts
    – decreased life expectancy due to the toll of these illnesses
    – higher rates of alcoholism and drug use
    – higher tendency for depression and suicidal behavior
    – higher tendency towards having a history of numerous intimate partners, in some cases 100s or 1000s during a lifetime, which is arguably evidence of a psychological disorder
    – general occurrence of low self esteem and a craving for affirmation, which is yet another psychologically relevant symptom of a disorder

    In light of these factors, such behavior is indeed harmful both to oneself and to others. Those who blithely disregard these concerns are living in a state of denial.

  5. on 21 Jun 2007 at 9:34 pmmoderate majority

    Dave, your list would seem to create a hierarchy of three kinds of sexual pairings:

    Gay male couples < heterosexual couples < lesbian couples

    … because STDs and physical damage are practically unheard of in the lesbian community!

  6. on 22 Jun 2007 at 6:33 amDarden

    At least Dave is honest. I’m grateful that he strips away the veneer of public relations respectability to reveal the raw homophobia and hatred that underlies their positions. If only they were half as honest with legislators and the public.

  7. on 22 Jun 2007 at 8:37 amSteve

    I am attracted to redheads. It’s unfortunate too, because my wife is brunette. I often question whether I should continue the burdensome charade and remain in silent suffering – or bravely come out since “this is who I am.” (I guess the cat’s out of the bag now. Sorry honey. I should have told you years ago…)

    A bit absurd. I know. But I think ya’ll are missing Dave’s point. He isn’t comparing behaviors, he’s saying that we all have desires that we must control when the actions that our desires represent aren’t beneficial to ourselves, society, etc. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Dave.) The presence of desire, (even innate desires) is not solely a justification for acting on them; and innateness isn’t necessarily indicative of moral uprightness. (In fact, it’s been my experience that the opposite is often true.) Unless I’m mistaken, the point is that we who possess free will (unlike animals) must practice self control when faced with disordered, immoral tendencies.

  8. on 22 Jun 2007 at 9:03 amDave

    TrueBlueCT wrote:

    Two words. “Ted Haggard”.

    Yes, but after his wrongdoing was exposed he didn’t justify his actions by claiming that they were moral. He didn’t lobby for such behaviors to be rewarded with special status in our legal system. What did he do? Ultimately he admitted his actions were wrong, and he apologized:

    The fact is, I am guilty of sexual immorality, and I take responsibility for the entire problem.

    I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring about it for my entire life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

    […]

    Please forgive me. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I caused this and I have no excuse. I am a sinner. I have fallen. I desperately need to be forgiven and healed.

    Like so many of the other problems that I listed (e.g. alcoholism, drugs, pornography, gambling, eating disorders, indolence / habitual laziness, etc.), I am sure that a propensity towards homosexuality is a great struggle for those so afflicted. Rather than affirming such self-destructive behaviors as wholesome, we ought to be doing everything that we can to help these struggling people break free from the grip of these ailments.

    In admitting his guilt and shame, Ted Haggard also explained that the reason he could not break free from this pattern of behavior was that he did not seek help. He buried the truth of his problems, hid them, and convinced himself that he could manage them alone in secret. This aspect of the story is especially worthy of our attention, because it underscores a key ingredient that is needed to escape the grip of self-destructive behaviors in our lives: publicly admitting that we have a problem. It’s no surprise that this is the first step in so many successful 12-step recovery programs. In life, some problems are simply too big to handle alone, and we need the help and support of others to overcome them.

  9. on 22 Jun 2007 at 9:13 amtomie

    One might take a moment to consider that the drug/alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, low self-esteem and need for affirmation in the gay community are caused in large part by the hatred, vitriol and condemnation of the conservative “Christian” right, which seeks to marginalize and demonize gays to further the conservative agenda.

    When you do that to people, you harm them. If your conscience allows that, so be it. You’ll have to answer for it.

  10. on 22 Jun 2007 at 9:15 amGenghis Conn

    Oh, my God. I’m sorry I asked. Dave, that list is… well, I don’t know what to call it without my comment being moderated.

    But let’s start with low self-esteem and high suicide rates. You, Dave, and others like you, are the cause–the shame and stigma associated with homosexuality created by social ultraconservatives like yourself is exactly why so many feel the need to hide their sexual orientation.

    I hate to ask, but what’s your source? Do you have one? Where are the medical journals that back your claim up? I warn you, I’m a librarian and I can sense bad research from miles away.

    Really, you’re describing a small segment of (mostly male) homosexuals, not the majority. Not by a long shot.

    As I said before, Dave, you should go talk to a normal gay couple, and let them explain it to you. I think you’ll find that they are not at all different from you and me.

  11. on 22 Jun 2007 at 9:23 amDave

    Moderate_majority wrote:

    … STDs and physical damage are practically unheard of in the lesbian community!

    That’s a myth. Have you never heard of bacterial vaginosis (BV), which has a much higher prevalence among sexually-active lesbian women? And no, I’m not just spouting propaganda from right-wing sites. Take a look at this quote from the Department of Public Health in King County, Washington:

    Can women give other women STDs? Yes.

    There is a misconception among health care providers and women themselves that lesbian and bisexual women have little or no risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STD). This myth is fueled by the lack of reliable studies of STD transmission in these communities.

    In fact, the risk of STD transmission between women varies significantly depending on the STD. Herpes, HPV (genital wart virus), and bacterial vaginosis are transmitted fairly easily between women during sex.

    […]

    Researchers are especially interested in bacterial vaginosis (BV) in women who have sex with women both because it occurs frequently among lesbians and because the cause and transmission of BV is not clearly understood. In one study over half of the lesbians had BV and BV was diagnosed even in the absence of sexual activity with a man in the previous year. Additionally, there was a high likelihood that if one partner in a monogamous couple had BV her partner would as well.

  12. on 22 Jun 2007 at 11:16 amDave

    tomie wrote:

    One might take a moment to consider that the drug/alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, low self-esteem and need for affirmation in the gay community are caused in large part by the hatred, vitriol and condemnation of the conservative “Christian” right, which seeks to marginalize and demonize gays to further the conservative agenda.

    Genghis wrote:

    … the shame and stigma associated with homosexuality created by social ultraconservatives like yourself is exactly why so many feel the need to hide their sexual orientation.

    If this were true, then in places where homosexuality is more openly accepted by society – for example, southern California – wouldn’t we expect to see a reduction in these problems? And yet, we don’t. What we actually see as time passes is that within the homosexual community each generation is behaving more dangerously and recklessly than the one before, and these problems have become progressively worse – on both a physical and emotional level.

    For a glimpse into this sordid and misguided lifestyle, take a look at this article from the 1993 Los Angeles Times –http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1993/LT930709.html

    Dr. Paul Cameron summarizes this well in his report, “The Psychology of Homosexuality”:

    The limited evidence available suggests that where social and legal acceptance has been implemented, the problems associated with homosexuality have increased rather than dissipated. Cutting the bonds of sexual restraint do not “free” the homosexual to live life to its fullest, but rather increase his chances of personal misery and isolation.

  13. on 22 Jun 2007 at 11:19 amSimon

    There are three things I feel pretty comfortable saying about this post:

    1. To equate homosexuality with alcoholism, kleptomania, gambling addictions, etc. is absurd and says volumes more about the person spouting this garbage (that would be you, Dave) than it does about homosexuals.

    2. I am not all surprised (though still disappointed) to read this here, given the forum.

    3. I take not a small degree of comfort in knowing that a significant majority of people likely view your comments as being wrong, hateful, evidence of a very scary prejudice, profoundly ignorant and disturbing. It is sadly very easy to see how someone like Matthew Shepard could be strapped to a fence and beaten to death for being gay.

  14. on 22 Jun 2007 at 1:38 pmSteve's wife

    That’s okay, I never told you that I prefer un-muscled physiques.

  15. on 22 Jun 2007 at 4:22 pmDavid

    – markedly increased occurrence of STDs : only among the promiscuous

    – physical damage from certain types of “intimate” acts, by using the body in ways for which it was not designed: only by specific acts which are practiced by a small minority of gay men, and are also practiced by heterosexuals.

    – other illnesses like GBS that are strongly correlated with homosexual acts No such thing as GBS in the real medical world , it’s a creation of the toxic right perverse imagination

    – decreased life expectancy due to the toll of these illnesses :
    unsubstantiated nonsense that is propagated by quacks like Paul Cameron

    – higher rates of alcoholism and drug use
    – higher tendency for depression and suicidal behavior
    – higher tendency towards having a history of numerous intimate partners, in some cases 100s or 1000s during a lifetime, which is arguably evidence of a psychological disorder
    – general occurrence of low self esteem and a craving for affirmation, which is yet another psychologically relevant symptom of a disorder

    Last four well covered by other posters and refuted with more right wing hallucinations by Dave. But, there’s little hope for someone who is influenced by Paul Cameron and quotes his falsehoods as truth.

    Stick to religious arguments and you won’t look quite so ignorant. Even some of the worst of the queer haters understand that fact. Using the list above and referencing Cameron are excellent signs that your calm “Bible based” answers are a total facade and you are as vicious as all the rest. Sad, but good for us, you are doomed to fail using such bile.

  16. on 22 Jun 2007 at 5:04 pmDave

    Simon wrote:

    It is sadly very easy to see how someone like Matthew Shepard could be strapped to a fence and beaten to death for being gay.

    What a vile and reprehensible mischaracterization of our position!

    How you could take what was written – an expression of concern that people who have difficulty overcoming an unhealthy compulsion ought to seek help – and twist that around into an insinuation that we advocate violence is both illogical and insulting.

    Careful observers will notice that when a serious discussion about this issue is leaning away from the Left, and they are at a loss to respond with intelligent counter-arguments, they often resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel for sludge like this to use as their rebuttal.

  17. on 22 Jun 2007 at 6:02 pmDave

    No such thing as GBS in the real medical world …

    Oh, really? Then what do you make of this disproportionate outbreak of lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) among homosexuals? Once again, to dispel any concerns you may have that this is merely right-wing propaganda, I’m quoting a neutral source – the CDC, in its weekly report on morbitity and mortality for October 29, 2004:

    Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV) is a systemic, sexually transmitted disease (STD) caused by a variety of the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis that rarely occurs in the United States and other industrialized countries; the prevalence of LGV is greatest in Africa, Southeast Asia, Central and South America, and Caribbean countries (1). However, in the Netherlands, which typically has fewer than five cases a year, as of September 2004, a total of 92 cases of LGV had been confirmed during the preceding 17 months among men who have sex with men (MSM).

    That’s right, more than 18 times the typical occurrence of the disease in the overall population. Reading further into the report, we find that 99% of the patients in this outbreak initially presented with gastrointestinal symptoms. Sounds like GBS to me, only now we have a better idea exactly what pathogen is involved. And yet the attitude of denial continues among folks on the Left, who can’t possibly admit that this lifestyle is harmful to oneself and others without breaking away from their stance of “political correctness”.

    Oh yes, wasn’t it the Netherlands that legalized SSM in 2001? Not that there could possibly be any correlation …

    And this LGV outbreak has continued to spread within the homosexual community in additional countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, Canada and the United States – with no sign of abating. The local clinics in Amsterdam still diagnose up to 2 new cases of LGV in each week, almost invariably among gay men.

    Google it for yourself, and learn the truth.

  18. on 22 Jun 2007 at 8:48 pmSteve

    That’s okay, I never told you that I prefer un-muscled physiques.

    Heh… I’ve often wondered why you love me. Now I know…

    BTW, I’ll be making a stop at cvs on the way home tomorrow. Do you prefer Miss Clairol or Revlon?

  19. on 22 Jun 2007 at 8:54 pmGabe

    Herpes, HPV (genital wart virus), and bacterial vaginosis are transmitted fairly easily between women during sex.

    Time to start banning all sex then…

  20. on 23 Jun 2007 at 7:51 amDave

    Gabe,

    The point is that some STDs in particular are exhibiting an alarming correlation with homosexual activity in particular, rather than being spread uniformly amongst the general population.

    Again, I’ll quote from a neutral source, so there can be no mistaken belief that this is merely right-wing propaganda. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Services:

    BV is more common in lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women, and frequently occurs in both members of lesbian couples.

    The epidemic of LGV that I mentioned in an earlier comment is overwhelmingly correlated with homosexual activity among men.

    And there has also been a worldwide resurgence of syphilis, being spread primarily by homosexual activity, in the last few years.

    Of course, you can all verify this for yourselves, rather than taking my word for it. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, all of this information is readily available at your fingertips – unless you’d rather keep your head buried in the sand, preferring to believe the propaganda of the Left instead of listening to the cold, hard facts. Read the medical reports from the physicians and government agencies who are contending with these outbreaks, and draw your own conclusions.

    Sooner or later someone is going to mention this, so it may as well be me. Whether or not you accept the totality of the Bible’s message, it is abundantly clear that those who follow its guidance in matters of sexuality would not be so afflicted by these STD outbreaks.

  21. on 23 Jun 2007 at 12:36 pmtomie

    Cameron’s homophobia trumps his “science.”

    One would do well to research Cameron — who has been thrown out of most, if not all, professional associations for shoddy, misinterpreted and misrepresented research.

    Not one of Cameron’s studies on sexuality has been published in any scientific journal with rigorous peer review. “Psychological Reports” where he is often read, is a vanity magazine which will print all submissions for $27.50 a page, apparently.

    Of particular interest is his 1978 study, “Sexual Gradualism” which advocates teen experimentation with heterosexual sex, to safeguard against them becoming gay.

    Google him. It’s enlightening.

  22. on 23 Jun 2007 at 10:59 pmNaCN

    Dave,

    I completely agree with your statement that Simon’s comment about Matthew Shepard is a “vile and reprehensible mischaracterization of our position.” Let’s not forget that it also was Simon who, in January, equated defense of marriage with defense of slavery. To borrow his words, “I take not a small degree of comfort in knowing that a significant majority of people likely view [his] comments as being wrong, hateful, evidence of a very scary prejudice, profoundly ignorant and disturbing.”

    Thanks, Dave, for getting the facts out there for people to see. And thanks for putting up with the abuse from those who would rather the facts remain unspoken.

    Here are a few more facts. According to a 1995 survey in the gay magazine “The Advocate,” just 50% of lesbians thought they were born gay. The rest thought that childhood experiences and/or choice accounted for their sexual orientation. “Slightly more than half of [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner,” (Journal of Social Service Research 15 [1991]: pp.41-59). Lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors (Nursing Research 43 [1994]: pp.238-244).

  23. on 24 Jun 2007 at 5:05 amDeana

    Dave,

    Excuse me but I don’t think you’re in a position to be spouting “expertise” about women’s vaginal health! No one I know who has one has ever had the disease you speak of despite lots of lesbian or heterosexual sex. And let’s not forget how often missionary sex causes cystitis in women!

  24. on 24 Jun 2007 at 10:21 amtomie

    Dave,

    You make the statement that homosexuality is more accepted in Southern California. Are you aware that Southern California is one of the more conservative areas in the country? Certainly more so than here in Connecticut.

    It’s not all Hollywood.

  25. on 24 Jun 2007 at 1:51 pmDave

    Cameron’s homophobia trumps his “science.” 

    Fine, for the sake of argument then let’s set it aside. Does this mean you would also dismiss everything else that’s been discussed? Or are you ready to brand all of these US, Canadian, and European government health agencies as equally biased and homophobic? I’ve been making a very deliberate effort here to quote neutral sources like the public health departments, the CDC, etc., because this message is so important that I wouldn’t want to you dismiss it in your zeal to suppress anything you perceive as right-wing rhetoric. 

    The message that we are hearing directly from a great multitude of public health agencies in the past 3 years is this: There are newly emerging patterns of STDs that are occurring in great numbers disproportionately within the homosexual community. That is a serious medical fact that should give pause to anyone concerned about the public health. 

    And what this trend reveals, beyond the raw numbers of occurrences, is also worthy of note. Ponder this if you will. We are living in an era where most people in the Western world (where these new STDs outbreaks are occurring) are fully aware of what happened before with AIDS. You would think that people would therefore be cognizant of the price of risky sexual behavior. And yet what we’re seeing is that risky behavior is continuing within the homosexual community despite its high potential for harm to self and others. While I’m not saying this is true for all, it definitely suggests through the statistics that taken as a whole the homosexual cohort invites these harms upon itself through a higher tendency towards riskier behaviors. Before, with AIDS, the excuse was ignorance. What’s the excuse going to be this time around? It seems to me that when a group shows a marked tendency towards self-destructive behavior, maybe the word “disordered” is a very rational label for it. 

    I fully understand that the Bible means very little to some of our opponents, but I am continually reminded that these harms were foretold in Paul’s letter to the Romans where he said: 

    Women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 

    Your religious beliefs may differ, but I ask you – is it rational to invite the risk of harm upon yourself through your choice of lifestyle? Men and women who unite, raise children, and remain faithful to one another (according to a model of behavior intended under natural law) can live free of worry about these STDs – except for the small risk inherent in receiving a transfusion from our potentially tainted blood supply. Fornicators, adulterers, and homosexual offenders invite these troubles upon themselves and others by choice. Consequently, why should society sanction and encourage any of these other lifestyles? They potentially invite harm, and at best offer nothing of value to society to justify any special privileged status. 

  26. on 24 Jun 2007 at 4:56 pmDave

    Deana wrote:

    I don’t think you’re in a position to be spouting “expertise” …

    Let’s see, did I claim to personally be a medical expert? Why, no I didn’t. Instead I quoted doctors from the CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Services, and other public health agencies within government. On the other hand, you imply that we should believe your point of view because “no one [you] know has ever had the disease”. Really, now, who is acting in a manner that is more credible? Which position is more believable? Come on, admit it. You just don’t like hearing the truth because it conflicts with your world view.

  27. on 25 Jun 2007 at 9:58 amDave

    Regarding homosexuality in Southern California, Tomie wrote:

    It’s not all Hollywood.

    Nevertheless the LA metro area is home to such a large number of homosexuals that Exodus International, the world’s largest evangelical outreach to those affected by unwanted homosexuality, chooses this place as the best geographical location for their annual “Freedom Conference” which starts tomorrow. And may their works be blessed in setting people free from bondage to sin and death.

    In describing the conference, Alan Chambers – President of Exodus International – says: 

    Our conference centers around the truth, hope, and freedom many of us have found through Jesus Christ. Anyone who has undergone the life-changing process of leaving homosexuality behind will tell you that it is not an easy one. However, for thousands of us, the journey has been well worth it and has resulted in lives that have been transformed and characterized by the mercy and compassion of Jesus Christ. 

  28. on 25 Jun 2007 at 1:40 pmopal

    Dear Darden
    “At least Dave is honest. I’m grateful that he strips away the veneer of public relations respectability to reveal the raw homophobia and hatred that underlies their positions. If only they were half as honest with legislators and”

    I thought we have been through this before. Just because some people don’t agree with you does not mean that they hate you. Many people, such as myself, who fervently agree with FIC, have many close personal friends and or family who are gay. I do not hate anyone who is gay even though I do not believe what they are doing is right. I find it irritating that the constant mantra is that therefore we who oppose gay marriage or the gay lifestyle, hate.

    We do have a right to express our opinions as this is a free society and we absolutely do have a right to make sure that our legislators here our voice. I wish that you could discuss the points that Dave made without resorting to the infantile name calling.

    Opal

  29. on 27 Jun 2007 at 11:29 amDave

    Dennis Prager had an interesting article on this subject several years ago, entitled “The American Tradition of Personal Responsibility”. You can find it online at The Heritage Foundation – http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL515.cfm

    Folks who have taken the narrow view – that this discussion thread is about “bashing” homosexuality – are missing the big picture. The underlying theme in all of these things that I’ve mentioned is that abrogating personal responsibility tends to reinforce, rather than hinder, self-destructive behaviors.

Leave a Reply