You expose your motives quite adequately.

Once we get equal rights and as attitudes of str8 parents towards their gay kids change over time, that problem will largely take care of itself.

You are on a crusade and you resent “str8″ dominance of the cultural norm. You have made yourself radically clear. And you have how many thousands of years of culture to erase? And you can point to exactly which model in the world for the Elysian Fields of people who make no sexual distinctions? And does democracy apply?

You will find far less helpful and understanding “str8’s” than I standing in your way.

May I assume that your views of Christians is not extremely charitable?

Pompously and long-windedly yours,

A man who learned not to deal with ideologues a long time ago.

Admittedly, you have acknowledged that logic is not your strong point, but perhaps the APA can help you understand these terms, see especially question 1:

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

Also, note that Person A’s sexual orientation and Person B’s ability to determine Person A’s sexual orientation are two different things.

Would the average father want his daughter to marry an “ex-gay” man? Of course not, because despite striving with varying degrees of success to change their behavior, your average “ex-gay” is still queer as a three dollar bill.

“That is more about me than anyone should ever have to endure.”

Then stop trying to make it about you. You’re the one who brought up you. You’re the one posting on and on about yourself. Your exploitation of your gay acquaintences self-hatred is not a subject of great interest to me. Once we get equal rights and as attitudes of str8 parents towards their gay kids change over time, that problem will largely take care of itself.

I was merely making a comment that most gay people find the word homosexual used as LaShawn used it, and used as you used it several times, to be offensive. Thus, for someone that has friends and family that are gay, it might put a barrier of sorts (even if a small one) between that person and his friends if he uses the word homosexual. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on that, but the comment had nothing to do with your character or personhood.

If you do use the word gay almost exclusively, then I’m glad to hear it. It simply didn’t come off that way in your posts. My apologies if I’ve upset you by making the observation.

I use the term”gay” almost exclusively.

My comments here are the result of my observations in #12 and things unwind from there.

If you are bound to draw conclusions about my character from my comments here, so be it. That is a trap I try to avoid.

If you review what I have written, you should see that “gay” is a euphemism which evades the core meaning of homosexual. I have used the word homosexual in my comments because it is the word LaShawn used throughout her blog.

Comment #1=no reference; #2=gay reference; #3=homosexual reference; #4=homosexuality/homophobe reference; #5=no reference; #6=no reference; #7=no reference; #8=gay reference; #9=homosexual reference; #10=no reference; #11=homosexual reference.

My comment #12 references gays and then defines homosexual and returns to using the word gay.

My comments are #12, #47, #60, #65, #70, #75, #78, #80 and this one. I really have nothing more to add. If some of you do not approve of me, I am content to give you leave to think what you like.

In my community, I help run a shelter for alcoholics, a free clinic, an offender aid and restoration project and sit on the board of directors of a hospital. I work with black students who are having a tough time making their way through the rigors of a top university. I am a retired teacher who is constantly called back to the lecture hall. I am comfortable that my little gallery of citations well reflects the gratitude of liberals, conservatives, agnostics, the religious, wealthy, the poor, Republicans, Democrats and others who appreciate my interests and concerns.

That is more about me than anyone should ever have to endure. I do not feel the need to defend myself against opinions gleaned from the gauze of disjointed comments posted on a blog site.

However, there would be no spiritual benefit to such a procedure. At most, it would simply allow me to achieve emotional fulfillment in the more conventional means of heterosexual marriage. But there is nothing inherently holy about being heterosexually-oriented. If an individual doesn’t have Christ, it doesn’t matter how healthy, happy, or successful he/she is. We are saved by our faith in Christ alone. And all Christians need to recognize that when we deal with others. We’re all missionaries.

If there were a genetic marker for homosexuality, what would happen to the unborn bearing that marker?

Among the faithful, they would be born and raised and loved by their parents, just like any other child, but perhaps with a little more understanding and preparation for the struggles they would face later on in life. My own mother is a Christian, and she was pregnant with me at the age of 45. I was a definite threat to her life, and I had a 25% chance of being severely mentally handicapped as well. She didn’t even consider an abortion, though (despite the doctor’s suggestion). So I don’t see why she (or any Christian woman) would have considered one if she knew I’d be homosexual.

Among the unfaithful, well… I’m sure it would be a mixed bag. It would break my heart if a woman decided to abort a child simply because he or she could grow up to be gay. But then, it breaks my heart if a woman aborts a child for any reason.

I do not push the sin of homosexuality in my dealings with homosexuals. In fact, I would suggest that the sinner route has done more to alienate than it has done significant good. Witness the current gay attacks on the Mormon Church.

On the other side of the coin, in my work with felons, alcoholics, and others I am always gratified when Christian principles take hold and the individual turns to Christ.

LaShawn in a wonderful Christian and her site reaches out to a lot of people. Many of her avid readers are strong Christians as well. However, my own motivation for reaching out to others is not restricted to the person accepting Christian beliefs.

I know several “celibate” men who are resisting their sexual temptations without the strength of religious faith to bolster their resolve. One is a Jew in the cultural, not religious, definition of the term. I would not guide him to Christian principle. That is for the missionary, not one who acts on Christian love with those outside the Christian circle.

But this is not about me. It is about the burden of homosexuality. The first question a homosexual needs to answer is if there were a genetic splice that would make the person heterosexual, would the person opt for the procedure.

If there were a genetic marker for homosexuality, what would happen to the unborn bearing that marker?

I think I made the assumption that you were a Christian who would have supported the fact that a person with homosexual desires should strive to remain celibate, due to the prohibition on homosexual practice in the Bible. Seeing as you consider celibacy — an honorable spiritual practice — as repression, I’m not so sure.

Surely if one is not celibate for religious reasons, they may have some psychological problems. But if one has a strong faith in God, and hands their sexuality over to God, it is not repression. It’s difficult, for sure, like fighting any other temptation (and we all deal with temptation). But it’s also rewarding and it allows an individual to channel these strong urges into more spiritually beneficial activities — not sinful ones. The emotional side of sexuality (the desires for companionship and love), must be fulfilled in alternate, perhaps even unconventional, but always Christ-honoring means.

If you have made a logical point, it has gone completely over or around me.

At issue here is the word homosexual. A male standing naked in a doctor’s office for examination with his mouth shut and no revealing tattoos can fairly be determined to be male. With no other evidence, the doctor can list the biological functions of the man’s sex organs. The doctor’s tacit assumption is that they are reproductive in nature and part of his professional concern will revolve around this particular man’s ability to function sexually and to carry out his role as sperm to egg supplier.

Here we have a “neutral” assignment to the word male. But, if the naked male tells the doctor he is a homosexual and says no more, the entire examination changes. The doctor knows at this point that this male is part of a male sub-group that is under 4.5% of the male population. The doctor knows from research that within the sub-group there are those who are experimenting with homosexuality, those who have medically identifiable identity problems and those who are “true*” homosexuals. (*The doctor knows that medical science has not discovered the markers for identifying a homosexual.) The doctor has had patients who fathered and raised a family and “switched” to being homosexual in their later years.

So, the doctor does not know who this male standing in front of him is. He will have concerns for STDs that predominate among homosexuals. Now, however, the self-identified homosexual subject says he is celibate. The doctor must now look to the man’s mental health, because repressing sexual urges is one of the keystones of Freudian psychology.

A homosexual is one who has same sex relations with one or more people. A “latent” homosexual is fighting one of nature’s strongest drives. But, he is not yet a homosexual. He is a male who is a non-participant in the male sex role.

What is lacking in our vocabulary is a word for a person who acts the eunuch without the castration. There are virgin spinsters and “virgin” bachelors who go to their graves after 90 years of never engaging in sex. Were they homosexual or heterosexual? We can not know. We have no word for them. They could identify themselves as one or the other. They could have stacks of magazines they leave behind that reflect what their propensity may have been. But it is a misnomer to label them as homosexual or heterosexual or bi-sexual or pedophile or cannibal or any other definitive label if they never acted on their presumed impulses.

As to people who have homosexual relations and then switch to heterosexual relations and maybe swing between the two, what is your point?

I made the error of trying to include the concept of homosexual impulses in my general points. Without the act of sex, you are just male or female.

Homosexuality is a tribulation for most homosexuals. I am delighted when homosexuals come to grips with their identities and are able to live happy lives that stretch beyond their sexuality. But from a medical perspective, homosexuals have a far higher rate of serious psychological problems than the general population. At this point, the studies go off in all directions. For some, the problems are due to reactions to repressive relationships with individuals or society. For others, there are deep seated angers. For others, there is turmoil over having adopted the submissive role. For others, there is a strong drive to publicly identify themselves. And on and on.

It is a huge mistake to ever talk about “the gay community” as if it is a singular cultural, political or societal force. The thread that runs through the homosexual population is how they have sex. Beyond that, they are individuals like everyone else. The thread that runs through the heterosexual population is how they have sex. Beyond that, they are individuals like everyone else.

Thank you very much for the vote of no confidence, but I have worked hard and long with my homosexual family and many homosexual friends at helping them deal with their unique problems and finding a satisfying balance in their lives. If I were a chump failure, they would not introduce me to their friends and ask me to help them understand who they are and how to cope. As with all drives and impulses, the first hurdle is to be honest with yourself and move on from there.

Trying to redefine terms to ease you psyche is not only a waste of time, it is destructive.

It’s a pretty simple mistake you’ve made. Homosexuality refers to predominating attractions to the same sex, whether accompanied by actions or not. Heterosexual celibate Catholic priests (there have to be one or two out there somewhere) remain heterosexual. By your way of thinking, someone who has been married to the opposite sex purely as a way of consciously denying their attraction to the same sex and then comes out and admits being gay is still heterosexual.

“I have homosexuals in my immediate family and I know the problems and angst very well.”

No doubt having helped to cause quite a few yourself.

But if desires are an action, then your original comment about a same-sex attracted person not being a homosexual if he/she is celibate is contradictory to your initial argument, since “attraction” constitutes “desire,” doesn’t it?

I’m not being an eel (way to be Christlike to a younger brother in Christ, by the way); I just can’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not a graduate student. I just turned 20, for Pete’s sake, so give me a break and level with me.

Also, what reality am I denying, exactly? Please let me know, since you seem to think you know my life better than I do.

I quit. I have guided graduate students in the intricacies of the language for decades, You are an eel. No matter what I say, you slip to another position.

Heliotrope, you are clearly contradicting yourself now. In your first reply to me, you said: “If one is attracted to the same sex, but celibate, one is not homosexual.”

Now you’re saying: “Heterosexual, Bi-sexual, pedophile, homosexual, etc. are all nouns that identify a person by the sexual actions he takes or restrains himself from taking.”

Where is the contradiction? You deny that homosexual connotes an action. After disregarding that you now claim that I have inelegantly corrupted my original statement.

Here it is again. “If one is attracted to the same sex, but celibate, one is not homosexual.” No action has taken place. However,”Heterosexual, Bi-sexual, pedophile, homosexual, etc. are all nouns that identify a person by the sexual actions he takes or restrains himself from taking.” Here, one has identified himself and the action is either direct or restrained.

Joe is unknown to me as we talk. But, he says he is an arsonist. I didn’t see him set a fire, but I have no reason to doubt him. You tell me you are homosexual. I have no way of knowing if you engage in homosexual activities or not, but by definition I have every logical reason to believe you do. If you tell me that you are a homosexual who has never acted on his desires, I have reason to ask you why you identify yourself as a homosexual.

If the arsonist tells me he has an urge to set fires, but has restrained himself, I can only suggest he see a shrink before he slips over the line.

Jay, I really am worn out with your wriggling on this point. I have homosexuals in my immediate family and I know the problems and angst very well. But trying to redefine or fudge terms is not only counterproductive, it is self destructive. Get off it. You can not confront homosexuality by denying reality.

What it says to me is that you guys haven’t sat down and spoken to a gay person. I’m not talking about these “gay activist” sorts. I’m talking about a real gay person.

I can tell you that I never wanted to be gay. I don’t know any gay people that wanted to be gay. I know very, very few that didn’t struggle with hating themselves for the attractions they were feeling or just because they felt different. This is not a “decision” they just made–being gay. It’s something that happened. They didn’t choose it, they didn’t want it, and they certainly didn’t hope for it. It just is, and to tell gay people they chose it is not only absurd, but actually pretty insulting, since nearly all gay people would’ve at some point in their lives chosen to be straight if they had the choice.

I thought Christians were supposed to sit down and understand and offer grace and compassion? When you guys call being gay a choice…when you continue to use the word “homosexual” instead of gay, even know you know people see that as offensive, it’s not compassion or grace.

This isn’t a competition. But it honestly amazes me that people calling themselves Christians can refuse to even try to sit down and understand and empathize with gay people.

On a side note (and I hesitate to even say this because I’m not interested in comparing the gay political movement to the civil rights era, but I will anyway)–all of your statements are well taken. But like I said, this isn’t a competition. At least half of all states, including my state of TX, still make it legal to fire or not hire someone for being gay. Gay people are still the most likely minority group in the country to be the victim of a hate crime. I could go on. Again, this isn’t a competition, but let’s not just go on pretending that discrimination doesn’t actually take place against gays.

I didn’t say that. You asked for an example of people who get venomous insults thrown at them so I obliged.