I want to thank everyone who weighed-in on Part 1 of the Gay/Lesbian Delusion post. What a great (and important) debate! This is simply too big to stop at one post! So here’s my response to many of the comments offered in Part 1. Watch this short video I shot in London and I’ll look forward to your comments. Special thanks to Mike Michelozzi and the many others who helped kick off this discussion. Steve Siebold (5:00)
[media id=174]
Hey Steve,
I see a lot of emotions in your thinking. I am not sure if you’re really doing critical thinking. If you were doing critical thinking, you would look at all views, but you don’t. You keep saying the same thing without much proof or anything. I responded to many things you have to say, and you didn’t respond and you keep talking about them in your posts (e.g. gays in the animal kingdom).
I don’t care about having the last word. I care more about what is RIGHT instead of who is RIGHT.
Now you might say I might have a lot of emotions in my thinking since i am bringing religion into it, but i back everything up with critical reasoning. I can also prove why Islam is the Truth.
I just hope you look at all my posts, and think deeply about what i have said, and hopefully check out the links I have given you as well.
If you are sincere in finding the truth, you will find it Inshallah (God-Willing).
Deep down in my heart, I believe homosexuality is wrong.
I read a post here someone talking about listening to your inner voice. The funny thing is many times that inner voice tells people to do wrong things, so should you do them? That is not the way to find the ACTUAL TRUTH.
Take Care My Friend,
Steve, I don’t know if it’s too late to weigh in again, but you got me thinking and I had an epiphany after reading an article in the weekend paper. After reading it, I connected some dots with what you said and I have a new perspective and I think “I see” what it is you’re trying to bring to the surface. On some specifics, I applaud you, but I still think there’s a pervasive danger in too much said in superlatives by way of saying “all people,” inferences to “all religions,” etc, because it’s not accurate. That said, I think this forum provided me an opportunity to see other perspectives and after seeing yet another view point in the paper, the culmination gave me a more accurate perspective on this topic and I think “I get it” now.
In Sunday’s paper there was an article about the LDS (Mormon) based “Evergreen International,” which is basically a refuge/resource for LDS members with same sex attraction. The LDS Church does not condemn or hold those in contempt with same sex attraction, the choice of actual physical activity is where it draws the line. After reading some of the viewpoints of the gay members in the forum, something “clicked.”
Years ago when I held an ecclesiastical position in my church I remember working with a young married couple wherein the husband was grappling with same sex attraction toward men. His wife was a gem, very patient and understanding with him and did not hold him in contempt, unless he chose to cross the line and engage in homosexual activity with someone–and for the same understandable reason she would have opposed him having a “straight” extra-marital affair. I was sensitive to the situation and tried my best to understand the man, but at the time I didn’t. I knew church policy regarding homosexuality, but I knew even then there was a component I didn’t understand.
Since then I’ve had my “baptism by fire” in the medical field as I have been on “ground zero” with issues of suicide, clinical depression, and closely associated with marriages that went up in smoke due to infidelity. I can speak with some considerable authority on some of these topics, based on more than I care to say, although not in the professional sense. But I can readily tell if a physician “gets it” or not. All these situations I speak of had one component in common: Some of the initial tendencies these people all had were of a biological component–I should have stated that on my first response to you. They did not want to feel the way they did–but they did. They couldn’t help it. Some of the homosexual men I knew way back when told me that as well, just as you said your audience members reported that they did not choose their feelings. In fact, I remember one man pouring his heart out, telling me how badly he wished he could feel attraction to women, but he couldn’t. A couple of lesbian women I worked with cried and cried, saying they knew they were never appealing to men, couldn’t get dates and were so desperate to have a relationship they turned to being lesbian after years of male rejection and gave up hope they would ever be married–their choice was not from biological origins, but emotional upheaval, and had hoped they could at least have some type of couple relationship and reached out for what they could get. Reasons vary depending on the person, but I wanted to restate my position on how I feel about the biological aspect. I doubt there really is any proof that says someone had the biological homosexual tendencies at birth because sexual urges are developed long after that. On average kids really don’t make the male/female distinction until about the second grade. What happens when, and why with homosexuality—may not really be the issue anyway.
After this weekend, I have a renewed sense of compassion toward people in the gay community, when I read one of our church’s leaders comments when he spoke to gays at their forum; I had a wake up call. I can’t say that all gays feel this way, because it’s not a fact that I would know, but I hear it more and more often that they didn’t CHOOSE to FEEL the way they did–anymore than a suicidal person chose to feel suicidal–the feelings emerged on their own with no apparent reason at first. I’ve had more experience with medically based issues than I care to share, but I have a keen and accurate understanding of how depression and other related issues work with the mind–although thoughts originate in the mind, the brain has to synthesize the physical senses of the emotional thought chemically, and sometimes that chemical process gets messed up through absolutely no fault of the person. A lot of the time, it is through environmental chemistry intrusions from hybridization of food, contaminates and industrial pollution in the air, water, and soil just as a few concrete examples. Our biology is affected from external sources more than we realize.
I know women who withdrew into a hole of hell and misery because they couldn’t explain the hell they were going through with (the misnamed) clinical depression and everyone around them told them to “snap out of it.” Despite how desperately they wished they could, they couldn’t. I’ve come to respect people with those invisible handicaps because it takes a strong person to be able to live, function, and pretend to be normal while interacting with everyday life. It’s a hidden hell for some. When you talked about gays committing suicide, clinical depression is often the factor involved and that is a heartbreaking event that needs to change.
I’ve come to understand and accept that same sex attraction, the FEELINGS, in an of themselves, are not wrong. Anymore than a heterosexual man or woman can feel feelings pop up for someone of the opposite sex outside their marriage is wrong, or the suicidal thoughts of someone in agony. The feelings, the thoughts that first emerge, happen on their own sometimes or as a result from just a glance. Sometimes the feelings come back relentlessly on their own, sometimes the feelings are entertained by choice and allowed to develop further. I’ve known of and worked with married people where the attraction to someone else outside the marriage became almost clinical, to the state of a relentless fever, it got so bad. They didn’t want to cheat on their spouse, but the feelings were there and powerful. Sometimes those feelings are benign, sometimes they require professional intervention. When a person with depression feels suicidal–that feeling in an of itself, is not wrong. THAT issue, of just feelings, I think, is outside the bounds of the “right vs. wrong” arena. Things happen to the mind that many of us can’t explain or justify through opinion, medical diagnoses, doctrine, or scripture.
What is the issue, is what is ACTED upon that is a matter of conscious choice. When someone acts upon the thoughts of suicidal sentiments and pulls the trigger, they’ve crossed the line but I would never brand them a sinner. I don’t think God would judge them that way because no one knows what drove them to the point to actually hurt themselves. People who “attempt” suicide usually don’t intend to die nor do they want to, it’s usually a physical expression as a cry for help. I know what it’s like to hold a woman in my arms, her body shaking uncontrollably, covered in blood and who pulled the trigger, but missed and blew off the insides of her hand and grazed her chest with the bullet. But those people do feel condemned by those who have mistaken religious doctrines that brand all suicides as murder. Christ is the judge of that and we have no bestowed right to judge anyone. As one leader in my religion put it, “The final judgment is not going to be as cut and dried as we all like to think.” The writings of the prominent psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Amen address the point of judging others from an interesting clinical psychiatric point as well that may be unsettling to some.
If a heterosexual person commits adultery by acting upon emerged feelings and thoughts and cheats on their spouse, there’s a point where free agency was exercised from the entertainment of ongoing thoughts that culminated in the final act. At some point there was a free, conscious choice that took place beyond the “normal” emergence of a thought or feelings.
With gays, I now see that there are multiple components to the equation, not just simply the choice to be gay. I see the component that someone who has felt same sex attraction develop within themselves, probably went through hell and guilt because of it, probably came down with depression and felt their life spin out of control internally because they dared not tell anyone what they were feeling and couldn’t make it go away. Some of these people do not know why themselves, but often self condemn more than any outside person or religious organization would. Fear would drive them for help. So where will they turn? Where can they go? To others who feel the same and to organizations that promote it. There they will find sanctuary from the blistering heat of persecution or perceived discrimination. Gay pride parades and all the public agendas probably aren’t so much about the agenda themselves, as much as they are a loud united voice to fight back against the persecution from something they feel they didn’t create. I believe some of those united voices do go too far however in trying to push for rights to have gay lifestyle taught as indoctrination in public schools. I feel that’s wrong, just as I feel that a religion shouldn’t push it’s doctrine in public school–the door swings both ways whether one is a religion or not.
I draw a distinction between two things with homosexuality, but I think a lot of us–not all–may be lumping everything there is about homosexuality into one sack and I think THAT is the core of the conflict or perhaps where delusion can come into play. It’s not all necessarily about what’s going on between the sheets, although it is a likely consequence of the lifestyle that gays are likely branded with the scarlet letter from religious realms. It’s probably more about the mental aspect, more than the physical activity. Societal reaction, I estimate, probably does more to paradoxically drive it more than straights would be willing to admit.
I am committed to the belief that the family unit is the core of saving society–we’re not in a good place right now. I don’t think homosexuality is a healthy or stable “norm” of a family unit nor would I ever endorse it. That said, I would not hold a person who is grappling with what to do with the feelings of same sex attraction in contempt, but try to reach out to them. But I would oppose a perverse orgy of emancipated anti-moral standards from gay groups that attack other family based teachings by walking in the streets in near-naked demonstrations and condemning/mocking those who are endeavoring to live a standard of, shall we say, common decency.
As far as religion goes, Steve, you throw it all in the same sack, and often unfairly. Some of the claims you make about religions are not accurate. They don’t ALL do some of the things you accuse them of. While some may do, there are those that differ. I think of worship of God and religion in much the same way I do about body building. We all generally believe in a well toned body, but some of us go to Gold’s Gym to achieve that, while others run laps on a track around the football field. Some join and align themselves with Body for Life or Weight Watchers. Others play tennis, but we all know where tennis players go after this life–it’s a shame because they are good people… 🙂
I honestly tried to sincerely look into this for the exercise of critical thinking and to be open, and I hope I’ve shown that. I have a better understanding of the situation, I think, as far as how those involved with this topic feel, and I feel a renewed sense of prudence about judgment of same sex attraction and feel more compassion in place of it.
Thanks for the opportunity to opine.
Your friend–
Ken
Ken,
Thanks for your comments. We don’t agree on everything, but like you, I’ve learned a lot more about how people feel through the comments on this post. Thats the reason I love doing this blog.
As far as religion is concerned, I guess I’ve just seen too much abuse over the years, especially working with televangelists. The manipulation is criminal. The things people will believe will no serious evidence astounds me. These are smart people who don’t act on blind faith in any other area of their lives, but when it comes to religion they are willing to believe outrageous fables and abandon all aspects of critical thinking. The need to believe is so powerful some people will believe anything. I think thats sad. On the other hand, the church has done a lot of good. Either way, I will take your advice and try to go easier on organized religion in the blog. I will continue to encourage people to think for themselves and stop relying on outside forces to run their lives. It’s about taking responsibility. Thanks again, Ken.
Steve & Victoria,
I don’t see the hate in Barbara’s comment. The “I didn’t choose this pain, so it must be perfectly normal” statement is a non-argument.
No one chooses to be born with a club foot. We call that a disorder and help them with medical treatment.
I’m nearsighted. I didn’t choose that. But it’s a disorder that I have treated so that I can see “normally.”
I wish I were taller. I’m not. I can’t dunk like Shaq. But that’s not a disorder. That’s perfectly normal.
In the same way, someone doesn’t choose to be attracted to someone of the same sex. That person will have struggles that others don’t. Is that normal or disordered?
How do we decide what is disordered and what isn’t? Saying I didn’t choose it doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
Saying it’s biological is an argument. It can be debated. It can be measured and tested.
Saying it’s against someone’s religion is an argument. It can be debated, discussed, interpreted, compared and contrasted.
Saying they didn’t choose their particular state is meaningless. It can be said about everyone and every limitation they have to deal with. Sometimes it’s a disorder, sometimes it’s not.
The question is: Is this behavior disordered or isn’t it. Choice (or lack thereof) doesn’t help us answer that question.
Hey Jaroslav,
It is nice talking to you too,
First of all let me say its good to see we agree on something, we agree that there is a God, we agree that if he created the world he could obviously send a divine book.
You said: “An objective truth, or that which is true no matter what anyone else says, would be something like gravity. The dictionary definition which I pasted from Webster (above) makes no mention of God; only ‘standards of behavior’.”
I agree that objective truths are also things like the law of gravity. (Which humans didn’t create, it already existed). You see you got your definition from the dictionary about morals, but it is a human made dictionary. We humans could have different definitions of morals.
I believe in objective morals just like gravity. We all should, otherwise no one could say what is Truly Right and what is Truly Wrong. If morals was just based on person’s beliefs, that means some of the things he does could be wrong.
Example: If a criminal such as a Hitman says killing is right and that is how I earn my money. Say he considered it moral, he believed it is right as long as it is in his self-interest (making lots of money), is his act really moral? If he says it is, and if morals were defined by a person’s beliefs, then it should be RIGHT. He shouldn’t be put behind bars.
If morals were always defined by a person’s beliefs, then why do some people who support homosexuality calling people who don’t, delusional? Then everyone should be right and there should be no argument, could you see the problem?
Morals are suppose to be objective, they can’t be subjective, otherwise no one can PROVE what is Right and what is Wrong. All the criminals should come out of their cages, because morals can’t be proven.
Then to go further on, there will be some that will say, these people are LYING, but that is an assumption that you can’t prove also because you are not in the criminal’s mind. If he wants to believe he is RIGHT then who are you to say he is WRONG?
He is a human just like us, and it is word for word, so no one can prove morals.
To take this even further, some people will say majority wins. This is a flaw concept as well.
Example: If a person is in a group of a 100 people, and 70 people say that they want to do an unethical/illegal act, that means majority wins, so therefore they should be right. (Look at companies that went down for unethical/illegal practices)
So the point I am making is that morals can’t be based on a person’s beliefs, because they are subjective views, could be biased and based on self-interest etc.
I believe this is also a reply to your answer about there being 4 possibilities of cheating. I believe there is one objective moral truth in it. I am not talking about choices that are based on self-interest situations. You could choose all 4 different possibilities of cheating and try your best to justify it, but only one moral truth stands out. Morals could also be things that go against you (the concept of true justice).
Example: You did a crime, the moral thing for you to do is to tell the truth. But lets say you know that lying can save you from being punished. Would you lie and save yourself (Self-interest Situation) or tell the truth and pay for your crime (Moral thing to do)? Most people will choose the first one and try to keep justifying it like a criminal tries to justify his behavior. But after all that, you know that the person is wrong, and the action cannot be justified.
You said “But I think if you had a video of GOD speaking to you about objective reality, it would be hard for anyone, including an athiest to dispute. (assuming all were convinced it was actually GOD speaking)”
First thing you should know is that a part of the belief is to believe in the UNSEEN. Why? Because this life is a TEST. And you are not blindly believing. There are proofs all around you pointing to a power greater than you (human).
Second is that God has even said that if he wanted to, he could send a sign from the skies, where every person will bow down, but he didn’t want to do that. He has given us free will, intellect and many other mental faculties to use in order to know their Lord and worship him.
Third, here is an interesting thing in some of the major Scriptures. Satan knows God exists, how come he doesn’t worship God? The simple answer Pride/Arrogance. Many people today (believers in God) don’t follow his rules, could it be pride/arrogance? (Maybe)
Fourth, say if there was a video, you can just say it is fake.
Fifth, some people who were physically shown miracles by Prophets (by the will of God), some people still refused. Why? And it was proven to them that it was not an illusion. (It could be they wanted to follow their own selfish desires instead of what God wanted)
If God wanted, everyone would have believed. He is Almighty. But he has given us a choice, you can either follow the right path or the wrong path and you will be responsible for your actions. If you do good (follow him), you will be rewarded, if you do wrong things (disobey him), then you will be punished.
Sixth, If God decided to send a book instead of a video, doesn’t affect the TRUTH. In this world you can see most of your knowledge comes from books anyways, not videos. You study and learn much more from books. God decided to send a book.
You said that you believe in a God, but not the God mentioned in the scriptures. So I would like to know what kind of God do you believe in? (You have to remember some scriptures have a totally different definition of God)…so how do you define God?
Take Care, Friend.
Christians who condemn gays miss the point preached by their own spiritual mentor. Religion is a tool to socialize folks to behave in in a way to reinforce the society that spawned the religion. Naturally, the society wants more people to think they way it does so heterosexual behavior leading to children is reinforced, homosexuality is not. Gays deserve all the rights anyone else has. We need to encourage people to explore their own spirituality, their own beliefs on life’s questions.
I agree, Scott. The crazy thing is your opinion seems to be in the minority! Thanks for speaking up.
PS/ I mean the prophet Mohammad.
@ Mohammad
Nice to “talk” to you.
So if I understand you correctly:
An objective truth, or that which is true no matter what anyone else says, would be something like gravity. The dictionary definition which I pasted from Webster (above) makes no mention of God; only ‘standards of behavior’.
I respectfully disagree with your example of “cheating”. I think there are 4 possibilities… at least one, the other, both or neither could be true depending on the circumstances. We live on a planet that thrives on duality where sometimes one perspective is true, sometimes the opposite is, sometimes neither and sometimes both.
I also don’t see an error in my book/video statement. Of course I agree with you… if there is a GOD who created the Universe, who is in all things seen and unseen and in all thought and all that is unthinkable, it would be a small task for him/her/it to send down a divine book.
But I think if you had a video of GOD speaking to you about objective reality, it would be hard for anyone, including an athiest to dispute. (assuming all were convinced it was actually GOD speaking)
I am not an atheist myself but I don’t believe in a God the way a God is defined by religion. I believe you are correct: no one has proved that GOD doesn’t exist, but you can’t prove that ‘he’ does or that ‘HIS’ “books” are accurate representations of ‘his’ thoughts, words and their meaning.
You said,” Everything points to a God, every single thing.” I understand and respect the truth of that… FOR YOU.
As far as I know, GOD MAY HAVE SPOKEN to Moses, Mohammad and Jesus. The rest of us (the Universe) are relying on hearsay.
Namaste my friend,
Jaroslav
@Jaroslav
When I say you can’t prove morals without a God, I don’t mean individual standards, i mean objective truth.
E.g. If i say cheating is alright as long as it benefits me, and the next person says no it is not, these are 2 contradictory statements, which is the objective truth? They both can’t be correct, there has to be only one that is right (this makes logical sense)
You said: “Let us know when you can prove to everyone, including an athiest, that GOD has told YOU what objective truth is. And don’t quote books… just showing a video of the event will suffice.”
Can’t you see the error of your statement?
For some reason people think that God can’t send down a divine book. If he can create the whole universe, don’t you think he can send down a book? Something to think about…
I am not sure if you are an atheist or not. But as far as atheists are concerned, I haven’t seen a SINGLE PROOF that God doesn’t exist. Everything points to a God, every single thing.
Take Care,
No one should experience discrimination. Also, no one who truly has love in his/her heart for man-kind will agree to discrimination. The people who quote the Bible to support discrimination have not studied the entire Bible and do not understand the mission and life of Jesus Christ. I want people who discriminate in the name of religion and the Bible to consider this quote, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:35
@ Mohammad
moral / noun?/?môr?l /?1. A person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
2. Standards of behavior that are considered good or acceptable.
According to this definition from Webster’s dictionary, what IS or IS NOT acceptable is determined by the individual’s standards of behavior and/or beliefs.
I may be incorrect, but I think it’s possible for an atheist to have standards of behavior and beliefs. Therefore he/she would have morals WITHOUT considering GOD.
“…God can tell us what this truth is.”
Let us know when you can prove to everyone, including an athiest, that GOD has told YOU what objective truth is. And don’t quote books… just showing a video of the event will suffice.
Blessings and Be Well,
Jaroslav
My twin brother had always known he was gay since he was in middle school. He made the toughest decision of his life by coming out to my super religious/conservative parents at the age of 20. They disowned and ostracized him from the family immediately. I (the straight twin) had to deal with so much gay bashing from my family and relatives when we got together for the holidays. What I’ve learned is this…straight people CREATED gay people! They can’t go bashing and vilifying their creation. The devil didn’t do it…YOU folks did! If you’re going to hate on anyone, hate on straight people for creating gay people in the first place.
“You can’t prove morals with a God, that is what I am trying to say.”
LOL…I meant you can’t prove morals WITHOUT a GOD…
Hey Steve,
You said “The idea that the only way man will act morally is through religion is ridicuolus. Worse than that, it’s insulting to our collective intelligence.”
Here is my question to you:
If I said stealing was RIGHT and you said it was WRONG, who is actually RIGHT?
If the good person argues that you should work hard for your money, the thief says I work hard to steal (for my money), what would you say?
You can’t prove morals with a God, that is what I am trying to say.
If you look into Criminology, you will realize criminals justify their actions. They will say the victim deserved it. Now who are you to say they are wrong? It is your word against theirs.
By the way, just because the majority believes, doesn’t mean it is true.
Collecting intelligence at the end of the day is still just human thinking and opinions and that is why all of us don’t agree on everything.
We know for a fact there is OBJECTIVE REALITY, that means there is an OBJECTIVE TRUTH. God can tell us what this truth is.
Basically I would like you to prove to me that morals exist without bringing God into it.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for asking the key question – what do we think.
Here is what I believe – it’s simply an issue about love and respect for all living things. That respect must include those with whom I politically, spiritually and emotionally disagree. That is only how peace can exist on this small planet.
Honoring the diversity of how people think, look, believe etc…is what we need to succeed in this challenging world economic environment. We cannot leave anyone out of the equation – if we are to solve some of our most difficult problems.
As a minister who has married both straight and gay couples, I am honored to witness and participate in human beings committing their lives and total support to another. That act, in front of their community, sends a powerful message of love and cooperation.
Tony,
I agree 100%.
I love your critical thinking questions, especially this one. Letting others get us involved in these type of topics on an emotional basis has led to women being burned at the stake because we thought they were witches, seeing men hang to death because we thought they were evil, or beating up a person due to their sexual partners. We look down on other countries who stone people to death in a public forum, yet we cheer at the Republican debate over 234 people being put to death and it is acceptable. The way we have treated African Americans, Hispanics, and women through discrimination is no different than what we see around the world, yet we send soldiers in and kill thousands of innocent people, because someone has said the Bible approves of it.
I believe our parents, friends, schools, churches, and government has used emotional teachings to drive us to believe and act, the way we do today.
Do you believe believe that if you were born in another country, another religion, or another government you would believe different than you do today?
When you look at someone different than you and you believe you read in the Bible that you should harm this person- ask yourself- If Jesus was in this eact situation, do you believe that Jesus would harm that person or would he love that person for who they are? Throughout history our history books are filled with people killing people in the name of God. Do you really believe, as a Christian, that God would really tell you it was okay to take a life of something he created?
As a christian, I have heard all my life that only Christians would be allowed into heaven. If that is true, then man is saying that the Bible is incorrect- God is not an all loving, all forgiving God, because if he is then everyone would be welcomed. I believe man has interpreted the Bible to justify his actions whether they are right or wrong. Who are we to judge anyone in the world for the atrocities we have caused?
I believe everyone one of us is a miracle regardless of our religion or political persuasion. Having differences is not a bad thing. Making people conform through fear of God’s wrath is what religions do very well.
I do believe in God and I am a Christian, but I live my life asking the question every day. “In this situation, if it were God and I facing this situation, would God make the same decision that I am about to make? If God did not approve of gay/lesbian people, then to say he is all loving and all forgiving would be wrong.
Finally, I cannot believe God, based on church teachings, would approve of our greed, infidelity, coveting what others have, and our uncaring for others. That concerns me much more than who you sleep with or choose to love. Put the same energy into the heterosexuals that are divorcing at the rate of 50% as you do the gays. The heterosexuals are the ones that are destroying the institution of marriage or is that too close to home.
“It is hard to throw stones when you live in a glass house.”
It is interesting that Steve would bring this subject to light and take an opinion on thus. It is also interesting all the opinions expressed in this and other forums. We as a society have a responsibility to preserve what is inherently right and good. We, as a society get to decide and choose what is right and good. So in my experience and opinion I will make a stand on the subject of homosexuality and give good reason to why it is not an acceptable choice, practice or lifestyle for our society. Aside from being extremely selfish, it is un-natural and violates all the basic biological laws of nature. Is that not obvious?
So the real dilemma is our ability to separate the person from the action or decision. Should we be tolerant and kind to homosexual men and women? Yes, of course! We as a society should be kind to all. We however need to reinforce the values and standards of what is right and stand firm in our resolve to preserve these ideals. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural and biological laws of nature let alone the laws of God. Unfortunately we as a society have allowed this to become acceptable. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE! Society, get a spine! People, wake up! We are in a fog and stupor as a society. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men and women do nothing.”
It was this very behavior that was a catalyst to the fall of the great Roman Empire and many other civilizations. The moral degradation of any society will ultimately be its demise. Great societies are not conquered, they fall from within. This type of behavior and decision making leads to other un-natural acts such as incest, rape and bestiality. It perverts the beautiful act of a man and woman in the holy covenant of marriage to share in our divine experience to love one another, pro-create and advance mankind. It is a perversion of our ability to create and be one with a loving companion (of the opposite sex- need I add?).
It is my hope that as a society we can see the errors of our ways and make a stand and a mandate to morally do what is right. Homosexuality is a choice! People make choices. To deny homosexuality as a choice strips ALL power and given spiritual ability away from the individual. Some people feel a powerful desire to kill. It is their choice to act upon those feelings. Many who have a desire to kill make the decision not to kill. However, some choose to kill. Were they born that way? Do we strip them of all power and excuse them as “natural born killers”? WE DO NOT! We hold them accountable for these choices. Is it possible that as a society we become so morally bankrupt that someday we accept murder as being socially acceptable? We are not far off.
So would an individual choose to have society look at them differently? Yes they would. And we as a society let them act as they wish because it is an exercise of their agency. However, it doesn’t make it right. This type of perversion is just not acceptable. What is acceptable is education and helping people make choices that will ultimately strengthen our society and give all a chance to flourish and succeed. Morality is not optional in a strong society! If it is excused, we will pay a price. We will ourselves be enslaved and subjects and loose our freedoms and liberties. That is not opinion, that is history in repetition!
Specifically relative to the original subject of whether or not gays/lesbians are born that way, yes they are, and no they are not. Both are true, and I am acquainted both with people who have experienced an internal (read: “natural”) attraction to the same sex and people who have created this reality for themselves. I think perhaps much confusion results from the shortsighted tendency to lump every instance of same sex attraction into one group.
It is fairly universally stipulated that many (if not most?) gay/lesbian oriented people are born with a natural biological/biochemical predisposition to live this way. Perhaps in still others there is another set of psychological predispositions that once activated, could also trigger these same less prominent, but near the surface biological tendencies.
My point speaks to those who create new sexual realities through a process like this: exposure > thoughts > emotion > action > repeat.
In truth, the powerful human mind can create any reality that is available in the physical world. If a person becomes exposed to a circumstance that is considered taboo, for example, then becomes obsessive in their pursuit of more exposure through research, fantasy and opportunities for gratification of their obsession, their tendency will be to “become” someone who appears to be predisposed to that “taboo”.
In truth, there were several enabling factors, most of which the individual could control. In this example, the great majority of human beings could not have been exposed to the “taboo” in the way this person was, since it would be, well, “taboo”. This creates a somewhat isolated environment wherein the opportunity to create an altered life path exists in origin as an option to only a small minority.
Regardless, once exposed, all other subsequent thoughts create gratifying emotions which reward the individual for having made the thought. This creates deepening and more detailed thoughts on the subject and through an incrementally expanding reality in the direction of the “taboo” subject, decisions will inevitably create physical movement into the “way of life” of those who share a similar interest/obsession.
I have literally witnessed bi-sexual and gay individuals who have unintentionally BECOME their thoughts > emotions > actions. If you were to dig deep into their history and the series of events which have resulted in their becoming fully oriented as gay/lesbian, you would find an unusual (to the mainstream) initial exposure, followed by a curiosity, followed by a supportive environment for the exploration of the curiosity, all overlain with a healthy amount of emotional thought and fantasy throughout the process.
I am a gay physician (and ordained minister) and disagree with Joe C from yesterday. “Most gays” are gay from birth. Many (like me) knew that, but society’s pressures to marry are so great that I did this with a woman I liked (an exception to my general feeling!) when I was 24. I told her when I was 20 that I was gay and she should find someone else, but she wanted to try marriage and we thought maybe it would work. We both agreed after 4 years that we would be happier apart… She with a heterosexual partner and me with a homosexual one. Being ‘gay’ does not mean we can’t have sex and procreate with women, anymore than “straight” folks can’t experiment and try relations with the same sex. I have many friends who know they were gay from the get-go yet who also have sons and daughters.
Yes, gays have higher rates of suicide, depression and some have shorter lifespans (although one of my ordained minister gays friends died at the age of 99) …but the reason is because of the tremendous rejection by others who don’t understand or tolerate us. When there is equal perception, there will be equal lifespan etc.
Lastly, I can’t resist reminding you that in the Bible, (Leviticus 19 v 19 and others) the same author who didn’t like homosexuality also wouldn’t have liked us to wear cotton/polyester blend shirts nor to shave our beards (v 27) yet we certainly honor v. 18 to love one another. We don’t do a very good job of that if we discriminate against anyone “different” from us. Amen!
This one is more emotionally driven than the first one. I am also curious as to Barbara Edward’s question…Does she equate being Gay/Lesbian to being:
… an alcoholic
… a child-molester
… a pathological liar
… obese
… a drug addict
… a sex offender
… etc., etc., etc.????
While I applaud our God given rights to differing opinions, I am concerned by all the HATE behind some of these views. It always amazes me how people who shout the loudest about Faith seem to be the most intolerant of their fellow man…regardless of the discussion or subject. Is this what He would have intended? “…let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
It is astounding to me that anyone could presume to tell other human’s what relationships they ought to have or even, as we see in the United States, enacting laws telling others whom they cannot love or live with or visit in the hospital or have the same legal relationships as others. And a religion does not give one the right to do that. In America, you get to practice your religion, YOU get to practice YOUR religion and others get to do what they want with their lives. When you say to a heterosexual, when did you make your choice, doesn’t that really end the argument. We spend so much time on issues that do not need to be dealt with, I think it is one reason why we are not getting to some of the issues that really matter. So, that is my two cents, if it is worth that.
Steve,
It’s a challenge to stay out of emotion on this topic.
Our society is quite a bit different than it was 50, 100, 150 or 200 years ago. Look at slavery, women’s rights, voting, etc. 50 or 100 years from now, if the planet is still a viable place to live, which “I” believe it will, we will find this topic resolved.
Thanks for being part of the evolution of acceptance that this world sorely needs. I think the source of most discrimination originates from tribalistic and sectarian programs in religion — thus your request to keep religion/faith out is well put!
In my heart — now this is where I’m bringing God in — God is there; not in a religious sense, and in that I am guided by the gift of my intellect as well. I have hired gay/lesbian staff without knowing it — only to discover it later. Did that change anything? No. Over the years it has taught me that their personal choices had no affect on their performance.
Their hearts beat like mine — their minds function like mine.
Wait a minute — that means they’re a person just like me!
Steve,
Wow–what a “kettle of worms”. I admire your courage and very strong attempts to remain neutral amidst the storm of response/protest you have here. I would like to suggest that your term “Critical Thinking” is intended to be a synonym for “Open-Mindedness”. Not sure how much of that you’re receiving!
I still VERY strongly agree with two points:
One, that homosexuals, like hetero’s, are born that way–the great majority of them, with perhaps a few exceptions.
Two, that we human beings (and I think most people would agree, we are all that) do not have the right to condemn, castigate, and be cruel to others different from ourselves. This includes any or all religions or viewpoints–I feel none have that right.
Lindit’,
I agree with you on your first point. In terms of critical thinking being open mindedness, not exactly, but it should lead to open mindedness. Thats the reason I like to bring in controversial topics–because they make it much more difficult for people to control their emotions and use critical thinking. Most people use critical thinking on a daily basis and they’re pretty good at it. But when the subject or topic is emotionally charged they falter and sometimes attack out of fear. It doesn’t have to a social issue like this one, it could be anything. Like money, for example. I think most people think about money emotionally which almost guarantees they’ll never have much. Applying critical thinking is as easy as recognizing that Money has no meaning, and the amount you accumulate is in exact proportion to the value you provide. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want more money, provide more value. This simple realization makes people rich. But 99% of people are not rich, and I believe the cause is the emotional cloud that covers the reality of the equation. My friend Bob Proctor refers to it as the mind/money connection. Same goes for losing weight. It’s a linear process devoid of emotion. You do the work and you get the result. End of story. I said this on the Today Show last year and NBC recieved thousands of emails and phone calls complaining that I was simplfying a complex process. I was not. Losing weight is as simple as a process gets. But most people approach it emotionally and fail. This is why 66% of Americans are fat. I could go on, but you get the point. Your thoughts?
My question to YOU:
How do you think the following people would answer your question, “Did you CHOOSE to be …
… an alcoholic
… a child-molester
… a pathological liar
… obese
… a drug addict
… a sex offender
… etc., etc., etc.
Barbara,
Are you equating Gays and Lesbians with Child Molesters, Liars and the rest of this list? I want to be sure I understand the premise of your argument before I respond.
OK, several simple points:
1. Steve, you plainly do NOT know much about scriptures such as the Bible or Koran if you maintain that they are not “historical”. You may or may not accept the historical testimony any particular document presents, but plainly they do present (in part) accounts of “what happened” –and why it happened and what the significance of those events and choices were. They are at least as “historical” as either Herodotus or Thucydides or Gibbon. History is usually not just a recital of events but an interpretation aimed at using our knowledge or what has happened in order to guide our decisions in the future. Otherwise we are, as the saying goes, doomed to keep repeating that history.
But leave that issue to one side for a moment…
2. Your intent is unclear. On the one hand you start by saying that the “delusion” is that gay and lesbian “choose their orientation.” Then you switch the question to whether it’s appropriate to discriminate on the basis of sexual choices–or is it that vague term “orientation”? So are you talking about the origin of sexual desire, or are you discussing appropriate moral and social sanctions in regard to them? Those are distinct issues.
3. History and a look at world culture demonstrates that “orientation” is a problematic concept. Ancient cultures such as Greeks and Hebrews and contemporary non-Western cultures don’t use this concept. They do not have a concept of being “heterosexual”–let alone being “gay.” Ancient Greek guys didn’t think they were “gay” when they had erotic relations with their boy proteges, or when they raped defeated soldiers after a battle. They knew that sex served multiple purposes. The same man used it to get children with his wife, fool around with whores, express friendship with a twenty-something male, or to show he was the dominant bully-boy when raping another male or female victim. In many African cultures today, similar patterns happen. Idi Amin raped men right and left–but would have been shocked to be considered “gay.” He was just showing that he was “the Man”. Only in the developed Western countries do we try to over-simplify sex into “orientation.” I don’t claim to know “the final truth” in this matter, but it is plain that desires are more complex than we like to admit–and therefore that CHOICE is a factor in how we express or restrain those desires.
3. No one says that we “choose our orientation.” That’s a Straw Man: making up a moronic position, then using it to discredit those who allegedly hold it. At most, we choose how we respond to our desires. Whether we deny, accept, restrain or express them does affect our future character. Ask any honest fat person, or any drug addict. They didn’t start out addicted. They started with some apparently unrelated desire for pleasure or to escape discomfort. My own observation shows me this: Desire begins by seducing us; then it enslaves us; finally it destroys us. Desire makes a good servant (as Tough Minded People know) but it makes a terrible Master.
We do evaluate people’s character by their actions. Actions convey what is important to the actor. If having sex with members of your own gender is what is truly important to you, then what legitimate complaint do you have if I make my own evaluation of your character based on that choice? Sexual choices are at least as meaningful as choices about money, power, eating, drinking, showing up for work, and so on. If you see that I am fat, you are not out of line to see me as someone values comfort over fitness. If you see my sexual choices and find them less than admirable, you have every reason to judge me. If your good opinion of me were more important to me than my gratification, I would behave differently. And if I say I am unable to alter my behavior (not my “orientation”) then you would be right to judge me as not really being in charge of my actions.Either I am a Victim–like an addict or someone with a disease–and thereby deserving of pity–or I am able to control my behavior but unwilling to do so–and should logically accept that my choices all come with a price tag. That would be honest. But what is dishonest is to say, “This is what I want to do. And I insist that everyone should warp their perceptions and morals in order to tell me that it is just Peachy!” That is wanting to eat the candy but to whine when it gives you a bellyache.
As Steve Siebold would say, “Suck it up!” (perhaps not the best metaphor in this context!)
Kenneth,
Thanks for your comment. You make a lot of claims here. Let me just respond to one. You say no one says we choose our orientation and that it’s a moronic position. Have you read the responses to the blog and seen how many people believe this? Millions of people hold this position, which is why I brought it up. Read some of the comments if you don’t believe me. In reference to my question about discrimnation, that’s the result of people believing that gays and lesbians choose their lifestyle. It’s a linear progression. Discrimination is the net effect, and it’s what keeps these poor people in the closet living double lives because they’re terrified to be honest with the world. I don’t blame them. How much tolerance are we seeing in some of these comments? In all of our fear-based self-rightousness we’re delivering the message loud and clear: if you’re gay you’re not good enough. You’re a deviant. You’re a sinner and God does not approve. Who are we to judge, Ken? We’re driving fellow human beings to suicide because we don’t have the emotional maturity to handle an alternative way of living. It’s wrong.
Ken restated Steve’s question: “Should we be discriminating?”
Ray seemed to answer this correctly. Discriminate.
Think, you do discriminate! You just call it thought.
If I think like you, it’s not discrimination.
If I think like them, it is discrimination.
Think. Discriminate. Live.
What is that to thee? Follow thou Me.
Hi Steve,
There are 21 major world religions right now, hundreds more when you include their offshoots, and the tally is around 9000 recorded over the course of written human history.
I’m confused as to how so many commenters are:
1. So completely sure they got the right one, especially since many didn’t pick their religion, their family picked it for them. I understand the idea of faith, its greatest value being to have it despite doubt, but are you all really THAT sure you have it right?
2. Even SO certain that they feel it is universally enough accepted that “homosexuality is WRONG” that it would be OK to discriminate against a gay person, further to exclude them from rights other people enjoy based solely on their personal interpretation of on ONE of THOUSANDS of different belief systems.
Which brings me to another point. Can anyone really give an ethical or moral argument (a really compelling one that would be accepted by the world population despite any faith they may ascribe to, using logic and critical thinking) where you could make a serious case for discriminating against homosexuals or anyone else who wasn’t hurting you or infringing on your rights? I challenge anyone to do this, to pen an argument without using faith or any religious book.
Country clubs can discriminate against anyone they want to. They come up with their own rules and enforce them in their own way. They also don’t claim to be open to everyone or that their worldview is shared by anyone other than their members, they don’t try to make anyone else follow their rules. If you belong to an organized religion, you are a member of a kind of country club . . . and that is totally fine, perfectly OK. It is just very out of place for country club members to come out of the club and start telling people at the shopping mall or the grocery store that they can’t wear blue jeans or tennis shoes because it breaks the country club dress code.
I understand the phenomenon of getting swept up in a club or group or religion and seeing it as the answer to every question, every problem, but to stay true to ideas that can be applied to everyone and recognizing that your country club doesn’t have authority outside of its boundaries is, in my opinion, an important facet of Mental Toughness.
John O.
John,
I agree with you. Wishful and fear-based thinking clouded by emotion drives many people to claim to know the unknowable. The conclusion I’ve reached after 28 years of research in this field is what I call the Theory of Dots.
The premise is that we all make sense of the world based on a series of beliefs, with each belief represented as a dot. Most of the major dots are forced on us in childhood when we lack the maturity to recognize them or make our own judgments. As we grow up, we begin to connect the dots so the world makes sense to us. It makes us feel safe and comfortable. This is one of the reasons (in my opinion) organized religion is so popular. It gives people answers to the biggest questions in life; answers that no one can actually know or prove, but the need for safety and comfort overwhelms the need for critical analysis or proof. So with our dots connected we feel comfortable, even if we are living in denial and delusion. Then someone comes along with opposing ideas and scrambles our dots. Suddenly, if this person is right, our world no longer makes sense. This scares us and makes us very uncomfortable, and the most important goal of the masses is to be comfortable and avoid pain at all costs. Some people cover their ears and close their eyes, some lash out emotionally (sometimes viciously) and a tiny percentage have the emotional intelligence to carefully consider the opposing idea and reach their own conclusions. Most of the subscribers of this blog fall into the last catagory, but this is a rare group. I find the whole thing fascinating, John. Don’t you? Thanks again for your thoughts.
Most large businesses have already changed their health insurance policies to include gay and trans-gender coverage. Some have included to pay for sex change operations.
Businesses are also firing Christian advisors to the business who quote scripture and who “get emotional” on this subject. Their point of view is not even permitted to be written in a book. Gay-friendly personnel have asked for them to be dismissed after reading a non-company-related book they have written. (Maybe the company was mentioned in the book and this is why???).
Political correctness once again….is this freedom?
How do Christians deal with this???We work 5 days in the above enviornment and then go to church and read our bible which says the opposite.
No wonder we have so many mentally unstable people and we’re all on anti-depressants. Our kids have the same struggle…what kind of a world are we creating for them?
Where I live, there is a problem of mothers sexually abusing their children, especially their daughters. With the economic conditions, we need to help people become more stable instead of adding to their stress.
Maybe when we get a catholic out of office(Joe Biden), things will settle down. You know us catholics love to talk about sex.
Me Again…
@ Neal M. Well said!
In the ‘land of personal development’ I keep running across a recurring theme:
As soon as you use the “sword of discrimination” and choose a viewpoint, you also create the opposite viewpoint as well. We don’t necessarily embrace that opposite point of view, or are even aware of its existence but it’s there nonetheless.
If that’s a fact (and I don’t know if it is) then it makes sense to ask ourselves the question, “what’s great about this…?” situation/person/event/circumstance etc. when we believe something is bad or wrong.
Isn’t that a critical thinking question?
Jaroslav
Jaroslav,
Like you, I’m a big fan of personal development. The problem is it’s an industry and movement of people who prefer positive thinking over critical thinking. Nicest people in the world, but they are often disillusioned with their results because they made decisions completely based on emotionally-driven positive thinking. It’s time for the $14 billion dollar industry to grow up and take its place in the real world. I’m trying to help lead that process, and I hope you will join me. You’re one of the people I think about when it comes to progressive critcal thinking. Thanks for your comment.
Ok Steve,
My thoughts… Discriminate. I say we do discriminate and so we should… here’s the kicker… if it’s healthy, safe, of benefit to me or for another person/purpose.
Yet if discrimination is bolted to prejudice then it’s very likely to come with some ignorance and has the potential to be unhealthy.
I think the word discriminate has evolved to only refer to a negative perspective, whereas I grew up understanding that if I chose one thing over another as a preferred difference – I was discriminating. “Use your discrimination” we were encouraged. It really meant “choice” and inferred to make a preferred or healthy choice. I chose the blue one.
It wasn’t a bad thing, quite the contrary and it did not mean violate.
I like women, does that mean I discriminate against men? Some would say yes. Maybe the application is in the word “against”… kind of like “If you’re not for me, you are against me”. What a crock!
Earlier I mentioned prejudice – pre-judge. A different story.
Do we judge, we certainly do, we’re human, we judge a person by their clothes, a book by its cover, a tone of voice… a person by the content of their character (I try and gee whiz I get that wrong a bit). Yet here I caution myself, let my judgement be fresh and appropriate to the situation at hand and check that I’m not letting pre-judgement enter into it. I reserve the right to be wrong, and sometimes I’m so glad I was.
I agree with a friend who inferred that it takes effort to look upon the heart (and the experience to consider the essence of a person).
You spoke of equal rights… in some cases absolutely. For return on effort (pay) if a job is to be done to a certain standard, time or manner, does it matter who does it? They deserve equal rights and pay.
As for gay and lesbian, I really couldn’t care less and I wonder what all the fuss is about. I have friends who are gay and lesbian… if they wanted to get married… I’d think it a bit strange like any new experience and my awareness would be heightened… and I’d go to the wedding, to be with my friends and for the experience… never been to a gay or lesbian wedding before.
If gay and lesbian couples provided a loving and caring home why not include them for adoption consideration. Better than a child in an orphanage or street kid who feels unloved and uncared for. (Also I have a lesbian friend who has children and they love their mum and they, now grown up, are with “straight” partners).
I don’t pretend to understand why someone is gay or lesbian because I don’t. However I am attracted to their stories and respect their persuasion… for many reasons I guess, courage, sincerity… and more.
I think we need to get over ourselves a bit. Put a halter on prejudice and discriminate appropriately… healthily and exercise a preference… choose the yellow one or the red one “Use your discrimination”!
Take care, travel safe.
Cheers
Ray
Ray,
I like the way you put that: “we need to get over ourselves”. I agree. Let’s let people live their lives as they see fit and wish them well along the way. If they’re not hurting anyone, leave them alone to live as they choose.
Thansk for your comment, Ray.
Steve,
I think the debate over what we think is useless. Your mind is made up and all you do is quote so-called scholars. In critical thinking, you must have documentation of what you believe to be true before you can make accurate statements about anything. Where is your documentation. You say emotion is not part of the process and yet you express your emotion by calling it a delusion.
It may be a delusion to you but most of the world would not agree with you.
RC,
I have 16 years of documentation working with the biggest companies in the world. Do you really believe the CEO of a Fortune 500 company is going to pay millions of dollars to a consultant without proof or results?
A mental delusion is not always emotionally driven. It can be, but it’s not a necessary part of the equation. Sexual orientation has been proven to be biological. How many times have you heard someone say they chose to be heterosexual? I’ve never heard anyone say it. Thats because we’re born with it. No one even questions that. But when someone says they’re a homosexual, suddenly they chose it, or they were abused, or they’re a sexual deviant. This is why I call it a delusion. It’s based on people’s prejudice, not objective reality. As far as most of the world not agreeing with me, I agree 100% with you on that. Thank God. If I processed the world the same way as everyone else companies wouldn’t pay me to teach them mental toughness and critical thinking. Thinking like the masses will virtually guarantee you will live like them. How attractive is living an average life? I prefer to live what Ayn Rand called “An unrestricted existence”. And it requires a very different level of awareness. It’s a level of consciousness where anything is possible, nothing is certain, and everything is questioned and evaluated under far greater criteria than most people would be care to consider. Your thoughts? Thanks for your comment, Ray.
My main concern regarding this video, Steve, has nothing to do with the gay/lesbian debate. Gays/lesbians should have equal rights.
My issue is that you seem to believe that there is such a thing as thinking without emotions. I really doubt that. Decisions always involve an emotional element. The brain both thinks and feels and to the best of my knowledge NOT in separate compartments.
Then fascinatingly you ask us not to quote religious texts as they are packed full of emotion. True.
However, so also, it seems, is your own position full of emotion. You ask us what we think in our “heart of hearts”.
Eh?
Surely it’s time to get honest that our thinking is always inevitably affected by our emotions, so are our decisions and also our drive to take action.
We need instead to be vigiliant as to what those emotions are and whether or not their effect is useful. Rather than make a new religion out of so-called “rational thinking”.
Imogen
It’s simple for me. Gays and Lesbians should have the same rights. Why?
Because everything and everyone comes from a ‘point of origin’. And to discriminate against anyone, means to indirectly discriminate against yourself.
Remember how all the continents use to be one massive piece of land? …and then the elements separated it into continents? We are all connected, energetically speaking. You can embrace that fact or resist it.
The power of choice is yours…and yours alone.
London
londonporter com
Hello Steve,
I first would like to say thank you for your blog which is very informing and also for your boldness to stand out and get people thinking. I admire that quality you possess. To address the issue you’re posing, my first thought is on the emotional response you may receive because on this topic. It definitely will be very difficult to escape this response and I believe the reason is in the duty and responsibility of emotion. I believe our heart is where we store our absolute beliefs concerning the four areas of our lives, which include ourselves, other people, our general surroundings, and God.
When we are absolutely sure of something, (and as you know Steve truth and fact are not the same) we find this truth of ours to be valuable. Therefore, we house what we deem valuable in a safe place, the heart. The heart however is extremely fragile because it only houses what we deem is truthful, and sometimes truth varies and depending on the belief can be unstable. If in our 4 areas we find something not to be true which we hold in our hearts, our heart will break. As I stated before the heart is for holding our truths.
You may call it something else, but we hold our truths somewhere. Case in point, an unfaithful spouse. The truth to the person is, they are faithful, and the dilemma appears when fact proves them to be unfaithful. A broken heart ensues because the truth is no longer valuable and the reconstruction of a new heart begins. I say all of this for this reason. Emotion is the defense system against our valuables being taken or stolen, or replaced. When something comes up against our belief-system, we go into “defcon 4” and our emotions come rushing to the scene to attack much like white blood cells against disease. It’s a natural defense of our minds, but once understood can be controlled.
My second thought is on your last post about Jesus being tolerant and teaching tolerance. I believe we often get Jesus teaching people to love and teaching people to be tolerant confused. They are not the same thing. If the Bible taught tolerance and at the same time taught its basic premise on life, it would make itself null and void. Also, Jesus was a man of His word by which He stood strictly by. In my opinion He is the epitome of a man because although He loved and accepted people as is, He never went against His word. He accepted people but He never desired for them to remain the same way He met them. He urged them to transform their minds.
My third thought is on the main subject, homosexuality. I will not use the common arguments of persuasion about it being wrong, or it not being natural, or it not allowing for procreation. I myself do not believe these points form a strong enough case. However, I will briefly state what great men like Judge Thomas Troward and Dr. Emmet Fox have unclosed. In Dr. Emmet Fox’s pamphlet, The Mental Equivalent, he states, “Whatever enters into your life is but the material expression of some belief in your mind. The kind of body you have, the kind of home you have, the kind of work you do, the kind of people you meet, are all conditioned by and correspond to the mental concepts you are holding.”
What Dr. Fox is referring to here is performed at a micro level and if it can be performed at a micro level it can also be performed at the macro level. Micro being people and macro being God. In your book, 177 Mental Toughness Secrets of the World Class, you identify secret 172 as, The World Class Relies On Infinite Intelligence, signifying that even the world class identify with an all pervading intelligences. I say that for this reason, I hear people say that they are trapped in the wrong body. But even the world class knows that there is an intelligent being and they’re the world class, they can’t be totally wrong.
Dr. Fox as well as Judge Troward knows that this Being makes no mistakes. Judge Troward would say that when God or Universal Intelligence contemplates itself it forms what it contemplates and brings into reality. Therefore, even before making you or me, He had to have had a definite corresponding thought or mental equivalent of who you are to be. If this is the case in order to be infinite in knowledge and wisdom He must’ve known what He was doing. As Bob Proctor would quote Wernher Von Braun concerning the precision of the universe “The natural laws of the universe are so precise that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to fly to the moon and we can time the landing with the precision of a fraction of a second.”
So then, to make a mistake with the identity of your most prized creation I believe is not in the equation. I will close with this. When people say they were born gay, I absolutely believe them. I don’t think it was intended for them to be that way but I believe them. Why would you lie about something like that?
However, I do not believe homosexuality is a natural way of life and wasn’t meant to be. It is in my belief that homosexuality is incurred to some level in three ways: someone in the person’s direct lineage was gay, they were abused as a child, or they were heart broken by the opposite sex. The first two are spiritual while the last is emotional and mental. The first one happens just like picking up a small mannerism like grandma or grandpa or mom and dad. I don’t know how it happens, but in some cases it happens.
Even if the child was raised separate of the parents they acquire similar mannerisms. I believe the same is true for gays and lesbians. When they have strong urges for the same sex and they don’t know why, it may be because someone in their direct lineage was gay or lesbian. I propose that all who are gay or lesbian to speak with their families and see if this is correct. Many times things are passed on to us without our knowing because families do not communicate about things like this.
In closing, everything that is good in the universe in its perfect and proper order builds up and out and satisfies a missing link in the other to form a complete whole. Homosexuality doesn’t satisfy this fact and law. We’re human which gives us the right to think and choose. Although I can choose to do something and it doesn’t harm anyone else doesn’t necessarily make it right. I believe, unbeknownst to most why they fight against homosexuality, I believe it is because they don’t want this idea to pervade the “collective consciousness of the human race” because the idea is unstable.
I believe the fight to legal gay marriages will bring about more issues than it will solve and those issues are currently going unconsidered. Maybe you can open discussion on what societal issues we will face if gay marriages are legalized, because we only hear one side in this case. But I thank you Steve for allowing people to give their perspective on your blog. Hopefully, we can all use our minds and perspectives for the higher good of all concerned. Thank you.
Faith is great. I appreciate all faiths they are all beautiful specifically when they are not ruined by extreme fanatics. We need to remove faith discussion from critical thinking especially when dealing with emotionally charged topics. Faith can still have it’s place quietly in our mind by treating others with the utmost respect and by allowing others to live their life however they see fit. If we don’t like it then we should leave them alone and focus our attention somewhere else.
Discrimination has no place in this world period… but it is what it is and so we all do our best. Gay is a label as much as heterosexual is and I think if we all had lost the ability to discriminate that many people would simply be with whomever they connected with. That gender would be a non-issue holding no weight whatsoever. I think these labels gay and hetro force people into thinking that this gender thing is a big issue and so it is.
Personally I am hetro and I am brainwashed into thinking that it’s a problem if I love a woman vs a man. But when I take the emotion out and use my critical thinking skills it is crystal clear to me that gender should be a non-issue and that if it were a non-issue people would just love who they love regardless of what’s between their legs.
Hi Steve,
I see you’ve discovered hair spray since the last blogs, heh-heh.
As I browsed through the posts and listened (and took notes) to your comments, I’m glad you honed in a bit more on a centralized question: “Should we be discriminating?’ My answer is, of course not in the general sense. But, with how you present it, I’m not quite sure how you are defining discrimination. Are you sanitizing your premise by using the word discrimination for mistreatment, or do I sense you really mean diverse opinion in legislation? Which is it?
I’m also glad you brought up the Bible, because I prefer to leave it out in the sense you mentioned, and I agree with you generally about the reasons for not using it–I rarely if ever do in secular reasoning. Although I was raised and do practice a Christian lifestyle, I think it’s futile to back argumentative reasoning with scripture of any kind. On rare occasions it can be used with ‘Christian to Christian’ debate, but since the Bible or other Holy Writ it is so subjective to diverse interpretation from one religion to the next, what’s the point? I’m not saying I don’t believe it’s true, I’m saying it can’t be used in secular reasoning because of subjectivity. It’s unreliable as an agreeable resource of absolute interpretation else why are there so many diverse Christian religions? It certainly wouldn’t hold up in court. But I love using it when I teach Sunday School and I’ve read it many times….
Your message this time differs from part I wherein you inferred delusional tendencies among those who oppose gays or gay issues. You tend to paint with broad strokes. Now you are focused on discrimination which is perhaps the core of what you were after initially but you arouse my suspicions. My question is this: What good, or what solution comes from discrimination? No matter what our beliefs, faiths, creeds, we live in a society of all kinds–gays, lesbians, ethnicity, ADD, PMS, you name it, it’s out there. I believe that despite differences, cooperation of differing mindsets is achievable and the epitome of true leadership for a “thought leader.” True leaders unite, while those who imitate leadership divide.
Where I think you strayed from your core philosophy (and I’m not sure if you picked up on it last time) is you allude to those who are not of gay affiliations as delusional–I think you’re straying over the line doing conversely what you say heterosexuals are doing–tacking on delusional mindedness is not how I would term it. Opposition to a certain lifestyle, I don’t think, is necessarily delusion, although delusional thinking can exist in points of view on either side on any topic. The passion of opposition may rear it’s head in political circles, and it may deserve merit just as much as avoidance of discrimination. How you would define it, and how I would define it is a topic I would enjoy discussing with you over lunch–I would love to hear more of your insights on just that part alone because I think it deserves more analysis–there’s simply a dearth of variables to solve the equation.
Another point that piqued my critical thinking is you said faith requires emotion. Would you explain that further? Which emotion? That alone deserves a blog entry of its own. In fact, may I further entreaty you by saying please? Because if you meant that as you said it, Napoleon Hill or I may not agree with you in all cases, although Brother Hill and I do refer to it as the emotion of faith in circumstances where it applies. It can vary and may not always require emotion. I really do want you to explain that in more detail if you are teaching that to corporations.
I was always taught to live IN the world, but to not be OF it and to love others. As I said before, I’ve lived by legal prostitutes in Europe, we have multi-racial adopted nephews and nieces (I love them dearly), my closest friends, relatives, and neighbors have religions different from mine, one of member of my family is an alcoholic, my daughter-in-law has a lesbian in her family and she comes to our family functions, I work with gays in business, and I’ve worked with them ecclesiastically and my faith strictly opposes mistreatment of anyone in a “different” lifestyle. I do not allow the difference of others’ lives to govern my conduct toward them. (That doesn’t mean I won’t use force to protect myself or loved ones from lethal threat). My conduct can be steady on my own turf. At the risk of sounding maudlin or preachy, I found that Og Mandino’s Scroll #2 to love others has served me well and bridged many a gap. Even with the Siebolds….(How can anyone not love ol’ Steve & Dawn???)
Mistreatment of anyone is out of line, and hatred is reprehensible, regardless of someone’s lifestyle, and I think that’s what you’re after–on the surface….
On a deeper level, if a proposition to legislate gay marriage is on the ballot, and if people vote against it, why should that be interpreted as discrimination as so many have made it out to be? I’ve seen senseless rioting and mistreatment from pro-gay movements on the news–they’re not all exempt–their discrimination is well documented. On the ballot, it’s no different than voting for a bond, or political party. That’s what makes this country great democracy, despite the flaws. But I detect a hint of that agenda with you as I read between the lines, that perhaps groups, or factions, or religious groups or what have you–if they collectively vote against gay marriage, are delusional. Discrimination, or should we say “mistreatment,” can be delusional, but opposition to legislation is not. You must separate the two. Homosexuality is not a race.
“We’ll see you next time.”
I do want to make one thing clear about finding errors and contradictions in the Holy Qur’an. The challenge is for the Arabic Script, not the translations. The Arabic Script is pure and error free. Most Translations are around 90 % or more accurate. You have to find the actual error with the Arabic Script.
Some content is obviously lost in translation due to few things such as some words do not exist in the other language etc.
But English Translation are very accurate.
Here is an English Translation of the Holy Qur’an,
http://www.harunyahya.com/Quran_translation/Quran_translation_index.php
Hey Steve,
I think the first video was more about “People choosing to be gay or not”. This video is more about discrimination against them.
Would I discriminate against them, my answer is both YES and NO.
Let me explain…
I will so called discriminate in the sense that they can’t further live that lifestyle so that means i will protest against Gay Marriages or anything that allows them to live that kind of lifestyle.
I will not discriminate against them in other things that affect them as a human being. Things like Jobs, apartments, selling food to them or anything like that. I won’t curse them or pick fights with them or anything like that. After all they are humans just like us. I accept the people but not the behavior,
Some people take much longer than others to find themselves. Some homosexuals become straight later on. There is always hope. In fact the thing has the most influence on a person is not necessarily speech but great moral CHARACTER.
If you treat them really well in everything else, it might have a positive affect on them.
Steve I have noticed you have talked about how people don’t know for sure what God really wants, I disagree with that. We do know. You have to be sincere in finding it. The key is SINCERITY. If you are sincere in finding the Truth then Inshallah (God-Willing) you will find it.
It should be much easier for you to find it, since you don’t put emotions into your critical thinking.
Now say people from different religions claim that this is what God wants, and logically one of them should be the truth. Then why would you keep saying “we don’t know what God wants” until you have studied other religions by critically analyzing them and came to a conclusion back with so much evidence that all the religions are false.
You see even though I was born a Muslim, since I was young, I had this question.
Every person says his religion or belief is true, how do I know mine is the actual truth?
I looked into different religions, but Islam was the only one that stood out from all of them. Why?
Because it was the only book that I know that kept challenging me.
1) It challenged me to find an error or contradiction in it (so far no one has found even one, there are a few people that claim they do, but if you look into it, you will realize most of them are taken out of context)
2) It challenged me to create something similar to the Holy Qur’an. It can’t be done. Some have tried it and failed miserably.
3) It has so much scientific stuff, that no human could have known. How do I know? Because some of these things we have learned in the 20th and 21st century. We are still learning.
There so much more….
http://www.quranmiracles.com/
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php
I would like to ask you a few questions…
What is the purpose of Life?
Why do we die?
Why do we have problems?
I would like your honest views on these questions.
Steve,
At this point we are mixing a lot of things up and throw them in the same pot. Let’s think critical and unemotional:
1. One’s faith, by definition, is faith, is something you belief in, either by your own free will or because it has been taught to you by others. Unless a person agrees, you cannot alter their faith. No logical argument will reach the truly faithful. I am saying this as a statement of fact, neither saying this is right or that this is wrong.
2. In critical thinking it makes no difference, if the homosexual choose this lifestyle or if he was born with this lifestyle. As discussed earlier, the sex drive’s main purpose is procreation. So homosexuality would be a deviation from nature’s normal intend. Again a statement of fact, neither saying this is right or that this is wrong.
3. Let’s assume that homosexuality is a truth, not a fact: then critical thinking says, the homosexual can alter his/her perception and action by altering their own belief system.
4. It is a fact that at least some homosexuals became this way due to various degrees of emotional stress in their youth and who were able to change their belief system and became straight again.
5. Let’s assume that homosexuality is a fact and cannot be changed. This fact would have to be established by scientific evidence, through in depth studies, were not only the word of the homosexual that he was born this way is taken at face value, but his past gets probed for emotional distress. These studies need to be done by people with no agenda, meaning neither homosexual friendly nor opposed to it.
6. I am not aware of a truly neutral scientific study on this subject, so I for myself will not make a final judgment on this.
7. The next consideration is: how does society react towards homosexuals. Now we need to define discrimination. First the work place. There are very few instances, were homosexuality is an issue: Not every patient feels comfortable, being taken care of by a homosexual and the patient should be informed and have a choice. Despite reports to the contrary, the majority of the military is opposed to have open homosexuals serving. The boy scouts would open themselves up to horrendous liability law suits, if they would allow homosexual adult leaders.
There might be a few instances I have overlooked, but otherwise your sexual orientation should have no influence on your hiring process.
8. Marriage and/or legal union. This is another difficult subject. How many heterosexual couples live together without being married? Most if not all the rights marriage gives you, can be handled by contractual law for homosexual couples. It appears to me, that only a small minority of homosexuals are using the discrimination argument to push their agenda and this is mainly a political agenda.
9. Discrimination denotes differentiation between people on grounds such as gender, color, sexuality, disability, or class. Discrimination is really prejudice and judgment. We humans are emotional creatures and we constantly judge others, mostly on the subconscious level. This is built in and ingrained in our daily behavior. The idea, that we will never discriminate against another person, group or nation is wishful thinking, as it is against human nature.
10. Steve, as you know through your mental toughness program, you can only change people and help people, who agree to be changed and helped. They still have to do it themselves. So all you can do is try to reach people, who are willing to change , then help them to change. We all are convinced that our particular viewpoint is correct, that we are right and the others are wrong. Only once we ourselves have decided to that somebody else could be right too and we are then willing to admit to our own wrongs, can you accomplish a change.
11. In the case of discrimination against homosexuals, all you can do is trying to educate people, but as you have seen on the responses, you have a very steep and high mountain to climb.
12. Personally I have quite a few numbers of homosexuals as customers in my restaurant, and I treat them with as much respect and courtesy as any of my other customers. What they do in their bedroom is none of my business.
Mike Jacobi
Clement Lisitski!Clement Lisitski!Clement Lisitski!
Do you realise what you are saying?
You’re using accounts from a book (that incidently has no conclusive FACTUAL evidence) to backup the claims of the same book!!! That is ludicrous!! Just because it’s in the bible doesn’t make it fact! The Bible is NOT a history book per se, it is a book of Faith that is based on varying accounts passed on through the ages and with no doubt it’s own fair share of ‘Chinese Whisper’ innaccuracies, not to mention rather implausible assertions.
Just look at what you wrote:
“Even the Pontius Pilate account of Jesus Christ states that he was God. Flavius Josephus confirms Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ confirms Jesus Christ.”
Come-on! Should we presume then that everything we read is fact? What about the Holocaust? If we use your same method of deduction, we could use excerpts out of Arthur Butz’s book on the Holocaust Denial to prove his own case that the Nazi’s didn’t try to exterminate the Jews!!! Preposterous! But using your own method of supporting your argument would have this to be so.
And to be asked to be removed from the blog because you believe Steve hasn’t done his research is quite funny! If you were a school teacher would you expel a student if they didn’t do their homework? (not to say you haven’t done your research Steve, I know you have, this is just to make a point).
Get it together Clement! Join the discussion, have your say (which I totally respect by the way), and keep an open mind. Don’t take your bat and ball and go home just because you may have been offended by limitations within your own capacity to understand another’s point of view.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, afterall, who am I to say anyone is wrong. I’m just saying I don’t agree with you. There is a difference.
Peace Brother!
The Madman
Steve, The issue on the first video was not whether or not it we should discriminate against people because they are homosexual it was whether being gay is a choice or they were born that way. It doesn’t matter. Homosexuality is wrong. There are pedophiles who claim they were born this way and its not their fault that they want to rape children, its out of their control because God made them this way. Hogwash! Just because you have a strong desire to do something does not make it right. Sociopaths are believed to be born with no conscience and have no control over killing someone because they were born that way. Are we as a society supposed to condone abnormal behavior because they were born a certain way?I think not. Its time to stop being “politically correct” and stand up for whats right regardless of who gets offended. Again I say we hate the “sin” not the sinner.This is an issue of whats right and whats wrong. Once again, our opinions don’t matter. Its God’s opinion that matters. Steve, let me ask you a question: Who is your God and what does he believe about homosexuality?
My favorite definition of faith might be as close critical thinking as a spiritual idea gets. What do you think?
“When you walk to the edge of all the light you have and take that first step into the darkness of the unknown, you must believe that one of two things will happen:
There will be something solid for you to stand upon, or, you will be taught how to fly.” -Patrick Overton
Mental self preservation is great if your stranded on an island. But even then, any normal person would become emotional.
The bible is not filled with emotion as you describe Steve… it is actually filled with the mental toughness you sell all around the world. Adam and Eve fail- God ejects them out the garden. That is simple cause and effect, very factual and no emotion. Who could kick their own kid out for 1 mistake… that my friend is mental toughness.
Drug addicts, alchoholics, prostitutes, transgenders and even you Steve, choose. And folks choose to do things in life they may catch heat for. Me, I chose to not let a horrific childhood, abusive parents, and homelessness determine my future… today I choose to be married, have 7 kids, and help young people… but to say every action is not a choice? Did Chaz Bono have a choice… The deal is he/she wanted to gratify an errotic desire to be a different gender… all choices are bathed in emotion…. ask President Bush on 9/11
Clement,
The bible can be considered “historical” but it may not be accurate. A lot of people have had their hands in writing and chnaging it. By the way, which of the 25 or so versions of the Bible are you using to prove history?
I may not be a biblical scholar but, I don’t recall Jesus saying he was “God.” He said a lot of things that people interpret to mean he was God but he never said it in those words.
If you want some real historical scholarly research on the Bible try reading:
“Misquoting Jesus; The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D. Ehrman
Great post Steve! And one that should be given fair consideration by everyone, without biblical posturing, and also without discriminatory mindsets that have been taught & perpetuated through generations of fear-based consciousness.
Here we are in the 21st century and STILL we have religion, politics, law, and even just the everyday thinking of the countless hordes, trapped in the dark ages when it comes to lot’s of things, including the acceptance(?) of gays and lesbians – trapped in a mind-set largely based on fear perpetuated through past instruction via church, school, parents or just plain bigotry, or the monkey-see monkey-do of society or whatever.
I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to employ many such people over the last 30 years as an employer in an industry that now ‘accepts’ gays and lesbians as much as it does heterosexuals, and allows them to freely express themselves as they are and as they are meant to be, just as we ALL should be allowed, and as such I’ve been able to see, at least in my workplace, gays and lesbians living without fear of reprisal or discrimination – JUST AS IT SHOULD BE!
But here is my point Steve – While I can also vouch for the fact that, from my experience, gays and lesbians hardly choose to be gay – I believe that even if they did CHOOSE to be gay, they should be able to make that choice freely, without fear, and with acceptance and appropriate recognition in the eyes of law and society.
So I don’t think it’s enough to say that we must accept gays and lesbians in law and society because they can’t help it, that they don’t choose to be gay. I think they should be afforded equal acceptance even if they do choose!
And I don’t know if you’re anything like me, but I would never, nor could ever imagine myself to, ‘choose’ to be gay. It just isn’t in my makeup, just like, I imagine, being heterosexual isn’t in the imagination of gays. But if it were, shouldn’t our ‘freedoms’ include this freedom of choice?
But back to your point Steve. Gays and lesbians are a part of our society, and I would daresay, have been for as long as heterosexuals. They are a FACT. They are not a figment of someone’s imagination, nor the subject of an ancient book. They exist. They are. Society and law should acknowledge this and, as they are part of our fabric of humanity, should be afforded the same acceptance as everyone else.
Well, that’s just my take on it.
Steve,
To say that the Bible is not a Historical book is like saying that 177 mental toughness secrets of the world class is not a self improvement book. I am so sorry you havent taken your time to do your research. I am sorry steve. Even the Pontius Pilate account of Jesus Christ states that he was God. Flavius Josephus confirms Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ confirms Jesus Christ.
I am shocked to say you dont do your research and therefore please remove me from your blog and all mailings. I cant listen to a lie.
Clement Lisitski
Steve, respectfully, you are really wrong on this. First, your “objective fact” that the Bible is not a historical book is flat out wrong. Just ask ANY credible archiologist. The Bible is the #1 source used to find ancient ruins and civilizations in the Middle East. It is THAT acurate!
Second, like it or not, this IS an emotional topic. I just spoke to a gay friend of mine recently. He was 100% hetrosexual in high school and was crazy about a few girls, however, he had many heartbreaks. One night he got in a bad situation, and a few guys forced themselves upon him. He told me how awful he felt; then he felt guilty; then those guys started coming around more, and soon he began to accept them. I asked him if he feels like he actually might have been born that way. He said No. I have found this to be the story with most gays AFTER you peel back the layers and ask the right questions.
Lastly, I don’t discriminate against the people, but I absolutely discriminate against the lifestyle. Here are the FACTS: The depression rate is higher; the suicide rate is higher; and the lifespan is shorter. It is an extremely unhealthy lifestyle. And last I checked, to people of the same sex cannot procreate.
Aw – I didn’t realise you were still in the UK. But glad to see that the weather has been relatively kind to you.
To my mind it makes no sense whatsoever to discriminate against any minority person or group who are doing no harm to others. In fact, personally I think it would be great if we could collectively celebrate diversity more and get over our evolutionary baggage of disliking the unlike.
But different people might bring different definitions of what harm is and perhaps that’s where some of the difficulties might lie.
No-we should not discriminate.
Yes we should love all people, regardless of their peaceful , private, life, and beliefs, as long as it doesn’t hurt others rights.
However, they should not get any special consideration either.
And if it involves victimizing children- they should be imprisoned-forever.
No one has the right to push any agenda on anyone else.
ALL history is based on the experience of the people of that period. And although I can not speak about the Koran, the Bible is just that. Writings of the experiences of the people during that period.
The fact that you say because it’s scripture and emotion is involved, It is not relevant to this topic is not only ludicrous but insulting to those who use the Bible as a guide for their life.
It’s obvious YOUR opinion on this topic so for you to ask others for their opinions but only if they don’t base it on scripture is an insult.
I’m not a “born again” Christian or any right wing fascist. I’m an well educated (physician) who thinks any data you obtain from your replies are tainted and not accurate.
Just saying…..