Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$global_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 468

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$blog_prefix is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 469

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_hits is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 475

Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WP_Object_Cache::$cache_misses is deprecated in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/object-cache.php on line 476
Greek Orthodox Church Supports Gay-Themed Science Education? – AOI – The American Orthodox Institute – USA

Greek Orthodox Church Supports Gay-Themed Science Education?

The Los Angeles Times reports that the Greek Orthodox Church supports a bill that is winding through the California State Legislature to “study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans … to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

The bill was shelved under former Gov. Schwarzenegger but supporters have regrouped for another shot at getting it through the Legislature.

Lobbying organizations sometimes support positions that do not conform to the teachings of its members. That may be happening here. The Metropolis of San Francisco might not be aware that the moral authority of Orthodox Christianity is being used to sexualize the science curriculum in California elementary schools. Read the details below. The key paragraph is:

The measure is backed by California Church Impact, a group whose members include the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Greek Orthodox Church and others. But lawmakers have been flooded with letters of opposition from groups including the California Catholic Conference, the First Southern Baptist Church and the Thousand Oaks Christian Fellowship.

California Church Impact is the lobbying arm of California Council of Churches that, judging from their website, confuses the Christian moral tradition with Progressive ideology.

California Church Impact is using the moral authority of Orthodox Christianity to further this program. The Metropolis of San Francisco needs to persuade them to drop the lobbying effort or quit the organization altogether. Either way, this issue cannot be left unaddressed.

Again, the Metropolis might be unaware of this effort. Readers should send emails to the Chancellor of the Metropolis of San Francisco (here) as well as the Chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (here) to inform them that the moral authority of Orthodox Christianity is being compromised, and to ask them to clarify our moral tradition to Los Angeles Times’ readers.

Source: Los Angeles Times

California lawmakers fight over bill to teach students about gay people’s contributions

A measure proposed by state Sen. Mark D. Leno of San Francisco would require new social science textbooks to include ‘a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.’

Reporting from Sacramento — As the battle over same-sex marriage makes its way through California’s courts, another gay rights fight is smoldering in the Legislature.

Democratic lawmakers have revived a plan to require state schools to teach about the contributions of gay, lesbian and transgender Americans. They are reigniting a movement that halted five years ago when legislators approved such a requirement only to run into opposition from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[…]

The proposal would require that social science texts and other instruction include “a study of the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans … to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States of America, with particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

[…]

“We are trying to provide, for those students that feel disenfranchised, some role models,” said Virginia Strom-Martin, the district’s lobbyist.

Read the entire article on the LA Times website.


Posted

in

by

Comments

41 responses to “Greek Orthodox Church Supports Gay-Themed Science Education?”

  1. Michael Bauman

    Just goes to show the need to get out of and disavow all of the various ‘councils of churches’ who do not support the traditional moral and religious teaching of the Orthodox Church.

  2. Eliot Ryan

    Trying to prove what? The mind has sex? The mind accumulates certain sexual characteristics?

  3. The Greek Orthodox Church in California needs to disassociate itself from the California Council of Churches — and the sooner the better. This Council’s radical and unChristian ideas — such as the teaching of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender contributors as part of the elementary schools’ science curriculum — is a sick and sacrilegious idea that must not be implemented.

    Indeed, the Greek Orthodox Church in California will be much better off without an affiliation with the California Council of Churches.

  4. Kevin

    Hasn’t Metropolitan Gerasimos of the GOA based in Northern California supported the right of gays to seek civil marriage? He said, “They [homosexuals] should have the benefits and civil rights of the state, but this is not a sacramental union our church will ever sanctify,” he said. “But civil marriage, in the spirit of American democracy, they have the right to ask for that.”

    1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

      Yes, but he said this in the initial interviews he had with the press immediately after his elevation. I’m always a bit more tolerant of newly elevated bishops. It takes them for them to adjust to the amplification of their words.

      Also, he signed a decree against gay marriage (Proposition 88) along with other Orthodox Bishops in California. There he was on the right side of the gay marriage issue. That’s why I think we have to make sure that he might not have known of the California Church Impact initiative.

  5. Orthodox Christian

    I received this letter in my email a few days ago. If you are Christian in California please send a message to our representatives to stop this bill.
    See the link within this letter.

    “Two days ago, I went to the state capitol to testify before the California Senate Education Committee regarding my opposition to SB 48:

    California Senate Bill number 48, now tracking its way through the legislature, would change the teaching of core academic subjects into a “celebration” of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual lifestyles. This profound change in the basic education of children would be mandatory, without involvement or opt-out rights of parents.

    ConcernedParentsUnited.com warns, “What we all do, or fail to do, in the next few weeks will determine whether or not California’s school children will be subject to homosexual textbooks and curriculum for years to come! Your help is needed to fight this bill every step of the way at every committee hearing and every vote.”

    My testimony against this bill is attached to this email. Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child psychiatrist for over 20 years, presented well-researched evidence that introducing elementary & junior high school students to homosexuality will cause gender confusion and misidentification as a homosexual because they are still in the stage of gender and identity formation.

    Stopping Senate Bill 48

    SB 48 still passed the Senate Education Committee but there’s still time to stop this bill in the assembly and senate that is “the worst school sexual indoctrination ever” that will force 9 million California children to learn about homosexuality at an early age with no opt-out right for parents.

    The thing that bothers me most about this bill is that if it passes, parents will have no rights over what their children learn in public schools regarding their sexuality. I bet that if Christianity and the gospel became mandatory teaching without parents’ rights to opt-out, people would be in an uproar. This is total discrimination against Christianity and parents’ rights to teach their children morals.

    Also, because California is the largest consumer of textbooks, what goes into California’s textbooks will most likely go into the rest of the nation’s textbooks. I highly doubt Houghton Mifflin is going to print two versions of the same textbook, that would be too expensive. This could effect what all public schools will teach across the nation!

    PRAY, VOTE, ACT

    1) Please pray that God would do a miracle and stop the passage of this bill.

    2) If you are a California resident and you want to stop this bill, please go to the following website to let your representatives know your stance. It only takes a minute:
    http://capwiz.com/legislativecenter/issues/alert/?alertid=27189501

    3) I learned first hand how VITALLY important it is to vote and put those who will truly represent you into office. I witnessed 9 senators make the decision for 9 million K-12 public school students yesterday. If we don’t vote, we won’t be represented, period.

    I want to leave you with this quote by Abraham Lincoln: “The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next.” The next few weeks will decide not only what California youth will learn but what this entire nation could learn. This could very well be the Gettysburg of American education regarding the issue of homosexuality.

    Please spread the word by forwarding this email to your church and networks and pray, vote, and act.

    Thank you so much, GOD BLESS

    Love and Creativity,
    Sarah Allis Yang”

  6. Fr Hans,

    Thanks for posting this. Yes, by all means, the Church (and the GOA specifically) needs to repudiate the CCC’s support for positions contrary to the Tradition of the Church. If this means the GOA ending its membership so be it. Whatever value there might be for the Church in participating in CCC or the NCC, it can’t come at the expense of compromising the moral integrity and witness of the Church. I do have one, small objection to your post. Specifically, your criticism of the CCC and CCI as “left wing Progressive outfit.” It certainly is. But in phrasing your object as you did I think you risk confusing the Gospel the policies of the political right.

    As Orthodox Christians, our disagreement with the CCI’s statement is not that it is a left wing statement. Rather we object to it because it is wrong and grounded in a deficient understanding of human nature and so human sexuality. When Orthodox Christians, and especially as clergy, enter the public square we need to be careful that we not allow our rhetoric to become unnecessarily partisan.

    Currently some in the OCA are critical of Metropolitan Jonah for signing the Manhattan Declaration. These objections do not suggest that the substance of the MD is, as is the CCI’s support of the gay agenda, contrary to the Tradition. While some argue that signing the MD was (for a variety of reasons) imprudent, in the main the argument against his Beatitude’s support was that it aligned the Church with the right-wing of American politics.

    To be sure opposing abortion or gay marriage will (in the eyes of some) make me a member of the religious right and therefore an opponent of the religious left. So be it. What I do think we need to avoid is the temptation to use political rhetorical short hand in those situations–like the one you have brought here to our attention–when what is needed is moral theological analysis.

    As you point out “Lobbying organizations …, sometimes support positions that do not conform to the teachings of its members. That may be happening here.” Assuming that this is the case here, the Church’s concerns is to offer a robust explication and defense of that teaching. Labeling, and then dismissing, the CCI’s statement as left wing and progressive doesn’t advance the Gospel teaching on human sexuality since that teaching is not essentially right wing or conservative as we use these terms today.

    In Christ,

    +FrG

    1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

      Objection noted Fr. Gregory. Take a look now. I want to keep the term “Progressive” as an identifier, but reframed the sentence so that “right-wing” isn’t implied. Tell me if you think it works. I’d appreciate other readers’ opinions as well.

    2. Michael Bauman

      Good point Fr. Gregory. It is the difference between being prophetic and a true witness and descending into the partisan and ideological realm. A surprisingly difficult task. The more we become involved in the specifics of policy and legislation, the more partisan and ideological we are likely to become as our own biases get activated. IMO there is nothing ‘progressive’ about so-called progressive policies and little from the so-called conservatives that attempts to conserve anything meaningful. Right-wing tryannts kill just as many people as left-wing tryannts.

      If the Orthdox Church refused to recognize civil marriage of any kind or any marriage from any other religious tradition (as makes sense), then Bp Gerasimos’ statement a lot more sense. Civil marriage is not a marriage, so what difference does it make. So, coverts who only have a civil marriage would need to be married in the Church (as makes sense to me anyway) even if they had been married under a civil form for years, had children, etc. That would not effect the legality anyway. Some countries actually split legal and religious marriage. No reason for the priest to be an agent of the state at all. In Kansas all a man and woman of legal age otherwise unencumbered have to do is agree to be married and support one another financially and they are married–no license, no clergy, no witnesses, no length of time for co-habitation. Is that a marriage? Not by Church standards. Yet some (I emphazise some) jurisdictions recognize the marriage on the same par as a marriage in the Church. I don’t believe the GOA is one of the jurisdictions who does recognize civil marriages–could be wrong. I have a lot of sympathy for the stance that only the marriages preformed in the Church are marriages (maybe some other Chrisitan ones, but not all). Civil marriages are, legally, nothing more that property contracts.

      So far we’ve maintained the man-woman distinction.

      But, I really don’t have a problem with Bp Gerasimos’ statement. No marriage contracted without God is a marriage is it?

      1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

        Just a point of historical clarification: right wing tyrants kill a lot less people than left wing tyrants. Generally speaking, you are pretty safe in a dictatorship if you keep your mouth shut. Left wing tyranny uniformly slides into totalitarianism where all restraints against killing are removed.

        See: Dictatorships and Double Standards by Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, an oldie but goodie that still makes the point quite well.

        1. Michael Bauman

          I guess that’s so if one considers ‘right wing’ those tryannies that glorify the individual dictator and ‘left-wing’ as those that glorify the state and leave it in the observable political realm. To me the demonic idolatry in both end in the same place. In the US the statism of the right is quite similar to the statism of the left even if those on the right call themselves conservative.

          1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

            I am making a historical point, not an ideological one. People fare better under right-wing tyrants than they do left-wing tyrants. And no, they don’t end up in the same place. Right wing dictatorships can actually move towards a kind of tenuous liberalism (in the classical sense of the term). Left-wing dictatorships can’t.

        2. Michael Bauman

          Also Fr. Hans, I think your statement could easily collapse in circularity and become a self-fulling prophecy. What is the Islamic theocracy; Rome; Japan during WWII . All were/are fascist in a certain sense or at least comfortable with fascism. Is Fascism left wing or right wing?

          Or do the explosion of deaths automatically make them left wing?

          1. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

            But it doesn’t “collapse into circularity.” Again, I am making a historical point, not an ideological one. Islamic theocracy, as least the jihadist variety, is totalitarian, thus left-wing. Iran is a case in point. Japan is a bit different but in general terms could be seen in parallel to the rise of Nazism and Communism (Paul Johnson has a masterful chapter on Japan in “Modern Times Revised Edition: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties“). Fascism is left wing although the left wing likes to apply the term to the right. For example, Franco was actually a dictator of the right, the forces trying to overthrow him were actually the fascists. Rome was an empire in internal collapse. The categories don’t really apply since it was actually a kind of pagan theocracy. Peter J. Leithart has a brilliant chapter examining this in his latest book “Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom.”

          2. Scott Pennington

            Michael,

            There is a distinction to be made between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes (and a further distinction to be made regarding true theocracies, but there’s no reason to get into that here).

            Tsarist Russia, being an authoritarian society where the Church did not directly rule (a theocracy), nor was the state the end all be all of society (totalitarian), killed far, far less people than did the Bolsheviks. During Nicholas II’s reign, only a few thousand people were executed, and most of those as a result of an attempted revolution in 1905. Moreover, under Tsarism, there was considerable artistic freedom even to critique the government, although direct challenges or calls for insurrection were suppressed. For countries where the state is elevated to the status of a god (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), the body counts are dramatically higher, measured in the millions, with purges of anyone who suggests a critique, artistic or otherwise, of the omniscient, omnipotent state.

            Now, if you believe the dominant culture and consider Nazism a right wing movement, then the right/left dichotomy doesn’t tell you much. However, Nazism really was an attempt at a type of socialism in one country (or one ethnic empire). It wasn’t really right wing. Hitler created an extensive welfare state and coopted or subjugated business, agriculture and labor under the thumb of the state. It was a strange kind of hybrid, but he relied more on socialist ideology than anything else. Recall in Triumph of the Will how much pride he takes in the labor corps (eventually, he wanted to make service in the labor corps a right of passage for all young people) and how he tells the assembly of young Hitler Youth that their society will be a classless, casteless one.

            And it was totalitarian, the state was the object of worship (hence their trinity “one people, one empire, one leader”). This was not true of the Byzantine Empire or the Russian Empire. At times they existed in states of emergency, but there never was the will to create a true police state or totalitarian regime.

            The problem with not making a distiction between the two, besides being historically inaccurate, is that, frankly, you will find much support for authoritarian government in the history of the Church. In fact, it’s just assumed to be the norm.

  7. Andrew

    Are the moral truths we hold as Orthodox Christians applicable only to those inside the Church who profess to be Orthodox or do the moral truths we hold speak to a more universal revelation and law that is an essential part of human personhood? For example, when we say sex outside of marriage is not healthy…… is this a universal moral claim or a unique moral rule that is to only be applied to Orthodox Christians? Is it a rule for humanity or a rule of the tribe?

    The question of natural law is indeed an important one for Orthodox Christians. How Orthodox Christians answer this question does much to shape how we view and interact with the world.

    I believe that natural law is an inherent part of Orthodox Christianity and to ignore natural law leads to all types of confusion such as the GOA signing up with CCCI.

    1. Michael Bauman

      Andrew I think you are making a dangerous and false dicotomy. The question is whether there is any order at all outside the Church other than worhiping the created thing; if there is any life other than in communion with Christ and Him crucified?

      To me the concept of ‘natural law’ expands that dicotomy almost to the point of making our salvation simply a legalistic transaction, i.e. a particular way of behaving rather than an effort of communion that proclaims God with us at every opportunity. It is all to easily a reversion to the Law rather than accepting the freedom and responsibility of inherent in the Incarnation and the Holy Mysteries.

  8. Fr Hans,

    Thank you for the kind response (#6.1). The term “Progressive” is preferable to “left wing” for the same reason I would prefer “Conservative” to “right wing”; in both cases, the term is a self-designation. At the same time, I’m not sure how the use of any of these characterizations would advance the argument that the pro-GLBT “bill that is winding through the California State Legislature” is not for the common good. And this leads to a second question, while the Church would reject on moral grounds GLBT sexual behavior, does the Church HAVE a position on civil legislation to support (and lets be clear, to encourage) the acceptance of such behavior?

    Looking to what the Orthodox bishops of California have publicly stated their opposition to gay marriage I think the answer is “Yes,” we would as a Church reject the proposed legislation. We would basis this on both Holy Tradition and the natural law theory (see Andrew’s comments at #7) that serves as the basis of the American Experiment.

    In their support of Proposition 8 (A Constitutional Amendment to Restore the Definition of Marriage) the Orthodox Christian Bishops of California didn’t simply based their opposition on the “faith and tradition” of the Church “that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, given by God to one another for mutual support, encouragement, love and the ability to bear children.” The also, wisely I think, appealed to what they describe as “the enduring principles upon which this great country was founded.” They argued explicitly, as with other (unspecified) “basic institutions” marriage laws reflect a sensitivity to the needs and desires of individuals. As they bishop state the matter, marriage is “shaped by the unfathomable forces of love and nature.” At the same time, individual desire does not, and cannot, have the last word about the nature of marriage. Civil law on marriage must also be obedient to human experience and nature. Thus in seeking to redefine marriage the State is not simply deviating from the Christian tradition but “the experience of all recorded human history.” Such a shift represents a departure from a political philosophy “rightly derive from what the Founders of our country knew as the ‘natural law’ of ‘nature and nature’s God.’”

    Back to your original post, if we take “Progressive” to mean a political philosophy that rejects (explicitly or implicitly) natural law, then yes, I think your use of the word is warranted. At the same time, I have more than a little sympathy with Michael’s observation (#6.2) there is “little from the so-called conservatives that attempts to conserve anything meaningful.” We are at the point culturally where procreation has been made secondary (if it isn’t seen as a disease to be treated) and where cohabitation before marriage, as well as divorce and re-marriage are acceptable as normal even within the Church.

    While we should oppose legislation like that mentioned in your post, looking at our behavior I think we need to qualify carefully what we mean when we call the Orthodox Church country conservative or traditional. At least on issues of human sexuality and marriage since we seem to have adopted the larger culture’s views on these matters. As with the Catholic Church, mainline Protestantism and even Evangelical Christianity, what many here might identify as the Progressive or liberal moral agenda is very much the agenda for a significant percentage of American Orthodox Christians.

    Finally, and this speaks to my hesitancy over the term like left (or right!) wing, liberal, conservative or Progressive. What I think is really lacking in American Orthodoxy (and I suspect this is true more broadly than just the Church in America or just the Orthodox Church) is a whimsical defense of the Gospel and the moral teachings of the Church. Like it or not, our culture values what Peter Kreeft calls the soft virtues of tolerance and compassion more than the hard virtues of fidelity and obedience. This preference isn’t wrong and each preference has its own strengths and weaknesses. We need I think to take seriously this difference. The best example I have of this more whimsical approach is G.K. Chesterton (sorry, never liked C. S. Lewis) how said “The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.”

    In Christ,

    +FrG

    1. Michael Bauman

      There is a big difference between a traditional approach and a ‘conservative’ approach. A traditional approach is one that values and transmits spiritual, religious and cultural norms based on the spiritual and religious norms. The transmission is from one generation to the next and connects us to each other across time. The Church uses several means to transmit: 1. The Holy Mysteries (and by extension the understanding of humanity contained therein); 2. the Holy Scriptures (properly interpreted); 3. the lives of the saints; 4. family life. In order for the transmtion to occur there must be liturgical discipline bases on the moral and canonical teaching of the Church; preaching of the Gospel that is in accord with the tradition of the Church; an effort to publish and read the lives of the saints; families centered on prayer, worship, almsgiving, Scripture reading (not study), and reading of the lives of the saints rather than career, consumption and leisure.

      Natural Law as the term is frequently used carries with it a interpretation that is more RC than Orthodox IMO and it is not a term or concept to be used without great care because it often promotes a deist approach to God and man. There is nothing in natural law that leads to the Cross or the Resurrection or the uncreated light is there?

      Nevertheless we need to be quite pro-active in articulating the vision (witness) of marriage contained in our mysteries which includes an understanding of male and female that our society has largely forgotten. The destructive forces of nihilism contained in the so-called ‘progressive’ approach seek to annihilate the true understanding of human beings and our distinctive and complimentary genders. Men have been neutered and women both prostituted and made masculine.

      I do not think that we should expect any legislative efforts or public policy will reflect the teachings of the Church until we have done our job of evangelization. We are way behind the curve and have lost thousands if not millions of souls to the darkness of the culture. I’m concerned that we have taken on the attitude of the devil in Paradise Lost: It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

  9. George Michalopulos

    Well, I’m just stunned. I believe that we are the point where no sincere Christian can send their children to public schools, at least in California. There are three options: moving, religious schooling, or homeschooling.

    1. Michael Bauman

      George, really? You are just now reaching that conclusion? Where have you been bro? My wife and I homeschooled my son (now 23) all the way through because of the reality you express. That has left him somewhat out of phase with his peers.

      The philosophy of public education from its inception under Horace Mann and others in the 19th century has always been about destroying Chrisitanity and the influence of the family while conforming the children to the needs of the state. Hasn’t changed, just become more aggressive and successful.

      Do a internet serach on Horace Mann if you really want some info. Its scary.

      When we began homeschooling there was opposition to it at the archdiocesan level of my jurisdiction. So much so that I got a call on a Saturday morning from the archdiocesan director of eduction to exoriate my wife and me for even attempting to educate our own son because there was no way we were competent to do so particularly in matters of the faith. Only professionally trained people could or should impart that type of information.

      I feel for the good teachers who really want to give children the tools of thought and learning–they fight a loosing battle everyday. It eats away at them. They too are pressured to conform to the will of the state in all things. Some do it with gusto, others do not but the pressure is always there.

      There is a Classical Orthodox curriculuum out there. My parish is attempting to get enough interest and resources collected to start a Classical Orthodox School (Classical education follows the ancient Greek approach of the Trivium) that trained the Cappadocian Fathers and many other saints and leaders of that time.

      It does so without the unneccesary baggage of ethnocentric indoctrination.

      One of the big problems that has to be overcome is that so many parents have bought into the false notion that unless their kids get into the ‘right’ schools, they will never have success in life. Sad.

  10. Michael Bauman

    The use of the left/right dichotomy is confusing as it is principally a disticntion of the current political ideology and breaks down rather quickly. Totalitarian makes a lot more sense. I understand the distinction Fr. Hans was making much better.

  11. Friends, such big arguments; such passion and opinion. Such theory. Such politics. Can we simply stop and reflect: these are lives. Does not one of you extend to God the knowledge of His embrace, above all of these men and women in His world? Read this discussion. Berate as you will; love wins out. Where is your kindness? Your heart? Don’t fill the world with yet one more single act that He would not condone.

    1. Michael Bauman

      Is this a polite way of saying we should all just stay quite on such subjects? I confess I don’t get your point.

    2. Scott Pennington

      So, Philip,

      Enlighten us as to precisely which acts He would not condone and to the true meaning of love and its implications in action. You may want to use St. Athanasius as an example.

      “Does not one of you extend to God the knowledge of His embrace, above all of these men and women in His world?”

      Does that string of verbal flowers actually mean anything? I mean, no one likes being condescended to.

      “There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
      Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
      Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
      It’s easy.”

      – All You Need Is Love – the Beatles

  12. Rob Zechman

    OC writes: “My testimony against this bill is attached to this email. Dr. Miriam Grossman, a child psychiatrist for over 20 years, presented well-researched evidence that introducing elementary & junior high school students to homosexuality will cause gender confusion and misidentification as a homosexual because they are still in the stage of gender and identity formation.”

    What then do you make of the studies that suggest that even children of openly gay parents by-and-large are no more likely to define themselves as gay than children of heterosexual parents? According to a FOX News report – which must be true 😉 – children of gay parents, although more likely to experiment in their youth – are not any more likely to identify themselves as gay in adulthood.

    Interesting side note:

    [T]he sons of lesbians exhibit “an opposite pattern” and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

    1. Michael Bauman

      Unless I know the biases of those making the study, the parameters under which they studies were undertaken, I don’t make much of them. Psychological/sociological studies are notorious for mirroring the outcome desired by those who designed the study. That goes for Dr. Grossman’s as well.

      I rely on the consistent witness of the Church, the Nation of Israel, etc, that same gender attractions and homosexual behaviour is disordered, sinful and harmful to those who participate in it and the society of which they are a part. No matter how one parses the ‘studies’ or the politically correct garbage of the moment, the teaching of the Church remains. In Christ, we can all become fully human regarless of our particular disorder or sin–no matter how deep, how disfiguring or intractable it may seem, but only in Christ and by His grace. The more we recognize our own sins and the more deeply we repent: the more human we become; the stonger and more able we become; the more joyous we become; the more free we become.

      Christianity is not a way to live with oneself and to paper over one’s misery and dysfunction. It is a way to overcome, through the Cross.

      Why people so hate themselves and one another that we turn aside from that freedom, joy, strength and full humanity to wallow in the beastiality of our passions is beyond me. I guess we’d rather rule in hell than serve in the Kingdom.

      1. Eliot Ryan

        Why people so hate themselves and one another that we turn aside from that freedom, joy, strength and full humanity to wallow in the beastiality of our passions is beyond me.

        It is not that they hate themselves and one another … I believe that most often it is just darkness, which represents ignorance, error, falsehood and sin. There are not enough people to show the way, beacons of light to warn, guide, and inspire people on their journey to God.

  13. Rob Zechman

    “I rely on the consistent witness of the Church, the Nation of Israel, etc, that same gender attractions and homosexual behaviour is disordered, sinful and harmful”

    I find your response similar to the issue of how some respond to the debate over young Earth creationism. Belief often precludes us from accepting evidence to the contrary.

    While we may retain our belief that homosexual conduct is sinful in the eyes of God (as is divorce and remarriage, fornication, adultery, masturbation and all other forms of sexual conduct outside the bonds of holy matrimony), we are going to appear out of touch with reality if we are unable to provide some form of anecdotal evidence from an unbiased, peer-reviewed study that gay marriage and adoption or exposure to gays will lead to more crime, poverty and a lack of intellectual and personal achievement.

    1. Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell

      Well, Rob, here’s a much more recent study that contradicts the study you mentioned above. This one suggests that the children of gay couples are indeed more likely to end up gay. And why wouldn’t they?

      While I’m at it, here’s another study showing that people can shift from a homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation with the help of therapy. The study was conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, eminent member of the mainstream psychiatric community, recently retired professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, chairman of the task force of the third edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, “one of the most influential psychiatrists of the 20th century” according to The New Yorker, and the man who “spearheaded the APA’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders” according to The Washington Post. Spitzer told the Post that his research “shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that.”

      1. Rob Zechman

        Your first quote references Paul Cameron’s studies, it seems. In case you were not aware, Paul Cameron was dismissed from the APA and was censured by the American Sociological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association and Canadian Psychological Association for unethical behavior. Even many on the far right want nothing to do with him.

        In regards to NARTH, well, one of their founders and major contributors had made claims of the efficacy of “ex-gay therapy” for years, but that was before he was discovered on a European vacation with a male escort he met off a seedy internet site and who provided him erotic massages on their trip. I hope you understand if I find the organization’s claims of their ability to eradicate homosexual orientation to be a bit suspect.

        1. Rob, I’ve heard these lines before. Gay men memorize them to repeat whenever somebody mentions Cameron or NARTH, so they don’t have to deal with anything of substance. You are doing that now instead of addressing the two studies I mentioned, which were NOT done by Cameron or NARTH. Can’t you do better? You are not even factually correct about Cameron or NARTH. Cameron was expelled not for unethical behavior but for refusal to cooperate with a witch hunt, and the man who took the European vacation was not a founder of or major contributor to NARTH.

          1. Rob Zechman

            I stand corrected. Dr. Rekers was, according to Wikipedia, on the founding board of the Family Research Council, not NARTH.

            Here’s the thing: one’s actions are always (with varying degrees of “ease”) choices. One’s interior disposition is not.

            Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a respected Christian counselor who has rejected the re-orientation route, instead choosing to assist his patients live according to their faith and values. He produced a film entitled “I Do Exist” which detailed the lives of some who came to him for assistance. Dr Throckmorton has, however, acknowledged that one of those individuals who originally professed to being an “ex-gay” has since recanted their testimony and now lives as an openly gay Christian.

            My concern is that I am aware of numerous well-intentioned and sincere individuals who, when “re-orientation” failed, became despondent and despairing, some of whom attempted suicide. The evidence seems to suggest that reparative therapy is often destructive. Given the fact that one of its most vocal supporters was found engaging in behavior that no heterosexual male would engage in, I am quite leery of any claims about its success.

            I find Dr Warren’s approach to be both psychologically sound and inline with Christian ethics.

          2. Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell

            Rob, you are still not dealing with the study showing that gay couples often produce gay children or Dr. Spitzer’s research showing that many people can escape same-sex attraction (SSA) through therapy. You are just going on a few cases (mostly anecdotal) of unsuccessful therapy and repeating another line that gay activists memorize to dismiss many documented cases of successful therapy. The line is that therapy causes depression and suicide and therefore does more harm than good, but where is the statistical proof of this? What’s the suicide rate for people who have undergone reparative therapy versus the suicide rate for gays who have not? How do you know that the suicide rate for the former is not lower than for the latter?

            You may be well intentioned, but many well-intentioned people have been bowled over by gay propaganda disguised as academic research, aimed at convincing people that SSA is natural and normal. The wickedness of that propaganda is easier to see when you consider the effect of the born-gay and therapy-causes-suicide assumptions on young people who are a little confused about their sexual identity but who have not yet become sexually active. Your view condemns them to a life of misery on the assumption that that’s just the way they are and there’s nothing they can safely do about it. The truth is otherwise. People aren’t born gay, healing can happen, and the Christian thing to do is help them heal.

          3. Rob Zechman

            Dn Mitchell: I am basing my opinions on the words of Dr Spitzer himself who is referenced in your link. “[Dr Spitzer] strongly emphasized the fact that he did not think most gay people could become heterosexual and that change was extremely rare.”

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo&feature=player_embedded

          4. Rob, you are still not dealing with the facts or the logic. You haven’t produced anything to show that therapy does more harm than good, you haven’t produced anything to show that gay parenting doesn’t produce more gays, and you haven’t addressed the issue of what to tell the young. You are only throwing up chaff to hide the truth. All Spitzer says in this video is that change is “quite rare.” Well of course it’s rare — because people like you are telling everybody it’s not even possible. Any honest viewer can see that Spitzer is backpedaling under pressure from the gay lobby. I doubt now that you are an honest viewer.

            He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

          5. Fr. Johannes Jacobse

            Rob won’t point to studies because there aren’t any. The effort to normalize homosexual behavior consists primarily of what he displays: dismissing objections as uninformed, branding critics as flat-earthers, shading the words of people like Dr. Throckmorton to imply that homosexual behavior ought to be culturally normative and so forth.

            But there is another dimension to this question as well, one that has plenty of statistical background. The health risks associated with homosexual behavior are nothing short of catastrophic. See:

            Study: HIV-positive Practicing Homosexual Men 9000% More Likely to Develop Anal Cancer

            Male Homosexual Sex Fuelling Spread of HIV in Asia, Warns World Health Organization

            California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease”

            The Health Risks of Gay Sex (.pdf here)

            ZENIT – Medical Downside of Homosexual Behavior

            Rob might argue the gay lobby position, that promiscuity among heterosexuals has led to increased health risks as well, and he would be right. But homosexual activity is uniformly unhealthy due to the nature of homosexual acts. No amount of arguing against those who don’t see homosexual behavior as normal can change this fact.

            Here’s the next disease appearing because of promiscuity which will hit both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, but will affect homosexuals disproportionally since they engage more partners more often:

            Revealed: Oral sex is ‘bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco’

          6. Rob Zechman

            Anything’s “possible”. My objection is to the notion that reparative therapy is generally successful (or even always psychologically sound) and that a Christian should despair over their salvation if they remain same-sex oriented.

            In 2005, Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH stated that :

            One third experience “significant improvement — they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.

            Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

            The other third fail to change.

            Dr Nicolosi has a very liberal definition of “cured”, in my estimation. Keep in mind that these are often the most motivated persons and are people who are willing and seeking to change. As such, I just cannot see a Christian pastor or counselor encouraging someone into this potentially expensive and useless therapy.

          7. Apropos Fr. Hans point– The musical ‘rent’ is all about amazing singing trying to cover over the short, difficult and often unhappy lives those choices and pressures led to.

  14. Michael Bauman

    There is no such thing as ‘unbiased’ studies. They are an ontological impossibility. Even carefully designed double-blind research studies have satistically significant bias in them.

    However, even if there were they have nothing to do with a person’s salvation or communion with God.

    The most such studies can show is the ability of human beings to adapt outward behavior to social norms whether or not the social norms are consistent with God’s will or not. I guess it depends on what ‘reality’ one prefers, what assumptions one prefers to operate from and what ontological vision one has. I prefer the vision that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, not the image and likeness of some vacant, truncated and distorted vision created by social scientists.

  15. Cresalynn I.

    The California state assembly has said yes to bill SB48, according to the Associated Press. Lawmakers in Sacramento voted 49-25 in support of the bill which would make California public institutions the first in the country to weave lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender achievements into history curriculum. It is not clear right now whether Gov. Jerry Brown will say yes to SB48, or whether he will say no to the bill as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did with a similar bill in 2006. Here is the proof: California gay history bill passes state assembly

Leave a Reply to George Michalopulos Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Notice: ob_end_flush(): Failed to send buffer of zlib output compression (0) in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5481