It’s ok if you destroy those around you! It’s all about you!
I was recently reading about this Ray Boltz character. He’s a former long-time christian music singer-songwriter that came out as being gay. As I was doing so, I also recalled the story of Gene Robinson, the first gay epsicopal church bishop as well as Jim McGreevey, the democratic Governor of New Jersey.
What do all these men have in common?
They destroyed their marriages, shattered the lives of the children, and severly upset the lives of those who associated with them – to give into the draw of same-sex attraction disorder.
Before you people out there go nuts and tell me that homosexuality is normal, and that even psycholigists call it normal, I’ll point out that the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the psychologists and psychiatrists handbook), from where you will qoute, also says that it’s ok for adults to have sex with young teens – as long as the teen is ok with it. Also, the removal of homosexuality as a mental disease (of which it meets the criteria) was removed by – a homosexual president of the American Psychological Association. So please, save it.
Getting back to the point, all these men destroyed their marriages (and therefore, the lives of their wives) to give into same-sex attraction. Not only that, but almost all had kids, and all had prominent public lives.
- Ray Boltz was married for 30 years to the same woman. He professed a Christian faith. He had millions of christian music fans that looked up to him, inspired by his music. Flushed it down the toilet.
- Gene Robinson was married for over 30 years, and had 2 kids. His nomination to bishop in the Episcopal church almost caused a world-wide schism (splitting apart of the church because of differences in doctrine), and still may. Yet, he did not – will not – step down. He’d rather see his own church split in two, and have untold millions in anguish over it, rather than simply step down. It’s all about him, all about “homosexuality”. Nice.
- Jim McGreevey was the governor of New Jersey for just two years (2002-2004) when he resigned after being caught having had a sexual affair with a man. He had two daughters and a second wife, Dina Matos, who divorced him in 2008. I can still see that poor woman standing by his side, completely and utterly humiliated, when he made the “I am gay, and I had a male lover” speech at a press conference. Can you imagine? How must she have felt? Do the gay militants give a damn? Of course not. It’s about McGreevey “coming out” and joining them. Disgusting.
Reading over the pro-gay, isn’t-it-great-he-joined-our-sad-ranks blogs, they make NO MENTION of these tremendous upheavals and heartaches that people around these men suffered. No wonder; the mental illness that is same-sex attraction is inherently narcissistic.
And before you pro-gay libs go off on me, let me say also that men that leave their wives and families for a bigger set of boobs, a smaller waist, or a less wrinkly face are just as narcissitic. Guys like my own disgraced former governor, Eliot Spitzer.
Well then we need to make it alright for gays to be who they are. Then they don’t have to maintain a secret life complete with a wife and children.
In all the posts about Ray Boltz in the past week or so, I have felt very little need to comment. That said, as one of his kids, I’ve got to speak up on this one. He didn’t damage us or shatter our lives. On the contrary, we are all quite happy, healthy people, and we have a very close family.
So that element of your point is kind of moot.
So, let me get this straight; your father left your mother, probably for another man, and you’re ok with that?
Well, Pashley, I have no intention of correcting your version of the story which is, to say the least, wrong.
But I’m definitely able to say that yes, I am okay with the decisions made by my parents over the last four years — and in the years before that, in fact.
So, is he a supposedly gay man staying married to a heterosexual woman, or is he leaving her, not able to live “the lie”?
I fail to see how anyone could be happy in either case, but call me crazy.
I don’t know what “supposedly gay man” is.
You can read his own words: http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/9-12/arts/feature/13258.cfm
If you look for excuses to hate gays, you will always find them, whether they have families or not. What, you would have preferred that they continue to live in the closet and keep their families “together” for the sake of your personal comfort, and thus continue to lie to everyone around them? So much for YOUR integrity!
“Also, the removal of homosexuality as a mental disease (of which it meets the criteria) was removed by – a homosexual president of the American Psychological Association. So please, save it.”
If you are not lying, please back that up with evidence.
“If you look for excuses to hate gays, you will always find them, whether they have families or not. What, you would have preferred that they continue to live in the closet and keep their families “together” for the sake of your personal comfort, and thus continue to lie to everyone around them?”
It’s not me I’m concerned about – it’s the trail of destruction they leave behind when they fall into this mess. “Families”? Why the quotes? Don’t the wives and kids, count?!
The removal from the DSM of homosexuality as a mental disorder was made by a pro-homosexual psychiatrist (my mistake), and you can see more here:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
What destruction? The ending of a marriage that was made under false pretenses? That SHOULD be destroyed! Lying is unacceptable to me, period. I thought you Conservatives believed in absolute moral values. Oh, you say you do, but only when it suits you.
And since you condone lying when it holds families together, what am I to think of that story put out by the Traditional Values Coalition of how homosexuality was deemed no longer a mental illness by the APA?
Are you claiming to be an expert on mental disorders too?
So, are you saying gay people should continue to suppress and deny their true selves, just to avoid the possibility of upsetting the people around them? That’s like never asking a friend to help you move, because it might conflict with previous plans.
Hopefully the friends and family who learn one of their loved ones is gay will be mature enough to realize that the person coming out needs their support. And hopefully you will grow up a bit if anyone ever decides to confide in you about their homosexuality.
“What destruction? The ending of a marriage that was made under false pretenses? That SHOULD be destroyed! Lying is unacceptable to me, period. I thought you Conservatives believed in absolute moral values. Oh, you say you do, but only when it suits you.”
You’re assuming that the guy was gay all along; that’s your mistake. How about this guy developed some psychopathology that caused him to be compelled to have sex with men? Has that ever occurred to you? That DOES happen.
“And since you condone lying when it holds families together, what am I to think of that story put out by the Traditional Values Coalition of how homosexuality was deemed no longer a mental illness by the APA?
Are you claiming to be an expert on mental disorders too?”
I’m not an expert in pathology, but I think I have a good basis to talk from, with a Masters degree in Clinical psychology.
And yes, I think the TVC article has merit. It’s reasonable to believe that when the board decided to de-list homosexuality as a disorder, that some people would strongly object. It’s also reasonable to believe that militant homosexuals had there hand in it, and that the board was pressured. Yes, I can find that credible.
“So, are you saying gay people should continue to suppress and deny their true selves, just to avoid the possibility of upsetting the people around them? That’s like never asking a friend to help you move, because it might conflict with previous plans.”
How do you know that homosexuality, which goes against nature and cultural norms is “normal”? Is missing an arm normal too? Did you ever consider that possibly the normal state of man is heterosexuality, and that homosexuality is a function of some psychopathology?
“Hopefully the friends and family who learn one of their loved ones is gay will be mature enough to realize that the person coming out needs their support. And hopefully you will grow up a bit if anyone ever decides to confide in you about their homosexuality.'”
To me that’s like saying, “The person has finally given in to their alcoholic desires; let’s support that and tell them it’s their nature to drink.”
You describe homosexual attraction as a disorder. I presume you’re aware that the American Association of Psychiatrists struck homosexuality from its diagnostic manual some 35 years ago.
Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m also aware that it was done with much dissent. Also, the DSM says that pedophilia (adult sex with a minor) is ok, so long as the child is not distressed by it.
Still find integrity in the DSM?
I wonder why Tony didn’t answer you? Hmmm…
“You’re assuming that the guy was gay all along; that’s your mistake. How about this guy developed some psychopathology that caused him to be compelled to have sex with men? Has that ever occurred to you? That DOES happen.”
Why would you think that? Because that’s what anti-gay bigots told you? Some men and women are bisexual enjoying sex with members of either sex. And the very words you use do not reflect objective reality, but your prejudice, the same prejudice that kept homosexuals in the closet throughout history and even caused some of them to bow to family pressure and marry and have children even though their hearts weren’t in it. Some religious homosexuals mistakenly thought their faith could overcome their sexual urges and were proven wrong by their life experience. But of course, I don’t expect you to admit that on your own blog. You’d rather believe what you wrote above, ridiculous though it is.
“I’m not an expert in pathology, but I think I have a good basis to talk from, with a Masters degree in Clinical psychology.”
It appears you didn’t make much use of it, according to your own testimony:
“I’m a stay-at-home dad of two kids, a boy 13, and a girl, 7. I’m 45 and married. I make money on the side woodworking.”
Why should I believe anything you say?
“Why would you think that? Because that’s what anti-gay bigots told you? Some men and women are bisexual enjoying sex with members of either sex.”
No, that’s actually something I know thru clinical psychology. I understand about bisexuality – but why the need then to leave the life they left behind – a heterosexual marriage – to pursue homosexuality? If you are into both, why not stay married, and have a gay lover – if you really need one? Instead, all indications are these individuals are suddenly declaring themselves homosexual, and leaving all behind – doesn’t make sense, bisexually (or heterosexually).
“It appears you didn’t make much use of it, according to your own testimony:
“I’m a stay-at-home dad of two kids, a boy 13, and a girl, 7. I’m 45 and married. I make money on the side woodworking.”
Why should I believe anything you say?”
Well, how about I am staying home right now because my wife works, and it makes more sense for me to stay home, at least right now?
Hi again, pashley1916
pastorron7, please be more patient. It’s quite normal for blog posts to go unanswered for days.
Yes, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was ratified by a 58% vote so there was substantial opposition.
I don’t know why you mention pedophilia, but you’re incorrect about what DSM-IV (the current version) says. Educate yourself by clicking here.
I surmise that instead of the DSM, which is compiled by experts, you rely on an old book which was compiled by priests and hasn’t been updated in centuries. The instructions of the book, moreover, are applied in an extremely selective manner by nearly all adherents, as anyone reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy will readily see.
“Yes, the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was ratified by a 58% vote so there was substantial opposition.
I don’t know why you mention pedophilia, but you’re incorrect about what DSM-IV (the current version) says. Educate yourself by clicking here.”
Yes, there was substantial opposition, but you never hear about that.
That site you cited is not the DSM, nor does it cite from the DSM, from what I saw.
“I surmise that instead of the DSM, which is compiled by experts, you rely on an old book which was compiled by priests and hasn’t been updated in centuries. The instructions of the book, moreover, are applied in an extremely selective manner by nearly all adherents, as anyone reading Leviticus or Deuteronomy will readily see.”
I haven’t heard of this book, and no, I wasn’t referencing it.
And yes, homosexuality is unequivocally condemned in the Bible – not that you, or pro-gay people care.
And before you pop the statement: “If homosexuality was so bad, how come Jesus never mentioned it?” question, he never mentioned pedophilia or incest either; think he’d approve of those?
Don’t put words into my mouth.
You don’t seem to have responded to observation that most, if not all, of those who proclaim the authority of the bible apply the rules of Deuteronomy and Leviticus very selectively.
I think it’s safe to say that you do not live by the bible, but you condemn others for breaking rules in the same bible.
In short, you cling to a discredited, disreputable habit of thought that has been rejected by your own country’s society and laws. Your way of life, if you were honest about is, inconsistent with the book you use as authority for your unacceptable attacks on others.
“In short, you cling to a discredited, disreputable habit of thought that has been rejected by your own country’s society and laws.”
Yeah, right Tony.
Here’s the deal with Christians…I think I need to tell you, since you obviously aren’t one. I am.
We’re not perfect. We know we are flawed. That’s why we came to Christ for redemption. He’s our lifeboat, so to speak.
Accepting Christ doesn’t make you instantly perfect. We know we’ll screw up and sin again. We need to try to not succumb to temptation. But we’re human, and sometimes we do fall.
The difference between you and us is, we realize we are sinful, and realize that we need to stay away from sinning.
Atheists, on the other hand, don’t even realize they are sinning – nor do they care. They don’t realize that being against what God is, leads to eternal separation from Him.
But I suppose you don’t believe in God anyway, so I guess I just wasted my time.
I’m a former Christian. I know the steps but I no longer dance to the beat.
You say you recognize that you’re a sinner. Well that’s fine, but if so why don’t you spend your time on earth praying for forgiveness instead of railing against other sinners? How are you to know that God rates their sins as more serious than your own? Remember Matthew 7:1. If you would keep the Lord’s laws, review the dietary restrictions in Leviticus 11 for a start. You cannot please the Lord if you are unclean. Remember also that cleanliness before the Lord means more than just diet. Clean your mind, and stop obsessing over what other people do together in bed.
“but if so why don’t you spend your time on earth praying for forgiveness instead of railing against other sinners? ”
Because I’m following Jesus’ example of calling out sin where he saw it; do I need to cite?
“How are you to know that God rates their sins as more serious than your own? ”
I don’t. I don’t think God rates one sin more serious than another. It’s an absolute.
“f you would keep the Lord’s laws, review the dietary restrictions in Leviticus 11 for a start. You cannot please the Lord …”
No wonder you quite, Tony – you don’t know the Bible too well.
Leviticus was a set of health restrictions the Jews were to adhere to. I don’t think it applies today, although some of it might be good advice.
Seems like you are really hung up on Leviticus – which I never brought up. My OP doesn’t even cite religion, because I know that citing religious references will have no effect on the homosexual.
BUT, if you insist – I like what Romans had to say:
“Romans 1:26-27 ” For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was due.”
Are you homosexual Tony? Is this why you are arguing with me?
Well according to scripture, Jesus is God himself, so obviously there’s no contradiction in his attacking sinners–he isn’t one of them. You are, though.
You write: “Leviticus was a set of health restrictions the Jews were to adhere to. I don’t think it applies today, although some of it might be good advice. ”
And yet I’ve seen Christians cite Leviticus 18:22 as if it still applied. As I said, you apply the rules selectively. It sounds like you’re just using scripture to justify your prejudice against homosexuals.
You say: “I like what Romans had to say”
Paul’s letter to the Romans? Do you like his first letter to Timothy?
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NIV)
Thus according to Paul, the authority of the entire sex was to be distrusted because of Eve’s sin. A woman must keep her mouth shut and submit to men.
Or do you sometimes ignore that one? Do you let women give instructions to you? Do you reject the authority of women in your family? Who decides how to spend your family income?
You’ll be surprised to know Tony, that I’m a stay-at-home dad, and the wife earns all the money.
I don’t think Paul’s advice is bad – though my understanding is it was meant regarding the teaching of scripture. However, having said that, I think women, when children are involved, like to stay home and raise them, while the man provides the income. My wife would.
And by the way, regarding the comment “A woman must keep her mouth shut and submit to men.” What you libs conveniently forget is this is about a woman and her husband, not a woman submitting to all men all the time (as I believe is the case in Islam), AND that the man must die for the woman (if need be).
You can go on and on about me being a hypocrite with the Bible Tony, if it makes you feel better – but you can’t get around the fact that in both the new and old testaments, homosexuality is not exactly “celebrated” – which I’m sure is not what you’d like to see.
And as I said before, I don’t go around quoting the bible to try to cure homosexuals; but I do stand up to them when they want to declare themselves perfectly normal, can’t help it – can’t change, and they should be able to marry.
Paul is very clear that a woman should not have authority over a man, but you do your best to avoid the implications of that.
I was aware of your stay-at-home Dad bio, which is why I asked whether you or your wife made the decisions on how the family income is spent.
As I’ve argued above (citing relevant parts of Leviticus that you appear to ignore happily) you apply the bible selectively to suit your own political beliefs. You do not believe in male dominance so you ignore those sections of the bible that support male dominance (which have been used by some Christians to support a male-only priesthood). You do believe in suppressing homosexuality so you use the bible to support this activity. A Christian supporting same-sex unions could cite 1 Sam 16-18:
“Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.”
One doesn’t need to apply a homoerotic interpretation of the above to see that same-sex covenants meet with biblical approval.
BUt you’re so obsessed with what people of the same sex may do in bed together, in private, that you ignore that passage, too.