In this video, Brian Anthony Bowen reveals Scriptures the Church never talks about which prove that Jesus taught that LGBT people are born this way...and that prove the Apostle Paul ordained Gay Marriage...IN THE BIBLE!
This changes EVERYTHING!
More info: http://BrianBowenMinistries.com
**************************************************************
Dr. Robert Gagnon is a prolific Christian teacher and professor who has developed many arguments against gay marriage. While I respect his ability to defend his position in a non-threatening manner, and in a way that I believe would please God, I do disagree with him a number of points.
Available on Dr. Gagnon's website are some of his thoughts regarding how Homosexuality should be compared to incest, and polyamory rather than race or gender, which I’d like to address here as a two way dialogue, as if we were actually holding the conversation in person.
Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 1: The Initial Case
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 18, 2009
On Apr. 29 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the so-called "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" which places "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," "real or perceived," alongside of "race," "national origin," "gender," and "disability" as benign conditions for which society should provide special protections in federal law. Those who oppose homosexual practice are, by analogy, implicitly identified in law as discriminatory bigots, akin to racists and misogynists.
The problem is that the analogy to race and gender doesn’t work well. Race and gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life, and therefore, intrinsically benign. Homosexuality and transsexuality are none of these things. While there probably are some biological risk factors for some homosexual development and even transgenderism, science has failed to establish that homosexuality and transsexuality develop deterministically like race and gender. Even the Kinsey Institute has acknowledged that at least one shift in the Kinsey spectrum of 0 to 6 is the norm over the course of life for those who identity as homosexual (75%). Most importantly, unlike race and gender, homosexuality and transsexuality are in the first instance impulses to engage in behavior that is structurally discordant with embodied existence (as male and female). They are therefore not intrinsically benign conditions.
Brother Brian: Be that as it may, the fact remains that homosexual and transgendered people are a recognizably targeted minority for which protection under law does not even offer protection per se', but rather more severe punishments for crimes against such persons. It should be noted that we do not pass hate crimes legislation in this country to benefit a recognized cross section of American citizens, but rather to identify the criminals perpetrating violent actions against them, and do so in order to provide a deterrent from such crimes against people who are traditionally targeted. It is equally important to note that just as race, nation origin, gender, and disability are identified as those being targeted, alongside all these defining factors or protected target groups is "religious affiliation." Religious affiliation is no more a 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral conditions of life than is sexual orientation or gender identity, yet is included in the language of the Hate Crimes legislation as well, and is not new, but an originally protected class. It's interesting that Dr. Gagnon omits this fact, although not so unexpected, as it would render the remaining comparisons he makes to other protected classes moot, at least on the bases he puts forth.
It's also important to note that Hate Crimes legislation does nothing to actually protect any of these cross sections of our populace from those with intent to inflict harm, injury or death, but rather enhance penalties for perpetrators who target individuals for such purposes, all of which not only constitute a violation to a person's well being and safety, but concurrently violates the personal liberties and freedoms of such targeted victims which are also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Dr. Gagnon: I contend that a better analogy (i.e., with more points of substantive correspondence) can be made between homosexuality and transsexuality on the one hand and polysexuality (an orientation toward multiple sexual partners) and incest (here I am thinking of an adult-committed sort) on the other hand. The latter are, after all, two other sexual behaviors that are incongruent with embodied existence that, despite such incongruence, can still be conducted as committed, caring relationships between adults. Polyamory has the added similarity of being connected to a sexual orientation (polysexuality, from polu meaning "much," pl. "many," here an innate orientation to multiple concurrent sexual partners). If incest and polyamory are indeed better analogues to homosexuality and transgenderism, then it is clear that placing the latter alongside race and gender as conditions worthy of special protections and benefits becomes, well, misplaced.
Brother Brian: But that is to assume then that somehow Hate Crimes legislation should further enhance penalties against people who are involved in polysexual and incestuous relationships. However, under the hate crimes legislation heading of "sexual orientation", being a target of criminal intent based on even these relationships is already covered in the new language.
As an aside, I am not certain why Dr. Gagnon relates to "adult committed incestuous" relationships, other than to deflect from the absurdity of comparing homosexual committed relationships to those of adult incest. The fact is that most of the opponents who refer to this as a counter argument indeed do NOT have "adult" committed incestuous relationships in mind when making this comparison, but rather are attempting to compare homosexuality with pedophilia, wherein incestuous relationships most often abide. There is no widespread social issue of crimes of incest involving committed adults involved in such a relationship, but there is a widespread social issue of crimes of incest being perpetrated between one adult and one or more minor children, for which no comparison can be made to homosexual relationships comprised of two consenting adults. It is simply a fear tactic that should be disregarded and removed from any intellectual discussion on the issue of homosexuality altogether.
Further, it is important to note that incestuous relationships involving minors are NOT covered by the hate crimes enhancements, but rather continue to be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law.
Dr. Gagnon: In making these remarks, I trust that people of faith know that it is just as wrong to hate and commit violence against persons who engage in adult-consensual relationships with close kin or with multiple partners as it is to hate persons who engage in same-sex intercourse or who otherwise attempt to override their sex or gender given at birth. It is not right to hate anyone or commit violence against anyone.
Brother Brian: Agreed!
Dr. Gagnon: As regards a logical connection to polyamory, the limitation of the number of persons in a valid sexual union to two persons at any one time is predicated on the natural "twoness" of the sexes, "male and female" or "man and woman."
Brother Brian: Actually, adult polyamory is not a relationship that can become a validly recognized marriage due to the Morril Anti-Bigamy Law that was signed by President Lincoln in 1872. The issue of polygamous marriages in the United States is one that is not only settled at the national level but also was done so nearly 150 years ago. The fear mongers would have us believe that if homosexual marriages were recognized by the state that polygamous marriages would be the next logical development in the conversation, but in the sheer absence of evidence. There are no major moves to gain marriage equality for polygamous relationships at this time in the marriage debate, and no such move in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, with the precedence set out by Congress which has survived for these more than 100 years proves that comparing homosexual unions to polygamous unions is another apples to oranges comparison that should be removed from intelligent conversations regarding same gender marriages.
Dr. Gagnon: This was certainly Jesus’ view in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, where he cited "God made them male and female" (Genesis 1:27) and "For this reason a man … sticks to his woman and the two become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24) as the reasons for overthrowing concurrent and serial polygamy.
Brother Brian: Actually, Jesus was overruling Moses' no fault divorce decrees, and declaring the practice of a man trading his wife in on "a newer model" every few years was an act of adultery, and as such, a violation of the Ten Commandments. Also, it is important to note that in Matthew 19:11-12, Jesus also glaringly exempts 3 types of people (whom He refers to as eunuchs) from the male/female marriage paradigm by saying, "Not all men can accept this saying, but it is only for those to whom it is given, for there are eunuchs born from their mothers' wombs (which Dr. Gagnon recognizes would include those persons homosexually inclined), eunuchs made so by other men (which would included those persons who had been castrated (figuratively and literally), as well as eunuchs who chose to be eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven who remain unmarried and celibate. To ignore aspect of Jesus' teaching on the matter is to miss a wider message regarding inclusivity of the Church, as prophesied by God would become the case for eunuchs in Isaiah 56:1-8, effectively overruling Moses' ban on eunuchs from entering the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy 23:1.
Dr. Gagnon: (Note that the Jewish community at Qumran made a similar point about how "male and female" in Genesis 1:27 implicitly ruled out polygamy.)
Brother Brian: AGREED! Not only that, but Jesus, nor Paul ever endorsed any marriage relationship that comprised of more than two people.
Dr. Gagnon: Polyamorous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate the natural pair constituted by the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, even when they are conducted in the context of consensual, adult-committed relationships.
Brother Brian: Actually that is not entirely accurate. While polyamorous relationships indeed violate the natural pair, it is not necessary to further define a "pair" as the existence of two primary, complementary sexes, but rather, simply two primary, complementary people, in which case, homosexuality does NOT violate the "natural pair", in that same gender marriages continue to be defined as only two people, both by law, and marriage equality proponents alike. Nobody in the marriage equality for homosexual people debate has ever suggested that marriage equality include anything except two people, regardless of gender.
Dr. Gagnon: The very sex act itself, which accommodates only one act of penetration at a time, illustrates the essential sexual twoness of a sexual bond predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes.
Brother Brian: Irrelevant to the discussion. Whether gay or straight, the very sex act itself continues to accommodate only one act of penetration at a time, if at all. It is not however predicated on two (and only two) complementary sexes, but on basic human anatomy that prohibits the ability to accomplish mutual and simultaneous penetration at any time. If moral sexuality is based on this factor alone, then there is no concern over whether the sex act be straight or gay in nature, and therefore renders this particular observation as a non sequitor.
Dr. Gagnon: As regards a logical connection to incest, incestuous behavior and homosexual behavior alike violate a requisite principle of embodied otherness within embodied sameness, even when such sexual behaviors are conducted consensually between committed adults. Incest is sex between persons who are too much structurally or formally alike as regards kinship. The high risk of birth defects that attend incestuous births is merely the symptom of the root problem: too much identity on the level of kinship between the sexual partners. That is why society rejects incestuous sexual relationships even when it occurs between consenting adults who either cannot procreate (whether because one partner is infertile or because both partners are of the same sex) or take active birth-control precautions. The structural impossibility of births arising from homosexual intercourse is likewise not so much the problem as the symptom of the root problem: namely, too much formal or structural identity between the participants and not enough complementary otherness, here as regards sex or gender.
Brother Brian: Another non sequitor. Homosexual expressions are not negated on the basis of "too much sameness and a lack of complementary "otherness"". The only "otherness" necessary for homosexual expressions is the presence of "another" human being. The basis of being complementary is not necessary in order to justify it as moral or immoral, but rather is another non sequitor designed to promote a fallacious argument predicated on a predetermined opinion regarding what defines "complementary otherness." Whether gay or straight, the only "otherness" required for defining the participants as "complementary" is a mutual attraction, consent and presence of another adult, consenting human being
This is unlike incestuous relationships which more often than not involve minors who have not yet reached the age of consent. The reason society does not grant marriage licenses to people involved in these cases has more do with the inability for both parties to consent, aside from the illegality of the adult perpetrator in those instances. In the case of two-adult incestuous relationships, marriage is not granted because of the rarity in which this is the case. While the remote possibility exists for a person to be attracted to a member of his own family, it is rarer still to find another adult person in the same family who consents to such a relationship.
Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 2: What Disproportionately High Rates of Harm Mean
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. May 19, 2009
At the very end of Part 1 I noted that homosexual intercourse, like incest, is problematic because of the excessive embodied (formal, structural) sameness of the participants; moreover, that problems with procreation for both incest and homosexual behavior are merely symptoms of this root problem of excessive structural identity.
Brother Brian: I continue to disagree with the notion that there is insufficient "otherness" in a homosexual relationship, and that it differs so glaringly from incestuous relationships (which are by far heterosexual in nature) as to render this a moot point.
Dr. Gagnon: We need to go further; for problems with homosexual activity are not limited to a structural inability to procreate.
Brother Brian: But the inability to procreate is not necessarily a "problem" even for heterosexual couples who experience sterility or infertility. The inability to procreate does not render their relationship "invalid" solely on this basis, either Scripturally or morally, and therefore should not be a determining factor for deciding whether or not a homosexual relationship is Scripturally or morally "problematic." The only determining factor should be what is related within the pages of Scriptures. Although Dr. Gagnon presents a "secular argument" for this it is rendered even more irrelevant in light of the millions of heterosexual couples who cannot biologically reproduce, and often adopt children instead. In neither case is the sexuality of the partners a stumbling block to raising children in a solid familial structure comprise led by two adults.
Dr. Gagnon: Homosexual relationships also exhibit a disproportionately high rate of scientifically measurable harms. These measurable harms cannot be explained away as merely a product of societal "homophobia" but are instead largely attributable to the lack of true sexual compatibility (or complementary symmetry) between persons of the same sex.
Brother Brian: While I agree that homosexual people do have their own set of medical issues, I contend they are not related to the incompatibility of the partners involved, but rather in the inability for many homosexual people to opt in to a solid, monogamous marriage relationship that would provide the same financial incentives for such as is provided to heterosexual couples, which often leads to promiscuity. The thinking is often that if I can't get married, then I might as well enjoy the single life. However, it is important to note that this is not ALWAYS the case. Many homosexual people continue to enter into monogamous and faithful and long term relationships with one partner, whether the state recognizes their unions or not, just as many heterosexual people engage in extra marital sexual relations even though the state DOES recognize their unions. While this observation does not negate Dr. Gagnon's, it would render both as equally valid, or equally moot in an overall discussion, secular or otherwise, related to gay marriage.
Dr. Gagnon: If the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm manifested by homosexual relationships were attributable exclusively or even primarily to societal "homophobia," then we would expect male-homosexual relationships and female-homosexual relationships to exhibit the same high rates for the same types of measurable harm. However, this is exactly what we do not find.
Brother Brian: Agreed.
Dr. Gagnon: Homosexual males experience disproportionately high numbers of sex partners over the course of life and of sexually transmitted infections, not only in relation to heterosexual males but also in relation to homosexual females. The reason for this is not difficult to imagine. On average men have 7 to 8 times the main sex hormone, testosterone, than do women. That has an obvious impact on male sexuality, relative to female sexuality, such that bringing together two men in a sexual union is not exactly a recipe for monogamy. Incidentally, the polysexual character of male sexuality has been shown scientifically to be not only a cross-cultural phenomenon but also, to a large extent, a cross-species phenomenon.
As regards lesbian relationships, the limited studies that we have to date suggest that homosexual females experience on average disproportionately high rates of measurable harm as regards shorter-term sexual relationships and higher instances of mental health problems, relative not only to heterosexual females but even to homosexual males.
The issues around lesbian mental health are not surprising in view of the fact that on average women have, relative to men, higher rates of mental health issues and higher expectations of sexual relationships for meeting needs of self-esteem and intimacy. Simply put, failed sexual relationships place greater stress on women’s mental health than on men’s. I trust that most people recognize that women on average have much higher intimacy expectations for sexual relationships than do men. This is why, almost invariably, in a marriage between a man and a woman it is the wife who complains that her spouse doesn’t share his innermost feelings often enough. "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus," as one marital counselor has famously put it.
The matter of shorter-term unions on average at first seems counterintuitive since women generally do better in being monogamous than do men (this is true also of lesbian women in relation to homosexual men). However, the fact that women have higher expectations for sexual relationships as regards meeting personal needs for security, affirmation, and intimacy places greater stresses on such relationships. When two women are put together in a sexual union, each making great demands of the other, stress is heightened and the likelihood of relational failure increases.
In short, the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm attending homosexual relationships strike homosexual males and homosexual females differently and do so in ways that correspond to basic sexual differences between men and women. When two persons of the same sex are brought together in a sexual union, the extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps in a given sex are not filled. On the level of anatomy, physiology, and psychology a man’s appropriate sexual complement is a woman and a woman’s true sexual complement is a man.
Like homosexual practice, both incest and polyamory exhibit disproportionately high rates of scientifically measurable harm, not intrinsic, measurable harm. Because of close family structures incest often occurs between an adult and child, though it does not always, and need not, manifest itself in this form. In addition, if procreation arises from an incestuous bond, there is the additional problem of a higher risk of birth defects. Neither problem constitutes an intrinsic harm stemming from incestuous bonds but each involves increased risks attending societal affirmation of close-kin sexual relationships.
Polyamory increases the risks of promiscuity (if by promiscuity one means something like "one-night stands" rather than long-term relationships), domestic jealousy and discord owing to multiple spouses, and (in traditional polygamous relationships where only the man is allowed multiple spouses) overbearing patriarchy. As with incest, we are dealing with increased risks, not inherent harms. There undoubtedly are some polygamous relationships that "work" better than some monogamous relationships. As with homosexual relationships, the disproportionately high rates of measurable harm are not the problem per se (as if the absence of measurable harm would justify the relationship’s existence) but rather symptoms of the root problem.
Brother Brian: While these "sound like" valid arguments, they are glaringly absent of any sound medical statistics to back them up.
However, I contend that these are all the more reasons to encourage marriage amongst homosexual people by providing them with a state recognized marriage option. It helps to curb heterosexual promiscuity, and there is no reason to believe it would not also curb homosexual promiscuity. By decreasing promiscuity and other dangerous extra marital sexual activity, all society benefits from the reduction in providing the financial resources of caring for those afflicted with sexually transmitted diseases, frees our medical personnel resources to focus their attention on more noble causes (such as finding cures for cancer), and reduces the stress factors related to those involving homosexual people, regardless if they are brought on and exacerbated by societal stigmas, sexual practices, or mental health issues related to absence of life affirming, loving, monogamous marriage relationships.
Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 3: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions
Part 3: The Illogic of Homosexual Unions
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 20, 2009
In Part 2 I dealt with how the disproportionately high rates of measurable harms attending homosexual activity point to the structural discordance of homoerotic unions.
Brother Brian: I continue to refute the idea that there is any structural discordance of homosexual unions based on "complementary natures of two sexes", because the whole of human sexuality is not dependent upon two sexes, but two people.
Dr. Gagnon: Can the problem of structural discordance be alleviated if one of the same-sex partners tries to play the role of the other sex through gender nonconforming behavior? Not likely.
Brother Brian: Actually, there is no structural discordance that is necessary to be alleviated. It matters not if same sex partners "try to play the role of the other sex through gender nonconforming behavior." There are many sexual acts that heterosexuals engage in that do not involve in any difference of either partner, and are not based on the opposite genders of those participants, but are based instead on the acts themselves. Mutually identical acts can even be engaged in at the same time, and so again, even in opposite gender heterosexual expressions, there is not necessarily a need to conform to any gender whatsoever. While that may not be true of ALL heterosexual acts, it is indeed true of enough aspects of human sexuality as to be easily replicated in both male/male and female/female engagements. Gender is not the issue when it comes to sexuality. Compatibility, attraction and consent are.
Dr. Gagnon: A man cannot fake being a true sexual complement to another man and a woman cannot fake being a true sexual complement to another woman.
Brother Brian: This is somewhat comical in that it tends to imply that it is possible for a man to fake being a true sexual complement to a woman, and a woman can fake being a true sexual complement to a man. And that this is good reasoning upon determining whether or not the couple involved is "compatible." Forgive me, but that's just silly.
Dr. Gagnon: The symptoms of higher incidences of sex partners over life, of sexually transmitted infections, of sexual unions of shorter duration, and of mental health complications are just that: symptoms of a root problem. The root problem is too much embodied identity between the participants, similar to the root problem for incest of even an adult-committed sort.
Brother Brian: That's simply not true. Heterosexuals can experience higher incidents of sex partners over life as compared to other heterosexuals, can experience sexually transmitted infections, can experience sexual unions of shorter duration, and can experience mental health complications as well. While I agree they are symptoms of a root problem, I strongly disagree with the notion that the root problem is the embodied identity between the participants, but rather the embodied incompatibility, between them, not to mention the unwillingness of one or the other to commit to the relationship, extra-marital sexual behavior, and unsafe sex practices.
Dr. Gagnon: Even when homosexual unions "beat the odds" and don’t exhibit most of the normal harms associated with homosexual activity, they—like occasional adult-incestuous or adult-polyamorous unions that "beat the odds" by exhibiting loving commitment with few scientifically-measurable negative side-effects—still suffer from the root problem of too much formal or structural identity between the participants.
Brother Brian: No more so than heterosexual couples, as aforementioned.
Dr. Gagnon: Since there are two and only two primary sexes—even the existence of "intersexuality" among a miniscule percentage of the population merely draws on features of the two primary sexes—it is axiomatic that each sex, male and female, is only half of an integrated sexual whole.
Brother Brian: This is true whether gay or straight. In fact, the fact that there are two primary sexes lends itself directly to the determination of sexual orientation of males and females alike. When it comes down to it, there are only two choices, whether a person is gay or straight.
Dr. Gagnon: The beauty of a committed male-female sexual union is that it brings together in harmony the two complementary sexes, thereby moderating sexual extremes, filling in sexual gaps, and honoring the individual integrity of one partner’s maleness and the other partner’s femaleness.
Brother Brian: Likewise, the beauty of a committed male-male or female-female sexual union is that it brings together in harmony the two complementary people (not sexes), thereby moderating sexual extremes (like promiscuity), filling in sexual gaps (like the absence of companionship/sex), and honoring the individual integrity of one partner's maleness and the other partner's maleness, or one partner's femaleness and the other partner's femaleness. There is nothing lacking between Dr. Gagnon's description of the beauty of heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. The beauty results from the people involved, not the sexes.
Dr. Gagnon: In a heterosexual union what a man brings to the table, so to speak, is his essential maleness. What he does not bring is essential femaleness; that is supplied by the woman. Likewise, the woman brings to the sexual table her essential femaleness; what she lacks in essential maleness is supplied by man. Two sexual halves unite to form a complete sexual whole.
Brother Brian: In a heterosexual union this is necessary for sexual compatibility of the participants involved.. Likewise, in a homosexual union the necessity of sexual compatibility between the participants involved depends on the absence of femaleness in male-male partnerships, and the absence of maleness in female-female partnerships. Just as the heterosexual couple depends on the sexual compatibility with the opposite gender, homosexual couples depend on the sexual compatibility with the same gender.
This is another example of an argument wherein either Dr. Gagnon's and mine are equally valid, or equally moot, and not based on either of our ability to present our ideas, but on the sheer sexual compatibility of the partners involved in the relationships we are discussing.
Dr. Gagnon: Incidentally, that is why Genesis 2:18-20 refers to woman with the expression "as his counterpart" or "complement," Hebrew kĕnegdô, where the component word neged denotes both similarity corresponding to (i.e. similarity on the human level) and difference opposite (i.e. difference as regards a distinct sex extracted from him).
Brother Brian: In the case of Adam and Eve, we have to remember first of all that this couple was created, and not born. Interestingly enough, when we consider that Jesus tells us in Matthew 19:11-12 that there are eunuchs who are born from their mother's womb, we are again reminded that God's original creation must have been innately designed to produce such people as eunuchs, whom Jesus specifically exempts from the male/female marriage paradigm.
To lose sight of this is to disregard a teaching from Our Lord Himself. Dr. Gagnon also concludes that the born eunuchs Jesus mentions would have included those who were homosexually inclined. If this is true, then that means Adam and Eve MUST have been originally created by God to eventually give birth to these same eunuchs through their subsequent offspring's offspring.
Dr. Gagnon: That is why the story of Genesis 2:21-24 presents the image of two sexes emerging from one flesh (illustrating the point of sexual complements) as the basis for the two sexes, man and woman, reuniting into "one flesh." By its very nature sexual intercourse was designed for sexual complements or counterparts.
Brother Brian: While I agree that in a Bible study geared towards heterosexual people, this is a good illustration of sexual complementarianism, it is by no means the ONLY sexual complement that God designed, or there would have never been any eunuchs born from Adam and Eve's subsequent descendants. While part of Adam and Eve's design was to be heterosexually inclined in order to produce the "reuniting of one flesh", that by no means negates the possibility that gay men and women are by their very nature already include both the original male/female components that Adam himself MUST have originally possessed, or it would have been impossible for God to extract the "female" from Adam, and would by necessity have needed to create Eve from the dust of the ground as a new prototype, just as He did with Adam. But that's not what God did. All the female component of humanity was already embodied in Adam.
What is to say this same male/female embodiment is not a unique characteristic inherently endowed in the birth of eunuchs?
Dr. Gagnon: If in a heterosexual union two sexual halves unite to constitute a sexual whole, the logic of a homosexual union, by analogy, is that two half-males unite to form a single whole male; or two half-female unite to form a single whole female.
Brother Brian: That is to assume that Adam was only "half a man" when God created Eve from him. But he wasn't a "half a man", he was innately (if not physically) CREATED as both male and female, or God could not have possibly extracted the female component of our human species from Adam. He would have had to start from a completely new prototype.
Dr. Gagnon: A half unites sexually with its complementary half.
Brother Brian: But Adam was not created as a "half", but a "whole man", and also wholly male and wholly female, or God could not have extracted Eve from him.
Dr. Gagnon: To regard one’s self, if male, as completed sexually by another male is to make an implicit statement that one does not regard one’s particular gender as being intact apart from such a union.
Brother Brian: But that statement is predicated on the assumption that gay men or gay women regard themselves as sexually "incomplete." In fact, it would be predicated on the assumption that ALL men AND women, whether gay or straight are sexually "incomplete" and mate only for the purposes of "wholeness". That is to contradict God's Word that enables each human being to stand as "whole" as a new creation in Christ (Who, by the way) never found it necessary to "complete" Himself sexually, and yet was imminently qualified to die as the propitiation of sin for ALL humanity, both male AND female.
If sexual completeness was the issue, it would have been necessary for Christ to have taken a wife, and BOTH of them be crucified in order to atone for the sins of men AND women, but that was not the case at all. A MAN (Jesus Christ) was sufficient in and of Himself to die for the sins of both genders, which would render Dr. Gagnon's point not only moot, but borderline insulting to both God's original creation of Adam from which He was able to extract the female component of humanity from him, as well as to Christ, Whom God deemed "whole" as a person, without ever having the need to marry and crucify a woman with Him. I think Dr. Gagnon treads on an area of ground that he has not truly considered in light of God's creation, including eunuchs.
Dr. Gagnon: The same goes for a female-female sexual union. This is both sexual self-deception (one’s maleness or femaleness is already intact) and sexual narcissism (one is erotically aroused by one’s own essential sex).
Brother Brian: Here again, that would say that Adam was sexually narcissistic in that God created him with his maleness and femaleness already intact. Further I would argue that sexual narcissism is not defined as being erotically aroused by one's own essential sex, but by the compatibility of a potential sexual partner, whether gay or straight. To say that sexual narcissism is based on arousal of one's own essential sex is to say that sexual narcissism results in self stimulation, and not based upon the companionship of any other human being, and this would have to apply to both men and women, and both gay and straight.
I think Dr. Gagnon stretches beyond his ability to comprehend the full spectrum of human sexuality, and in doing so, shoots holes in his own theory on this and the immediately aforementioned points that he raises. It sounds intelligent and lofty and noble, but upon closer examination, reveals a sieve like logic that simply doesn't hold water except by the preconceived biases built into preconcluded deductions that may or may not actually align from God's perspective of His very own creation of Adams' completeness as both male and female from whence He extracted the female component to create Eve, nor Christ's Own completeness as a male in which He was able to be crucified absent of an accompanying wife for the sins of all men and all women.
Dr. Gagnon: That is why the apostle Paul in Romans 1:24-27 refers to homosexual acts as intrinsically "dishonoring" for the participants, even when the relationship is conducted in the context of care and commitment.
Brother Brian: Actually, if we are to read the entirety of the account of Romans, we discover that the dishonor of their bodies had nothing to do with being in the context of care and commitment, but rather as an act of idol worship of the fertility goddess, and was committed by men and women who were heterosexual, else they could not "exchange" the natural function for the opposite sex for relations with the same sex. This is clear evidence that not only were they engaged in idolatry, but engaged with members of BOTH genders.
Dr. Gagnon: Similarly, most would acknowledge the dishonoring character of an adult-committed incestuous bond, which tries to make of "one flesh" two persons who in terms of kinship are already of the same flesh.
Brother Brian: Actually, being of the "same flesh" is never referred to in Scriptures in relation to those next of kin, but only in the context of "becoming one flesh". Those who are next of kin would "become one flesh", not start off as "same flesh." There is no Scriptural basis for even making this argument, so it must be considered a non sequitor.
Dr. Gagnon: Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender
A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society
Part 4: Responses to Counterarguments
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
May 21, 2009
There are three main counterarguments against my overarching thesis in Parts 1-3; namely, that adult-committed incest and polyamory are better analogies to homosexuality and transgenderism than are race and gender. None of them are convincing, in my view.
First, supporters of homosexual unions will sometimes argue that there are no significant sexual differences between men and women, often appealing to a strict social-constructionist philosophy. The problem is that most people don’t live in accordance with such a perspective, including most persons who identity as "gay" or "lesbian." Why is it the case, for example, that the vast majority of homosexual men would not (or claim not to) be fully satisfied with a sexual relationship involving a woman, even a particularly gender-nonconforming, masculinized woman?
Brother Brian: Because she is still a female, no matter how "masculinized", just as a gay man who is "feminized" is still a male, and would still qualify as more compatible for a gay man than a "masculinized" woman.
Dr. Gagnon: Why do they regard themselves as a "category 6" on the Kinsey spectrum? Could it be that they tacitly recognize that there is an essential maleness to men that not even a gender-nonconforming woman can successfully reproduce?
Brother Brian: EXACTLY!
Dr. Gagnon: If there were nothing essential or significant to male-female differences then we should expect nearly the whole American population to be bisexual rather than "unisexual." Yet, as it is, over 98% of the population (possibly over 99%) is strongly disposed to sex only with members of one sex, whether the other sex (heterosexuals) or the same sex (homosexual). There must then be a fundamental difference between maleness and femaleness that, in turn, constitutes a radical difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Brother Brian: AGREED!
Dr. Gagnon: The former is sexual arousal for the sex that one is not but which complements one’s own sexuality.
Brother Brian: Whether one is gay or straight, sexual arousal for either is actually predicated on (not negated by) that which complements one's own sexuality. Whether male or female, heterosexual people are complements to heterosexual people and homosexual people are complements to homosexual people.
Dr. Gagnon: The latter is sexual arousal for what one already is as a sexual being and does not truly complement one’s sexuality.
Brother Brian: I believe Dr. Gagnon has erred in saying "sexuality" instead of gender, because again, sexual arousal for what one already is as a sexual being (gay or straight) does truly complement one's own sexuality, although I understand Dr. Gagnon does not believe it may actually complement one's own gender.
Dr. Gagnon: They are not simply two different sexual orientations that are otherwise of equal developmental naturalness and soundness. One is intrinsically disordered and it’s not heterosexuality.
Brother Brian: Here, Dr. Gagnon contradicts his stated belief that those who are "born eunuchs" would include people who are homosexually inclined. That would not make non heterosexual people "intrinsically disordered", but instead would qualify them as members of God's divinely created order, or we would not be "born" of our mother's wombs as eunuchs/gay people.
Dr. Gagnon: The second potential argument against my thesis is that congenital causation factors for some homosexual development (which factors, in any case, are neither total nor deterministic) make homosexual desire and behavior "natural."
Brother Brian: Again, Dr. Gagnon contradicts his own stated belief that "born eunuchs" would include those who are homosexually inclined. That would mean that his own belief states that there IS a congenital causation factor for (not some but ALL) homosexual development, in that we are BORN homosexual. And indeed that fact is not only total but also deterministic, just as it is for people who are BORN heterosexual. It would then indeed make homosexual desire and behavior "natural", or we could not be "born eunuchs" who again, Dr. Gagnon agrees are the "born eunuchs" Jesus refers to in Matthew 19:11-12. Dr. Gagnon therefore contradicts his own logic, rendering this statement as sheer speculation, nonsense, and convenient argumentation, but he defeats it himself.
Dr. Gagnon: This argument misunderstands the elementary point that persons can have innate or involuntary desires for behaviors that remain unnatural on other grounds.
Brother Brian: But there is no other grounds upon which to base homosexuality as "unnatural" if people are indeed born gay, as Dr. Gagnon states is his belief by stating that he believes that the "born eunuchs" Jesus refers to in Matthew 19:11-12 includes those who are homosexually inclined. Again, Dr. Gagnon argues against himself.
Dr. Gagnon: Pedophiles, for example, don’t "choose" to be pedophiles in the normal meaning of the term "choice." Even so, the absence of choice does not make sexual intercourse with children "natural" in the truest sense of the word because children are structurally or formally incompatible for sexual intercourse with an adult.
Brother Brian: Not to mention it is a crime against someone who has not yet reached the age of consent, and is equally applicable whether the pedophilia is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. And it remains a crime regardless of whether the person is gay or straight, but not based upon a person's sexual orientation, but based on the non consensual nature of the act itself, rendering this comparison to homosexual expressions between two consenting adults another apples to oranges comparison that does not hold water.
Dr. Gagnon: My point here is not to claim that in all respects homosexual practice is as bad as pedophilia but rather to make the singular point that the innateness of a sexual orientation does not make the behavior arising from the desire "natural."
Brother Brian: Again, if "born eunuchs" includes people who are homosexually inclined, then it does not render homosexuality as "unnatural", even if pedophilia continues to be. In no case though, is pedophilia considered anything except a crime, because it always involves someone who has not reached the age of consent. But when both parties are of consenting age, the act no longer becomes "pedophilia", because no children are involved, whether gay or straight, meaning once again, this is another disregardable argument based on it being a non sequitor.
Dr. Gagnon: Moreover, we all know that innate urges are unreliable guides for moral behavior. An argument for homosexuality based on biological causation is not an effective moral argument because, as even admitted by two scientists who have studied extensively biological causation factors for homosexuality and who support homosexual causes: "No clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused" (so J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Brian Mustanski of Indiana University).
Brother Brian: I would disagree that "all behavior is biologically caused" For instance, in the case of someone murdering someone in a violent rage of jealousy when he finds out he's been in an adulterous affair with his wife has nothing to do with the biology of the person being targeted, by the man pulling the trigger, or by the woman. Instead it is the mental state of the person committing the behavior that is causing the behavior, not that person's biology. Biology is the function of the human body, not the human mind. The human mind is contained within the brain, but the mind is not a physical organ, but rather a self awareness of one's own existence. But that self awareness is not biological, but spiritual.
Dr. Gagnon: The third argument is that homosexual practice cannot be compared to incest or polyamory because the latter two intrinsically produce harm while any harm arising out of the former is attributable primarily to societal "homophobia." Such an argument is based on false premises and inaccurate information.
First, as we have noted above, male homosexuality and female homosexuality both produce higher rates of measurable harm but do so differently and in a manner that corresponds to male-female differences. It is thus not possible, in my view, to blame the lion’s share of problems on so-called "homophobia."
Brother Brian: AGREED! There are however, many behaviors brought on by one's perception of social stigma that does indeed lead to dangerous sexual activity, such as promiscuity, that leads to the symptoms of the social stigma in the manifestation of sexually transmitted diseases. Also, social stigma in the form of denied access to marriage equality lends itself to the ensuing promiscuity. If there were no social stigma aspect involved, there'd be a marriage option to those homosexually inclined in the entirety of the worlds' countries, but that is not the case, so one cannot completely dismiss out of hand the underlying social stigma's effect that results in the symptoms of increased harm to those who are so stigmatized.
Dr. Gagnon: Incidentally, what would "incest-phobia" or "polyphobia" be and to what extent does societal disgust for these behaviors trigger higher incidences of measurable harms?
Brother Brian: Again, I think this is yet another apples and oranges comparison. Marriage equality for homosexual people does not require that one be related to oneself, nor does it request recognition by the state of more than two partners in the marriage structure. Therefore, it matters not that even homosexually inclined people have a certain disgust for "incest" and "polygyny", as demonstrated by the sheer fact that homosexual people are not advocating for those relationships to be sanctioned in marriage under any circumstance, whether gay or straight.
Dr. Gagnon: Second, there are no scientific studies demonstrating intrinsic, scientifically measurable harm for adult-committed incestuous unions, much less traditional polygamous unions. Oprah Winfrey, an American cultural guru, had on one of her television programs a year or two ago a group of intelligent, attractive, wealthy women in polygamous relationships in Arizona. By the end of the program Oprah was telling viewers that society might be painting with too broad a negative brush the phenomenon of polygamy. Even as regards pedophilia, two APA studies have indicated (one argued, the other conceded) that a child who has sex with an adult often grows up exhibiting no measurable harm. If that is true of pedophilia, how much more of adult-committed incestuous and polyamorous bonds?
Brother Brian: While these are interesting observations, Oprah is not requesting the right to engage in a same sex union herself, nor a polygamous union, so it can hardly be concluded that just because she thinks people over stigmatize non mainstream relationships in no way means she advocates marriage equality for such relationships, and nor do those homosexually inclined who are seeking to have their two-adult, non related, consensual marriages recognized by the state. Again, Dr. Gagnon compares apples to oranges thinking that enough off putting emotive reactions evoked in his readers will equate into a solid basis for opposing same sex marriages. This is not an argument per se', but a scare tactic based on appealing to one's fears rather than one's sense of justice and equality based on legitimate grounds found in law and/or Scriptures, and thus must be disregarded as a non sequitor.
Dr. Gagnon: After hearing a reasoned case for why homosexual practice of an adult-committed sort is more like adult-committed incest or polyamory than the conditions of race or gender, most avid supporters of homosexual unions will express great outrage.
Brother Brian: I'm not outraged, but I'm not fooled by such fabricated fear tactics, nor moved by the "perception of evidence" such arguments are designed to create. There is absolutely no evidence that gay marriage will lead to any of the non mainstream relationships being sanctioned as marriages, yet the idea is for the opponent to evoke emotive responses that creates a sense of despair in anyone trying to separate the two, give up and vote against it (just in case.) Again, it's a non sequitor and a fear mongering technique designed to stimulate the senses rather than the sense of otherwise critically thinking people, who have better things to do with their time than to sort out the facts from the fiction.
Dr. Gagnon: However, outrage is not a substitute for reasoned argumentation,
Brother Brian: No, and neither is the fear mongering Dr. Gagnon shows a willingness to engage in.
Dr. Gagnon: though the former is often practiced with great effectiveness by those promoting a homosexualist cause.
Brother Brian: Likewise.
Dr. Gagnon: It might be time for those who have good arguments for believing that homosexual practice not be endorsed by society to become equally outraged.
Brother Brian: Perhaps, but not based on outrageous tactics such as the fear mongering demonstrated by Dr. Gagnon's descent into a desperate plea for reasoning people to consider his arguments while ignoring the same tactics he accuses his opponents of employing. This is not what I expected from Dr. Gagnon, but it is nothing new.
***************************************************************
Dear Valued Readers,
This blog continues to be a work in progress. As recent revelations and events throughout Christendom have created an increasingly fluid situation, updates will no longer be published at the end of each post, but rather only at the beginning of the corresponding posts so impacted. As of August 1, 2013, the only updates to appear at the end of each post will be churches that are personally endorsed by The Bed Keeper as a "SAFE SPACE."
Readers may email thebedkeeper@gmail.com to discuss or comment on any posting. Please note that while all feedback is highly valued and appreciated, it may not be possible to reply to each email.
Readers may email thebedkeeper@gmail.com to discuss or comment on any posting. Please note that while all feedback is highly valued and appreciated, it may not be possible to reply to each email.
UPDATE 01.15.12:
Lakewood Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.
UPDATE 11.22.11:
Eagle Mountain International Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.
Lakewood Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.
UPDATE 11.22.11:
Eagle Mountain International Church officially endorsed as a SAFE SPACE for LGBT people to worship! Details here.
THANK YOU for your generous support of this work!
Let him who receives instruction in the Word of God share all good things with his teacher, contributing to his support.
Galatians 6:6
