I have a brother who is a psychiatrist and also gay. He
didn't want to be
gay-struggled with all his might to cure himself and hid it from his family
for many years. He underwent psychotherapy and drug therapy and was ( and
still ) is on antidepressants as a result of the struggle with his
sexuality. A few years ago he decided to "come out", (much to the
consternation of our parents) and be openly gay. He is not overjoyed with
his choice, but he is at peace within himself.
I can assure you that being gay is not something he chose to do and he was
unable to find a "cure". What gave him this predisposition? He does not
know-and he is a practicing psychiatrist. I would say science doesn't know
either. What we do know is that it seems much more fundamental than those
who say its simply a "preference", like a taste for chocolate ice cream, or
a "lifestyle choice".
Frankly, I struggle with the rather clear OT injunction against
homosexuality. Before I was aware of my brother's struggle, I used to
blithely think that gays should just simply stop being gay. It might be
tough, like breaking the smoking habit, but it was doable. In the light of
what I know now, I no longer think so.
I think that Don and likeminded persons should get to know a variety of
persons who are actually gay, before he makes pronouncements on this issue.
Those who take the time to know people who are gay are usually not so quick
to conclude that this is a simple matter of telling gays that they should
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of JW Burgeson
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 9:12 PM
Subject: RE: Is there a gay gene?
>>JB: "I did argue that since it is NOT a "chosen" orientation, and
that seems to be fairly well established now with he probably exception of
the Exodus people, that arguments for "rehab" and "you can refrain from the
behavior" are only valid if one can show that the activity , itself, is
sinful in God's eyes. And to do this one needs to argue from the
Don P: "Again you contradict yourself. You say it is not necessarily
environmental or genetic, but you say it is not chosen. Then what is it?"
JB: ??? It may have been that I wrote something (not the above) in haste and
thereby wrote incorrectly.
My argument is that since it is not (except in a few cases) "chosen," it is
necessarily determined by either genetics or environment or some combination
of the two, at least in most cases. Knowing a fair number (probably a dozen
or so) gays and lesbians, the genetic factor seems most likely. But that not
being a scientific sample, I defer to the studies. See my website.
"In fact, it is a well established psychological fact that problems caused
by genetics can be reduced by both pharmaceutical and psychological
If you mean one can be brainwashed by torture or other aversion "therapy,"
of course, I'll have to agree. But perhaps you are speaking of something
"It is usually the "chosen" ones that are not. The reason of course is
obvious to anyone open minded. If you choose not to accept the treatment
then it won't work."
Makes sense, but what evidence do you claim as grounds?
"I am not judging those that are "afflicted" but unless you tell them they
are wrong then so are you."
OK. You claim I am wrong. Give me grounds for this claim. Just making it
does not persuade me (obviously). Start by citing one or more obvious
mistakes in the sources on my website that argue as I do. Specifically, look
at the arguments given in my friend George Hopper's website. His are easy to
" To help someone commit a sin is a sin. And the same holds true when you
look the other way while sin is committed."
Yes, I agree. But I do not think all HB is a sin. Tell me why I am wrong.
Don P:With faith in His word
JB: As Don P interprets it, of course.
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 14:33:43 EDT