genuine love in action


Here’s my personal conclusion: people are not “born gay.”  I think that there is a possibility that biology plays a modest role, but not necessarily a definitive role. I think social and emotional brokenness (hurt, rejection, trauma) contributes strongly to same-sex attraction.  I think that experiences and choice play a part in “orientation.”  I say “orientation” because it’s unlikely that someone’s sexuality is fixed from a young age, but rather becomes inflexible after being repeatedly reinforced (known as “neuro-pathways”) by choice and experience.  You can disagree with me, but these deductions fit the individual stories of many who identify as gay and are supported by what little we know scientifically about homosexuality.

If homosexuality is cultivated by layers of social and emotional brokenness, it should drive us to lovingly listen listen listen to our gay friends and family.  It should cause us to reel in those youth who are struggling with broken relationships at home or at school.  It should motivate us as grown women to make every effort to seek out and embrace the “tom-boy” girl and for older men to affirm the little boy who can’t stand football but who loves to sing.  It should prompt us to teach our children to include and stand up for others in their school, especially if they’re getting picked on.  It should also lead us to do an honest self-inventory and seek forgiveness if we have possibly contributed to a gay person’s (or ANY person’s) brokenness.

If my theory is right, this kind of genuine love in action can have a life-long healing impact.  If I’m wrong, this kind of genuine love in action can have a life-long healing impact.

This quote comes from a website that campaigns for gay people to be excluded from access to marriage, it campaigns for gay people to be denied any rights to parenthood, and it campaigns for gay people to be denied service by any religious group that finds expression of their sexual orientation offensive. The author of the blog belongs to a church that denies people in gay relationships access to membership, because they consider any kind of gay relationship to be a sin against their god. This kind of genuine love in action makes no sense to me, and I’m not sure what life-long healing impact it could have in any scenario.

Let’s look at the blog author’s theory:

  • gay people can be ‘cured’ of gayness if adults treat them differently in childhood

If she is right, her gay adult friends, who have left their childhood cure hope behind, still have to live a celibate and lonely single life, ignoring any love they might feel, if they want to join her church. If she’s right, and sexual orientation can be tampered with through childhood experiences, how will we decide which orientation is the best way to go?

If she is wrong, sexual orientation is biological in origin and she still thinks it’s a sin to be in a same sex relationship.

Regardless of whether she’s right or wrong, she has campaigned to ensure that gay people continue to be discriminated against. She has campaigned to ensure that anyone with concerns about gay people as parents can quote her words as ‘someone’ who’s been there, rather than look at the overwhelming body of evidence that tells us same sex couples are just as good parents as heterosexual couples. She has campaigned to allow religious people to shun service to homosexual couples. She has encouraged people to hurt and insult their gay friends by refusing to attend homosexual weddings. She has campaigned to support Christian organisations to deny employment to homosexual couples. I personally don’t see any love in action in any of these actions, but maybe ‘genuine love in action’ means something different.

However, in the interests of fairness, I look forward to hearing about the outcomes of her discussion with Pinkagendist, and to learn more about the shades of grey that right now seem completely black and white to me.