Monday, March 19, 2012

Response to Homosexuality and Gay Adoption

Our senior class at Glasgow Christian Academy has developed a passion to ensure young adults like ourselves have the proper view of the family. We have determined that the number one attack against traditional marriage is that homosexual couples should have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples, including the right to adoption. Throughout the upcoming pages, we will give a defense of the traditional family that leads to why homosexuals should not adopt children. We will give this defense through Scripture, as we believe it is the source of ultimate truth, and we will give this defense through sound reasoning and even from differing worldviews. We will first examine the logic not in favor of homosexuality then we will look into the Bible’s view of it.


We would like to add a disclaimer at this point. Many people will call us "homophobes" and "intolerant," and then disregard this argument on that basis. We are not "homophobes" in any way. Many members of our class have or have had homosexual friends. We desire the best for homosexuals, and we believe the best for them is not a life of homosexuality but of freedom in Jesus. For these reasons we begin a defense of the traditional family for the glory of God and the betterment of humanity.


We will give logical arguments against homosexuality by first looking at homosexuals and their rights which will transition into homosexual marriage which will then transition into homosexual adoption. The first question to answer is how many homosexuals are there in the United States. The Kinsey report claimed that 10% of the male U.S. population was homosexual, but its findings were very flawed. The Kinsey report was to provide an "objectively determined body of facts about sex." (The Kinsey Institute) When the Kinsey report was conducted in 1948, Alfred Kinsey admitted that approximately 25% of the people interviewed were prison inmates who, due to their circumstance, had no way of having heterosexual relations. Kinsey also admitted to using several hundred male prostitutes in his survey. The Kinsey report clearly has no value in the current homosexual debate. Gary Gates from the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy recently estimated from research that 8.2% of the 18 and over population of the United States has had sex with a same-sex partner. He also estimated that only 1.7% of the same population (about 4 million people) identify themselves as gay or lesbian. That is a far cry from Kinsey’s report of 10% of males being predominantly homosexual. (Huffington Post, Gary Gates)


Next we will address the issue of homosexuality being a biological predisposition. Homosexuality is not something one is born with. This is one way many people defend a homosexual desire. We believe homosexuality is in the brain. We understand that homosexuality in an individual has a beginning point, whether that is at the age of ten or thirty, but that cannot be before birth or shortly after birth. Although a number of reports have claimed that homosexuality is a biological predisposition, their findings have never been widely accepted in the scientific community. No irrefutable evidence has been presented.


This is a good time to show why the issue of homosexuality is not like the black civil rights movement. This is the case because African Americans did not have a choice to be black. Homosexuals have a choice on whether they want to fall into the temptation of homosexuality or not. Another difference between the homosexuality movement and the civil rights movement is that one is trying to redefine terms while the other is not. Homosexuality is arguing to redefine marriage but the civil rights movement was not trying to redefine race. For these two reasons, homosexuality should not be compared to the civil rights movement.


Every human has a predisposition to sin naturally, and some people even have additional predispositions to sin based on their upbringing. Children born to alcoholic parents have a greater tendency to be alcoholics. Sons raised by a womanizing father are going to have a tendency to be more lustful and adulterous than sons who were raised by a faithful husband. We would also like to state that even if homosexuality is a biological predisposition, it should be treated. The United States would not allow a man who molests children to continue doing so because he has a predisposition toward children. We would lock this man up as a pedophile, and treat and counsel him. If homosexuality is given the standing as a predisposition and as being acceptable, then it only seems that in a short matter of time, people who practice other immoral things will seek legal protection and rights as well. We do not want to set a precedent that future generations could follow.


Homosexuality is also a dangerous health risk. The Institute for Sex Research reported that only 10% of male homosexuals are monogamous. They also reported that 60% of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners. Twenty-eight percent of homosexual men have had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Seventy-nine percent of gay men said that more than half of those sexual partners were complete strangers. This promiscuity has led to about 49% of people living with HIV in the United States to be men who have sexual relations with other men (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Again, homosexuality is a dangerous health risk.


We would now like to clearly say that we are not coming from an evolutionary worldview. We do not see adequate support for macro-evolution as Darwin believed, but we see micro-evolution in nature such as in the Galapagos finches. We believe in God who created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. That being clearly said, we would like to make an additional case against homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint. The purpose of Darwinian evolution is to slowly make a species into the image of perfection through the process of natural selection. Natural selection needs a diverse gene pool to accomplish this according to Darwin. Homosexuality is in contradiction with natural selection because the people practicing it are voluntarily taking their genes out of the gene pool. According to evolution, one of these people could possess the gene that furthers humanity to its next great stage. It would be non-logical for someone to be a homosexual and hold to Darwinian evolution. So with that additional argument being stated, let us move on to homosexual marriage.


We would first like to make it clear that homosexuals have the same marriage rights as the remainder of U.S. citizens. No homosexual is denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as is the right of other Americans. Homosexuals are not denied the same right as is given to heterosexuals. It would take a total redefinition of marriage to make that the case. We also see that rights and freedom come from the laws of the United States which are based on the Constitution. The Constitution was written by men who held to, at the very least, a Judeo-Christian moral code. This Judeo-Christian worldview is intrinsically where U.S. rights come from. There would be no way to give a right from the Constitution that would contradict where the right ultimately comes from.


The lack of homosexual monogamy even in "marriage" would also lead to the weakening of the traditional family and the home. As a post-homosexual revolution generation is raised to see men sleep with literally over a thousand men in their lifetime, they will see marriage as a waxing and waning relationship that requires little to no faithfulness. Even if members of this generation are heterosexual, they will see a homosexual relationship that has the same legal rights with no commitment. This unfaithfulness in homosexuals will no doubt lead to a weakening of traditional marriage.


Heterosexuality is better for society as a whole than homosexuality. It gives men and women gender roles that better society as men lead, protect, and provide; and women nurture, follow, and help. It is the best environment for children to be loved, nurtured, and disciplined. It has always stood the test of time when homosexuality has fluctuated in the course of history. The laws of the United States are written for the general public, not specific exceptions to the majority. We would not legalize something that is wrong for just a few people, and the same principle applies as we should not legalize homosexuality for a small minority of people.


We will now briefly speak of why homosexuals should not have the right to adopt. We have clearly shown why homosexuality should not be on the same level as heterosexual marriage. We have shown that it is unnatural and will soon show it to be biblically wrong. We have shown that there are many logical reasons homosexuality should not be allowed. So why would we put children in a home where they will be raised with gender confusion and without the security found in the traditional construct of family? It makes absolutely no sense. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children because it is against the way nature works. Why put children in a homosexual home when either God or natural selection has not chosen homosexuality as a way for children to be produced? Homosexual adoption is unnatural and is not the setting in which children can be raised for their own best interest.


The Bible clearly shows homosexuality is wrong by two different ways. First, it shows the original intent of God for the family. It does this by showing the reader how Adam was created and Eve was formed from Adam. Eve was created for two reasons. These reasons are also the two commands God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. We were created to work to bring God glory by taking care of His creation, and we were created to spread the image of God through procreation within marriage. God created Eve because she could help Adam work the garden and because she made it possible for the multiplication of humanity through procreation. God created one man and one woman in the confines of marriage to spread His image in man (Gen 1:26). This was the perfect, original plan of God. Then Adam and Eve rebelled against God which gave every human a natural tendency to sin. This is why sin and evil exist in the world.


The second way the Bible teaches homosexuality as wrong is through it directly calling homosexuality a sin. In Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, we see that God clearly sees homosexuality as sin. Romans says, "For this reason [exchanging the truth of God for a lie] God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." It is blatantly clear that the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin, and not in any way the love He intended for us to experience with another human.


We also want to make sure you hear the good news that the Bible also states alongside passages that condemn homosexuality. The good news of the Gospel says that although we are all sinners, from Mother Teresa to Adolf Hitler, and are all separated from God by sin which damns us to eternity in hell, Jesus came to earth as a perfect man to die for our sins. The wrath of God against our sin was satisfied by Jesus’ death on the cross. But we have even greater news! Jesus did not stay dead. He arose from the grave three days later! Through His life, death, and resurrection, we have an opportunity to be brought back in right relationship with God. If we confess our sins and have faith that Jesus is who He said He was and did what He said He did, then we can be forgiven from all of our sins and be perfect in God’s eyes because of Christ. This is the good news for all humanity!


We want to end by summarizing that we clearly see homosexuality as a distortion of what was originally intended in a marriage covenant. We would love for you to not just read this and throw it away mentally, but really ponder the arguments we have made. We want to encourage you that no matter what your past may have been or your present might be, change is possible. Organizations such as Exodus International and Courage exist to help people who struggle with homosexuality. Many people who get help from these organizations turn from their lifestyle to live for Christ. We encourage you, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, to trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior and follow him all the days of your life! Current issues come and go but the truth of Jesus remains forever!

136 comments:

  1. I am proud of each and everyone of you for standing firm on God's word. In an age where so many are being tricked into thinking that homosexuality is OK, thank you for sharing the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and who exactly do you people think you are? you have absolutely no right to judge whether or not homosexuals should be parents or get married. what about the "traditionally" married couples who have kids just for welfare? or beat their children to death? so what if gay people are attracted to those of the same gender? this is why churches should NOT be tax free. you people suck everything out of everyone so that you can look back on your day and say to yourselves, "Man, I did a good thing today by telling that gay/tattooed/had a baby out of wedlock person that they're destined for hell because they are who they are." lemme tell ya, if there IS a hell, you have a front row seat, my friends.

      Delete
    2. Not sure where everyone thinks that looking at a lifestyle that is sin according to the Bible and calling it that is judging people. It is simply stating the obvious.

      Delete
    3. I have an imaginary friend who opposes heterosexual marriage. And I have a book that says he is real. And, to top it all off, I have scientific proof that my book is real! My book tells me that it's real, s obviously it is. That said, because my imaginary friend opposes heterosexual marriage, we should definitely make it against the law. It's an abomination.

      Delete
    4. It sounds to me that you are judging Christians. And criticizing their beliefs far more maliciously than this blog has argued. Why is it that Christians don't have a right to believe what they want.

      Delete
  2. Great job. There a lot of great points. I pray that God uses your boldness and courage to help someone. Maybe an on going blog about this would be good. Maybe some posts about, how to overcome homosexuall feelings, can I be christian and gay?, or how do I help my friend who is gay? Just something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People who are gay don't NEED "help". That is a sick statement.

      Delete
  3. Is it better for a child to be placed in the foster care system where they could encounter physical, emotional, sexual, or mental abuse or for a pair of loving parent to adopt a child and raise it to be a good person? I feel as seniors, your time would be better served on a research project that will help you in the (possibly collegiate) future, rather than one where the Bible is used as legitimate academic source. I am a Christian and believe the Bible, but our country was founded by Deists who believed in the "watch-maker" theory of God. Our government is founded on the "separation of church and state," therefore using ANY religion in an argument about government affairs is invalid. I value the academic research completed for this article, and it is commendable that you, as young adults, are clearly strong in your Christian beliefs. However, this does not change the fact that your religion has no right to influence the government. They are separate, and should not be included in the same debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RESPONSE FROM KMI-GCA 2012.First of all I would like to thank you for your tone and civility of your respone to our blog.I would like to start by pointing out that there are many hetrosexual waiting for affordable adoption, the number of Christian hetrosexuals waiting for adoption is higher than ever. Youre stating that if the child is not adopted by a homsexual couple they could eventually be abused.That is not always the case.
      Secondly I would like to direct you to a link( http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=12 ) where the explanation of the phrase " Seperation of church and state is better explained than i could ever do.
      Lastly as a Christian and a believer of the Bible shouldnt you believe what the Bible says about homosexuality like in 1Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 where it clearly states that homsexuality goes against Gods word and not pick and choose which passages you read.

      Delete
    2. Therein lies the problem. This isn't a Christian nation. The country was founded on SECULAR principles. Who are you to tell someone they can't do something? Christians cry foul if they feel their rights are being taken away, but it is ok for them to take away the rights of others? This is nothing but intolerance and bigotry wrapped in "nice" words.

      Delete
    3. "I do not permit a woman to teach over a man. She must remain silent". 1 Timothy 2:12

      Delete
    4. "believe what bible says word for word because it was written in English right?"-KMI, also referencing a propaganda website for a definition is hilarious.

      Delete
    5. I wrote the original response to this in March when I first discovered the article. I choose to remain civil in such discussions because being quick to anger is what keeps such discussions from being productive. After rereading my argument and the replies, I would like to respond, as this article recently resurfaced on my Facebook in a negative light. Saying that children who aren't adopted by homosexuals are going to be abused was clearly not my argument. I just think it is inappropriate to determine who can build a family based on a religion that they may or may not follow. Most adoption agencies, outside the "Bible Belt" at least, do not factor in religion to adoptions, therefore using religion to condemn their "lifestyle" and thus deny them the right to a child is frankly, preposterous.

      Next, to address the source pertaining to "church and state." I read the material you provided and found it well-written, but biased. One of the first rules of constructing an argument based on reliable sources, is to find those that are unbiased. If you only search for those who regurgitate your own opinions, it becomes impossible to view things from the opposition. The tag line for the actual website is: "Presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious, and constitutional heritage." By definition, this website is a biased recounting of history from a religious viewpoint.

      What I find interesting is that while New Testament Christianity is based around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, Jesus never once spoke against homosexuality. If it is such an important topic, why then did Jesus choose not to mention it once. Perhaps, because his teachings are based out of love for one another.

      Last, I would like to give everyone a website to visit as well. Perhaps giving both parties in this discussion a chance to grow. www.godhatesshrimp.com Before accusing others of picking and choosing parts of the Bible, I think it is important to visit this website and ponder the holiness code in Leviticus. If you choose to follow all of the Bible, then action should be swiftly be taken against Red Lobster, because they are out to damn us all. No sin is greater then any other.

      Delete
  4. Why not give a loving home to a child in need? Just because people homosexual doesn't mean they can't be parents... I don't agree with homosexuality but I don't think its right to keep them from having children

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think that they should be taught to accept everyone for who they are. I personally believe that if marriage should be governed by the Bible, then no Muslims, atheists, or people of any other belief system should be able to get married. Actually, if it's governed by the Bible, then the government of the United States of America shouldn't have anything to do with it, considering our First Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You should be ASHAMED of yourselves. I've never been more embarrassed in all of my life to say that I'm from Glasgow, Ky. This is the most backwards piece of writing I may have ever seen in my lifetime. How could you say that someone CHOOSES to be gay? You think that someone would choose to be torn down, each and every day of their lives by people like you? You think they would choose to have laws against them marrying the person they love? OPEN YOUR MINDS and stop living in the 17th century.
    During the Civil Rights movement, people had the same closed-minded assumptions about blacks. Years from now, you will understand that you were on the wrong side of history. I hope one day you will meet someone who you deeply care about, who is gay, and truly UNDERSTAND what they go through on a daily basis because of people like you.
    Have a fantastic day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How dare you be closed minded about their beliefs either? You should be ashamed of yourself for doing the same thing you tried to oppose.

      Delete
    2. This Anon is right their beliefs are close minded and completely unjust for them to say that Gays need shouldn't have the same rights as Heterosexuals is wrong we are all human whether you want to accept that or not we all deserve the same rights as each other whether we be child or adult, man or woman, Homosexual or Heterosexual.

      Delete
  7. I know this comment won't be posted because no administrators of this post will approve it. However, I would like to express my complete and utter disgust upon reading this. I could go through the entire post line by line and state why I believe it is ignorant and offensive. This article does nothing but make me turn further and further away from your religion. Honestly, I'm barely coherent at this point because I'm so appalled by the statements made here.

    Regards,
    Caroline Travis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caroline, don't give up on religion. There are many Christians who do not accept the piece written by the students. It would be wrong to lump all Christians into the same category. It would be like saying "I can't be a Democrat (or a Republican) because some of these people hold these beliefs." That would make no sense because not all Democrats or adherents to a group subscribe to the same ideas. Some of the finest religious people I've ever known are homosexual and I am convinced that those who persecute them are simply wrong. There are several Christian denominations who would welcome you and your views and be glad to allow you to use your brilliant mind to discern what you believe to be true.

      Delete
    2. I do believe these students calmly and respectfully stated their beliefs and used facts to support them. Stating it to be 'ignorant and offensive' is ignorance in itself, what is wrong with these students standing up for what they believe? They in no way made a negative remark towards homosexual people rather explained why the CHOICE of homosexuality is wrong like any other sin.

      Delete
  8. Regardless of the topic, this blog was written very, very poorly with lots of redundancy within arguments, and a lot of the arguments are very thin and not developed well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I find this disgusting. I don't know which God you serve but I serve one who loves us all equally - no matter what sexuality. There is no way to "help" someone who is gay because there is nothing wrong with them to begin with. These types of situations make me embarrassed to be from Glasgow. Reading this truly hurt my heart. I understand that you have good intentions with posting this, and I don't mean to take away from that. But I just could not leave this page without stating my opinion. You all should be ashamed. As a child of God and a young person, I pray that you all become more open minded.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am happy to know that you think homosexuality is wrong, but judgement of others is oh, so right.

    Just so you know, I was raised in a Christian household, and still follow many Christian beliefs...But I only follow the REAL Christian ideas, such as loving others, not passing judgement. Most of all, the Bible says you should PRAY for those who you believe are living in sin, not throw stones at them.

    You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Especially for spreading bigotry in God's holy name.

    PS- I bet this comment won't even be approved, will it? Way to show all sides.
    I'll be praying for you all.. Maybe God will see fit to forgive you for being such closed-minded bigots.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just so you know, you judged them by calling them "closed-minded bigots." God wants us as Christians to hold each other accountable. This article isn't about not loving them, but instead pointing out the error of a lifestyle.

      Delete
    2. How is it an error in their lifestyle if they choose to be happy? How can you condemn them for that?!

      Delete
    3. "error of a lifestyle" oh so you're lifestyle is 'right' because some people wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago in the name of some imaginary friend? yeah..seems about right. makes complete sense.

      Delete
    4. Actually, part of the reason the Bible is so reliable is because it was written so long ago. You see the Bible fulfills more prophecies than any other man or book written. In fact the statistical possibility of how accurate the Bible is in prophecies written so long ago over such a vast amount of time by so many different authors (all led by the Holy Spirit) is so immense that there isn't even a defining number for it. This 'imaginary friend' who inspired the writing of this 'old book' has defied all logistics and possibilities to PROVE the existence of an absolute truth and ONE 'right' lifestyle.

      Delete
  11. Everything about this is ridiculous and disgusting. Why is it any of your business how other people choose to live their lives? As for your argument about monogomy in homosexual relationships, please tell me how many heterosexual families go through divorce and other things. How many heterosexual parents are not fit to take care of children, and the children involved are put into foster care?
    I guess at your school they didn't teach you about the "separation of church and state," but religion has nothing to do with marriage. It doesn't matter if you get married in a church, synagogue, or mosque; you need a license from the government to make it official. Also, homosexuality is biological. I have had many homosexual friends discuss with me how hard it was to come to terms with the fact that they were homosexual. Many of them spent years attempting to change themselves, until they finally were strong enough to accept who they were.
    People like you are the ones who cause the depression and suicides that have become frequent in recent years. Who are you to tell people who they can and can't love and marry? How would you feel if you were gay and you had to read things like this, a direct attack toward you and everything you might want in the future? The ignorance and hate in this post makes me sick. It is sad to see how closed-minded people can be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I need approval? Ridiculous. You won't allow negative feedback because you don't know how to open up your eyes. You are intolerant of homosexuality and of others views. I've also attended Calvary baptist and most people there are ignorant too.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Go away.... seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is views such as this that spread hate throughout the world. Your arguement claims that 'no irrefutable evidence' has shown that homosexuality is biological. I would like to point out that no irrefutable evidence has shown that God is real. No irrefutable evidence exists for the majority of theory in every scholarly application- hence, the term 'theory'. Your argument also claims that the Constitution was based on religion- our country was based on ideals that we should all be free to practice our own religion, and personal freedom is why we live in a country where these views can even be expressed. Instead of condemning someone for who they love and calling it 'immoral' and 'unnatural', you practice the love and acceptance that the Bible says to do. I believe in God, I believe in evolution, and I believe that every person is entitled to live in a world where they can be who they are- born, chosen, or led.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is a huge relief to know that the views expressed by the Glasgow senior class do not reflect the majority of people in this great nation. As of 2011, Gallup reports that most Americans (53%) are in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry into the same, equal institution as heterosexuals. This percentage continues to rise dramatically each year. Especially younger Americans are increasingly supportive of homosexuals and their rights. The gay rights movement is only gaining steam, as we see as each successive state passes laws in favor of homosexual marriage. In a generation or two, this will be a non-issue and we will look back in awe at those who spewed hateful, illogical rhetoric like that on this blog.

    I have a few comments on your so-called "logical" arguments:

    First of all, it doesn't matter if there are five homosexuals, five million homosexuals, or fifty million homosexuals in the United States of America. Their rights cannot be denied by numbers. We live in a country that protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    For your information, the numbers you cited on health risks and lifetime partners for homosexuals come from a 1978 study (aka, an ANCIENT, OUTDATED study, as this was before the AIDS epidemic and knowledge of safe sex). If you want to write a modern study, try citing some modern arguments. Today, multiple studies from diverse sources have found that homosexuals are just as likely to be in committed, lasting relationships as heterosexuals.

    Also, your comparison of homosexual preferences to child molestation is logically incoherent. A homosexual relationship is a loving relationship between two CONSENTING ADULTS. It bears no resemblance to a predator molesting an innocent child who cannot possible consent, and it is disgusting to see such a comparison. Two consenting adults have the right to choose to sleep with anyone they want, whether you like it or not. You also have the choice to NOT sleep with anyone if you want, so stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of yours.

    Finally, all of your religious arguments are irrelevant to this political issue. You have a right to believe what you believe, but we live in a society where freedom of religion prevails. Thus, your religious arguments have absolutely zero validity except in your own personal lives. The laws of this country cannot and should not be based on your religious beliefs anymore than they should be based on the religious beliefs of a Muslim or Buddhist.

    Now let me tell you what I believe: I believe all of you are shamefully poor examples of the loving energy of Christ, who chose not to judge anyone. He embraced tax collectors and prostitutes even when others viewed them as the scum of the earth. It is not your place to judge. I will pray that some of you from this school have the courage to go out into the big wide world, experience some diversity, and expand your worldview. Perhaps you still have a chance to practice your faith in a more loving, compassionate way. Right now, whether you choose to see it or not, you are spewing hate.

    I know that this post will probably not change your minds, but at least you will be aware that there is another opinion out there, and that it is an opinion that is growing in strength and validity in the hearts and minds of the American people. The argument you have created is not convincing at all. The holes are gaping and obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GCA12-JPG

      Thank you for your reply and addressing them in a logical order.
      you begin by saying that rights can not be denied by number, which is true, but could you please explain what rights are being denied and from where these rights are derived. As we stated in the blog we do have equal rights in that they have the right to marry the opposite gender just as anyone else does. We are stating that new rights should not be invented for the minority of a minority, being homosexuals who wish to be married.

      I concede that our statistics are outdated, and I believe one of my classmates is addressing that in a different reply.

      I believe you misunderstood, our paragraph dealing with child molesters. We are not saying that they are similar by any means. We are just saying that if this is allowed what will the next argument on tolerance be about. ie if we allow gay marriage, will pedophilia be the next debate.

      If you do not follow the Bible, than it will not have any weight in this argument. This portion of the argument is for informing Christians on what the Bible states on the issue.

      Its true that Christ did emit a loving energy and befriended tax collectors and prostitutes when the world would not, BUT He did not tell them to continue their sinful lifestyles but told them to turn from their wicked lifestyles. When Christ saw someone living an evil lifestyle He showed them love and worked to change their lifestyle not encourage it, that is our goal.

      Delete
    2. Amen, Slick!

      [Faculty Supervisor]

      Delete
    3. Marriage has happened thousands of years prior to the invention of Christianity. It will continue after it is gone. All this blog shows me is that there are still people clinging on to some book in which its God orders the genocide and murder of entire villages. He has condemned humans for a sin HE created. Remember that.

      Delete
  16. Hello, I'd like to see your works cited page, please. Could you please post it? If not, could you please explain why you cannot? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your interest, Barrett. The class is re-examining citations and secondary support for accuracy, fairness, and clarity. I think that the source references throughout the posting are in keeping with a blog, which could be similar to a magazine or newspaper piece, as opposed to, say, an academic journal article. So a works cited page will not be made at this point. But if you have a particular citation, fact, or secondary source that needs clarification, I will encourage the class to address it.

      Todd Belcher, Faculty Supervisor

      Delete
  17. Disgusting children-- ought to be burnt at the stake.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Proud of you guys for standing up for what you believe in. It's important to always treat everyone with love. I am a Christian and I struggled with my sexuality for many years before seeking answers. The church had me terrified of exposing this "darkness" in my life. When I finally found the courage to talk to someone, my life was richly blessed. I started going to counseling and I have since realized so many of the lies Satan planted in me as a child. For example: Being overweight made me isolate myself from the other boys when it came time to play ball, so I always saw myself as "not good enough to be a man." And my father being very emotionally distant, I went to my mother with all my problems and related to people in the feminine way that I was being taught. Anyway, to make a long testimony short, realizing these lies, and embarking on a painful journey of discovering what it means to be a man, I can now put those desires behind me. I just thought you might like to hear from the perspective of someone in my shoes. All I can implore of you is that you do not judge, meaning, do not turn people away. Show the love of Christ to EVERYONE even those who live in ways that you disagree with. Perhaps your love will draw them to Christ, because another thing I have discovered, there is not a homosexual alive that doesn't have emotional scars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Comment accepted with unspeakable joy and gratitude! This is truly what it's all about! Bless you!

      Todd Belcher
      Faculty Supervisor

      Delete
    2. Young people in any year of life have opinions. These were based on their Biblical research. My Bible reads that homosexuality is wrong. It does not mean that you cannot pray and get forgiveness for this in your life. God forgives all things if you come to Him. He loves you unconditionally. Please know that these young people are standing for what is right. There is nothing in this life you cannot be forgiven for. Jesus died on the cross for ALL of us who truly believe. Our nation was founded on Christ. Remember our money says IN GOD WE TRUST!
      People quit placing blame for your own mistakes and own up to you body as a living sacrifice. God wants purity in the Heart. His love abides there. Don't be so quick to judge. That is for GOD to do. The judgement is not here on earth it is after death. Remember that little children need to be brought up believing that Jesus loves them. We want to protect them and the best way is to live a life as Christlike as we can. God Bless you students for a job well done and remember God does not call the equipped, He equips the called...

      Delete
  19. The ignorance and intolerance displayed in this blog is sickening.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Everyone has the right to live as they choose, who gives you the right to say different? Gay, or straight you should have the right to marriage and to kids even if that includes adoption. You guys need to open your eyes a little bit more and stop being so judgmental. Its people like you that make this world a bad place that discriminate against people that are different from you. Homosexuals have the same rights as each of you do, and you are not looking in their best interest if you feel they shouldnt be happy with you they are, they dont choose to be gay, obviously you guys don't know very much and need to learn that you cant change them its they way they are they were born that way and it will never go away and you guys need to get over that!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. My first question for you is, have you ever read the Bible? The whole Bible, and not just cherry-picked the passages that fit in with the biases you already had? If so, you would know that, in the same section as laws against homosexuality, there are laws of equal magnitude stating that you shall not tattoo yourself (Lev. 19:28) and that you shall not put on a garment made of two different materials (Lev. 19:19). There are many such laws in the Pentateuch, laws that we consider irrelevant today. Do any of you consider yourselves or your wife, mother, sister, etc. ritually unclean (and thus forbidden to be touched) when she is menstruating (Lev. 15:19)? If you are going to take the Biblical stance, then you should outlaw tattooing and shut down the clothing industry. After all, according to the Bible, it is just as immoral to wear a cotton-nylon blend shirt as it is for a man to sleep with another man. If you wish to condemn one as immoral, you must condemn all; you cannot pick and choose the ones you will follow.
    Biblical considerations aside, the rest of your arguments are remarkably illogical. You wish "the best for homosexuals, and we believe the best for them is not a life of homosexuality". Have you ever considered that "the best for homosexuals" might be to let them be homosexual in peace without you constantly putting ridiculous essays like this on the Internet? Have you ever thought that your "we must save them whether or not they want to be saved" mentality is not what is best for people or even what is most Christian? (continued below)

    ReplyDelete
  22. (continued) Your claim that homosexuality is not a biological predisposition is not founded in science. There is, in fact, strong genetic evidence to say that a large component of homosexuality is genetics. As such, it is in fact something that you are born with, just as some of you are born with brown hair or blue eyes. You say that homosexuals chose to be that way. Tell me, did you wake up one morning and choose to be heterosexual? No? Then how do you expect it to work the other way? You say that you don't believe in evolution, though you can see micro evolution in nature. Unfortunately for you, you cannot accept that one is true without accepting the other. And the evidence for evolution is beyond convincing—anyone who is educated cannot argue against it. Nevertheless, you don't believe in it, but you will use it to argue against homosexuality? Is that even allowed in a logical argument?
    You claim that a lack of homosexual monogamy would weaken the traditional family. Have you seen the current statistics on divorce rates? Apparently, one man and one wife don't always make such a good family either. Unfaithfulness is not something that is associated only with homosexuals. Oh, and in the Bible, the one man one wife tradition was nonexistent. Most of the men in the Bible had multiple wives, who were treated as property. Is this really what you want to go back to?? Your statement about gender roles is outrageous. "Men are supposed to lead, protect, and provide, and women are supposed to nurture, follow, and help". Really? What century did you step out of? Does the feminist movement and women's rights mean nothing to you? In 2012, you are going to say that women should follow men? Are you out of your minds?
    Before you discredit me for my radically different opinion, consider this. I am a college educated female heterosexual. I am Christian who attends church regularly. I am very pious in my own way. But I have been raised to know what I believe and why I believe it. I've been raised to question why things are the way they are. I've been raised to be open-minded. And it's high time that the people who wrote this essay learn some of those skills. The intolerance and close-mindedness that I see in this essay are egregious, and clearly the reasons behind the blatant discrimination we see today. My challenge to you is to learn your facts, and learn your religion. Learn to have an open mind, and if you can't manage to do so, please don't try to convert people to your obsolete way of thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  23. As this is a public blogspot, and it has drawn my attention, I would like to offer up my own opinion as a humble critique of the opinions offered here.

    First, I’ll introduce myself as a high school student, an apostate from Christianity, and a former member of Calvary Baptist Church, an establishment with which many of you are no doubt familiar. I’m scarily liberal. I support the legalization of drugs, Gay Marriage, Polygamy, etc.

    My goal in this is not to stir up a proverbial “hornet’s nest” or to enflame any ill-will or negative attitudes. My concern is that the opinions being expressed here are not founded upon the body of evidence available to us, or by solid logical arguments, but by a narrow Christian worldview all too prevalent in Bible-Belt communities.

    First I would like to address your criticisms of the Kinsey Reports, often regarded as one of the preeminent works of sexology. While it is true that certain groups were included in his early studies on sexual orientation which *MAY* have skewed the results, you failed to mention the significant reevaluation of the Kinsey Reports that took place during the 1970s. Kinsey’s colleagues wiped these questionable groups (among these “questionable groups” included all people convicted of any offense other than a traffic violation, which you specifically pointed out in your original post) and found little difference pre and post purge. For example, the original Kinsey Report held that 37% of males have had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm. The re-evaluation placed that figure at that 36.4%, a mild margin of error. Kinsey’s study is by no means perfect, but it isn’t something simply to cast asunder in the debate either. You can read portions of the re-evaluation of Kinsey’s data at source 1.

    You are very comfortable laying out a blanket declarative statement like “NO ONE is born homosexual”. However, the fact is that science hasn’t presented a conclusive answer on either side of the debate. New research indicates something in the structure of the brain may play a role [2]. In addition, even dating back to 2003, 54 genes (the fact that they are genes is important because genes are present before any kind of hormone emission takes place) were identified to play a significant role in gender identity and sexuality [3]. I’m not claiming to have all the answers here, but simply saying that people are falling to some sort of “temptation” by being gay is simply a cop-out response designed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

    The tangent about the Civil Rights movement was an interesting one. However if homosexuality is indeed biological (as a significant amount of modern research suggests), then this entire point is invalidated. Until a more conclusive answer can be drawn about the assertions made in your previous paragraph, making this assertion is premature at best.

    This entire paragraph is one large slippery slope fallacy. You can’t make the claim that Gay Marriage will lead to desired legal protection for other people because arguments for Gay Marriage are based upon the fact that the consent of two people should be valid under the government. Children cannot give sexual consent, inanimate objects can not give consent, and animals can not give consent clearly discernable by humans.

    I don’t want to sound crass in response to the next paragraph, but my response is a simple “So what?” I’m operating under the assumption that your claims are true, and that homosexuality is a dangerous health risk. EVEN IF it is, so what? Alcoholism is a dangerous health risk, but people are still free to practice alcoholism as long as it doesn’t harm another person. Unprotected sex can be a dangerous health risk, but yet again people are free to practice it consensually. Gay marriage is the same way. EVEN IF it is a dangerous health risk, people should still be free to practice it as long as it doesn’t harm other non-consensual parties.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This next paragraph is honestly a gigantic biology mess that belongs in a freshman classroom. I can’t honestly say I’m surprised that evolutionary biology gets a fair presentation at a private Christian Academy though. There is no “purpose” to evolution. Evolution is simply a scientific explanation for how things change over time. There is no biological concept as “de-evolution”, as evolution doesn’t denote progress towards some sort of ethereal Ubermensch, it just denotes change. The whole micro/macro biology debate is honestly one for another time. However I’ll just interject that the small changes (micro) slowly change something until it looks totally different from its million year old ancestor (macro). Something doesn’t radically change from one animal into another. Here’s a short little text-based explanation of how “microevolution” is actually just “evolution”: http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

    This is simply a poor legal argument. “Marriage” as is used in the United States is simply a social construct based upon the sharing of property and certain legal rights. It can be redefined, and as been many times in the past. This reminds me of a court case called Loving v. Virginia [4]. You could be making a similar argument except saying “Black men have the same marriage rights as white men! They both have the same opportunity to marry women of the same race!” However we look back upon the racism surrounding Loving with a shame in our country that we could ever stoop to such levels. Your point about the Founding Fathers holding a Judeo-Christian moral code is largely irrelevant, because the exact thing the Founders wanted to prevent was projecting one certain type of religious or ethical code onto the entire country, which is why we’re guaranteed the freedoms we are. The Constitution actually doesn’t mention God once! (Unless you count the signatory page which says something to the effect of “yadda yadda in the Year of Our Lord) The Declaration of Independence addresses God-Given rights, but the Declaration isn’t a forcible legal document in the United States, and has never been used as the basis for a Supreme Court decision.

    The idea that homosexuality is the thing that will be the death knell of traditional marriage is one that always makes me chuckle. Divorce is startlingly prevalent among the heterosexual community [5], which would seem to be drastically weakening traditional marriage. Why not outlaw divorce? If a rationale for outlawing Gay Marriage is that it weakens biblical marriage, why not outlaw divorce for the same reason (withholding some sort of abuse issue)?

    I’m going to skip over a few paragraphs because honestly these gender roles are so embedded in people’s psyche that simple text on a page isn’t going to dissuade you.

    Ahh, actually getting to the issue of homosexual adoption. Where literally ALL of the faulty objections raised earlier can be put to rest. The simple fact is that each potential home for children to be placed in and adopted into is rigorously evaluated based on the ability to provide a stable and safe environment for a child. If there are drugs in the house, it’s irrelevant whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, a child will not be placed there. If a member of the parental unit is engaging in dangerously promiscuous sexual activities, the gender of the sexual partners isn’t relevant, because the sexual activities impose a danger on the child’s wellbeing. If a home is deemed to be unsafe for a child, sexual orientation takes a backseat.

    I’m actually agreed with you on one point! The Bible definitely outlines homosexuality as wrong, which is while I find The Bible pretty unpalatable.

    That’s basically all I’ve got. If you managed to read all of this, thanks. I’m pretty exhausted and not all of this may have come off as clear as it sounded to me. If I came off as pretentious, I apologize. That certainly wasn’t my goal.

    Regardless of what we believe, it’s always good to have an open dialogue on issues that impact us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your tone and thoughtfulness are very well-taken. Yes, the class wants open and civil dialogue, like what you exhibit here. I'm sure they will count yours as among the best written, with very substantive ideas.

      Todd Belcher,
      Faculty Supervisor

      Delete
    2. Member of GCA Senior ClassApril 13, 2012 at 9:16 AM

      Member of GCA Senior Class
      Thank you for the way you presented your argument without committing an “ad hominem” fallacy. That is much appreciated due to the vast number of responses we have received did mostly that. Before I address the problems in your arguments, I want to express my regret that you describe yourself as an apostate from Christianity. I do not know if the actions of someone inside the church or the teachings of men outside the church drew you away, but I do know that Christ is still Lord of all and deserves your worship. My goal, like yours, is not to stir up hate-filled emotion, but to continue to defend God’s plan of the traditional family against one of its most popular opponents. With that being said, I am going to go point-by-point through your response as you did our blog.
      I researched the link you provided that showed the 1979 Kinsey Study. As you know, many of the pages were not available. Due to this, I could not find the equivalent statistic to the 10% figure we refuted in our original post. Just as we have revised our statistic used from a 1978 study because of its date for a more recent study, we looked to find a more recent percentage of how many homosexuals there are in the U.S. The Gary Gates study referenced in our original entry was that statistic. It is clear that the number of exclusively homosexual people in America is a far cry from the 10% Kinsey reported in the original study, and I would predict lower than the percentage given in the 1979 Kinsey study. I would gladly re-evaluate that prediction if I could explore the study in whole.
      I also read the article you cited as your second source. I would agree that the answer has not been proven as scientific fact for either side at this time. We clearly acknowledged in the original post that research was being done in this area, but no irrefutable evidence has been presented. I feel that you inaccurately claimed that we designed a cop-out response that ignored evidence when we recognized that research was being done. The article you cited even stated that the reason for the differences in the brain sizes was not known. Your point about genes related to sex is important, but research shows that the so-called “gay gene” or Xq28 does not link homosexuality to genes. It is definitely not conclusively linked. (1) The first point in an article entitled “The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality” addresses whether people are born gay. It cites evidence from studies conducted on twins who at least one of them was gay. This evidence is important because identical twins share the same genes thus if one was gay the other should be as well if homosexuality is purely biological. This shows that even if homosexuality is somewhat biological, it is not the primary cause of homosexual desires. (2) I will give another argument for this in the next paragraph as I address the Civil Rights Movement.
      Even “IF” homosexuality is biological, it should not be compared to the Civil Rights Movement because of its sinful nature. Because all of nature has been subjected to the curse of the Fall (see Gen. 3:14-19), even human DNA is flawed. The Bible says in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (3) Because humanity is depraved and wicked from the moment of conception, no biological predisposition could justify an action that is sinful according to Scripture.
      I believe your next paragraph is appropriately responded to by our supervisor as a comment to an anonymous post further down this page. The comment was on March 28, 2012 at 10:08 AM (referenced so you could find it). He cites http://b4uact.org. It seems that before too long, the thoughts expressed by that website could sadly be the topic of a debate such as this.

      Delete
    3. Member of GCA Senior ClassApril 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM

      Member of GCA Senior Class continued...
      The fallacy of your thinking in the next paragraph is that no one is alone. Humanity lives and relates through relationships because that is the way God has made us. Even if two people consent to an action that does not mean it affects no one else. To illustrate my point, if two men willingly, individually decided that they would both shoot each other at the same time so that both lives are ended, would that be acceptable in your view? It sounds like since they are consenting adults that would be perfectly fine even though it would be dangerous for them. The problem with this situation and the same logic being applied to homosexuality is that no man or relationship only affects himself or themselves. The men killing each other have forgotten the people their actions affect. They have forgotten the person who finds their bodies. They have forgotten their family and friends. They have forgotten their neighbors, and the list goes on. The same truth applies to a homosexual relationship. The people involved will no doubt influence others. They will influence children observing them, heterosexual couples observing, and many other people. Simply stating that homosexual couples can be married because of their mutual consent cannot justify their marriage because they are not the only ones affected by the relationship. Homosexuality is clearly a health risk that influences other people. John Donne put it best when he said, “No man is an island.”
      I understand that evolutionary theory says that minute changes in a species eventually, after millions of years, progress into a new species. I used micro-evolution to describe small changes such as those in the Galapagos finches. These changes never resulted in a net change but oscillated back and forth depending on climate and precipitation. I ensure you that my private Christian academy did not unfairly present the foundation of evolutionary theory. I noticed however that you, in no way, refuted our argument made by that paragraph. Did that cause you trouble in your evolutionary worldview?
      The illustration you gave in the next paragraph can be refuted by stating that the Civil Rights issues are not similar to the homosexual debate. I would completely agree that we look back at racism in disgust and sadness as we should. But, as I previously stated, being born a race other than Caucasian is not a sin. It is not something that can be changed or should be changed. It is not morally wrong. Homosexuality is a completely different debate because its nature is morally wrong. I understand your worldview may not even hold to a moral code but the Biblical worldview I have examined as truth clearly holds a moral code. We do not believe that it should be a law for all Americans to be Christians or that they should all be forced to follow a Christian moral code. That would be absurd. We are not even necessarily lobbying for a law banning homosexuality. Our purpose was (and is) to show why homosexuality is wrong and why homosexual adoption is wrong. We were simply stating in this paragraph that it would be illogical to make laws that contradict the rights and values the Founding Fathers held so dearly.
      I believe you make an excellent point in the next paragraph. Divorce is drastically weakening traditional marriage. The mindset that says, “If this doesn’t work, I can always get a divorce”, is a major cause of so many heterosexual marriages ending in divorce. I believe the Bible is clear to say that divorce is acceptable (but not encouraged) in the situation of adultery. I think divorce is not spoken out against enough in the church. Divorce is definitely hurting the traditional construction of the family and grieving the heart of God just as homosexuality and any other sin is. Both homosexuality and divorce are growing trends in the United States that should be highly discouraged.

      Delete
    4. Member of GCA Senior ClassApril 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM

      Member of GCA Senior Class continued...again...
      The sentence on gender roles was a passing statement to support heterosexuality. The point made at the end of that paragraph, however, was not grounded in gender roles. Laws are clearly made for the majority of people not the minority as explained in our original entry. This point seemed like it also caused you some trouble. Was that the case?
      The problem with your refutation of our adoption paragraph lies in the fact that you only spoke of unsafe homes for a child. We are advocating that practicing homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt because of their sexual orientation, no matter how “safe” the home might be. You stated sexual orientation should take a backseat in adoption; we believe it should be one of the first things considered. Because God did not design in His plan for a homosexual relationship to be able to produce children, we find it wrong that children would be placed in a home that God and nature would deem unfit for a child to be raised in. You missed the point of that argument.
      I am sorry to read that you find the Bible “unpalatable.” The grace and mercy of Christ to be found in the Bible are the most beautiful, delightful things to be found in the universe. I pray that Christ would pursue you with His unfailing love and unending mercy, and I pray you would come to know Him. (4) I am glad to have the opportunity to debate with you and others about such an important issue that Scripture is clear on. Thank you again for your civil comment, and I pray you find this response just as civil, thoughtful, and kind.
      1-http://www.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/571.summary (I did not have access to the full article but have read this summary along with others on the full survey)
      2- http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf (Part I referenced is on pages 4-5)
      3- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+51&version=ESV
      4- http://viewthestory.com/viewer/?c=1000&p=t&quality=undefined

      Delete
  25. Sources:

    1) http://books.google.com/books?id=s7dvxScuTWMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=kinsey+data+clean&source=bl&ots=Dl9JOZ4LkD&sig=3t0Ic_hrmPt4eMOUSg8DeINFTWA&hl=en&ei=0CPUTaXALqPZiAKixuWlBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    2) http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gays-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

    3) http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/?page=full

    4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_Virginia

    5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/united-states-divorce-rat_n_935938.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These links did not come from the class. Perhaps they are relevant to the discussion? We'll see. . .

      Faculty Supervisor

      Delete
    2. I apologize for not making this clear. I'm the author of the post you regarded as "among the best written". This is a page of the sources I cited to go along with my comment.

      Delete
  26. MacLean LessenberryMarch 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    If YOU aren't gay please explain to me why you care enough to take away others' rights?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they can. It is ok to hate on others as long as they are different.

      Delete
  27. How dare you compare homosexuals to child molesters? Most gay people are in relationships with other people who are gay, and are not forcing themselves upon innocent children. You do realize that child molestation happens heterosexually as well, right? Also, there is definitely a separation between church and state. In the constitution, the first amendment gives us a right to freedom of religion. This amendment was created so that discrimination between faiths would no longer be acceptable through government standards. Does that sound as if the creators of the Constitution intended for their faith to be the end all be all of that "freedom of religion" they spoke of? Hm. Let's "ponder" that one. Furthermore, I found the article that I am pretty sure you used for your information on the number of heterosexuals in today's population. That small percentage of the population actually represents 4 million people. I know it is the minority, but that is 4 million people who are denied the right to love according to natural, physical attraction. Let's not forget that in the beginning of Christianity, the Jewish were the minority. And here, you are saying to forget about the minority for the good of the whole? How did this religion start? One more point before I close: in Biblical times, it was considered acceptable for women to have relations with other women because they were "practicing" for their husband. These unacceptable gender discriminations have been consistent for thousands of years, and we have just begun to break out of them. In your article, you also worked to establish gender roles where the mothers should be stay-at-home moms... after all, their role is to "nurture, follow, and help." How about you tell some of those lovely ladies in the picture that they must always follow after men, and that it is for the good of keeping the delicate balance of perfect, holy heterosexual marriage? I'm sure those girls have dreams, and I'm sure that they are leaders, not followers. I have so many issues with this article, as a Christian, as an intellectual, and as a humane person. I'm sure that this comment will be deleted, but I hope that some people will be able to read it to view a substantial counter-argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GCA12AKB

      I'd first like to thank you for your comment, we are trying our best to consider counter-arguments and respond accordingly.

      In our blog, we never directly compared homosexuals to child molesters. We simply made the argument that if homosexuals were granted rights if, and only if, they were predisposed to be attracted to the same sex, then it would only be a matter of time until child molesters or something of the like would seek protective rights because they are predisposed to be attracted to children. I would also like to add that we do realize that gay people are in relationships with gay people and child molestation happens heterosexually.

      The First Amendment states that the government cannot keep you from practicing your religion and was made to protect people from persecution because of their religion. It does not say that you cannot base your decisions off of your religion, which the Founding Fathers did do. One could argue that every person's moral beliefs are based to some extent on their spirituality and therefore their spirituality influences how they feel about certain things and the decision making process.

      I'm not sure that you read this part, but we did, in fact, state that the percentage is 4 million people. We never suggested 'forgetting' the minority; instead we suggest that the minority seeks help for the lifestyle they are choosing or struggling with. Christianity and homosexuality are not comparable just because they are minorities. Early Christians never fought for rights or the legalization of anything like the homosexual community is.

      Would you be able to supply me with where you got your information on women having relations with other women? That may have been acceptable for Roman women, but I would go as far to say that it would not have been for Jewish/Christian women. In our blog, we never worked to establish gender roles, that was not what the blog was about. We also never said that all women should be stay-at-home mothers. Men and women were created differently but equal, and as one of the "lovely ladies" in the picture, I can assure you that my dreams and aspirations are still in tact even though I expect my future husband to be the godly leader of the household.

      I hope you are glad to see that your comment has been published and I again thank you for your comment.

      Delete
  28. What an amazing argument! You will be blessed for taking a stand for what is right(James 1:25). I am very impressed and encouraged by a group of young people who have such thorough understanding about the Bible and the serious decline of our culture. Thank you for reaching out.

    ReplyDelete
  29. In the history of living in this area, nothing has shocked me more than to run across this blog aimed at focusing ignorance and hate. To think that people want to teach their children to live in the Dark Ages baffles me. People who are GAY or homosexuals do not NEED or WANT help with becoming STRAIGHT once more, they need a loving person just as heterosexuals who need a devoted partner. IF you want to help a GAY person, fight for their civil and first amendment rights to love and live freely - DO NOT repress them with misinterpreted "scripture". Instead of promoting a negative idea in to society, you should be EDUCATING your students... meaning they should learn how to properly research a topic!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh it has to be approved. :) I see. This is a lot like how the Catholic church chose what part of the bible to include to their minions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another one gladly approved.

      Todd Belcher
      Faculty Supervisor
      (Protestant)

      Delete
  31. What a thoughtful, eloquent collaboration. Your writing is confident and deliberate without being pretentious or cold. My favorite points are the comparison to Civil Rights and the well-stated paragraph about not putting children in an "unnaturally selected" home. You all have done excellent work, and I hope to read more from you here.

    As this gains attention, may God's love, grace, and peace would flood your hearts...flood all of our hearts as we stand humbly before those who will hate us for this. May His jealous protection fiercely guard us, that we would never find ourselves slaves to our own lusts. It is for freedom Christ sets us free!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Where are your citations?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I see nothing in here stating statistics of heterosexual people that are unfaithful to their partners. Are you so blinded by the veil of heterosexual norm that you cannot see that heterosexual couples have an equal and/or greater number of problems than homosexual couples?

    A little more research would help and maybe correct your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Thank you GCA Seniors for adrressing in a compassionate, logical and scriptural way why God has a better plan for humanity than homosexuality/lesbianism. Your defense of heterosexual marriage as created and defined by God is an apologetic that our country and civilization desperately needs to understand and embrace!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Lesbianism" is covered under the term "homosexuality". Just in case you were wondering.

      Delete
  35. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. There are SO many things wrong with everything you've said. You brandish hate and preach intolerance, the exact OPPOSITE of the christian message. You judge others because they are different than you. Didn't god say "judge not"? You've been blinded by the bigotry that others have thrusted upon you. This is so wrong. Homosexual people have EVERY RIGHT to marry and have children as anyone else and none of you have any right to say that they cannot. Live and let live. Other people's sexual lives are none of your business and you have no place to comment upon it, ESPECIALLY when your message is so hateful.

    ReplyDelete
  36. What are your credentials? What expertise does a bunch of high school seniors have to say that homosexuality isn't something that someone is born with. You are not neurological scientists. I am so sick of people trying to pretend they have some sort of knowledge or expertise that allows them to make "scientific" statements such as these when in fact they are completely void of any such knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And do you have proof that you are born with it? No, you do not. Perhaps even less than the opposing side does. Journals, articles, the product of extensive research is available to us all, we do not live in the Dark Ages. So I am very confident they they do have "scientific knowledge" of this matter as anyone could with a few measly hours of research, in fact much more than you probably do. Stop assuming everyone else is as uneducated as you are.

      Delete
  37. [Note from faculty supervisor.]
    I have been moderating blog comments. Delay in their being published is on me. The number and content of the replies since Friday afternoon, both positive and negative, have been overwhelming. I will discuss with the students at class Monday morning whether and how best to publish and respond to your comments. No doubt, civility and thoughtfulness will be primary criteria. In the meantime, I will be glad to continue to review and weigh your comments as moderator through the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Good for you guys.... it's good to see that our youth is standing firm on what the word of God says!!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God also "says" Men are to lead; women are to be modest, learning quietly, and in submission; in this way, they prove their claim to godliness.
      1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

      Delete
  39. I'm so proud that a group of kids my age in my community are standing up for this. I firmly believe that homosexuality is one of the hardest issues to address from a Christian perspective in today's culture. This is courage.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I read your post thoroughly. I allowed it to sink in. You make several good points.
    I was raised in the church and attribute most of my positive qualities to my biblical upbringing. While I respect your beliefs, I see a few flaws in your logic. There are logical justifications behind biblical laws. For example: do not eat pork. At the time, trichinosis was rampant due to poor cooking practices. We have since improved cooking and trichinosis is no longer a danger and Peter had his dream which overwrote old testament laws. Some laws were never overwritten by the New Testament. One such law is that being with a woman on her period is punishable by banishment.
    In the New Testament, homosexuality is barely mentioned. We cannot presume to know Jesus' position on homosexuality because he never spoke of it. There are two passages which briefly allude to it but both Corinthians and Timothy do not outright mention homosexuality. The two words originally used in the lists mention Male Prostitutes and Sodomites but the word choice in the root Greek do not expressly refer to homosexuality. *see below*
    In Romans 1:26 is the one passage in the New Testament that outright mentions homosexuality but only in relation to idolatry. Other verses reference the love of money as a type of idolatry. Money or wealth is not a sin but forsaking God for the pursuit of wealth is the sin. The same could be said of homosexuality.
    My point is; if homosexuality is such a danger to our society, why is it not mentioned more prominently and definitely? You will find scads of New Testament passages regarding murder, theft and promiscuity but to attack homosexuality you must rely on only three verses. Two of which use vague terms in a list and the third in reference to idolatry in the same fashion as money.
    You make the disclaimer that you are not homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear. Allow me to point out-
    1) You fear that allowing homosexuals to adopt will put the child in danger for their mental and emotional well-being. You are also saying that this danger is greater than the threat of starvation and death in third-world countries from which many homosexual couples would adopt. This seems irrational.
    2) You make the argument that homosexuality would lead to legal protection of other immoral acts (such as child molestation). While I respect your position and most of your arguments, this comparison is morally reprehensible. Comparing homosexuality to child molestation is akin to comparing your church to the Westboro Baptist Church.
    When in doubt, err on the side of love. Jesus asked us to love God with all our mind and all our soul and do unto other what we would have them do unto us (definitely not a direct quote). I fail to see how simply being homosexual and/or being in a homosexual relationship precludes you from doing just that.
    I realize that little of what I have said will sway anyone who participated in this post. I would ask you to look through the new testament and see how many passages include things that no longer apply to your faith. ie: slavery. Even in the New Testament there are references condoning slavery. If you find yourself reasoning your way around how the new testament speaks of slavery ("Well, they really meant servants which are employees") I dare you to try that same logic on homosexuality and see how true it rings.

    *arsenokoitai - taken from the Greek 'arsen' meaning male and 'koite' meaning bed. It has often been interpreted to mean "taking a man to bed". However, this word was rarely used so the true meaning has been lost. As an example, if I said "I hate brown-nosers." Someone might take that literally and deduce that I am racistto those with brown skin. Other usages of the word arsenokoitai has been suggested to mean men who take advantage of children of both sexes sexually.

    This was longer with more references and citations but there was not enough room.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It is clear you guys must be hitting the truth by the number of hate filled replies, Its amazing to see , but a great reminder. It's comical to read posts on here that slam you guys

    ReplyDelete
  42. There are a multitude of sins. Every single person that reads these very words struggles with one form of sin or another. Homosexuality falls into that category. Some people have extreme lust and control it, while others are greedy and jealous of their neighbor. God loves homosexuals all the same because they are still his children and sin just like the rest of us. I am glad to know that there are some who will hold others accountable, as we were instructed to do.

    For those of you who like to leave negative feedback:
    If you call these young men and women close minded, you in turn are being close minded for disregarding their beliefs. You who think that it is twisted or that they are bad people, are judgmental.

    I personally am horrified by gay marriage and adoption. However, from a legal stand point in the United States there is nothing we can do about it.

    We have the right to believe what we believe. They have theirs rights too, but that doesn't make it moral. Don't confuse rights with morality.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I love how hypocritical the responses are-
    -"How dare you be intolerant!"
    -"Burn at the stake"

    Disgusting, really. These students are merely taking a stand in their faith and choosing to remain firm in their faith rather than accept how society has twisted the truth. Remember, Jesus was hated by many, do not be discouraged.

    Homosexuality is another perversion of human nature, and this blog accurately portrayed that. It is not something you're born with, and no, it is not natural down the the very basic structure of mankind. Jesus does not condone homosexuality, and neither should we.

    However, the act of homosexuality is merely a sin, no greater than any other, and many fall to the temptation, but that makes them no worse than any of the rest of us. All we can do is continue to love all of the people around us, and leave God to judge but we can still take a stand against sin, and refuse to let it corrupt our lives.

    It is amazing how much hate people get when they simply state something contrary to what is popular with the public. This was very brave.

    Also, it would have been nice if you had included some of the causes of homosexuality, to show how it is "curable"- i.e. childhood trauma, hormonal imbalances, and the like!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Whilst it's a good thing to stand up for what one believes, this blog will also let you know what opposition awaits you once you get out into the world. Religion and politics always brings out the best and worst in people.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just because you're a christian does not give you the right to judge anyone, I Personally believe in the teachings of Jesus, but i also believe if you're gay its not my place to judge you for it it is a sin yes, but so is stealing, lying and adultery. All sins are equal, they will be judged when it is all said and done, so instead of trying to take away homosexuals rights as humans and putting them down, why can't you just pray for them instead? just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GCA12- ORP
      Thank you for your comment. When we wrote this blog, we were not writing it to judge anyone, we wrote it to state our opinions and beliefs on homosexuality. Just as we have the freedom to write this blog, you have the freedom to also comment your thoughts and beliefs in reply. I agree when the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and yes, as well as stealing, lying, etc. And yes, one day we will all have to stand before God and give an account of our life and He will judge us. In our blog, we are not trying to take away homosexual's rights as humans. As humans, they are not denied a right to marry, they are just denied the right to marry someone of their same sex. If there is not a right for them to marry their same sex partner, how can we take that right away by writing this blog? As a Christian, I have and still am praying for not just homosexuals, but everyone who reads this blog. I realize that our words will not change everyone's opinion, but I pray that our blog will cause people to meditate and think on this tough issue during these days and be open for healthy discussion and debate. Thank you for your time.

      Delete
  46. What makes me upsets is how we live in America and Christians are still pursicuted for our beliefs. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be aloud to question our beliefs, but that when we state our opinions we are called igonarent or belittle for our beliefs. Then when people with worldly views state their beliefs Christians (when I say Christians I mean real Christians not people who just say they are) try to listen to the people instead of being negative about what they have to say. I'm not saying that all people with worldly views do this, but most do. The reasons for me stating my belief in this matter is after reading this blog and then reading comments sayying "they should be burned at the stake" really bothers me, but instead of these seniors lashing back at them I know they have already forgiven them (probably not evening knowing these people) and have already been praying for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before I begin criticizing what has been said, I would like to say that I do have a small amount of respect, not for your argument, but for the fact that you had the guts to post something like this. Furthermore, I admire that you made an attempt to back up your arguments with some form of evidence (however flawed I might think that those sources are). Using technique like this is one of the first steps down the road of reason and civil discussion. Fortunately, I am not here to debate the credibility of your sources. However, I would like to address some of the things you have outlined in this essay, and use them to engage certain thought experiments.

      Addressing the issue of whether or not homosexuality is biological is a tricky task. Since none of us can rightly claim to be scientists who know what they’re talking about with this issue, and scientific fact is not popular among religious circles, we shall deal just with thoughts. Let us entertain for a moment your belief that homosexuality is not biological (I do not agree with you on this detail, but I believe it has already been established that I do not agree with your essay, therefore it would be redundant for me to keep restating the fact). In your essay you state that you believe homosexuality is a learned behavior; that it is “in the brain.” Is the brain not governed by biology just the same? The action of breathing is “in the brain.” By stating something is “in the brain” does not take it out of the governance of biological predisposition. The need to eat, breathe, sleep, etc. are all “in the brain,” yet they are not learned behaviors. Even physical attraction is wired into our brains. That is why you might feel aroused either sexually or emotionally when seeing someone that you perceive as attractive. The brain releases chemicals into the body that make you feel elated, that make you feel those “butterflies” in your stomach. So why then is it out of the realm of possibility that someone might be born with the biological predisposition to see someone of the same sex as attractive? In stating that you do not see homosexuality as biological, then you are suggesting that it is biological basis for heterosexuality. What if a boy was raised without knowing the existence of women? Who then would he be attracted to? If a man had no knowledge of women or a concept of “female” how could he be attracted to one? For a group of people that believe in the power society can have in altering beliefs, you severely underestimate that power society has in creating beliefs, be it religious or secular. The point I’m trying to illustrate here is that if you consider homosexuality to be a learned behavior, heterosexuality could just as easily follow the same paradigm.

      Delete
    2. The second issue I would like to address is your larger, overarching argument that homosexuality is the largest threat to tradition constructs of marriage. I disagree with this point on multiple levels. First, I do not believe gay marriage is at all a threat to the traditional constructions of marriage, because it is not infringing upon anyone else’s rights to marry. Heterosexuals will still be allowed to marry regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is legal. There is no “threat.” Nothing about a man marrying another man actually threatens you, or anyone else for that matter. The traditional construction of marriage still exists, there is just another “building” next door. Secondly, do you not feel that the insanely high divorce rate does more to challenge traditional constructs of marriage than gay marriage? Is a traditional marriage not supposed to be a bond for life, “Till death do us part?” Divorces greatly outnumber gay marriages; therefore, if you want a real “threat” to the traditional construct of marriage, it’s the dissolution of that traditional marriage, not the ability of others to marry the same sex. Lastly I disagree with your view that there is a, meaning one, traditional construct of marriage. How traditional are we getting here? The argument you are making is within your beliefs as to what is “traditional.” Traditions vary throughout cultures, societies, families and religions. You cannot with 100% confidence state that there is one universal traditional construct of marriage.

      It is unfortunate that even after all of these years Christians still try to govern the whole of society with their ideas of what is right and wrong. Is it not enough to be content with having your own personal relationship with God and attend church with those that you love? Why must you try to force your beliefs on those who do not want to share them, will not share them, and never will? You have no more right than I or anyone else to believe that you have the privilege of controlling society through your system of morality. How would you feel if Muslims, Hindus or Atheists tried to do the same to you? Remember the Golden Rule.

      Delete
  47. I hope your students don't try to pass the Bible off as a credible source in their college writing classes. And by college, I mean real universities, not the 'Bible colleges'.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Really, all the comments, both for and against homosexuality, are kinda disturbing. We're all human, there's no need for a flame war, ESPECIALLY from any Christians posting. I mean, I'm scrolling through these comments and getting more depressed then I was reading the blog. Now I'm gonna post my two cent's worth, and hope noone gets to offended.

    People supporting this blog: Where in the world do you get off thinking that Christians can force anyone to live thier lives a certain way? First and foremost, that should be enough to cease any support here. I've seen alot of "Well, homosexuals are wrong, so this blog is right!" and "Anyone hating on this blog is just a pagan hater". Did you even read the blog? Even though they started with "We aren't homophobes", most of the blog was just a giant homosexual-hate topic. The info was slighted heavily against homosexuals, and some of the numbers....wasn't realistic at all. Think for a moment, please! When you comment your love for this blog, do you 'truly' believe that God wants us to force anyone to do something? Did Jesus really tell us to force homosexuals to change or be punished? No? I didn't think so. He told us to take up our cross, and follow Him. We are Christians, meaning "like Christ". He told us to love everyone, and show others His grace/mercy through our lives, not to force others to yeild to our religion. If we scorn homosexuals, and tell them that their existence is some disturbing thing, then we've fallen so far from what we were made to teach. Not only has this hurt the witness of any homosexuals reading it, it hurt alot of Christians/anyone reading it too. Look at Maclean, Micah, Jacob, Caroline, all four of them got nothing from this but ill feelings. And thats only four people out of....probably at least fourty. People were hurt, and for good reason. This blog didn't exactly show God's love. They deserve an apology.

    ReplyDelete
  49. People that hate this blog:To the people commenting hateful things on this blog, I understand how you feel. I seriously do. Noone has any right in a free country to force a rule on someone, religion or not. Homosexuals aren't even hurting anyone, they're just there. But spamming hateful things won't solve anything. Tell them, politely, why you disagree. Christians are supposed to hold other Christians accountable also. I spent my time after reading this blog talking to others, both straight and homosexual, both young and old, Christian and not, and most of all, I read the Bible. Easy resource to use/easy to find. I made sure I was HIGHLY informed on the topic before I posted. Why? Cause my words can hurt/heal. Morale of the story:If you disagree with this blog, prove why its wrong. Don't just spam it with hate, since two negatives don't make a positive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree, in math two negatives do make a positive, but only when multiplying.

      Delete
  50. Finally...
    To the makers of the blog:I know that you had great intentions when you wrote this, I really do. I even know some of you. But remember that forcing Christianity on anyone else is wrong. The crusades were wrong. The Inquisition was wrong. Many times, Christians get so excited to spread the word to someone, they accidently force it too hard, even if its out of love. My youth minister told me "Christians should be wise as serpents and gentle as doves." God gives us the power to defend our faith all day long, but the sword wasn't made for attacking. But homosexuality in my eyes is wrong, not because its a sin to fellow man, like murder/hate, but because its a sin to God. God gave us rules to follow, and He made a beautiful system of love/marriage between a man and a woman. He blatently told us the the Bible(Romans/Timothy, gotten from a friend) that homosexuality was an impurity/perversion of what He meant for it to be. So as Christians, we have no excuse since God told us how it should be. But to a pagan, who has no relationship with God, its hard to teach them about why its a sin. Let God show them if its right/wrong, and leave the judgements to Him. I'm proud of you guys for representing your faith, I really am. That took alot of courage, more then I usually have. But I think you got overzealous, and took a slight step too far. Consider this a fellow Christian giving loving advice. I "think" you should reanalyze your data, because some of it was unbelievable, and make a case of why CHRISTIANS should not be homosexuals. You also owe some people an apology, easpecially the four/five I mentioned earlier. Good luck.

    ps:these better get approved, cause my hands hurt writing this much :P

    ReplyDelete
  51. The Bible also states that you should not shave nor cut your hair. So unfortunately by the picture of the seniors, it seems none of you will be able to able to adopt as well. If we are going to throw stones.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  52. GCA12-RTW
    There have been many people who have commented to say that we are intolerant and closed-minded. Those who accuse us of being closed-minded always make it seem like intolerance is a bad thing. But is intolerance really that bad? Everyone is intolerant of one thing or another. For example, one may not tolerate rape, child abuse, or racism. We try to display the love of Christ to all people, but this does not mean that we should condone their acts. Through this blog, we have shown that we do not tolerate the acts of homosexuality but show God's love to the people themselves. If you still think that our intolerance is evil, just remember that you are being intolerant yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  53. GCA Senior Class 2012March 28, 2012 at 9:20 AM

    Response from Seniors- GCA 2012
    I would like to clarify the statistics we used to support our case of homosexuality being a health risk. The statistics we originally used were taken from literature we had read on homosexuality. They were from a 1978 study conducted by Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg of the Institute for Sex Research. We realize that, due to their date, these statistics are of less value to that particular argument than what was originally conveyed. But, we are still going to support that paragraph’s premise using more recent findings. Paul Van de Ven reported in 1997 that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of older active homosexual men surveyed in Australia] was 101-500.” Out of the same 2,583 homosexuals questioned, 15.7% had between 501-1,000 sexual partners and an additional 10.2%-15.7% of these men reported having over 1,000 sexual partners. The study did not specify if the same people could have been multiple people’s partners and overlap, or if they were each only counted in the statistics once. These are the most recent, reliable statistics we could find on homosexual promiscuity. If you find a reliable study done more recently, please inform us of it.
    (Taken from http://exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php, original article’s reference is cited there)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Wow. When I thought this blog couldn't get any more hateful, GCA equates tolerating rape and racism with tolerating homosexuality. Just...wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please develop a skill to comprehend argument by illustration. One person will not tolerate rape, another may not tolerate racism, also I, as a teacher, will not tolerate chewing gum in my classroom. If you think this example proves that I view chewing gum toleration and rape toleration with equal significance, then there is literally no reasoning with you.

      RTW argues there are things we are all intolerant of, often for good reasons. Make your case.

      Faculty Supervisor

      Delete
    2. First off, I love how I'm told to develop argument skills by a teacher who allows his students to use a piece of literature as an argument to be intolerant to a group of people. And your whole 'if we let gays have legal rights, child molestors will want legal protections next!' argument? That's called a logical fallacy, slippery slope to be exact. I learned about logical fallacies, which this article is riddled with, at my public high school. Guess they skipped that lesson at GCA.

      Perhaps I misunderstood what RTW was saying. Was the point not that those acts are evil and should not be tolerated, just as you believe homosexuality is evil and should not be tolerated?

      Delete
    3. The class agrees that a slippery slope argument, in an informal sense, is not fallacious by default, especially if it is supported with historical data that infer relevant causal relationships which might give the argument warrant. Example: If we allow chewing gum in class, students might then demand eating during class, which might lead to poor retention, which would likely impede learning. Should be no problem with this argument/policy.

      To say "allowing gays legal rights will next (or soon) lead to child molestors wanting legal protection" is not fallacious. As to whether it proves to be TRUE or not is simply up to the child molestors. New developments show this issue to be at our doorstep. See http://b4uact.org.

      [Faculty Supervisor]

      Delete
    4. If the Bible is a piece of literature, then Beethoven's Fifth is a ditty.

      Delete
    5. What historical context supports gay rights leading to child molestor rights? You mention this but I don't find any evidence for it. And you still demonstrate the slippery slope fallacy because you are sure that one will lead to the other without any justification beyond your own beliefs. When you pay no to attention to a middle ground, you promote the fallacy. You do not think you can have gay marriage without it leading to child molestor protection- this is a fallacy.

      I don't see the point your trying to make between the Bible and Beethoven. His Fifth Symphony is a piece of music. Your personal opinions of his music will decide whether or not you think it's a masterpiece or a ditty. I didn't call the Bible a 'silly piece of violent, misgynistic drabbles', I called it a piece of literature (which it is). I placed no judgement on it. There was no need for your comparison. It contributed nothing to the argument.

      Delete
  55. CBW- GCA 2012

    First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their positive and negative comments. We are very grateful for your comments. Many of the comments stated on Facebook and on this blogspot have to do with people saying that we hate homosexuals and people who are struggling with attraction to the same sex. I believe that there is a great line to be drawn. Homosexuality deals with a person that is attracted to same sex and takes part in seeking out a romantic (and often sexual) relationship with that person. Someone who is struggling with attraction with the same sex does not seek out that relationship, but want to be set free from the same sex attraction. As a courageous person commented before on this blog, dealing with the same-sex attraction is hard and often unwanted. It is a struggle for them that should not be taken lightly. In this article, we are by no means trying to communicate hatred toward people who are homosexual or are attracted to the same sex. People who commented before me say that we should love each other. We do. We love the homosexual people exactly the same as heterosexual people. We do not create double standards.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JTR's is forthcoming.

      [Faculty Supervisor]

      Delete
  57. When we seniors created this blog, we all knew that there would be negative and positive comments posted. We were all zealous to see what arguments others would present. We are grateful for the people who have presented arguments, not hatred, which has allowed us to deepen and expand our thinking and debate skills. Some people have said that we are "judging", "close-minded", "intolerant", and "hating" homosexuals. All of us seniors have talked to a homosexual, if not many, and we treat them no differently. This does not mean that what they are doing is right, though. For someone to say, "You're being judgmental" is simply using a common slogan. The person saying that is simply judging us. Everyone has an equal right to share his own view, and we are by no means judging anyone. As a senior class, we wanted to state our view just as everyone else who is for homosexuality wants to state their view. Also, we are in no way "close-minded." Some of the comments are sayng that we need to "open our eyes and be open-minded." We have learned through our studies that if someones says, "You guys need to be open-minded" that the person who stated that has came to a conclusion on what we stated is true or false, and that person is not open-minded, either. Many people have also told us that we need to be tolerant. Our question: Why should we be tolerant? Tolerance does not make something right. Jesus shows love and compassion to everyone even when the person is doing wrong, and we are trying to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  58. GCA12-JTR
    To who it may concern: I would like to write to everyone who has commented on this blog with hate. We understood that when we made this blog it would be a very debated topic, and we are open to any logical debate. However i would like to say that to everyone that is just bashing us for our beliefs you are not doing anything better than what you are claiming we are doing. I understand that you may not like our views and you may not even like us but I would like to ask that you would please keep all of the hateful comments to yourself they do nothing to disprove the argument that we have set forth and they are not furthering your cause either. We would gladly like to discuss why we believe and try to understand why you believe what you do but when you just attack us then that proves nothing other than you do not approve this but it does not say why. SO i would please ask that you would please leave this blog for a healthy debate thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  59. So glad I don't live in KY anymore where this kind of ignorance is rampid. I am a female in my late teens, that's all you need to know. I came out as bisexual to my friends last year. I was attracted to females at a young age in 4th grade, starting with the captain of the girls soccer team. I had a Christian upbringing so I thought what I was feeling was sinful and wrong so I hid it from everyone. But now, I have a boyfriend who I am very open with. He knows I have relations with girls and it doesn't bother him. We have been in a relationship for 2 1/2 years and this has only made us stronger. However, I still live in hiding for fear of my overly-strict, closed-minded parents who would KICK ME OUT if I told them about me. Sorry. I just had to rant...

    ReplyDelete
  60. YOU ARE ALL BIGOTS. Quit hiding behind your "God" My mother was a God fearing Christian woman who happened to be GAY. She raised me to respect women, love my family, pay my taxes and serve my country. I am a devout ATHEIST. Partly because of how horrible people like you are! You all sicken me!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Schools such as this and the ignorance/bias/narrow mindedness that they breed are why we can't have nice things. I can't decide whether to laugh or cry or how easily it is to manipulate the minds of decent individuals into believing the most pathetic and shameful notions.

    Might I suggest that christians and the likes simply keep their noses out of other peoples sex lives.

    ReplyDelete
  62. A true Christian would follow Jesus's example and not say anything at all about homosexuality, unless you feel you understand the religion better than He did.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Children born to alcoholic parents have a greater tendency to be alcoholics."
    My mother is alcohol dependant and the only thing it's ever done to me is make me extra-cautious so I don't end up the same way.

    "We would also like to state that even if homosexuality is a biological predisposition, it should be treated. The United States would not allow a man who molests children to continue doing so because he has a predisposition toward children. We would lock this man up as a pedophile, and treat and counsel him."

    These are nothing alike. Homosexual relationships involve two consenting adults (or two consenting teenagers) but never one from each group unless the age difference is, at the maximum, one or two years. For example, a sixteen year old dating an eighteen year old is fine, it happens all the time in both hetero and homo relationships. A sixteen year old dating a thirty year old however, is indeed wrong but also happens in both hetero and homo relationships. Comparing homosexuality and paedophilia is like comparing broccoli and cheesecake. There's no similarity.

    "This unfaithfulness in homosexuals will no doubt lead to a weakening of traditional marriage."
    Traditional marriage? Such as Ms. Spears and her 55 hour long marriage? Or the thousands of hetero marriages that end in divorce?

    I'd also like to mention Saints Sergius and Bacchus who are commemorated as martyrs by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches. You know, the gay ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please, the distinction is two consenting adults entering into a homosexual relationship do so knowing what they are doing and share mutual consent. To compare homosexuality to pedophilia is disgusting. With pedophile, the difference is in two words "consenting adults". A pedophile takes advantage of weaker children who are not equipped to make decisions regarding sexuality. It is an assault. So no, we do not have allow one if we allow the other

      Delete
  64. [NOTE FROM FACULTY SUPERVISOR]
    I always try to teach my students, sometimes unsuccessfully, that brevity is the soul of wit. However, I realize that I myself might not have not been completely judicious by approving so many LONG responses here, no matter how thoughtful.

    A note to the anonymous writer who wrote:
    "After spending a couple of hours writing a response, I tried posting and was informed of the 4,096 character post limit. So I'll be splitting up by 16,879 character post into several different ones." . . .

    I'll have to decline yours for publishing here. There has to be a limit somewhere. The site shouldn't become a treatise depot. But I sincerely appreciate you taking so much time to express your important thoughts on such a weighty issue. I will somehow convey your hard work to the class after they return from spring break.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I don't get it....Jesus didn't condemn, who are we to do his job? Let everyone be who they are, and God will decide when they die whether or not they are a sinner. End of story. Plus, religion shouldn't even have any effect on the laws we make. Separation of church and state was created for a reason. Although it may say that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, where does it say that in the United States Constitution? I have many Christian friends who say that gay marriage cannot be allowed, because it it a blessed sacrament. But, why don't you take into consideration the origin of the word marriage? It certainly wasn't invented by the Church! A marriage simply implies a close union, it doesn't have to be the Holy Sacrament. Gay couples are proven to have less domestic abuse, and a much lower rate of "breakups" (I can't call it diovorce,because they apparently don't have the right to get married in the first place) than heterosexual couples. The divorce rate in America is over 50%...how is that Holy Sacrament holding up? Till' death do us part...or someone cheats, or we decide we don't want to be together anymore. There is no logical reason, outside of religious beliefs that don't belong in government, that homosexual couples should be denied their right to express an "undying devotion" the same way that their heterosexual counterparts can. I simply don't understand what gives anyone a right to tell someone that they can't be who they are.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I seem to remember being taught in Sunday School that all men were created in God's image. In my mind, that would include homosexuals. Jesus preached love, and acceptance of others. This blog "feels" as though you are fostering intolerance, no matter how you try to dress it up as simply your interpretation of the bible.
    I agree with many of the other posters who have stated that your arguments, the ones you gave from your interpretation of the bible, leaves an unpleasant feling, one which only serves to turn me away from organizes religion. I sincerely doubt that was your intention, but nevertheless it is an un intended consequence. By the way, gays were not a threat to my marriage, but a trashy, predatory woman was...

    ReplyDelete
  67. When I imagine Jesus being crowded by straight people asking, "... and what of the homosexuals?" or the gay people pleading, "... but don't you love us?" I hear him giving a response much like Treebeard from Lord of the Rings, "Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side."

    Whose side are we on: our opinion's, our lifestyle's, or our Lord's? If we are to publicly decry homosexuaity as a sin, what are we offering in return? Some may respond, "The glorious riches in Christ, of course!" But that means nothing to someone you just alienated. They see no love in such a gesture, and don't see that joy in your own life when it's clouded by apparent hatred. Opinions don't change hearts.

    We must also be the first to admit depravity, and not use homosexuality as a scapegoat. If there is no humility on our part, we are nothing more than ranting bigots trying to earn our righteousness. Even more, we begin to be on the side of our lifestyles, pointing fingers at all but our ourselves.

    But what if we rally behind Jesus? What if we wholeheartedly devoted ourselves to showing everyone how awesome he is, and letting that affect their lives? If that would be our approach, blogs like these would not rub people the wrong way because they would first know our love. Let's choose Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  68. First of all, I would like to say that it took a lot of bravery to post this article. No one can deny that, regardless of their viewpoint. You should be proud that you could stand up for what you believe in. There are some points in this article that I agree with and some that I disagree with. I do agree that homosexuality is wrong. However, I believe in free will and if someone chooses to live that lifestyle then that is between him or her and God. As Christians, we should be open to those struggling with sexuality issues just as we should be open to someone struggling with an alcohol addiction. Also, I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe this because if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we would also have to allow other people to marry such as brothers and sisters, or a man and a goat. I am not comparing homosexuals to animals but there are people out there that would marry a goat if they could. So, for this reason alone I believe that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman. Finally, I disagree with the point about adoption. I know of children who have been put into terrible homes. If there is a loving homosexual couple ready to adopt a child, then this would be a better option than someone who is adopting for the wrong reasons. As a final word, I would like to say this to those who do not believe in God and believe Christianity and the Bible are ridiculous. If Christians are wrong about heaven and hell, then we have lost nothing. If we are right, we have gained everything.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I think it is so sad to think that this is what our children are being
    taught. Saying that homosexuality is "in the brain" in foolish. You
    may as well say they have a disability or they need medication to cure
    their disease. Since you have concluded that homosexuality has nothing
    to do with how you were born, or due to an evil spirit, then why do you believe
    you can "pray away the gay"? Through your own admission, you stated
    that homosexuality is in the brain. Along those lines, it must be concluded
    that you view homosexuality as a mental disorder. Do you propose salvation as a cure for all mental disorders? If so, every student, teacher, and administrator should stop all medication immediately and start relying on Scripture and faith for their cure. Is that going to happen? I could come closer to respecting your argument if you had stated that homosexuality was due to an evil spirit. At least that argument would hold water when you use Christianity as a mule whip to "cure" the disease. But you didn't. This is a glaring example of being a hypoChristian.

    You can't compare pedophiles to homosexuals either. How you can compare someone who mentally and physically harms a child to someone who may want to live a normal life and RAISE a child is beyond me. It was a mean-spirited jab and out of bounds with what Jesus taught us about treating your brothers and sisters in Christ. He warned us about judging others and taking pride in ourselves because we feel superior. It's Pharisaical.....and we know how Jesus felt about the fancy robe-wearing Pharisees.

    In the beginning of your "article" you stated that you had homosexual
    friends. I can guarantee that you do not have them now.

    Homosexuality is not the health risk...sex is. Heterosexuals have
    unprotected sex too. They also spread disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 9.5 million young adults between the ages of 15-24 will contract an STD from another person in the same age group. If you want to place blame on a large group for spreading STD's, maybe you should start in your own back yard.

    As far as scripture is concerned, consider these: Lev 19:18, Gal
    5:22-25, 1 Cor 13:13, Isaiah 32:18, John 6:47.


    The most important thing to teach others is to LOVE OTHERS
    unconditionally and not judge them based on their lifestyles. Accept
    someone for who they are. You can't scare someone into faith.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Many members of our class have or have had homosexual friends. We desire the best for homosexuals, and we believe the best for them is not a life of homosexuality but of freedom in Jesus."

    I'm not doubting that some of you have homosexual friends, there is proof of that on facebook. I'm just curious as to how they react when you try to give them the "freedom of Jesus?" I respect that everyone is different and has different beliefs but when I call someone a friend, its because I care for them and accept them the way they are and I want them to be happy. Do your gay friends know that you wrote this? Because unless I'm reading this wrong, if they were to choose to stay gay, you would want them to be alone, unmarried and not able to have kids, for the rest of their lives? I wouldn't want to be friends with someone like that and I can't imagine anybody else would be either.

    Also, I've been fortunate enough to spend some time traveling the world and I have learned to appreciate others ideas, cultures, and beliefs. And I appreciate yours. Its clear that you have a passion for what you are saying and that is admirable. However, if you ever plan on leaving Glasgow, I hope that you can learn to appreciate the differences that there are in the world and see that sometimes there is more than one right way to live.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Wow. There are no words to describe. My heart is saddened for the authors of this article along with the educator (Todd Belcher). It seems to me that you are enjoying the fact that you have stirred the pot filled with nasty injustices and judgement. I find this scary. I thought that by being a christian you love one another with no judgements. You speak of bringing other to christianity but you are so quickly to push away. I hope your heart finds more love and compassion for your fellow kind. Makes me sad.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't have enough time on my hands to type a long response. Others are doing a great job. I simply want to say that I am disgusted by this article. I could go on all day with statistics, studies, etc. But it wouldn't change anyone's mind.

    Ben Bucher

    ReplyDelete
  73. Wow; lots of hate being posted in these repsonses! First, if you're going to comment, please have the guts to tie your name to your comment. Don't hide behind anonymity. Second, I attend church with some of these young people and would not put them in the category of be judgmental. They are kind people who, from all I've seen, love people well; even those with whom they don't see eye to eye. Third, they have a right to their believes/opinions just like everyone else. I congratulate them on standing for what the believe. I also believe that heterosexual marriage is God's plan. However, I do have homosexual friends. They know where I stand but they also know that I would be there for them in a New York minute (and I have been) if they needed my assistance. That's it from me. :) God bless and have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I cannot fathom what it is about some Christians that gives them the belief that they alone are the arbitors of what is right and or wrong for all of humanity. Religious extremism breeds intolerance no matter what the faith. You are every bit as misguided and treacherous as the Muslim extremists who were the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11, and Fred Phelps and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church. You claim to spread love; I would submit that you do not know the true meaning of the word.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Once again thank you GCA Senior class gor your Biblical view on homosexuality. Thanks for being salt and light...... "the light shineth on the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not". John 1:5
    Praying for all those who were attacking you for your faith.....may they find the light.
    PW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "praying for all those who were attacking you for your faith.." ? That is the most hypocritical statement ever.

      Delete
  76. Why do they not deserve the right to be happy? Several years ago, people didn't want blacks and whites to marry. This whole "gays shouldn't marry" will end, just like marital segregation.

    ReplyDelete
  77. You guys probably won't approve this comment
    but this is absolutely disgusting.
    Homosexuals are born homosexuals. Just because the bible says it's wrong doesn't mean it's wrong. It's not a 'choice' people make. There are cases of homosexuality in every species, and humans seem to be the only ones that have problem with it.
    It's embarrassing to be in the same generation as you all.

    ReplyDelete
  78. It is embarrassing to see my generation still being so close-minded like this. You do represent a christian school, so I don't know why I would expect any better of you. Homosexuals don't "need help." That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They didn't make this "lifestyle choice" they were born a homosexual. As an atheist, and a friend of many homosexuals, I am disgusted with this webpage. I only hope that you guys will later on learn how completely wrong this is, and open your eyes to a non-hating, non-judging society that the future holds.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I read this piece when it was published in one of the local newspapers. It was sad then and it is still sad. I spoke with a person who works for that paper and was told that this article received numerous complaints for having been published at all. That is encouraging. I'm a Christian, I attempt to do the "right" things and preach the gospel by my actions and not so many words. But, I'm sad to say that this makes me embarrassed for Glasgow.

    ReplyDelete
  80. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjgucqbUYsQ

    This is trailer for a documentary that each and every person should watch before they go off deciding other peoples rights for them. I am a Christian,but I am also an American and recognize that while this country started by Christians, it was started because of religious oppression and for the freedom of religion, not freedom of religion as long as your religion is Christian. It is also a civil liberty issue. There are stories in here of people who spend their lives together and because their marriage is not recognized by law, they loose their homes, they are shafted of spousal pensions, their homes are taken from them by "family members" who have had no contact with the deceased family member for years, yet his life partner who put just as much into the home and land that they built together as the deceased partner did was kicked off of his land,bankrupted and charged back rent because his partners will lacked one witness signature, not because there was ever any dispute as to who the deceased wanted his property to go to. In a legally recognized marriage, none of this would have happened. What about people who spend their lives together and at the end, their partner, the one person they want to see, is not even allowed in the room, nor are they allowed to make medical decision. Take itt out of religion for just a moment and think of the real people involved whose lives are wrecked because they have no protection under the law. Dont call it "marriage" then, if it warps your religious views of marriage but the civil union should be recognize and legally protected. And if you dont want a gay marriage, by all means, dont enter into one

    ReplyDelete
  81. I have one question for everyone who either wrote a comment or read this paper?

    In the paper the student wrote people are not born gay, so do they think one day people just up and decide today I'll be gay because I want to be rebellious. I just don't understand the whole concept of why you think people weren't born that way. When I say this I don't mean it in a bad way or meaning it to run anyone down but in Glasgow do you really think people think it is cool to be homosexual it not a trend who wants to be different all humans want to be the same we don't want to stick out even when people say they do it's scientifically proven its only human to want to be alike. So my question again is, why are people gay is or because there born that way, or to be different, and if they are gay do you just except them to be forever alone or get married and have thoughts about the same sex?

    ReplyDelete