WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG:Part III: Applying the Answer

Is has been posited by me in my last post that the reason that homosexuality is wrong is because it betrays our responsibility to represent God, and that it misrepresents the divine nature of love. OK, that's great. But what does that mean for us as Americans, evangelists, and church goers? How do we as Christians take this theological understanding and apply it socially, politically, and practically?

The State of Unions

The first question that I think will be asked in terms of applying our opinion of homosexuality is whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Here we have a real conundrum. As someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong, I cannot really be for gay marriage. However, recognizing that my understanding for why it is wrong is completely bound in my understanding of God, I cannot really insist that a government which is not supposed to take sides in religious squabbles should be expected to support my position.

Here it comes to a question of how you understand your own opinion as it comes to government. For instance, if you understand our government simply as a representative democracy, then you may believe that it is the politicians role to represent your opinions, regardless of how the government is supposed to be set up. However, if you take such a position, you cannot really be upset when they also take up the cause of your neighbor with whom you so adamantly disagree. In such an understanding, the politician is ultimately going to represent the majority, and we aren't really the majority on this issue.

Fine. Well if you instead believe that we are a Republic, and those politicians are elected to represent not our opinions but our best interests within in the confines of the Constitution, you would then be closer to my own views. However, can we constitutionally justify the government siding with one religious view over another? There is freedom of religion in this country. I know that that often gets abused, but in this case it is legitimate. Even if we just stick within Christianity, the idea of freedom of religion meant that the government couldn't take the side of Baptists and outlaw infant baptism. That was the kind of thing our forefathers meant. Is it really any different about deciding who our church's are allowed to marry?

I don't really think so. Quite frankly, the government, especially the Federal government should just stay out of it. And it is really this view I think we should support. This is something that needs to be fought in the hearts and minds of the people. This battle needs to take place in books, pulpits, blogs, etc... It shouldn't take place in Washington, or even Albany.

This is why I have always supported the idea of civil unions. I don't mean a separate but equal idea, but removing the language of marriage from the law entirely, and replacing with the structure of the unification of property between two citizens, whether partial or complete. This is the principle reason why government is involved at all, so let's just step out of the religious aspect of the issue, and only deal with property rights. This would free the churches to deal with the issue on the ideological battleground.

Church Life

However, one shouldn't run the church like the government. The government is not a moral institution (it is amoral in nature); the church is though.

We still need to be careful though. We need to make sure that we are not treating them differently than anyone else who has a habitual sin in their life. We need to see them as a person who needs redemption. You don't kick someone out of your church just because they have sin in their life. Naturally, someone who is unrepentant in a sin shouldn't be given a teaching position, or a position of authority, but they can still attend service and bible studies. But if they are trying to teach other people that what they are doing is OK, or if they are causing strife within the church, or if they are flaunting their sin, disciplinary measures are clearly required, up to having them leave the congregation. However, this is true of any sin.

For homosexuality in particular, the church needs to be aware of why a person enters into that lifestyle, and offer alternative answers. I believe that a person enters into homosexuality because identity issues: it helps them find their place and role in society. The church can offer that same sense of identity: you are a child of God, made in His image, and represent Him to the world. You are part of God's family, and are love and accepted for who you were truly are (not necessarily who you think you are though).

However, that is a general answer. To truly answer a person's ultimate identity questions, you need to take seriously who they are individually. This isn't something that I can do in this post simply because the precise answer would be different for each individual. Everyone has a place in God's family, and it is part of the church's role to help a person find it.

One On One

"OK Martin, but how do I deal with homosexuals at my job, in the world, and in my life?" Excellent question!

First of all, watch your language. What I mean is make sure that what you are saying reflects your perspective, not the worlds. The world labels men who are effeminate as gay. Don't do the same. This enforces the kind of stereotype which pushes certain males to define themselves as gay just because they are more sensitive or gentle. Indeed, reject the entire label of a homosexual. There are no homosexuals. That isn't a type of person. Just because the world believes that, doesn't mean that you should. If you speak about the issue differently than everyone else, it will cause curiosity, and give you the opportunity to share the truth.

Second, care about everyone. Don't discount a person because of their political or sociological agenda. Recognize them as children of God, and deserving of the respect of divine image-bearers.

Third, be open with what you believe without being overbearing. You don't have to try and convince a person each time you talk with them (especially not the first time). Instead, simply state truth matter of factly, without judgment or coercion. Allow the truth to speak for itself, and only defend it when it is actually attacked. The best offense is a good defense. Perfect your defense.

And one final point before I close: remember that these are people. You don't know why someone is living a homosexual lifestyle. You don't know their life story. Do not interpret their life unless they give you permission. Do not explain their choices and decisions that they have not told. Instead, focus on God, and declare His glory and love unequivocally. Ask questions and don't give slogans. Remember, it is not our job to convert people. It is our job to teach them to listen for God. Let Him do all the hard work. After all, He's better at it.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONG:Part II: What Is The Answer?

Biblical Texts

There are three main biblical texts that deal with the issue of homosexuality. Romans chapter 1 describes homosexuality, and clearly represents it as a sinful lifestyle. However, Romans 1 uses homosexuality as an example of the culture's sinfulness, and takes the sinfulness of homosexuality itself as a given.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 lists homosexuality among a list of vices. What we can gather from this text is that A) homosexuality is not sin as a special sin and B) that according to verse 11, homosexuality is repentable and redeemable. The fear and hatred that many feel towards homosexuality is therefore not supportable from Scripture.

Finally, we come to Leviticus 18:22. This verse merely says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." It is a very short verse, and its context is merely a list of other sexual sins. So are we left with no explanation at all?

Abomination

Well, no. Leviticus 18 does give us a clue. It refers to sin as an abomination. What does that term mean? Does it just mean "really, really bad"?

Well, we have to remember that this is a translation. The Hebrew word is 'toebah' (pronounced toe-ai-bah). 'Toebah' is used in two ways: in an ethical sense (essentially meaning something really really bad) or in a ritual sense (it makes you unclean, etc...). In total, it refers to something which God loathes or detests. However, these two senses are not that different since ethical sin is seen as something which itself is ritualistically unclean.

If we set our presuppositions aside, we can consider something which God finds detestable to be wrong, regardless of any other quality it may has. Our hedonistic society would ask what harm it does, but that question is irrelevant if it is something that offends God. It being wrong is not necessarily tied to it being harmful, if it goes against God's design and wishes.

However, even with this, we still don't have much of a reason. Ok, so God finds it disagreeable, but why does He find it disagreeable? It appears that in order to answer this question, we need to speculate beyond what Scripture directly tells us.

Being Made in God's Image

I have spoken here before about us being made in the image of God. I understand the concept to mean that we are representatives of God on earth. This gives us great authority over creation (as delegated by God) and also means that we are holy.

However, being holy also comes with a responsibility. We are God's image-bearers. As such, what we do reflects back on God. Things that go against God's nature are therefore wrong, because we are betraying that fundamental responsibility of our nature. Things, such as violence, coveting, stealing, etc..., go against how God Himself is. In doing these things, we are debasing God Himself.

This is also true when it comes to sex. First of all, sex is a creative act, and God is creator. Furthermore, sex is the creation of human beings, who are holy. Thus the act itself must also be considered holy. This doesn't mean that it must be stoic, or any of that other Victorian nonsense, but it does need to be respected, and understood as a reflection of God's own nature.

When we debase sex, we in fact debase one of God's most precious acts: the creation of humanity. As such, we are debasing God Himself and what He did.

What is important to understand in this, is that sex isn't a game. Is it fun? Yes, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is not its purpose. It is a holy act of creation. In this sense, sexual sin is very much abominable.

What about Homosexual love?

One may say that since God is love, and since sex is the ultimate expression of human love, then shouldn't sex display God's nature as long as the love between the individuals is authentic?

Well, here we have to challenge some of the world's perceptions of things again. Love is not an emotion. Love is not an impulse. Love is prioritization. You love something if you value it more than yourself, or more than most other things. Just because an emotion may be strong, it doesn't make love valid. Love is valid if you are prioritizing things properly.

There are in fact lots of examples of love which are abhorrent to God: The love of money, the love of someone else's possession, the love of other gods… The validity of the love is dependent upon the worthiness of its object or expression, not the intensity of the love itself.

To be honest, there is nothing wrong with loving someone of the same gender. I love my brother for instance. I love my son and my father. Also, in a very similar sense, I love my best friends. However, the expression of that love is camaraderie. It is very different than the kind of love I have for my wife. That love is different because of the holiness of our marriage and the marriage act, with its expression of God's creative passion. Indeed, my love for my son is tied to my creation of him. He comes from me! It is in that creativity that we find out what God's love is really like, and that kind of love can only happen between a man and a woman.

This is not a simple statement that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against nature. I'm saying that it is wrong because it goes against God, and our fundamental purpose of human beings: to express who God is to the rest of creation. How we treat our children, and how we make our children, is intimately connected to that.

On Friday in part III I'll go over how I think the church should be dealing with this issue.

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY WRONGPart I: Why Do We Need An Answer?

Homosexuality is one of the more controversial topics in America right now, and for good reason. There is an overall question of whether the government has the right to judge the properness of homosexual relations, and whether or not rejection of a homosexual lifestyle is similar to sexism and racism. In a pluralist society, these are extremely reasonable questions.

However, as one who takes the Bible very seriously and one who concludes that the Bible considers homosexual intercourse to be sin, I have to conclude that the homosexual lifestyle itself is something which the Church cannot support. The biggest difficulty is the Bible doesn't give a complete picture as to why, and I have found the Church hasn't really been answering this question well given our current environment. While I find it sufficient to say that it is wrong because the Bible says it's wrong, I think it is foolish and arrogant to expect Non-Christians to be satisfied by such a response.

The purpose of this series is to propose an answer to this question, while remaining sensitive to why our culture has begun to accept homosexuality. I'll begin by talking about what I believe homosexuality means in this culture, and why the Church needs to have a thoughtful response for our society on this issue. Then in the next section I'll move on to why I believe the Bible says that it is wrong. Finally, I will conclude with how we as Christians should deal with this issue outside of our church walls. For the remainder of this post though, I will be dealing with why this issue is important to our culture, and why it is right for our society to at least ask the question: why is homosexuality wrong?

Hedonism

Before anyone can properly discuss why a particular thing is wrong, we need to first address why anything is wrong. I would argue that the general ethic in today's culture is a form of Hedonism. Quite simply, Hedonism is the belief that good is ultimately defined by what is pleasurable, and evil or bad is defined by what is painful or hurtful.

Hedonism often gets a bit of a bad reputation since a common description of it is mere self-indulgence. Indeed, this kind of definition allows many who actually believe in Hedonism to distance themselves from the word. However, most sophisticated forms of Hedonism attempt to define ‘good’ in the general sense, where you are not just seeking your own good/pleasure, but discussing how to increase good/pleasure throughout society. Acts which give others pleasure are equally good as acts which give yourself pleasure. Additionally, acts which cause pain in others are equally evil as acts which cause pain in you.

I think that hedonism is a natural standard of morality given a purely material world (a.k.a. materialism). Indeed, I believe this is why it has become so prevalent within our society. Along with secularization comes a pragmatic tendency to allow materialism to be the grand mediator among the various philosophies in our society. Because of this, even if Hedonism is contradictory to one's particular worldview, one tends to appeal to Hedonism when attempting to justify one's position to someone of a different worldview.

The problem with homosexuality is that it is really difficult, if not impossible, to hedonistically justify its rejection. We can talk about the unhealthiness of those who participate it, but it is incredibly difficult to prove, and most certainly hasn’t been proven yet. If we are to reject homosexuality, we need to appeal to non-hedonistic ethics. This is something that I intend to do in Part II of this series.

Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (The First Amendment)

As it currently stands in America, the government is responsible for certain functions of life (such as marriage, income taxes and hospital visits) that require definitions of interpersonal relations. In other words, the government needs to know who is related to whom and in what way. Some relationships are biological and are easily defined. But some, such as marriage, adoption, etc..., are not.

Therefore, it is insufficient for the government to just stay out of the way on this issue, which would be nice. Such questions as "Can homosexual couples get married?" or "Can homosexual couples adopt?" need to be answered by the government.
To be honest, this goes beyond the question of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, mostly because it is not the government's responsibility to determine that. But while we as a society attempt to sift through these issues individually, there are a group of people who believe that they are being unnecessarily restricted due to the religious beliefs of others.

This is not something we can simply ignore as Christians. And we cannot simply insist that the government submit to our opinion either. We need to seriously ask ourselves whether or not our views of morality need to be or should be enforced by the American government. Additionally, if we believe that it should be enforced, we therefore need to be able to articulate why homosexuality is wrong in such way that goes beyond Christianity since this government is not allowed to officially prefer one religious perspective over another. I will address this issue in Part III of this series.

Nature Vs. Nurture

One of the problems of this discussion is that homosexuality means something different to the world than it does to those of us who reject the lifestyle. If you go back and review this post, you will notice that I never use the term 'homosexual' as a noun. Quite frankly, I question the true existence of a homosexual as the world thinks of it. I don't think that one is homo or heterosexual. I believe that what we are is human.

However, that is not the way that the world sees it. The world believes that sexual orientation is something that you are born with, and you are denying yourself if you do not give into certain impulses.

There was one movie on the subject that really angered me. It was called In And Out, starring Kevin Kline. Many may say, "Of course you were mad at it. The movie celebrates homosexuality, and you hate homosexuality." Well, first, I don't "hate it". Second, I knew going into the movie that it was going to celebrate homosexuality, and was still willing to watch it, so it doesn't make sense that that is why it would anger me. It angered me because everyone in this man's life judged him to be a certain way despite the fact that it conflicted completely with this man's view of himself, and yet at the end of the movie they were right and he was wrong. Think about the implications of that: it doesn't matter what you feel, or who you want to be; if you fit the stereotype, then this is what you are. I believe we have choices, and we are not bound to some particular lifestyle just because the world forces it upon us.
However, I don't believe that the common conservative/Christian answer that it is a choice is completely fair either. It is clear that many who participate in homosexuality do so against their will, or at least somewhat. Though I don't believe that anyone is actually born a homosexual, I do think that many are pushed into that lifestyle by social pressures, especially some with certain types of personalities. I argue this more extensively here, but the gist of it is for various reasons people begin to believe that there is something different about them, perhaps even wrong. Homosexuality is offered as an explanation of it, and within the homosexual community they find love and acceptance.

If this is true [and given that I am neither a sociologist nor psychologist that is a big if], simply telling them that what they are doing is wrong is insufficient. We need to understand that what they require from us is superior answers to those questions that brought them into that lifestyle to begin with. And no theological explanation or pat slogan (like "love the sinner; hate the sin") can do that. They need to find love and acceptance for who they truly are outside of the homosexual community.



If the Church is to be such a community to do that within, she requires just as a starting place both a serious reflection on the homosexual phenomenon within modern culture and a robust understanding of why God objects to the lifestyle to begin with. The provision of such an understanding is exactly what this series is all about. This is what I hope to lay out in part II.

UnchristianPart IV: Antihomosexual

• Introduction
• Hypocrisy
• Proselytizing
• Antihomosexual
• Sheltered
• Too Political
• Judgmental
• Conclusion

Homosexuality is an issue that I've given a lot of thought to, since I have had a lot of interesting experiences with gays and especially lesbians. These experiences are complex, as are my views, and I hope that I'll give an accurate account of what I believe a biblical response to this issue should be.

Losing A Foolish War

Many "outsiders" see Christianity as declaring war on homosexuality, and to be fair, much of it has. Though it is important for us to remember that the Bible is not obscure about what it thinks about same-gender sexual intercourse, I do believe it has been foolish for American conservative Christians to have approached the issue the way that it has. Here are some stats that the book states that I found very sad^1:

• 91% of Mosaic (born between 1984 and 2002) and Buster (born between 1965 and 1983) outsiders considers "antihomosexual" as the primary descriptor of present day Christianity
  
• 2/3 of total outsiders voiced very strong criticisms of Christianity on this issue
• While 39% of born-again Christians reject divorce, the vast majority reject homosexuality
• Only 14% of born-again Christians feel motivated to help overseas children AIDS victims.
• 2/5 born-again Christians feel more sympathy toward cancer victims than AIDS victims, most having the reason that AIDS victims "sorta deserve it".
  

Apart from that, Kinnaman also points out:

• Many Christians see 9/11 and Katrina as punishment for homosexuality
• Public comments from Christians on the topic have seemed crass and berating
• Many Christians oppose homosexuals taking offices in government and schools
• Many Christians believe that Romans 1 teaches that homosexuals are incapable of good (which is not what it teaches at all BTW).²
• Many see homosexuality as an organized movement designed to subvert Christianity
• Many think that the issue is simple
• Many believe it proper to avoid homosexuals completely.

I found all of this really disheartening and unchristian. Christianity is a faith of redemption, and as such, we need to be acting in love for the redemption of all, regardless of their sin.

It is also not helping. On page 99, Kinnaman starts addressing how many of the outsiders are viewing homosexuality outside of Christendom. He points out that for young people today, they define their worldview and morality based mostly on their experiences, especially in terms of social interactions. This is part of what makes many of them so morally relative, since their friends are sort of moral by default, and many of them will have radically different standards that they are living by, especially different from Christianity. It is difficult to say that homosexuals are evil, and then have your best friend come out of the closest.

I admit to have had this same issue. Having had many lesbian friends in the past (I don't know why, it just happened), I have never been able to conclude that they are more evil than other sinners (a view that I see as completely foolish). Instead, I have witnessed a unique struggle that they have, which much of Christian rhetoric seems to oversimplify. Indeed, I find that most of Christianity's response to this issue to be inadequate, and it is little wonder that the culture doesn't trust what we have to say on the matter.

Kinnaman's Solutions

Actually, I don't think that solution is so much the right word. Rather, he attempts to state the way that Christians should respond to the issue. He lists several concepts which I think are worth mentioning:

• Acknowledge the Complexity: All too often we believe that we just need to stand on our basic understanding, and that should be enough for everyone. But each person is different, and we cannot reach people through simple answers and cliches.
  
• Converse: It is more important to establish a meaningful relationship with someone to foster healing instead of trying to make the other person's problem go away with a single speech.
• Don't live in fear of judgment: It is not the job of a Christian to maintain our respectability by showing we believe the right things to other Christians. We need to give our brothers and sisters in Christ the respect they deserve by being open and honest about what we think and feel about certain issues.
• Don't back down: Just because there are many Christians that approach the topic irresponsibly, and just because the public view of the Christian stance has a negative image, it doesn't mean we should back down from our goals. Instead we should strive to better communicate exactly what our stance is, and act and move in a way that helps to achieve those goals, rather than just be demonstrative that we have them.
  
• Having Compassion: They will know we are Christians by our love, not our judgment or holiness. We need to show compassion, and real compassion: compassion that is truly interested in the other person's pain.
  

My Thoughts
Distinguishing the Act from the Person

One of the biggest problems in dealing with this issue is that the nature of sex itself is in debate in our culture. This debate is unspoken, but it is definitely there.

Mosaics and Busters primarily see most of their activities as expressing their inner-selves. This leads to a very hedonistic type of morality where self-expression is a legitimate moral standard. With many, it seems the highest. This leads to hedonism mostly because our "inner-self" is rarely seen as larger than our impulses (since we are linking activity to the inner-self, this is natural).

Very naturally, this affects sex since sex is an activity. Therefore, sex is often done out of a sense of expressing one's self. Many begin to define themselves by their sexual impulses and are therefore compelled to act on them. To abstain is to deny their true selves, in their minds.

Christians, clearly, do not agree. Our standard is God, believing not only that He is the most moral being in the universe, but that He has built in His standards of truth and justice into the very fabric of reality. Furthermore, we recognize that we are fallen from our original design and that many of our impulses actually run counter to our true selves, which is truly defined by God's design.

As responsible Christians then, we need to see homosexuality in the same vein as any other kind of sin: the expression of man's fallen nature. Also, as such, we need to separate this view of the activity with the person themselves. A person is more than the total sum of their actions. God loves each person, and many homosexuals are in a significant amount of pain. We need to reach out to them, and demonstrate to them that we love them.

It is also important that we don't single them out in any way. We shouldn't be less accommodating to them, but we shouldn't be more either. We should deal with each as a legitimate person, and if that person happens to be committing homosexuality, then we treat it as that person. Going out of your way to be kinder to someone is merely another form of prejudice.

Identity Crises

Probably the biggest issue that we have is that we fail to consider the unique aspects of homosexuality in our culture today. I think there is an aspect that is misandrist (which is ironic because in Paul's time in Greece it was misogynist), but this is not true in all cases. For instance, many lesbians fall into lesbianism out of abuse received from males, and thus only find security in the arms of another woman. Many males fall into homosexuality out of a self-loathing in terms of viewing themselves as unmasculine. However, it is my experience (and this is experience here, not fact) that the more general movement is indeed misandrist and this needs to be kept in mind when dealing with those in the movement.

I believe that many homosexual men are simply men who were different and thus undervalued by the other men around them, especially their fathers. I first started developing these thoughts from a lecture from Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, and since then, my thoughts have been going down those lines. If I am right, then in many cases when we attempt to explain that we are differentiating them from their behavior, we are being nonsensical since their behavior is seen as their self-expression.

My theory is that out of a loss of purpose, value, and masculinity, the people around them begin calling them gay (I have definitely seen this happen from both Christians and nonChristians). This usually happens with any boy who is more in touch with their feelings, more sensitive, nonathletic, and often artistic (which is why there is an improportionate number in the media). At first they reject the label, but then begin to interact with the homosexual community. Here they find acceptance and value, and come to believe that being homosexual is what they are.

What is important about this is that when we are telling them that homosexuality is wrong, then we are saying that what they are is wrong, and that their entire world is evil. We are completely unaware that this is what we are communicating, but this is what they are receiving, especially since many of them didn't want to be "homosexual" to begin with, and accepted it as their final means of self-acceptance.

If we are to reach out to these people, we need to do more than "love the sinner and hate the sin". We need to give them a different answer to their inner-questions of identity. We need to communicate that God has made them into something special, and has designed them for a purpose.

Furthermore, we need to check our motivations. If our desire is to simply "ungayify" them, then they'll catch on to that, and won't believe us. Instead, we need to recognize ourselves that God hasn't designed anyone to be homosexual, and that the homosexual lifestyle is damaging. We need to approach with the desire to help, not correct. They may still reject that from us, but it is the only attitude we can have that can truly be called Christian.

---

¹Pages 92-95
²Page 97-98

Podcasts on Homosexuality

These are some podcasts on the subject of homosexuality that I wanted to keep tabs on, as well as my reactions to it. This was posted August 29th, 2006:

These two podcasts are very good, and back my own understanding on homosexuality. Mind you, I find the host of these podcasts to be a generic prat, but I like the speaker. I would like to do more research into this guy though. Curious what you guys think.

http://www.coralridge.org/BroadcastArchives.asp#2394

Scroll down for "Truths that Transform" and then do a search for "Male Homosexuality".

I will probably add my thoughts later on.

---

*UPDATE*

Ok, the speak in the podcast is named Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, and he is a clinician that works for helping men with homosexual issues. The primary thing that he is teaching on here is the nature vs. nurture issue.

First, here is the stance that I have had for some time founded solely on Scripture. Having sexual relations with someone of the same gender is wrong, what ever your reason is. However, considering all the data that I have ever recieved, and agreed that one is born with the problem. Thus, I considered in the same light as original sin: we are all born sinners, and these people are just born with a predisposition for that particular sin. But regardless of the reason why, it is possible to repent and be healed of it.

Dr. Nicolosi argues for the nurture argument. He states that homosexuality is not a sexual issue, but an attempt for a man who does not consider himself to be mascaline to "reach" or "get in touch with" mascalinity. However, he further argues, that this doesn't work since the results leave one feeling less mascaline, and that they only have relationships with men that have the same problem.

He mentions this one comment that a gay man made on a television program. This man saw another man, and said, "I either wanted to be him or have him." Dr. Nicolosi said this is primarily what is going on. They want to be a man, but can't, so they try to possess mascalinity relationally and sexually.

As a side note, he also differentiated between the term "gay" and "homosexual". A homosexual is shorthand for someone with a homosexual problem, someone attract to persons of the same gender. Gay is someone who as adopted the homosexual lifestyle as a self-identification.

As for myself, I'm inclined to believe him, since what he says is consistant with my own thoughts and experience with homosexuals. Additionally, he said that he has had a lot of success. Many men have turned away from homosexuality due to his techniques, which consist primarily of making them confortable with their own mascalinity. The only doubts I really have with what he is saying is that it sounds a bit too good to be true. The fact that I want him to be right makes me doubt whether I am objectively considering what he is saying. However, as of right now, I do support what he is saying, and I am interested in looking into his work.

BTW, he does mentions lesbians here and there. However, he works with men, so he goes into more detail with them. There is also a lot of interesting facts in there, as well his an indepth look at how homosexuality develops in the podcast. please listen to the podcast since you will get a lot more information out of it.