Philip Cole makes some fantastic points on this comment on the previous post.
Good to see you both recognising the reality that sexual orientation is fluid. This is unfortunately something that many gay activists have great difficulty in accepting, and spend lots of energy and newsprint railing against. And they do this for very good reasons, because recognition of this reality leads to a number of fairly obvious conclusions:
- If sexual orientation is fluid then it is clearly not an identity and hence the oft-repeated equivalence to gender and race does not hold.
- If sexual orientation is fluid then it is clearly changeable. While we have made tremendous progress in many parts of the world in promoting the liberty of people to form consensual, adult same-sex relationships, we now need to promote the liberty of people (mostly Christians) who experience same-sex attraction (SSA) to choose to change their orientation, with the best available therapy and spiritual support and without harassment by gay activists telling them they are â€˜sell-outsâ€™.
- If sexual orientation is fluid then, at the minimum, a significant component of orientation is behavioural. And orthodox Christians believe that God tells us through scripture that homosexual beaviour is wrong. As Christians we accept that God tells us how to behave on many other areas of our lives. Why should God telling us that homosexual behaviour is wrong be remotely contentious?
So Jackie Cluneâ€™s testimony drives a coach and horses through the argument that gay is an identity. And, since this is a large part of the revisionist argument that â€˜committed, loving and faithfulâ€™ (CLF) gay relationships should be celebrated by the church, then that argument also falls way. So why is â€˜the gay issueâ€™ (TGI) such a big deal in the church?