Wednesday, April 07, 2010

California law on the books IDs homosexuality as deviant, calls for research into cause and cure

This is an interesting read, on a number of levels.

The law was written in the very different world of 1950, and was "designed to find the causes and cures of homosexuality." It categorized homosexuals as "sexual deviants."

Of course, California legislators being what they are, they are working to repeal the law, or at least its labeling as "sexual deviant" people who are... well, sexually deviant.

Of course, agenda groups cry foul and characterize the bill as institutionalizing "bigotry" (i.e. treating homosexuality as deviant behavior for which a cure should be sought).

And equally "of course," Democrat Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, said, "It's offensive that somebody 60 years ago would try to include that as a disorder when we know it's not."

Of course, I wonder: how do we know that? Physically, it is pretty much the textbook definition of deviant behavior. So Portantino's assurance and offense must arise elsewhence. Were I the reporter, I think I would have asked him; which is why my career as a reporter would be short and memorable.

One can only suppose that it is not deviant because homosexuals say it is not deviant. It feels natural to them, they say (leaving aside issues of the complete candor of the reports). In Debbie Boone's immoral immortal words, "It can't be wrong when it feels so right." I daresay that a great many perverted, violent, horrid acts committed by our fallen race felt "so right" during their commission.

This is where the sensitive sniffer detects worldview. A statement like Portantino's issues from a man-centered view, where "man is the measure of all things." He devises norms and standards designed to accommodate his passions and desires, then pronounces it good, yea, very good.

Where does that issue? From the Matrix. We're all in the Matrix designed by our first parents. Serpent told Eve, "Eat this, and you shall be as gods." "Okay, sounds good to me" said our idiot grandmother; "Whatever you say, honeybunch," echoed our idiot grandfather.

The rest, quite literally, is history. Literally. Wars, rise and fall of empires, petty despots, rotten husbands, spoiled kids, witchy wives... that's history this side of Eden. Every one of us insisting on being little gods, until the real and actual God comes along and tips our pedestal.

We're like a bunch of Canaanite gods, each with his own turf. This one wants to do perverted acts with another man. But he wants to feel good about it. So he sets about "creating" a universe in which his abnormal passion is normal... because he and his drives are at its center.

Ditto this promiscuous, love-starved girl; that drug-addicted man; this thief; that apostate; this hedonist. And on and on.

So you might think I'd favor the 1950 law. On balance, while I miss a society that could call deviant behavior deviant behavior, I (A) don't see the research as a valid governmental function, for a great many reasons; and (B) don't in any way trust the government to come up with the right answers. After all, apart from Christ, what is a government but a bunch of wanna-be gods trying to mold the universe after their notions? How do they know what is right or wrong? Maybe deviance is right, and normalcy is wrong.

Nor do I have any hallucinations that government could come up with a cure. The cure is beyond man's reach. The cure for the deviancy of the lost homosexual is exactly identical to the cure for the deviancy of the lost straight-laced workaholic monogomous hetero. The cure is radical.

The cure is found in the good news of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We must be born again.

Which is beyond government research, funding, taxation, or regulation.


Pooka said...


Research and Therapy don't work and somebody's already written the instructions for correcting the problem.

Change points of view one eyeball at a time with the Gospel.

Brad Williams said...

I agree. It is ridiculous to think that the government can research and find a cure for lust at any level. And, if the government were to define "deviation" as anything that deviates from God's standard, they would be horrified to find that they are governing an entire nation of perverts.


I enjoyed looking over your blog. I found your profile on another blog I follow and I added myself to follow you. You are more than welcome to visit my blog and become a follower if you want to. If I have posted this on your blog before please forgive me. Sometimes it ain't easy being an Old Geezer.

God Bless You, Ron

DJP said...

Yes Ron, I do believe this is the second time. I'm glad if you're reading, and would love to have you interact with the posts and share your thoughts about them.

Sir Aaron said...

Yeah, if you go by what feels right then you open the door to every kind of sin. Depravity will know no bounds. Unfortunately for the sexually deviant, not only do they face an eternity in hell, but their lifestyle often makes this life
miserable and hastens their demise.

Merrilee Stevenson said...

Here's an article I came across just yesterday that's related to the subject, about a lesbian in Chile who was not granted custody of her daughters because she was living with her lover.

The article focuses mainly on the "discrimination" issue, and barely mentions the fact that the poor family of this woman has been ripped apart.

I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment. The government is not capable of finding or implementing a solution. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many want to believe that it is not a problem. But they are blind to the truth, and in fact do not wish to see. The only solution to change a culture from the inside out is for the Holy Spirit to change the hearts and minds of individuals by God's grace and at the foot of the cross.

Halcyon said...

Silly, DJP.

Don't you know that deviations necessarily disprove norms (like how driving off a cliff necessarily disproves the road)? If we do wrong, then it's no longer wrong, right?


DJP said...


I like it.

jmb said...

Another lyric: "If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right." At least there's the awareness that it's wrong. At least.

College Jay said...

Well, if you define homosexuality by behavior, then the cause is simple: Two people of the same sex decide to have sex with each other. The cure is also simple by that definition. Two people of the same sex should decide to not have sex with each other.

Now, if you define homosexuality by attraction, then that makes things different. You have to realize that by that definition there are plenty of repentant, saved homosexual Christians, some celibate, and some even in fulfilling heterosexual marriages. They simply still struggle with homosexual attractions.

I agree that I wouldn't ever trust the government to come to any kind of credible research on this subject. I barely trust the institutions already in place. The issue is far too politicized to be objective. Any liberal organization trying to find the causes of a homosexual orientation is going to default to genetics, in order to prove that homosexual feelings are inborn and immutable.

Likewise, any conservative organization is going to default to environment, in order to create quick 12 step programs to try to instantly cure gay people and make them straight. Neither really works for the people actually struggling with this, so Christ, and simple obedience and faith, really is the only answer.

Sir Aaron said...

If we define things by attraction, then most of us are going to have to adopt a sin as a label. Many of us struggle with "natural" sexual tendencies of one kind or another.

But I do agree that grace through faith in Christ is the only way to resist our sinful nature. As I've said before, if there is no God, why resist?

College Jay said...

If we define things by attraction, then most of us are going to have to adopt a sin as a label. Many of us struggle with "natural" sexual tendencies of one kind or another.

True, but it's somewhat confusing. If we define things by behavior, then everyone is asexual unless they sexually active, right? As it stands, it seems that most conservatives define heterosexuality by attraction, but homosexuality by behavior, and I think the confusion of the terms makes the debate between the two sides all the more hostile.