Thanks for your remarks; I appreciate your taking the time to voice them. I’m not totally sure of some of the things you’re driving at, but let me try to respond. First, do understand that my beef is only with the terminology that Mohler chose to use, arguing that words mean things, and that we harm our argument when we allow those with an agenda opposed to ours freedom to set the terms of the debate, particularly when there is Scriptural terminology (as there is in this case) which is clear and helps our case. As I said earlier, to use a “for instance”, I’m not anti-abortion, although the MSM continues to use this term to describe folks like me; I refuse the label. I’m pro-life. Why? Because the Eric Rudolphs, the abortion-clinic bombers, can be said to be the former, but not the latter.

Second, the term sexual orientation is a dubious term. Here’s what Wikipedia (not noted as a conservative outfit) says: The idea that an individual might have a discreet sexual orientation is a relatively recent concept that emerges as part of the personal taxonomy projects of the 19th century. During this period a number of different classification schemes were used to describe human sexuality. Indeed, several studies have found that much of the research about sexual orientation has failed to define the term at all, making it difficult to reconcile the results of different studies. The very term itself, in other words, is ill-defined, and that is reason enough to not use it.

Third, again remembering that my beef is with the term itself, it’s hard to see how Mohler is in keeping with Christian tradition by using it. Twenty years ago, the term was not in common usage by anybody; how does this fit with “Christian tradition”?

Fourth, the term “orientation”, when referring to sexuality, is not restricted to homosexuality, but is used commonly to refer to heterosexuality as well (and there are those who would expand the list of “orientations” by adding certain other bizarre ones). As used in common parlance, the term “orientation” does not refer to folks who have some unusual proclivity (a la your prison sex and pyromania illustrations), but rather is used to describe everyone. I would be said to have a “heterosexual orientation”; all God’s children got an orientation, if we accept the common parlance (which I don’t).

As to your two points at the end, I do not concede either. I believe that there are a number of factors that contribute to a person’s sexual choices/desires, that while some are likely innate, others are directly linked to environmental factors.

Summed up, “sexual orientation” is the language of moral equivalence. It is used by many with a particular agenda in order to excuse what is Biblically sinful, namely homosexual behavior. I do not disagree with the idea that temptations to homosexuality might exist from birth; I don’t know why I am tempted to certain things, and not to certain others, and maybe I was born more susceptible to, say, gluttony than to homosexuality. But I do not couch my continual desire to overeat in language other than what it is: temptation. This is all I’m asking in this debate: for Christians to speak with clarity, to speak Biblically, and to speak using terminology that does not needlessly play into the hands of those who would normalize any illicit sexual expression outside marriage.

Christianity has always held there is a distinction between certain sex acts that occur in the absence of woman: prison, boarding schools, military campaigns and those people who find heterosexual sex repulsive. There is nothing wrong with considering the 2nd type of person to have an orientation.

The modern position is not different from the classical in arguing that such an orientation exists. Rather it argues two things:

1) That the orientation is not in general susceptible to being cultivated or diminished.

2) That in particular it was not cultivated in early life through a taste for perversion. Rather that people are born with this orientation.

If you want to defend the scriptural position you need to argue against 1 & 2 (though IMHO I think the evidence is pretty firmly entrenched against either one) not against the existence of an orientation.

1. Going to the last point, if I thought this were about mere semantics, I’d not have posted in the first place. Apparently Dr. Mohler does; if so, I think he is wrong. I missed no point at all; I agree with him on what he says, but that’s not the point I was making. To say I “missed the point” because I didn’t address his point is erroneous; I’m concerned about his, but in making mine hope to make a different contribution to the debate.

2. Yes, it is a “generally accepted term”; does that mean that we always accept the terms that the “other side” in the culture war chooses to use? Do you call yourself “anti-abortion”? I don’t; I’m pro-life, though the MSM continually calls us “anti-abortion”. No, that’s not acceptable; I will not wear that label, because that lumps me with nutcases who bomb clinics, whereas none of those murderers can ever claim the title “pro-life”. Words mean things. I refuse to cede this issue to the homosexual lobby.

Further, on both points 1 & 2, I think you have subtly come to accept as a given something that is straight out of the homosexual lobby playbook, and that is that the temptation to homosexual behavior holds some “power” unlike other temptations. I think that’s rubbish, unsupported empirically, and an idea pushed by folks with an agenda. I assume, rather, that homosexuals are in this respect like heteros: there are varying degrees of libido, from flaming to mild. I also assume that there are people who are mildly tempted to fear, or lust, or gossip, while there are others who seem to be unable to escape these temptations. What is it about homosexual temptation that causes us to think it is so strong, UNLESS IT IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY A STRONG LOBBY TO MAKE SEXUALITY THE BE-ALL/END-ALL CHARACTERISTIC OF INDIVIDUALS? When I identify myself, “heterosexual” comes well down the list (no wise cracks on that one, please..). I don’t buy that homosexual temptation is such a strong one in comparison with, say, pornography or fear. And I think that perhaps it is the very acceptance of this bogus term, “homosexual orientation”, that might cause us to think that it is.

3. I had no idea that any such “fire storm” was brewing over the article when I wrote my remarks to Dr. Mohler. I wrote to Tony Campolo several years ago over this very same issue, and there wasn’t any fire storm (that I know of) over whatever it was he wrote that prompted me to write. I can, incidentally, make a case on BOTH sides of the equation as to whether or not homosexuality is “just like any other sin.” All sin is equally sin; I don’t believe that all sin is equally sinFUL. Lust is 100% sin, as is adultery; adultery, though, begins with lust but goes beyond, compounding the sin, if you will. Any sex outside of marriage is sinful (and I think you’d agree that we’d help our cause by talking more about the RIGHTness of marital sex, and the WRONGness of heterosexual fornication/adultery). Homosexuality, though, takes it a step further; it is not only fornication, but it twists God’s design for sex in the first place; I think you can make this case from Romans 1, in part.

Wow, that’s windy, but maybe it explains a few things.

One, your question presupposes that homosexuality is just the same as any other sin. If Dr. Mohler had written an article on say the sin of gossip, or lust, or fear, or presumption I hardly think it would have ignited quite the fire storm as his article on homosexuality. One might make the case that in God’s eyes homosexuality is no different than other sins, but in man’s eyes clearly it is.

Second, I think Dr. Mohler provides a pretty clear explanation as to why he used this term: “There are other terms to use here, ranging from ‘sexual attraction pattern’ to ‘sexual arousal profile,’ but sexual orientation seems a bit less explicit and is generally understood within the culture.” You may disagree philosophically, but I do think this term describes the power that homosexuality holds over the individual, and like it or not, it is a generally accepted term in popular culture that most people recognize.

Third, you’ve completely missed the point. “…if a biological marker (real or not) is ever claimed to mark homosexuality in prenatal testing, widespread abortion of such babies might well follow.” To me that’s pretty sobering. I would think that this stark possibility would be of far greater concern than quibbling over semantics.

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/7127.article

Point 4 deals with my concern, though it includes some things that are not my concern; I do believe that there is a such thing as a “homosexual”; I don’t get the argument, and agree with Al. But here would be my follow-up question: “Al, you wouldn’t have a problem, then, speaking of a person having a ‘gossip orientation’, or a ‘lust orientation’, or a ‘fear orientation’, or a ‘presumption orientation’, then, right? And if not, WHY NOT?”