Classic Marvel Character "outed"/Can Someone "be gay" and then later "not be gay"?

Thought this video was interesting and potentially brings some worthwhile topics to the table for discussion.
How do you think the writers COULD reconcile this and how do you think they WILL reconcile this?

Paeter wrote:Thought this video was interesting and potentially brings some worthwhile topics to the table for discussion.
How do you think the writers COULD reconcile this and how do you think they WILL reconcile this?

First of all, I don't think it will get reasonably reconciled. X-Men continuity is a hot mess. I love being in the comic store when someone asks one of the owners where they should start when getting into X-Men. It is a gordian knot.

Second of all, if they do try to reconcile it, I think these are some possibilities:

1. Jean Grey is lying or implanting false memories/desires. (For some nefarious or erroneous reason).
2. "Sexuality is fluid." Past Ice Man was on one end, but future Ice Man felt cultural pressure to suppress his desires and has buried them to even himself.
3. Alternate Reality
4. They all wake up to discover it was all just a publicity stunt dream.

But... I don't think it will be reconciled. It's part of the reason I stopped trying to read the X-Books some time ago. Too much investment with too little payoff.

Nathan James Norman wrote:

Paeter wrote:Thought this video was interesting and potentially brings some worthwhile topics to the table for discussion.
How do you think the writers COULD reconcile this and how do you think they WILL reconcile this?

First of all, I don't think it will get reasonably reconciled. X-Men continuity is a hot mess. I love being in the comic store when someone asks one of the owners where they should start when getting into X-Men. It is a gordian knot.

Second of all, if they do try to reconcile it, I think these are some possibilities:

1. Jean Grey is lying or implanting false memories/desires. (For some nefarious or erroneous reason).
2. "Sexuality is fluid." Past Ice Man was on one end, but future Ice Man felt cultural pressure to suppress his desires and has buried them to even himself.
3. Alternate Reality
4. They all wake up to discover it was all just a publicity stunt dream.

But... I don't think it will be reconciled. It's part of the reason I stopped trying to read the X-Books some time ago. Too much investment with too little payoff.

This is interesting because I think it boils down to the debate of if a gay person is born that way or is it learned. So I like #2. I believe it is something that is fluid; it develops and can change over time.

How much evidence is there either way?

Many arguments for the "born gay" position cite the work of Simon LeVay in 1991 and Dean Hamer in 1993. LeVay claimed that homosexuality was linked to an under-developed hypothalamus, and Hamer claimed to have isolated a gene that caused homosexuality. Both of these studies have been discredited as using invalid methodology. Hamer was subsequently accused of fraud. No credible scientific evidence exists for this position.

As an aside, I find it curious that some of the same people who assert this argument also assert evolutionary selection - a process which ought to have eradicated biological homosexuality through non-reproduction.

What does the Bible say? 1 Corinthians 6 lists the practice of homosexuality alongside a number of other sins that are directly attributable to fallen human nature. An argument could be made that homosexuality therefore has a predetermined spiritual origin. If so, this does nothing to distinguish it from other sinful behaviors the Bible identifies as endemic to human nature. Practicing homosexuality is every bit as sinful as practicing heterosexuality outside of the marriage covenant, along with stealing, lying, murder, disobeying one's parents, obsessing over the possessions of others, and failing for any single instant to properly honor God at all times. Any instance of sin at any time for the barest fraction of a second will necessarily and irrevocably separate us from God.

Spiritually, humankind is in a fairly serious pickle. The good news of the gospel is that the weight of sin which must necessarily separate us from experiencing the presence of God has been excised through the redemptive efforts of Jesus. Any condemnation of sin which does not end with a reminder of the salvation of Christ is unhelpful indeed.

mindspike wrote:Many arguments for the "born gay" position cite the work of Simon LeVay in 1991 and Dean Hamer in 1993. LeVay claimed that homosexuality was linked to an under-developed hypothalamus, and Hamer claimed to have isolated a gene that caused homosexuality. Both of these studies have been discredited as using invalid methodology. Hamer was subsequently accused of fraud. No credible scientific evidence exists for this position.

As an aside, I find it curious that some of the same people who assert this argument also assert evolutionary selection - a process which ought to have eradicated biological homosexuality through non-reproduction.

What does the Bible say? 1 Corinthians 6 lists the practice of homosexuality alongside a number of other sins that are directly attributable to fallen human nature. An argument could be made that homosexuality therefore has a predetermined spiritual origin. If so, this does nothing to distinguish it from other sinful behaviors the Bible identifies as endemic to human nature. Practicing homosexuality is every bit as sinful as practicing heterosexuality outside of the marriage covenant, along with stealing, lying, murder, disobeying one's parents, obsessing over the possessions of others, and failing for any single instant to properly honor God at all times. Any instance of sin at any time for the barest fraction of a second will necessarily and irrevocably separate us from God.

Spiritually, humankind is in a fairly serious pickle. The good news of the gospel is that the weight of sin which must necessarily separate us from experiencing the presence of God has been excised through the redemptive efforts of Jesus. Any condemnation of sin which does not end with a reminder of the salvation of Christ is unhelpful indeed.

That's actually really interesting. I've always thought that there was a genetic component but in all honesty it might make more sense if there wasn't.

mindspike wrote:Many arguments for the "born gay" position cite the work of Simon LeVay in 1991 and Dean Hamer in 1993. LeVay claimed that homosexuality was linked to an under-developed hypothalamus, and Hamer claimed to have isolated a gene that caused homosexuality. Both of these studies have been discredited as using invalid methodology. Hamer was subsequently accused of fraud. No credible scientific evidence exists for this position.

As an aside, I find it curious that some of the same people who assert this argument also assert evolutionary selection - a process which ought to have eradicated biological homosexuality through non-reproduction.

What does the Bible say? 1 Corinthians 6 lists the practice of homosexuality alongside a number of other sins that are directly attributable to fallen human nature. An argument could be made that homosexuality therefore has a predetermined spiritual origin. If so, this does nothing to distinguish it from other sinful behaviors the Bible identifies as endemic to human nature. Practicing homosexuality is every bit as sinful as practicing heterosexuality outside of the marriage covenant, along with stealing, lying, murder, disobeying one's parents, obsessing over the possessions of others, and failing for any single instant to properly honor God at all times. Any instance of sin at any time for the barest fraction of a second will necessarily and irrevocably separate us from God.

Spiritually, humankind is in a fairly serious pickle. The good news of the gospel is that the weight of sin which must necessarily separate us from experiencing the presence of God has been excised through the redemptive efforts of Jesus. Any condemnation of sin which does not end with a reminder of the salvation of Christ is unhelpful indeed.

These are some really good points. I think the "Born Gay" argument is a moot point, as Mindspike implies, because all kinds of people are born with all kinds of natural tendencies toward all kinds of behaviors. One of the key differences may be that people base their identity around "being gay", much like we can mistakenly base our identities around being a "fill-in-the-blank" fan or an alcoholic or any number of other things, instead of basing our identities on being reflections of God and being loved by him.

So what Iceman COULD do at some point is realize that homosexual behavior is not God's intention for him and then choose to find love, support and practical help from equipped believers to navigate away from homosexual behavior. But... I kinda don't think that would help the book sell in the long run. (Though you better believe it would sell the crap out of at least one issue!!)

What Mindspike and Paeter said are exactly what I think. It don't think it is genetic, but it's a moot point even if it is. It doesn't matter what the natural weakness/tendency is, self-control is something all Christians exhibit (not perfectly, of course).

Okay, let's go further down the rabbit hole...
How would we define being "gay"? Is it merely same sex attraction?
Consider this: a decade or more ago, there was a Super Bowl commercial that showed various provocative shots such as a leg with pantyhose being pulled up, long, healthy hair, a close up of eyes getting makeup put on, etc. In the end, it was shown to be a bunch of dudes getting made up to go watch football or something like that. Before that, however, some of the guys I was watching the game with were vocally admiring the attractive "ladies". Now, as far as I know, all of them are heterosexual in tendency as well as action, but for a moment they were attracted to members of the same sex. Granted, they were attracted to the feminine qualities of what they saw, but I think it shows the confusion that can express itself in regards to media.

Let's look at another issue: I know of at least one fellow who is quite attracted to female body-builders. How do you define someone who is attracted to a member of the opposite sex that has more same-sex qualities than opposite sex qualities?

Lastly, I was in a Bible study with a guy who used to be a practicing homosexual, but through Christianity turned his life around and is now married with children and so on. (his words, not mine) Let's say, for sake of argument because this is something he didn't share one way or the other, that he is still attracted to men, but through an act of will, only practices sex with his wife. Is he gay, or is he straight?

There is a bit of mystery around sexual attraction, of that I think we can be sure, but it gets much less murky when we go into sexual activity.
As to a genetic component... perhaps a proclivity is possible, but as you have cases where identical twins can have differing sexualities, I would have to highly doubt that anyone is "born gay". Although, there might be un- or sub-conscious pressures that take "being gay" out of a straight-forward decision, I do think this is much more of a "nurture" than "nature" issue. ...but our "nature" is now fallen, so I could very well be wrong.

Why do we care? I revile, I am impure, I have stolen, and coveted and any number of other sins. However, I don't try to make people think those are good or noble actions. I turn away from them, and repent of them, I disgust myself when I find them in me. What sins are we being asked to admire and applaud, support and uplift? Even if we were to consider abortion an act of murder, we have no where near the popular call to uniformity from those who support it, than we get from those who support LGBTQ issues.

But, and I think this really will be lastly, we should never forget that we are flawed individuals with no self-merit of our own. When we speak against homosexuality, we would do well to do so in humility, being sinners saved by Grace, ourselves. I know that I struggle with pride a lot, and if I had to make the call, I'd say that is a worse sin than sexual immorality. Call on your brothers and sisters to repent, but don't do it from a high horse.

mikel.withers wrote:Okay, let's go further down the rabbit hole...
How would we define being "gay"? Is it merely same sex attraction?

If memory serves, I don't think we find the word "homosexual" in the Bible in the sense that we use it today.

1 Corinthians 6:9- Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality

1 Timothy 1:10- the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

The NASB in these verses says "homosexuals" instead of "men who practice homosexuality", but Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines this Greek word as:

"one who lies with a male as with a female"

So the label is associated with the act, not the tendency or attraction to the act.

However today people tend to define gay/homosexual based on attraction/tendency alone.

It may be that in the Biblical sense (and therefore in the true sense), no one IS "gay", but rather they choose to base their identity in this tendency.

I don't know, any thoughts?

Paeter, that is how I generally see it: action not proclivity.
If I am attracted to a woman who isn't my wife, I am not an adulterer, but if I practice on that attraction, or fantasize which is a type of practicing on it, then I am.

As such, one to whom 1 Corinthians 6 :11 speaks (And some of you used to be like this...) would be a former practitioner of the sin. So, I believe Paul was speaking about people who once were "gay" and no longer were "gay".

I feel a particular need to emphasize the difference between proclivity and act because the narrative has been skewed so far away from what Christians actually believe, as to make us seem unreasonable. "Your religion doesn't accept gays." "You guys look down on gays." "I can't help who I'm attracted to." "Your Bronze age fairy tales command you to stone gays." and the ubiquitous "Gay marriage has been banned in X state."
I could be wrong, but I think in most cases a church would welcome someone struggling with same sex attraction with open arms...just as we welcome those who struggle with lying, idolatry, gluttony and so forth.
One day I might just write up something about the differences between "banning" and "not recognizing" but for now, I'll just note that they are not at all the same.

Edit to add in: I just watched the video (my work laptop doesn't allow me to watch videos) and aside from wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, and following our act vs attraction line of thought, Jean Grey couldn't tell Iceman he was gay unless he was some form of somcopulatorist. ...basically sleep walking but with sex instead. She could probably tell him he was attracted to dudes, but one would think that was something he'd already know. Sounds like a head-scratcher to me.

mikel.withers wrote:
I feel a particular need to emphasize the difference between proclivity and act because the narrative has been skewed so far away from what Christians actually believe, as to make us seem unreasonable. "Your religion doesn't accept gays." "You guys look down on gays." "I can't help who I'm attracted to." "Your Bronze age fairy tales command you to stone gays." and the ubiquitous "Gay marriage has been banned in X state."
I could be wrong, but I think in most cases a church would welcome someone struggling with same sex attraction with open arms...just as we welcome those who struggle with lying, idolatry, gluttony and so forth.

Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Really good thoughts. Thanks for that.