Homosexuality and The Bible

Asry

lst wrote: »

I aint sensitive, Im just attempting to give a half reasonable view of the possibility that being "a Gay Christian" is possible!

Ah now, don't even get me STARTED on the whole gay Christian thing. It has me tied up every which way! Should I, shouldn't I, he says, she said, they said there, this book says that, the bible says this but when you read that translation it says that instead......Celibacy it is, so..:):confused:

Zombrex

Keylem wrote: »

Here are some examples of the injustices of "gay rights" legislation against the Christian Community in North America.

Those are really good examples of the law protecting the right of homosexuals to not be discriminated against when using businesses and services made available to the public.

Replace "gay man" with "black man" and see if any of the examples still sound like such a good idea.

• In Louisiana black men and women were required to use a different entrance than white people when entering businesses that served food.
  
• In Oklahoma black men and women were not allowed use the same telephone booths as white men and women.
  
• In Georgia black ministers were not allowed marry a white couple.

All this was based on what people believed at the time.

But it changed, not because people stopped believing this nonsense (plenty of people still do) but because the government decided enough is enough and that if you were going to promote a business to the public you could not simply turn away people just because they were black.

Can you present a good reason why you should be able to do this just because they are homosexuals?

If you want to stop people you don't like from using your service you have to make it a private service (such as members only club). If you make it a public service you should expect that it is open to all the law abiding public, not just the ones you personally like.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

That blog has is an example of something with an agenda, gay people are an example of something without.

And on that note, what exactly does what's happening in the states have to do with here? The Irish are a lot more balanced when it comes to rights, we know giving to one group doesn't mean taking from another.

There was a case recently in Ireland about not allowing conscientious objection. Can't think what it was about though. The Irish are no better than the Americans. Sure a lot of them are of Irish descent.

Asry wrote: »

I agree, surprisingly. Being LGBT myself (guess the letter!! ), I do however see why a Christian newspaper wouldn't publish an advertisement to do with LGBT matters. However, I have noticed that the Irish Catholic seems to be quite sympathetic of LGBT matters of late. Irrelavent observation. The internet sometimes really ties people in knots though, Keylem, I know myself. I've been accused of being a sarcastic c*** waaaaay too many times in my virtual career It's all good.

The Irish Catholic is a rag of a paper. It's not a faithful publication. I'll say no more than that.

Keylem wrote: »

Sorry, didn't know it was a joke!

You are right about the B&B, if they did didn't allow gays, they shouldn't allow unmarried couples either!! :cool:

But then if it is a small family B&B, I would support fully their right to refuse homosexuals a double bed.

TylerIE

Asry wrote: »

Ah now, don't even get me STARTED on the whole gay Christian thing. It has me tied up every which way! Should I, shouldn't I, he says, she said, they said there, this book says that, the bible says this but when you read that translation it says that instead......Celibacy it is, so..:):confused:

Enjoy :P

At least Phil and Donno will love you

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

The Irish Catholic is a rag of a paper. It's not a faithful publication. I'll say no more than that.

haha!! ooOOooooo burn!

philologos

Asry wrote: »

I can see that happening there also Phil. It's hard to separate what the bible says in black and white from things like racism or a mob mentality. It's important to keep an academic investigation into the scriptures separate from emotions and personal desires. Says Dr Asry...:rolleyes:

The Biblical text speaks against xenophobia and racism. Song of Solomon is one place where the Biblical text speaks against racism. Solomon's Egyptian wife tells the people of Jerusalem not to judge her on the complexity of her skin. The Torah reveals God's command to the Hebrew society to treat foreigners who want to be a part of their society as their own people. Paul says that Jews and Gentiles are equal and are one under Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Asry

lst wrote: »

At least Phil and Donno will love you

And God. Apparently? Right? Or not? Aahhhhh confusion. I'm female. Does that change things? My brain is going at ten million miles an hour and I can't think straight.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Ah so now we have a different interpretation - Yours as someone who is truly living with God. Great - we have so many different versions already why not have another different slant.

TylerIE

Asry wrote: »

And God. Apparently? Right? Or not? Aahhhhh confusion. I'm female. Does that change things? My brain is going at ten million miles an hour and I can't think straight.

Im not sure... Phil may be able to advise - depends on if you "practiced" in the past doesnt it?

Or you could just go to the MCC

Asry

philologos wrote: »

The Biblical text speaks against xenophobia and racism.

One can't separate ones relationship with God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures are only truly understood by people who have a living relationship with Him as I would see it.

Oh sorry, I think you might've misunderstood me. I meant that reading God's word on the one hand, and fending off racism and mob mentalities on the other (the work of men) is something that has to be done carefully, but it always must be done when discussing something like this.

Captain Obvious [me] strikes again and all that.

philologos

lst wrote: »

And some of us have posted research and links to Christian organisations which believe otherwise.

The vast majority of Christians believe that sexual acts are to be kept in a marriage (Christians understand this as a union between a man and a woman).

If you are willing to present what these other LGBT Christian groups argue from Scripture then we can discuss that more closely. I've asked you to do this already in this thread. It is about the only thing that might bring us to a good discussion about what Christianity says about the matter rather than getting into law which is not the same as morality.

I'm going to leave the discussion about laws aside. This thread is about the Christian ethical opinion about sexual behaviour.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

ps" heavily advocate against equality for LGBT individuals.

Homosexuality is not just behaviour, its an innate characteristic. Like race, gender, hair colour. Its not choice.

WHAT IS HOMOSEXUALITY?


Some people might be tempted to skip past this section because they think they understand this term. That
is the first mistake made by every victim of “gay” sophistry. Failure to clarify the essential terms at the
beginning allows one to be trapped by his or her own assumptions. It’s like signing a contract to buy a used
car without clearly identifying the car.

The definition of homosexuality is not as settled as one might think.

Until 1986, homosexuality was universally defined as same-gender sexual conduct. By extension, a
homosexual was defined as anyone who engages or desires to engage in such conduct. The “gay”
movement itself embraced this definition, in which the term “homosexuality” had meaning only in relation
to same-gender sexual behavior.

After 1986, the “gay” movement began to redefine homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition
equivalent to heterosexuality, a state-of-being completely independent of conduct. Under the new
definition, “straights” can choose same-gender sexual relations and “gays” can choose opposite-gender
relations without any alteration of their true “sexual orientation.”

Why the change in strategy?


1986 was the year that the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld the
right of states to criminalize homosexual conduct. The “gay” movement had argued that homosexual
sodomy should be viewed by the court as a fundamental privacy right no different than marital sexual
relations. The court firmly rejected that argument.

The constitutional right of states to regulate homosexual conduct remains the law of the land.
Thwarted in its goal to legitimize homosexual conduct as a fundamental right, the “gay” movement turned
to the only other basis on which it could claim constitutional protection: minority status as a “suspect class.”
The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of
discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.
This is the secret to understanding why the “gay” movement now denies that homosexuality is behaviorbased
and instead insists that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. It is not science. It is a legal and
political strategy.

The problem is that they can’t prove it.

Source: http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/9707137.pdf

Asry

It can't be proved the other way either, though. So there's no point in spouting that stuff off.

And really, is this not about the Scripture?

Also, just my opinion here though, but the Why the change in strategy? bit - to accommodate bisexual people maybe?

Asry

I would also like to point out that that Scott Lively, the author of the article, is president of Abiding Truth Ministries, which has been classified as a hate group by law.

Do you really want to be advocating the views of a man who is at the head of a hate group in a Christian forum?

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

It can't be proved the other way either, though. So there's no point in spouting that stuff off.

And really, is this not about the Scripture?

Also, just my opinion here though, but the Why the change in strategy? bit - to accommodate bisexual people maybe?

Nope. It explains why in the text above. You can read the whole thing by clicking on the link.

Asry

oh I just posted why I really wouldn't want to.

philologos

I actually agree with Asry in part, is there really a need to copy and paste off stuff from websites?

Quo Vadis

Asry wrote: »

hello I come late to the fray. Did you see the long discussion on this in the LGBT forum? It started off as a question about LGBT churches and then turned into scripture-flinging about homosexuality in the bible.

But it's ongoing! (as I have just returned to the topic....)


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056235160

Apologies if this has been cited already and everything. It probably most definitely has. Call me Echo. xxx

Hi Asry, thanks for the link, I've followed your dilemma.
I don't think you need to give up the Catholic faith if your 99% comfortable there, and it would be a pity if you did. Granted the 1% issue is a big one, but its not the be all and end all, give it time, you have all your life, and perhaps you can reconcile the two somehow. The older you are the less important sex becomes.

I really don't know if anyone on these boards can offer you good advice, just different opinions I suppose ; Judge not lest ye be judged and here but for the grace of God etc.

Here's another take on the subject from the strict RealCatholicTV.com, you need to watch it the whole way through, but its only 5 mins long in total.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

Asry

Thank you Quo That's very kind. I'm 26 now, so at least the emo angsty years are behind me! I'd say anyone of any persuasion is always glad to see them go.

I'll keep the link for sleepytime watching. I do love youtube. As they say, give thanks to the Lord, for he is good. His love endures forever.

wonderfulname

Donatello wrote: »

I was criticised earlier by another poster about my 'animalistic' notions about what was also referred to as 'utilitarian' human reproduction.

Now you tell me that sexuality can't be controlled? It ought to be controlled. Or do you justify the rapist who says he has urges he cannot control?



Marriage is the fireplace which God has ordained for sexual activity which must be open to new life. Only in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is all the grace given by God so that sexuality can be transformed. Without, it is an activity which can't help but be lustful, lacking as it is in the blessing of God and lacking His outpouring of grace.

Ah, you must have edited that first bit, just going to ignore it so.. Don't you dare compare LGBT people to rapists, firstly its not a valid comparison and secondly its downright insulting. A rapist who cannot control his actions is suffering from a mental illness, what he says about the matter doesn't matter, its what a psychologist says. Being gay is not a mental illness, its just a part of who someone is.

Why does marriage have to boil down to sex? Are there no romantics anymore...

Asry wrote: »

I agree, surprisingly. Being LGBT myself (guess the letter!! ), I do however see why a Christian newspaper wouldn't publish an advertisement to do with LGBT matters. However, I have noticed that the Irish Catholic seems to be quite sympathetic of LGBT matters of late. Irrelavent observation.

I'd second these sentiments, I think political correctness can get out of hand at times. I recall, I think HBO? Refusing overtly strong LGBT advertising at one point so they wouldn't wind up looking like a gay channel. Nothing happened to them, which, given the circumstances I'd agree with. An LGBT orientated advertisement is not fitting of a church newsletter and its disappointing that actions were taken against them.

Asry

wonderfulname wrote: »

Being gay is not a mental illness, its just a part of who someone is.

Aw man that's gonna up a whole can of worms. :rolleyes:

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why does marriage have to boil down to sex? Are there no romantics anymore...

Isn't the baseline function of straight people to breed? So the function of marriage between a man and a woman is to have a little baby.

Does that mean that romance should be left to lesbian or gay people....:rolleyes:

wonderfulname

Asry wrote: »

Aw man that's gonna up a whole can of worms. :rolleyes:

I've already said it, the cans open, the worms prodded briefly with a stick then left be. I'm not saying people are born gay, I'm saying nature or nurture they are, can't be helped.

Asry wrote: »

Isn't the baseline function of straight people to breed? So the function of marriage between a man and a woman is to have a little baby.

Does that mean that romance should be left to lesbian or gay people....:rolleyes:

Are you trying to rise me? You don't just grab any random man and woman and stick them in front of an alter then off they go to breed, humans are more complex than sex and babies, we're crazy with emotions!

ArtSmart

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Don't say "sexual preference" right before explaining how being gay is not a choice. The correct term is "sexual orientation". Being lesbian or gay is a sexual orientation. The reverse cowgirl is a sexual preference.

say wha?

now feel i should be reading the bible more.

i always assumed it was just all 'smite' n stuff.
thanks sir O

philologos

Asry wrote: »

Aw man that's gonna up a whole can of worms. :rolleyes:

I don't believe that having inclinations is a mental illness of necessity. As a heterosexual male I have inclinations which I have to control. This doesn't mean that I have a mental illness but at the same time I can't just exercise my sexuality everywhere I desire to.

I don't see much difference between the inclination towards homosexuality and this. I think churches need to help people in general handle their inclinations better. I think for straight people also so that they can moderate these things in a Christian manner.

Asry wrote: »

Isn't the baseline function of straight people to breed? So the function of marriage between a man and a woman is to have a little baby.

I don't think it is the only function of sexual intimacy. I think married people can enjoy themselves sexually without the intention of breeding children, it could be for deepening the bond in their marriage.

Asry wrote: »

Does that mean that romance should be left to lesbian or gay people....:rolleyes:

I think marriage is obviously about more than just sexual intimacy. The main reason I would want to get married is because I was attracted to the being of another person rather than physical appearance per sé.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that having inclinations is a mental illness of necessity. As a heterosexual male I have inclinations which I have to control. This doesn't mean that I have a mental illness but at the same time I can't just exercise my sexuality everywhere I desire to.

I don't see much difference between the inclination towards homosexuality and this. I think churches need to help people in general handle their inclinations better. I think for straight people also so that they can moderate these things in a Christian manner.

Inclination... that's an interesting word choice, its so passive! You're right of course, there is no difference between the inclinations of a straight and gay person, just who they are directed to.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

Don't you dare compare LGBT people to rapists, firstly its not a valid comparison and secondly its downright insulting. A rapist who cannot control his actions is suffering from a mental illness, what he says about the matter doesn't matter, its what a psychologist says. Being gay is not a mental illness, its just a part of who someone is.

I don't believe I did compare the aforementioned group with rapists. Rapists don't ask permission to do what they do.

Why is everything explained away as mental illness, be it raping somebody or cutting their head off? What ever happened to sin? What ever happened to evil and Satan?

Meanwhile, I'd say that homosexual inclinations are mainly caused by emotional/affective maturity issues. That appears to be the growing consensus on the non-homosexual lobby side of things.

I found this during my research earlier: http://www.citizenlink.com/understandinghomosexuality/

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians believe that sexual acts are to be kept in a marriage (Christians understand this as a union between a man and a woman).

If you are willing to present what these other LGBT Christian groups argue from Scripture then we can discuss that more closely. I've asked you to do this already in this thread. It is about the only thing that might bring us to a good discussion about what Christianity says about the matter rather than getting into law which is not the same as morality.

I'm going to leave the discussion about laws aside. This thread is about the Christian ethical opinion about sexual behaviour.

I mentioned Gaychristian.net and included two of their videos in a previous post. Another poster offers two links also.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that having inclinations is a mental illness of necessity. As a heterosexual male I have inclinations which I have to control. This doesn't mean that I have a mental illness but at the same time I can't just exercise my sexuality everywhere I desire to.

I don't see much difference between the inclination towards homosexuality and this. I think churches need to help people in general handle their inclinations better. I think for straight people also so that they can moderate these things in a Christian manner. .....

The slight difference there is that you can enter into a monogomous loving relationship with a female, when you are attracted to her. And not be criticised by your church. And that relationship means that your other sexual inclinations can be ignored because you are attracted to that female. Those Other inclinations you mention are just like wanting a new car, very passive mild attractions.

A gay or lesbian is attracted to people of the same sex, its not just a little passing "inclination" like taking a shine to a new suit.

I think marriage is obviously about more than just sexual intimacy. The main reason I would want to get married is because I was attracted to the being of another person rather than physical appearance per sé.

Exactly - Gay and Lesbian people are attracted to the being someone of the same gender, not just their physical appearance.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

A gay or lesbian is attracted to people of the same sex, its not just a little passing "inclination" like taking a shine to a new suit.

Exactly - Gay and Lesbian people are attracted to the being someone of the same gender, not just their physical appearance.

Human freedom is always there though - we don't have to indulge everything we feel. That is one of the ways in which humans are different to animals.

Consider that exploring why the attraction is there might just be a more positive option than merely indulging the desires.

JimiTime

This is a great debate on the subject matter. It comes in 11 parts though, so its a quite long. The first part is posted below. The start is an intro into who the debaters are and how the format of the debate will be etc, so if you want to skip that, the debate starts at 5.10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCTTq8DMQ8E

There are some home truths in it for all us Christians too.

Asry

Ah now, I was just taking the proverbial urine as regards breeders.

However, before I move on, I have difficulty with this - "I'd say that homosexual inclinations are mainly caused by emotional/affective maturity issues". So people are of a homosexual persuasion because they're emotionally immature...? That really makes no sense at all and is hypothetical reasoning at best.

I don't presume then that the members of the anti-homosexual lobby have really met any LGBT people and know them on a personal, friendly level. We're just like everyone else. We just like different things.

My own stance is that God really doesn't care about what people get up to as regards sex. He probably has waaaaaay more important things to think about.

HOWEVER, that is not the point. People can go ahead and fill their heads with anything they want to tell themselves if it helps them sleep at night. We should get back to sin, and the Scriptures. People will always argue one way or the other, and be influenced in their personal beliefs/lives regardless of what the bible says, because we're human and that's what humans do.

philologos

Asry wrote: »

However, before I move on, I have difficulty with this - "I'd say that homosexual inclinations are mainly caused by emotional/affective maturity issues". So people are of a homosexual persuasion because they're emotionally immature...? That really makes no sense at all and is hypothetical reasoning at best.

I do as well to be honest with you.

Asry wrote: »

I don't presume then that the members of the anti-homosexual lobby have really met any LGBT people and know them on a personal, friendly level. We're just like everyone else. We just like different things.

Agree entirely.

Asry wrote: »

My own stance is that God really doesn't care about what people get up to as regards sex. He probably has waaaaaay more important things to think about.

I'm not sure I agree here. I think God cares about us deeply and that He desires the best for us which He revealed to us. God loves us no matter what but a part of this love involves a desire for us to live as He would like us to.

virmilitaris

but a part of this love involves a desire for us to live as He would like us to.

As he would like us to. And yet you'll still argue for free will if I brought it up. Priceless.

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

As he would like us to. And yet you'll still argue for free will if I brought it up. Priceless.

Why priceless? philologos' statement seems very reasonable to me.

Any reasonable parent loves their child and their love includes a desire that their child would live the way the parent wants them to. None of that in any way interferes with free will.

philologos

virmilitaris wrote: »

As he would like us to. And yet you'll still argue for free will if I brought it up. Priceless.

We can still choose to disobey God if we desire. That's where free will comes in.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

I do as well to be honest with you.



Agree entirely.

Im delighted we agree to a significant level!

I'm not sure I agree here. I think God cares about us deeply and that He desires the best for us which He revealed to us. God loves us no matter what but a part of this love involves a desire for us to live as He would like us to.

So on this point its fair to say that I believe, and a minority of Christian Church's believe, that what he desires for us is different to what you believe he desires for us, and that we both believe that the way he wants us to live is different.

Asry

philologos wrote: »

We can still choose to disobey God if we desire.

Yeah but if we do it's a sin?

Sorry, I reaaaallllly don't know what side I'm on here in this debate do I.

BUT. The scriptures. How do we know that the entire text is the word of God and wasn't edited afterwards by the author to include his own personal agenda...? Perhaps even against his will.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

We can still choose to disobey God if we desire. That's where free will comes in.

And thats where we disagree - is it disobeying God to be in a loving committed monogamous relationship.

PDN

Asry wrote: »

Yeah but if we do it's a sin?

That's right. You have the free will to sin if you choose to do so.

BUT. The scriptures. How do we know that the entire text is the word of God and wasn't edited afterwards by the author to include his own personal agenda...? Perhaps even against his will

You could say this about any unfounded conspiracy theory. How do we know the Bible wasn't really written by giant ants who are secretly harvesting us for food?

However, since this is the Christianity Forum, rather than the Conspiracy Theory Forum, debates take place within a framework of Christian beliefs. Christian belief is that the Bible is inspired by God. If you want to start arguing about the Bible then you are no longer discussing the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity.

Asry

PDN wrote: »

If you want to start arguing about the Bible then you are no longer discussing the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity.

I would argue that that's happened a bit already, as in it's the relationship between homosexuality and personal opinion.

I wasn't putting it forward as a valid conspiracy theory. Just thinking aloud. Or in type. Apologies.

PDN

lst wrote: »

Exactly - Gay and Lesbian people are attracted to the being someone of the same gender, not just their physical appearance.

It might be worth mentioning here that there are examples within Christianity of non-sexual lifelong partnerships between people of the same gender.

For example, in the Salvation Army there are many more female ministers than male ministers of the Gospel. It was for many years common for two women to team up and work together in running a local church. Very often these women would share a house, go on holiday together, and in almost every respect (save that of sexual intercourse) behave like married couples. Some of these 'couples' would minister together in this way for 30 or 40 years and then purchase a retirement home together. When one would die the War Cry (Salvation Army newspaper) would print their obituary and, in place of the usual next of kin, print the contact info for their companion.

I have known many of these couples and am confident that there was no sexual aspects to these relationships at all. Did they love each other? Undoubtedly. Would it be accurate to refer to this as 'homosexuality'? No, not in my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

You could say this about any unfounded conspiracy theory. How do we know the Bible wasn't really written by giant ants who are secretly harvesting us for food?

Pfff! Shows what you know. It's so they can enslave humanity and force us to ceaselessly furrow away in their sugar mines.

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

That's right. You have the free will to sin if you choose to do so.


You could say this about any unfounded conspiracy theory. How do we know the Bible wasn't really written by giant ants who are secretly harvesting us for food?

However, since this is the Christianity Forum, rather than the Conspiracy Theory Forum, debates take place within a framework of Christian beliefs. Christian belief is that the Bible is inspired by God. If you want to start arguing about the Bible then you are no longer discussing the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity.

To that point its fair to discuss the possibility that parts of the Bible were subject to the interpretation of those who wrote it at the time, or the only vocabulary available to them.

With the Bible being the text at the heart of Christianity, and it being quoted as the reason Christians disagree with homosexuality, it is a core part of the discussion of the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity.

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

I have known many of these couples and am confident that there was no sexual aspects to these relationships at all. Did they love each other? Undoubtedly. Would it be accurate to refer to this as 'homosexuality'? No, not in my opinion.

EDIT:
Assuming these women loved each other and had no interest in anybody else from a relationship perspective, and that the women were not asexual and would acknowledge that any sexual feelings which they had (but controlled) were for the women then the below applies:

Original:
Is this not an example of the celibate relationship that some Churchs call LGBT individuals to live?

PDN

lst wrote: »

EDIT:
Assuming these women loved each other and had no interest in anybody else from a relationship perspective, and that the women were not asexual and would acknowledge that any sexual feelings which they had (but controlled) were for the women then the blow applies:

Original:
Is this not an example of the celibate relationship that some Churchs call LGBT individuals to live?

I don't think so. Most of these women would have been quite happy if they had found a husband and got married. The reason they remained unmarried was because of the Salvation Army's rules that an ordained minister could only marry another minister (since the number of ordained women outnumbered the number of ordained men by 2 to 1 - that meant a lot of female ministers remained single).

Which sort of leads me into another observation - that human beings, given different contexts and opportunities are capable of forming relationships (sexual or otherwise) with a high degree of versatility.

For example, men who consider themselves as heterosexual go to prison where they enter into homosexual relationships or encounters. Upon release from prison they revert to heterosexual relationships.

I know young men who would quite happily have sex with women, but have told me that getting a girlfriend was very difficult - but they found that in the gay scene it was much easier to find someone willing to engage in sexual activity with them. Their own analysis of this situation was that boys are randier than boys and so there are less inhibitions.

I question the idea that 'sexuality' is some immutable part of our identity.

Many males just want to have sex. Like dogs that will happily hump anything, be it another dog or your leg, they will shag anything that is available. They might have preferences one way or another, but can easily adapt if they preferred option is unavailable (and that includes marrying the chubby girl next door because they know they can't get Olivia Wilde).

Many females want a faithful companion and security. They are willing to put up with sex now and again as the price they pay for this (ie in marriage) - but if that isn't available they will settle for a female companion or they just buy a dog.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that these are stereotypes in which you squeeze all men or women, but the above paragraphs do describe a number of people.

What I'm saying is that people choose partners and engage in sexual activity for all kinds of reasons. And you will end up with a very skewed worldview if you try to force people into categories where gay, straight bi or anything else become unchangeable determinants of someone's identity.

Mainstream Christianity as based on the Bible, however, takes a very distinct view. This sees sexual activity as a gift from God to be used within a committed covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual acts, falling outside of these boundaries, is therefore considered incompatible with Christianity. The issue is not whether somebody feels gay (by choice or otherwise). The issue is the acts we choose to commit.

TylerIE

PDN wrote: »

Which sort of leads me into another observation - that human beings, given different contexts and opportunities are capable of forming relationships (sexual or otherwise) with a high degree of versatility.

For example, men who consider themselves as heterosexual go to prison where they enter into homosexual relationships or encounters. Upon release from prison they revert to heterosexual relationships.

But these relationships are not based on love or an ideal situation. Its a confined environment where the participants have either a no choice or a choice of sexual frustration or same-sex sexual activity.

I know young men who would quite happily have sex with women, but have told me that getting a girlfriend was very difficult - but they found that in the gay scene it was much easier to find someone willing to engage in sexual activity with them. Their own analysis of this situation was that boys are randier than boys and so there are less inhibitions.

That covers the sex part- ie they are possibly bi, quite "randy" so when they cant get a regular girlfriend they go for boys. I know boys who engage in such activities too - although they often end up most confused as they subsequently find it difficult to engage in a long - term relationship as they are confused over whether to do so with a girl (often due to societal pressures) or a boy (who they can form an understanding relationship with but it is not quite so socially acceptable). However any that I know that have been through this process have settled down have been most happy and been faithful to their partners - perhaps because they actually thought through what they wanted and needed.

Many males just want to have sex. Like dogs that will happily hump anything, be it another dog or your leg, they will shag anything that is available. They might have preferences one way or another, but can easily adapt if they preferred option is unavailable (and that includes marrying the chubby girl next door because they know they can't get Olivia Wilde).

Many females want a faithful companion and security. They are willing to put up with sex now and again as the price they pay for this (ie in marriage) - but if that isn't available they will settle for a female companion or they just buy a dog.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that these are stereotypes in which you squeeze all men or women, but the above paragraphs do describe a number of people.

Yes your first two statements are correct. And as for point 3 sexuality is so complex that there many variations on how people express theirs.

What I'm saying is that people choose partners and engage in sexual activity for all kinds of reasons. And you will end up with a very skewed worldview if you try to force people into categories where gay, straight bi or anything else become unchangeable determinants of someone's identity.

Many people fall into the category of being attracted to people of the same sex only. These people should be given equal respect and rights as those who fall for those of the opposite sex. The guy who marries the fat chubby girl is still allowed get married. The girl who goes for the rich older guy because hes safe and secure is not treated differently because she didnt go for someone her own age.

Mainstream Christianity as based on the Bible, however, takes a very distinct view. This sees sexual activity as a gift from God to be used within a committed covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexual acts, falling outside of these boundaries, is therefore considered incompatible with Christianity. The issue is not whether somebody feels gay (by choice or otherwise). The issue is the acts we choose to commit.

The majority of mainstream Christian groups do share your view.. A small but growing number of Christian groups are beginning to recognise Same Sex Relationships as being valid. E.g. the Anglican Church is in something of a turmoil over same. Some feel that same sex relationships are acceptable when the same standards are applied to them as to opposite sex relationships.

wonderfulname

Donatello wrote: »

I don't believe I did compare the aforementioned group with rapists. Rapists don't ask permission to do what they do.

You did, that statement didn't help you very much - you're still digging, just stop mentioning them.

Donatello wrote: »

Why is everything explained away as mental illness, be it raping somebody or cutting their head off? What ever happened to sin? What ever happened to evil and Satan?

Sin requires free will. Never mind someone claiming they have no choice in a matter, if they are proven to have no choice beyond all reasonable doubt then that person has quite a severe mental illness. We understand some of the "why"s now we don't need to explain away everything with evil. Good and evil are very simplistic notions, but if we're going to go down that route, can anyone be evil? Given free will, I mean its acknowledged that mere mortals cannot be wholly good, why then can they be the opposite?

Donatello wrote: »

Meanwhile, I'd say that homosexual inclinations are mainly caused by emotional/affective maturity issues. That appears to be the growing consensus on the non-homosexual lobby side of things.

I found this during my research earlier: http://www.citizenlink.com/understandinghomosexuality/

You really amaze me, right, lets get you on the same page as society in general has been on for quite the long time;

“homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities.”

American Psychiatric Association - 1973
Here, have a read of this; Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. It covers the basics and its a quick read, never mind that its unbiased, well referenced and well informed, unlike what you appear to have been taking your information from, do tell me if you have any issues with it. I could start going on about gay animals now but its pretty unnecessary.

PDN wrote: »

It might be worth mentioning here that there are examples within Christianity of non-sexual lifelong partnerships between people of the same gender...I have known many of these couples and am confident that there was no sexual aspects to these relationships at all. Did they love each other? Undoubtedly. Would it be accurate to refer to this as 'homosexuality'? No, not in my opinion.

I don't follow how this relevant? Its possible to form close platonic relationships with anyone regardless of gender. The dynamics are completely different to those within... not a sexual relationship per se... just a relationship relationship, a couple, maybe having sex/intending to, not exactly required though. So yeah, what you're talking about isn't necessarily a gay relationship, but that doesn't mean sex defines a gay relationship, nor does it define a straight one.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

But these relationships are not based on love or an ideal situation. Its a confined environment where the participants have either a no choice or a choice of sexual frustration or same-sex sexual activity.

The majority of mainstream Christian groups do share your view.. A small but growing number of Christian groups are beginning to recognise Same Sex Relationships as being valid. E.g. the Anglican Church is in something of a turmoil over same. Some feel that same sex relationships are acceptable when the same standards are applied to them as to opposite sex relationships.

I recommend the following reading:

Guidelines

What’s wrong with sex? God created me the way I am, with all my desires. Celibacy is just a medieval attempt by the Church to repress homosexuality.

Catholic Compassion

TylerIE

wonderfulname wrote: »

You did, that statement didn't help you very much - you're still digging, just stop mentioning them. Sin requires free will. Never mind someone claiming they have no choice in a matter, if they are proven to have no choice beyond all reasonable doubt then that person has quite a severe mental illness. We understand some of the "why"s now we don't need to explain away everything with evil. Good and evil are very simplistic notions, but if we're going to go down that route, can anyone be evil? Given free will, I mean its acknowledged that mere mortals cannot be wholly good, why then can they be the opposite?
You really amaze me, right, lets get you on the same page as society in general has been on for quite the long time;
American Psychiatric Association - 1973
Here, have a read of this; Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. It covers the basics and its a quick read, never mind that its unbiased, well referenced and well informed, unlike what you appear to have been taking your information from, do tell me if you have any issues with it. I could start going on about gay animals now but its pretty unnecessary.
I don't follow how this relevant? Its possible to form close platonic relationships with anyone regardless of gender. The dynamics are completely different to those within... not a sexual relationship per se... just a relationship relationship, a couple, maybe having sex/intending to, not exactly required though. So yeah, what you're talking about isn't necessarily a gay relationship, but that doesn't mean sex defines a gay relationship, nor does it define a straight one.

Great post, brilliant link.

Donnotello:
I said I'm not engaging with you so its pointless you posting questions for me. You have shown you cannot logically discuss this topic. As expected when I looked for some logical discussion you instead showed its personal bias at the heart of your feelings on this matter, and you will use whatever radical material you can find to reinforce same.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

You really amaze me, right, lets get you on the same page as society in general has been on for quite the long time;
American Psychiatric Association - 1973
Here, have a read of this; Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality. It covers the basics and its a quick read, never mind that its unbiased, well referenced and well informed, unlike what you appear to have been taking your information from, do tell me if you have any issues with it. I could start going on about gay animals now but its pretty unnecessary.

I think it is hilarious that you talk about your own 'unbiased' (pro-gay) sources and then label the alternative view as 'biased'. It's hilariously naive. Read up about Robert Spitzer, here, 'one of the most influential psychiatrists of the 20th century' and how he was treated by the ideologically driven APA.