Homosexuality and The Bible

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.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

I could start going on about gay animals now but its pretty unnecessary.

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

TylerIE

philologos wrote: »

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

Donatello

lst wrote: »

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

The penguins in the zoo are not in their natural environment. Kind of like male prisoners.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

If you're being honest you have to agree that homosexual acts occur in the animal world. If you're also being honest you would have to concede that it very often occurs for different reasons. It doesn't back up that it is biologically determined either, just that there is same-sex sexual activity in the animal world.

If you're being honest you would have to concede that we don't have a clue why animals exhibit homosexual behaviour. I mentioned I could as many people would resurrect that old argument at this point, I wasn't using it as one. But anyway seen as you've linked to an article about "acts" I'm going to link to one about "relationships" for balance http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html Aw, ain't they cute, there's the most adorable illustrated story for kids about them, if anyone's interested, "and tango makes three".

Donatello wrote: »

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.

I think its hilarious that you have no concept of bias, especially your own, we're all out to get you eh? I'd love to see the world from your perspective, just for a moment. Spitzer did not recognise bisexuality as a valid sexuality, he also selected his subjects, rather than working from a random sample. The APA disavowed the paper for two reasons, one, because it was not peer reviewed, and two, because there was no scientific evidence whatsoever for what he was saying. No evidence, not peer reviewed, a margin of error larger than the results, yeah, they were right to run like crap from that one.

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

If you're being honest you would have to concede that we don't have a clue why animals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

We do know or at least have a good theory in some cases such as that exhibited in the article I linked. In others we don't, I agree entirely, but claiming homosexual behaviour in animals doesn't effectively suggest that sexuality is biologically determined.

Keylem

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

The study found gay men were also more likely to get cancer at a younger age than straight men – almost 10 years sooner – at the age of 41, on average.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

wonderfulname

lst wrote: »

I think wonderfulname would acknowledge that same sex activity does take place in the animal world. But S/he didnt want to go off topic, they just wanted to point out that that would contribute to the dismissal of the ludicrous arguments of the poster they were responding to.

That gives the reason why some of the Beetles may engage in same sex acts. However we dont know if this is all of them. Penguins dont engage in same sex activity for the reasons listed in your article.

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

The study found gay men were also more likely to get cancer at a younger age than straight men – almost 10 years sooner – at the age of 41, on average.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

Relevance?

wonderfulname

Keylem wrote: »

There is also a health risk.

According to a report out this week, there is increased cancer risks in homosexuals.

Gay men in California are nearly twice as likely to report a cancer diagnosis as straight men in the state, according to new research published online Monday in the medical journal Cancer.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/09/more-cancer-among-gay-men-california-study-finds/?hpt=T2

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

Donatello

wonderfulname wrote: »

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

Are you suggesting that we humans should model our behaviour on badly behaved monkeys?

Animals do lots of strange things which, if imitated by humans, would be pathological. Take for instance the spiders whose female eats the male once they've finished mating.

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

She, you're right. I have to stop clicking reply then wandering off, leaves me very out of touch when I get round to typing!
Donatello: If you look at my link it gives reference to Bonobos, a species known for being mostly bisexual regardless of whether or not they are in captivity. Also, in captivity animals still have access to mates of the opposite sex, not so with humans, thought that was an obvious one...

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

Asry

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

Ha this Christian definitely would. I'm just following the example of St Augustine!

Also, who says humans don't eat their mate after they've gotten what they wanted out of them...:cool:

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

It could be more to do with HPV rather than HIV. Being the passive partner in anal intercourse increases the risk of anal cancer sevenfold. This would, of course, make gay men more likely (and lesbians and heterosexual men least likely) to contract anal cancer.

Of course you can make of statistics what you will. You could equally argue that lesbians are statistically less likely to contract cancer than heterosexual women.

Keylem

wonderfulname wrote: »

Your point is...? The question "why?" is an important one here, I will be interested to find that out. Its also interesting that no difference was reported in gay or bisexual women. If it is linked to HIV then that's not a gay only issue.

The point being is, not only is it spiritually unhealthy, it's physically unhealthy.

The following link shows that it's not only HIV suffers that are at increased risk!

http://www.thehealthage.com/gay-men-have-higher-cancer-rates/0509/

TylerIE

Keylem wrote: »

The point being is, not only is it spiritually unhealthy, it's physically unhealthy.

The following link shows that it's not only HIV suffers that are at increased risk!

http://www.thehealthage.com/gay-men-have-higher-cancer-rates/0509/

Two key points from your link:

According to Dr Ulrike Boehmer from the Boston University School of Public Health, it was not possible to conclude that gay men have a higher risk of cancer because the fundamental causes for the higher incidence could be more complicated. Further research would be required to resolve if homosexual men were actually getting more tumours or had greater survival rates.

She further added that one frequent explanation for why lesbian and bisexual women report worse health compared to heterosexual women is minority stress that suggests lesbian and bisexual women have worse health, including psychological health due to their experiences of discrimination, prejudice, and violence. More serviced are required to improve the well-being of lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors.

Furthermore there are certain diseases that hetrosexual women are at much higher risk. I forget off the cuff but Im sure I you dont need me to prove it!

I remember reading a few years ago also that Single Men were more likely to suffer prostrate cancer - for obvious reasons (it was a reliable source).

And as stated in the above quote, there is mental health issues, secondary to discimination, which affect LGBT individuals.

wonderfulname

Donatello wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we humans should model our behaviour on badly behaved monkeys?

Animals do lots of strange things which, if imitated by humans, would be pathological. Take for instance the spiders whose female eats the male once they've finished mating.

No, and you know I'm not, you're just clutching at straws. Changing your argument every time you are challenged on something doesn't do much for your argument by the way.

PDN wrote: »

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

Just pointed it out in response to the claim its something to do with animals being in captivity.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

No, for some reason people saw fit to drag out one tiny sentence of little significance in a response of mine. We have kind of gone off topic though haven't we?

Asry

But like. Not all gay men take it up the buffer. I could have anal sex loads and loads. That would mean Christian women are more prone to cancer too. Christian smokers are more prone to cancer. Or Christian junk food eaters. More relevantly, down syndrome children are more prone to cancer, including even Christian down syndrome children. And they have the same choice to decide to not be down syndrome anymore than LGBT people have to be straight. It's something inherent, innate, from birth. I relate LGBT people to a debilitating condition as I'm sure anti-LGBT lobby would understand the issue better if I do it that way.

I really don't see the point of the 'risk of cancer' facet of this debate. All the stories that pound out every day that different groups are more prone to cancer really devalue this argument.

I agree. Gone off topic.

Donatello

Asry wrote: »

a this Christian definitely would. I'm just following the example of St Augustine!

Also, who says humans don't eat their mate after they've gotten what they wanted out of them...:cool:

St. Augustine was converted to the Christian faith and spent the rest of his life doing penance for his own sins and exhorting others to renounce sin, including all impurity, and embrace the Gospel.

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.
- St. Augustine, Confessions.

PDN wrote: »

Studies of Bonobos demonstrate that they are highly promiscuous (any bonobo will basically shag any other bonobo) and also that frequent sexual activity occurs between adults and juveniles.

I'm not quite sure what their relevance is to a discussion about the Bible and homosexuality in the Christianity Forum. Is that Christians should copulate with as many people as possible of various age groups and genders?

PDN, whilst your posts are useful, I find your choice of language unfortunate, bearing in mind the demands of Christian modesty.

Asry

Donatello wrote: »

St. Augustine was converted to the Christian faith and spent the rest of his life doing penance for his own sins and exhorting others to renounce sin, including all impurity, and embrace the Gospel.

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace.
- St. Augustine, Confessions.

Oh, I was talking about this - Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet. I have a good 6 years of debauchery left in me by his standards anyway

Asry

Delayed reaction, but -

Donatello wrote: »

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.

....says you, who quoted Scott Lively, well known as an anti-gay activist and president of a hate group (as classified by the Southern Poor Law Centre)? They're also the guiding force between many Nazi atrocities, apparently, according to him.

And wonderfulname is naive?