The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's not like the primary biological function of sex is procreation (awaits the *new and improved* studies with prove otherwise) and that the christian view is that sex should remain open to the transmission of Life according to nature...

Most Christians, except for Christian Scientists, believe that modern medicine should prevent disease and death in babies and children (and quite right too).

Modern medicine though negates the biological requirement for the large child bearing age range in humans (from 14 to 44)

If you prevent the natural deaths of half your children it is equally not natural to then keep having the same number of children you would have if they had died.

You produce a family size far beyond what humans have naturally developed to manage, such as the ridiculous sizes of 13 children families typical in the 1950s. In a typical medieval family (long before any modern medical practice and birth control) the average family had 3 to 4 children who survived to adulthood.

So maybe it is time to leave nature out of the discussion.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Sex outside of lawful marriage is sinful. It applys to homosexuals, heterosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals, pansexuals, frying-pansexuals, transsexuals, bestiality, pedophilia, object-sexuality, those who are sexually attracted to food, incest, dendrophilia (sexually attracted to trees), necrophilia and a whole lot more...

I know, the RCC are such assholes for not allowing people have sex with whoever or whatever they want...
It's not like the primary biological function of sex is procreation (awaits the *new and improved* studies with prove otherwise) and that the christian view is that sex should remain open to the transmission of Life according to nature...how corrupt and wrong they are for thinking such!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

I think you might want to be a little more careful with your use of terms like "lawful marriage." I suspect that you will not be supportive of all "lawful" marriages in the not too distant future.

MrP

riveratom wrote: »

If sex is a gift, then why should only those who are not gay get to partake?

Is there a reason?

I don't think anyone believes that all conceivable forms of sexual activity are a gift from God.

I believe that sexual intimacy is a gift given by God which He intended to be enjoyed in one specific context, and that is within the lifelong covenant between a man and a woman that we call marriage.

That doesn't just affect gays - it affects lots of other unmarried people as well.

And, remember, this is simply one Christian's understanding of how he should live out the Bible in his own life. Anyone else who is not a Christian, or who interprets the Bible differently, gets to partake in whatever they want and, so long as it only involves consenting adults, the best of luck to them.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Just parsing that for you.
We are not discussing why you believe Nick, we are discussing why anyone should believe it. Your argument is I believe this because.. which is fine as far as it goes. However your opinion isn't what is setting the direction of thinking on this. I'm putting forward an argument from the perspective of someone who cant understand why this is such a big issue at all. If we reject the notion that religion is nothing more than a cultural identity then we have hit an impasse when it comes to stuff like this. Their is no reasonable reason for the prohibition other than tribal tradition. If we insist on defending it based on this reason then Christianity will and deserves to be consigned to the bin of irrelevant and quaint habits along with morris dancing.
I would hope Christ came for more than just to start another ingroup among ingroups.

Please don't put words into my mouth which I haven't said and which don't reflect my beliefs. Surely we can have a discussion in an honest manner?

It is not the job of Christianity to 'sell' a package of behaviour to the world. Our job is to present one very basic message, that people can come to Christ and receive such a life-changing experience that they become a new creation and receive a new identity which supersedes all other identities.

Now, for those who have received that new identity in Christ, it is certainly legitimate for us to discuss among ourselves what are the parameters of behaviour that are consistent with that new identity.

But I have zero interest in pushing a moral code on those who have not had that life-changing experience of Jesus, nor in trying to tell anyone else how they should live their life. That is none of my business. So best of luck to them.

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you might want to be a little more careful with your use of terms like "lawful marriage." I suspect that you will not be supportive of all "lawful" marriages in the not too distant future.

MrP

There are already lawful marriages that the Church regards as sinful. Divorced people can legally remarry, but in many cases such marriages are viewed by the RCC as adultery.

Or is lazybones telling us that the Church has changed their teaching on this?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Nature is indeed very relevant to the discussion and to the question the person I responded to asked, so maybe it's time you try stop telling people what they can and can't post.

OK then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KXM3F59y1jkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=homosexual+animals&ots=WHTM1ldlUU&sig=JnOpoMQVkWMi4zLNTY5nkdf_hh8#v=onepage&q=homosexual%20animals&f=false

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=homosexual+animals&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that all conceivable forms of sexual activity are a gift from God.

Well I said 'sex', not 'all conceivable forms of sexual activity'. The latter is far broader needless to say..

Nick Park wrote: »

I believe that sexual intimacy is a gift given by God which He intended to be enjoyed in one specific context, and that is within the lifelong covenant between a man and a woman that we call marriage.

That doesn't just affect gays - it affects lots of other unmarried people as well.

Exactly, and this hits on the exact question. If God intended it for a man and a woman within marriage, then that means that he didn't intend for certain people to enjoy sexual intimacy. This isn't a thread about unmarried heterosexuals, but one about gay people. Therefore my question relates to gay people - why did God not intend for them to enjoy sexual intimacy, if it wasn't going to be ok? Any ideas?

Nick Park wrote: »

And, remember, this is simply one Christian's understanding of how he should live out the Bible in his own life. Anyone else who is not a Christian, or who interprets the Bible differently, gets to partake in whatever they want and, so long as it only involves consenting adults, the best of luck to them.

Hmm, not sure about this now. Your understanding of something doesn't make it true, the barometer of whether something is true or not is generally dependent on the majority of people agreeing it to be so. And we are agreed that the Bible is most definitely not approving of homosexual acts. So there's no room for any fluffiness there in light of the above question (not that I'm saying you're being 'fluffy').

Nick Park wrote: »

Please don't put words into my mouth which I haven't said and which don't reflect my beliefs. Surely we can have a discussion in an honest manner?

It is not the job of Christianity to 'sell' a package of behaviour to the world. Our job is to present one very basic message, that people can come to Christ and receive such a life-changing experience that they become a new creation and receive a new identity which supersedes all other identities.

Now, for those who have received that new identity in Christ, it is certainly legitimate for us to discuss among ourselves what are the parameters of behaviour that are consistent with that new identity.

But I have zero interest in pushing a moral code on those who have not had that life-changing experience of Jesus, nor in trying to tell anyone else how they should live their life. That is none of my business. So best of luck to them.

Apologies It wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth, I was rephrasing it as though it was Christianity as a whole that had written the response.
I agree it is no ones business to force morality on anyone, all we can do is set an example and explain why we think it's the best way. My problem is if that argument is nothing more than because it's said so, then we have lost the argument.
Their seem to be a trend of isolationism in your attitude, I'm presuming you are from an evangelical background where a personal relationship with Jesus is paramount. I'm not, I'm from an Irish RCC background. I grew up with something similar to the Jewish position, that it's a cultural thing and believing it was secondary to observing it.
I lost faith in that idea a long time ago, either faith is worth something in and of itself and offers something to everyone or it is just that, a cultural thing and observation is more important than actually believing and living the gospel.
So if we rub against each other from time to time in this discussion it's probably due to different paradigms. I suspect we would be closer on most things than I would be with most of the pro gay rights posters here.

lazybones32 wrote: »

No. I assumed - wrongly - that users here would know there is more applications to the word "lawfully" than just relating to the Irish code of what is legal and illegal. I give people much too much credit regarding intelligence...

I have a reasonable level of intelligence, but thanks for your concern. I think that when a person uses the phrase 'lawful' it is more than reasonable to beleive they are talking about, you know, law...

If you are talking about something that your church approves of, or not, then why not simply say that? Clearly I was only joking anyway, as I am familiar with your past posting history and your <ahem> views on people with a different sexualiy that those you approve of, I had a pretty good idea what you meant. I simply dislike the use of the word lawful in such a context as it almost seems like an attempt to legitimise your church's bigotry by trying to connect its discriminatory 'rules' with law.

MrP

Nick Park wrote: »

And 'sex' is as broad or as narrow as you wish.

Quite possibly because God didn't intend for people to be gay in the first place.

This is where the Christian doctrine of the Fall is important to understand. Christians believe that God created the world as a good place, but that through human sin it has become broken. Therefore all of us are born with inbuilt tendencies towards behaviours that are contrary to God's original purpose for us. Same sex attractions, by this thinking, would not be considered to be worse than the temptations that all of us face.

Then, when we receive Christ as our Saviour and enter into a new relationship with God, that becomes our primary identity. So, for example, I do not see being heterosexual as defining my identity in any way. My identity is as a follower of Christ.

Well this might be an interesting road. What you are saying then is that people are not born gay, but that it is an inbuilt tendency in some of us (or perhaps all, to varying degrees). Therefore, those who class themselves as gay are actually just giving into their temptations and inclinations, in much the same way as someone who gives in to stealing, fraud, lying, cheating, etc?

So you're then saying that people actually choose to be gay? Correct me if not.

I would be interested to hear what you think about a very common scenario where a person will know from the age of maybe six or seven that they are gay, before they even know anything about sexuality? Are they choosing it then, or is just the way they are?

What about one of my neighbours, who we all knew was 'not like the rest of the lads' from when we were about eight or nine years old? The guy who never came out (pardon the pun) to play football with us, who always hung around with girls only, and who has always been as gay as the sky is blue?

If it is as you say, and people can actually choose whether to be straight or gay, why on earth would anyone go the gay route? Do people like being bullied in school for being gay, being shouted at on the street, beaten up, stigmatised and just generally having a tougher time of it than if they were straight?

Just for the record, I'm not gay (in case it colours or influences your responses in any way).

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I don't think popular opinion makes something true. For most of history the majority opinion has been for burning witches, fighting stupid wars in the cause of nationalism, and executing criminals - all of which I find morally objectionable.

I was referring back to where you mentioned 'your understanding of how you should live out the Bible in your own life'. I was saying that it's not your understanding that makes it true, in that it's obvious that the Bible doesn't approve of homosexual acts. That would be true regardless of your understanding, as it's just self-evident from reading it.

Anyway.

Nick Park wrote: »

I would agree that the Bible is not approving of homosexual acts - but that is only an issue for those who see the Bible as a guide for their personal morality. For the rest of the population it's pretty irrelevant what the Bible says, unless someone tries to ram it down their throat (a practice I prefer to leave to the Taliban and their ilk).

Well that's pretty obvious. That's like saying the Koran is only relevant for Muslims, or that eating meat is only an issue for vegetarians.

You are still massively missing the point Nick.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that, and I don't see that anything I posted could give that impression.

Emm, now hold up. I thought you might say this, but I don't see how anyone reading could see that this is not the exact impression you are giving. You are clearly saying that being gay is a choice. That is plain as day to anyone reading. It's very simple - either being gay is something you are, or it is something you choose to be, because you indulge it or 'give in to it'.

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't know whether same sex attraction is nature or nurture. The science, as I understand it, is inconclusive. It actually doesn't make any difference from a philosophical or theological perspective.

It really, really does. Either people are born gay or they 'choose it'. If the latter, then why? Why would they be born gay if God deemed homosexual acts to be wrong?

Nick Park wrote: »

The doctrine of the Fall simply means that we are not born the way God originally intended humans to be.

Does this mean that He makes some people gay, and why would He do that? Why would He not want some to enjoy sexual intimacy and whose fault is it then that some people are gay?

Nick Park wrote: »

No, not if we're speaking English.

Could you please cite where I said anything remotely like that?

Maybe the problem is your imprecise use of language? When I speak to members of the LGBT community, they usually use the phrase 'being gay' to refer to their orientation. If you are using it differently then maybe you could clarify?



I think you're confusing two things. 'Being gay' may simply refer to the attractions one feels or one's sexual orientation. That may, or may not, be down to choice. As I said, I've not seen any conclusive scientific evidence one way or the other.

Participating in homosexual acts is a choice - unless, of course, you are the victim of rape or sexual abuse.



I'm not quite sure why you ask me questions if you choose to ignore my answers. People are not born perfect. We are all born with a tendency to commit acts that God deems to be wrong.



No, it doesn't mean He makes some people gay. I've already stated several times that the Christian doctrine of The Fall means that human sin has distorted the world we live in, and that includes our desires. At one point or another we all have our weak points and can be tempted to do stuff that deviates from God's plan for our lives. This human brokenness is manifested in many of our approaches to sexuality.

Sorry, but my language is very precise and I am not at all confused. I know exactly what I am talking about, but you seem to be obfuscating the issue, perhaps because you are getting uncomfortable about the implications of what I am saying (understandably).

It's very simple. The Bible is clear that being homosexual is not 'wrong', but homosexual acts are wrong.

Therefore, in this context, being gay without being sexually intimate with someone of the same gender is fine, but being sexually intimate with someone of the same gender is 'wrong'.

Therefore, anyone who is gay CANNOT enjoy sexual intimacy with people of the same gender, i.e. people they are attracted to, if they do not want to do wrong by the Bible.

This means that significant numbers of people who are quite clearly only attracted to members of the same sex do not get to enjoy sexual intimacy if they also want to do right by the Bible. Is that fair?

Nick Park wrote: »

Well, maybe you could explain 'the point.'

Is it that you have a problem with Christians discussing their interpretation of the Bible in the Christianity Forum? I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

It is a bit more that that, it is the Gay thread within that forum.