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

Nick Park wrote: »

It is relevant, and there is a clear point to throwing it into the mix if we are engaging in genuine discussion rather than trying to score cheap shots.

It demonstrates that it is perfectly logical to assert that someone might be born with a characteristic without having to assert that God made that person that way. And that does seem to be a concept that you are having difficulty in grasping - so much so that you have quite wrongly accused me of contradicting myself.

Don't you think the discussion might progress better if we tried to listen to and understand each other rather than putting words into one another's mouth?

That would certainly be my understanding of the situation (although some Christians would disagree with me on this point).

I would also add that this applies to other people apart from those who are gay.

For example, a good friend of mine has a wife who, due to a serious car accident, will never be able to have sexual intercourse with him again. If he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity then he also must forego any sexual intimacy with anyone of either sex.

I feel deeply for his situation, but respect his integrity in remaining true to his principles. Just as I do with good friends who are attracted to the same sex but choose to remain celibate due to their Christian beliefs. I hope, if I were in either of those scenarios, that I would be similarly true to my convictions. It certainly can't be easy.

If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex.

I'm wary of those who try to insist on 'yes' or 'no' answers - as it often shows an unwillingness to listen and a desire to attack.

I would broadly agree with that statement (without the shouting implied by capitalisation) and with the insertion of the words "according to his understanding" after the word 'Bible'. I prefer to see this as a personal matter of conscience, not one of compulsion or judging someone else.

Neither had I, but since neither you nor I or gay, I think it much wiser for those who are gay to tell us if a phrase comes across that way or not. No?

It was interesting. I found him to be a charming individual and good company. I sincerely hope that he left our meeting with a similar impression.

How he expresses his sexuality is entirely his business not mine. I would not presume to lecture him on that.

That is up to him. I have enough on my plate at times answering for my own beliefs and actions without deciding for him.

If he had asked me for advice I would have given my opinion, but in that case it would be private and I would never assume to publicly speak of that. I only alluded to his views on the phrase 'gay lifestyle' because he has made those views public via his blog.

I would also feel for your friend and his wife, but that is a rare edge case. What we are talking about here is the issue of a person being gay and the options open to them in terms of being able to be intimate with someone.

The bottom line is that Christianity states that the only appropriate setting for sexual intimacy is between a man and a woman in marriage. This means that very large number of people find themselves at odds with this, simply because they know they are gay. This is what begs my question of why 'gay' exists at all. Why is it a thing?

You can't compare it with giving in to an inclination to steal, or defraud, or lie, etc. Those are choices you make, whilst being gay and only feeling attracted to someone of the same sex is not something you can help (at least that is the common understanding).

It is also 'more than a characteristic'. That is just a bit glib, no? Gay people are attracted to people of the same sex, not those of the opposite sex. I would say that is more than a 'characteristic', wouldn't you?

I would broadly agree with that statement (without the shouting implied by capitalisation) and with the insertion of the words "according to his understanding" after the word 'Bible'. I prefer to see this as a personal matter of conscience, not one of compulsion or judging someone else.

Really? Now that is interesting. If it is 'according to his understanding', then it is subjective as to whether it is ok or not, isn't it?

So let's take a gay Christian man whose understanding is that it is ok to be sexually intimate with another man, and that it is fine in his eyes as a personal matter of conscience. That means it is ok because it is ok by him - even though the Bible is quite clear that it is not?

That's funny because I didn't think people got to choose on that count on the basis of what they felt was ok! In fact I know that is the case, so I look forward to your replies on that..

tommy2bad

lazybones32 wrote: »

From the spiritual perspective; yes, it is very important. From the biological, psychological and social perspective; yes, it is very important.

Given the argument that is on-going, it is important, apt and relevant.

So just on the spiritual perspective, I get the difference between 'God made me this way' and 'I am this way'. What I don't get is the difference that nature or nurture makes.
If we assume that God made the world and it was good, the fall happened and the 'good' world was fractured in some way then both nature and nurture were affected by this fracturing. Due attention to your reluctance to bring original sin into this but I am assuming this fracture was not to the substance of the world but more to the relationship between God and man. following me? If the fracture is in the relationship then things like cancer, Spina bifida and in your world view homosexuality are the product of sin/the fall, whatever, then the substance of the world was changed. Now given that the incarnation restored the fall and the death and resurrection redeemed the world, why cancer? why downs syndrome? why homosexuality? Why are they not restored to factory settings?
I'm asking honestly because I see an ill defined theology here. I don't know is an acceptable answer by the way, however much I'd like a firm answer.

So because Adam and Eve took a bite out of an apple, homosexual sex is now a thing?

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

But are we as humans not made in the image of God?

Oh, and can you please not question my intelligence like that again. Thank you.

I'm not questioning your intelligence at all. I've stated a concept several times and I had thought it was an easily grasped concept. I would rather not speculate as to why anyone seems to have difficulty in grasping it.

The historic Christian doctrine, as I have explained at least three times in this thread already, is that mankind was created in the image of God (and there are different interpretations as to what that precisely means). However, due to the Fall, that image of God has become obscured and marred. Therefore we are born with characteristics that are very different from God's original intentions for us.

This belief, which is common to most of the major Christian traditions, is sometimes called 'original sin' (but I've avoided the term so far because some denominations have very specific ideas concerning this to which I would not subscribe - and I didn't want to muddy the waters too much when in a discussion with those who do not appear to be very familiar with Christian teachings).

lazybones32 wrote: »

From the spiritual perspective; yes, it is very important. From the biological, psychological and social perspective; yes, it is very important.

Given the argument that is on-going, it is important, apt and relevant.

Can you explain why ?

riveratom wrote: »

Being born with a medical condition is in no way comparable to being born gay so there's no point throwing that into the mix. It is also clearly irrelevant to the topic at hand so hopefully it is not an attempt at diverting the discussion.

It is relevant, and there is a clear point to throwing it into the mix if we are engaging in genuine discussion rather than trying to score cheap shots.

It demonstrates that it is perfectly logical to assert that someone might be born with a characteristic without having to assert that God made that person that way. And that does seem to be a concept that you are having difficulty in grasping - so much so that you have quite wrongly accused me of contradicting myself.

Don't you think the discussion might progress better if we tried to listen to and understand each other rather than putting words into one another's mouth?

We are getting somewhere though. If people are possibly born with some inclinations, then a situation can quite clearly arise where a man realises he is only attracted to other men (same for a woman), and not to women. Therefore, if he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity, he must forego any sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex.

That would certainly be my understanding of the situation (although some Christians would disagree with me on this point).

I would also add that this applies to other people apart from those who are gay.

For example, a good friend of mine has a wife who, due to a serious car accident, will never be able to have sexual intercourse with him again. If he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity then he also must forego any sexual intimacy with anyone of either sex.

I feel deeply for his situation, but respect his integrity in remaining true to his principles. Just as I do with good friends who are attracted to the same sex but choose to remain celibate due to their Christian beliefs. I hope, if I were in either of those scenarios, that I would be similarly true to my convictions. It certainly can't be easy.

If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex.

Do you agree with this statement or not?

If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex.

It's quite simple, and really only requires a yes or no answer. We all know that there are people out there who are only attracted to people of the same gender, so it is a very pertinent question.

I'm wary of those who try to insist on 'yes' or 'no' answers - as it often shows an unwillingness to listen and a desire to attack.

I would broadly agree with that statement (without the shouting implied by capitalisation) and with the insertion of the words "according to his understanding" after the word 'Bible'. I prefer to see this as a personal matter of conscience, not one of compulsion or judging someone else.

I have never heard the phrase being referred to as offensive, homophobic or demeaning before. Not once.

Neither had I, but since neither you nor I or gay, I think it much wiser for those who are gay to tell us if a phrase comes across that way or not. No?

That must have been an interesting chat. Now how can the editor of such a publication express his sexuality, assuming he is gay?

It was interesting. I found him to be a charming individual and good company. I sincerely hope that he left our meeting with a similar impression.

How he expresses his sexuality is entirely his business not mine. I would not presume to lecture him on that.

In your view he should not express it if he happens (or happened) to be Christian, no?

That is up to him. I have enough on my plate at times answering for my own beliefs and actions without deciding for him.

If he had asked me for advice I would have given my opinion, but in that case it would be private and I would never assume to publicly speak of that. I only alluded to his views on the phrase 'gay lifestyle' because he has made those views public via his blog.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Does it really matter if it is nature or nurture ?

From the spiritual perspective; yes, it is very important. From the biological, psychological and social perspective; yes, it is very important.

Given the argument that is on-going, it is important, apt and relevant.

Nick Park wrote: »

It means that saying 'someone was born as X' is not equivalent to saying 'God made someone X'.

I don't think that is a particularly hard concept to grasp, no?

But are we as humans not made in the image of God?

Oh, and can you please not question my intelligence like that again. Thank you.

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Then what does that^ mean?

It means that saying 'someone was born as X' is not equivalent to saying 'God made someone X'.

I don't think that is a particularly hard concept to grasp, no?

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

Then what does that^ mean?

Glad I am not the only one who can see he is contradicting himself.

Nick Park wrote: »

I have nowhere said that 'people aren't born as homosexual people'. I have stated now, several times, that I have not seen any conclusive scientific evidence to form an opinion on that one way or another. If such evidence is discovered then I would be cool with that.

What I have said is that it is a choice whether someone chooses to partake in homosexual acts, or indeed in heterosexual acts. That is self-evident (unless someone is raped).

It's a simple distinction, and I had thought that it was made clearly enough so that only someone misled by confusion or imprecision could continue to make the untrue claim about me that I had anywhere claimed that people are gay by choice.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, it doesn't mean He makes some people gay.

Then what does that^ mean?

lazybones32 wrote: »

No-one knows the psychological genesis of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Academics are divided as to whether sexuality is solely genetic (nature), solely psychological (nurture) or a mix of the two. Seeing as the human mind cannot be quantified, there will be no definitive decision.

Remember the Welsh man who went in to a coma and came out of it gay last year? He was a rugby player and engaged; suffered a serious head trauma and within a few months of waking, ended his engagement, quit his job, became a hairdresser and moved in with his boyfriend. Having heard him on some talk show, it is fully certain that he wasn't born gay but became gay after some 'interference' within his brain.

Does it really matter if it is nature or nurture ?

lazybones32

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

So you are saying that people aren't born as homosexual people, but they choose to partake in homosexual acts after giving into temptation.

That sounds like you are saying it is a choice.

No-one knows the psychological genesis of homosexuality or heterosexuality. Academics are divided as to whether sexuality is solely genetic (nature), solely psychological (nurture) or a mix of the two. Seeing as the human mind cannot be quantified, there will be no definitive decision.

Remember the Welsh man who went in to a coma and came out of it gay last year? He was a rugby player and engaged; suffered a serious head trauma and within a few months of waking, ended his engagement, quit his job, became a hairdresser and moved in with his boyfriend. Having heard him on some talk show, it is fully certain that he wasn't born gay but became gay after some 'interference' within his brain.

Nick Park wrote: »

You're making a rather large leap of logic, and that is causing you not to listen to what I'm saying and to wrongly put words into my mouth.

You seem to assume that there are only two alternatives here:

a) People are born gay (referring to orientation not actions) because God intended them to be that way.

b) People choose to be gay.

However, the Christian doctrine of the Fall, as I have explained on several occasions, means that the world we live in is not the world as God intended it to be. I had thought that explaining that would be sufficient and thought that spelling out the inevitable conclusion would be an insult to any adult . I therefore apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear, and will spell out what that means:

c) It is entirely possible that people might be born gay, without that being what God wants.

This is hardly a radical conclusion. I don't believe God wants people to be born with spina bifida, with a tendency towards alcoholism, or with an inbuilt tendency to construct idols and pray to them. But I am open to the possibility that people are indeed born with such inclinations.

Being born with a medical condition is in no way comparable to being born gay so there's no point throwing that into the mix. It is also clearly irrelevant to the topic at hand so hopefully it is not an attempt at diverting the discussion.

We are getting somewhere though. If people are possibly born with some inclinations, then a situation can quite clearly arise where a man realises he is only attracted to other men (same for a woman), and not to women. Therefore, if he wants to do the right thing in the context of Christianity, he must forego any sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex.

If he wants to do the right thing by the Bible, he CANNOT and MUST NOT enjoy or experience sexual intimacy if he is only attracted to those of the same sex.

Do you agree with this statement or not?

It's quite simple, and really only requires a yes or no answer. We all know that there are people out there who are only attracted to people of the same gender, so it is a very pertinent question.

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd rather not use that phrase.

I had a very pleasant chat over coffee with the editor of the Gay Community News recently, and he explained how he found the use of the word 'lifestyle' to describe his sexuality to be insulting. (I was thankful I hadn't used it - he was referring to the use of the phrase by Vincent Browne in a TV programme in which I had participated). Anyway, I thought his point of view was fair, so maybe we could have this discussion without using phrases that might be offensive to others or be seen as homophobic or demeaning?

I have never heard the phrase being referred to as offensive, homophobic or demeaning before. Not once. I do know that the jab you had at me above about having a kid-like understanding of your posts could be construed as insulting though. Luckily I am thick-skinned.

That must have been an interesting chat. Now how can the editor of such a publication express his sexuality, assuming he is gay?

In your view he should not express it if he happens (or happened) to be Christian, no?

riveratom wrote: »

Sure can:

You're making a rather large leap of logic, and that is causing you not to listen to what I'm saying and to wrongly put words into my mouth.

You seem to assume that there are only two alternatives here:

a) People are born gay (referring to orientation not actions) because God intended them to be that way.

b) People choose to be gay.

However, the Christian doctrine of the Fall, as I have explained on several occasions, means that the world we live in is not the world as God intended it to be. I had thought that explaining that would be sufficient and thought that spelling out the inevitable conclusion would be an insult to any adult . I therefore apologise for not making myself sufficiently clear, and will spell out what that means:

c) It is entirely possible that people might be born gay, without that being what God wants.

This is hardly a radical conclusion. I don't believe God wants people to be born with spina bifida, with a tendency towards alcoholism, or with an inbuilt tendency to construct idols and pray to them. But I am open to the possibility that people are indeed born with such inclinations.

Like the gay lifestyle?

I'd rather not use that phrase.

I had a very pleasant chat over coffee with the editor of the Gay Community News recently, and he explained how he found the use of the word 'lifestyle' to describe his sexuality to be insulting. (I was thankful I hadn't used it - he was referring to the use of the phrase by Vincent Browne in a TV programme in which I had participated). Anyway, I thought his point of view was fair, so maybe we could have this discussion without using phrases that might be offensive to others or be seen as homophobic or demeaning?

marienbad wrote: »

You don't discuss, you just lecture the same point over and over ..... and over

Well, thank you for insulting me rather than actually pointing out the point I'm supposed to be massively missing.

Marienbad, the reason I posted in this thread is because I noticed that a poster had made the statement that they thought the Bible only referred to homosexuality twice.

As a theologian who spends his life studying the Bible, teaching the Bible, and writing articles and books concerning the Bible, I was interested enough to get involved and to point out that statement wasn't actually correct, that I could think of at least seven different places in the Bible which refer to homosexuality in one form or another.

To me that would be no different than a poster in the Soccer Forum correcting another poster who thought Germany had only won the World Cup once. It's the kind of discussion and interaction that goes on in boards fora hundreds of times a day. I don't think anyone is missing the point in such exchanges - it's one of the reasons why this site exists.

And that was how that initial poster with whom I interacted appeared to take my contribution. They thanked me for pointing out something they hadn't known.

Then another poster started a long exchange with me by claiming that the Bible never mentions homosexuality at all. That was a largely time-wasting and fruitless exchange as it turned out that by 'the Bible' they meant a translation as carried out by someone ignorant of the original languages, not the Bible as translated by scholars. I regret wasting my time in that exchange.

However, I did clearly point out, at least a couple of times, that my contributions to this thread were based solely on the understanding that our interpretations of the Bible should only be to help Christians to form their own personal codes of conduct and morality, and that the Bible should never be used to promote homophobia or to force our religious convictions on anyone else via the law of the land.

Then you asked some questions about Leviticus. I think I answered those questions as concisely as I could, without dodging any issues or expressing any rudeness or discourtesy to yourself. All this was still based on my understanding that I was discussing a subject I love and am interested in (the Bible) on an appropriate forum (the Christianity Forum) and with no axe to grind.

Then you proceeded to tell me that I was massively missing the point. I'm still baffled by that, and have tried on a couple of occasions to get you to explain what you mean. But now you respond by lobbing the accusation that I'm not discussing anything but just lecturing the same point over and over.

Now, maybe I'm at fault here. It may be that I am not expressing myself very well or clearly enough.

What, in your opinion, have I done wrong here?

Should I not have contributed to this thread when I pointed something out to another poster (even though they thanked me for doing so)?

Should I have ignored your questions about Leviticus and not attempted to answer them?

Is the problem that my answers weren't the answers you wanted to hear?

What point am I missing?

What have I done to you that you think it is more appropriate to lob insults at my posting style than to answer my question when I ask you to clarify how I'm massively missing some unspecified point?

I'm not taking the piss here, I'm genuinely perplexed as to what I'm supposed to have done wrong here.

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

So you are saying that people aren't born as homosexual people, but they choose to partake in homosexual acts after giving into temptation.

That sounds like you are saying it is a choice.

I have nowhere said that 'people aren't born as homosexual people'. I have stated now, several times, that I have not seen any conclusive scientific evidence to form an opinion on that one way or another. If such evidence is discovered then I would be cool with that.

What I have said is that it is a choice whether someone chooses to partake in homosexual acts, or indeed in heterosexual acts. That is self-evident (unless someone is raped).

It's a simple distinction, and I had thought that it was made clearly enough so that only someone misled by confusion or imprecision could continue to make the untrue claim about me that I had anywhere claimed that people are gay by choice.

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah, so you think it's OK to allow Christians to discuss the Bible in the Christianity Forum on other subjects? But if we dare to discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality in the Christianity Forum then you will lecture us that we are missing the point?

That's big of you to let us discuss some subjects at least.

You don't discuss, you just lecture the same point over and over ..... and over

Me: You are clearly saying that being gay is a choice.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, not if we're speaking English.

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

Sure can:

Nick Park wrote: »

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

Nick Park wrote: »

No, it doesn't mean He makes some people gay.

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

Much like stealing a car, defrauding someone or lying. Right?

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

You just said that you don't believe that God makes people gay, which means it is a choice! How can it not be down to choice if they aren't born gay?! I would love to know.

Nick Park wrote: »

Participating in homosexual acts is a choice

Yes of course it is, and you have said it happens when people stray away from what is right by the Bible. Much like stealing a car, defrauding someone or lying. Right?

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

Like the gay lifestyle?

Nick Park wrote: »

This human brokenness is manifested in many of our approaches to sexuality.

Again, like the gay lifestyle.

Peanut Butter Jelly wrote: »

So you are saying that people aren't born as homosexual people, but they choose to partake in homosexual acts after giving into temptation.

That sounds like you are saying it is a choice.

Exactly. Nick has said as much. He has just said that he doesn't believe God makes people gay, which means they can't be born gay.

The only logical conclusion is that he believes people choose to be gay and choose the lifestyle, and this is a very common belief among evangelicals in particular.

And to go back to my original question, he must also believe that people who are gay should just not have a sex life if they want to obey the Bible.

This is completely fine, but I just wonder if he will have the courage to admit to this.

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

So you are saying that people aren't born as homosexual people, but they choose to partake in homosexual acts after giving into temptation.

That sounds like you are saying it is a choice.

marienbad wrote: »

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

Ah, so you think it's OK to allow Christians to discuss the Bible in the Christianity Forum on other subjects? But if we dare to discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality in the Christianity Forum then you will lecture us that we are missing the point?

That's big of you to let us discuss some subjects at least.

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.

Contributor 2013

I haven't read any posts other than the person who opened this thread;

My only question, couldn't they have picked a better subject/place than Christianity to put this thread?

Controversial much? LOL.

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?

riveratom wrote: »

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.

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?

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

marienbad wrote: »

You are still massively missing the point Nick.

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.

You are still massively missing the point Nick.