Christianity and homosexuality

[sledheavy]

ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?

maybe this was already discussed on the forum, but I swear the reaction is classic.

Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline.

[Fisherking]

If one accepts that homosexuality/heterosexuality occurs on a sort of continuum from 'totally homosexual' to 'totally heterosexual', then any 'homosexuality genes' that did exist could be passed on by those who are somewhere in the middle of the continuum and do engage in heterosexual sex. In addition, if there is such a 'gene' it could be recessive or only be expressed in certain circumstances, and thus passed on even if those who are 'totally' or 'predominantly' homosexual don't procreate.

Though a genetic trait, the incidence of homosexuality within populations would suggest that it is not something that is "passed down", but is instead a normal genetic variation within any given population. This would mean that a certain set of these variant genes would have to be "activated" by one cause or another -- one suggestion has been stress-related temperature variations within the womb.

Point well-taken.

In any case, whatever the mechanism, if homosexuality occurs naturally and if one ascribes all things natural ultimately to a creator God, than it seems to me that saying "God created homosexuals the way they are" is quite apt.

This passage says otherwise though.
Romans 1:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

It is worth pointing out that Paul, the principle NT author who even addresses homosexuality, had some strange ideas about what is 'natural.' Along with homosexuality, women wearing their hair short, or not covering their heads, or speaking in church, were all unnatural.

Paul wrote the above passage.
The natural use of male and female organs is pretty self evident. The natural use of the anus is pretty self evident too.

If Paul was able to accomodate the gentiles by effectively promoting the repeal of most of the Mosaic code, and we have been able to lay aside Paul's sexist proscriptions, it is high time we stop battering gays with a few passages from scripture for engaging in natural behavior which isn't causing anybody any harm.

I would argue that it is un-natural behavior. What people want to do with their private life is none of my business though and agree we shouldn't batter gays. I do take issue with people claiming homosexuality is sactioned by the God of Christianity though.

We had a whole thread, maybe more than one actually, adressing what was unnatural and whether 'un-natural' acts are immoral. I will recall a few points to the best of my recollection.

First, humans do a whole host of 'unnatural' things with a whole host of different body parts. A few examples are:

1. Kissing is an unnatural use of the mouth, which is clearly intended for eating.
2. Talking is also an unnatural use of the mouth. A baby which grows up outside of the influence of civilization will not talk.

3. Wearing glasses is an unnatural use of the nose.
4. Any use of technology is arguably very unnatural including my typing of this sentence.

5. Using my foot or other body parts not designed for giving sexual pleasure to do so is unnatural. Is it therefore immoral?

6. Being left-handed might be considered unnatural. IT is at least as 'unnatural' as being homosexual in the sense that it is 'abnormal'.

These examples are not defined as un-natural, or even sin in the bible. They have nothing to do with homosexuality.
"27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"

This is a specific statement. You may reject what paul is teaching, but it is clear what he is saying. This isn't talking about eye glasses.

Something being unnatural does not therefore make it immoral so even if homosexuality were unnatural (which it is clearly not), that in and of itself is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You are correct saying "something being unnatural does not make it immoral". The bible teaches that homosexuality is immoral.

Secondly, I fail to see why Paul's subjective judgment about what is natural or not trumps the plain observable fact that homosexuality exists in nature.

Just because something is natural (its debateable whether or not it is natural in the first place) does not make it moral.

Keep in mind that Paul also claimed women cutting their and men NOT cutting their hair was unnatural and implied it was immoral as a result.

This has nothing to do with what he said about homosexuality.

[4gold]

On the other hand, there is a report that one of the gay penguins has gone straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Is this evidence that ex-gays are natural?

[Goat]

On the other hand, there is a report that one of the gay penguins has gone straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Is this evidence that ex-gays are natural?

Or, at least, there are bi-sexuals in the animal kingdom too.

[4gold]

On the other hand, there is a report that one of the gay penguins has gone straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Is this evidence that ex-gays are natural?

Or, at least, there are bi-sexuals in the animal kingdom too.

Does bisexuality mean attracted to both genders at the same time? Or does it mean attracted to one gender for a season, and then attracted to another gender for a season?

The way I always understood bisexuality, a person is predominantly sexually attracted to one gender, but sometimes sexually attracted to another gender at the same time. This does not appear to be the case with the penguin, who was monogamously homosexual and then monogamously heterosexual.

[Goat]

On the other hand, there is a report that one of the gay penguins has gone straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html

Is this evidence that ex-gays are natural?

Or, at least, there are bi-sexuals in the animal kingdom too.

Does bisexuality mean attracted to both genders at the same time? Or does it mean attracted to one gender for a season, and then attracted to another gender for a season?

The way I always understood bisexuality, a person is predominantly sexually attracted to one gender, but sometimes sexually attracted to another gender at the same time. This does not appear to be the case with the penguin, who was monogamously homosexual and then monogamously heterosexual.

I have known people who were monogamously homosexaul in one relationship, and then monogamously heterosexual in another. (or vis versa). I know one woman that spent 10 years with another woman, 10 years with a man, and then is now with another woman. She still is attracted to men, but does not 'indulge' with either other women or men because she is in a comitted relationship.

[4gold]

I have known people who were monogamously homosexaul in one relationship, and then monogamously heterosexual in another. (or vis versa). I know one woman that spent 10 years with another woman, 10 years with a man, and then is now with another woman. She still is attracted to men, but does not 'indulge' with either other women or men because she is in a comitted relationship.

Is she considered bisexual? How would she label herself?

There is an old joke in the homosexual community that goes, "You're either gay, straight, or lying."

From what I understand, the vast majority of "bisexuals" are predominantly sexually attracted to one gender, although they have some level of sexual attraction to the other.

And if we want to apply this back to nature, how can we determine if the penguin still has sexual attractions for the male penguin?

[Goat]

I have known people who were monogamously homosexaul in one relationship, and then monogamously heterosexual in another. (or vis versa). I know one woman that spent 10 years with another woman, 10 years with a man, and then is now with another woman. She still is attracted to men, but does not 'indulge' with either other women or men because she is in a comitted relationship.

Is she considered bisexual? How would she label herself?

There is an old joke in the homosexual community that goes, "You're either gay, straight, or lying."

From what I understand, the vast majority of "bisexuals" are predominantly sexually attracted to one gender, although they have some level of sexual attraction to the other.

And if we want to apply this back to nature, how can we determine if the penguin still has sexual attractions for the male penguin?

She considers herself bisexual, with a leaning towards women (but not exlusively).
I would not be surprised if she got into a relationship with a man if this current one doesn't work out.

And the only way we can figure out is if he abandon's his current relationship, and then goes back to a male/male relationship.

[micatala]

First, humans do a whole host of 'unnatural' things with a whole host of different body parts. A few examples are:

1. Kissing is an unnatural use of the mouth, which is clearly intended for eating.
2. Talking is also an unnatural use of the mouth. A baby which grows up outside of the influence of civilization will not talk.

3. Wearing glasses is an unnatural use of the nose.
4. Any use of technology is arguably very unnatural including my typing of this sentence.

5. Using my foot or other body parts not designed for giving sexual pleasure to do so is unnatural. Is it therefore immoral?

6. Being left-handed might be considered unnatural. IT is at least as 'unnatural' as being homosexual in the sense that it is 'abnormal'.

These examples are not defined as un-natural, or even sin in the bible. They have nothing to do with homosexuality.
"27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet"

This is a specific statement. You may reject what paul is teaching, but it is clear what he is saying. This isn't talking about eye glasses.

I agree my examples have nothing explicitly to do with homosexuality. I think we also agree that whether something is natural or not natural is irrelevant to it being moral or immoral. That was my main point. I may have misunderstood what you were previously saying. Many have, and I thought you were also, trying to claim that since homosexual sex is 'unnatural' is is therefore immoral.

In my view, Paul (and others) merely throw in the 'unnatural' adjective as a pejorative so that they can further denigrate something they already consider repugnant. My point in the example is to show that the logic of 'unnatural = bad' is fallacious.

Quote:
Secondly, I fail to see why Paul's subjective judgment about what is natural or not trumps the plain observable fact that homosexuality exists in nature.
Just because something is natural (its debateable whether or not it is natural in the first place) does not make it moral.

Quote:
Keep in mind that Paul also claimed women cutting their and men NOT cutting their hair was unnatural and implied it was immoral as a result.

This has nothing to do with what he said about homosexuality.

It does in the sense that it shows 'unequal treatment'. On the one hand, you claim the passages you quote show unequivocally that homosexual sex is always sinful. On the other hand, most Christians do not take other passages in both the OT and the NT which are arguably 'just as clear' as proscriptions against the behavior described, like hair-cutting, eating pork, etc. It is hard for me not to conclude on the basis of this discrepancy that some are merely using certain passages of scripture to justify their condemnation of a behavior they find repugnant for reasons other than sound Biblical scholarship.


Going back to the passage you quoted in Romans, it is well-known that the term Paul uses that we translate as homosexuality is one of his own making, and not one of those in common use at the time. It is quite possible that what Paul was referring to were particular homosexual acts associated with idolatrous worship, and not homosexuality as we understand it today.

In addition, the entire passage is in the context of people who have already consciously rejected God. A clear and objective reading would seem to me to imply that this passage does not unequivocally apply to all homosexuals or all acts of homosexual sex. The fact that it has been so interpreted by many for a long time does not make this interpretation correct.

History if full of people who have made what they thought was the most straightforward interpretation of a passage of scripture, and who have been wrong. Luther's condemnation of the Copernican system is but one example. There is no where in the BIble that you can find any passage that would lead one to believe the earth spins or orbits the sun. If one bases their judgment solely on the text, one could only conclude that Luther would be justified in thinking that Copernicanism was un-biblical.

And yet, of course, Copernicanism is essentially true.

We now, reinterpret the passages Luther would have used against Copernicanism. We should do the same with passages like that in Romans above. It is arguably much less of a stretch than that which was required for Copernicanism.

[Dale]

Hello Sledheavy,

"ok, so I've been wanting to just ask this for a freakin' while. And frankly I love the comment because everyone I know (i.e. conserv. republican types) that hear it gets CoMpLeTeLy pissed.

If god didn't desire gays, why did he create a prostate? Or more corrrectly, why'd he put it so close to the anus?" - Sledheavy

Well, I have to admit, thats an "interesting" question. The Bible tells us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The good Lord designed and created us and we have the freedom* to do with our bodies as we will. Knowing this we can do things with / to our bodies that can bring pleasure but these may be things that our bodies were not designed to do, such as taking drugs for instance.

"Honestly though. I think it's interesting that the majority of classic nations (if politically correct) all experienced some form of homosexuality along their timeline." Sledheavy

Yes, obviously, weve seen homosexuality around since Old Testament times, although Im not sure if there is a point you are trying to make with this statement.

"Here is a wider discussion of homosexuality in the animal kingdom." micatala

Animals are just thatanimals. They have no concept of reason, right / wrong, morality or God. Their behavior is instinctive where "gay acts" are sometimes used to demonstrate dominance of one male over all the others in a herd, pack, etc.

Our actions are not to be based on what animals do, but what the Bible tells us.

"Again, you've lost me. Did you "choose" to be straight? I know I didn't. So when gays commonly say that it wasn't a choice, I believe them." Perfessor

As well you should! There are many who will tell you that being gay is a choice and gay folks simply look at them in stunned amazement.

Recently I was reading a book by political pundit Tammy Bruce who is a lesbian (and who has a "life-partner"). She stated that for her, homosexuality was a choice. She went on to explain that she could have had a man in her life and that if she did, then she would also need a woman in her life, as well. Or, she could just choose to have a relationship with a woman.

Now, far be it from me to put words in Ms. Bruces mouth, but judging by her own description of being gay, well, it doesnt sound like much of a choice.

"Right, we can most definately say there exists a majority that believe they were born gay." - Sledheavy

Point of fact, there are no scientific studies available that suggest that homosexuality is genetic (although there have been several that have tried).

"If God didn't want homosexuals, why did he create them in the first place?" - Cephus

Youre assuming that God did create homosexuals. Sin exist too, but not because God created it.

The causes for homosexuality are very complicated and nobody with any credibility is claiming they know the true root cause. However, there are many things that those struggling with homosexuals do have in common.

"If God did not make the homosexuals, who did?" McCllogh

Using your logic, who made sin?

"I am more interested in how homosexual's pass their genetic information to their offsrpring" - Fisherking

Interesting point. If homosexuals do not reproduce, then how can homosexuals be born "that way"?

Unfortunately, there are many theories to try to explain this very thing.

"If Paul was able to accomodate the gentiles by effectively promoting the repeal of most of the Mosaic code, and we have been able to lay aside Paul's sexist proscriptions, it is high time we stop battering gays with a few passages from scripture for engaging in natural behavior which isn't causing anybody any harm." micatala

Quite correct! And taken to its logical conclusion, why do we even need the Bible at all?

We need to be very careful with this kind of thinking. Simply because you may not understand certain aspects of Pauls instructions here in this modern day is not to say that those instructions are not there for very good reason.

Before we completely throw the Bible out, perhaps we should first inquire why those passages are there to begin with.

"I would argue that it is un-natural behavior. What people want to do with their private life is none of my business though and agree we shouldn't batter gays. I do take issue with people claiming homosexuality is sactioned by the God of Christianity though." Fisherking

Well done, Fisherking!

"In my view, Paul (and others) merely throw in the 'unnatural' adjective as a pejorative so that they can further denigrate something they already consider repugnant. My point in the example is to show that the logic of 'unnatural = bad' is fallacious." micatala

Thank you for stating that the above is simply your opinion and not based upon any objective source. There are many who are not as honest as you.

"It does in the sense that it shows 'unequal treatment'. On the one hand, you claim the passages you quote show unequivocally that homosexual sex is always sinful. On the other hand, most Christians do not take other passages in both the OT and the NT which are arguably 'just as clear' as proscriptions against the behavior described, like hair-cutting, eating pork, etc. It is hard for me not to conclude on the basis of this discrepancy that some are merely using certain passages of scripture to justify their condemnation of a behavior they find repugnant for reasons other than sound Biblical scholarship." micatala

All things need to be taken in their correct context. The Old Testament was written for Jews only and appied only during Old Testament times. They do not apply today and never applied to gentiles.

You do raise a fair-point regarding Christians and their use of Levitical text to condemn homosexuals. Those text no longer apply.

By the way, if you are so inclined, collect all of the Old Testament text regarding homosexuality.

Collect all of the New Testament text regarding homosexuality.

And then compare the two.

Do you notice any difference in "tone" between to two sets of text?

"Going back to the passage you quoted in Romans, it is well-known that the term Paul uses that we translate as homosexuality is one of his own making, and not one of those in common use at the time. It is quite possible that what Paul was referring to were particular homosexual acts associated with idolatrous worship, and not homosexuality as we understand it today." micatala

I believe the term you are referring to is "arsenokoite". Ive seen it translated in different ways and the emphasis is always on the homosexual sex act with no reference to idolatry.

"We now, reinterpret the passages Luther would have used against Copernicanism. We should do the same with passages like that in Romans above. It is arguably much less of a stretch than that which was required for Copernicanism." micatala

Or maybe we could just take what the Bible says in its proper context.

There is a town not far from the one I live in. Every Sunday when the weather is nice you will see the people from its congregation marching up and down the road with signs condemning homosexuals (many of them holding signs quoting the Levitical text which--as Ive already explained--not longer apply).

They know the law but completely miss out on Gods love and mercy for all of us--straight, gay, whatever.

Hey! Didnt Pharisees have the same problem? Geez, you think people would learn.

Anyway...

Yes, the Bible condemns homosexual behavior and so should we. But God accepts the homosexual and so should we.

I dont have the actual numbers in front of me, but I dont think there were any perfect people before coming to know Christ as their Lord and Savior. Strange how so many Christians think that the homosexual must become straight before becoming acceptable to Christ.

Its been said that people dont care what you think until they think that you care. How can Christians be an influence on those in the homosexual community if they dont first show these same people that they are important and special. How can we minister to them Gods word if we are condemning the behavior before loving the individual?

*1 Corinthians 6: 18-20
This is not true for Christians. They have the option, but they do not have the right.

[AClockWorkOrange]

Sin exist too, but not because God created it.

here is an interesting floodgate you just opened. If god didnt create sin, what did, if he does not like, why doesnt he get rid of it, if he didnt create it and he cant get rid of it, then he isnt omnipotent. If it came before him, or sin exists alongside and outside of gods control, is sin a god too?

if god is all powerful and the alpha, then all evils come from him; no denying. If they dont, then god is not in control.