Assuming Christianity is True . . .

[Haven]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?
2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?
2) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?
4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?


By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

[Divine Insight]

Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?

Yes

[KCKID]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?

If we assume that God is real then He's clearly not the just, moral, loving, kind, etc. being that He's cracked up to be. More likely, however, is the assumption that "God" probably has nothing to do with the birth of anyone.

2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?

Well, as long as we're playing the game of 'let's assume' it may also be assumed that God would have given similar desires for some non-gay people to exalt themselves to a status of 'piety' - simply by virtue of having read a book or having had the book read to them - so that they can point fingers from their lofty perches at those of 'lower' status, gay people, for instance. After all, what's the point of having a lofty pious perch if you don't have someone to aim your piety at? That's just 'some' people though, thank goodness.

But, this doesn't answer your question which is, "I don't know, other than "God" probably had nothing to do with it."

3) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?

Well, I'm one of an increasing number of people who don't believe that "God" would consider it immoral with regard to one's being gay or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex. However, it's hard to know with the Old Testament God. He appears to love his creations one moment, or at least He says he does, but then He has these ginormous and uncontrollable hissy fits the next where He wantonly destroys people and property. So, it would probably depend on His mood at the time as to how He feels about the 'gay' thing. God appears to have a lot of human traits which is somewhat unnerving when you think about it.

Oh, before I forget ...it would also depend on which of God's 'covenants' Christians have decided that we are presently under. Some things, but not all apparently, that used to be immoral and receive the penalty of death are not immoral now. But, we're also told quite adamantly by most Christians that God never changes. Man, this is confusing!

As for what is known as 'promiscuous sex', a charge aimed regularly at gay people ...the Church, if not God, would be wise never to ask for a show of hands from its congregation as to how many are, or have been, guilty of this particular 'sin'. I just thought I'd throw that in for good measure since there's plenty enough 'promiscuity' to be shared around by those of either sexual orientation.

4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

Well, that's a tricky one. If 'living a lie' is the equivalent of general 'lying' then 'living a lie' would be an abomination according to "God". There appears to be a dilemma here since there are those who claim that God says that gay sex is an abomination. So, one commits an abomination either way. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. What is one to do? I would suggest that they explain the dilemma to a theologian and ask for his expert scriptural advice.

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?

It may well do. I would probably opt for the more reasonable explanation, however, that since men were the authors of the Bible "God" has little or nothing to do with it. I know that we started out 'assuming that God did it' but I can't in all honesty keep this up.

By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

I like your definition. It aligns with the accepted dictionary and medical journal definition. Whenever the term appears in modern Bibles, however, it is referred to as "homosexual" and its definition there has been changed to mean 'sin'.

Man, who can we trust ...?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Haven]

1) No one is created gay. If being gay is biological it is an error and part of the fall.

2) We are all created in the image of God so why would you expect not to have those desires within the population?

Sexual desire is mostly a biological impetus that lasts for a brief while and declines with age. Most couples stay together long after the purpose of marriage

3) All sex outside of marriage is immoral. Not just gay sex.

4) Because he knows that generally

I don't think it is fair on the many celebates to judge them as lonely. Everyone can feel lonely from time to time and often the loneliest have the most friends.

No not really. Otherwise the existence of murder

[connermt]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?
2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?
2) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?
4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?


By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

A standard and taught christian response is that god didn't create people gay, people are gay because of sin. And sin happened because of people (A&E in the garden) so therefore, EVERYTHING that's not good/perfect is because of man's sins.

[dianaiad]

Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?

Yes

Moderator Comment

While this is a direct answer to a question posted, it has got, in its brevity, to be the epitome of a one-line post. Have pity on us; expand your thoughts a little.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

No need for an introduction.

Debate questions: Assuming Christianity is true and everything Christians believe about God (i.e., he's just, moral, loving, kind, etc.) is correct, why would God:

1) Create gay* people as gay*?
2) Give them the same desires for love, companionship, and intimacy as non-gay people?
2) Tell them that simply being gay* or pursuing a relationship with a member of the same sex is immoral?
4) Tell them that there is no non-sinful outlet for their sexualities or desire for relationships, and that their only non-sinful options are to live a lie with someone to whom they are not attracted or remain celibate and lonely for life?

If God is so opposed to gayness, then why would he create gay* people in the first place? Does the existence of gay* people count as evidence against the existence of an anti-gay* deity?


By "gay*," I mean people with an innate, exclusive sexual and romantic attraction to members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not they act on those attractions.

A standard and taught christian response is that god didn't create people gay, people are gay because of sin. And sin happened because of people (A&E in the garden) so therefore, EVERYTHING that's not good/perfect is because of man's sins.

Is it a standard Christian response? I suppose it could be; some Christians would say so. I don't think that believing this is a requirement, though, since a great many Christians don't.

Ah, well.

As for me, I think it's a case of some are born gay, some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them. (sorry, Will.)

It really doesn't matter why (or 'that') one desires ones own sex more than the opposite one; it only matters what one does about it. As for me, I have often wondered why it seems to be expected of heterosexuals to use self control and be chaste, but simply because one's desires are toward one's own sex, suddenly chastity and self control are too much to ask?

I've never been able to understand that.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 6 by dianaiad]

I suppose it could be; some Christians would say so. I don't think that believing this is a requirement, though, since a great many Christians don't.

Which is why I said it's taught and not a requirement.

...some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them.

Elaborate on the vagueness of these please.

I have often wondered why it seems to be expected of heterosexuals to use self control and be chaste, but simply because one's desires are toward one's own sex, suddenly chastity and self control are too much to ask?

I've never been able to understand that.

You likely don't understand it because that's not the case for that reason.
Because a person is gay gives them no more or less reason to live their lives sexually or not either way. There are likely just as many sexually active straight people as gay people as a % that falls within the bell curve.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 6 by dianaiad]

I suppose it could be; some Christians would say so. I don't think that believing this is a requirement, though, since a great many Christians don't.

Which is why I said it's taught and not a requirement.

...some achieve gayness, and some have gayness thrust upon them.

Elaborate on the vagueness of these please.

It was a take off on a quote. From William Shakespeare. Hence the apology to him for messing it up.

However, there's nothing really vague about it.

Some people (may...dunno one way or the other, but I suspect so) are born gay. These are the folks who, from birth, simply have NO desire for the opposite sex. These are a rather small percentage of homosexuals; the range of 'the sex one desires' is not a binary set. It's a continuum. There just aren't that many people on the extreme far ends.

Some people choose to identify as gay rather than heterosexual. These are they who may be primarily attracted to their own sex, but can also 'perform' (and have desire for) the opposite one. The vast majority of gays fall into this category, to some extent. The same goes, of course, for those who are primarily heterosexual. It's a continuum.

Some people are 'seen' as gay because of stereotypical perceptions of the folks around them. they are more or less, expected to be gay because they, in some other aspect of their lives, are seen to 'act' gay. They may be; but their decision might not be, entirely, of their own choosing.

I don't think there are many of those, either.

All the above is my opinion, of course, though the "continuum" aspect of sexuality is pretty well established.

I have often wondered why it seems to be expected of heterosexuals to use self control and be chaste, but simply because one's desires are toward one's own sex, suddenly chastity and self control are too much to ask?

I've never been able to understand that.

You likely don't understand it because that's not the case for that reason.
Because a person is gay gives them no more or less reason to live their lives sexually or not either way. There are likely just as many sexually active straight people as gay people as a % that falls within the bell curve.

ARE there?

I'm not quite certain how one could establish that, actually, since the chaste gays tend to be very quiet. After all, there is no difference between a chaste heterosexual and a chaste homosexual. It's not what you refrain from doing that defines you, but rather what you do instead that does.

Which, and this is completely off the topic and utterly unrelated, but still...is why I don't get why Catholics won't accept gay priests. Who cares what one is celibate FROM, for pete's sake?

It is said that this is to keep the pedophile priests out, but pedophile priests are pedophiles, not 'gay.' The church is looking in the wrong haystack here.

OK, I'm back now.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 8 by dianaiad]

ARE there [likely just as many sexually active straight people as gay people as a % that falls within the bell curve.]?

Why wouldn't there be? Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they are 'sex machines' anymore than a straight person, does it? I find it disturbing that someone would think so little of homosexuals to think that.
Of course there would be a variance, but it seems the media is quit loud about the apparent sterotyping the gay community as horn-dogs or the like anymore than the straight community.
Fact is, there are many straight people (men mostly) that will (and do) partake in any gay activity if given the chance during 'a dry spell'. There is an argument there as to rather or not those individuals are gay, straight, bi....whatever. But the fact remains, men in straight relationships do stray a lot of the time - sometimes for no good reason other than boredom.
I don't see gay people as being any more sexually active (on a % basis) than straight people from my experience. Of course I'm talking about the act, not the want (though I wouldn't think there would be much difference there either ).
In other words, you'll have people with high sexual activity in both camps, and those with low activity. Likewise, both camps have people who are...less than selective.... about who they sleep with, when, where or how.

Point of fact, I'm so over spell check so it there are mis-spellings there are mis-spellings