Homosexuality and Adultery may have biological roots

[stcordova]

I'm a Christian. I once fell very much in love with a married woman. Thankfully we did nothing we would regret.

We met each other under innocent enough circumstances, but then one day I realized how much I wanted to spend every day of my life with her.

Let us call her Helen (not her real name). If we had ended up together, would it have been right in God's eyes? Suppose for the sake of argument we would have been definitely happier together, like a hungry man eating stolen food -- there is not any doubt in terms of biology that the stolen food would be nourishing. I don't think any amount of spiritual exercise would have changed the fact I was attracted to an athletic blonde who was an engineer as well as a concert pianist who was also soft spoken and sweet tempered. I remember the tears in her eyes when she confessed she was married (but separated) to me. I don't think it was my choice to like women like Helen. I just did. And there is most certainly roots of my attraction based on biology.

I think the problem of homosexuality is under a similar biological imperative due to either genetics, epigenetics, developmental and environmental factors. Even supposing someone isn't born gay, but developed that way, it does not mean the desires are necessarily reversible biologically. For example, I have friends addicted to nicotene. They weren't born addicted to nicotene, but there is now a biological imperative in their bodies that they'll have to live with. Whatever the mechanism of homosexuality, I take it on face value the gay lifestyle is what will make some people happy (at least in this life), and what some people might be biologically "addicted" to. But a gay lifestyle doesn't necessarily make it right.

Does God necessarily want people to be happily married? I'd say no.

There is an obscure passage in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, if a man’s brother dies, he is to marry his brother’s widow. It was then possible to have more than one wife because of this requirement in OT law. And the Lord had certain instructions for the man how to treat his wives, but the instruction belies a certain truth about human nature:

15 “If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved,

Deuteronomy 21:15

So we have one woman unloved in a marriage that God commanded (a levirate marriage). It's not a stretch to say the unloved wife is not exactly a fulfilled wife.....

This episode in my life were I fell in love with a married woman raised other questions such as those epitomized by Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter where a young beautiful girl, Hester Prynne, got married to a fiendish old man, Roger Chillingworth, because of her poverty and his wealth. She travels to the United States before her husband arrives and while there she falls in love and has a child with Rev. Arthur Dimsdale.

Amazing that probably lots of Christian girls will think the moral thing to do would be for Hester to dump Roger the fiend and run off with Rev. Dimsdale for a new life. When I first read the story, I had to confess I was rooting for Hester and the Reverend to run off together and live happily ever after.

And there were fiends and villains married to members of my family. It was hard not to root for the separation. It was hard not to think, “surely a loving God wouldn’t want a life of misery for someone with a lousy partner.�


If one thinks the barometer of good and evil is personal happiness and loving happy relationship, then there seems little reason to prevent people from joining with those that will make them happy. If on the other hand, God is less interested in us living happily ever after on Earth, but keeping faith with a law (the justification of which we may not understand), then that's what we should do.

That was the decision Rosaria Butterfield made.

http://rosariabutterfield.com/

[Clownboat]

Beyonder said, "we blame him more than we blame the devil.....the one who caused sin."
DTD asked, "Who created the Devil?"
Clownboat asked if I created a virus that killed, gave it to a group of people that I knew would kill with it, should I be blamed for the deaths?"

Blue interjects asking where the case will be tried.

The trail is easy enough to follow Blue. I trust the readers have followed which is why I stated it was not even necessary for you to respond. If I created something that kills, gave it to someone whom I knew would use it to kill, I would be at blame for the deaths. If you disagree, I would be curious to know where. If you don't, please read the first 3 lines of this post again.

[lia15]

[Replying to stcordova]

Many think love is a felling but its not. Love is a choice. And what homosexuals don't understand is that they can love someone without being sexually active or in a relationship. You can still love "Helen" just not in a relationship kinda way. And people in unhappy marriages have promised God to love each other And you cant take it back unless you get an anulment. but if it is a fixed marriage then its not a marriage at all. You have to marry each other purposely for it to be a real marriage. and the marriage has to be between a man and a woman.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to stcordova]

Many think love is a felling but its not. Love is a choice. And what homosexuals don't understand is that they can love someone without being sexually active or in a relationship. You can still love "Helen" just not in a relationship kinda way. And people in unhappy marriages have promised God to love each other And you cant take it back unless you get an anulment. but if it is a fixed marriage then its not a marriage at all. You have to marry each other purposely for it to be a real marriage. and the marriage has to be between a man and a woman.

Welcome to the forum

I hear what you are saying, and there are many Christians who believe they've 'solved' this dilemma for the LGBT community -- they just can't have sex, unless it is with a person of the opposite sex, of course.

Can you imagine forcing yourself to engage in sex acts with a person of your same sex? It might be impossible, under normal life circumstances (as opposed to prison, for instance).

What you are asking the LGBT folks to do is something you would not tolerate yourself. Is it fair of Christians to even suggest such a thing they wouldn't deny themselves? Most Christians no longer adhere to the strict rules for divorce and adultery any more. Why is that? And why don't Christians deal with their own lack of obedience to the Bible before they moralize to nonChristians?

Most skeptics like myself don't think the sexual taboos of ancient civilizations are worthy of keeping, especially when there is no good reason (medical or social) those acts should be avoided. We especially don't see the point of avoiding homosexual relationships because a Bible writing god said so. You'll need to show that this god exists AND that this god wrote a book first, and then perhaps you might get somewhere. If not, all this hullaballoo against homosexuality is baseless, superstitious nonsense.

You also might want to go beyond your preacher/Reverend/pastor/bishop's words and do some research on the origins of marriage, which happened a long time before Christianity. Marriage has never been the sole provenance of Christianity or any other religion making similar claims to marriage. This is a debate forum, so whatever you write here is subject to criticism and challenge -- it's not personal to you, or meant to attack you as a person. Be ready to back up what you say with a reasoned argument and evidence. Until the Bible can be shown to be actually written/exhaled/inspired by a god (much less the ones Christians claim as their own), using the Bible to 'prove' something won't fly.

[bluethread]

Beyonder said, "we blame him more than we blame the devil.....the one who caused sin."
DTD asked, "Who created the Devil?"
Clownboat asked if I created a virus that killed, gave it to a group of people that I knew would kill with it, should I be blamed for the deaths?"

Blue interjects asking where the case will be tried.

The trail is easy enough to follow Blue. I trust the readers have followed which is why I stated it was not even necessary for you to respond. If I created something that kills, gave it to someone whom I knew would use it to kill, I would be at blame for the deaths. If you disagree, I would be curious to know where. If you don't, please read the first 3 lines of this post again.

Let's look at the example, before we look at the analogy. You propose that, if you created something that kills, gave it to someone whom you knew would use it to kill, you would be at blame for the deaths. Blamed by whom, based on what standard and to what end? Is Remington to blame for all of the people who have died due to the superior power of his rifle? According to what standard does one make such a judgment and what should be done with regard to him based on that judgment?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by bluethread]

We could just not bicker of whether its a good analogy or a bad one and focus on the issue at hand. If the devil causes sin. Who created the devil? If god created the devil and he knew it would cause sin. Then it is tantamount to hiring someone to do the crime for you.

In a court of law if you hire someone to commit crimes you carry an equal share of the guilt(re: conspiracy charges)

[Clownboat]

Beyonder said, "we blame him more than we blame the devil.....the one who caused sin."
DTD asked, "Who created the Devil?"
Clownboat asked if I created a virus that killed, gave it to a group of people that I knew would kill with it, should I be blamed for the deaths?"

Blue interjects asking where the case will be tried.

The trail is easy enough to follow Blue. I trust the readers have followed which is why I stated it was not even necessary for you to respond. If I created something that kills, gave it to someone whom I knew would use it to kill, I would be at blame for the deaths. If you disagree, I would be curious to know where. If you don't, please read the first 3 lines of this post again.

Let's look at the example, before we look at the analogy. You propose that, if you created something that kills, gave it to someone whom you knew would use it to kill, you would be at blame for the deaths. Blamed by whom, based on what standard and to what end? Is Remington to blame for all of the people who have died due to the superior power of his rifle? According to what standard does one make such a judgment and what should be done with regard to him based on that judgment?

You seem to be making this purposely hard.

If Remington made a bunch of guns and gave them to one of two warring tribes, they would know that their act would directly affect the killing of the other tribe.

This is not the same as selling them through public means where on occasion a gun will be used for a nefarious act that was not known about ahead of time.

In both of the scenarios, that there will be a nefarious act committed directly by their giving of guns is known ahead of time. They can't claim ignorance when the other tribe is destroyed by their guns, and that is the part you are trying so desperately to avoid addressing in both of these scenarios.

So, rather than change the scenarios to avoid the 'knowing'...
- If I created a virus that killed, gave it to a group of people that I knew would kill with it, should I be blamed for the deaths?

[JLB32168]

Lots of things have biological roots. Some people have a natural propensity to overeat – a biological holdover from when food was scarce. More fat reserves means more energy to be available in between meals. That doesn’t mean we should overeat.

The logic “It makes us happier and is biologically based; therefore, it should be embraced since God made it that way� simply makes no sense from a Christian theological perspective.