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/

[UFO]

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/

It strikes me that we are more animal that we or religion like to admit. We have desires and likes and dis-likes that we can't explain (unless you buy into the god/devil makes me feel this way or that which I don't).
There seems to be A LOT of what makes us 'us' that's not up to us but biology. That doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't, as thinking beings, recognize it when we can and make appropiate decisions. It DOES mean that sometimes we can't recognize those things.
Why did I like peas as a baby but not carrots? I don't know, but I did (now I like them both but hate green and lima beans). Why? I don't know, I just don't like the taste. Why? No idea. But it's the truth.
When we start accepting what we can and not trying to scrutinize every iota of our lives and attribute it to this or that, but just go with it, we will be a lot more happy I think

[kiran]

I'm a Christian. I once fell very much in love with a married woman. Thankfully we did nothing we would regret.
[...]
I remember the tears in her eyes when she confessed she was married (but separated) to me.

Ummmmmmm.....

(but separated)

I think a legal artifice like marriage should be considered morally meaningless once the people involved no longer agree to be together. Sure there are legal issues, but I don't think there are ethical ones. I think you should totally have done things you would "regret".

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

This is where we encounter a philosophical impediment. While my situation is not the same, I stayed with a woman I was not happy to be with out of faith and diligence to god. This of course was stressful and depressing.

There is much I regret about that time in my life during this time and a lot of it has to do with the things I didn't do.

Why would your god create an arbitrary system that makes people unhappy more than happy? That to follow it would increase unhappiness. Sometimes things that had a purpose 4000 years ago might not have a purpose now andI see no reason to continue following them.

[stcordova]

Why would your god create an arbitrary system that makes people unhappy more than happy?

It seems my God finds a lot of meaning in human suffering, even suffering that comes about through laws that make people unhappy.

That's not a popular belief, but if there is a God interested in human affairs, that seems to be the case. The most notable case of God taking an interest in getting humans to suffer was that of Job, and ultimately of Jesus.

I think that the reason God would make a world with pain is that it makes more meaningful a world that is without pain. It's like having a sporting event where there are winners and losers. If there is no chance of loss and suffering, it removes some of the meaning of what it means to be victorious. I think that is the root of why there is suffering to begin with. God's law just makes the suffering a bit more acute.

Now, if there is no God, I think the best we can do is pursue what gives us mutual happiness -- adultery, homosexuality, whatever. Divorce, splitting up partnerships when they are no longer satisfying --- that seems totally logical and psychologically healthy apart from God.

I stayed with a woman I was not happy to be with out of faith and diligence to god. This of course was stressful and depressing.

Thank you for your candor. There are lots of people I know in relationships that I can only imagine will be a lifelong relationship of unhappiness. If I thought my endurance of bad situations had no higher meaning, the logical thing to do is get out.

[Overcomer]

stcordova wrote:

I think that the reason God would make a world with pain is that it makes more meaningful a world that is without pain.

God didn't make a world with pain. The Bible states clearly that the world he made was good and the human beings he made were very good. It was man's disobedience to God and the introduction of sin that brought about the pain. He does use pain to a positive end. But he didn't create it. It's part of a fallen world, but was never part of his perfect one.

[OnceConvinced]

God didn't make a world with pain. The Bible states clearly that the world he made was good and the human beings he made were very good. It was man's disobedience to God and the introduction of sin that brought about the pain.

It was God who cursed mankind with the pain. Man couldn't possibly brought these changes about on their own. If things were good and then changed to bad, man did not have the ability to do that. Only God could. Only God can change herbivores into carnivores. Only God can create flesh eating viruses and parasites. It was God that created the human body with a nervous system, not man.

So blaming man for that is ludicrous. It's like me blaming my child for the beating I give him because he stole from the cookie jar.

Clearly it was God unleashing his wrath on man that caused the pain. But you can't say the sin caused the pain.

He does use pain to a positive end. But he didn't create it. It's part of a fallen world, but was never part of his perfect one.

He created a nervous system didn't he? He created people with a human nature. If everything was perfect before sin came along then he created fatal flaws in his creations that became corrupted once sin entered. How is that not God's fault?

It just boggles my mind how Christians will come up with anything to absolve God of responsibility for things that are clearly his doing.

[stcordova]

It's like me blaming my child for the beating I give him because he stole from the cookie jar.

In the case of the Genesis story, it was God who made the snake and put the snake in the garden of Eden. Would I put a snake in my daughter's room? Why did God put the snake with Eve knowing what that snake could do?

I think most Christians don't accurately portray the Genesis account or even attempt to answer the questions being asked.

When people ask "why did God make the world so bad" and Christian responds by answering, "it's our sin", they aren't answering the question being asked.

The real question being asked is why God would make a snake and leave it with Eve in the garden of Eden to tempt her. Would any parent leave a dangerous snake capable of killing with his daughter? That's the real question being asked, and most Christians simply avoid the real question by answering a question that wasn't really being asked.

I believe the Lord designed the possibility of things going wrong and badly wrong. I believe we are in a broken world and we are beset by both natural and unnatural desires and God's laws make life harder on top of everything else.

Of course, if there is no Christian God, then I think there would be little point in supporting traditional marriage or staying in unhappy marriages when there are happier options available.

I think there are either genetic or developmental mechanisms causing homosexuality. I think desire for love outside of marriage is quite natural, especially if one is in a horrible marriage. I can't fault someone for wanting out. There are some horrible people to be married to out there....

[Eternity]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

Marriage? Well, has anyone asked the question, "How does the Bible define marriage? You bring up the levirate marriage but that OT Law does not define what a marriage is anymore than that the Bible does not define marriage. The Law just says that,

"in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

How odd that, levirate is a derivative of the Latin word levir. Ibid. I would have thought that the word would have been a derivative of a Hebrew word.

Again, what constitutes a marriage (marriage as modern man defines it) in the OT?

The only thing that begins to define marriage is when a man has intercourse with a woman. The Law then says that sexual act, intercourse, obligates a man to take care of the woman. There are many examples of this in the OT. What there is not, is any Law given as a precept of God, the Hebrew God, that defines what we call marriage.

Not even the NT defines marriage as we know it. What does this say in regards to claiming what God says about marriage? Seems to me to be man's perception, a fantasy or, an order to society's needs. And, after all, is this not what the Bible is anyway, man's ordering of a justification of life's ways?

The same applies to the acceptance of homosexuality.

If a homosexual exists and one believes that there is a Creator, then homosexuals are that Creator's creation. Either way, with or without a creation by a Creator, homosexuality is real, objective unlike the notion of men that homosexuality is an abomination, subjective. No matter how ordered society may be there is always a petty misrepresentation of what mankind represents.

There is a misconception in regards to what the Bible does say and it begins with Genesis 1: 27. Get what 1: 27 says right and the Bible takes on a whole new meaning, one that can be followed clear through the OT and the NT.

A condemnation of homosexuality using the Bible is moralism. The Bible does not teach moralism. Morality is not moralism. There is one sin in the Bible and that is idolatry. There are many catalogs in the Bible that speak of similar issues of vices and virtues. Looking closely at what these catalogs define you come to believe that there is just one sin and not many, that sin is singular. This singular sin then fits nicely with the concept that the Bible is clearly speaking about the same thing throughout the OT and the NT. But, the Bible is not about sin. The Bible is about mankind's life. Man's spirit (which is, life.) 1: 27 speaks of man having being created in God's image. What is that image? How does man know what is God's image? Now we are talking about the Doctrine of Creation, man's perception. Whatever God's image is, it is only a perception of man. We see God as good, omnipotent, etc., and that God is Spirit. If God is Spirit, then the image that we were created is God's Spirit. This orders man's perception of God throughout the Bible.

You loved a married woman and that complicates many issues of life that have an order. Never mind that your love can be construed as lust but that lust then disrupts man's order. The sin is not about sex. Sex is not the definition of sin. I realize that you said that you never acted sexually on that love but, had you, you would have disrupted the order established by the law. Follow the OT Law and you will begin to see just what the sin was being addressed. OT Law had everything to do with justice. Again, an ordering of things.

Condemnation of homosexuality by Christians has nothing to do with a sexual sin but it has everything to do with order.

[Eternity]

[Replying to post 1 by stcordova]

Marriage? Well, has anyone asked the question, "How does the Bible define marriage? You bring up the levirate marriage but that OT Law does not define what a marriage is anymore than that the Bible does not define marriage. The Law just says that,

"in which the brother of a deceased man is obliged to marry his brother's widow, and the widow is obliged to marry her deceased husband's brother."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage

How odd that, levirate is a derivative of the Latin word levir. Ibid. I would have thought that the word would have been a derivative of a Hebrew word.

Again, what constitutes a marriage (marriage as modern man defines it) in the OT?

The only thing that begins to define marriage is when a man has intercourse with a woman. The Law then says that sexual act, intercourse, obligates a man to take care of the woman. There are many examples of this in the OT. What there is not, is any Law given as a precept of God, the Hebrew God, that defines what we call marriage.

Not even the NT defines marriage as we know it. What does this say in regards to claiming what God says about marriage? Seems to me to be man's perception, a fantasy or, an order to society's needs. And, after all, is this not what the Bible is anyway, man's ordering of a justification of life's ways?

The same applies to the acceptance of homosexuality.

If a homosexual exists and one believes that there is a Creator, then homosexuals are that Creator's creation. Either way, with or without a creation by a Creator, homosexuality is real, objective unlike the notion of men that homosexuality is an abomination, subjective. No matter how ordered society may be there is always a petty misrepresentation of what mankind represents.

There is a misconception in regards to what the Bible does say and it begins with Genesis 1: 27. Get what 1: 27 says right and the Bible takes on a whole new meaning, one that can be followed clear through the OT and the NT.

A condemnation of homosexuality using the Bible is moralism. The Bible does not teach moralism. Morality is not moralism. There is one sin in the Bible and that is idolatry. There are many catalogs in the Bible that speak of similar issues of vices and virtues. Looking closely at what these catalogs define you come to believe that there is just one sin and not many, that sin is singular. This singular sin then fits nicely with the concept that the Bible is clearly speaking about the same thing throughout the OT and the NT. But, the Bible is not about sin. The Bible is about mankind's life. Man's spirit (which is, life.) 1: 27 speaks of man having being created in God's image. What is that image? How does man know what is God's image? Now we are talking about the Doctrine of Creation, man's perception. Whatever God's image is, it is only a perception of man. We see God as good, omnipotent, etc., and that God is Spirit. If God is Spirit, then the image that we were created is God's Spirit. This orders man's perception of God throughout the Bible.

You loved a married woman and that complicates many issues of life that have an order. Never mind that your love can be construed as lust but that lust then disrupts man's order. The sin is not about sex. Sex is not the definition of sin. I realize that you said that you never acted sexually on that love but, had you, you would have disrupted the order established by the law. Follow the OT Law and you will begin to see just what the sin was being addressed. OT Law had everything to do with justice. Again, an ordering of things.

Condemnation of homosexuality by Christians has nothing to do with a sexual sin but it has everything to do with order.