Another thread on homosexuality

[celo]

If God created man in his image, than how can the same people who believe that claim also condemn homosexuality?

Why would God create between 2% and 13% of the population this way? (140,000,000 - 910,000,000 people).

The only possible solution is to first assume that homosexuality is a choice. I would have thought that in these times, homosexuality would not be considered as such.

There is a simple test to see if it is a choice or not. For those who are heterosexual, could you ever imagine being sexually attracted to the same sex? I know I will never find a man attractive. Females on the other hand...;)

The gay people whom I know all told me that they were aware of their unusual attraction at very young age. I just can't see how a 6-10 year old could make that choice, other than it being a natural inclination. For example, many homosexuals are deeply ashamed of their orientation, and will remain in the closet while pretending to like females. If it really was a choice, then surely it would FAR easier to choose the socially acceptable orientation?

Many of those who had to hide it told me how disgusting they found the experience of making love to a female. Again, if it was a choice, then not only would it not have been gross, but the inverse would also be true: It wouldn't be fundamentally gross for a heterosexual to make love with the same sex (to me, that is "gross").

Of course there is also a body of evidence that claims that sexual orientation is a function of relative hormonal levels during pregnancy.


I suppose I am curious how it is justified in light of a seeming contradiction.

I am familiar with the relevant scripture, yet IMHO, it is fairly vague and doesn't overtly condemn generic homosexuality. But that's a different debate which I will try to avoid. I'm more concerned with the "in his image" part.

EDIT: If scripture is an important component of your belief regarding homosexuality, may I refer you tohttp://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

That site has a fairly balanced view and presents both sides of the interpretive spectrum in regards to scripture. After reading through that site (and others like it) I came to the conclusion that I can come to any conclusion regarding the scripture's take on homosexuality, and be justified with evidence in either case. Thus, I came to the conclusion that one must first have his or her personal opinion on the matter, and then engage in conformation bias (placing higher value on particular evidence that supports one's opinion or belief.)

 

[Danus]

We can discuss the scriptures in their context, but from a judeo-christian, biblical stand point we need to start with the fall of man.

In short, mankind is not today as God intended. One can be born into this world and not know the difference, but to the "born again" it's clear.

God's word to man is that he is fallen. God gave man freedom to love or turn away. He did that because that's love. No one forces anyone to love them.

But, if we take this further, the best Christians on earth are also in a fallen condition. They too are not without sin, but by their new nature in Christ they are not slaves to their fallen nature, they are set free from that and apart from the world.

Many Christians debate about "choice" in the faith, (meaning choosing God, or being chosen by God) but it does not divide them. However, when it comes to choices people make in their own slavery to their own fallen sinful nature, that's pretty clear where it is not otherwise genetic; And since Homosexuals ideally can't pass on their homosexuality genetically, nor has there been found any genetic link, then it is a choice.

However, even if it where shown to be genetic, it still falls to the fallen nature of man and God's otherwise intention for man. So if you want to call it genetic, then that's fine to. it works either way biblically.

 

[Seeker]

If God created man in his image, than how can the same people who believe that claim also condemn homosexuality?

Why would God create between 2% and 13% of the population this way? (140,000,000 - 910,000,000 people).

The only possible solution is to first assume that homosexuality is a choice. I would have thought that in these times, homosexuality would not be considered as such.

There is a simple test to see if it is a choice or not. For those who are heterosexual, could you ever imagine being sexually attracted to the same sex? I know I will never find a man attractive. Females on the other hand...;)

The gay people whom I know all told me that they were aware of their unusual attraction at very young age. I just can't see how a 6-10 year old could make that choice, other than it being a natural inclination. For example, many homosexuals are deeply ashamed of their orientation, and will remain in the closet while pretending to like females. If it really was a choice, then surely it would FAR easier to chose the socially acceptable orientation?

Many of those who had to hide it told me how disgusting they found the experience of making love to a female. Again, if it was a choice, then not only would it not have been gross, but the inverse would also be true: It wouldn't be fundamentally gross for a heterosexual to make love with the same sex (to me, that is "gross").

Of course there is also a body of evidence that claims that sexual orientation is a function of relative hormonal levels during pregnancy.


I suppose I am curious how it is justified in light of a seeming contradiction.

I am familiar with the relevant scripture, yet IMHO, it is fairly vague and doesn't overtly condemn generic homosexuality. But that's a different debate which I will try to avoid. I'm more concerned with the "in his image" part.

I don't think that man being created in God's image is really the point of contention here - I recently asked the meaning of that verse and it's discussed here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41878

But you raise some other valid points worthy of discussion.

1) Is homosexuality a choice? I think it's a bit of a red herring question to be honest. As you pointed out, some people go to great lengths in order to conceal their orientation, so it does not make sense for them to be homosexual by choice. That leaves some other options open - perhaps genetics? I would reject this because it would likely be selected against. As students of psychiatry will be aware, many instances of homosexuality occur when there is a history of sexual abuse - in both males and females. This is not a "choice", of course, but it is one explanation. Another possibility is environment, and the influence of culture and society. A simple, yet obvious example, would be a child who grows up with two adopted fathers. You also mentioned a neuroendocrine possibility - but you know what...Is HOW a person became homosexual really the question? I don't consider it so. Which leads to...

2) What is a homosexual person supposed to do? The answer is simple but difficult for some to accept - they should not act upon that orientation. Some people say that it's oppressive to not act on one's desires, but I say why is that? I may be attracted to women walking down the street - yet I do not lust after them. It is a matter of self-control. Neither is pornography a valid outlet. There are techniques that one can use to reduce the fire in one's belly in sound ways, among them to limit the amount of exposure to lewd content, to fast, etc...

3) Why is it a sin? Well, some religious people use the example that it is like paedophilia - nobody can accept that. To which homosexuals will often respond, but if there is consent between a man and a man then what's the problem? Therefore a better analogy would be that of incest. Right. Incest. The idea is repugnant to any sound-minded person. But ask yourself - why? What if they consent? Are you repulsed by it because the babies might be unhealthy? If that's the case, then you seriously need to read up about the harms of penetration in the rear entrance - it is NOT anatomically designed for sex, and is a canal full of disease. In essence, there are some urges which are unnatural, and by that I mean it crosses the boundaries set by God. "But there is some homosexual behaviour exhibited by animals!" That may be true, but God did not set the boundaries for them as with humanity. And ALL of this is to ignore all the social harms of allowing homosexuality. It is not only a "religious" position.

 

[celo]

Thanks, I see what you mean. I forgot about the "fallen" part. In that sense, there is no contradiction, and the argument (again lol) goes back to interpreting scripture.

However, despite agreeing with you about there being no genetic link up to now, I must say that genetics are not the only influence in one's makeup.

Many environmental factors determine the phenotypic expression of certain genes. And often, there is no one gene that will determine outcome independent of one's environment. This is called polyphenism. This concept is more specific than things like weight and height, whose end result is also the combination of genes and environment.

Have you ever heard of the Blue Wrasse fish? It is one example of a species in which sex determination is founded on polyphenism. In that species, which are highly territorial, sex is determined (and maintained!) strictly on environmental factors. The rule is 1 male per given territory. All others become females. However, when the male dies, a female will actually change sexes to replace him! Crocodiles determine sex under similar principles.

Another interesting example is the spadefoot toad. When pond water levels drop, the tadpole's food source becomes limited. As a response to this dynamic environment, certain tadpoles will actually express a cannibalistic phenotype, in which their body size, mouth, and teeth all grow over proportioned so that they can utilize their own species as a food source!

In those situations, I hope it is clear that some behaviors are not only not solely determined by genes alone, but aren't really much of a choice either.


One example that is almost entirely independent of genes alone is maternal imprinting. We have genes that allow for an infant to imprint on a maternal figure. However, no where do these genes say who should be imprinted upon. This is how species can be raised by an entirely different species.

This is also similar to how one can raise a cat and a mouse together successfully without the cat eating said mouse. The cat will imprint a sense of kinship on the mouse, and will view him as a companion, not as prey (despite genetic programming to view small moving organisms as a potential meal). Also why cats love to chase little toys on strings.

Oops, forgot my point lol. My point is that environmentally-based behaviors exists that are by no mean a choice. I do not know if homosexuality falls into the category. That said, I would put a large sum of money it being the case.

 

[celo]

I don't think that man being created in God's image is really the point of contention here - I recently asked the meaning of that verse and it's discussed here: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41878

But you raise some other valid points worthy of discussion.

1) Is homosexuality a choice? I think it's a bit of a red herring question to be honest. As you pointed out, some people go to great lengths in order to conceal their orientation, so it does not make sense for them to be homosexual by choice. That leaves some other options open - perhaps genetics? I would reject this because it would likely be selected against. As students of psychiatry will be aware, many instances of homosexuality occur when there is a history of sexual abuse - in both males and females. This is not a "choice", of course, but it is one explanation. Another possibility is environment, and the influence of culture and society. A simple, yet obvious example, would be a child who grows up with two adopted fathers. You also mentioned a neuroendocrine possibility - but you know what...Is HOW a person became homosexual really the question? I don't consider it so. Which leads to...

2) What is a homosexual person supposed to do? The answer is simple but difficult for some to accept - they should not act upon that orientation. Some people say that it's oppressive to not act on one's desires, but I say why is that? I may be attracted to women walking down the street - yet I do not lust after them. It is a matter of self-control. Neither is pornography a valid outlet. There are techniques that one can use to reduce the fire in one's belly in sound ways, among them to limit the amount of exposure to lewd content, to fast, etc...

3) Why is it a sin? Well, some religious people use the example that it is like paedophilia - nobody can accept that. To which homosexuals will often respond, but if there is consent between a man and a man then what's the problem? Therefore a better analogy would be that of incest. Right. Incest. The idea is repugnant to any sound-minded person. But ask yourself - why? What if they consent? Are you repulsed by it because the babies might be unhealthy? If that's the case, then you seriously need to read up about the harms of penetration in the rear entrance - it is NOT anatomically designed for sex, and is a canal full of disease. In essence, there are some urges which are unnatural, and by that I mean it crosses the boundaries set by God. "But there is some homosexual behaviour exhibited by animals!" That may be true, but God did not set the boundaries for them as with humanity. And ALL of this is to ignore all the social harms of allowing homosexuality. It is not only a "religious" position.

I must say, I admire your ability to think critically despite personal convictions. I mean that. Tis a rare quality these days, maybe all days even.

The problem with a debate such as this is the relative value placed on rhetorical foundations. While, in my opinion, a large quantity of anecdotal, and a small quantity of scientific evidence tells me that homosexuality is not a choice, the answer is in no way definitive.

Furthermore, I can see how, depending on context, translation, interpretation, or even the scriptures validity in whole, one can arrive at either point of view.

Therefore, I won't even try to claim one side over the other. I suppose it boils down to which makes the most sense to you.

Regarding your second point, here are my thoughts.

1. If one values Christianity over sexuality, it is clear that suppressing homosexual urges is required. (If, you accept the popular interpretations of said scripture).

2. If one values sexuality over Christianity (according to natural selection, this should be the natural instinct, as reproduction trumps all, even personal longevity) then one should follow his natural inclination. Humans muddy this concept, as we are capable of thinking on an abstract level and, in my opinion, have by and large gotten so caught up in the society that we have lost touch with many of our animal roots and instincts.

I don't think always following ones' desires is right. Especially when it conflicts with the majority-held values of others (rape, crime, ect.) However, I don't view homosexual relations as detrimental to any other person's well being. Being outraged at someone's behavior that has no bearing or impact on your life doesn't count. :bigfrown Some people call that bigotry and judgmental hate. And I agree.

On your third point, I think it again comes down to interpretations. There are clearly certain denominations and religions that allow for homosexual activity. On a purely social and biological level, I don't see any harm in the act. Sure, they are putting themselves at higher risk for HIV, but not only is that their concern and not mine, but people also are at higher risk for HIV among poor inner city and racially minority environments. If it is a sin based only on the danger that they impose on themselves, then surely it must be a sin to be African American in a lower-class neighborhood with inadequate education, hope, or contraceptives. Getting a privates pilots license or climbing Mt. Everest would also count as a sin, under this criteria.

I would even argue that it is a good thing for everyone, and especially earth, that homosexuals exist. It would be a problem if following a nuclear war, only 2 homosexual males and 2 homosexual females survived. Unlike in that scenario, overpopulation is a real concern.

 

[Pard]

Overpopulation isn't a concern in any way, shape, or form. It's a lie. Have you ever looked at a picture of the Earth? Most of it's empty, that is void of human life. Most of the Earth is rather wild, heck the majority of America is empty. Heck, the majority of China is empty!

Now that we got that silly idea out of the way, I'd like to address a point of contention in your first post. The statement "I can make any argument based on bible verses" is a true statement, when one looks and approaches the Bible from a pagan point of view (and sadly, even some Christian views). However, when one takes the Bible in its totality, that is every word and how they each come together in harmony and unity, you shall see that there really is only one truth. Do I know the entire truth? No. Does someone? Maybe. Some aspects of the Bible are better understood than others, for various reasons (for example being studied to death or having such limited scripture to go on). Homosexuality is pretty well understood to be condemned in the Bible. God speaks against it and is rather disgusted by it.

Truly the only point of real contention among full gospel Christians is how one should approach and treat gays. Honestly, there is a bit of a grey area on this matter because there are multiple ways to approach and preach to the pagans. One is through condemnation of sin and then on the exact opposite you have the concept of evangelizing through deeds. I find that a balance works well.

Now back to the subject at hand...

Why are they gay? How should I know? I think the answer is just a really big pill that a lot of people don't want to swallow, but I'll do it. They are gay because they are meant to rise above that struggle. God tests everyone, I see homosexuality as just another of His tests. It needs to be understood: Being gay isn't a sin, unless it is acted upon. Once we understand this crucial concept you will see that it is like other desire you have. I have a desire to look at pornography, but that isn't sin, the sin is acting upon it. When I one day overcome that desire I shall be better for it. And in the same way when someone overcomes being gay they will be better for it. There are people on here that are better equipped (experience-wise) to discuss this, so I will allow them to speak if they wish.

Your argument is moot, one should never value sexuality over God and His Son. Sexuality is good, it has a purpose for a man and his wife, but it isn't something that should come before God. In fact, it doesn't even come in at a close second, as Paul said that he wished the people to abstain from marriage unless they simply could not resist their sexual desire, and at this point they could marry, but only to prevent from entering into sin.

Further I'd have to disagree. A good duck dog would rather fetch a duck than mate. Don't believe me? Go find a duck dog, let him mount a female, and then shout mark and throw a duck for him. As long as he isn't locked up (that is physically unable to leave) he will go for that duck. For a breed that was designed to retrieve duck it is their very life! They were DESIGNED to go for duck above all else, and in the same way humans were DESIGNED to seek God above all else.

 

[Danus]

We can discuss the scriptures in their context, but from a judeo-christian, biblical stand point we need to start with the fall of man.

.............. However, when it comes to choices people make in their own slavery to their own fallen sinful nature, that's pretty clear where it is not otherwise genetic; ............However, even if it where shown to be genetic, it still falls to the fallen nature of man and God's otherwise intention for man. So if you want to call it genetic, then that's fine to. it works either way biblically.

Thanks, I see what you mean. I forgot about the "fallen" part. In that sense, there is no contradiction, and the argument (again lol) goes back to interpreting scripture..........despite agreeing with you about there being no genetic link up to now, I must say that genetics are not the only influence in one's makeup.

Many environmental factors determine the phenotypic expression of certain genes. ...............My point is that environmentally-based behaviors exists that are by no mean a choice. I do not know if homosexuality falls into the category. That said, I would put a large sum of money it being the case.

Not sure where we are on this. Choice, genes, or environmental factors....from a biblical point does not matter. The explanation is the same.

If you'er advocating to be gay then be gay, or if you just want to argue the "right's" of gay people then so be it. It's still not going to change the biblical perspective.

No saved Christian in Christ is going to say; "Oh well that makes sense." And no non-elect non-Christian is ever going to say; "Gee maybe God does have a plan."

What the world will do is continue it's path of moral depravity, and along the way those of the world will say they are morally correct, while God's people will continue.

I personally have written off the non-elect non-Christians, and don't wast my time on them. It took me years to realize exactly what a wast of effort it is, and that they are Gods to deal with, not me.

I spend my time on the elect who are seeking Christ, and I must have mistaken your OP for one that had a question in the spirit of seeking a biblical perspective in a further effort to seek and understand God.

If that is the case I'll help answer your questions form a biblical perspective. If you are gay and confused about where you stand with God, I can help you find some direction, and offer my compassion for your sin. If not then good day, and as the church in Rome says; "peace be with you."

 

[Christ_empowered]

I'm a former gay man working on becoming ex- or post-gay (I use either term, depending on my mood).

As a former homosexual who has chosen to pursue holiness, let me just say that saying that someone should just give in to their sinful urges because there may be a genetic and/or environmental factor at work (I think its both, but whatever) is counterproductive. As Danus pointed out, a man becomes Christian when he realizes his fallen nature and need for redemption. Some of us, for whatever reason, are predisposed to certain sins that *will* keep us out of the Kingdom of Heaven. Homosexuality is but one of those sins.

Now, here's the other issue I have with your statements. You make it seem as though the poor homosexuals are defined by environment and/or genetics and therefore "can't help" their behavior. This may well be true of unredeemed sinners, but I think one of the great things about becoming a Christian is that you become more fully and truly human. Part of being human means having the freedom and ability to control one's behavior. Along with forgiveness, I believe accepting Christ (or being accepted by Christ...) gives a wretched sinner a degree of transcendence. In pursuit of holiness, the saints can transcend weaknesses and sins that would have held them back before.

I contribute to just about every gay thread I see, since its been an issue for me. If you feel so inclined, you can look up older gay threads and see where I stand and where other members stand. I think you'll see that most people on this forum take a fairly traditional approach to the issue.

 

[Seeker]

I must say, I admire your ability to think critically despite personal convictions. I mean that. Tis a rare quality these days, maybe all days even.

The problem with a debate such as this is the relative value placed on rhetorical foundations. While, in my opinion, a large quantity of anecdotal, and a small quantity of scientific evidence tells me that homosexuality is not a choice, the answer is in no way definitive.

Furthermore, I can see how, depending on context, translation, interpretation, or even the scriptures validity in whole, one can arrive at either point of view.

Therefore, I won't even try to claim one side over the other. I suppose it boils down to which makes the most sense to you.

Regarding your second point, here are my thoughts.

1. If one values Christianity over sexuality, it is clear that suppressing homosexual urges is required. (If, you accept the popular interpretations of said scripture).

2. If one values sexuality over Christianity (according to natural selection, this should be the natural instinct, as reproduction trumps all, even personal longevity) then one should follow his natural inclination. Humans muddy this concept, as we are capable of thinking on an abstract level and, in my opinion, have by and large gotten so caught up in the society that we have lost touch with many of our animal roots and instincts.

I don't think always following ones' desires is right. Especially when it conflicts with the majority-held values of others (rape, crime, ect.) However, I don't view homosexual relations as detrimental to any other person's well being. Being outraged at someone's behavior that has no bearing or impact on your life doesn't count. :bigfrown Some people call that bigotry and judgmental hate. And I agree.

On your third point, I think it again comes down to interpretations. There are clearly certain denominations and religions that allow for homosexual activity. On a purely social and biological level, I don't see any harm in the act. Sure, they are putting themselves at higher risk for HIV, but not only is that their concern and not mine, but people also are at higher risk for HIV among poor inner city and racially minority environments. If it is a sin based only on the danger that they impose on themselves, then surely it must be a sin to be African American in a lower-class neighborhood with inadequate education, hope, or contraceptives. Getting a privates pilots license or climbing Mt. Everest would also count as a sin, under this criteria.

I would even argue that it is a good thing for everyone, and especially earth, that homosexuals exist. It would be a problem if following a nuclear war, only 2 homosexual males and 2 homosexual females survived. Unlike in that scenario, overpopulation is a real concern.

Again, a number of valid points. I try to disregard those areas of doubt from my rhetoric where possible, because what I believe to be true should be so regardless of "updates" in science, interpretation, societal trends, etc. The offshoot of this is that (1) I abstain from the question of a cause of homosexuality (as I mentioned); (2) I take the most apparent understanding of scripture (my scripture narrates the events of the people of Lot from which the impermissibility of homosexuality is derived, similar to the Bible) and in fact on analysis I find any alternative interpretation to be quite contrived and far-fetched; (3) Societal ethics are almost by definition subjective, so I don't think it's a standard to go by, both in terms of regional culture (e.g. in some African tribes exposure of the female torso is not taboo, in contrast to western culture) as well as the evolution of society over time (e.g. 20 or 50 or 100 years ago homosexuality was viewed very differently by British society relative to mainstream acceptance today).


I would just pick on one thing you mentioned though - you mentioned that a person has the choice: value their faith tradition over their homosexual urges, or their sexuality over their faith. While it seems logical that a person behaves in a way that is "natural" or "instinctive" to them, I would argue that that is not always the case (particularly as homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, so an argument from natural selection doesn't quite stand up). It is simply a matter of inclinations, desires, or - to use a worse word - lusts.

Which brings us to the question - is it OK to do something harmful to oneself, as long as it doesn't harm others? My original answer would be no, it's not OK, but your example of climbing Everest or becoming a pilot has given me cause to be more specific than a blanket "no". Leaving that aside for a moment (I would probably say that if there is no purpose or benefit to a potentially self-harmful act, then it is wrong), with regards to homosexuality, I would firstly contest that it is not merely a personal matter. How can I say that, when there is nothing more private than the events of the bedroom? Well, it is one thing to do what one does behind closed doors, but another entirely for it to become justified and widespread in society. If one person chooses to smoke marijuana in their house, I couldn't care less (apart from concern for them of course), but what WOULD disturb me is if it became legalised and tolerated as something acceptable in society.

Secondly - and this is where religion comes into it - it is not only harmful to one's body/mind, but it is harmful to oneself in that they are being disobedient to their Lord, who has set certain boundaries. This is a more personal matter between a person and God, so it does matter if one is a believer or not. If one is not, then I would revert back to point 1: do what you like behind closed doors, but please keep it there!

All that might sound intolerant, but that is my view. I don't advocate any hate towards such individuals who choose to do what they want to do, but to spread it throughout society is where I draw the line.

 

[Stormcrow]

The only possible solution is to first assume that homosexuality is a choice. I would have thought that in these times, homosexuality would not be considered as such.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.'s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists' insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

For generations, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder, until the A.P.A. unilaterally removed it from its list of known mental disorders in 1973. Their "thinking" was that if only the social stigma against it were removed, then "gays" would not feel so bad about themselves.

But as the author of the linked article shows, after an entire generation has passed of trying to help "gays" feel better about themselves, they - as a group - continue to show greater signs of mental illness than society as a whole:

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

So in direct response to your assertion that "homosexuality is not a choice", you're right in this sense: it was and continues to be a form of mental illness despite what the leftist panderers at the A.P.A. say.

 

[Seeker]

Well, it's common knowledge in psychiatry that those boys who are abused by female figures such as mothers, adoptive mothers, etc., tend to incline towards homosexual tendencies, and likewise for females who are abused by male figures. This is just one example that does not always hold true, but the link is certainly more than just correlative.

I'm not discounting the possibility of other causes of homosexuality, but the point I'm making is that to remove the psychiatric element entirely in the name of political correctness is quite absurd.

 

[Pard]

Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse.

And all of those are disorders tightly associated with narcissism, which goes back to what Christ_Empowered was saying in a previous thread, which is that during his struggle with homosexuality he found it wasn't about loving men, but loving yourself. Just thought that was neat how the two correlate.

Just on the topic of choice v. "born-this-way", and I'm not 100% on it but I do believe the current line is that gays are "born-this-way", it seems that either way it hurts the gay agenda (and by gay agenda I do mean the political and social activists trying to make it normal in society's eye). If it is a choice then the Christians are right and it is just a sin that can be helped and if it is a choice then they have no special rights. And if they are "born-this-way" than it is a mental disorder (because it clearly is not beneficial to humankind, as any true Darwinian will agree) then there is a cure and we should organize a group to collect funds to support the research for the cure.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I don't know that classifying homosexuality as a mental illness is all that helpful. I have a mental illness--bipolar I w/psychotic features--and I am transitioning out of homosexuality. The first condition (bipolar) is a mix of biological, social, and spiritual issues that responds to medication quite well. The second (homosexuality) is a deviant (and sinful) behavior that responded well to changing my entire life, repenting, and "getting over myself."

I will say that my core mental illness (psychotic bipolar I) probably helped fuel some of my deviant behavior, sodomy included. However, you can't cure self-love with meds, so it wasn't until I was healed of my intense self-love by God (although I had to work at it, too--there was a degree of cooperation there) that my bipolar, although considered "severe" in terms of symptoms, became fairly easy to manage with 1-2 meds daily.

In the secular world, self-love that rises to the point of narcissism is considered either hard or impossible to treat. The best you can hope for, according to many experts, are some "corrective life experiences" that will either reduce the intensity of narcissism or crack it entirely. Even if we were to once again recognize homosexuality as a mental illness, secular treatments would fail, because the core of the problem is intense self-love, and treating that in a system that encourages self-everything (self- love, self-growth, self-actualization, etc.) is impossible.

 

[cgl1023]

If God created man in his image, than how can the same people who believe that claim also condemn homosexuality?

Why would God create between 2% and 13% of the population this way? (140,000,000 - 910,000,000 people).

The only possible solution is to first assume that homosexuality is a choice. I would have thought that in these times, homosexuality would not be considered as such.

There is a simple test to see if it is a choice or not. For those who are heterosexual, could you ever imagine being sexually attracted to the same sex? I know I will never find a man attractive. Females on the other hand...;)

The gay people whom I know all told me that they were aware of their unusual attraction at very young age. I just can't see how a 6-10 year old could make that choice, other than it being a natural inclination. For example, many homosexuals are deeply ashamed of their orientation, and will remain in the closet while pretending to like females. If it really was a choice, then surely it would FAR easier to choose the socially acceptable orientation?

Many of those who had to hide it told me how disgusting they found the experience of making love to a female. Again, if it was a choice, then not only would it not have been gross, but the inverse would also be true: It wouldn't be fundamentally gross for a heterosexual to make love with the same sex (to me, that is "gross").

Of course there is also a body of evidence that claims that sexual orientation is a function of relative hormonal levels during pregnancy.


I suppose I am curious how it is justified in light of a seeming contradiction.

I am familiar with the relevant scripture, yet IMHO, it is fairly vague and doesn't overtly condemn generic homosexuality. But that's a different debate which I will try to avoid. I'm more concerned with the "in his image" part.

EDIT: If scripture is an important component of your belief regarding homosexuality, may I refer you tohttp://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

That site has a fairly balanced view and presents both sides of the interpretive spectrum in regards to scripture. After reading through that site (and others like it) I came to the conclusion that I can come to any conclusion regarding the scripture's take on homosexuality, and be justified with evidence in either case. Thus, I came to the conclusion that one must first have his or her personal opinion on the matter, and then engage in conformation bias (placing higher value on particular evidence that supports one's opinion or belief.)

Anything, not a blessing is of the devil. On this topic, the devil perverts the birth process in all individuals born homosexual. The reversal of homosexuality is delivering the homosexual person from their bondage. That is, a demon(one or more) will have to be cast out.

This is simple to state but hard to realize because modern church is not much in the business of casting out devils, as commanded (Ref. Mark 16:17, Mat 10:8 and the many deliverance stories in the Gospels).

 

[jasoncran]

Anything, not a blessing is of the devil. On this topic, the devil perverts the birth process in all individuals born homosexual. The reversal of homosexuality is delivering the homosexual person from their bondage. That is, a demon(one or more) will have to be cast out.

This is simple to state but hard to realize because modern church is not much in the business of casting out devils, as commanded (Ref. Mark 16:17, Mat 10:8 and the many deliverance stories in the Gospels).

as a former bi male i DIDNT HAVE SPIRIT in me that owned me or possesed me to love men. i was dealing with that on and off for years until i repented of my sins.when i did repent there was no exorcism at all.

 

[celo]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. This has certainly clarified the issue.

First, let me say that I am not gay. I love, and will always love women ;).

But I do have many friends who are.

My question was regarding the Christian position. I won't argue any further because it is not my intent or right to tell anyone they are wrong. I was more interested in how you responded to my points, not in forcing them upon you!

I firmly believe in every person's right to their opinion/religion/outlook. Even if that opinion believes it is the only right opinion. That's their right, and I try not to judge.

Personally, I disagree with much of what was said, but that has no relevance. I can see how the points I disagree on can be arrived at rationally. Just not my cup of tea, as they say.

Basically, I am interested in Christianity. My point here is to see if:

1. My general beliefs work with Christian beliefs.
2. If my general beliefs can be changed to work with Christian beliefs.

The second point needs more thought.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to what must be a ridiculous question from your point of views.

 

[Seeker]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. This has certainly clarified the issue.

First, let me say that I am not gay. I love, and will always love women ;).

But I do have many friends who are.

My question was regarding the Christian position. I won't argue any further because it is not my intent or right to tell anyone they are wrong. I was more interested in how you responded to my points, not in forcing them upon you!

I firmly believe in every person's right to their opinion/religion/outlook. Even if that opinion believes it is the only right opinion. That's their right, and I try not to judge.

Personally, I disagree with much of what was said, but that has no relevance. I can see how the points I disagree on can be arrived at rationally. Just not my cup of tea, as they say.

Basically, I am interested in Christianity. My point here is to see if:

1. My general beliefs work with Christian beliefs.
2. If my general beliefs can be changed to work with Christian beliefs.

The second point needs more thought.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to what must be a ridiculous question from your point of views.

I guess the heart of the matter is that the Abrahamic faiths believe it is wrong because God disallowed it - everything else we say is trying to understand it, explain it, justify it perhaps. But the important thing for me as a Muslim - and I assume for any Christian/Jew - is that our belief in the scripture and authority of God is for much more significant and deeper reasons than just the laws - they kind of just come part and parcel, whether we find them easy or difficult.

For some Christians(/Jews/Muslims), homosexuality is one of these "difficult" laws to understand/explain, while for others it's perfectly rational and reasonable. But whatever they case, we accept it because we accept everything God gives us as He is the One who sets boundaries.


Disclaimer: The above does not apply to or take into consideration those who say that Christianity allows homosexuality! That's a whole other can of worms!

 

[elijah23]

Jesus told us it is a sin to have sex before we get married. No two men would want to get married unless they already were having sex. Do away with premarital sex and you would have no homosexuality.

 

[djboo]

I'm not a homosexual but all I want to say is that Salvation is by Grace.

You mayt be a homosexual but you're an adulterer. Therefore, you will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

but there was JESUS who showered his Grace for everyone.


So, will homosexuals enter the kingdom of heaven?

I don't know.

 

[Fedusenko]

Is it just the sex in homosexual that makes it a sin? If not, where does it begin to be sinful?