Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Homosexuality - Sin? Why?

Packrat said:
Just let me begin with saying that I am heterosexual. Now... if someone could give me a reason as to why homosexuality is bad, a sin, or is evil, let me know and I will certainly consider it. I'm not going to say whether I object or accept homosexuality in society until someone has made at least one argument for or against it.

If you have Bible references to object to or promote this lifestyle, then list them. If you have facts from modern scientific tests, list them. I eagerly await any response. Note that I have done a little research myself and some thinking on this topic.

Homosexuality is a sin because its only motive is selfish lust. A homosexual doesn't care if he's disobeying God or if he's hurting anyone as long as he can get sexual satisfaction. It is no different than heterosexual lust that is used purely for sexual gratifaction and not to make a commitment to another person for the rest of one's life. Lust is not love and therefore a person "in lust' is not capable of knowing what's best for himself or another person because his own desires cloud his thinking. :)

And that's why Christ's forgiveness is the only solution to the sin problem in the world because his love is far more satisfying than the fleeting lust that is only temporary. :angel:
 
SputnikBoy said:
You do realize that the term "homosexuality" was not the word in the original texts, don't you? I'm not necessarily saying that the texts don't infer this but the words "homosexual/homosexuality" were later editions.

We are NEVER told that these texts are saying anything about - here I go again - one's genetics that might result in the practice of sex between two of the same gender. In fact, one could well logically assume that the texts are referring to heterosexuals who are practicing acts that are against THEIR 'natural' desires. If a 'gay' man has NEVER had 'natural desires' toward the opposite sex, then how could these texts be referring to him? I mean ...really?


What do the scholars have to say about Romans Chapter 1? They all say it is Homosexuality being discussed. Since all of you are without Bible degrees, you are sadly misinformed by those Homosexuals who wish to change what the Bible says because the majority of scholars do support the interpretation that Romans 1 has to do with Homosexuality. You are misinformed.

“b. Abandoned to sexual perversion (1:26-27)
1:26-27. Also God gave them over to shameful lusts (lit., ‘passions of disgrace’). This involved, as the text states, both sexes engaging in homosexual instead of heterosexual relationships. Women deliberately exchanged natural relations (with men in marriage) for unnatural ones (with other women). This is the second ‘exchange’ the unregenerate made (cf. v.25). Men...were inflamed with lust (orexei,’sexual lust,’ used only here in the NT and differing from the more common word for lust in v.26).
The words translated women and men in these verses are the sexual words ‘females’ and ‘males.’ Contemporary homosexuals insist that these verses mean that it is perverse for a heterosexual male or female to engage in homosexual relations but it is not perverse for a homosexual male or female to do so since homosexuality is such a person’s natural preference. This is strained exegesis unsupported by the Bible. The only natural sexual relationship the Bible recognizes is a heterosexual one (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4-6) within marriage. All homosexual relations constitute sexual perversion and are subject to God’s judgment. Such lustful and indecent acts have within them the seeds of punishment (due penalty).â€Â-“The Bible Knowledge Commentary†(An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, p.444.

“When the Bible declares that homosexual practices are ‘against nature’ (Rom. 1:26), it is referring to biological nature, not sociological nature. First, sex is defined biologically in Scripture from the very beginning. In Genesis 1, God created ‘male and female’ and then told them to ‘be fruitful and increase in number’ (Gen. 1:27-27, NIV). This reproduction was only possible if He was referring to a biological male and female.
“Second, sexual orientation is understood biologically, not sociologically, when God said ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24, NIV. For only a biological father and mother can produce children, and the reference to ‘one flesh’ speaks of a physical marriage.
“Thirdly, the Romans passage says that ‘men committed indecent acts with other men.’ This clearly indicates that this sinful act was homosexual in nature (Rom. 1:27, NIV).
“Fourth, what they did was not natural to them. They ‘exchanged’ the ‘natural relations’ for the unnatural ones (Rom. 1:26, NIV). So the homosexual acts were pronounced unnatural for homosexuals too.
“Fifth, homosexual desires are also called ‘shameful lusts’ (v. 26, NIV). So it is evident that God is condemning sexuals sins between those of the same biological sex. Homosexual acts are contrary to human nature as such, not just to a homosexual’s sexual orientation.â€Â-“When Critics Ask†by Dr. Norman Geisler, p438-439

“Because they exchanged the real God for false gods, by way of temporary punishment they exchanged natural sexual intercourse for homosexuality. 25. Paul breaks out of the foul atmosphere of vice and idolatry into the fresh air of a doxology. 27. Perversion is their idolatry: Gk. plane (lit. ‘wandering’) is often used in the LXX.â€Â-“The International Bible Commentaryâ€Â, F.F. Bruce, General Editor, p.1320

“Long before this chapter was penned, the Lesbians and others throughout refined Greece had been luxuriating in such debasements;â€Â-“Commentary On The Whole Bible†by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, p.1142.

“Although today the world seeks to popularize and legitimize homosexuality, nevertheless it is despicable to God and condemned by Him.â€Â-Liberty Bible Commentary, p.345

“Does the Bible really condemn homosexuality? The answer is yes, it does. In every place it mentions any homosexual practice it roundly condemns the practice. In no place does it speak positively on homosexuality.â€Â-“Hard Sayings of the Bible†by Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, p.545

“What is true historically and theologically is in measure true, however, experientially. The ‘gay’ facade is a thin veil for deep-seated frustration. The folly of homosexuality is proclaimed in its inability to reproduce the human species in keeping with the divine commandment (Ge 1:28). To sum up, what people do with God has much to do with their personal character and lifestyle. Throughout the passage they are represented as actively choosing a religion and a lifestyle; they are not being taken captive against their will.â€Â
-“Zondervan NIV Bible Commentaryâ€Â, Volume 2: New Testament, p.528-529

“In my book Reasoning Through Romans, I define these sins,...â€Â-“Thru The Bible Commentaryâ€Â, Romans by Dr. J. Vernon McGeep.42

“I believe our text hints at the latter. In verse 27, Paul writes,’they receive in themselves that recompense of their error’ (verse 27). It could very well be that ‘the recompense of their error’ manifests itself in a chemical that affects the pssychology of a person who practices this kind of error.
Homosexuality damages people psychologically. It changes who they are and what they could be. Knowing this, God says,’Stay away from it.’â€Â-p.878, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary
 
Heidi said:
Packrat said:
Just let me begin with saying that I am heterosexual. Now... if someone could give me a reason as to why homosexuality is bad, a sin, or is evil, let me know and I will certainly consider it. I'm not going to say whether I object or accept homosexuality in society until someone has made at least one argument for or against it.

If you have Bible references to object to or promote this lifestyle, then list them. If you have facts from modern scientific tests, list them. I eagerly await any response. Note that I have done a little research myself and some thinking on this topic.

Homosexuality is a sin because its only motive is selfish lust. A homosexual doesn't care if he's disobeying God or if he's hurting anyone as long as he can get sexual satisfaction. It is no different than heterosexual lust that is used purely for sexual gratifaction and not to make a commitment to another person for the rest of one's life. Lust is not love and therefore a person "in lust' is not capable of knowing what's best for himself or another person because his own desires cloud his thinking. :)

I think this is why so many homosexual couples today wish to express their commitment through the ceremony of marriage. This would therefore question the first part of your statement that the ONLY motive for homosexuality is selfish lust. If so, one could just as well infer the very same thing of heterosexual couples who marry. And - who knows - 'lust' COULD be the reason some homosexuals AND heterosexuals DO marry. Didn't your buddy Paul suggest that marriage was a way of dealing with lust? Gets a little tricky at times when we use the Bible to support or refute our cherished arguments, doesn't it? :wink:

You, Heidi - no one - can EVER speak for the individual. Perhaps the Bible is referring to 'heterosexual lust' in all cases of sexual sins. As I've mentioned previously, it (the Bible) makes reference to 'unnatural desires'. This would imply that EVERYONE is born heterosexual and chooses to turn away from from 'the natural'. The OP asked "why" is homosexuality a sin. The truth of the matter is that many guess but no one really knows.


Heidi said:
And that's why Christ's forgiveness is the only solution to the sin problem in the world because his love is far more satisfying than the fleeting lust that is only temporary. :angel:

Agreed. But we do have a life to live before the everlasting comes into effect. There are a number of posts that lean to condemnation for the homosexual but no one has so far answered the question as to "why" one who is 'wired-up' with homosexual genetics HAS to ask for forgiveness in the first place. Wasn't it God (or was it poor Satan yet again) who 'wired' them up in the first place? Does God not have anything to answer for at all? Yeah, I know ...I'm beginning to sound like a worn-out recording.
 
SputnikBoy said:
Heidi said:
Packrat said:
Just let me begin with saying that I am heterosexual. Now... if someone could give me a reason as to why homosexuality is bad, a sin, or is evil, let me know and I will certainly consider it. I'm not going to say whether I object or accept homosexuality in society until someone has made at least one argument for or against it.

If you have Bible references to object to or promote this lifestyle, then list them. If you have facts from modern scientific tests, list them. I eagerly await any response. Note that I have done a little research myself and some thinking on this topic.

Homosexuality is a sin because its only motive is selfish lust. A homosexual doesn't care if he's disobeying God or if he's hurting anyone as long as he can get sexual satisfaction. It is no different than heterosexual lust that is used purely for sexual gratifaction and not to make a commitment to another person for the rest of one's life. Lust is not love and therefore a person "in lust' is not capable of knowing what's best for himself or another person because his own desires cloud his thinking. :)

I think this is why so many homosexual couples today wish to express their commitment through the ceremony of marriage. This would therefore question the first part of your statement that the ONLY motive for homosexuality is selfish lust. If so, one could just as well infer the very same thing of heterosexual couples who marry. And - who knows - 'lust' COULD be the reason some homosexuals AND heterosexuals DO marry. Didn't your buddy Paul suggest that marriage was a way of dealing with lust? Gets a little tricky at times when we use the Bible to support or refute our cherished arguments, doesn't it? :wink:

You, Heidi - no one - can EVER speak for the individual. Perhaps the Bible is referring to 'heterosexual lust' in all cases of sexual sins. As I've mentioned previously, it (the Bible) makes reference to 'unnatural desires'. This would imply that EVERYONE is born heterosexual and chooses to turn away from from 'the natural'. The OP asked "why" is homosexuality a sin. The truth of the matter is that many guess but no one really knows.


Heidi said:
And that's why Christ's forgiveness is the only solution to the sin problem in the world because his love is far more satisfying than the fleeting lust that is only temporary. :angel:

Agreed. But we do have a life to live before the everlasting comes into effect. There are a number of posts that lean to condemnation for the homosexual but no one has so far answered the question as to "why" one who is 'wired-up' with homosexual genetics HAS to ask for forgiveness in the first place. Wasn't it God (or was it poor Satan yet again) who 'wired' them up in the first place? Does God not have anything to answer for at all? Yeah, I know ...I'm beginning to sound like a worn-out recording.

"Wired"? I got news for you; none of us can help our sins which is precisely why we need Jesus Christ. :)

We can no more help our greed, envy, lust, anger, sloth, gluttony, or pride any more than homosexuals can help their homosexuality. We are all born in sin regardless of which sins each of us has trouble with. :)
 
Heidi said:
"Wired"? I got news for you; none of us can help our sins which is precisely why we need Jesus Christ. :)

We can no more help our greed, envy, lust, anger, sloth, gluttony, or pride any more than homosexuals can help their homosexuality. We are all born in sin regardless of which sins each of us has trouble with. :)

Excellent point heide :angel:

I have a lot of selfish desires. I enjoy junk food and crave for it all the time. but I won't let it controll me. I have a lot of sinful desires but I don't make excuses and let them control me. Thank you Jesus :angel:
 
Please ignore this post - some of you will probably ignore it anyway :D

Hi Novum (and anyone else who might be interested in s/he and I have been discussing):

OK. Let's talk about the question of an optimal paper airplane. I agree that there are multiple dimensions to this issue - dimensions such as durability, aesthetics, speed, etc. Let's say the question is asked "Is there an objectively optimal paper airplane in the fictional society X, composed of 100 persons? I suggest that the answer is still most likely "yes".

I tend to thnk of this problem "mathematically". Let's
 
Hi Novum (and anyone else who might be interested in what s/he and I have been discussing):

OK. Let's talk about the question of an optimal paper airplane. I agree that there are multiple dimensions to this issue - dimensions such as durability, aesthetics, speed, etc. Let's say the question is asked "Is there an objectively optimal paper airplane in the fictional society X, composed of 100 persons? I suggest that the answer is still most likely "yes".

I tend to thnk of this problem "mathematically". Let's say that the only three free variables in respect to designing a paper airplane are indeed durability (D), aesthetics (A), and speed (S). Let's also say that each person in X can be described as responding to any design with a quantifiable number of "satisfaction points" - each design elicits a number of satisfaction points from each member of X. And, of course, each design will probably yield a different number of satisfaction points from each person, since each person accords different relative value to D,A,S.

I have implicitly assumed that each person combines their responses to each of the three dimensions (D,A,S) into a single satisfaction score. This, of course, implies that each person has a system of "weights" in respect to how important s/he thinks the various dimensions are relative to one another. The important point is that each person has a set of such weights, not that all the people have the same set of weights.

Is this assumption about the existence of an overall satisfaction score reasonable? I think it is. We do this kind of thing all the time in life. I recently bought a bicycle. To make my choice, I had to integrate my "satisfaction score" from each of a number of dimensions (cost, speed, weight, aesthetics, reliability, etc.) into a single score.

The question of whether there exists an optimal airplane for society X is really just the following question: "Is there a unique combination of values of D,A,S that maximizes the total number of satisfaction points for society X (adding up the satisfaction scores for each of the 100 people). I think the answer is yes.

Let's remember that the difficulty in ascertaining what these 3 settings for D,A,S are is conceptually distinct from the question of their fundamental existence. It may indeed be difficult to identify the optimal settings. But, such an optimal combination of D,A,S settings would seem to exist for that society, and it is an "objective" truth for that society because it is simply "the fact of the matter" for that society.
 
Greetings again Novum:

I want to clarify what I mean by the word "objective" when I say that I think that an objectively optimal moral code exists.

I do not mean that this code is independent of the subjective desires and wishes of the members of that society - e.g. their desires for peace, security, wealth, etc. Such a code is objective simply because it is "true of the system", not because it does not depend on the system.

I think we get tripped up when we talk about "objective" moral codes in a vacuum - if such a code exists, it's content is inextricably bound up in the characteristics of the system to which it applies.
 
Drew said:
Hi Novum (and anyone else who might be interested in what s/he and I have been discussing):

OK. Let's talk about the question of an optimal paper airplane. I agree that there are multiple dimensions to this issue - dimensions such as durability, aesthetics, speed, etc. Let's say the question is asked "Is there an objectively optimal paper airplane in the fictional society X, composed of 100 persons? I suggest that the answer is still most likely "yes".

I tend to thnk of this problem "mathematically". Let's say that the only three free variables in respect to designing a paper airplane are indeed durability (D), aesthetics (A), and speed (S). Let's also say that each person in X can be described as responding to any design with a quantifiable number of "satisfaction points" - each design elicits a number of satisfaction points from each member of X. And, of course, each design will probably yield a different number of satisfaction points from each person, since each person accords different relative value to D,A,S.

A paper airplane can't be made without a designer and our designer is God who uses other variables to specify how the design should be used. Variables like Sin are not evident in your model.
 
gingercat said:
Heidi said:
"Wired"? I got news for you; none of us can help our sins which is precisely why we need Jesus Christ. :)

We can no more help our greed, envy, lust, anger, sloth, gluttony, or pride any more than homosexuals can help their homosexuality. We are all born in sin regardless of which sins each of us has trouble with. :)

Excellent point heide :angel:

I have a lot of selfish desires. I enjoy junk food and crave for it all the time. but I won't let it controll me. I have a lot of sinful desires but I don't make excuses and let them control me. Thank you Jesus :angel:

So, the answer then for the homosexual is this ...remain celibant all of your life, no ifs no buts. Whenever the God-given sexual drive that is a part of you becomes overwhelming get on your knees and pray to God before taking a cold shower. If some miracle doesn't turn you 'straight' you will never be allowed to partake in the pleasures of sex that a heterosexual takes for granted.

You will always struggle with your specific 'natural' desires but you MUST hold firm until life's end. While you may be forever frustrated and possibly unable to function as a whole human being, you WILL please God and that's the main thing. And, you will not offend your righteous heterosexual Christian brothers and sisters either. We all know that their one desire in life is to please God. Oh, and don't masturbate either because that's a sin too.

Ask any married person if they could ever consider giving up sex. You know in advance what their answer would be. Yet THEY will not hesitate to tell you that you are to do just that and 'live with it'. Live long and do the best you can my homosexual brothers and sisters. At life's end you will be worthy of every reward offered by God.
 
Spute,

You are missing our point!!!!

We all have sinfull desires. Period. Why homosexuals should get free pass and get away with their sins?
 
Drew said:
Hi Novum (and anyone else who might be interested in what s/he and I have been discussing):

He. :)

Let's remember that the difficulty in ascertaining what these 3 settings for D,A,S are is conceptually distinct from the question of their fundamental existence. It may indeed be difficult to identify the optimal settings. But, such an optimal combination of D,A,S settings would seem to exist for that society, and it is an "objective" truth for that society because it is simply "the fact of the matter" for that society.

I agree completely that, in this simplified example, it is possible to generate an "optimal" design for a given society. But I'm not so sure it applies to more realistic societies with multiple dimensions of airplane characteristics and airplane designers.

However, I do not believe that this analogy is at all valid when applied to morality or ethics. Quite simply - as I'm sure you're aware - we cannot decide ethics based on popular vote, regardless of the number of characteristics or dimensions we take into account. Consider, for example, a popular vote in Germany in 1940 about the Jews, or a popular vote in the United States in 1830 about slavery.

I do not mean that this code is independent of the subjective desires and wishes of the members of that society - e.g. their desires for peace, security, wealth, etc. Such a code is objective simply because it is "true of the system", not because it does not depend on the system.

I still find myself having incredible difficulty visualizing an objective moral code. Could you give some examples of maxims that we might expect to find in such a system?

And Sothenes...

Sothenes said:
A paper airplane can't be made without a designer and our designer is God who uses other variables to specify how the design should be used. Variables like Sin are not evident in your model.

You have completely, entirely, and utterly missed the point. Read back a few posts in the conversation Drew and I have been having; perhaps you'll understand once you do so. :)
 
Novum said:
[However, I do not believe that this analogy is at all valid when applied to morality or ethics. Quite simply - as I'm sure you're aware - we cannot decide ethics based on popular vote, regardless of the number of characteristics or dimensions we take into account. Consider, for example, a popular vote in Germany in 1940 about the Jews, or a popular vote in the United States in 1830 about slavery.
I want to reiterate the distinction between the existence of an optimal moral code and whether or not it is discovered by a given society. I am not suggesting that the moral code be determined by "vote" - I am suggesting that it is a feature or property of a system.

Consider 2 identical hockey teams - identical in the sense that for each player on team A, there exists an identical counterpart on team B - same skating ability, same motivation, same strength, even same knowledge about the skills and talents of all other players. I assert that there factually exists some optimal way to "organize" the execution of the co-ordination of the players on a particular team in order to maximize the chances of winning. In other words, if team A's coach discovers this optimal way of organizing the variables that any one team can control, it will most likely beat team B if the team B coach's approach is not optimal (even though his players are equally capable).

In other words, the nature of this objectively optimal way to organize the behaviour of a team of hockey players is not determined by "vote" but rather by the fundamental nature of the game.

Now I can imagine that you may respond as follows: The fact of the matter is that not all teams are "identical" in the manner that I have described. Therefore, the optimal system depends strongly on the characteristics of the players, not just on the nature of the game - and is therefore team-specific. And I would have to agree.

However, my intuition is that the flaw is in my analogy, not in the claim that objective morality exists. I will have to think some more. Flawed though the analogy may be, I simply intended to make the point that an objectively optimal "strategy" can be an emergent property of a system, not something that is decided arbitrarily.

If I can think of a more appropriate analogy, I will post it.

I know that you posed other questions that I have yet to answer and I hope to respond soon - out of time for now...
 
Lust is not love and therefore a person "in lust' is not capable of knowing what's best for himself or another person because his own desires cloud his thinking.
:wink:

Heidi, I think its rather sad that you don't even realize you have just swept away years of committed and loving relationships, denouning them as nothing more than "lust driven". In one general statement you would abolish the center of people's entire lives, tear down a relationship that means the world to them, destroy something that they have worked for as hard as a husband and wife by simply reducing it all to a pure, selfish, sexual urge, and then you place a little cute smiley face at the end, as though you've done nothing more than comment on someone's furniture.

I don't think you realize that while you sit here talking about moral issues surrounding homosexuality that you are talking about real people, like yourself. You seem content to stamp the issue with your own moral proclaimation, not even considering, nor really caring, how such attitudes actually affect the lives of these people.

Everyone here likes to talk about objective morality, but no one seems to see the moral dilemna in the pain that the Christian and Secular world has and continues to inflict on homosexuals, a pain that I have experienced first hand. To most of you here, its as simple as talking about air plane designs or lust, or anatomical functions, you are quick to condemn the homosexual to a lifetime of celibacy and declare that God will simply fill whatever void is left in them, when in reality, you are in no place to say what will make them happy, you simply dont know that they will be happier apart from their partner.

To most of you, its as simple as airplane designs, to people like me and others, its far more complex than that, to people like me its a matter of happiness or misery, perhaps even death and life. I'm not sure if you know whats its like to have the Vatican print off some document that puts your life in a nutshell and then decide the direction of that life for you, or people throw a bible at you and decide the direction of your life for you. You may compare being gay to alcoholism, drug addiction, anger problems ect. but in the end none of those comparisons work, for being gay hurts no one, but your judgments do, and again, you may say all kinds of things about "spiritual harm", but in the end, you don't really know, you are not me, you can not tell me that its hurting me, only I can really know that and the people close to me.

I would just think, as Christians, you would be much less quick to forcefully push people into suffering in the name your moral code (think pharisees?), and much quicker to show them the kind of healing compassion and love that Christ died to demonstrate. Christ loved the law of God, but when that law began separating and marginalizing people, he prized God's love over the moral code. As he said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". Here Jesus broke the law concerning the Sabbath, because he prized helping people over obeying rules that hurt them. Likewise, I dont believe humanity was made for sex, but sex was made for humanity.
 
AHIMSA said:
Everyone here likes to talk about objective morality, but no one seems to see the moral dilemna in the pain that the Christian and Secular world has and continues to inflict on homosexuals, a pain that I have experienced first hand. To most of you here, its as simple as talking about air plane designs or lust, or anatomical functions, you are quick to condemn the homosexual to a lifetime of celibacy and declare that God will simply fill whatever void is left in them, when in reality, you are in no place to say what will make them happy, you simply dont know that they will be happier apart from their partner.

To most of you, its as simple as airplane designs, to people like me and others, its far more complex than that, to people like me its a matter of happiness or misery, perhaps even death and life. I'm not sure if you know whats its like to have the Vatican print off some document that puts your life in a nutshell and then decide the direction of that life for you, or people throw a bible at you and decide the direction of your life for you. You may compare being gay to alcoholism, drug addiction, anger problems ect. but in the end none of those comparisons work, for being gay hurts no one, but your judgments do, and again, you may say all kinds of things about "spiritual harm", but in the end, you don't really know, you are not me, you can not tell me that its hurting me, only I can really know that and the people close to me.

Hello AHIMSA -

There's some things that I feel need clearing up, as I feel you're misunderstanding myself and certain others in this thread.

1. I am not a Christian.

2. I am fully in agreement with you in support of homosexual rights.

3. Our (Drew and I) discussion about paper airplanes is a thought experiment about objective morality and does not apply to homosexuality. It's more of a thread derail, though this thread is where it started out.

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. ;)
 
gingercat said:
Spute,

You are missing our point!!!!

We all have sinfull desires. Period. Why homosexuals should get free pass and get away with their sins?

Oh my. You say that I am missing YOUR point! MY point from the start of this conversation has been that I don't believe for one second that homosexuality - in and of itself - is a sin. Sure homosexuals can sin, the same as heterosexuals or bi-sexuals, or transexuals, or non-sexuals, etc. can sin. But I don't believe - again, for one second - that one's genetical makeup is a sin. How in God's name can it be?

So, I believe the many 'gay' people that I've heard discussing their 'gayness' on TV talk shows as well as in person (I'm sure they are not ALL lying) PLUS the findings of science that appear to give credibility to the verbal accounts of 'gay' people. The verbal accounts coupled with science really DO indicate that one's sexual orientation is something that one recognizes at a very early stage in their lives.

People - oftentimes young people - do NOT commit suicide over their homosexuality because they're 'putting it on'. They - especially young Christians - commit suicide because they become overwhelmed with guilt that is often exacerbated by the comments and lashings of scriptural texts of condemnation that are leveled at them by Christians. They know they can't change genetics and the way they are and so they opt for the only way out as far as they see it. But, even suicide is seen as a sin so they have accomplished none other than having been spared a life time of Christian condemnation.

Some homosexuals leave the church and seek the company of other 'similar' people. Christians won't accept them so what else can they do? Some, hoping that God is somewhat bigger than the human Christians they've encountered, start up their own church. Even that doesn't work as it gives pious Christians yet another reason to come down on them.

Yet others try to do the right thing and find themselves a partner of the opposite gender. They may marry, they may even father children, but they are still homosexual. They function sexually but they think 'homosexual'. But, for appearance sake, they pass muster. The church accepts them and parents accept them - and ...God accepts them ... ...or DOES He? Hmmm ...I wonder if living a lie is an even bigger 'sin' than was the original 'sin' of homosexuality? It really IS difficult to win this battle!

So, from my perspective, I see much ignorance surrounding this issue and I'm just about done with it. I remain steadfast in my views on 'genuine' homosexuality. Genetics create homosexuals as surely as genetics create heterosexuals; as surely as genetics create transvestites; as surely as genetics create brown hair; as surely as genetics create certain shaped noses, eyes, mouths, temperaments, etc. I would consider that NONE of these things are 'sins'.
 
Genetics create homosexuals as surely as genetics create heterosexuals; as surely as genetics create transvestites; as surely as genetics create brown hair; as surely as genetics create certain shaped noses, eyes, mouths, temperaments, etc. I would consider that NONE of these things are 'sins'.


Where's the findings? There are none...http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer comments, "It is the same for every human behavior--environment matters for extroversion, smoking cigarettes, just about anything you can name."

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

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/priv ... ality.html

http://familypolicy.net/hope/?p=349
 
Back
Top