Gay tendencies

I know you were making a point - but just in case others are not aware of the definition of licentiousness --

1. sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.
2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.


I don't believe either is moral behavior - could you please clarify your the point you are making?

 

The rules rule out pornography. That was not a letch. Society is defined as well: as we are beyond Goals the social definition of what is acceptable involves Trust that that person will be recordable in the annals of appropriate conduct for the, heck, Sexual behaviour. And then the association may occur between ancestory and sex. Sex is not sex. This makes me right as opposed to the attitude of functioning association which also precludes the knowledge of a total community.

 

I don't think he could. You may not have caught on yet to Famewalk's propensity for doubletalk. He thinks its cute, but I find it annoying when we're actually in the middle of an interesting discussion and he interrupts it with this.

 

Good.

 

Okiefreak,

You've completely misinterpreted what I was saying, and somehow incorrectly identified me as some sort of right wing bible thumper.

All I was trying to say is that sexuality is more complex than black and white, or gay and straight. Since you're so hung up on the science of it, back in the 40s there was extensive research into human sexuality which suggested that there are all kinds of levels and intricacies to take into account. Some people are exclusively homosexual, some people are bi but preferring homo, some are bi preferring hetero, some are exclusively hetero... but of course, things are probably even more complicated than that.

The 'culture' around homosexuality is a product of segregation. Because people who express ANY homosexual inclinations are taught to think of themselves as gay (after revealing themselves to have these inclinations), they are shuffled into the gay 'world', and the gatekeepers of the hetero sphere have a hard time letting them back in, socially. Gay people are treated like gay people, not like 'normal' people. I'm not saying that they're always ostracized or persecuted, but they are treated differently... just like white people often treat black people differently (and vice versa). Segregation and the self/other dynamic perpetuated by gay and straight culture causes more homo/heterosexuality than anything... people are socially conditioned to think of themselves as black or white.

I didn't elaborate this at first because it's not really relevant to the topic at hand.

 

I stand corrected, and apologize. The points you're making are valid and introduce some badly needed sophistication into this discussion. The Kinsey studies have their problems, but I think conceptualization of gayness on a continuum is more useful than the gay-non gay dichotomy we've been using.

There's an important political/legal dimension to all of this. As you suggest, we have our first African-American President, but he's really half white; yet it's uncommon to think of him that way. African-Americans find it upsetting that Tiger Woods likes to acknowledge the non-African part of his heritage. Where gays are concerned, there are similar advantages to claiming, or even outing, people who are in the closet or on the fence. If you saw the movie Milk , one of the points attributed to him is that if enough people come out, voluntarily or involuntarily, people will realize that gays are not distant others but people they know.

Now for some speculation that is sure to draw fire and make me the target of hate mail. It used to be, when the question of causes of homosexuality would come up, the standard gay reply would be "that's irrelevant". However, the African-American example led to greater emphasis on the genetic theory, because the courts may apply strict scrutiny to laws that discriminate against "discrete and insular minorities" and because it seems unfair to penalize people for being "born that way". So far, it doesn't seem to have paid off, but I suspect the dynamic is real.

This more complex model does raise problems for the ethical discussion we've been having. If some people are close to the center of the fence, can anti-gays blame them for not conforming to the preferred Judeo-Christian norm of traditional familihood? Would they really be that miserable in a heterosexual marriage? I'd still say for something that personal, it should be up to the individual concerned rather than outside moralists to make those judgment calls.

And as for being hung up on the science of it, I don't think there will be much progress there until we can de-politicize the subject, which may never happen in my lifetime. Intuitively, I feel that, as is the case with other complex behavioral patterns, we'll find an interaction between nature and nurture, rather than the either-or that is emphasized in the current dialogue. And I don't believe science has shown yet that sexual identity is immutable.

 

I’m sorry but out of context?

I just went back and reread the scriptures that I quoted, in context and I don’t see how any reading of them, unless someone just wants them to mean something else than what they say, can actually believe that they are not talking about homosexuality. I mean please read Romans below.

(Romans 1:26-27) 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

Short of using the word homosexuality, can there be any plainer description of homosexuality and the fact that it is called a disgraceful sexual appetite and working what is obscene, I mean really how am I reading this wrong? Maybe you would be so kind as to show me the error of my ways? If this is not talking about homosexuality, perhaps you can explain what it’s really talking about?

 

I’ve heard this said and it’s simply not really true. Please read below:

An honest examination of the words of Jesus shows that he, too, did indeed speak against homosexuality.

He said, as recorded at Matthew 19:9 according to the Revised Standard Version (RSV): “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The Greek word for “unchastity” that Matthew here employs in penning Jesus’ words is por•nei′a. Por•nei′a is related to the verb por•neu′o, meaning “to give one’s self to unlawful sexual intercourse.”

The best way to understand what is taken in by these terms is to find out how they are used in other places. A similar word appears in the Bible at Jude 7 in describing the sin of certain ancient cities: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally [an intensive form of por•neu′o] and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” (RSV) For what type of ‘immorality’ or por•nei′a were those at Sodom and Gomorrah condemned? The Bible narrative at Genesis 19:4, 5 answers:

“The men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.’”

These men of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuals. In fact, the English word “sodomy,” which particularly means ‘intercourse between two men,’ is drawn from the name of the city of Sodom. The Bible would call their sin por•nei′a. Jesus said por•nei′a was so wrong morally that it was a basis for severing the marriage bond.

Further, remember that Jesus was a Jew living under the law of Moses. His use of por•nei′a, says Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, apparently includes ‘all intercourse interdicted by the Mosaic Law.’ That Law included among its injunctions: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.” (Lev. 18:22, The Torah, The Five Books of Moses, by the Jewish Publication Society of America) Por•nei′a, the word used by Jesus, obviously embraced this command of God.

Also, it should be noted that homosexuality had been condemned by God before the law of Moses was even given. The account about Sodom and Gomorrah, referred to earlier, proves this fact; those cities were destroyed by God over 400 years before the law of Moses came into existence. Jesus was aware of that.—Luke 17:28, 29, 32.

Beyond doubt, therefore, Jesus did in fact condemn all such ‘unchaste’ practices as homosexuality. As reason would indicate to us, the Bible is consistent on this matter. Paul’s words are backed up by the authority of the Son of God.

 

I don’t believe I ever said you did.

You missed it. The actual statement was; “Someone else mentioned this earlier, but Christ never said anything about homosexuality. If this is such an important, vital law, why is it not mentioned in the NT?”

I agree but there really is only one author of the Bible, many writers but only one author.

For someone who has read the Bible several times, it seems you missed reading:

(Romans 7:6) 6 But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.

(Romans 10:4) For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.

(Ephesians 2:15) By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace;

(Colossians 2:14) and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

Where it’s pointed out that Christians are no longer under the law.

As for homosexuality, it is restated in the Christian Greek scriptures that it is wrong in God’s eyes thus Christians are not to engage in homosexual acts.

 

You can believe anything you want, you have free will to do so but your belief in this case is not based on what the Bible says.

 

Side note:
Psalm 139:13
"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb".

I agree with OWB that it isn't as clear cut as "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality". Yeah, Jesus may have not, but Paul, pseudoPaul, and all of the others sure had some stuff to say about it in some shape or form. Why do we hold these other writings dear but fall back on Jesus' silence on an issue in order to defend it?

I'm not saying that I agree fully with his position, but only that this isn't an argument so easily won.

OWB, in your exegesis of Roman 1:26-27 I think you are reading it fairly correctly (in that it absolutly deals with some sort of sexual deviency), but I think there is something important missing in your response to it. It also in v. 26 says that women changed the natural use of themselves. Note of the word "use". If this was speaking about girl-girl sex, then wouldn't that imply that the "use" of a woman is girl-boy sex? I think what Paul seems to be getting at here more is that the "natural" use of both male and female bodies is procreation. The fact that it feels good should only be secondary. Sex is a gift from God to share with one person. If the women gave up their natural use, couldn't they be prostitutes? Similar wording can be found in v. 27 where the female body is refered to as a "use" for males. So the biggest shame wouldn't be the homosexual activity, but the forgoing of procreation.

Sex truly is God's gift to us, but what can it offer to the world. I've said this about other topics (possibly even this one), and it almost negates my previous writing in this post: but why are we wasting out time on this. Everyday, many children die from starvation, genocide, other violence, et ceetera. Why couldn't we (not us specifically, but the religious) help them instead of messing in the private affairs of those whom are going to continue to live together even after their marital status is taken away. Wouldn't it have been better to vote on reliving foregin debt or increasin food aid to those home and abroad and other issues that are more pertinent to the suffering of many...

People piss me off...

 

Yes, I agree with you that there are many more important things to dwell on than homosexuality, such as what Jesus said at Matthew 22:37-38 “‘You must love GOD your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment.”

Personally, I didn't get into this discussion because of homosexuality but because homosexuality was being used to defame God. Re: if god created gays then why would he not allow them to be the way he created them? Why would he not allow them to have a “loving” relationship with someone of the same sex? See, God is unloving and holding back something good from his children.

So out of love of God, I’m merely pointing out that God did not create anyone to be gay and that in his word the Bible, he says that homosexual acts are not pleasing to him. When he says this, it is not to withhold something good from his children but to steer them away from something that he knows is harmful to them.


PS Some sort of sexual deviancy?
When the Bible says: "the males ... became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene" to me that leaves very little leeway as to what kind of sexual deviancy is being spoken of.

 

I fear we are talking in circles and using different languages to convey or beliefs.

I do not think you "see" the truth of God as he has made abundantly clear to me - conversely - You do not think I "see" the truth of God as he has made abundantly clear to you.

We will have to wait until we see who is present when are in God's very presence and not looking at Him through the veil of this life. My guess is that we will be there with those who love Christ - straight or gay. Peace and Love - Dudley.

 

I think your argument is faulty here. If I understand what you're saying, you say Jesus spoke out against homosexuality because he spoke out against unlawful sexual intercourse and homosexuality is included in that concept." Kind of like saying he spoke out against wrondoing, and therefore abortion was covered. The fact is he didn't specifically speak out against homosexuality.

 

misfeed

 

Yeah, honestly I was expecting that. I wrote my reply at like 3 in the morning. I don't really have a response.

 

I understand, done the same thing my self.

 

I do. "(V)iolently inflamed in their lust toward one another." We're talking here about a special kind of sexuality, the lustful kind--consumed by an uncontrolled craving for the physical, reducing others to sex objects. I have no doubt that this is wrong and, as Paul says, disgusting. When the objects of their desire lose their looks, what then? Will their paramours stand by them, "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, till death do" they part? The kind of sexuality described here would be wrong whether heterosexual or homosexual. But it is clear that Paul is talking about it in the homosexual context because he thought that to be particularly shocking. And this is, I believe, the only passage of the Bible that refers to both male and female homosexual conduct. As a Jew, Paul knew Leviticus, and it is indisputable that Jewish tradition considered homosexual relations among men to be sinful. Paul adds, in the passage you quote, a clear reference to the Greco-Roman concept of natural law. This was state of the art thinking back then, and it helped to explain why God objected to homosexual conduct. The only real issue between us then is whether this expresses God's views or just Paul's understanding based on the debauchery he saw and the intellectual resources available to explain it. I take the latter view, and yes, I'm aware I'm parting company with you guys on biblical literalism. I did that long ago. My "free will".

 

The problem with the idea of not worrying about other items such as homosexuality, adultery, murder is that in order to get to heaven according to christian philosophy you must love the lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength. You can't love him just a little, you can't sit down and say well maybe what God said here was right and all proper for me to follow. If you truly love this being you choose to call God then you must follow everything he says to a T. If you say you love Jesus but then you go out and have sex with a woman that is not your wife its like smacking him right in the face. Its saying hey, I really don't give a hoot what you say Jesus, and for that matter I'm just a damn hypocrite!

If a man or woman is going to call themself a "christian" then they best live the way that Christ would. Plain and simple. After all Christian means little christ

 

What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of YOU were. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

In the Bible there is no such thing as a homosexual, there are only homosexual acts. One or a hundred homosexual acts does not make one a homosexual but in the Bible a continuing practice of homosexual acts, or any of the acts stated above, means that such a person will not inherit God’s kingdom. If a person wishes to follow the Bible’s admonition and stop the practice of homosexuality, then at that point they can be accepted in to God’s kingdom. To say otherwise just is not scriptural.

I know that it is probably not an easy thing to do but no one said that being a Christian was going to be easy or an easy way of life, just the best way of life (Matthew 7:13-14).