Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Homosexuality, sin, choice or biology?


Jor-el

Recommended Posts

And be careful you do not overstep the extent to which you can use Leviticus. Consider that the two passages you quoted from Leviticus are actually references to idol worship, a common practice of neighbour cultures to the Jews used homosexual sex in their ritual worship of their gods, and Leviticus condemns the Hebrews if they do that. You can't use these two passages as carte blanche attacks against homosexuality!

I learnt a new phrase today - carte blanche

What about the other two?

I hope you've been a good Christian and killed lots of gay people then! After all, God is telling you to do it...don't show this to Irrelevant, he'll load up his shotgun.

It doesnt specify who should kill them so why do you assume the Bible instructs its readers to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isnt about promoting it because we live in a Democracy.

Its about recognising its a sin and not making the mistake yourself.

Thankfuly, we do live in a democracy.

But to be hoonest, anyone that uses that passage as an arguement is saying 'here's my belief, it says we should kill gay people' which does not make you come off very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so you do agree they should die..so long as the blood isn't on your hands? C'mon...this is the WORD of GOD...someone has to carry out his word..right?

If God wants to punish your for being gay then I'm sure he's more than capable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made my point for me, he was talking about marriage - you know, the only relationship God allows sex with! Since gays could not get married, they were not in a God-sanctioned relationship. Unless Jesus taught something to change that, which he did not.

That said, the Old Testament says very little about homosexuality in a relational setting. The only references come from Leviticus 18 and 20, and it's a little known fact that these passages are actually about homosexual sex in the context of idol worship (a common practice in neighbouring cultures at the time of writing). So Jesus didn't need to "back up" the Old Testament, it said little on the matter except - Genesis speaks of a man and a woman leaving their homes and joining together to become one flesh. No mention of male and male leaving their homes or female and female leaving their homes to become one flesh. Jesus quotes that very same Genesis passage in Matthew 19.

As I said, by virtue of silence, he condemns it. It was a non-issue for him, so much so that he simply took it for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God.

I'm afraid I'm really not sure about that argument. By not mentioning anything about an issue, he was condemning it? Anything he didn't specifically approve of, he disapproved of? Most of the things that are attributed to him in the Bible are his views on specific matters, particularly the way that religion had become institutionalised and how the priests had become mighty and powerful.Those things he did comdemn strongly, and so he spoke out about them. Are you really trying to say that anything he wasn't specifically quoted as approving of, he condemned? Not even that he had no particular views about it one way or the other? And really, even if he did take for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God, that's really not the same as saying that he disapproved of it strongly enough to condemn people for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked a little into the process that was oral tradition, and while you don't trust it, I do. Considering Christianity was a grassroots movement aimed at the poor and destitute (ie, the least likely to be able to read) it's quite remarkable that it was less than 15 years before the first writing about Jesus (from Paul), and 20 years from the first "sayings gospel" (the hypothetically sound "Q document").

Well that's your choice to do.

The Q document? What's that?

Perhaps you can explain exactly why it makes no sense the son of God would not mention homosexual relationships as being ok if God the Father didn't sanction them?

Perhaps you can explain why homosexuals are created and their sexuality is an inbuilt trait and why god would NOT sanction them?

I use the word "probably" not to cast doubt, but simply to point out what I tend to believe.

Ah

That's your choice to believe that. I honestly don't have any one-shot fantastic answers to give. Sometimes sin makes sticky situations for all parties, even those who are the victims. Do you honestly expect me to be able to give a dogmatic answer to something so tough as this?

No I don't expect you to give a dogmatic answer. What I do expect, is for you to realise what a sticky situation it makes and how making victims sinners does not come off very well. And that's just one example of the sort of situation that it makes. Making victims sinful is like saying a victim is guilty for a crime committed against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfuly, we do live in a democracy.

But to be hoonest, anyone that uses that passage as an arguement is saying 'here's my belief, it says we should kill gay people' which does not make you come off very well.

I'd be more concerned with your afterlife than the controversies written in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be more concerned with your afterlife than the controversies written in the Bible.

I'm more concerned with the here and now, since my idea of the afterlife i better than yours (which is a catch all eternal death for non-christians).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gay, I'm defending people that are because they have a right not to be talked about like they're some inferior race by people like you. C'mon, be fair now...the Bible says they should surely die a horrible death. Isn't why people were burning "witches"? Because the good book told them to...

If God made us in his image, and it's been proven being gay is what you're born with - and it is proven - then does this mean that God is part homosexual? :w00t:

You arent born gay its a decision to act on 'strange lusts'

I see it as a weakness in the mind in the same way that those who give into peer pressure are weak. No will power and a willingness to let oneself have such bizare thoughts to begin with.

Edited by Giant Killer B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what proof do you have of this? Spoiler: biblical nonsense is not proof.

Are you trying to tell me you have so little control over your thoughts, desires and actions you dont think you should be held accountable by God for your homosexuality?

You have free will, I advise you to learn how to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learnt a new phrase today - carte blanche

What about the other two?

I accept the validity of the other two references. I only commented on the first two because they were used inappropriately.

P.S - glad to add to your learning :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I'm really not sure about that argument. By not mentioning anything about an issue, he was condemning it? Anything he didn't specifically approve of, he disapproved of? Most of the things that are attributed to him in the Bible are his views on specific matters, particularly the way that religion had become institutionalised and how the priests had become mighty and powerful.Those things he did comdemn strongly, and so he spoke out about them. Are you really trying to say that anything he wasn't specifically quoted as approving of, he condemned? Not even that he had no particular views about it one way or the other? And really, even if he did take for granted that it was wrong for a follower of God, that's really not the same as saying that he disapproved of it strongly enough to condemn people for it.

I think with an issue like this, the only type of relationship sanctioned by God in the Bible was marriage. Jesus at no time changed the definition of marriage, and at no time extended any type of moral acceptance of homosexuality (though he ate with tax collectors and "sinners", so he may very well have dined with such people). It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that Jesus therefore condoned it. Maybe he was agnostic on the issue. But since he didn't come out and address it, while specifically addressing heterosexual marriage, I cannot justify such agnosticism on his part.

This isn't to say that everything Jesus doesn't speak of he by his silence condemns. This is a very specific issue that is worthy of such idea because of his choice to preach about heterosexual marriage and divorce, without ever saying a peep about other types of sexual relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what proof do you have of this? Spoiler: biblical nonsense is not proof.

Exactly. IMO, it is not a choice. Otherwise after the abuse I suffered from my ex would have 'turned me gay', but, no, I don't find women attractive, I still find (some) men attractive. It is something they are born with. I am friends with a lesbian couple and they are wonderful, caring and open hearted women. To look at them and think they deserve to die because they don't fit in with Christianity's view makes me ill. Until we stop with all the hatred and anger over something that doesn't directly affect us, we will never be a healthy society. Does what gay people do in their beds really affect you? Really? Or is it your own curiosity that bothers you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Sheri,

You quoted a text that is oriented specifically to the sociological aspect of this discussion, and in that respect it is the norm. The term being used by me is not being used in the sociological context but the biological context.

Within the biological context, it is considered a natural but also deviant form of sexuality that has no apparent evolutionary survival benefit. Although there are some proposals that try to address this issue.

http://www.pbs.org/w.../evolution.html

How can you call something natural yet at the same time a deviance. It doesn't compute. IMO I think this is where you are in your cognitive quest of trying to find a way to be 'true' to your religion and accepting of something other then hetero.. it seems to me you need to have a "biological" reason for homosexuality in order for it to be valid in your mind. (Of course this is just what I think and I could be wrong)

I hate to break it to you but "hetero" is not the cats meow of sexuality my friend-- it is one of four. It would be like me arguing that as a female I am better then you because males have very little part in the female ability to carry a life to term and give birth. It would be as if I was saying since you are a male and therefore you can never have the experience of growing a life inside of you, so you have no real biological survival use or importance. These arguments are elitist, ignorant, and non productive. IMO Wouldn't you agree?

Here is a link for you,

http://www.kinseyins...ak-hhscale.html

There is no 'sexual' norm per say Jor el, it can be a tough concept to wrap ones mind around. One can be any of the four variations (or not) at different times in their lives. This would all be considered normal in the study of Human Sexuality.

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects."

“It is a characteristic of the human mind that tries to dichotomize in its classification of phenomena….Sexual behavior is either normal or abnormal, socially acceptable or unacceptable, heterosexual or homosexual; and many persons do not want to believe that there are gradations in these matters from one to the other extreme.”

Bottom line is there are 4 sexual expressions and not one is more normal then the other. That is the whole story biologically.

Edited by Sherapy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's your choice to do.

The Q document? What's that?

The Q document hypothesis (see also This site, a little easier to understand in layman's terms, I don't propose to understand everything written in that first link, so I don't expect other layman to be able to perfectly understand it either) is a hypothetical text that was essentially a "sayings source", a collection of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This document was used as a primary source by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the two-source hypothesis adds that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's writings; there is also a more detailed Four-Source hypothesis which incorporates the two-source hypothesis but adds that Matthew and Luke both had access to further hypothetical texts (designated M and L respectively), though the evidence for M is much shakier than the evidence for L.

Of course, this is only a theory based on the fact that the Q document (as well as M and L) is now lost to history. We have no surviving copy of such a text (though some fragments of text may be representative of that as opposed to gospel texts). However, based on textual criticism the majority of scholars accept that such a text did originally exist. Of course there are always dissenters, but they represent a minority.

Perhaps you can explain why homosexuals are created and their sexuality is an inbuilt trait and why god would NOT sanction them?

Not all actions that we may naturally have as inborn traits are beneficial or acceptable. Your comment makes sense outside of the context of our discussion, but we're talking about Jesus' teaching, and if Jesus was the son of God why would he not discuss it if his Father was explicitly against it? I'm not talking about whether it is "sinful" or not. I'm talking about whether Jesus thought it was sinful or not. You think my reasoning is illogical, I just want to know why.

No I don't expect you to give a dogmatic answer. What I do expect, is for you to realise what a sticky situation it makes and how making victims sinners does not come off very well. And that's just one example of the sort of situation that it makes. Making victims sinful is like saying a victim is guilty for a crime committed against them.

I do realise that. I'm not turning victims into sinners. I'm making sin into something sinful, and accepting that sometimes it poses problems even for those people who were innocent. To use an extreme example, a person engages in unprotected sex and becomes infected with HIV/AIDS. Seven years later they are in a car crash and the attending paramedic accidentally gets infected blood from the victim into their system and becomes infected themselves - the paramedic did nothing wrong, but because of someone else's sin, they now have to live with negative consequences for the rest of her life. In saying this, I'm not advocating that a person who gets out of an abusive relationship is "sinning" for doing so, just accepting that sin has turned what should have been something beautiful into something that is very very ugly.

I have no absolute answer for tough situations. If such a situation ever arose and I was in a position to help, my best advice to me would be to simply help them find a way out of abuse, their own way. If they want to split and never remarry, I'll support them. If they remarry, I'll support them. If they don't even choose to divorce but simply live apart for the rest of their life I'll support that too. I can't advocate them staying in a harmful situation because that would be ethically wrong to leave someone in a dangerous position - but ultimately it has to be their choice to leave, I can't force them.

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. IMO, it is not a choice. Otherwise after the abuse I suffered from my ex would have 'turned me gay', but, no, I don't find women attractive, I still find (some) men attractive. It is something they are born with. I am friends with a lesbian couple and they are wonderful, caring and open hearted women. To look at them and think they deserve to die because they don't fit in with Christianity's view makes me ill. Until we stop with all the hatred and anger over something that doesn't directly affect us, we will never be a healthy society. Does what gay people do in their beds really affect you? Really? Or is it your own curiosity that bothers you?

Enough of the pseudo-science. Science says homosexuality is caused by four things -

Genetics - Some peoples hormones arent in the right ratios so they dont end up getting an all male or all female brain.

Culture - Parental values can mould youngsters into homosexuals.

Psychosis - Mental trauma (attempted suicide, abusive relationship, etc) can cause homosexuality.

Chemicals/Drugs - Rewires the hormones and brains of individuals.

The Bible says it isnt a sin to have homosexual thoughts but it is if you act on them. We would call a murderer evil and lock them up even if their genetics made them prone to violant outbursts, even if their parents were toxic, even if they were psychotic or if their crime arose from them being off their heads on drugs.

The murderer is still expected to practice self-restraint as God requires those with homosexual urges to practice self-restraint.

Edited by Giant Killer B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the bible as justification to be prejudice against homosexuality is hypocritical in that the bible doesn't condone using your "handmaid" to have kids with if your wife is barren, stoning people for various reasons, slavery, rape is never condemned other than paying the person you rape off, it goes on and on. I also know that every christian on earth doesn't follow the rules of Leviticus yet uses on to diminish the rights of others.

It also says in the same section of the bible it is an equal abomination to sleep on the same bed as a woman having her period, eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics. If I do all

three do I bring about the apocalypse? Get me a motel bed, a shrimp cocktail and some polyester pants and see what happens...

I'm being silly but it goes to show you that the "logic" that certain christians apply to the sin basis of homosexuality cannot be ignored for the other equal sins they commit every day and don't care one whit about. (and just because a tiny percentage follow those rules, ok then THOSE people can think homosexuality is wrong) but there are plenty of other christians eating shrimp and sleeping in the same bed together on mixed fabrics. It just shows the absurdity of the hatred toward homosexuals based on the bible..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Q document hypothesis (see also This site, a little easier to understand in layman's terms, I don't propose to understand everything written in that first link, so I don't expect other layman to be able to perfectly understand it either) is a hypothetical text that was essentially a "sayings source", a collection of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This document was used as a primary source by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the two-source hypothesis adds that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's writings; there is also a more detailed Four-Source hypothesis which incorporates the two-source hypothesis but adds that Matthew and Luke both had access to further hypothetical texts (designated M and L respectively), though the evidence for M is much shakier than the evidence for L.

Of course, this is only a theory based on the fact that the Q document (as well as M and L) is now lost to history. We have no surviving copy of such a text (though some fragments of text may be representative of that as opposed to gospel texts). However, based on textual criticism the majority of scholars accept that such a text did originally exist. Of course there are always dissenters, but they represent a minority.

Not all actions that we may naturally have as inborn traits are beneficial or acceptable. Your comment makes sense outside of the context of our discussion, but we're talking about Jesus' teaching, and if Jesus was the son of God why would he not discuss it if his Father was explicitly against it? I'm not talking about whether it is "sinful" or not. I'm talking about whether Jesus thought it was sinful or not. You think my reasoning is illogical, I just want to know why.

I do realise that. I'm not turning victims into sinners. I'm making sin into something sinful, and accepting that sometimes it poses problems even for those people who were innocent. To use an extreme example, a person engages in unprotected sex and becomes infected with HIV/AIDS. Seven years later they are in a car crash and the attending paramedic accidentally gets infected blood from the victim into their system and becomes infected themselves - the paramedic did nothing wrong, but because of someone else's sin, they now have to live with negative consequences for the rest of her life. In saying this, I'm not advocating that a person who gets out of an abusive relationship is "sinning" for doing so, just accepting that sin has turned what should have been something beautiful into something that is very very ugly.

I have no absolute answer for tough situations. If such a situation ever arose and I was in a position to help, my best advice to me would be to simply help them find a way out of abuse, their own way. If they want to split and never remarry, I'll support them. If they remarry, I'll support them. If they don't even choose to divorce but simply live apart for the rest of their life I'll support that too. I can't advocate them staying in a harmful situation because that would be ethically wrong to leave someone in a dangerous position - but ultimately it has to be their choice to leave, I can't force them.

Pa, well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Q document hypothesis (see also This site, a little easier to understand in layman's terms, I don't propose to understand everything written in that first link, so I don't expect other layman to be able to perfectly understand it either) is a hypothetical text that was essentially a "sayings source", a collection of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This document was used as a primary source by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (the two-source hypothesis adds that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's writings; there is also a more detailed Four-Source hypothesis which incorporates the two-source hypothesis but adds that Matthew and Luke both had access to further hypothetical texts (designated M and L respectively), though the evidence for M is much shakier than the evidence for L.

Of course, this is only a theory based on the fact that the Q document (as well as M and L) is now lost to history. We have no surviving copy of such a text (though some fragments of text may be representative of that as opposed to gospel texts). However, based on textual criticism the majority of scholars accept that such a text did originally exist. Of course there are always dissenters, but they represent a minority.

Ah, ok.

Not all actions that we may naturally have as inborn traits are beneficial or acceptable. Your comment makes sense outside of the context of our discussion, but we're talking about Jesus' teaching, and if Jesus was the son of God why would he not discuss it if his Father was explicitly against it? I'm not talking about whether it is "sinful" or not. I'm talking about whether Jesus thought it was sinful or not. You think my reasoning is illogical, I just want to know why.

Ok.

Well looking at the passage you mention, jesus is talking about divorce. To me, what he says there is just about the issue he is refering: divorce and anything else is conjecture.

Now, if jesus said homosexuality is a sin explicitly, you'd have a point. But as such, all you're doing is infering from silence.

I do realise that. I'm not turning victims into sinners. I'm making sin into something sinful, and accepting that sometimes it poses problems even for those people who were innocent. To use an extreme example, a person engages in unprotected sex and becomes infected with HIV/AIDS. Seven years later they are in a car crash and the attending paramedic accidentally gets infected blood from the victim into their system and becomes infected themselves - the paramedic did nothing wrong, but because of someone else's sin, they now have to live with negative consequences for the rest of her life. In saying this, I'm not advocating that a person who gets out of an abusive relationship is "sinning" for doing so, just accepting that sin has turned what should have been something beautiful into something that is very very ugly.

I have no absolute answer for tough situations. If such a situation ever arose and I was in a position to help, my best advice to me would be to simply help them find a way out of abuse, their own way. If they want to split and never remarry, I'll support them. If they remarry, I'll support them. If they don't even choose to divorce but simply live apart for the rest of their life I'll support that too. I can't advocate them staying in a harmful situation because that would be ethically wrong to leave someone in a dangerous position - but ultimately it has to be their choice to leave, I can't force them.

You're right, sin can turn something beautiful into something ugly.

I agree. Ethics have to overide sin in such a situation. When someone is in a dangerous situation you have to set sin aside and offer real practical help, like what you suggest. It has to be their own choice to leave, but they should also not be guilted for doing so later either. Empathy and ethics are necessary and valuable in such circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough of the pseudo-science. Science says homosexuality is caused by four things -

Genetics - Some peoples hormones arent in the right ratios so they dont end up getting an all male or all female brain.

Culture - Parental values can mould youngsters into homosexuals.

Psychosis - Mental trauma (attempted suicide, abusive relationship, etc) can cause homosexuality.

Chemicals/Drugs - Rewires the hormones and brains of individuals.

The Bible says it isnt a sin to have homosexual thoughts but it is if you act on them. We would call a murderer evil and lock them up even if their genetics made them prone to violant outbursts, even if their parents were toxic, even if they were psychotic or if their crime arose from them being off their heads on drugs.

The murderer is still expected to practice self-restraint as God requires those with homosexual urges to practice self-restraint.

Different situations altogether. But I think you knew that already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was influenced in starting this thread due to an ongoing debate on the subject of Homosexuality and how the church sees this form of sexuality

Yet there are a number of things stated by individuals that need to be clarified.

1st, is homosexuality really a sin as seen by the church or is it merely a fallacious interpretation of the bible?

2nd Can homosexuality be a sin if it is determined by biology and or genetics?

3rd can we consider homosexuality a sin if it is not in fact determined by biology and or genetics, but is merely a choice based on inclination due to society and or sexual imprinting?

If our sexuality is in in any way determined by biology and or genetics, then I think one cannot consider it a sin since a sin as we classify it is an action made by choice on following a specific path or action, if it is actually embedded in our very fabric, we can no more judge it than we can judge people for breathing, but if it is a sociological factor that determines sexuality, can it then be considered a sin?

Your thoughts are welcome...

I tossed a coin one day and said - Heads I'll be straight and only like guys..tails I'll swing the opposite way.. It came up heads, so it was an easy choice to make up my mind what sexuality I wished to have ..I was going to do the ole - Eeenie Meenie Minie Moe to help me chose my sexuality, but the coin toss was quicker lol :P I am just messing Jorel to add some humour..

Seriously though. and these are my own thoughts and observations......I don't think it is a choice to become a homosexual.. Not if so many took their lives because they knew it was not normal and all they did to try and be what is considered normal... Force it - Then you had those who forced themselves to date females and even marry them, thinking it would make the gay go away ..But these things cannot work.. I know if I forced myself to be with another woman and marry her, I would be miserable and couldn't stick it..It is not in me to be gay, I cannot get my head around it......Show your Hate - .I guess the same for those who are gay....Some have been known to spout hate over time towards fellow gays thinking that if they condition themselves to HATE it more, it may cure them...weird but I have read that once before..Got me wondering about Fred Phelps of the WBC lol

The bible.. In those days man didn't hold a general understanding, ( not much different from so many today) so as the saying goes - Man fears what he/she does not understand.. It's in our nature to be that way too

So, because it looks odd and not natural to them back them, they thought it was against God...Same for the people today who are greatly against it.....No change there.... So I do not think it is wrong to look down on those in the days of the bible who condemned homosexuality, because they are no different from us today...

Considering that my cousin Sarah is the only gay on my dads side of the family, we know of no other ..I cannot say it is something that runs in the family...Gays do come from straight couples.. Yet I do laugh at those that say - "If they hang around with gays or raised with them, they will turn gay".. That is just an idiotic and dumb thing to say, yet for some reason I find their stupidity amusing..

Biology / Science - I think it could be some sort glitch with the X and Y chromosomes that determine whether we will be male of female.. The glitch could be IE - the X chromosome that makes you a male but faulty in a way that when you are born a male, later on in life as everything else take place, you could find you have female attributes some stronger than others ..So strong that the males find themselves attracted to the same gender, while those who are not effected as strong with the glitch, find that they can be a little feminine but still be 100% straight... It all depends.. I could be wrong, but they are just a few of my own thoughts.

Edited by Beckys_Mom
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different situations altogether. But I think you knew that already.

They all still require a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tossed a coin one day and said - Heads I'll be straight and only like guys..tails I'll swing the opposite way.. It came up heads, so it was an easy choice to make up my mind what sexuality I wished to have ..I was going to do the ole - Eeenie Meenie Minie Moe to help me chose my sexuality, but the coin toss was quicker lol :P I am just messing Jorel to add some humour..

Seriously though. and these are my own thoughts and observations......I don't think it is a choice to become a homosexual.. Not if so many took their lives because they knew it was not normal and all they did to try and be what is considered normal... Force it - Then you had those who forced themselves to date females and even marry them, thinking it would make the gay go away ..But these things cannot work.. I know if I forced myself to be with another woman and marry her, I would be miserable and couldn't stick it..It is not in me to be gay, I cannot get my head around it......Show your Hate - .I guess the same for those who are gay....Some have been known to spout hate over time towards fellow gays thinking that if they condition themselves to HATE it more, it may cure them...weird but I have read that once before..Got me wondering about Fred Phelps of the WBC lol

The bible.. In those days man didn't hold a general understanding, ( not much different from so many today) so as the saying goes - Man fears what he/she does not understand.. It's in our nature to be that way too

So, because it looks odd and not natural to them back them, they thought it was against God...Same for the people today who are greatly against it.....No change there.... So I do not think it is wrong to look down on those in the days of the bible who condemned homosexuality, because they are no different from us today...

Considering that my cousin Sarah is the only gay on my dads side of the family, we know of no other ..I cannot say it is something that runs in the family...Gays do come from straight couples.. Yet I do laugh at those that say - "If they hang around with gays or raised with them, they will turn gay".. That is just an idiotic and dumb thing to say, yet for some reason I find their stupidity amusing..

Biology / Science - I think it could be some sort glitch with the X and Y chromosomes that determine whether we will be male of female.. The glitch could be IE - the X chromosome that makes you a male but faulty in a way that when you are born a male, later on in life as everything else take place, you could find you have female attributes some stronger than others ..So strong that the males find themselves attracted to the same gender, while those who are not effected as strong with the glitch, find that they can be a little feminine but still be 100% straight... It all depends.. I could be wrong, but they are just a few of my own thoughts.

The Americans created a gay bomb you know.

Apparently spraying female pheromones onto a man will make hetrosexual men fancy him and vice versa. Maybe your cousins girfriend wore her brothers jumper?

If it was genetic then you have relatives hiding their sexuality???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if jesus said homosexuality is a sin explicitly, you'd have a point. But as such, all you're doing is infering from silence.

But he didn't, so we have to infer his views from other things Jesus said. And in my opinion, if he didn't mention it here as being accepted, then at no time did he change marriage as being the only God-sanctioned sexual relationship.

You're right, sin can turn something beautiful into something ugly.

I agree. Ethics have to overide sin in such a situation. When someone is in a dangerous situation you have to set sin aside and offer real practical help, like what you suggest. It has to be their own choice to leave, but they should also not be guilted for doing so later either. Empathy and ethics are necessary and valuable in such circumstances.

At least we agree on something. I'd been thinking it would never happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all still require a choice.

Yes but if I murder someone I'm chosing to murder. The person being murdered has no choice.

I the same true in relationships? Not healthy ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he didn't, so we have to infer his views from other things Jesus said. And in my opinion, if he didn't mention it here as being accepted, then at no time did he change marriage as being the only God-sanctioned sexual relationship.

It's unfortunate isn't it, that that's all we have to go on. Basically all you're doing is making a guess on what he thought, in absence of absolute confirmation.

At least we agree on something. I'd been thinking it would never happen.

Heh. We agree on some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.