Homosexuality: Is it the way a person is born?

[aspen]

I think most homosexuals would agree with you, Iforrest, but being discriminated for so long because of their sexuality has kind of made an impression on them......

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I don't know why anyone would want to be identified by their sexuality. Next thing you know people will start using it as an honorary.

Because of the evil tide of liberalism in America, being a victim is power. On the Left they don't see people. They see races, genders, and sexual orientations. Their perception of humanity only goes skin deep, and they separate us by victim or aggressor status and treat us accordingly. That's why homosexuals want to be identified by their sexuality.

 

[StanJ]

Because of the evil tide of liberalism in America, being a victim is power. On the Left they don't see people. They see races, genders, and sexual orientations. Their perception of humanity only goes skin deep, and they separate us by victim or aggressor status and treat us accordingly. That's why homosexuals want to be identified by their sexuality.

How exactly is secular liberalism any more evil than secular conservatism? ALL the right sees is money, and the love thereof is the ROOT of ALL evil.

 

[lforrest]

How exactly is secular liberalism any more evil than secular conservatism? ALL the right sees is money, and the love thereof is the ROOT of ALL evil.

Many translations say "all kinds of evil."

Even so, if money is the root of all evil, selfishness is the soil where it grows.

 

[StanJ]

Many translations say "all kinds of evil."

Even so, if money is the root of all evil, selfishness is the soil where it grows.

Yep...that would be the love part.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

How exactly is secular liberalism any more evil than secular conservatism? ALL the right sees is money, and the love thereof is the ROOT of ALL evil.

You think liberals don't love money? It's liberals that are trying to take money that doesn't belong to them by force. It's covetousness and theft and a gross perversion of real charity.

And since it's been proven that conservatives give more money to charity, I would argue that the love of money is a vice you have no business attributing to us.

 

[StanJ]

You think liberals don't love money? It's liberals that are trying to take money that doesn't belong to them by force. It's covetousness and theft and a gross perversion of real charity.

And since it's been proven that conservatives give more money to charity, I would argue that the love of money is a vice you have no business attributing to us.

No, I don't, and your view of taxes and bringing equity to the populous theft or covetous.

I was referring to SECULAR conservatism. Are you a secular political conservative, or are you a Christian conservative who can't separate their ideologues from their faith? Your assertion about giving is not true. The following is a quote from Forbes magazine on giving differences;

“We found that while both Republicans and Democrats tend to equally value justice and caring for the vulnerable, Republicans place a much higher value on issues of purity and respect for authority,” said Karen Page Winterich, study co-author and assistant professor of marketing at Pennsylvania State University. “Given these differences, Republicans are more inclined to donate to a charity when these values of purity and respect are met, whereas Democrats are more inclined to donate when the emphasis is purely on equality or protection rather than respect or purity.”

Statistics do show that red states give more to charity than blue states because many more red states call themselves Christians, despite any evidence to support it. If churches were taken out of the equation, then blue states would give more to actual charities. Personally I don't believe ANY church should consider itself a charity, as the majority of their funds don't go to helping the less fortunate, only to pay their own bills such as mortgages and salaries. IMO as God is NOT a respecter of persons, neither should we be.

 

[Tex]

If homosexuality is not something bodily, then whence does our sexuality stem? It must be the body. My soul does not crave the things of the body, only my body craves the bodily things. There is no doubt, regardless of anything, that sexual attraction, regardless of hetero or homo, goes to the body.

Michael V Pardo accurately points out the debate between nature and nurture. While I generally agree that it is nurture that affects the most, I still think that the genetic code must have the capacity of being made homosexual by nurture. If the genetic code doesn't allow the person to develop into homosexual tendancies, the genes win every time. However, if the genes do allow the development of homosexual attraction, nurture can twist the person to have a poorly formed sexual appetite.

Honestly, I say the same thing for hetero people who have sex a lot. They must first have the capacity, then they need daddy issues to kickstart the system.

 

[michaelvpardo]

If homosexuality is not something bodily, then whence does our sexuality stem? It must be the body. My soul does not crave the things of the body, only my body craves the bodily things. There is no doubt, regardless of anything, that sexual attraction, regardless of hetero or homo, goes to the body.

Michael V Pardo accurately points out the debate between nature and nurture. While I generally agree that it is nurture that affects the most, I still think that the genetic code must have the capacity of being made homosexual by nurture. If the genetic code doesn't allow the person to develop into homosexual tendancies, the genes win every time. However, if the genes do allow the development of homosexual attraction, nurture can twist the person to have a poorly formed sexual appetite.

Honestly, I say the same thing for hetero people who have sex a lot. They must first have the capacity, then they need daddy issues to kickstart the system.

Its been quite a while since I was a child, but I do recall the sort of experiences that I had which involved curiosity over sexual differences. My experience, and what I believe to be fairly common with both genders at an early age, was exploring sexual differences with games like "playing doctor" and "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours." In my parents' household (my mother being a catholic) such behavior was not encouraged or condoned, but amounted to curious exploration combined with the titillation of doing something "naughty" and reserved for the adults.
Gender relationship is first largely established by parental relationships, observing and imitating what "mommy and daddy" are doing (now also "mommy and mommy" or "daddy and daddy," and through play activity. During the first decade of my life, most boys spent their free time predominantly in the company of other boys, playing sports or waging imaginary wars, the kinds of behaviors that we commonly observed in adult men. The young girls that I was familiar with played "house" together with their dolls, and tea sets, doll houses, and other things that they associated with adult females. In those days boys playing with dolls were discouraged by peer pressure, being teased and deprecated with any number of taunts casting aspersions on their sexual identity. Young girls who preferred the activities of young boys to that of their peers were generally referred to as "tom boys" and sometimes with malice as something more vulgar. The common attraction for companionship was most commonly same sex up until about the age of puberty and often well beyond that time. I'm not sure at exactly what point I became "interested in girls," but I'm quite sure that it was after puberty and before that time my "sexual" behavior was only imitation of the relationships that I aspired to and not driven by physiology. My point is that young children are naturally asexual with regard to "human sexuality" and learn sexuality through imitation of adult behavior and through pleasurable and unpleasant experience. If a boy and a girl were left to grow up alone in an environment without the presence of adults (or some medium depicting adult behavior) they would most likely stumble upon the natural uses of the body with regard to sexual gratification and reproduction, but by the same mechanisms, two boys or two girls would most likely learn the process of sexual gratification in an unnatural way without the benefit of reproduction. In a perfect world without sin this wouldn't be the case, but this doesn't make the unnatural behavior good or acceptable. Acceptable is defined by societal norms, while good is defined by God.

 

[marksman]

I ask...what part of the OPs questions don't you understand?
BTW, non-practising homosexuals can enter the Kingdom of Heaven if they get saved.

Just a thought. If the person is non-practising, shouldn't we refer to him as a person with a same sex attraction, not as a non practicing homosexual. Does one not become a homosexual until they are actually [SIZE=18.6666564941406px]involved[/SIZE] in male to male sex?

 

[StanJ]

Just a thought. If the person is non-practising, shouldn't we refer to him as a person with a same sex attraction, not as a non practicing homosexual. Does one not become a homosexual until they are actually [SIZE=18.66px]involved[/SIZE] in male to male sex?

That is my understanding of what scripture says. The Hebrew word is man who sleeps with a man. ( also meaning woman who sleeps with women )

 

[Webers_Home]

-
I've oftentimes wished there were a toll-free phone number people could call
heaven for tech support with these kinds of questions so we could silence the
flap of all the self-made armchair theologians. Some of these so-called
discussions are little more than perpetual bull sessions that never get to the
bottom of anything.

†. 1Pet 4:11 . . If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.

====================================

 

[JimParker]

A poll?? Really?? You want to poll people's unqualified opinions?

I seriously doubt that there is anyone in this forum who is qualified to speak authoritatively on the topic.

 

[OzSpen]

A poll?? Really?? You want to poll people's unqualified opinions?

I seriously doubt that there is anyone in this forum who is qualified to speak authoritatively on the topic.

Now brother Jim, are you saying that the Bible is not crystal clear on what God's view is of heterosexuality or homosexuality? Which side of the fence do you think God is on? Should we be on his side or not? Did he get it right or wrong?

Oz

 

[JimParker]

Now brother Jim, are you saying that the Bible is not crystal clear on what God's view is of heterosexuality or homosexuality? Which side of the fence do you think God is on? Should we be on his side or not? Did he get it right or wrong?

Oz

I was referring to the ability to speak authoritatively with reference to whether people are born "wired that way." I believe that would require doctorate level training (ad perhaps beyond) in psychology or neurology. (I'm not sure what the medical specialization would be.)

The behavior is clearly defined in scripture as an abomination. In the Old Testament it was an act worthy of physical death (Lev 20:13) and of eternal death in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9-10).

zz

 

[OzSpen]

I was referring to the ability to speak authoritatively with reference to whether people are born "wired that way." I believe that would require doctorate level training (ad perhaps beyond) in psychology or neurology. (I'm not sure what the medical specialization would be.)

The behavior is clearly defined in scripture as an abomination. In the Old Testament it was an act worthy of physical death (Lev 20:13) and of eternal death in the New Testament (1 Cor 6:9-10).

zz

Therefore, Jim, on the basis of 1 Cor 6:9-10 it is sinful behaviour that prevents one from entering the kingdom the kingdom of God. So it is behavioural, as is the whole list of sins mentioned in these verses. The cure for these sins is being sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11 ESV). So the problem with all these unrighteous behaviours is sinful action, not genetic causality.

We don't need a neurologist, geneticist, etc to tell us what the problem is with sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, those who practise homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. They all engage in unrighteous actions and we are warned, 'Do not be deceived' about these unrighteous actions (1 Cor 6:9 ESV).

It's not difficult to know God's perspective if we carefully read (and exegete) the Scriptures. We don't need a medical or psychological expert to determine the nature of homosexuality. God has defined it clearly - crystal clear - in Scripture. It's a matter of accepting his diagnosis.

Or, have I missed something with interpreting God's Word?

Oz

 

[JimParker]

Therefore, Jim, on the basis of 1 Cor 6:9-10 it is sinful behaviour that prevents one from entering the kingdom the kingdom of God. So it is behavioural, as is the whole list of sins mentioned in these verses. The cure for these sins is being sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11 ESV). So the problem with all these unrighteous behaviours is sinful action, not genetic causality.

We don't need a neurologist, geneticist, etc to tell us what the problem is with sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, those who practise homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. They all engage in unrighteous actions and we are warned, 'Do not be deceived' about these unrighteous actions (1 Cor 6:9 ESV).

It's not difficult to know God's perspective if we carefully read (and exegete) the Scriptures. We don't need a medical or psychological expert to determine the nature of homosexuality. God has defined it clearly - crystal clear - in Scripture. It's a matter of accepting his diagnosis.

Or, have I missed something with interpreting God's Word?

Oz

<< Or, have I missed something with interpreting God's Word? >>

Not a thing.

But you seem to miss my point. I was ONLY talking about whether or not anyone was qualified to say that someone was or was not "born that way."

There are people who are genetically more susceptible to alcoholism but that susceptibility does not excuse the sin of drunkenness.

Personally, I thing the idea that a person might be "born gay" by having a genetic basis for their homosexuality is pure bunk.

 

[OzSpen]

<< Or, have I missed something with interpreting God's Word? >>

Not a thing.

But you seem to miss my point. I was ONLY talking about whether or not anyone was qualified to say that someone was or was not "born that way."

There are people who are genetically more susceptible to alcoholism but that susceptibility does not excuse the sin of drunkenness.

Personally, I thing the idea that a person might be "born gay" by having a genetic basis for their homosexuality is pure bunk.

Jim,

Thanks for showing me I missed the point. I agree that I'm not the one who has professional medical or genetic qualifications to decide if someone was 'born that way'.

I'm pleased you understand the 'born gay' is different from God's view of sinful behaviour.

Why do you think more Christians are accepting the 'born gay' view in spite of NT evidence such as 1 Cor 6:9-11 (ESV)?

Oz

 

[KingJ]

Why do you think more Christians are accepting the 'born gay' view in spite of NT evidence such as 1 Cor 6:9-11 (ESV)?

Oz

Becuase many sinners are riding the Christian ''Jesus is love'', ''do not judge'', ''just believe'' and ''as long as you tithe'' waves for all they worth B).

 

[pom2014]

Why do you think more Christians are accepting the 'born gay' view in spite of NT evidence such as 1 Cor 6:9-11 (ESV)?

Oz

The same reason why I see God making children with hare lips, asperger syndrome or with dwarfism.

That despite how you were born doesn't mean you cannot do something great and glorify God.

Adversity to triumph.