If homosexuality is not a choice...

[jayel]

Ree's thread about the priest got me thinking about this again.

For the purposes of this thread, we are going to assume that it is correct that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.


I can certainly understand how Ree was accepting of her priest being a NON-PRACTICING homosexual. After all, we all have urges and desires from time to time that we know we shouldn't give in to. So if he has homosexual feelings and curbs them because he believes it's wrong, that's great. That's no different than me not stealing something that I want but can't afford.

Ree, you said that you believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that people are born that way. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree. My question is this: If homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, then why would God create somone to be a homosexual, only to tell that person their whole lives that their feelings are wrong, and deny them a loving, sexually gratifying relationship with another person?

I'm not interested in snarky, anti-Christian views. I want real thoughts and opinions from those who are willing to consider the situation from a Christian perspective.

[Mr Slugger]

While I'm not Christian I would certainly think that part of their thought would be like everything there's temptations given to us by satan, and we resist these temptations to enter heaven. Like you said some get the temptations to steal, others get temptations to cheat on their partner, while others want to be with a person of the same sex. They are tests that we have to go through. At least that's my thought.

[jayel]

True, it is a test of sorts, but for something that is such a major part of life (that most people want to experience, e.g. love, sex, marriage) wouldn't it be wrong to create a being in such a way that there are ways in which they will never be fulfilled?

[Arcade Man D]

Ree, you said that you believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that people are born that way. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree. My question is this: If homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, then why would God create somone to be a homosexual, only to tell that person their whole lives that their feelings are wrong, and deny them a loving, sexually gratifying relationship with another person?

I'm not interested in snarky, anti-Christian views. I want real thoughts and opinions from those who are willing to consider the situation from a Christian perspective.

As a Christian, I think I'll take a stab at this one.

Ah, I just had this conversation with someone a few days ago, and I'm personally of the opinion, like various theologians and reverends, that almost all of the references to homosexuality in the Bible are not actually to homosexuality, but more than likely to temple prostitution. Link for better explanation than I can give.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Ree, you said that you believe that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that people are born that way. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree. My question is this: If homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, then why would God create somone to be a homosexual, only to tell that person their whole lives that their feelings are wrong, and deny them a loving, sexually gratifying relationship with another person?

.

He wouldn't. I personally thingkGod has more important things to worry about than what consenting adult is sleeping with whatever other consenting adult.

Don't pull up Leviticus. That's basically Jewish kosher laws and whatnot.

Christians ought to be following the teaching that the old law is out and the new one is in, and the new law is that we need to be exclellent to each other.

[Mr Slugger]

True, it is a test of sorts, but for something that is such a major part of life (that most people want to experience, e.g. love, sex, marriage) wouldn't it be wrong to create a being in such a way that there are ways in which they will never be fulfilled?

And a religious person might tell you that the way to be fulfilled is to become one with god, and not give into temptation. Just embrace god.

Then again I could be entirely wrong. I'm just saying what I think they'd tell you.

Ah, I just had this conversation with someone a few days ago, and I'm personally of the opinion, like various theologians and reverends, that almost all of the references to homosexuality in the Bible are not actually to homosexuality, but more than likely to temple prostitution.

I think as Jayel said "For the purposes of this thread, we are going to assume that it is correct that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin."

[Fryk]

As someone who USED to be "christian", I'll share what I learned when I went to Christian college.

God did not make people gay or straight (according to this line of thinking). What happened is that man, all thanks to a magic apple, is fallen, and he took the world, and with it, the laws of nature down with him. It can be argued, then, that the gay gene (everytime I say that, I think of the x-factor from X-men) is a consequence of fallen-ness. Harmful mutations (and I think that most people who think of gay as wrong would consider the "g-factor" as harmful) would be a result of the world's fallen state.
Christians are charged to overcome the limitations ofmankind's fallen-ness and strive to be more "christ-like". Of course, the Bible never mentions Jesus ever having ANY kind of sex, so one would think that straight people have a problem, too. Unless you're a Shaker...

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I think as Jayel said "For the purposes of this thread, we are going to assume that it is correct that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin."

I just realized I really won't be able to contribute to this thread, because if I have to assume that, anything I say is completely hypothetical. I suppose I could say it's a test, it's something to overcme, blah blah blah, but at that point I might as well say because God was feeling prankish that day.

[Ree]

I don't know why God would create people with homosexual tendencies, and I don't know why homosexuality seems to be so much more prevalent today. Perhaps it has always existed to the degree that it exists today, but people feel able to speak more freely about it and admit to it, while before, there was a fear for their life for admitting or acting on it.
It certainly must have existed during the times of the Bible, to a significant enough degree, or why was it even mentioned?

I think it is considered a sin in the eyes of the church for the same reason that masturbation is seen as sinful.

The church sees sexual intercourse as being for the purposes of procreation, and the ultimate act of love between a husband and wife, therefore, it is meant to be between a man and woman only, and only when they are married in the eyes of the church.

I may be wrong here, (and I can only speak for what I know in my own church as I'm not an expert on all religions), but I'm pretty sure the church does not see the homosexual desire as sinful, but it's the acting on that desire that makes it a sin, in the same way that acting on improper heterosexual desires is a sin.

We could ask why God makes people with genetic abnormalities or physical defects and infirmities.
It hardly seems right or fair, but it happens. Ideally, people adapt their lives to these things so they can live a "normal" life.

We could ask why God makes people with a predisposition to alcohol or addiction.
Again, it hardly seems right, but just because a person has a natural tendency to become addicted, does that mean they should act on it?

In the same way, the church feels that, if the current thinking is correct that people are predisposed to homosexuality, it does not mean they should act on it.
They feel that homosexuality is against the natural design, and is formed through cognitive conditioning. Just because a person has an attraction or homosexual desire or fantasies, the church feels that they do not have to give in to those desires.

[flybye023]

but I'm pretty sure the church does not see the homosexual desire as sinful, but it's the acting on that desire that makes it a sin, in the same way that acting on improper heterosexual desires is a sin.

This is very much in line with what my church teaches also. They teach that sex is reserved only for marriage. Chastity is required of all members. So being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin, acting on it is. Being heterosexual and having sexual desires is not a sin, but acting on those desires outside marriage is. Being married but with a spouse who is incapable of participating is sex does not allow that person to seek those things outside of his/her vows.

[Ree]

My question is this: If homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, then why would God create somone to be a homosexual, only to tell that person their whole lives that their feelings are wrong, and deny them a loving, sexually gratifying relationship with another person?

Life and relationships should be about more than sex.

The church asks all people to live lives of chastity and celibacy.

It believes that giving in to any sexual desires merely for the purpose of pleasure is selfish.

The church believes that asking homosexuals not to act on their sexual urges is no worse than asking all people not to act on their sexual urges.

[HYHYBT]

Within the limitation given in the original post, what I'd begun to say has been said already, and far better. However:

I want real thoughts and opinions from those who are willing to consider the situation from a Christian perspective.

I do not know that you meant it this way, but nearly always when someone uses phrases like "from a Christian perspective," they are assuming that their own personal perspective is the only Christian one. I cannot describe how old, how tiring, and how painful it is that people assume, or even declare after being informed otherwise, that I am not and cannot be a Christian because I like men (and intend to hold to the same standard as straight people: no sex until I find someone to marry, whether it would be recognized by church or state or not; lifelong fidelity afterwards), or because I disagree that the earth is only 6014 or whatever years old, etc. It becomes doubly old when I hear, from the other side, that I need stop believing in Jesus because "Christians hate us". Again, I don't exactly mean this directed at you, and you may well not even have meant it that way, but it seems at least halfway relevant and I need to vent a bit.

[jayel]

Of course, the Bible never mentions Jesus ever having ANY kind of sex, so one would think that straight people have a problem, too. Unless you're a Shaker...

The rest of your theory is reasonable, but fyi, Jesus never had sex because he wasn't MARRIED, not because sex itself is sinful.

I just realized I really won't be able to contribute to this thread, because if I have to assume that, anything I say is completely hypothetical.

Then feel free to stay out of the thread. Not every conversation calls for sarcastic remarks and condescension, and I asked not to see them here.

We could ask why God makes people with genetic abnormalities or physical defects and infirmities.
It hardly seems right or fair, but it happens. Ideally, people adapt their lives to these things so they can live a "normal" life.

We could ask why God makes people with a predisposition to alcohol or addiction.
Again, it hardly seems right, but just because a person has a natural tendency to become addicted, does that mean they should act on it?

I figured these would come up. But I don't know if I consider them equal with being forbidden (not unable) to experience sexual intimacy with someone you truly love.

This is very much in line with what my church teaches also. They teach that sex is reserved only for marriage. Chastity is required of all members. So being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin, acting on it is. Being heterosexual and having sexual desires is not a sin, but acting on those desires outside marriage is. Being married but with a spouse who is incapable of participating is sex does not allow that person to seek those things outside of his/her vows.

I agree with all of this.

Life and relationships should be about more than sex.


It believes that giving in to any sexual desires merely for the purpose of pleasure is selfish.

I agree with the first line. Disagree with the second. Sex within the commitment of marriage should be used for the couple's intimacy and enjoyment.

Within the limitation given in the original post, what I'd begun to say has been said already, and far better. However:I do not know that you meant it this way, but nearly always when someone uses phrases like "from a Christian perspective," they are assuming that their own personal perspective is the only Christian one... It becomes doubly old when I hear, from the other side, that I need stop believing in Jesus because "Christians hate us". Again, I don't exactly mean this directed at you, and you may well not even have meant it that way, but it seems at least halfway relevant and I need to vent a bit.

Oh good grief. When I say Christian perspective, it's as simple as believing in God, Jesus, the Bible, and for the purposes of this discussion, the doctrine that homosexual relations are sinful. If it makes you feel better, one of my best friends is a male, gay Catholic. I believe he believes in God/Jesus/Bible, he is torn with his own desires and feelings, and I have always been compassionate rather than judgemental toward him.

[Ree]

I agree with the first line. Disagree with the second. Sex within the commitment of marriage should be used for the couple's intimacy and enjoyment.

But that is not selfish pleasure.
As I believe I mentioned, the church sees the sexual act between a husband and wife as the ultimate act of love and commitment to each other.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Then feel free to stay out of the thread. Not every conversation calls for sarcastic remarks and condescension, and I asked not to see them here.



.

Not sure why you interpreted that comment as such, but it was not intended that way. I think the thread is interesting, but I was being frank when I expressed my inability to stay on target with such a rule in place. I was not trying to condescend to you, nor was I trying to be sarcastic. Sorry if it came across to you that way.