Born Gay?

[WalkingforHim]

The Scriptures will always trump whatever these men attempt to prove,
other than that elaborate, or see the wiki article, or research the "stars" of psychology, Who laid its foundation.

SO that's a no, right?

 

[BigBadWlf]

And your saying their interpretations of the scriptures is unbiased?
Scripture is clear, unless they drag in excessive amounts of extra biblical "research"

If interpretation were perfectly clear…then no amount of research could affect that clarity or change any interpertation.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Hehe, it's funny that the ones labeling it as such are the ones who aren't actually trained in the field of medicine or psychology.

You noticed that too huh?

 

[sunlover1]

Guess what? the mental health foundations DO NOT agree w/reparative therapy for gays and bisexuals, they say it is abuse, and have studies to prove it.

I know I make all of my spiritual decisions according to mental health workers.

C'mon, you're smarter than that.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I know I make all of my spiritual decisions according to mental health workers.

C'mon, you're smarter than that.

Your attack on psychiatrist, psychologists, social workers, therapists and those in related fields aside….the fact remains that the evidence shows that therapies aimed at altering sexual orientation are not only ineffective but actively harmful as well. This is coupled with the fact that for decades various organizations have made clams about being able to change homosexuals into heterosexuals but none of these organizations/individuals have been able to provide evidence of such change or of the safety of their methods.

Can you explain why one would ignore every major mental health and medical organization?

 

[sunlover1]

Your attack on psychiatrist, psychologists, social workers, therapists and those in related fields aside….the fact remains that the evidence shows that therapies aimed at altering sexual orientation are not only ineffective but actively harmful as well. This is coupled with the fact that for decades various organizations have made clams about being able to change homosexuals into heterosexuals but none of these organizations/individuals have been able to provide evidence of such change or of the safety of their methods.

Can you explain why one would ignore every major mental health and medical organization?

Because it's the world system.
I didnt attack the medical field, it's a very important asset to humanity.
But I don't believe that alcoholism is a disease because the Bible calls it drunkedness and sinful.

So I choose the Bible over mans attempts to explain sin.
That's all.


sunlover

 

[davedjy]

I know I make all of my spiritual decisions according to mental health workers.

C'mon, you're smarter than that.

Nobody should make decisions that are not wise by Mental institutions either, though. You cannot change your sexual orientation. Did you read my Scriptural interpretation post? I didn't just blindly make comments. So I will just revert that comment back to you "I thought you were smarter than that". You see the reputation? I don't just make comments and people approve of my posts, I back them up, like I am doing now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

Do some research on YOUR END before thinking my posts were not at some level of wisdom.
I have reasons for my beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, and I backed them up with Scriptural interpretations in this thread, not just some "mental health" research comment.

 

[Dannager]

I know I make all of my spiritual decisions according to mental health workers.

C'mon, you're smarter than that.

Sexual orientation isn't a spiritual decision, so what you've said here doesn't apply.

 

[sunlover1]

Nobody should make decisions that are not wise by Mental institutions either, though. You cannot change your sexual orientation. Did you read my Scriptural interpretation post? I didn't just blindly make comments. So I will just revert that comment back to you "I thought you were smarter than that". You see the reputation? I don't just make comments and people approve of my posts, I back them up, like I am doing now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

Do some research on YOUR END before thinking my posts were not at some level of wisdom.
I have reasons for my beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, and I backed them up with Scriptural interpretations in this thread, not just some "mental health" research comment.

You assume that I haven't researched this topic.
You have no idea that I may not live with this problem etc.
I have plenty of exposure (for lack of a better word) to homosexuality.

I read your article and my answer is the same.

You're a Christian, what did God create woman for according to the Bible?

He created her for man.

He did not create men to have sex with men, kids, animals.

Do some think they need to have sex with kids or with other men or with (fill in the blank)?
Yup.

Believe me, I know a lot about this topic as well.
I am sorry for those men who feel oppressed by God that they cannot express their desire to have sex with each other or with kids or what have you.

Christianity is about overcoming the lust of the flesh.

We all have our crosses to bear.
We all struggle, many in the area of sex.

sunlover

 

[sunlover1]

Sexual orientation isn't a spiritual decision, so what you've said here doesn't apply.

You're right, it's about the flesh not about the spirit.

But it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profiteth nothing.

It's just not worth it.
Sex isn't worth it.

 

[Dannager]

You're right, it's about the flesh not about the spirit.

But it's the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profiteth nothing.

It's just not worth it.
Sex isn't worth it.

What does this have to do with the dangers of reparative therapy?

 

[savedandhappy1]

If interpretation were perfectly clear…then no amount of research could affect that clarity or change any interpertation.

2 Cor 4:4
4In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Matt. 13:19
19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

John 8:44
44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Matt. 4 shows us how the devil perverted the scriptures in his tempting of the Lord, in the desert. Also we see in the scriptures above how he hinders the gospel, and is a liar.

Who would want someone to not be saved? Who would want people to believe that something they were doing wasn't a sin? That something can go for any sin, not just homosexuality.

If the father of this world, the devil, perverts the scriptures and hinders the gospel can he not also affect any scientistic findings if it would cause confussion and fighting among the church/body of Christ?
​

 

[sunlover1]

What does this have to do with the dangers of reparative therapy?

I was agreeing with your statement.
Nothing more.

You've seen what I have to say on the subject.

My heart goes out to those btw, who feel that they're bound for life to these homosexual feelings.

So, don't assume I'm some Christian who bashes, I don't.

SL

 

[davedjy]

You assume that I haven't researched this topic.
You have no idea that I may not live with this problem etc.
I have plenty of exposure (for lack of a better word) to homosexuality.

I read your article and my answer is the same.

You're a Christian, what did God create woman for according to the Bible?

He created her for man.

He did not create men to have sex with men, kids, animals.

Do some think they need to have sex with kids or with other men or with (fill in the blank)?
Yup.

Believe me, I know a lot about this topic as well.
I am sorry for those men who feel oppressed by God that they cannot express their desire to have sex with each other or with kids or what have you.

Christianity is about overcoming the lust of the flesh.

We all have our crosses to bear.
We all struggle, many in the area of sex.

sunlover

It always amazes me how people have to revert this back to animals or kids...those are SICK ways of reverting it because those are non consensual and forms of rape. Most pedophiles will admit that they were sexually abused as a child, so it is more of a social cycle than an innate, born thing like homosexuality. Yes, God created man to be w/woman, but lots of things changed after the fall in the Garden of Eden (hence hermaphrodites, diseases, birth defects, etc), lots of things God intended are not being carried out.

You have the right to your opinion as I do mine, so I don't appreciate you saying "I thought you were smarter than that". I am not trying to convert your beliefs either, so I just ask you respect mine.

The majority of the people I talk to here, and that are my friends DO believe it is a sin, but they respect my viewpoints (e.g. Savedandhappy1), and don't try undermining my intelligence in posts, it's common sense of respect.

 

[chris777]

I will reply in detail to what has been asked, but this is the last time I will bother on this particular issue, because it has become clear to me that these replies are more personal attack, and or fools errands, to waste my time, than genuine interest, and given the very hostile, nature of the replies, Its not worth my time to bother with someone only interested in attack.

I read the article. Twice. Then I read it again when you told me to a second time. Then, just to be sure, I did a CTRL-F to find any instances of the words "disease" or "illness" in the whole article. Guess what I found? One instance of "disease". To describe a disease that affects grass. Grass. And it really doesn't matter what the "superstars" think. You claimed that mental health foundations have labeled religion as a mental illness or disease. Please show us evidence of this.
Again:
You have claimed that mental health foundations have labeled religion as a mental illness or disease.

Actually I have not. You however perverted my initial post, which was

And these very same mental health foundations call our very faith a mental illness in many cases, will you side with God, or the "wisdom of men"?

To be clear it was in responce to

Originally Posted by davedjy Guess what? the mental health foundations DO NOT agree w/reparative therapy for gays and bisexuals, they say it is abuse, and have studies to prove it.

I should have "quoted" out foundations, as I was particurlarly refering to the foundational superstars of psychology, that I refered to in later post. Whom laid the groundwork that all of psychology now stands upon.

Considering that Davidjy did not provide specific examples of the
said "mental health foundations" (that you presume I spoke of)
I felt no need to clarify, either. But you apparently took offence, even after I attempted to provide examples so I will clarify now.
in regards to the Wiki article, here are examples you apparently missed during you 2 times reading through it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

William James
U.S. psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910) is regarded by most psychologists of religion as the founder of the field. He served as president of the American Psychological Association, and wrote one of the first psychology textbooks. In the psychology of religion, James' influence endures. His Varieties of Religious Experience is considered to be the classic work in the field, and is worth reading for anyone interested in psychology and religion. Indeed, references to James' ideas are common at professional conferences.

James distinguished between institutional religion and personal religion. Institutional religion refers to the religious group or organization, and plays an important part in a society's culture. Personal religion, in which the individual has a mystical experience, can be experienced regardless of the culture. James was most interested in understanding personal religious experience.

If personal religious experiences were what James preferred, dogmatism was something he disliked. The importance of James to the psychology of religion - and to psychology more generally - is difficult to overstate. He discussed many essential issues that remain of vital concern today.

In studying personal religious experiences, James made a distinction between healthy-minded and sick-souled religiousness. Individuals predisposed to healthy-mindedness tend to ignore the evil in the world and focus on the positive and the good. James used examples of Walt Whitman and the "mindcure" religious movement to illustrate healthy-mindedness in The Varieties of Religious Experience. In contrast, individuals predisposed to having a sick-souled religion are unable to ignore evil and suffering, and need a unifying experience, religious or otherwise, to reconcile good and evil. James included quotations from Leo Tolstoy and John Bunyan to illustrate the sick soul.

William James' hypothesis of pragmatism stems from the efficacy of religion. If an individual believes in and performs religious activities, and those actions happen to work, then that practice appears the proper choice for the individual. However, if the processes of religion have little efficacy, then there is no rationality for continuing the practice.

sounds like an allusion to a mental illness of some sort to me, but obviously that is not enough so we shall continue

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) gave explanations of the genesis of religion in his various writings. In Totem and Taboo, he applied the idea of the Oedipus complex (involving unresolved sexual feelings of, for example, a son toward his mother and hostility toward his father) and postulated its emergence in the primordial stage of human development.
In Moses and Monotheism, Freud reconstructed biblical history in accordance with his general theory. His ideas were also developed in The Future of an Illusion. When Freud spoke of religion as an illusion, he maintained that it is a fantasy structure from which a man must be set free if he is to grow to maturity.

Freud views the idea of God as being a version of the father image, and religious belief as at bottom infantile and neurotic. Authoritarian religion is dysfunctional and alienates man from himself.

Freuds contributions is the neurosis of religion, among others

Carl Jung
The Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875-1961) adopted a very different posture, one that was more sympathetic to religion and more concerned with a positive appreciation of religious symbolism. Jung considered the question of the existence of God to be unanswerable by the psychologist and adopted a kind of agnosticism.

Jung postulated, in addition to the personal unconscious (roughly as in Freud), the collective unconscious, which is the repository of human experience and which contains “archetypes” (i.e. basic images that are universal in that they recur regardless of culture). The irruption of these images from the unconscious into the realm of consciousness he viewed as the basis of religious experience and often of artistic creativity. Some of Jung's writings have been devoted to elucidating some of the archetypal symbols, and include his work in comparative mythology.

Jung had a very broad view of what it means to be empirical. Suppose, for example, that I hear a voice from deity but you do not, even though we are sitting next to each other. If only one person experiences something, for Jung it is an empirical observation. For most contemporary scientists, however, it would not be considered an empirical observation. Because of this, there has been little research in the psychology of religion from a Jungian perspective.

I included him to be thorough, as his view is more towards universalism, (not to mention his contact with some sort of spirit presumably demonic)

Alfred Adler
Austrian psychiatrist Alfred Adler (1870-1937), who parted ways with Freud, emphasised the role of goals and motivation in his Individual Psychology. One of Adler's most famous ideas is that we try to compensate for inferiorities that we perceive in ourselves. A lack of power often lies at the root of feelings of inferiority. One way that religion enters into this picture is through our beliefs in God, which are characteristic of our tendency to strive for perfection and superiority. For example, in many religions God is considered to be perfect and omnipotent, and commands people likewise to be perfect. If we, too, achieve perfection, we become one with God. By identifying with God in this way, we compensate for our imperfections and feelings of inferiority.

Our ideas about God are important indicators of how we view the world. According to Adler, these ideas have changed over time, as our vision of the world - and our place in it - has changed. Consider this example that Adler offers: the traditional belief that people were placed deliberately on earth as God's ultimate creation is being replaced with the idea that people have evolved by natural selection. This coincides with a view of God not as a real being, but as an abstract representation of nature's forces. In this way our view of God has changed from one that was concrete and specific to one that is more general. From Adler's vantage point, this is a relatively ineffective perception of God because it is so general that it fails to convey a strong sense of direction and purpose.

An important thing for Adler is that God (or the idea of God) motivates people to act, and that those actions do have real consequences for ourselves and for others. Our view of God is important because it embodies our goals and directs our social interactions.

Compared to science, another social movement, religion is more efficient because it motivates people more effectively. According to Adler, only when science begins to capture the same religious fervour, and promotes the welfare of all segments of society, will the two be more equal in peoples' eyes.

These views are influential

Gordon Allport

In his classic book The Individual and His Religion (1950), Gordon Allport (1897-1967) illustrates how people may use religion in different ways. He makes a distinction between Mature religion and Immature religion. Mature religious sentiment is how Allport characterised the person whose approach to religion is dynamic, open-minded, and able to maintain links between inconsistencies. In contrast, immature religion is self-serving and generally represents the negative stereotypes that people have about religion. More recently, this distinction has been encapsulated in the terms "intrinsic religion", referring to a genuine, heartfelt devout faith, and "extrinsic religion", referring to a more utilitarian use of religion as a means to an end, such as church attendance to gain social status. These dimensions of religion were measured on the Religious Orientation Scale of Allport and Ross (1967). A third form of religious orientation, has been described by Daniel Batson. This refers to treatment of religion as an open-ended search(Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993). More specifically, it has been seen by Batson as comprising a willingness to view religious doubts in a positive manner, acceptance that religious orientation can change and existential complexity, the belief that one's religious beliefs should be shaped from personal crises that one has experienced in one's life. Batson refers to extrinsic, intrinsic and quest respectively as Religion-as-means, religion-as-end and religion-as-quest, and measures these constructs on the Religious Life Inventory (Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993).

Religious orientation, wonder why that seem familiar?

Erich Fromm
The American scholar Erich Fromm (1900-1980) modified Freudian theory and produced a more complex account of the functions of religion. Part of the modification is viewing the Oedipus complex as based not so much on sexuality as on a “much more profound desire”, namely, the childish desire to remain attached to protecting figures. The right religion, in Fromm's estimation, can, in principle, foster an individual's highest potentialities, but religion in practice tends to relapse into being neurotic.

According to Erich Fromm, humans have a need for a stable frame of reference. Religion apparently fills this need. In effect, humans crave answers to questions that no other source of knowledge has an answer to, which only religion may seem to answer. However, a sense of free will must be given in order for religion to appear healthy. An authoritarian notion of religion appears detrimental.

inferring illness again

had to break it into 2 post to fit

 

[chris777]

I am skipping some segments for space :
but this is also from the wiki site in the previous post

Evolutionary psychology of religion
Evolutionary psychology is based on the presumption that, just like hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, and immune systems, cognition has functional structure that has a genetic basis, and therefore evolved by natural selection. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure should be universally shared amongst humans and should solve important problems of survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand cognitive processes by understanding the survival and reproductive functions they might serve.

Pascal Boyer is one of the leading figures in the cognitive psychology of religion, a new field of inquiry that is less than fifteen years old, which accounts for the psychological processes that underlie religious thought and practice. In his book Religion Explained, Boyer shows that there is no simple explanation for religious consciousness. Boyer is mainly concerned with explaining the various psychological processes involved in the acquisition and transmission of ideas concerning the gods.

Religious persons acquire religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a Zen Buddhist will not become an evangelical Christian or a Zulu warrior without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure seems required - this person will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. Boyer claims that cognitive science can help us to understand the psychological mechanisms that account for these manifest correlations and in so doing enable us to better understand the nature of religious belief and practice. To the extent that the mechanisms controlling the acquisitions and transmission of religious concepts rely on human brains, the mechanisms are open to computational analysis. All thought is computationally structured, including religious thought. So presumably, computational approaches can shed light on the nature and scope of religious cognition.

Boyer moves outside the leading currents in mainstream cognitive psychology and suggests that we can use evolutionary biology to unravel the relevant mental architecture. Our brains are, after all, biological objects, and the best naturalistic account of design in nature is Darwin's theory of evolution. To the extent that mental architecture exhibits intricate design, it is plausible to think that the design is the result of evolutionary processes working over vast periods of time. Like all biological systems, the mind is optimised to promote survival and reproduction in the evolutionary environment. On this view all specialised cognitive functions broadly serve those reproductive ends.

For Steven Pinker the universal propensity toward religious belief is a genuine scientific puzzle. He thinks that adaptationist explanations for religion do not meet the criteria for adaptations. An alternative explanation is that religious psychology is a by-product of many parts of the mind that evolved for other purposes.

speaks for itself

Religion and drugs
James H. Leuba
The American psychologist James H. Leuba (1868-1946), in A Psychological Study of Religion, accounts for mystical experience psychologically and physiologically, pointing to analogies with certain drug-induced experiences. Leuba argued forcibly for a naturalistic treatment of religion, which he considered to be necessary if religious psychology were to be looked at scientifically. Shamans all over the world and in different cultures have traditionally used drugs, especially psychedelics, for their religious experiences. In these communities the absorption of drugs leads to dreams (visions) through sensory distortion.

William James was also interested in mystical experiences from a drug-induced perspective, leading him to make some experiments with nitrous oxide and even peyote. He concludes that while the revelations of the mystic hold true, they hold true only for the mystic; for others they are certainly ideas to be considered, but hold no claim to truth without personal experience of such.

another that speaks for itself

As I said when I initially posted it this page just brushes on the issues, and if you really want to you can look up the individuals themselves and their beliefs in detail.

Support or retract. Those are your options.

Actually it is the corner you are attempting to drive me into, by continually narrowng your focus, and deviating from the main topic, as well as other parts of my own replies, in what appears to be a personal attack, and your tactic of redirection from the main topic of the thread

Oooh, let's take a look!
Hmmm, nope. No mention of any mental health foundation referring to religion as a mental illness.

like I stated you read more into my initial reply than what was actually stated, however this site did have an interesting quote in its own that could quite easily be applied to psychology:

from http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/religion-is-mental-illness.php
Most people's religion is what they want to believe, not what they do believe. And very few of them stop to examine its foundations

Please, provide some evidence that your claim was truthful or do the intellectually honest thing and retract it.

I'll tell you what, I will state that I should have clarified myself better, if you will admit you not really interested, in my replies other than to attack me.

If your claim was truthful you should be able to find a link to a mental health foundation's website containing information regarding their take on religion as a mental illness. It shouldn't be hard to do at all.

I let you lead me off the main topic based on your deviating from another reply in itself

If you just came up with that claim on the spot because you wanted to trash the reputation of otherwise respectable mental health foundations, come clean with it.

Psychology is based upon the workd of secular, thought, and atheism, and everything else has been built upon that.

It'll look better for you than saying nothing, or posting more links that don't support your claim.

you speak of trashing reputations of others, but is that not really your aim of these responces, ignoring certain portions of a reply entirely, (the 12 steps reply I gave you that didn't match your own previous claim) then demanding evidences of other portions to exacting detail?
I'm sorry but I have other things to do with my time than bother with someone who appears to have the very same intent , he derides in others

 

[chris777]

It's called BIASED translations AKA translations. The majority of conservative Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, so I can easily say that they are deceived. I have done a full debate on the subject, I will just give you 2 of the things I have studied, but I have seen all the "clobber passages", and don't agree w/the conservative point, anymore.

I do have some questions based on what you pasted.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

We could give you the word homosexual potentialy being mistranslated, and it would still not remove the fact that fornication is still a sin, whether it be a heterosexual, or homosexual couple commiting it so the translation is technically moot.

Leviticus 18 & 20


Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 read: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Taken out of historic context, these verses seem to clearly condemn sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, or at least male homosexuality. However, very few scriptural experts will contend that these passages apply to modern day homosexual relationships. American Baptist religious professor Tony Campolo, puts it this way, “You have to understand that passages from Leviticus are not a good case for condemning homosexuality. The Old Testament is not a good case because the Old Testament is divided into two kinds of law: moral law and what we call purity codes. Purity codes are what we call kosher laws. And if you read the Old Testament you will find there’s a whole host of kosher laws, of what you can eat, what you can’t eat, what kind of clothes you can wear. All of these are spelled out. There is no question that when Christ came and when Peter preached, that purity codes were put aside. We no longer live kosher lives like our orthodox Jewish friends do. And those who are scholars, even the most conservative of scholars, will argue that the statements in Leviticus that have to do with homosexuality fall into the purity code category. As a matter of fact it comes right after the passage that says that to touch the skin of a dead pig is an abomination, which puts the whole Super Bowl into moral question.”

I kept the reasoning, just to demonstrate how it does not quite fit the actual text itself
lets look at the verses in particular
(after reviewing Lev 20 I realized that technically the following begins with verse 3, but I saw no point in listing all those sins as well)
Lev 18:
[20] Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
[21] And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
[22] Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
[23] Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
[24] Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

Using the reasoning mentioned then, apparently adultry(20), participation in false religion(21)homosexuality(22) beastiality, in both forms are all no longer sin

in Lev 20
[7] Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
[8] And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.
[9] For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
[10] And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
[11] And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[12] And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
[13] If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[14] And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
[15] And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
[16] And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
[17] And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
[18] And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
[19] And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.
[20] And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
[21] And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
[22] Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
[23] And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
There are a whole slew of sins mentioned here, that given the line of thinking presented, have no more reason to be called sin than homosexuality.
How do you seperate homosexuality from the rest, and cleanse it and not the other sins?
there is no indication in the text in these verses that homosexuality is any different than any of the other sins listed, granting it "exclusionary status"

Romans 1
There is an obvious connection between idolatry and homosexual practices in Romans one, and what Paul says here cannot be applied to the kind of relationships created by loving homosexual partners. I don’t think it’s a proper use of the Bible.”

Fornication is still fornication, "Loving" or not

Paul seemed to assume that those whom he condemned in Corinth were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, by giving up their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature.

this whole paragraph presumes that this is coming from paul, and not the Holy Spirit. Not to mention it REQUIRES the "blessing" of psychology

In other words, Paul really thought that those whose behavior he condemned were “straight,” and that they were behaving in ways that were unnatural to them. Paul believed everyone was straight. The concept of loving homosexual relationships was not available in his world. It was something he could not envision.

It could just as easily be stated, that it was going against God's intended design of both male and female, and it was in fact perversion, of the natural order.

Sodom and Gomorrah

First, the city of Sodom was slated for destruction long before this homosexual incident. Ezekial 16:48-50 states it clearly, “As I live, says the Lord GOD, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house, and in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual.

And finally, and most importantly, no other passages in the Bible that refer to the destruction of Sodom ever raise the issue of homosexuality. If indeed the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about sexual morality, then Lot’s gesture to allow his daughters to be raped by the crowd instead of the visitors should put into question its modern moral value.

I'll just mention that the whole town wanted to "know" the angels.
Plus as you mentioned Lot offered his daughters to the crowd.
signifying that it was in fact full of men.
No one (I hope) will dispute the immorality of Lots offer, in itself.
But it does signify the crowd had an apparent homosexual thirst.
As for the cities themselves, I am sure homosexuality, was but 1 of a multitude of their sins, but it was one none the less. I agree It has been used to demonize homosexuals, but that does not change what the scriptures themselves say of it. Obviously Homosexuality is singled out through the ages Given, it was the last sin that is demonstrated, before they receive their judgement.

Gen.19
[1] And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
[2] And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
[3] And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
[5] And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
[6] And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
[7] And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
[8] Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
[9] And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
[10] But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
[11] And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

 

[chris777]

Yes, God created man to be w/woman, but lots of things changed after the fall in the Garden of Eden (hence hermaphrodites, diseases, birth defects, etc), lots of things God intended are not being carried out.

so the solution is to continue to willfully deviate from Gods intention?

 

[Dannager]

I'll tell you what, I will state that I should have clarified myself better, if you will admit you not really interested, in my replies other than to attack me.

"Clarified myself better", my foot. You said that mental health institutions call our faith a mental illness. None do. You made the claim so that you could, without merit, attack a position. I'm glad that you've owned up to not having any support for the statement you made. And you're right, beyond keeping you intellectually honest I have little interest in your replies, though I certainly don't feel that making someone answer for their claims is "attacking", nor do I think any reasonable observer would call it that either.

You said something that wasn't true, because if it went without challenge it would have helped your argument, and I called you on it. That's absolutely all there is to it.

 

[davedjy]

so the solution is to continue to willfully deviate from Gods intention?

NO! who willfully does that? You make it sound like someone rebelliously would choose to be gay. No one can help who they are attracted to. Are you saying that by our natural response of attraction we are being intentionally rebellious to God? lol Show me in the Bible where it addresses same sex attraction OR comdemns a loving same sex, monogamous gay relationship. Guess what? you will miserably fail at trying, as loving, monogamous, gay relationships weren't even recognized till the 19th Century...long after the Bible was written. God's "intentions" still are not carried out everytime a hermaphrodite, AIDS baby, blind, deaf or mute person is born, nonetheless like everything else, He lets it happen, even though He has the power to stop it. If God wanted Homosexuality to stop, it is as simple as stopping that part of defect in the sin line, but yet He doesn't do it.

Fornication is still fornication, "Loving" or not

Fornication back in Biblical times was adultery, incest, and adultery...nonetheless, I will humor that and say that the majority of Gay Christian churches say to wait till marriage, although, I don't know if that is enough since there very few states that do it. It still isn't technically " traditional sex", anyway you look at it, it isn't an actual joining of 2 fleshes like heterosexual sex. Next question?

As for your Leviticus stuff to match, then having sexual relations w/a woman within 7 days of her menstrual cycle would be evil. That is in the same chapter. Furthermore, it is the only verse that says it is "abomination" (abomination=To'ebah=ritual impurity=not a moral violation, otherwise the word "Zimah" would've been used).