Is it sinful to have a Homosexual Orientation?

[rjs330]

you just compared gays to thieves. Racists have a long history of associating blacks with rape. both are pretty horrible and shameful things to do.

I think he's referring to those that practice such things. Practicing homosexuals are no different than practicing thieves. Who are no different than practicing adulterers, who are no different than practicing liars or drunkards. As Paul said, let him that stole, steal no more. I think it would be equally true to say let him that has sex with other men commit that sin no more.

 

[SkyWriting]

I mean a drive which won't take no for an answer, and I have been with men who claim they can't get rid of that driving and nagging stuff which has no regard for their free will.

Also, in Romans 1:18-32 we can read what became of men with men who had refused God. The Bible says they had lust trouble.

Now, you possibly mean to say you have gotten to know every person you are talking about, personally enough so you really know what is going on with each one. And you are guaranteeing every one has told you the truth . . . if every one of them has really talked in detail with you about this.

I have read otherwise. Enough can be not enough. I have been hunted down on the street by gangs and individuals who could be pretty mean when I just let them mind their own business, saying hi or just keeping on walking. One time, on Sunday morning, while I was on the street living with outdoor homeless people as a missionary outreach experiment, a van stopped with guys in it, and one asked me if I knew where they could find homosexuals.

I said, "Wherever you go, there will be homosexuals." And on I went. If people are truly deeply satisfied, why are they hunting down me???? And why do they treat me like dirt when I simply say hi and be kind and sweet to them and then move on?

You say zero; I question that. I have actually spent time with people, in various ways. All humans have been born in sin; all of us have had lust problems, one way or another. When people are fighting and arguing and screaming and cat-fighting over not having things the way they want, this can be connected with how lust demands and expects what it has people wanting. Ones can react very nastily and negatively when their lust is not getting what it drives and demands them to get.

I meant to say that all the homeosexulas that live in my neighborhood (maybe 20% of households) have had zero sexual problems involving the police, in stark contrast to the heterosexuals. I would gladly choose gay neighbors 100% compared to the problems with heterosexuals.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your question assumes it's premise (also known as Begging the Question) which is that there is biological equivalency between heterosexuality and homosexuality. There isn't. People are born heterosexual but they are not born homosexual. Homosexual twin studies, in particular, demonstrate this very clearly. In the case of monozygotic (identical) twins, there is a 50% or less concordance rate of homosexuality. Some twin studies that control carefully for bias have had concordance rates below 30%. If homosexuality is in the genes, there should be a 100% concordance rate of homosexuality between twins who share identical genetics. Clearly, homosexuality - unlike heterosexuality - is not biological in origin.

Any percentage above ZERO shows a biological link.
Black culture does not support gay orientation, yet some blacks are gay. Go figure. In some societies gays are put to death, yet they have gays. Go figure.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think he's referring to those that practice such things. Practicing homosexuals are no different than practicing thieves. Who are no different than practicing adulterers, who are no different than practicing liars or drunkards. As Paul said, let him that stole, steal no more. I think it would be equally true to say let him that has sex with other men commit that sin no more.

There is no statistical link between lawlessness and sexual orientation.
So your analysis fails in the real world.

 

[SkyWriting]

If sexuality is fixed, why do homosexuals regularly try to convert people of heterosexual orientation? Over my lifetime (including when I was a child), I have experienced a number of attempts on my sexual orientation by homosexual men. It seems that sexual fluidity is accepted one direction only.

Wait. What? You mean that no heterosexual has ever approached you?

 

[Zachm531]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19:4-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬


Well He is clear on a proper marriage. And once again, to disagree with Jesus is anti-christian and shows conformity to the culture.

 

[Zachm531]

except for a man and his wives
a man and his concubines
a man and his slave
a man and his widowed sister-in-law
a man and a prisoner of war
a man and the (unmarried) woman he rapes

Just because it is in the Bible doesnt mean it is approved of by God. The entire story if the Bible is how we are sinners and need redemption + rape is never condoned in the Bible

 

[Anguspure]

Wait. What? You mean that no heterosexual has ever approached you?

Shamefully no. The only contact I've had with women (that did lead to marriage) was arranged by 3rd parties. I am not exactly Cassanova, not only have I never been approached, they all run like chickens in the farm yard when I show an interest.
Nevertheless I have been heterosexual and known it since perhaps a younger age than I should have.

 

[Anguspure]

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭19:4-6‬ ‭KJV‬‬


Well He is clear on a proper marriage. And once again, to disagree with Jesus is anti-christian and shows conformity to the culture.

So why then do churches continually try pushing a man into Adam and Steve type relationships when clearly they spend far to much time with men already and above all need the feminine in their lives?
If I was a homosexual I would be in heaven at the moment, with an invitation to every mens group, mens breakfast and whatever other mens man thing going.

 

[Tolworth John]

except for a man and his wives
a man and his concubines
a man and his slave
a man and his widowed sister-in-law
a man and a prisoner of war
a man and the (unmarried) woman he rapes

Even these are not regarded ae the ideal practise, but are a concession to men and to regulate/protect the women.

 

[hedrick]

How can a Homosexual orientation by wrong or sinful ? Surely there’s a difference between homosexual orientation and practice?

It's interesting to see what CF readers think. But conservative churches these days generally do make this distinction. Even if (contrary to evidence) they deny the existence of homosexual orientation, it's obvious that temptation is different from sin.

 

[hedrick]

Your question assumes it's premise (also known as Begging the Question) which is that there is biological equivalency between heterosexuality and homosexuality. There isn't. People are born heterosexual but they are not born homosexual. Homosexual twin studies, in particular, demonstrate this very clearly. In the case of monozygotic (identical) twins, there is a 50% or less concordance rate of homosexuality. Some twin studies that control carefully for bias have had concordance rates below 30%. If homosexuality is in the genes, there should be a 100% concordance rate of homosexuality between twins who share identical genetics. Clearly, homosexuality - unlike heterosexuality - is not biological in origin.

If there is no genetic effect on homosexuality, you would expect to see 3%.

No one that I know thinks there's a "gay gene." There are likely a number of influences, some genetic, some epigenetic, and a variety of others. E.g. there's some evidence for birth order having an effect, though not a strong one.

What matters from an ethical point of view is that people don't normally choose to be gay. That doesn't mean there's a gay gene. It's also only one part of the ethical question. People don't choose to be alcoholics, but it's a behavior that has to be controlled. There's no way to avoid the basic question of whether the behavior should be accepted or rejected. That's not something CF permits to be discussed here.

 

[Anthony2019]

If there is no genetic effect on homosexuality, you would expect to see 3%.

No one that I know thinks there's a "gay gene." There are likely a number of influences, some genetic, some epigenetic, and a variety of others. E.g. there's some evidence for birth order having an effect, though not a strong one.

What matters from an ethical point of view is that people don't normally choose to be gay. That doesn't mean there's a gay gene. It's also only one part of the ethical question. People don't choose to be alcoholics, but it's a behavior that has to be controlled. There's no way to avoid the basic question of whether the behavior should be accepted or rejected. That's not something CF permits to be discussed here.

For me, it's always been a no-brainer that gay people are born that way. Even if you take away the sex and the attractions, a large number of gay people have traits that can easily be observed, such as their speech, gait and posture, for example. Many gay men have traits that are distinctly feminine and many lesbians have traits that are masculine. It's not something they have simply learned. In fact some of them are not even conscious of it. I accept that there are exceptions, but generally speaking, it points towards the idea of sexual orientation as being 'hardwired' - part of one's biology and personality. There have also been studies into things such as hair whorl direction, finger digit ratios, and the structure of the hypothalumus which appear to indicate that there may be biological differences between gay and straight people.

 

[MarcusT]

Of all things one might be lazy in,don't you think this is the most dangerous, with the most at stake?
Eta I ask this in love,not judgement.....

Now I don't understand what you are saying? Are you saying that whether or not I accept homosexual couples is something with the most at stake?

If you really mean that, I must respectfully disagree. There are more important issues than this. See e.g. Matt. 25:31-46.

Like i said, I don't understand homosexuality i.e. why some people are homosexuals. Surely you cannot say that whether or not I accept homosexuality is the single most important decision a Christian must make. Frankly, that sounds obsessive with respect to homosexuality. E.g. Sodom was a serious abomination but not the one and only abomination.

 

[aiki]

Any percentage above ZERO shows a biological link.

No, if there is a biological imperative controlling homosexuality (ie. genes), then there should be a 100% rate of concordance among monozygotic twins. But there isn't. Instead, what research is showing is that homosexuality is driven by psycho-social factors, not biology. It turns out that personality, family dynamics, and social pressures have much more to do with homosexuality than anything biological.

It is telling that you assume "any percentage above zero shows a biological link." The psycho-social factors I've mentioned easily account for what percentage of concordance there is.

 

[aiki]

Black culture does not support gay orientation, yet some blacks are gay. Go figure. In some societies gays are put to death, yet they have gays. Go figure.

God promises death to any who sin but this doesn't stop mankind from being incredibly wicked every day. What's your point?

 

[Rebecca4Christ]

Now I don't understand what you are saying? Are you saying that whether or not I accept homosexual couples is something with the most at stake?

If you really mean that, I must respectfully disagree. There are more important issues than this. See e.g. Matt. 25:31-46.

Like i said, I don't understand homosexuality i.e. why some people are homosexuals. Surely you cannot say that whether or not I accept homosexuality is the single most important decision a Christian must make. Frankly, that sounds obsessive with respect to homosexuality. E.g. Sodom was a serious abomination but not the one and only abomination.

It is a puzzling situation, but like I said, 'I don't have a dog in this fight', so my guess is I will follow the public teaching on this issue, what ever that may be in the near future.

Similarly, I have accepted female priests because they have been a fact as long as I have been a member of my congregation, that is all my life.

I don't know..Maybe I'm theologically lazy or - which is more likely - I'm theologically ignorant. In many controversial issues I have read convincing arguments for and against. It's difficult for a layman like me to adopt a strict position.

 

[Kenny'sID]

you just compared gays to thieves. Racists have a long history of associating blacks with rape. both are pretty horrible and shameful things to do.

Nope, I used thieves as an example, it was merely a place holder for a sin as I clearly explained.. But if changing the subject is easier than discussing the point I made, I understand.

 

[Rebecca4Christ]

Hi Marcus,
No,I was really referring to what you said about being theologically lazy in general,but I realize that might be better left for a different board. I also could have worded it better.

 

[Rebecca4Christ]

Hi Marcus,
No,I was really referring to what you said about being theologically lazy in general,but I realize that might be better left for a different board. I also could have worded it better.

I quoted you but it's gone now...