Questions on homosexuality

I’m writing a paper for school, but I still haven’t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people’s opinions first.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?
The thing is, it seems to me if you are going to say homosexuality is an illness, you could just as easily argue that heterosexuality is an illness, too.
Why doesn’t god like homosexuality? I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?
And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Tobias66 said:

Why doesn’t god like homosexuality? I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?

Click to expand...

I will spare you answering the former and latter questions in depth. To the former, I really don't care, as my greatest concern is Scripture on the matter. I believe that the psychological community is slowly pulling away from the over-freudian application that diagnoses homosexuality as a mental illness, but that's really in my mind a side-item to God's opinion. To the second: No matter the stance on it biblically, there is a difference between action and temptation. Homosexual sex and lust is difference than homosexuality in the same way that straight sex and lust is different from heterosexuality.

To answer "Why doesn't God like homosexuality?" I don't view that he has any issue with it. Here's a summation of my reasoning, drawn largely from Scripture.

Yes, this is preprepared. I have long felt it necessary to have a summation of the general position easily on hand. I will draw up larger documentation on individual points over time, fleshing out the argument, acknowledging accurate counters, etc... Sometimes, I find it useful to reassert the basic paradigm that I operate from, so that those unfamiliar with my position can become familiar with it. It simplifies matters slightly.

We should cover a few things first: (I always feel a need to address these first here. So many make false assumptions based upon my view that it is not a sin.)
1) I am Christian. No matter what you think of my views below, I am a firm believer in the salvation of Christ and have been for almost all of my life.
2) I believe in the original inerrancy of Holy Scripture. In other words, God divinely inspired the apostles and prophets in the writing of the Bible, His chosen words written through their hand. I don’t feel, however, that this also means that X translation is divinely inspired. What was promised was the original Word of God. We have since kept it as well as possible, though imperfections do occur.

3) I can, though with some difficulty, read Greek and Hebrew. Much of my commentary will use words from the original language, so be prepared for this.



Now, let me summarize this argument, because the argument itself will take pages of material even at its most basic. I will post the details of the argument in future postings if necessary, assuming that I am permitted to continue to do so.



A) The Ceremonial Law of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy no longer applies. Because of what is written in the book of Galatians and Paul’s writings in the second chapter of Colossians, we have clear declarations that the ceremonial law is now in the field of Christian liberty. Paul uses a variety of examples to declare this and lists several portions of the law, following with the declaration that all of it was nailed to the Cross and has been removed. This belief is backed up further by the book of Romans and the speeches at the council of Jerusalem in Acts (Chapter 15), along with selected sayings by Christ concerning ceremonial practice. If we decide to pick and choose portions of the ceremonial law to continue in observance as God’s will without clear relation of those parts to the commandments of God referenced in Romans, James and Revelations, then we place ourselves in danger of the ban of Galatians 1:8.



If this is the case, and most of you will find that your pastors will agree with this, unless you are members of the Seventh-day Adventist or similar denominations, then we have a big problem in the debate of homosexual sex as a sin. The problem is simple: The two clearest declarations of homosexual sex as a sin in the Bible are found in chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus. If the ceremonial law no longer applies, then neither do these.



B) Sodom and Gomorrah do not pertain to homosexual sex, and the same can be said of the related story in Judges. The sins of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah are clearly huge. Have you ever seen a city in your lives where the whole male population tried to batter down doors so that they could gang rape guests to the city? I apologize for being so blunt and almost crude, but the point is not a pleasant one, and neither is the story. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were sinful beyond our understanding. These were foul places where such extreme forms of rape were accepted and where the closest thing to a righteous man offers up his daughters to their lusts. Further, the issue also comes up that this is a story more about the complete lack of hospitality and the brutality of the citizens. It is reading too far into the text to say that this passage says anything about homosexual sex. It is speaking of extreme cases that do not apply to homosexual sex.



(Note: Ezekiel 16 is the passage which refers to the sins of Sodom/Gomorrah)



C) The argument of creation (God created them Adam and Eve, so they are meant to be complimentary) suffers from a massive weakness. In chapter three of Genesis, we are told why a man leaves his father and mother to become one flesh with the woman that he loves. We are told similar things in chapter five of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. However, neither passage declares that this must be the only thing. Paul also speaks elsewhere of the joys of celibacy. This indicates that marriage is not required. Without proof that homosexual sex is considered a sin, there is no reason to automatically assume that “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” is actually said in Scripture. The passages only say why heterosexual marriages occur, not that they must be the only ones.



In fact, an important point must be made. Scripture speaks clearly about the need to save sex for marriage. If the Bible has not declared homosexual sex or marriage as sinful, then we have done a vast disservice in refusing homosexual couples the right to marriage. We are, in effect, trying to force them into sinful relationships out-of-wedlock.



D) There are three passages that may speak on homosexual sex in the New Testament. Two are lists of sins, found in chapter six of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and chapter one of his first letter to Timothy. The third, and most important, passage is found in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.



1) The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That’s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the ‘bottom’ partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ‘top’ partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one’s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.



2) Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.



One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.



Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one’s innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.



Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that “shameful lusts” meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman’s understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.



Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.



My arguments are quite basic. This is only an overview of them. I have far more detailed descriptions of the issues involved and will happily offer them. This argument is also not new. You can find websites offering similar interpretations themselves. I came to these conclusions, however, through prayer and consideration with friends, not a website. These positions, also, are hardly universally accepted. There is strong evidence in both directions with regards Romans 1. Some churches still make the claim that parts of the ceremonial law remain intact. There are strong arguments both for and against this.



My single greatest point is this: Can you honestly declare something a sin when you cannot clearly show without serious contention that the Bible declares it to be a sin? When we look at the Ten Commandments, we know basically what they say and don’t argue over them. Christ further explains them during his life, giving us more information about what they mean. We know these things to be sins, and there is little debate. Homosexual sex is found in the ceremonial laws and what few verses speak of it outside of that set of laws are hotly contested. How can we clearly state, based upon these facts, that homosexuality is indeed a sin?

Click to expand...

Tobias66 said:

I’m writing a paper for school, but I still haven’t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people’s opinions first.

Click to expand...

Tobias66 said:

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?
The thing is, it seems to me if you are going to say homosexuality is an illness, you could just as easily argue that heterosexuality is an illness, too.
Why doesn’t god like homosexuality? I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?

Click to expand...

No. Homosexuality is not a mental illness, despite what some Christians will tell you. Consult the experts on the subject - psychiatrists. Homosexuality is not classed by them as an illness, as something to be "cured".

Tobias66 said:

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual, just as you can be sexually active with the opposite sex and still be homosexual. Homosexual and heterosexual are labels that apply to desire, not to activity. A person who "denies" their homosexuality and marries, has kids etc., is still homosexual.

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?

Click to expand...

No, I do not believe that homosexuality is an illness. In the majority of homosexuals, I think it is a perfectly normal, natural sexual expression, and I do not support attempts to label it wrong or bad or sick.

However, if an individual makes a decision that his homosexual orientation is impacting him in a negative way, I would support treatment for that person. I do not believe in "ex-gay", but I think that if someone experimented with homosexuality in their twenties and then determined later that it was not appropriate or the right path for them, treatment should be available. Not because it's a mental illness, but because of the adverse affect it has on the individual. I don't support efforts to make homosexuals "turn straight", but to perhaps help them delve into the deeper issues that determined their choices, and to resolve issues like guilt, shame or anger.

The thing is, it seems to me if you are going to say homosexuality is an illness, you could just as easily argue that heterosexuality is an illness, too.

Click to expand...

I do not believe heterosexuality is an illness. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Heterosexuality is our natural means of procreation, and more people then not are heterosexual. I don't think it's wrong to practice the alternative, but I'm not sure why you would believe the typical sexual orientation is wrong.

Why doesn’t god like homosexuality?

Click to expand...

If God exists, I don't think he dislikes homosexuality. I believe that if there is a God, he is accepting of all people and their choices. The only way he wouldn't approve is if one was using homosexuality to hurt themselves or others, or in a way that was dangerous, such as by sleeping with a lot of partners or being gay as a result of unresolved abuse issues.

I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?

Click to expand...

I think that's pretty much a personal issue. Some people are drawn to those who share many of their same qualities, experiences and likes and dislikes. Others prefer opposites who give them new ways of thinking, new experiences and who can teach them things. In my view, the gender of someone isn't the most important thing. It's what type of personality someone has, what I can learn from them, what values they hold, their interests, etc. I imagine that for some people who choose a same sex mate, it isn't so much about the other person being male or female, but who they are inside.

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual?

Click to expand...

Yes. There is such a thing as experimentation. One time does not a habit make...I forgot who said that but it makes sense. I suppose, techincally, whatever gender your partners are most often determines your orientation. But I don't really know. One friend of mine told me most people are bi at heart, and perhaps that's the truth.

I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them.

Click to expand...

*******edit ****

Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

I guess it matters what kind of love. You can love someone passionately without being in love with them or thinking about them in a romantic way. You can demonstrate physical love without caring for someone at all. I would say that for, say, two men to deeply love one another, to hold hands, to share feelings with one another, to be close beyond normal friendship or brotherhood, etc is completely hetero. If they take it into the bedroom, that is a homosexual act.

Tobias66 said:

I?m writing a paper for school, but I still haven?t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people?s opinions first.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?
The thing is, it seems to me if you are going to say homosexuality is an illness, you could just as easily argue that heterosexuality is an illness, too.

Click to expand...

Psychiatrists don't list homosexuality as an illness. It's a preference. 'Treatment' is almost always unsuccessful and more often than not harmful.
Recommend you looks up the Association of Psychiatrists (sorry, don't know the exact name) But it will look good to reference in a school report.

Tobias66 said:

Why doesn?t god like homosexuality? I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn?t you like someone who is more like yourself?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of varying opinions as to what God says on homosexuality and this board has a number of threads on the subject.

Tobias66 said:

And another thing I?m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don?t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them??

Click to expand...

Mostly it's about orientation, not the act. However, due to the nature of shame and denial instilled by society there are some men who exclusively have sex with men, are attracted to men but refuse to accept they are homosexual

Good luck with the repot. What school is this for?

Ryal Kane

Tobias66 said:

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?

Click to expand...

No, it is not a mental illness according to the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association. I believe it is unethical and irresponsible to treat homosexuality as a mental illness like the ex-gay groups do.

Why doesn’t god like homosexuality?

Click to expand...

I don't believe god (if god exists) has a problem with homosexuality.

I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?

Click to expand...

Well, I won't presume to speak for all homosexuals, but for me it's not about liking someone who is more like myself, it's just who I'm attracted to and feel more comfortable with.

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual?

Click to expand...

Yes, but why would you want to? Sexuality isn't about who you have sex with, it's about who you are attracted to. I can have sex with a man, but that won't make me any less gay.

You ask for opinons, so you shall get one.

Tobias66 said:

Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

Click to expand...

No.

Tobias66 said:

Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?

Click to expand...

To treat the sexual desire? Only if they themselves have a problem
with it, such as 'sexual addiction' or some sort of deep seated issue
that expresses at times of sex. Some homosexuals may need treatment
not for the orientation, but for the self loathing instilled in them from
rejection of whatever they hold dear (parents, friends, religion, etc.)

Tobias66 said:

Why doesn’t god like homosexuality?

Click to expand...

The nicest way I can phrase this is transcriptions of what is believed to be
God's Word have stances against homosexuality. We take it as a matter of
faith whether Deity feels one way or another on something, and use
certain items or instances as support.

Tobias66 said:

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them.

Click to expand...

There are people who identify themselves as opposite-sex oriented although
they engage in same-sex acts (there was a guy on Howard Stern years ago
who identified as hetero, but his sexual partners were predominantly male
because his endowments were intimidating to women, and some men were
willing to accomodate him.) There's the behavior known as "gay for pay,"
wherein someone will engage in same-sex activity for compensation. Sex
without an emotional attachment of some kind starts sliding towards really
intricate masturbation, which would raise the question of if you're respecting
the other person's worth. If you and your partner are fine with the
casual, "physical only" aspect, then I don't see why there's a problem.

Tobias66 said:

Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

For me personally, sexual orientation or preference is a function of who
you're engagning in the behavior with. I identify myself as heterosexual,
as I prefer the intimate companionship of women. As all my sexual partners
have been female, it would be diffcult for me to say that I'm "homosexual."
On the days I'm feeling particularly fluffy-bunny, I think it would be neat
if people only really cared about who you prefer to sleep with when it was
actually relevant. Illustrative anecdote: I used to work in a pizza place.
One night, the delivery driver came back from a run, stating he couldn't
find an address. He and the manager argued about it, and eventually
the manager said "The road goes north right there, coatsacker! (not the
word he used, but the forum has rules)" The driver responded that his
sexual orientation had nothing to do with whether the road turned north.
However, I do feel that everyone has some level of "homosexual" behavior
within them, be it expressed by experimentation at some point, bisexuality,
strong liking or emulation of a particular same-sex person, or self-image.

Tobias66 said:

I’m writing a paper for school, but I still haven’t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people’s opinions first.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

Click to expand...

According to every single medical and behavioral science institution in the United States, it is not a mental illness, as people have mentioned already. Examples:

American Psychiatric Association:

For a mental condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder, it should either regularly cause emotional distress or regularly be associated with clinically significant impairment of social functioning. These experts found that homosexuality does not meet these criteria.

Source

Click to expand...

American Psychological Association:

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.

Source

Click to expand...

Any opinion to the contrary--that homosexuality actually is a mental illness--is simply wrong and completely unsubstantiated by any scientific evidence.

Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?

Click to expand...

No, it is unethical according to every single medical and behavioral science institution in the United States for two reasons: (1) it is completely ineffective and this is relflected by the fact that there are zero scientific, independent studies of organizations purporting to change sexual orientation showing a 1% or higher rate of "success" and (2) it actually causes harm to individuals resulting in higher suicide rates, for example, when people realize that sexual orientation is unchangeable and begin to feel like a failure and unwanted in society. You can read this at the same sources as above so I'm not going to copy and paste anything else from them.

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can be sexually active with the same sex and still be a heterosexual. Similarly, you can be sexually active with the opposite sex and still be a homosexual. Sexual orientation is not a behavior. It is a descriptor of one's inherent attractions.

Thanks everyone, this has been helpful

Tobias66 said:

Questions on homosexuality




I’m writing a paper for school, but I still haven’t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people’s opinions first.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness?

Click to expand...

As a gay man and a psychotherapist let me tell you that there is no evidence to suggest that Homosexuality is a mental illness. In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality form the diagnostic and statistical manual because there existed and to this day there exists no evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness.



http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/guidelines.html

Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?

Click to expand...

the only acceptable or ethical “treatment” involving the sexual orientation of an individual would be assisting that individual to accept him/herself and find personal peace within themselves. No legitimate therapist would engage in therapies designed to alter sexual orientation as it is known that such “therapies” are not only ineffective but in most cases actively damage the person he therapist is supposedly trying to help.



Drs. Michael Schroeder Ariel Shidlo. Interviewed hundreds of men and women who attempted to change their sexual orientation and found: “A significant proportion of reparative therapy patients sustain serious, lasting injuries. Having been misled into thinking that being gay is a mental disorder and something that can be changed if they'll only try hard enough, many people feel doubly flawed when a "cure" eludes them. "Frequently they become very, very depressed," a mental state that in many interviewees triggered such self-destructive behavior as unsafe sex, drug abuse or suicide attempts, Shield reports.

Reparative therapy not only encourages self-hatred but often sours family relationships by spreading the myth that homosexuality results from poor parenting. Some patients suffer spiritually when they cannot do what they're told God requires. And a great many temporarily lose their capacity for real human intimacy. Repressing gay desires creates a void, not a true heterosexual.”

An abstract of this and other studies in this book can be found at:

http://users.psychoanalysis.net/From%20Journal%20Editors/%233313255

http://www.robinrichmond.com/myview/apa.htm

Why doesn’t god like homosexuality?

Click to expand...

I do not believe the Christian God or any God hates anybody. However I do see many Christians attempting to twist their religion to justify their own personal hate.

And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

sexual behavior is not sexual orientation.

Tobias66 said:

I’m writing a paper for school, but I still haven’t decided what position I should take on the issue. I wanted to get other people’s opinions first.
Do you think homosexuality is a mental illness? Should it be treated- is it even ethical to treat homosexuality?
The thing is, it seems to me if you are going to say homosexuality is an illness, you could just as easily argue that heterosexuality is an illness, too.
Why doesn’t god like homosexuality? I thought about it, and it seemed like it kinda of makes sense- why wouldn’t you like someone who is more like yourself?
And another thing I’m confused about- can you be sexually active with the same sex and still be heterosexual? I mean, sex is sex, you don’t have to love someone to do that with them. Are you only homosexual for loving someone of the same sex, or for having sex with them…?

Click to expand...

God doesn't dislike heterosexuality. He only calls it a sin when used simply to gratify one's desires instead of the way he created it to be used. The ONLY relationship in which sex does not cause disease or mental suffering is between two virgins of the opposite sex in a committed relationship. This kind of relationship has the capacity to produce incredible bliss because it is in harmony with the way God created the world. All other sexual relationships can produce disease, disrespect for one's body, using people as objects and pain and anguish when the relationship ends.

Homosexuality:

Christ came not to demolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it!
Christ also taught that if a man commits adultery in his heart, he has already committed it!

Adultery: sex outside of marriage.
homosexuality in most states are not considered legally married, therefore this would constitute adultery.

Pornia: root word for pornography.

The moral laws of how we should live from the old testement are the same, one thing has changed! We no longer have to give blood sacrifices!

The laws of the old testement is the beginning of defining how we should commune with each other.

Example: rape is not mentioned in the new testement, does that make it right?
what about child molestation?

To most of you these comments are outrageous, but if you take away the moral truths, or pick and choose which you wish to follow, how then can you serve, and worship our Lord with your whole mind, heart and soul! Love the Lord your God with all your mind heart and soul! This is stated in both testements! Love your God, then your neighbor, the two highest commandments!!

How can we degrade marriage, there is not one mention of marriage between the same sex! if so would it not be discussed! why do I think this, because marriage is often used as a metaphor in the new testement about the coming of Christ for His Church!

The old and new testement, states that a man must leave his father and mother and be united with His wife! The epistles give clear definition of the roles of church leaders,. I & II Timothy, as well as a husband should treat his wife! and a wife her husband, and the two their children!!

Biblical evidence and logic are there in front of you. I pray that God will give you wisdom and insight by the power of the Holy Spirit!

Question: homosexuality an illness? no a choice as a result of previous family life and role models. I reccomend you read the book Christian Counseling by Ray Collins, very insightful. To lust wold be adultery!

Any further questions please email me Poetics1975@aol.com

Your brother in Christ !

You're a bit like a stream of consciousness here.

Edouard said:

Homosexuality:

Christ came not to demolish the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it!
Christ also taught that if a man commits adultery in his heart, he has already committed it!

Click to expand...

Yet, the apostles end the Mosaic Code in Acts 15 as it pertains to the gentile Christians. Colossians 2 backed that and specified clearly that we shall not permit condemnation. Galatians issued harsh penalties to those who re-established that which was not God's Law or added to it.

What then is God's Law?
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Edouard said:

Adultery: sex outside of marriage.
homosexuality in most states are not considered legally married, therefore this would constitute adultery.

Click to expand...

The legal definition does not pertain. The divine does. The only importance of the legal definition is in the honoring of those in authority.

Is homosexuality, by your stance, not adultery in Massachussettes?

Edouard said:

Pornia: root word for pornography.

Click to expand...

And?

Edouard said:

The moral laws of how we should live from the old testement are the same, one thing has changed! We no longer have to give blood sacrifices!

Click to expand...

Define for me what is moral and what is ceremonial. I already did for you *points to the Law of Love*

Edouard said:

The laws of the old testement is the beginning of defining how we should commune with each other.

Click to expand...

Yet they remain beholden to the interpretations of Christ and the Apostles, unless you feel like condemning the Council of Jerusalem and the epistle writers for teaching the end of the Mosaic Code.

Edouard said:

Example: rape is not mentioned in the new testement, does that make it right?
what about child molestation?

Click to expand...

Law of Love: No, they aren't. Spare me these things. The Law of Love is infinitely clear in such heinous acts that draw harm upon other children of God.

Edouard said:

To most of you these comments are outrageous, but if you take away the moral truths, or pick and choose which you wish to follow, how then can you serve, and worship our Lord with your whole mind, heart and soul! Love the Lord your God with all your mind heart and soul! This is stated in both testements! Love your God, then your neighbor, the two highest commandments!!

Click to expand...

So, what are your feelings on sex during a woman's period, the eating of shellfish and the properties of the kinsman-redeemer as they pertain to the modern legal structure?

Those are indeed the two highest commandments. The whole of the law is seen in them. However, the Mosaic Code is dead and porneia cannot be *******ized to refer to 2 full chapters of a book when it is one of four specific practices condemned in Acts 15 as pertains to pagan practice in Greece.

Have you actually put the Law of Love to the Mosaic Code, or do you simply rely upon that code and assume what your teachers have told you remains remains? I search and look, and that which fits in accordance with the stated will of Christ and the apostles themselves remains.

Edouard said:

How can we degrade marriage, there is not one mention of marriage between the same sex! if so would it not be discussed! why do I think this, because marriage is often used as a metaphor in the new testement about the coming of Christ for His Church!

Click to expand...

Fine metaphor to turn into universal law, considering God gave David his enemies wives, as he states in 1 Samuel 12. Don't take those metaphors too far. The relationship dictated is a metaphor, but to turn that into the motive for the union is to spit upon Song of Songs and Esther (among other writings). To turn that into evidence of the innate superiority of that type of relationship is to ignore the behavior of God concerning it.

Edouard said:

The old and new testement, states that a man must leave his father and mother and be united with His wife! The epistles give clear definition of the roles of church leaders,. I & II Timothy, as well as a husband should treat his wife! and a wife her husband, and the two their children!!

Click to expand...

Christ lauds celibacy, as does Paul. There is no "must" in Genesis. It is a statement of why a man cleaves to a woman, not why they MUST. Please don't add to Scripture.

Edouard said:

Biblical evidence and logic are there in front of you. I pray that God will give you wisdom and insight by the power of the Holy Spirit!

Click to expand...

As do I for you, brother.

Edouard said:

Question: homosexuality an illness? no a choice as a result of previous family life and role models. I reccomend you read the book Christian Counseling by Ray Collins, very insightful. To lust wold be adultery!

Click to expand...

I suppose you have some extensive research to back this claim up?

As for the original questions: No, homosexuality is not an illness. It is not treatable and it cannot be cured. Nor should it be.

Homosexuality:

I do not wish to type an entire section of this book, but highly reccomend it for this forum.

"Christian Counseling" by Gary R. Collins Revised Edition. Chapter 19 pages 278-293.

That aside let us continue.

Massachusetts law was dictated by a judge that broke the law!

I Corinthians 6:7-11

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
Do you not know that the wicked will inherit the kingdom of God? Do not deceive be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor theives nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

First, the greek term homosexuality refers to "coitus with other males."


Romans 1:26-28

..."God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received themselves in due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity...."

King David was a servant of God who both committed sin against God in acts of adultery, as well as served him in his sufferings for doing so! He also was not under the new covenant!

Christ came to fulfill the law and the Prophets, he himself said this. The other arguments in regards to the law in the new testement are that to discontinue the bickering between jews who came to know Christ and the gentiles who came to know Christ. one of the biggest points of this example is circumcision- romans and corinthians cover this extently as well as the epistles!

MAtthew 5:17-20 please read!

The reason I bring the metaphor of Christ and the Church in comparison to marriage is why? Because The apostles compare the two. I Corinthians 7 is explicit on earthly marriage, no mention of a man and a man or woman and a woman? Book of revelations discusses this in detail as well as Jesus' parables.

Last major point: I Timothy chapter 3 lays out the requirements of Edlers and Deacons for the church. There is one common thread in both, "husband of but one wife."

So, I am kind of confused where the misunderstanding is, in view of moral aptitude and lifestyle! There is no mention in all of scripture in regards to two of the same sex being legally and spiritually honoured by God! However the marriag union between man and woman is a honoured vow! Honoured by God! I Corinthians 7. (want more scripture, ask and ye shall receive).

My current study at this point in my life is on the Holy Spirit and the gifts bestowed to us by God. I pray that God will give you wisdom and the knowledge of His word and what His Spirit says. May you all be convicted in your thoughts, and not turned over to the things of this world. This is my prayer for you.

In regards to Judging, Matthew 5-7 discusses this thouroughly, do not judge for you will be judged. However, as Christians we are to encourage change, we are to encourage one another back to righteousness. The word discipline in scripture 9 out 10 times means to encourage to change. The last resort is to not be part of this company, to allow into leadership roles and ect... more on this later ( different topic ).

May God give you all wisdom and knowledge in regards to His Word.
Please pray for me and my wife as we are to have our first child this week

May charis and erienne be with you all!
your brother in Christ David.

The ONLY relationship in which sex does not cause disease or mental suffering is between two virgins of the opposite sex in a committed relationship.

Click to expand...

Sorry to point this out, but you can only lose your virginity once. You can't be in a committed sexual relationship and still be a virgin (which is how what you've written sounds.)

And, actually, I'm not sure I agree anyway. Seems to me that the only way to avoid mental suffering is to go straight from birth to the grave as soon as you're born...

The ONLY relationship in which sex does not cause disease or mental suffering is between two virgins of the opposite sex in a committed relationship.

Click to expand...

I don't know who said that, but I wonder what evidence they have for that. If two virgins of the same sex meet and have an exclusive sexual relationship why should they be prone to sexual disease or mental suffering? Likewise why should two people who have been in previous exclusive relationships and have not been promiscuous be prone to these things?

Tobias66 might find some useful factual information on this website http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#whatis

Karin

Edouard said:

First, the greek term homosexuality refers to "coitus with other males."

Click to expand...

Note: Greek contained no word which compares to the English noun
"homosexual" meaning someone of homosexual orientation. In fact
the word "homosexual" (meaning someone of homosexual orientation)
was not even coined until the late 1800'S by German
psychologists, and introduced into English only at the beginning
of the 1900's. (See Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980,
page 42) However, during scriptural times there were a number of
Greek words to describe homosexual sex acts and the two words
"malakois" and "arsenokoitai" do not appear among them (on
"arsenokoitai" see Boswell, pp 345-346.) http://www.qrd.org/qrd/religion/judeochristian/bible.on.same.gender.sexual.behavior-10.25.94

Edouard said:

Romans 1:26-28

..."God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received themselves in due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity...."

Click to expand...

[font=&quot]Romans 1[/font][font=&quot]

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

***This passage is about Idol worship!***

[/font]Romans goes on to make clear that EVERYONE is depraved and sinful. What clouds the issue is the misuse of the word translated as 'perversion'. The Naughty International Version (NIV) translators will be held accountable for their naughty skewing of scripture. The same word translated here as 'perversion' (plane`) is translated elsewhere as 'in error'...with Jesus saying, "You are IN ERROR because you don't know the scriptures". According to Naughty International Version principles of consistency. It should have therefore been translated "You are perverts/perverted because you don't know the scriptures". Most newer translations have corrected the NIV translators' 'perversion' in Romans 1 to read 'due penalty for their ERROR".

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/
[font=&quot]
[/font]

a) Response one. I left a healthy 3 page commentary on this subject on page 1. Was it so much trouble to read what your opposition actually said? I've addressed this matter before, and I truly detest repeating myself so soon after posting that much information.

Edouard said:

Massachusetts law was dictated by a judge that broke the law!

Click to expand...

Common Law Practice permits jurisprudence of the court systems over the constitutionality of current legal practice in accordance with either federal and/or state constitutions (whichever is appropriate).

So, don't give me the broke the law card on this. While not explicitly written down, Judicial Review is long-standing tradition in the Western Court systems. Don't like it? Leave.

Edouard said:

I Corinthians 6:7-11

Click to expand...

I quote my previous response, since you were so crass as to not address a thing I said in it:

The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That’s all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the ‘bottom’ partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul’s letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. Its usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the ‘top’ partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one’s neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

Click to expand...

At least I defend my translation of Arsenokoites as pederasty. Would you do me the same courtesy? Simply using the septuagint of Leviticus 20 is hardly proof of your claim. You're going to have to do far better than that.

Edouard said:

Romans 1:26-28

Click to expand...

For this one I will again quote my previous commentary, since you again refuse to do me the simple courtesy of either reading my post or responding to it. It was one page ago, and 3 pages isn't THAT long.

Romans 1:18-32 is the key to the argument. However, there are a series of problems with the classic interpretation of the passage.

One, we rarely take verses 26-27 in context with the rest of the passage. The lusts spoken of are the result of godlessness and the refusal of the gospel of God. The godless ones are described as being given over to their passions. This loss of control is key and important to the Greeks and Romans Paul is writing to, and was considered a very bad thing. It is important to realize that the passage is not centered on homosexual relations, no matter how you interpret it.

Two, the relationships are referred to as being unnatural. The term pushin is the Greek word for natural and refers, in general, to that which is according either to socially accepted morals or to one’s innate nature. The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexual relationships to be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural to the Romans would specifically have been something where a citizen was ‘on bottom.’ Such a position degrades the citizen’s status and was considered to be a horrible thing.

Three, the shameful lusts that are spoken of are not specifically described. Unlike Leviticus, where they are listed, the passage assumes that its audience knows what is being spoken of. While Paul is a born and trained Jew, familiar with the ceremonial law, he is preaching to newly converted Christians in Rome and Greece. These people, though somewhat familiar with Jewish beliefs, could not have been considered familiar enough to assume that “shameful lusts” meant what is said in Leviticus. Paul is not a man to leave explanations unclear. When necessary, he goes into great detail and repetition to make his point absolutely clear and understood. Therefore, by context it seems he is speaking to the Roman’s understanding of shameful, the subjugation of a citizen for example. Further, pathos (lusts) does not necessitate a sexual connotation.

Four, the fact that we have women doing things with women instead of men and that we have men doing things with men instead of women is clear from what Paul says in verses 26-27. However, Paul does not at any point say what is being done. He lacks the clarity of Leviticus. Any number of things could be occurring, and without a clear indication that the text is specifically speaking of homosexual sex acts on any level we are familiar with today we cannot claim that Romans 1 clearly declares that the ceremonial law still applies in this case.

Click to expand...

Edouard said:

Christ came to fulfill the law and the Prophets, he himself said this. The other arguments in regards to the law in the new testement are that to discontinue the bickering between jews who came to know Christ and the gentiles who came to know Christ. one of the biggest points of this example is circumcision- romans and corinthians cover this extently as well as the epistles!

MAtthew 5:17-20 please read!

Click to expand...

Acts 15, Colossians 2 and the book of Galatians. Please Read! Either the Mosaic Code remains, as Christ states in Matthew 5 and the Council of Jerusalem must be condemned for heresy, OR He is referring to a different law OR all was fullfilled at the time of the cross and ressurection. I am inclined to the second view, though the third has equal strength. Luther himself agreed on this point. Christ ends sabbath related strictures through action and statement, and calls into question dietary laws. This is not in line with the interpretation that the Mosaic Law remains.

The Law remains in its truth and purity. However, the Law is seen only in the true moral law of Christ. That is: The Law of Love. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

To defy this interpretation produces the unpleasant battle of wills between the Council of Jerusalem (who negated all but four individual items of the Levitical Law) and Christ, who says the law remains.

Edouard said:

The reason I bring the metaphor of Christ and the Church in comparison to marriage is why? Because The apostles compare the two. I Corinthians 7 is explicit on earthly marriage, no mention of a man and a man or woman and a woman? Book of revelations discusses this in detail as well as Jesus' parables.

Click to expand...

Positive blessings and suggestions of one practice are not negative condemnations of the opposite practice. To specify such is to add to scripture and abuse the natural law.

Edouard said:

Last major point: I Timothy chapter 3 lays out the requirements of Edlers and Deacons for the church. There is one common thread in both, "husband of but one wife."

Click to expand...

Job requirements of the Elders and Deacons are not moral obligations for all mankind. Do not turn them into such. All men must not be able to teach. Doesn't Paul say elsewhere "Are all men preachers...?" Is now the gift of preaching the source of legal stipulations for the whole of Christianity?

Edouard said:

May God give you all wisdom and knowledge in regards to His Word.
Please pray for me and my wife as we are to have our first child this week

Click to expand...

As you wish.

Edouard said:

Homosexuality:
Adultery: sex outside of marriage.
homosexuality in most states are not considered legally married, therefore this would constitute adultery.

Click to expand...

so in otherwords, let them get married and they will have the option to not do anything wrong and show love and affection at the same time