Would you repent of homosexuality if...

[outlaw]

That's not really up for me to decide. Our Creator knows what's right and what's not. He's the judge. Ask Him. If you would please stop prodding me now, I would appreciate it.

So your saying that condemning the infertile because they cannot “mix seed” and never could is somehow different than condemning gays and lesbains because they cannot “mix seed” and never could

 

[MelindaC]

I couldn't respect or follow a god who would say that, so even if that were to happen I would continue to live my life the way that I do. If at the end of my life there are consequences for loving who I do and making the choices that I have, the I'll accept those consequences with no regrets.

 

[Cian]

If God were to come down *poof* and tell you that homosexuality is wrong, and that you should repent: would you?

I'd like this not to be a debate thread, and to stay nice and peaceful, but I'd definitely like to hear the reasoning for your answers if you feel like posting them.

Absolutely not; any being, supernatural or not, that told me I should repent for acting on what comes natural to myself is not worth being heard. Perhaps I would ask "God" to explain why homosexuality is wrong and why I would need to repent; it would be nice for someone to explain to me why the way I live my life is such an abomination to this god.

 

[Caylin]

Personally, I will probably never believe that homosexuality is an orientation. Humans don't become sexual creatures until puberty. I believe sexuality is developed during childhood.

Oh, and as for the hypothetical, it would be "do."

Well I personally will never believe it is gravity holding me to the ground!

 

[dr.p]

Thanks, Everybody

I'd like to say thanks to all of you, real quick, who have responded with your reasoning and views. It's given me a little clearer perspective on parts of this argument.

Well I personally will never believe it is gravity holding me to the ground!

I would say, "don't take it so personally," but I don't see how you couldn't. Just know that I'm not trying to attack you, or your lifestyle, and I'm sorry if my manner hasn't shown that at all times.

 

[dr.p]

I skimmed this answer before, and I'm sorrry I did, cause it's rooly good.

Trouble is most things people consider 'sins' are voluntary actions. Homosexuality isn't an act one commits, it defines the person. Repenting of homosexuality means repenting of yourself (not of your sins), and being left with a life without love or companionship or sexual/emotional fulfillment....things that are basic to all humans. It's not like telling someone to stop lying or stealing or killing people. If god were real he would know this and either A) would not allow people to be homosexual or B) would not demand repentance.

Paul said we are to die to ourselves daily. Christians are taught, if correctly taught, that their very nature will be changed by the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in them. This was the purpose of Christ's sacrifice: to restore what was lost.

I was an alcoholic, a liar, a thief, and a fornicator. I had a natural tendency to do, and aptitude for those things. I was utterly lost. It took the blood of the Holy Lamb of God, and true repentence to my very nature, in order for me to be changed. It was painful, and many times I did not like it, nor did I want to do it. But it was necessary.

I look back, and I can remember the strong desire to do those horrible things I did, and how many times I truly enjoyed doing them.

Most of those desires have utterly been erradicated from my being, over time. And the ones that are not, are waining, as God works with me. But, I no longer want to do those things, because of Jesus, despite how natural it was for me to want to do them, and to do them.

I also know, now, that before I ever did any of those things, despite my natural urges, I had a choice in them all. I simply made the wrong ones. It makes me sick, now, to think of how many times I shut my conscience down, instead of listening to it.

Because of that experience, what is in the Bible, and not having seen any proof that homosexuality is genetic: I still believe it is a developed part of the human personality, and is something that should, and can, be repented of.

But, I've never been a homosexual. So, I honestly cannot say, and be certain, that it is the same thing. But I've certainly heard people who were homosexual say it's the same thing.

Either way, I hope that explains my view of this whole situation a little better.

You know, it's almost as if the writers of the OT (where most references of homosexuality seem to be found) didn't have an understanding of homosexuality or were merely referring to the act of male rape.

I agree, in part. I'm sure most of them did not have any clue as to the emotional context of the situation was. And they probably didn't care. It was a matter of God telling them what was wrong, and whether or not they would obey.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Absolutely not; any being, supernatural or not, that told me I should repent for acting on what comes natural to myself is not worth being heard. Perhaps I would ask "God" to explain why homosexuality is wrong and why I would need to repent; it would be nice for someone to explain to me why the way I live my life is such an abomination to this god.

Generally speaking and some might say common sense:
When you're given a gift and then go and misuse it, it is disrespectful to the giver. Of course, it would be your choice to do what you wanted with the gift, but it does necessarily make what is chosen also proper.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

1 Corinthians 6:13
"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 6:20
you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

 

[dr.p]

My parents can't have children with each other. No matter how hard they try, they will never have a baby in the natural manner.

I'd better give them a jingle to let them know that their 27+ year marriage is sinful.

Excuse me, but that was in response to someone saying that homosexual couples can procreate. I have not said that homosexuality is sinful because homosexuals cannot procreate.

 

[CSmrw]

I think I know.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I did not pose that homosexuality is unnatural because gays and lesbians cannot procreate with eachother. Nowhere did I say that.

The only thing I put forth was a question: "why would heterosexuality be condemned when it has a clear natural purpose?" That was in a response to whether or not I would repent of heterosexuality.

On that note, YES, I would repent if God told me I was doing/thinking something wrong regarding sex, whatever it may be.

EDIT: I also said that I'm not debating the morality of homosexuality. And I'm not going to in this thread.

I believe your problem is that you think homosexuality is about sex. Change your thinking, and you won't need a hypothetical.

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality. Why the hyper-focus on it?

 

[NateBlack]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chalice_thunder again.

 

[dr.p]

Ok, so what point are you trying to make by saying they can't procreate? What does that have to do with the topic at hand? What relevance does it have?

None. I already told you why I said it.

 

[dr.p]

I believe your problem is that you think homosexuality is about sex. Change your thinking, and you won't need a hypothetical.

The truth of the matter is that homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality. Why the hyper-focus on it?

Actually, yes. I differentiate between affection, and attraction. I have affection for my friends and family. I have affection for + attraction to a spouse. I can have affection for anyone. Attraction, however, depends on my sexuality, which is hetero, which means I like girls. Using that logic, yes, homosexuality is about sex. Or, more specifically, physical attraction.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

So if it has no relevance to the thread, then why argue if homosexuals can have babys the "natural" way? If it has no relevance, why spend time talking about it?

Simply because someone can present a non sequitur, doesn't mean that the reference fits.
A commentary that states homosexuals "can reproduce" by the assistance of the PROPER mating gender only discredits the initiated commentary. It is a self defeated and therefore an irrelevant reference. It isn't connected to infertility and it is connected to non-complementary. It essentially emphasizes that the homosexual model is unbalanced, lopsided.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Actually, yes. I differentiate between affection, and attraction. I have affection for my friends and family. I have affection for + attraction to a spouse. I can have affection for anyone. Attraction, however, depends on my sexuality, which is hetero, which means I like girls. Using that logic, yes, homosexuality is about sex. Or, more specifically, physical attraction.

AHHH - but physical attraction does not automatically translate into sex.

My partner and I have been faithfully coupled for over 21 years now. We were brought together at the very first moment by attraction. Affection soon followed because of our love of God and his Church. (which is where we met!) As the relationship blossomed, yes, sex has been a part of it.

But there is so much more to it, as in any marriage of 2 people:

• we share our blessings and burdens
• we tend to our home and our fabulous dogs
• we entertain friends and family
• we spend time in the same room, sometimes without saying a word
• we serve our congregation
• we sit down and do our bills and taxes
• we argue
• etc.

Get the picture? Sex is not the main theme. We are a union of two people who just happen to have gay orientation. We celebrate the fact that God brought us together and sustains us.

So back to the hypothetical:
Why would God *poof* appear and require us to be something other than he intended for us in the first place?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Nobody is denying that there are men and women in the world, so there really is no relevance to this post.

Actually, the post was addressing another member. There is no relevance with your unsupported assertion that there is no relevance.
See, I can do it too.

Again, nobody has defined sexual immorality in any sort of satisfactory way.

A negative assertion. Illogical and refuted by thread.

Flipping through the Bible, I found a passage where a father offered his virgin daughter up to be "abused" and she was "abused" for an entire night. I would consider that sort of behavior sexual immorality, but obviously the Bible has different views as to what sexual immorality is. Therefore, we have no idea if homosexual sex, much less homosexual relationships, are sinful.

The logic (or lack of) used there is horrid.
No need to refute that which isn't proven true... but why not consider the fact that not everything disclosed in the Bible is a reference of being good. There are follies and falling given to learn by as well.

1 Corinthians 10:8-13
8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel. 11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

Again, vauge to the point of meaningless... How does one "honor God with our body?" I'd think that passage asks none of us to have sex, not just homosexuals.

Truth and facts are not bound by ignorance or a poster's ability to accept it.
IOW - I suggest giving up the repeated presumption to speak as an authority or sole arbitrator in what is true, relevant, fact, etc. The presumption reflects something other than what may be intended.

Your confusion over it meaning that nobody may have sex is void of recognition that God created sex and ordained it within a covenent between a man and woman.

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

AHHH - but physical attraction does not automatically translate into sex.

My partner and I have been faithfully coupled for over 21 years now. We were brought together at the very first moment by attraction. Affection soon followed because of our love of God and his Church. (which is where we met!) As the relationship blossomed, yes, sex has been a part of it.

But there is so much more to it, as in any marriage of 2 people:

• we share our blessings and burdens
• we tend to our home and our fabulous dogs
• we entertain friends and family
• we spend time in the same room, sometimes without saying a word
• we serve our congregation
• we sit down and do our bills and taxes
• we argue
• etc.

Get the picture? Sex is not the main theme. We are a union of two people who just happen to have gay orientation. We celebrate the fact that God brought us together and sustains us.

So back to the hypothetical:
Why would God *poof* appear and require us to be something other than he intended for us in the first place?

Your reasoning is flawed.
Take a pure glass of water.
Place contamination into the water.
The glass of water still has water in it, but the contamination makes the water... get this... contaminated.
IOW - referencing any and all other things apart from the same-gender sex may be all well and good, but it doesn't justify the unjustifiable.

 

[dr.p]

AHHH - but physical attraction does not automatically translate into sex.

My partner and I have been faithfully coupled for over 21 years now. We were brought together at the very first moment by attraction. Affection soon followed because of our love of God and his Church. (which is where we met!) As the relationship blossomed, yes, sex has been a part of it.

But there is so much more to it, as in any marriage of 2 people:

• we share our blessings and burdens
• we tend to our home and our fabulous dogs
• we entertain friends and family
• we spend time in the same room, sometimes without saying a word
• we serve our congregation
• we sit down and do our bills and taxes
• we argue
• etc.

Get the picture? Sex is not the main theme. We are a union of two people who just happen to have gay orientation. We celebrate the fact that God brought us together and sustains us.

So back to the hypothetical:
Why would God *poof* appear and require us to be something other than he intended for us in the first place?

Homosexuality is having a physical attraction to members of the same sex, is it not? I understand there is more to a homosexual relationship than just sex. But part of something being good doesn't make the whole thing good.

If there were no physical attraction, and no sex, you would have a platonic relatioship with this person. Because you have sex, you also have a sexual relationship. As I said before, you can have a platonic relationship with (affection for) anyone and everyone. But physical attraction is not required for a platonic relationship or affection. Neither is affection required for attraction.

Physical attraction is, usually, the root of a sexual relationship. If not, there are intellectual motives behind the sexual relationship, which is a whole other situation entirely.

So, in the hypothetical, and in orthodox Christianity, it's not the platonic relationship, or affection, that is being brought into question. That aspect, in fact, is encouraged more than anything else, in ALL relationships. It's the sexual relationship, and attraction, that is being considered.

The hypothetical, if god is consistent in it, would require that He has always deemed homosexuality wrong, and is informing you of it.

 

[Brennin]

So what does this say about the morality of infertile heterosexuals having any sort of sexual relationship?...or is that “different” somehow?

Having low sperm motility or an inhospitable uterine wall are far cries from lacking complementary gametes, so, yes, it is very different.

 

[dr.p]

So if it has no relevance to the thread, then why argue if homosexuals can have babys the "natural" way? If it has no relevance, why spend time talking about it?

For the same reason you're talking about it: someone brought it up.