Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Look, look! Science says it's okay for me to hate!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
APA revises 'gay gene' theory
- Thread starter idea
- Start date
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Smoke, I've discussed this in length on a couple of other threads, and this brings up a topic that deviates considerably from this thread, but since you are among the more intelligent and considerate posters on this forum - and one who rarely resorts to vitriole - I'll try to give you a concise answer.
As many people on this forum know, both my husband and I have been divorced in the past (long before we met each other). Both our spouses were unfaithful to us, in spite of our own individual faithfulness. According to our Christian beliefs (and the beliefs of the majority of Christians), unfaithfulness is a biblical reason for divorce and allows for remarriage.
I believe I know where you're going with this, and I'll try to save you the trouble of pushing the point. In another thread, you asked why it was ok for Christians to divorce and remarry and the church to be so accepting of divorce but not homosexuality. Actually I think that's an excellent question and in some situations I think the church really drops the ball in this area.
For instance, in some cases it's general knowledge that there was no biblical reason for a divorce - especially in a case where there is a blatant affair and a spouse leaves one spouse to marry another. I do not think that a strong Christian church should perform that ceremony. I also don't think that a church should go easy on a couple who is living together instead of getting married. I believe in church discipline - in which the elders attempt to approach the person or persons privately and ask them to change their behavior. If I were in church leadership, I certainly wouldn't give such a person a position of leadership of any sort. I wouldn't kick them out of the church but I wouldn't have them in any sort of teaching position either.
In the case of divorce for biblical reasons - which I believe are adultery, abandonment, abuse, and addiction (and if you'd like to start another thread, I can once again give biblical references and principles as to why I believe these exceptions are biblical), I believe that divorce is sad, and NOT mandatory, but acceptable - as is remarriage, which is also supported biblically.
Sometimes divorce is necessary to protect innocent lives. I believe this is abandonment - and the bible clearly states that a person is allowed to remarry after a divorce due to abandonment or adultery. If one person is FORCED to flee for their own safety - who really abandoned who?
OK, that being said - one more fact is relevant. Divorce is always due to human failings and mistakes - and sin. But a person can repent and be forgiven. Repentance involves a change of heart, and a change of lifestyle. A truly repentant person makes an obvious change in their life, tries to right the wrong to the best of their abilitity, does restitution if possible, and moves forward in a different direction.
Let's use a heterosexual couple for example: Say they are shacking up. They profess to be Christians. Eventually they are convicted in their hearts that this is wrong. They repent - and get married. Is their sin of sex outside of marriage forgiven? Yes.
Let's say they just feel guilty and tell God they're sorry- but they don't get married. Are they truly repentent? I'll leave that for God to decide in the big picture, but in the small picture it doesn't appear so. In my opinion, this couple shouldn't be teaching Sunday School - and if they're offended if the pastor preaches a sermon denouncing sex outside of marriage - well, so be it.
Finally - on the topic of marriage - as you know, I believe that the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman, so the concept of creating a legal homosexual or lesbian marriage doesn't mean anything to me ON A FAITH OR RELIGIOUS LEVEL. Now - if a state passes such a law - great. The people have spoken. A state's laws should reflect the will of the people. Personally, I would DEFINITELY vote for a form of civil union that is protected by law - in which adults who share a household have rights under the law that offer them things such as healthcare benefits, social security benefits, etc.
Personally, I wouldn't call it a marriage, but I have no problem calling it a civil union. Beyond that - why should anyone care WHAT I call it, as long as I am supporting a couple's rights under the law?
As for the church - if a church doesn't accept your civil union as a marriage - that's their right. You can find a church that does, if it's important to you, or start your own church.
I wouldn't feel comfortable in some churches because they have beliefs that differ from mine. Some churches would not allow my husband to be an elder because he's been divorced and remarried. Should we protest that and raise hell in that church - or should we find another church that better fits our belief system?
I know that's a lot more of an answer than you asked for, but in part I'm answering the question you posed on another thread, that I never really got around to, for whatever reason (probably general disgust at the majority of the posters there).
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Let me make one more point. I do NOT hate, despise, disrespect, or discriminate against gays. I believe THAT would be as wrong as I believe sex outside of marriage is wrong. I can't control the actions of other people, but I can control my own actions, and it's my responsibility to treat every individual with respect. What another person chooses to do with their own life is between God and them - I am too busy trying to keep my own life in order without trying to impose my sense of order on THEM.
In other words, I can't get the splinter out of their eye because I have a log in mine. At least I admit this, which is more than a lot of people can do.
I wonder WHY my belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong is so offensive to other people - when I would never dream of imposing that belief on the lives of others, when in fact I even vote for legislation that protects the rights of others who choose lifestyles that differ from mine?
Christianity is my own PERSONAL belief system - it's an ideal that I strive to achieve. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, but the ideal is there before me.
But I believe in the separation of church and state. We should all be free to live out our beliefs with as little interference from the state as possible. The state should only interfere if our religious beliefs infringe on the rights of others to practice their beliefs.
Separation of church and state means that the state should protect our rights to individual belief systems - not keep us from practicing our individual beliefs. Therefore, my personal beliefs should not infringe on Smoke's rights, and vice versa.
In other words, I can't get the splinter out of their eye because I have a log in mine. At least I admit this, which is more than a lot of people can do.
I wonder WHY my belief that sex outside of marriage is wrong is so offensive to other people - when I would never dream of imposing that belief on the lives of others, when in fact I even vote for legislation that protects the rights of others who choose lifestyles that differ from mine?
Christianity is my own PERSONAL belief system - it's an ideal that I strive to achieve. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, but the ideal is there before me.
But I believe in the separation of church and state. We should all be free to live out our beliefs with as little interference from the state as possible. The state should only interfere if our religious beliefs infringe on the rights of others to practice their beliefs.
Separation of church and state means that the state should protect our rights to individual belief systems - not keep us from practicing our individual beliefs. Therefore, my personal beliefs should not infringe on Smoke's rights, and vice versa.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
So letting LGBT people marry is the perfect way to free them from the sin of 'premarital' sex. 
wa:do
wa:do
Smoke
Done here.
Sort of. Jesus allows a husband to divorce his wife for πορνεια -- generally interpreted here as adultery. The Bible makes no provision for a woman to divorce her husband on the same grounds. Unfair, sure, but then the Bible is rather sexist by our standards.
Further, Paul, claiming to speak for the Lord, says that a woman may not divorce her husband, and that if she does she may not marry another:
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
Abuse and addiction are not biblical reasons for divorce. Jesus allows a man to divorce his adulterous wife, and Paul says that a believing spouse should not leave an unbelieving spouse, but "if the unbelieving depart, let him depart."
However, divorce is one thing and remarriage is another. Jesus doesn't forbid divorce in every case -- though he clearly disapproves of it -- but remarriage. The remarried person is living in an adulterous relationship, according to Jesus. And according to Paul, "the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
Clearly, divorce is sometimes necessary. However, the necessity of divorce does not confer the right to remarry. Again, it's not divorce that Jesus forbids, but remarriage. If gay people are expected to live celibate lives, then why would the church bless relationships which Jesus clearly defines as adulterous? Why should straight people not be required to exercise the same continence and restraint that is required of gay people?
That's fine, but has a person truly repented of divorce if he's not willing to be reconciled to his former spouse? Has a person repented of his adulterous second marriage if he continues to live in that adulterous relationship?
I know you distinguish between your religious beliefs and what the law ought to be, I appreciate that. Really, that's all I ask of religious people. But I thought the religious beliefs themselves were worth discussing.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. I think it's both foolish and degrading for gay people to accept membership in anti-gay churches, and that by doing so they not only sacrifice their own dignity, but sanction the churches' disrespect of gay people in general.
It is, and I appreciate the time and effort.
Smoke
Done here.
To me, that's the essential point, and if more Christians believed as you do, I'd have a lot less trouble with Christianity.
Mike182
Flaming Queer
I don't think any of the LGBT supporters on RF have ever denied responsibility for their actions. I certainly don't hate to take on responsibility for my actions, in fact quite the opposite - I want to (and do) take responsibility for myself, and I expect all other people, be they LGBT or in any other pigeon hole, to take responsibility for themselves.
Of course, for everyone to take responsibility for themselves, there needs to be an even legal playing field, where everyone has the same choices/options open to them.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
It certainly appears to be causing you a great amount of heartburn.
What a load of dung. Then again, I expect no less.
Is it "nice" because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, regarding your bigotry?
Last edited:
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Gee. I wonder why Idea would cite them, their article, and their conclusions ...?
Oh - I know!
It's that warm fuzzy feeling again.
Wallow in my ignorant bigotry with me everyone!!
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't know, I would consider accusing them of "making excuses" and "not taking responsibility" for being attracted to and loving people of the same gender is pretty disrespectful and slanderous, as if it were irresponsible or something they needed an excuse for What's your excuse for using a book that instructs people on how to sell their own daughters into sexual slavery (Exodus 21:7-11) as a moral compass, and why aren't you taking responsibility for it?
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
cardero
Citizen Mod
Leaning a purring cat on the stomach of an expected mother will do that.Alcoholics.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Father Heathen, I'm going to address this passage because you continually bring it up, but I am also going to address another issue first:
If you will notice, there are people on this forum who disagree with my views, but who interact with me with common human decency. We enjoy something called "mutual respect," - or at least the semblance of it. I not only feel an obligation to answer their questions and challenges - I genuinely enjoy it, and enjoy getting to know them and their viewpoints.
Then there are the inflammatory, immature, trollish ones. I have very little patience with them, and will rarely respond to them. There's no point in it - they're obviously not here for the same reasons I am, and their sole intention seems to be hurling rhetoric. Their attempts at witticism don't impress me - but they are very telling when it comes to character.
So don't be surprised if you see my responses to a particular person drop off - you'll know the reason, and it WON'T be because they've "won" a debate or point. It will be because I'm not going to stoop to that level of discussion.
Now - for your oft-quoted passage from Exodus 21. Let's look at it:
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
This passage is about bondservants. This practice was often used to pay off a debt. As you surely know - the practices of arranged marriages, doweries, and bondservanthood were common throughout the WORLD up until the 19th century.
A bondservant works for a prescribed number of years to pay off a debt or a purchase of something like land.
A Hebrew could not send his daughter out as a bondservant to a foreigner for any reason. He could send his sons, daughters or himself out only to another Hebrew. The master then had to follow strict regulations as to the treatment of a Hebrew bondservant. In the case of a maidservant, he had to treat her honorably - he could be betrothed to her himself, or she could be betrothed to one of his sons, as part of the deal, but if this was the case, he had to TREAT HER LIKE A DAUGHTER. If this arrangement didn't work out, then he had to release her as a free woman. If he took another wife, he still had to treat her as his wife.
These ancient world customs differ from ours, but it is always a mistake to do serious exegesis on ancient texts through 21st century goggles. Context, context, context.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And Smoke - thanks for the response on divorce and remarriage. I addressed this topic on another thread very recently, and went into great detail on just about every point you raised, supporting each point with scripture from the Bible.
To repost it in a thread that really isn't addressing this very deep topic seems redundant. If you're interested, I will try to find the thread again and give you the name of it so you can see my responses in detail.
I was very confused and distraught about these issues till I really researched them, placing these scriptures into historical perspective, reading and researching the original languages, and the context of each of these often-misread and missapplied passages.
By the way, I have a question for you - do you have a good book or resource that you can direct me to that explains your viewpoints on Christianity and homosexuality? I am truly trying to understand the perspective that many gay people have concerning Christ's acceptance of homosexuality.
As usual, if I find that I am wrong on a matter, I will admit it and change my opinion.
To repost it in a thread that really isn't addressing this very deep topic seems redundant. If you're interested, I will try to find the thread again and give you the name of it so you can see my responses in detail.
I was very confused and distraught about these issues till I really researched them, placing these scriptures into historical perspective, reading and researching the original languages, and the context of each of these often-misread and missapplied passages.
By the way, I have a question for you - do you have a good book or resource that you can direct me to that explains your viewpoints on Christianity and homosexuality? I am truly trying to understand the perspective that many gay people have concerning Christ's acceptance of homosexuality.
As usual, if I find that I am wrong on a matter, I will admit it and change my opinion.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Kathryn....
may I suggest the film/book "For the Bible tells me so"... It may be a good place to start.
For the Bible Tells Me So
wa:do
may I suggest the film/book "For the Bible tells me so"... It may be a good place to start.
For the Bible Tells Me So
wa:do
Smoke
Done here.
Yes, I'm very interested.
Not really. Jesus didn't mention homosexuality or gay people, at least not directly, so any argument that he accepted them would be inferential. That argument can and has been made, but I think it's rather a futile undertaking because of the general Christian attitude toward gay people.
My argument is not that Jesus accepted homosexuality. My argument is that straight Christians selectively interpret the Bible against gay people in at least two ways.
1) Their interpretation of the Bible is more literal when it serves to demonize gay relationships. Any negative reference to homosexuality in the Bible is used to show that homosexuality is strictly forbidden and incompatible with Christianity. They aren't so literal when it comes to anything in the Bible which might affect their own lives. Their eagerness to reinterpret the New Testament teaching on divorce is one example, but there are many others. New Testament teachings that forbid conduct from responding to violence with violence to wearing gold and braiding your hair aren't even considered as issues at all. But they have no trouble at all trotting out the levitical prohibition of male homosexuality, which is virtually the only passage in Leviticus that the average Christian even knows.
2) Their interpretation of the Bible is less literal when that serves to demonize gay relationships. They interpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as God's judgment on homosexuality, for instance, even though the story doesn't warrant that interpretation at all. Likewise with the epistle of Jude. Not content with what the Bible actually says about gay relationships, they eagerly read in condemnations that aren't there.
Whether Jesus would accept gay people if he lived in our time is a question that is not of great concern to me -- though it obviously concerns gay Christians as well as straight Christians who love any gay people.
What offends me is the viciousness of Christians toward gay people -- the way they selectively interpret the Bible to justify their bigotry, the way they refuse to treat gay people as they would be treated and in fact are treated within their churches. There is a clear double standard that is glaring and inexcusable.
However, I do know a lesbian Christian minister who has written a book:
Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians, by Candace Chellew-Hodge
Candace, who was brought up Southern Baptist, is a minister of the United Church of Christ. I haven't read her book, but I've often heard her talk about it, both while she was writing it and after it was finished, and I know that she addresses the passages in the Bible that are used to condemn gay people. Other books Candace recommends, none of which I've read myself, include:
Openly Gay, Openly Christian: How the Bible Really Is Gay Friendly, by Samuel Kader.
Stranger At the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, by Mel White. (Before he came out, White worked for Jerry Falwell.)
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, by Daniel A. Helminiak. (Helminiak is a Roman Catholic priest who works as a psychology professor.)
Stranger At the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, by Mel White. (Before he came out, White worked for Jerry Falwell.)
What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, by Daniel A. Helminiak. (Helminiak is a Roman Catholic priest who works as a psychology professor.)
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Smoke, thanks for that response and please excuse this very short one - I am leaving on vacation tomorrow and haven't had time to look for that other thread or be on the forum at all.
I'll be back on probably Tuesday and I'll get you that thread. I think you may find it interesting.
I'll also get online and check out some of those books that have been recommended by you and others.
PEACE OUT!
I'll be back on probably Tuesday and I'll get you that thread. I think you may find it interesting.
I'll also get online and check out some of those books that have been recommended by you and others.
PEACE OUT!
keithnurse
Active Member
There is a book you can read for free online titled: Christianity and Homosexuality Reconciled. go to Christ Evangelical Bible Institute and click on link for book.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
There does exists a school of pychology called "Nature vs. Nurture." This school of thought exists to determine what aspects of our behavior are determined by our genetic makeup, and/or our environment. Many behavioral aspects, from intelligence, mental disorders, to likes and dislikes, have a heavy bearing on our genetic makeup. And as long as someone is not doing harm to others, there is no reason that "genetic makeup" shouldn't be a valid reason. Now if its a kleptomaniac who is constantly shoplifting, that is another issue.
Myself, as a transsexual and lesbian, I can vouch it isn't a choice. And repression only causes a rather large amount of stress.
The APA also released new theories on transsexualism.
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Zoe.Brain/BGI%203.3.2.ppt
A.E.Brain: Brain Gender Identity - a presentation by Dr Sidney Ecker, MD FACS
To the OP. apparently there is some misunderstanding about how science works. Science makes revisions or clarifications as new or further evidence and research bring to light a more complete understanding of the research topic. As the APA noted based upon "recent" evidence available in 1998 biology plays a "significant role" in sexuality. Note that "significant role" does not preclude other factors, nor does it imply that biology is the only factor. The quote from more recently (I assume as you did not include a date) simply states that there is no consensus among scientists to a an "exact" reason for a persons sexual orientation.
So there is no consensus to an exact reason for sexual orientation. And this means what exactly? If there had been consensus, and one single cause to be identified, would you then accept that homosexuality is indeed a normal expression of human sexuality? or would you lump it under
and still condemn homosexuals?