God's opposition to homosexual behavior. Why?

[shmogie]

Okay so when did you specifically choose to ignore your bisexual urges and go straight?
Those are essentially the implications of choosing to be gay.
Everyone being bi and choosing to be one or the other.

Nonsense.Your sex is biologically determined. Your sex is designed, or is the result of evolution to procreate the species. The appeal of sex is for the same purpose. Only 5-10 % of humans are homosexual. The rest have sex consistent with their biological design, as obviously intended. So, that 5-10 % doesn´t represent the norm ( politically incorrect term ?) Why ? Biological predetermined ? Not proven. Environmental determination ? not proven.Combination of both ? Not proven. Choice ? not proven. You go through your interesting word games and cute semantics because you have made up your mind with no definitive answers. You want it to be the way you want it. To you it is a moral issue, but yet you would be aghast if I used the same justification and you disagreed, I would be immoral in your eyes

 

[Skwim]

Because sex between a man and woman can be a good thing even if it can not end in procreation. If the act supports the divinely instituted state a matrimony, for example, it still does something positive even if it can’t lead to procreation.Take the example of an elderly couple beyond their child bearing age. Their conjugation still gives an example to younger couples that long term monogamy is good and supports committed marriages.

Scripture is quite clear on particular heterosexual sex that is condemned such as incest or rape.

And this is all very nice, but wholly irrelevant.

It is not a homosexual or heterosexual issue as much as it is scripture letting us know what sexual activity is best for people.

Despite your attempt to sweep the homosexual/sin issue under the carpet with a dismissive, unexplained appeal to what the scripture thinks is best, how about addressing the point?

WHY IS GOD OPPOSED TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR?​

Homosexual behavior clearly isn’t the best thing for people according to scripture.

No kidding. According to some Christians it can get one sent to hell.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It sure is “ok” to some to not live up to their eternal potential

What's not "ok" is when someone says they don't want kids and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but." Other people want--and even expect--me to have kids, but I don't want them. My potential and actualized life doesn't include them.

And it certainly does not guarantee a life without doubts and regrets.

No. But there are no doubts that I don't want kids, and no reason to think I'll regret not having them.

Yeah…your focus on “young minds” leads me to think of the words “naive” and “impressionable” again.

Your words, not mine. I think of the young mind more of one that hasn't been shackled and restrained but the demands of society.

The idea that you consciously strive to take advantage of the naive and impressionable disgusts me.

To go from getting kids to ask questions and wonder about things to that is a gigantic leap. You make me sound like a TV preacher.

You injecting your own biases and agenda into these impressionable children (who aren’t even yours) is disgusting to me.

My nieces and nephews aren't my kids, but I've still looked after them for most of my life. Some of them found comfort knowing they aren't alone in the family for questioning, doubting, and denying religion.
As for my children clients, I work for an evidenced-based practice, not a faith-based one.

Why do you hate yourself?

I do? I didn't know that. It will be such striking news when I tell my therapist tomorrow morning that I've been feeling so much better and doing so much better but dammit I hate myself!

You cannot despise children, as you obviously do, without also despising yourself, since you were a child.

I used to hate myself, but I was taught how to by god's word and his flock. But those days are long behind me.
And I'm also very deeply introverted, and have Asperger's. Children often have no concept of boundaries, and are often loud. Those are not necessarily good combinations. Especially when it's taking everything you have to not have a meltdown because kids are being kids.

I would say that anyone who claims that children are a “burden” or a “curse” is incredibly selfish, self-centered and/or evil.

"Curse" is hyperbole, though it's going through your head as a newborn screams and cries throughout the night, but anyone who doesn't think children are a burden either doesn't know the definition of burden or has no realistic idea of the monumental responsibility that is child rearing.
And you may call me evil, some say I do the "work of angels."

The only issue I would have with homosexual couples adopting children is that those children are going to grow up believing that homosexual behavior is acceptable.

Cool! The fewer haters the better.

 

[idav]

And this is all very nice, but wholly irrelevant.


Despite your attempt to sweep the homosexual/sin issue under the carpet with a dismissive, unexplained appeal to what the scripture thinks is best, how about addressing the point?

WHY IS GOD OPPOSED TO HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR?​

No kidding. According to some Christians it can get one sent to hell.

.

What's not "ok" is when someone says they don't want kids and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but." Other people want--and even expect--me to have kids, but I don't want them. My potential and actualized life doesn't include them.

No. But there are no doubts that I don't want kids, and no reason to think I'll regret not having them.

Your words, not mine. I think of the young mind more of one that hasn't been shackled and restrained but the demands of society.

To go from getting kids to ask questions and wonder about things to that is a gigantic leap. You make me sound like a TV preacher.

My nieces and nephews aren't my kids, but I've still looked after them for most of my life. Some of them found comfort knowing they aren't alone in the family for questioning, doubting, and denying religion.
As for my children clients, I work for an evidenced-based practice, not a faith-based one.

I do? I didn't know that. It will be such striking news when I tell my therapist tomorrow morning that I've been feeling so much better and doing so much better but dammit I hate myself!

I used to hate myself, but I was taught how to by god's word and his flock. But those days are long behind me.
And I'm also very deeply introverted, and have Asperger's. Children often have no concept of boundaries, and are often loud. Those are not necessarily good combinations. Especially when it's taking everything you have to not have a meltdown because kids are being kids.

"Curse" is hyperbole, though it's going through your head as a newborn screams and cries throughout the night, but anyone who doesn't think children are a burden either doesn't know the definition of burden or has no realistic idea of the monumental responsibility that is child rearing.
And you may call me evil, some say I do the "work of angels."

Cool! The fewer haters the better.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

Check out this story and video you may enjoy it. Pence got trolled like nobodies business.
John Oliver trolls Mike Pence with a book about a gay rabbit

 

[Skwim]

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.

Okay, but Paul sure did.

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.


. ​

 

[idav]

Okay, but Paul sure did.

Romans 1:26-27
26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.


. ​

Sure but supposedly Christianity is about Christ. Should we call it Paulianity instead?

 

[SomeRandom]

Where is the study

Do you mind if I post this after work?
I'm on my phone and it's a real pain to try to format links

 

[SomeRandom]

Nonsense.Your sex is biologically determined. Your sex is designed, or is the result of evolution to procreate the species. The appeal of sex is for the same purpose. Only 5-10 % of humans are homosexual. The rest have sex consistent with their biological design, as obviously intended. So, that 5-10 % doesn´t represent the norm ( politically incorrect term ?) Why ? Biological predetermined ? Not proven. Environmental determination ? not proven.Combination of both ? Not proven. Choice ? not proven. You go through your interesting word games and cute semantics because you have made up your mind with no definitive answers. You want it to be the way you want it. To you it is a moral issue, but yet you would be aghast if I used the same justification and you disagreed, I would be immoral in your eyes

Sex is not sexual orientation. Sex is male or female or Intersex (I'm sure hermaphroditism fits in there somewhere too.)
In fact having sex is not even the same as sexual orientation. I mean virgins are not recognised as asexual until they hand in their V card.
Homosexuality is defined as an exclusive sexual, romantic, emotional and physical attraction to members of the same sex. Heterosexuality is the same thing but obviously with the opposite sex. Sexual behaviour may or may not reflect sexual orientation.

So I ask again, if homosexuality is truly a choice please tell me when you chose to ignore your bisexuality and chose to be exclusively attracted towards members of the opposite sex. Because otherwise being a choice doesn't seem logical. Unless we are inherently bisexual as a species.

I do not discount environmental factors in determining sexual orientation but for some reason the majority of focus is always on gay people. Bit hypocritical but whatever.

Immoral? I'm no priest my friend. That's between you and your God.

 

[Skwim]

Sure but supposedly Christianity is about Christ. Should we call it Paulianity instead?

Call it whatever you like.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's not technically imprinting though. The term, as far as I know, is only used in the animal world.

Psychologists worldwide have recognized human imprinting regarding sexual desire and fetishes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm saying correlation doesn't imply causation and your agenda to reduce homosexuality to nothing but "abuse reasons" is not motivated by actual study but preconceived notions.

First of all, sexual imprinting doesn't have to be related to abuse. Second of all, sexual imprinting which causes same-sex activity is not limited to homosexuals
Why Some Straight Men Are Romantically or Sexually Attracted to Other Men | HuffPost
Third of all, nowhere does this suggest your previous assertion that more homosexuals come from "damage" of a certain kind.
Third of all, it's ignoring the existence of other factors in the discussion to tunnel vision your own bias.
Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers
The homosexual brain: Structural and functional difference | Version Daily
Homosexuality Might Develop in the Womb Due to Epigenetic Changes
Biological Exuberance

Thank you for those posts.

1. Interestingly, while Huffington is hardly a bastion of conservatism, they agreed with my stance and the Bible's. The reasons listed included sex abuse, broken relationships with same sex parents, and overspilling of lust (in prison, temporary homosexuality).

2. Psychologists recognize that sexual imprinting regarding choice and fetishes is real. Imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

3. There is no "gay gene" and genetic links are heritable traits, not inherited traits. Tall people are more likely to play basketball, a genetic trait, but there is no b-ball gene. Libidinous persons are more likely to have lust spill over to alternative sexual outlets--just as the Bible explained millennia ago. You also missed this in that article: By imprinting themselves on the epigenome, though, environmental influences may powerfully affect how an individual's genes express themselves over the course of his life. Ngun's findings suggest they may interact with genes to nudge sexual orientation in one direction or the other. "The relative contributions of biology versus culture and experience in shaping sexual orientation in humans continues to be debated..." Jesus mentioned the nature of heritable traits regarding sexuality, of course.

4. Finally, and it's not just you, but many people on this thread, there is a double standard of "Gays act out because Christians and homophobes repress them, but no gays ever act out because they were sexually imprinted."

5. No offense, but skeptics skirt what Christians post and don't read their posts. I read yours, let's walk through the Huff list:

Acting out early-childhood sexual abuse: as mentioned

Sex work or escorting: the love of money is a root of many evils

Seeking intensely arousing but personally shameful experiences (e.g., penetration by a dildo, bondage): Romans 1; imprinting

First sexual experience: imprinting as mentioned

Availability/opportunity: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

Father hunger: as mentioned, broken same sex parental bonds

Sexual orientation toward men but emotional/romantic orientation toward women: Romans 1

Narcissism: Romans 1

Sexual addiction: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

Cuckolding: Imprinting

Exhibitionism: Imprinting, often from a lack of same sex parenting and a mother who “dresses up” her child in non-traditional ways

Sexual release in prison: Romans 1 – lust overspilled

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope. I am saying that your idea conflicts with the new PC idea, unconfirmed, that homosexuals are born with the condition. Therefore any idea that it may be based environmental factors shows a change takes place after birth, which is totally unacceptable to those who demand the inevitable, unchanging, predetermined biological homosexual.

Yes, indeed. See my reply elsewhere re: Romans 1, sexual imprinting and broken relationships with same gender parents.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Psychologists worldwide have recognized human imprinting regarding sexual desire and fetishes.

Cite some. Not the term they would use.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yeah I am. Many heterosexual people who were abused by the same sex are still heterosexual.

Call em like I see it. Prove me wrong. Give me cold hard stats from "teh science." Should be easy if what you're saying is true.
Also again sexual orientation doesn't work that way. Many gay people tried heterosexual experiences at very young ages, perhaps it was their first sexual encounter and still turned out to be gay. The opposite is also true. So your pet theory fails right out of the gate. That's not even counting abuse. If we do count it, again many straight victims don't always experience opposite sex abuse. Unless you are suggesting that all abused children turn out heterosexual, gay and bi specifically due to abuse?

I'm talking about close correlation. Not all abused people become abusers or gay or anything else. But imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

You can see a post elsewhere on this thread where I go into the issues in detail.

And repeating, every time I speak with a gay person in depth, they affirm what I've said.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is not a hint of anything like that in a single word I wrote. You are reaching -- for reasons that I don't understand -- for some validation of some theory you have. The simple fact of the matter is, as research clearly shows, that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable. Almost no gay person I have ever met (that includes my life-partner, by the way) experienced anything other than normal family life, normal childhood, in normal school situations -- until, at some age (usually around puberty) they discovered that who they were attracted to, who they fantasized about, were members of their own gender.

And by the way, when I was growing up and discovering this, in the 1950s and 60s, I learned something else, too. That most of the world couldn't understand that, and were terrified by it, and therefore more than willing to be cruel and persecute because of it. I learned -- and I put it to you that this is probably part of where you are coming from -- that many strove not to be "who they were" because the society, or the religion, in which they lived could not and would not accept them. And we humans being social animals, young people threatened with that kind of ostracism were terrified. The very reason that so many came to their religious leaders seeking "conversion" was because their religious leaders hated them and threatened them with a kind of banishment that no human can live with.

In other words, in my view, the problem is not with any person's sexual orientation -- the problem is with how others who don't share that orientation decide to deal with it. Far too often, that dealing has little or nothing to do with the love that religions pretend they're preaching.

Oh, and by the way -- as a young man, I attended a Quaker boarding school throughout high school. And the Quakers, as I recall, were the first Christian sect that basically accepted homosexuality -- all the way back in 1963 when I was still at that school.

You should try it -- love is better than hatred and fear, trust me.

It is a double standard to say "Gays are affected by the psychological imprinting of repressive Christians, but not by the psychological imprinting of sexual experiences in their formative years."

Imprinting is real, and they call Christians science deniers!

I think you need to understand which theory I'm validating. I'm well aware that every gay person I've counseled checked one or both boxes with me for "same sex abuse/indoctrination" or "broken/absent same sex parent". The theory I'm "proving":

"Skeptics don't listen."

You are further misinterpreting your data, although I doubt you've spoken with numerous gays to check on their sexual imprinting and whether their family life was a-okay. I have reasons for doing so, in active witnessing, you get into deeper issues.

It's normal and natural for heterosexuals to fantasize about same sex relationships. Pre-pubescent boys, gay or straight, think girls have "coodies" and look for heroes to admire, often, male figures.

Can I be frank with you? And don't feel like you need to answer on this thread, we can PM or you can simply ask yourself the tough questions. Because you keep talking about "all the gays out there," including your life partner.

Was your first sexual experience with another person pre-pubescent or after puberty? And was it a same sex experience.

Were you any closer to your mother or female guardian than your father or male guardian? You never had trouble communicating with your dad? Because your very post above indicates someone was hassling you in the 50s and 60s because of your orientation...

Where are you on the gay/straight continuum? Because every person I've ever spoken with who has never been opposite sex-minded or "tried to be straight a couple of times", but has ALWAYS been gay, checked 1 or 2 above and hard and tough!

PS. We're talking about love here, REAL love, no fear. "Perfect love drives away fear."

 

[Prestor John]

What's not "ok" is when someone says they don't want kids and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but."

Yeah, it’s similar to someone saying that they don’t want to believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable and you start trying to say "but x, but y, but, but, but, but."

We all have our beliefs and opinions and we all like to share them when the opportunity presents itself.

I believe that our eternal purpose and destiny, and our ability to attain an eternal increase of joy, includes having offspring into eternity.

I believe that you would be happier in a heterosexual relationship that is grounded on the foundation of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That’s my opinion and there is nothing wrong with my sharing it.

Other people want--and even expect--me to have kids, but I don't want them.

As I have said, that is fine.

No one can force you to have kids and you definitely should not have them if you don’t want them and consider them to be “curses”.

One of the reasons that God has placed us here is for us to prove to ourselves who we actually are by living the way we want.

If you do not want to become more like God, no one is going to force you.

However, God wants us to become more like Him because the more we become like Him the more joy we will attain and He wants us to receive an eternal increase of joy.

If you believe you will be happier with your lot, more power to you, but that doesn’t mean what I have been sharing is wrong or that your way of living is ideal.

My potential and actualized life doesn't include them.

Technically, all of us have the potential to procreate and love our children, either in this life or the next.

We all have that potential. It all depends on the choices we make.

No. But there are no doubts that I don't want kids, and no reason to think I'll regret not having them.

You’re right about the first thing. I can’t read your mind. Only you know what you want.

However, it is my opinion, according to my beliefs, that the only way to receive an eternal increase of joy is through our offspring.

We are all the children of God and each of us has added to His eternal joy.

Your words, not mine. I think of the young mind more of one that hasn't been shackled and restrained but the demands of society.

I get where you are coming from, but where do you get off thinking you have the right to decide what “shackles” and “restraints” are appropriate for children that are not yours?

You opting out of having your own children means that you opted out of creating little people in your image.

It is good that you want to help children, but keep your opinions about religion to yourself.

You can come on here and share your opinions about religion all you want, but you were not placed into a teaching/nurturing role to brainwash other people’s kids.

To go from getting kids to ask questions and wonder about things to that is a gigantic leap.

Unless you are teaching a class that is specifically meant to talk about religion, just stick to the curriculum.

Your views on religion do not belong in the classroom.

You make me sound like a TV preacher.

I hope I’m making you sound much worse than a TV preacher.

A TV preacher does not pretend to be anything but a TV preacher.

You are pretending to be whatever it is you are (Are you a teacher?), but you use your platform to preach.

You are not a preacher, so don’t be preaching to other people’s kids.

My nieces and nephews aren't my kids, but I've still looked after them for most of my life. Some of them found comfort knowing they aren't alone in the family for questioning, doubting, and denying religion.

All children go through the “questioning” and “doubting” phase.

They don’t need your help.

As for my children clients, I work for an evidenced-based practice, not a faith-based one.

Oh really?

Then you could show them the evidence that all religions are bad?

Or better yet, can you show them the evidence that your job description includes sharing your views about religion with other people’s kids?

I do? I didn't know that. It will be such striking news when I tell my therapist tomorrow morning that I've been feeling so much better and doing so much better but dammit I hate myself!

Since you are someone’s child, and you hate children, then you hate a part of yourself.

I used to hate myself, but I was taught how to by god's word and his flock. But those days are long behind me.

No where in the scriptures is anyone taught to hate themselves.

And I'm also very deeply introverted, and have Asperger's. Children often have no concept of boundaries, and are often loud. Those are not necessarily good combinations. Especially when it's taking everything you have to not have a meltdown because kids are being kids.

This makes me feel that you may not be mentally capable of working with children.

"Curse" is hyperbole, though it's going through your head as a newborn screams and cries throughout the night, but anyone who doesn't think children are a burden either doesn't know the definition of burden or has no realistic idea of the monumental responsibility that is child rearing.

I have three children and I would never describe them as “burdens” or “curses”. Even in joking.

Each of their little cries is a gift to me.

Besides, what do you know anyway, since you have no children and never want any, how are you qualified to label them as anything?

And you may call me evil, some say I do the "work of angels."

It is evil to consider children burdens and curses as you do.

Cool! The fewer haters the better.

Even though you may be incapable of it, it is easy to disagree with someone and not hate them.

I don’t hate homosexuals.

 

[shmogie]

Sex is not sexual orientation. Sex is male or female or Intersex (I'm sure hermaphroditism fits in there somewhere too.)
In fact having sex is not even the same as sexual orientation. I mean virgins are not recognised as asexual until they hand in their V card.
Homosexuality is defined as an exclusive sexual, romantic, emotional and physical attraction to members of the same sex. Heterosexuality is the same thing but obviously with the opposite sex. Sexual behaviour may or may not reflect sexual orientation.

So I ask again, if homosexuality is truly a choice please tell me when you chose to ignore your bisexuality and chose to be exclusively attracted towards members of the opposite sex. Because otherwise being a choice doesn't seem logical. Unless we are inherently bisexual as a species.

I do not discount environmental factors in determining sexual orientation but for some reason the majority of focus is always on gay people. Bit hypocritical but whatever.

Immoral? I'm no priest my friend. That's between you and your God.

Your premise is faulty. The majority of focus is on homoexuals because they represent a small minority outside the norm.

Christians who wrongly interpret the Bible harp on it, and bring focus on it. Rabid homosexual activists who demand everyone think they way they want, or compromise their free exercise of religion, abandon their right to association, bring focus.

I don't even think about them, except theoretically here. Otherwise I go about my business. If someone wants to know what my faith says about them, I am happy to share. I do find ludicrous and hilarious the permutations that homosexual apologists go through in trying to reinterpret the Bible and Christian history to support homosexuality as being A OK in the faith.

"Sexual orientation" and "gender" are social and political terms driving the nebulous science of psychology bending to social pressures. These terms have little to do with biology or genetics. Is necrophilia a "sexual orientation" ? If so, does that mean it is socially acceptable ? If not, why not ? Would you be pals with a necrophiliac ? How about a pedophile, these folk meet your definition and contrary to popular opinion, in moslem society, by their rules, it is perfectly normal and not harmful. Would you argue that a 60 year old moslem with 11 and 10 year old wives had just a sexual orientation ? Are there any lines that "sexual orientation" cannot cross ? A woman loves her St. Bernard, he loves her, they have sex, she loves that, he loves it. Is that just her sexual orientation ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even if they are born this way, and again, this is a theory, not fact, they still have some conscious say in the matter.

It's not a theory. Just ask anyone how they came to be the sexual orientation that they are. Ask yourself that question. (How funny, given that's back where we started from!).
Why do you think it's so much different than heterosexuality?

I have no conscious say in the matter of my heterosexuality. Do you? How would that work, exactly?

You implied that you couldn´t understand why someone would choose to be a homosexual. I pointed out some choices people make I don´t understand.

We're not talking about whether you like pizza with anchovies or not, for pity's sake.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not sure where you live, but I have many friends and family who live and have lived in a single income household. These things do exist and are becoming more common.

I agree, but as I said, each gender offers things that the other gender is not able to offer no mater how hard one may try. This is not "old school" its how God intended the family to be run. Its a fact, a child has a greater chance at success when they are brought up in a home that consists of one biological mother and father. This is the idea form when it comes to the family. Does this ensure that the child will turn out to be great, no it doesn't, but it increases the odds by a great deal.

Like what?

How do we know your way is the way God(s) intended? And why you assume that's the best way? Just because God said it?

What do you mean by "success" and can you demonstrate that "a child has a greater chance at success when they are brought up in a home that consists of one biological mother and father?" And I guess in this case you'd have to show that they'd be more "successful" than any child raised by gay couples.

 

[Prestor John]

It's not a theory. Just ask anyone how they came to be the sexual orientation that they are. Ask yourself that question. (How funny, given that's back where we started from!).
Why do you think it's so much different than heterosexuality?

I have no conscious say in the matter of my heterosexuality. Do you? How would that work, exactly?


We're not talking about whether you like pizza with anchovies or not, for pity's sake.

There is no choice in regards to same-sex attraction, but people choose to embrace homosexual behavior.