Is Being Gay Ok If You're Born That Way?

[Buttercup]

So, this is based on a thread that states that being fat is okay but shouldn't be? Okay, I'll run with that. I'll create a reason why being fat isn't okay - your body is a temple and should be treated thusly. Sure, some people have a genetic predisposition to food addiction or low metabolism or whatever, but that doesn't make them exempt from eternal principles. In the same manner, just because somebody has some sort of genetic predisposition to being homosexual, that doesn't make them exempt from eternal principles, either. It just makes it harder for them to follow X eternal priniciple, but everybody has some sort of physical defect that makes it hard for them to follow some sort of eternal principle. Nobody is exempt from laws just because they're difficult. So, long anser short, it wouldn't change my view.

Not sure if you've read through both threads but I still contend that if science discovers sexual preference is designed/decided "exactly" in the way eye color is.....homosexuality can't be changed.

It would be like me asking you to change your blue eyes to brown because blue eyes are sinful. It can't be done.

 

[Quiddity]

Not sure if you've read through both threads but I still contend that if science discovers sexual preference is designed/decided "exactly" in the way eye color is.....homosexuality can't be changed.

It would be like me asking you to change your blue eyes to brown because blue eyes are sinful. It can't be done.

A HUGE factor you are either ignoring or don't care to focus on is that the color of your eyes has little to nothing to do with your psyche. Sexual orientation is intensely intertwined with it.

Perhaps another analogy will do?

 

[Buttercup]

A HUGE factor you are either ignoring or don't care to focus on is that the color of your eyes has little to nothing to do with your psyche. Sexual orientation is intensely intertwined with it.

Perhaps another analogy will do?

No, I think it's you folks that aren't getting it. It's a hypothetical question. Science DOES NOT know for sure how sexual orientation is determined yet.

 

[Quiddity]

No, I think it's you folks that aren't getting it. It's a hypothetical question. Science DOES NOT know for sure how sexual orientation is determined yet.

You folks? :areyoucra

Umm...ok.

Your hypothetical question isn't doing an equivalent analogy so how could I answer?

 

[Buttercup]

You folks? :areyoucra

Umm...ok.

Your hypothetical question isn't doing an equivalent analogy so how could I answer?

What's funny to me is that non theists understand my question perfectly. It's the religious that don't. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Quiddity]

What's funny to me is that non theists understand my question perfectly. It's the religious that don't. I don't know what else to say.

Yeah, that's it. I just don't get it.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yeah, that's it. I just don't get it.

Is it not a possibility?

 

[Quiddity]

Is it not a possibility?

Absolutely...but those that have conversed with me over the years on this forum, know I am not embarrased or ashamed to admit when I am. It doesn't come difficult to me. But as I made an effort to understand, what else can I do?

BTW, that comment was made as a response to me asking for another analogy, if was really misunderstanding why not mention it from the get go? Maybe it takes too much effort?

 

[Buttercup]

BTW, that comment was made as a response to me asking for another analogy, if was really misunderstanding why not mention it from the get go? Maybe it takes too much effort?

Huh? Mention what?

 

[Aqualung]

Not sure if you've read through both threads but I still contend that if science discovers sexual preference is designed/decided "exactly" in the way eye color is.....homosexuality can't be changed.

You're right, but has nothing to do with my post. Just as a genetic predisposition to being fat can't be changed, neither can homosexuality (in our hypothetical debate). Yet fat people are still under the eternal law of treating their bodies like a temple. It might take them a little extra effort than the next person to keep their ACTIONS in check and to control their weight, but they can do it, and are not exempt from eternal principles. In the same manner, homosexuals are still under the eternal law of heterosexual sex. It might take them a little extra effort than the next person to keep their ACTIONS in check and to control their sexual urges, but they can do it, and are not exempt from eternal principles.

It would be like me asking you to change your blue eyes to brown because blue eyes are sinful. It can't be done.

No it wouldn't, because it's not homosexuality that's a sin. It's homosexual actions. It would be like you asking me to wear sunglasses in the bright sun because burning your eyes is sinful (and lighter coloured eyes are more sensitive to sunlight than darker coloured eyes).

 

[Buttercup]

You're right, but has nothing to do with my post. Just as a genetic predisposition to being fat can't be changed, neither can homosexuality (in our hypothetical debate). Yet fat people are still under the eternal law of treating their bodies like a temple. It might take them a little extra effort than the next person to keep their ACTIONS in check and to control their weight, but they can do it, and are not exempt from eternal principles. In the same manner, homosexuals are still under the eternal law of heterosexual sex. It might take them a little extra effort than the next person to keep their ACTIONS in check and to control their sexual urges, but they can do it, and are not exempt from eternal principles.


No it wouldn't, because it's not homosexuality that's a sin. It's homosexual actions. It would be like you asking me to wear sunglasses in the bright sun because burning your eyes is sinful (and lighter coloured eyes are more sensitive to sunlight than darker coloured eyes).

Thanks for answering, I appreciate it. However, if later sexuality is determined much like eye color or hair color genetically, I will continue to assume (as I do now) God makes no mistakes and that being gay is in his design. That is if I ever believe in God again.

 

[Aqualung]

Thanks for answering, I appreciate it. However, if later sexuality is determined much like eye color or hair color genetically, I will continue to assume (as I do now) God makes no mistakes and that being gay is in his design. That is if I ever believe in God again.

But we live in a fallen and corrupt state, where man is subject to mortality and other corruptions of his physical self. This corruption is a result of the first transgression. I cannot simply deny that the world is corrupt, but it is only by denying this that one can say that "God makes no mistakes and that being gay is in his design". If being gay is a physical characteristic as you hypothesise, why can it NOT be a part of the physical corruption that all humans are subject to since the fall of Adam? I think it's a false dichotomy to say Either homosexuality is not physical or it is physical and God created people specifically to be gay. There is a third option, often overlooked, that it's physical but not caused (or prevented) by God, caused rather by the fallen state in which we all reside and the corruption to which we all are subject.

 

[Jeremiah]

My God demands that you stop being heterosexual. If you are married get a divorce. Do not act heterosexual. Do not have heterosexual thoughts. Heterosexuality is a sin. Become homosexual.


-----------------------------

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates (470-399 BCE)

“Know thyself.” The key to finding value in the prophecies of the oracle was self-knowledge, not a decoder ring.

 

[Buttercup]

But we live in a fallen and corrupt state, where man is subject to mortality and other corruptions of his physical self. This corruption is a result of the first transgression. I cannot simply deny that the world is corrupt, but it is only by denying this that one can say that "God makes no mistakes and that being gay is in his design". If being gay is a physical characteristic as you hypothesise, why can it NOT be a part of the physical corruption that all humans are subject to since the fall of Adam? I think it's a false dichotomy to say Either homosexuality is not physical or it is physical and God created people specifically to be gay.

How about the option of: Men wrote parts of the bible wrong, especially exerpts from the OT? Or is the entire OT infallible in your eyes? What do you think of these verses? Do they still hold truth for today?

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

 

[Aqualung]

How about the option of: Men wrote parts of the bible wrong, especially exerpts from the OT?

Sure, that's another way of breaking down that false dichotomy.

Or is the entire OT infallible in your eyes?

Not at all.

What do you think of these verses? Do they still hold truth for today?

Yes, they still hold truth, just as almost anything holds truth. Heck, even the Satanic Bible holds some truth in my eyes. But these verses also lay out a PHYSICAL law (a lower, physical representation of spiritual laws) that, when taken in conjunction with the New Testament, should not be followed to the letter anymore. The Mosaic law was rescinded (or perhaps expanded on, as Calculus expands upon algebra) by Jesus.

[I do enjoy the comforting regularity with which the homosexual debaters will bring up these Mosaic points, though. Good times.]

 

[Buttercup]

Sure, that's another way of breaking down that false dichotomy.

Is it not just as fair for me to throw out conjectured theories like you?

Not at all.

Tell me how you find the OT fallible?

Yes, they still hold truth, just as almost anything holds truth. Heck, even the Satanic Bible holds some truth in my eyes. But these verses also lay out a PHYSICAL law (a lower, physical representation of spiritual laws) that, when taken in conjunction with the New Testament, should not be followed to the letter anymore.

Do you arbitrarily chose which ones to throw out and which ones to keep? If it's no longer kosher to kill your daughter because she's not a virgin, why isn't it ok to be homosexual?

The Mosaic law was rescinded (or perhaps expanded on, as Calculus expands upon algebra) by Jesus.

The Mosaic law was definitely not rescinded by Jesus.....
"You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven. But whoever teaches and practises them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that your goodness must be a far better thing then the goodness of the scribes and Pharisees before you can set foot in the kingdom of Heaven at all! Matthew 5:17-20

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Mosaic law was definitely not rescinded by Jesus.....
"You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven. But whoever teaches and practises them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that your goodness must be a far better thing then the goodness of the scribes and Pharisees before you can set foot in the kingdom of Heaven at all! Matthew 5:17-20

Romans 7 gives an interesting interpretation of this concept: if a widow remarries, she does not commit adultery because her marriage died with her husband. Paul (or the person purporting to be Paul, but that's a whole other issue) then draws an analogy between that and "dying to sin" by joining in the death of Christ.

IMO, the message is that just as a widow re-marrying does not mean that the law against adultery has been voided, the strict, legalistic interpretation of sin in the OT can be ignored for believers, since it is the law for the living, and believers have died with Christ. The law still exists, but it is no longer applicable to the faithful.

Am I alone in this interpretation? I think what the author writes later (i.e. that in measuring onesself against the yardstick of a fixed code of what is and isn't sin, that one ensures that they will necessarily sin themselves), this seems to be the intended meaning.

 

[Aqualung]

Is it not just as fair for me to throw out conjectured theories like you?

Yeah. That's exactly why I acknowledged your comment and said it was another legitemate way of breaking down the false dichotmy. I'm not sure why you're getting up in arms right now. I agreed with you. Are you simply looking to start a fight?

Tell me how you find the OT fallible?

Short answer - it was written by men. Long answer - start a thread.

Do you arbitrarily chose which ones to throw out and which ones to keep? If it's no longer kosher to kill your daughter because she's not a virgin, why isn't it ok to be homosexual?
The Mosaic law was definitely not rescinded by Jesus.....

No, it was replaced. After all, in the verse you qoute, Jesus says he COMPLETES the law. So, we no longer have to complete it with our sacrifices and clumsy followings. It was completed in christ, and we can move on to bigger and better things. Just like how after I completed my algebra book I was able to move on to my geometry book. Algebra doesn't lose it's meaning. It just has a higher aplication beyond FOIL and the commutative property. It's not that FOIL and the commutative property no longer work - they do, and they're necessary. BUt I can now begin to apply the greater meaning behind these. I no longer have to do problem and problem of simple foiling. Rather, I use these principles in greater mathematical computations.

 

[Buttercup]

Yeah. That's exactly why I acknowledged your comment and said it was another legitemate way of breaking down the false dichotmy.

You didn't say "legitimate" concerning my theory, I thought you were being sarcastic. My bad.

I'm not sure why you're getting up in arms right now. I agreed with you. Are you simply looking to start a fight?

If you thought that was me getting up in arms..it wasn't the case. You will definitely know when I'm really ticked off.

Short answer - it was written by men.

If you acknowledge fallibility because the OT was written by men, then why can't the condemnation of homosexuality be wrong?

No, it was replaced. After all, in the verse you qoute, Jesus says he COMPLETES the law. So, we no longer have to complete it with our sacrifices and clumsy followings.

He explicitly says he comes not to abolish the laws but to complete them....in other words finish what was started. The laws of Moses regarding murder, adultery, etc have not been replaced. But, that's another thread.

If you agree that it was fallible men writing it was justifiable to murder girls who were no longer virgins, a practice we now see as barbarianism, why can't the archaic writings of homosexuality be discarded as well?

 

[Aqualung]

If you acknowledge fallibility because the OT was written by men, then why can't the condemnation of homosexuality be wrong?

I never said that wasn't a possibility. I gave my opinion on the issue, but I never said that was the only possibility. But, I did not realise you wanted me to expound upon every single conceivable possibility, and so my lack of such expounding should not be seen as denial of these possibilities.

He explicitly says he comes not to abolish the laws but to complete them....in other words finish what was started.

Exactly, FINISH. That's exactly what I've said. But, like my math example - once I've finished the algebra book, there's no reason to go back and do fifty FOILing problems. I've progressed past that necessity to where I can concentrate on finding the volumes of spheres. In like manner, the Mosaic law is finished. We've progressed past that to where we can start focusing on turning the other cheek and other things in that same chategory.

The laws of Moses regarding murder, adultery, etc have not been replaced.

Yes they have. The mosaic law of murder states that one who kills should be killed. The higher law of murder states to turn the other cheek. The Mosaic law states that murder is the act of killing somebody, depriving them of life. THe higher law states that even being angry with your brother is murdering him. The mosaic law of adultery has very specific regulations about what is adultery. The higher law states that even lusting after another women is adultery. So, yes, they have been replaced.

But, that's another thread.

Don't state your position and then deny me the opportunity of replying by stating that it's for "another thread". That's just low.

If you agree that it was fallible men writing it was justifiable to murder girls who were no longer virgins, a practice we now see as barbarianism, why can't the archaic writings of homosexuality be discarded as well?

I answered this above.