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

[Jeremiah]

Nope, it didn't. Can you clearify where this is related to what I said?

Clarification is not needed.

 

[Aqualung]

Clarification is not needed.

Oh, okay, then. I misunderstood what you were trying to do with your statement.

 

[Buttercup]

EXACTLY! Which is NOT (as you stated) the idea that "being gay" is wrong.

I do believe that is YOUR twisting, not mine. I have been VERY consistent in this debate that is not BEING gay that is the sin (and thus, why the scientific result of WHY people are gay is completely moot in this issue). It is the ACTION this is the sin, and the ACTION has no connection at all to BEING.

This is not at all the topic I am wanting to discuss. I already know all this. You've said it, Victor's said it, Dawny's said it. You aren't going to find too many gays who don't want to have sex.

This thread started (as an offshoot from Why Is It Ok To Be Fat But Not Gay? ) because I want to know why gluttony (using the biblical terminology) is tolerated in America when homosexuality is not. Care to give your opinion on the subject? Have you ever thought of a really obese person going to hell simply for being fat?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Have you ever thought of a really obese person going to hell simply for being fat?

No, and I don't think about Gay sex either. It is not a Christians job to judge people. I believe you are hyper focused on sin when you should be more concerned with forgiveness. We are saved by grace not works.

 

[Buttercup]

No, and I don't think about Gay sex either. It is not a Christians job to judge people. I believe you are hyper focused on sin when you should be more concerned with forgiveness. We are saved by grace not works.

I have a feeling you are more liberal than many Christians. I'm not a Christian btw.

And this is a debate forum in case you haven't noticed. We debate subjects that are important to us.

 

[Aqualung]

This thread started (as an offshoot from Why Is It Ok To Be Fat But Not Gay? ) because I want to know why gluttony (using the biblical terminology) is tolerated in America when homosexuality is not.

Ah. I responded to the written question, not understanding the unwritten meaning in your question.

Care to give your opinion on the subject?

Sure:

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays?

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.

For more clearification on this:

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you agree that there is more than one possibility regarding homosexuality and infallibility in the OT, why not be neutral regarding the gay issue?

Just because one accepts the possibility of multiple possibilities does not mean that one agrees are all equal. For example, I can accept the possibility that you are actually a man posing as a woman. It would be quite easy to do on a forum. In fact, I do it all the time. And yet, this possibility is not quite as likely as the fact that you are indeed a woman. Why do I feel like this? There are a number of reasons. One - I don't see that you have any reason to lie. Two - you went through a lot of trouble what with your picture in your profile and all, and I would think that if one were trying to be a gender that they weren't online that they would just keep it more simple. Three - you've mentioned things before that I don't really see as things men would generally say. So, you see, even though I have two possibilites in regards to your sex (you are either a woman as you say or a man pretending to be a woman), the first possibility seems much more likely in my opinion and being neutral on this issue is therefore quite impossible. In the same regard, even though I see multiple possibilites on the the issue of homosexual sex in the Bible, one possibility (that of a corrupt and fallen which gives all people numerous shortcomings and equally numerous strengths when following the law) seems more likely. So, even though there are numerous possibilities, it would require me to throw out all my previously held ideas and thoughts about the Bible in general and Christianity more specifically just to remain "neutral" (a state which I do not find at all superior to actually having a preference).

This very topic is one that I feel people should be neutral about...especially when the science behind it isn't decided. When the definitive answer to anything is unknown ...people should most assuredly remain neutral so as not to look stupid.

The definitive answer to EVERYTHING is unknown, and yet people hold opinions on all things. Nobody will ever have complete knowledge about anything, no matter how inconsequential.

At this point, we started to diverge from the topic at hand with your statement (in post 212) that my ideas were "BS" and the fallacios statement that my position was that "being gay" was a sin, although I still tried dutifully to answer whatever questions you had. I hope this clearifies why I thought I was responding to the question at hand, and allows you the opportunity to correct me.

 

[Buttercup]

At this point, we started to diverge from the topic at hand with your statement (in post 212) that my ideas were "BS"

I never said your ideas were BS. You are wrong. Go back and read it. You said "the definitive answer to EVERYTHING is unknown." I said BS to that. It's a completely untrue statement.

and the fallacios statement that my position was that "being gay" was a sin

I know exactly what you mean....and you know exactly what I mean. We are talking past each other. After much inane posturing, I understand that no matter what science may discover in the future about genetic traits and homosexuality, you will continue to find the "sex act" of gays, sin. No need for further debate.

 

[Aqualung]

I know exactly what you mean....and you know exactly what I mean. We are talking past each other. After much inane posturing, I understand that no matter what science may discover in the future about genetic traits and homosexuality, you will continue to find the "sex act" of gays, sin. No need for further debate.

Exactly. I'm glad we understand each other now.

 

[Jeremiah]

Oh, okay, then. I misunderstood what you were trying to do with your statement.

The principle of sufficient reason is not that hard to grasp, and the correlation to your "fallen and corrupt state" is not a difficult mental leap. If your truly can not grasp the concepts then I suggest you expand your reading.

 

[Aqualung]

The principle of sufficient reason is not that hard to grasp, and the correlation to your "fallen and corrupt state" is not a difficult mental leap. If your truly can not grasp the concepts then I suggest you expand your reading.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, or how it has to do with anything at all that I said. You are leaving out some very important peices of information, perhaps clear in your own mind, but not making the textual jump to my own. Because it seems like you think we are in disagreement, when really we are talking about two completely different subjects. Like, if I say, The sky is blue today, and you say, Ah, but the bench is red, these do not contradict, and in fact we may be in agreement on both, but they are just not the subject at all.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, or how it has to do with anything at all that I said. You are leaving out some very important peices of information, perhaps clear in your own mind, but not making the textual jump to my own.

As I already said..

"If your truly can not grasp the concepts then I suggest you expand your reading." - Jeremiah

Because it seems like you think we are in disagreement, when really we are talking about two completely different subjects. Like, if I say, The sky is blue today, and you say, Ah, but the bench is red, these do not contradict, and in fact we may be in agreement on both, but they are just not the subject at all.

How can you make this assumption when you said?

"I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, or how it has to do with anything at all that I said." - Aqualung

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

If you feel homosexuality is a sin and will accept no other interpretation of it than why do you say this?

The definitive answer to EVERYTHING is unknown, and yet people hold opinions on all things. Nobody will ever have complete knowledge about anything, no matter how inconsequential.

By this statement you have said there is a chance that it is not a sin and that we should keep an open mind to possibilities.

 

[Aqualung]

If you feel homosexuality is a sin

I don't.

and will accept no other interpretation

I have considered many alternate interpretations and accepted them as at least as valid as my own in this debate.


So I guess that settles it. What you said really DID have nothing to do with what I was saying.

 

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by Jeremiah
If you feel homosexuality is a sin

I don't.

Run, Jeremiah, Run!

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't.


I have considered many alternate interpretations and accepted them as at least as valid as my own in this debate.


So I guess that settles it. What you said really DID have nothing to do with what I was saying.

:ignore:

 

[Jeremiah]

Run, Jeremiah, Run!

:run:

 

[Aqualung]

:ignore:

Was that your concession?

 

[Jeremiah]

Was that your concession?

:rainbow1: Lighten up this is not a contest.

 

[Aqualung]

:rainbow1: Lighten up this is not a contest.

But it is a debate. Perhaps a light enough debate that you could clarify and let me know if that was a concession or just a general desire to not continue or what.

 

[roli]

This thread is an offshoot of the "Why Is It Ok To Be Fat But Not Gay?" thread. I thought we'd continue the discussion heading in another direction.

In the days the books of the bible were written science had obviously not yet advanced to the point of knowing that obesity can be genetically passed down. As is true today, there had to have been people in biblical times who might have been accused of gluttony yet were predisposed to obesity because of genetics.....it wasn't their fault.

Because we now know that obesity can be inherited, perhaps society has cut some slack to the culpability of the obese person....they are born that way.

If science discovers that homosexuality is genetically determined, would this change how Christians view gays? Is it not their fault because they are born that way?

Basically what your implying is that God messed up, he made men with male organs for procreation,obviously and rectums to expel waste, naturally, and you want to say that that was the intent or a cause of nature and that a bunch of Christians are to anal to see it,no pun intended.
There are a lot of mutations in the gene pool in today's society,maybe that is the cause as well,along with the sin epidemic.
You seem wise,just look closely at what your alluding to.It is absurd ,to even suggest this is part of the natural cycle of life,it's a perversion at the very least.
Yes ,homsexuality can be influenced,encouraged,pursuaded,promoted etc. unto people,usually young children,but it was not in the DNA,just in the perverted heart of man,along with every other sin according to the bible.

Do you think mankind in their perversion and twisted behavior quite possibly replaced what was natural for that which is unnatural and then turn around and called it normal,natural and even genetic, how convenient,indulge in every act of sexual gradification know to man and call it normal.
Then you must say that about beastiality,incest,pedophiles etc,murder,rapist etc.
Where do you draw the line,you don't and you can't. espcially with homosexuality.

It's not a question you should direct towards Christians,it's God you need to take this up with.
It's funny that everything the bible teaches ,is said by unbelievers, that the Christian said this or that or is against this or that,it's God's word ,He wrote it ,through men they are his commands,follow them or not ,that is your choice ,but refrain from blaming the Christians for making the rules,setting the standards and palcing the 10 commands on men's hearts.

 

[Buttercup]

It's not a question you should direct towards Christians,it's God you need to take this up with.

Can you tell me how to get a hold of God please? I've been wanting to speak with him for as long as I can remember.