Question about gays

Interesting that you mention that Marcia, because I have become alot more aware of that happening lately. It seems that Paul is the target for everything which is totally unfair. Yet often pushed by Islam, they are supposed to be o.k with the words of Christ but not Paul. Which is a nonsense!

 

God put an exclammation mark in history to show how He felt about homosexuality; It is called Sodom and Gommorah. Paul in the first chapter of the first book of his ministry condemns homosexuality. Romans 1: 24-26. He lists there about every other sin of man but before those, in the 26th verse, Paul condemns men lying with men. Something to consider with regard to emphasis.

 

I just joined and I did not want to read this whole thread so if this point is already made forgive me. I noticed you were talking earlier about wheather or not homosexualality was genetic. Did anyone mention studies that were done with identical twins who were separated at birth? In those studies there was a 50 percent chance that if one twin was homosexual the other one was. If it was genetic it would have to be 100 percent, since they are genetically identical. So it can't be genetic. Yet a 50 corralation is pretty high. So there is a bent as some of you say. So there are those people who's orintation is misdirected very early on, leaving them with the impression that they were born that way.

 

Bunyon,

Like you, I did not read the whole thread.

However, I am also bothered that it is implied that God might make them that way from birth. That logic denies the statistical information that is available and the Word of God.

I apologize for not remembering the exact numbers, it has been a while since I studied human sexuality.

From my memory, it was evident that the vast majority of "sexual deviants"(*) were adults that had been introduced to sexuality before they were teenagers. And many more in alternative lifestyles were introduced to sexuality in their early teens (13 - 14 years old).

The saddest excuse for deviant sexual behaviors is that "God did this."


(*) DMSR3-r I think was the last I studied any of this. And at that time, homosexuality was still defined as deviant phsycological behavior.

 

Hey, Bro. Cassidy,

Interestingly, I had a similar conversation with a young man once. He was at the church where I was working with the youth, and his single mom asked me if I would talk to him about some questions that she did not feel comfortable answering. The first question he asked me was, "How do I know whether or not I am gay?" It shocked me, but then I asked him why and he explained that a lot of his friends at school said he was gay because he acted goofy. I explained to him that a homosexual is not one who acts goofy or even has homosexual feelings. It is one who engages in the sexual act. And, unless he has ever engaged in the act, he is not a homosexual. He was very relieved because he had heard about how homosexuality was a sin, and was afraid that he was one. It was kind of funny in a sad way. Our society has so warped this issue that kids are scared and confused. Sadly, if they do not hear the truth from their parents or their church, they will hear the world's lie. That is one of the reasons I believe homosexuality seems so prevalent today.

 

Eunuch:

1) A castrated man employed as a harem attendant or as a functionary in certain Asian courts.

2) A man or boy whose testes are nonfunctioning or have been removed.

None of these three definitions would promote homosexuality, in my opinion, and the only one that might possibly have been present from birth is the man whose testes are nonfunctioning, but that is quite unusual.

 

I may be obtuse, but I see nothing in your definitions that would support this theory.

Since God hates this sin, as He does all sin, I can't see Him creating a man with inborn homosexual tendencies.

 

It could be a result of genetic mutation after the Fall.

There is a genetic link with aggression, alcoholism, and several mental illnesses.

 

Yes, I'm sure that there's a genetic link for that.

 

I hope I don't sound dogmatic. I certainly don't mean to and apologize if I do.

I know I don't WANT to believe people are born that way...

 

I read and article recently in GQ about a gospel singer who turned out to be gay. In the article they quoted the scriptures they thought supported homosexuality as a sin and those that they thought just supported it. One verse they used as justification is when the Ethopean eunuch is baptised by the apostle.

That just left me scratching my head. What does a eunuch have to do with homosexuality? A eunuch is a man with no testecles and no, I repeat, no sex drive. Why would one assume that if a man's testicles are lost for whatever reason he would become homosexual. That is crazy. I am not even sure why eunuchs come up in a conversation about homosexuals. It just goes to show how weak the arguments for a biblical pass on homosexuality are. Tcassady, it seems to me you took quite a leap with were you took that verse. Yet I am glad to see that you are sure about a biblical anathama on homosexuality.

 

Yeah, it's not something that you'd want to be true. If people are born with a genetic predisposition, it means that while they are able to choose their actions, they aren't able to choose their feelings. This means that for a Christian who has always had these feelings, it may never be possible for them to have a spouse and children, and they'll never be able to enjoy the companionship that heterosexual couples have unless they are willing to sin. It's terribly sad.

I think that sexual orientation is to some extent malleable. I've done a good amount of reading on this, and it seems that women are more likely to experience "drift" in their sexual orientation than men. For women sexual attraction seems to be more relational than hard-wired. Men have a harder time modifying their sexual orientation. Some have managed it and have married successfully. I think most of these cases probably involve men who are not highly genetically disposed to same-sex attraction, but instead are psychologically inhibited from attraction towards women. Some of these men do not find women in general attractive, but find themselves attracted to their wives because their love and trust makes the relationship non-threatening.

 

Tcassady,

I'm not a Greek scholar for sure, and it is a mistake to force a 20th or 21st century focus on 1st century events. But I have listened to the experts for years. I have not really heard anyone say that eunuchs were sometimes people who simply refrained from marriage. Can you enlighten me some more. If the Greek can have so many meanings it does not follow that the
Bible utilized all of those meanings. Also, in the office of portecting a harem, it was the lack of functional testicles that made it reasonable to use eunuchs.

In response to other posts. Just because there may be a genetic predisposition does not meant that a man is doomed to homosexuality. One psycologist says he has never met a man who was homosexual who had a loving relationship with his father. So there are environmental factors that cause the predisposistion to come out. So I agree the factors that cause a man to misorient sexually happen very early and it can seem to the man and observers that he was born that way. But the science as I have read it does not justify such a conclusion.

 

Tcassidy,

I am familier with the study (that is why I brought it up), but not all the details. We can dig deeper later if you want. But about the word eunuch. Can you show me anywhere where you know for sure the Bible uses the word in any whay other than for a man that lacks functional testcles? And what would this have to do with homosexuals? Can you show me anywhere in the Greek usage or in the Bible where eunuch is used to describe a homosexual man. Lacking attraction to women dose not equal attraction to men

[ August 21, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]