gogogadgetearl

comments

• I think the main factor that should be called into application is the nature vs. nurture standard.  I have been in several discussions with people that assume they are the way they are because they were created that way, the nature effect.  In which case, no matter what age the person is, whether its 15 or 50, that person is a homosexual.  That is, if that's what they believe.
  
  I believe it is a choice, the nurture effect. I think that the rebellious nature of human kind has led people to make the decision, consciously or not, to be romantically linked to a member of the same sex.  If the decision is made consiously, it has been my observation that the person who has made the decision is more adamant about rejecting heterosexuality which can sometimes result in an exaggeration of personality traits of the member of the opposite sex, maybe known as a "flamer", (picture the character of Jack from Will & Grace).  Whereas those who have made the decision unconsciously by some form of conditioning will accept it more as a normal state and be less "flamboyant".
  
  The thing to remember about all of it is that in the Bible it clearly states that homosexuality is a sin in several "clobber passages" (whosoever.org), or singled out verses that practically pimpsmack homosexuality, (Genesis 18:19, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26, I Corinthians 6:9).  Some say that these passages are used in "isogeses" rather than "exogeses", the total examination of a text in terms of context and historical significance.
  
  Whatever the case may be, some people claim that being gay is not so much as sin as the Bible defines in these terms.  One of the features this type of thing uses as justification for homosexuality is overpopulation of a species, and how it is observed within several animal species as a legitimate form of crowd control.  This type of thinking merely assumes that since we are bigger animals than frogs, and our numbers have reached bilions, the need for crowd control exists when techinically, humans only cover roughly 3% of the earth.  If they think their world is overcrowded, they should just move, Kansas has a population density of 4 people per square mile.
  
  Homosexuality is a sin.  God said go out and mulitply, and homosexuality is direct disobedience to his first rule, (keep in mind that emotional, non-sexual relationships still prevent procreation, because their isn't sex).  So, if we look at it in terms of sin, if the man thought about lying at age 40, and did it at age 50, but wasn't even aware of the decision to lie at age 30, then at age 30 he wasn't a liar, but by God, at age 40 he is.  Sin is sin, and it all leads to death.  Jesus came and said love your neighbor as yourself, but he didn't say anything about loving the fact your neighbor is gay, he said tell your gay neighbor about me and my father's saving grace.
  
  This is my first post, and I know it seems kind of cluttered, but the topic comes up all the time in my day to day life, being an art major in a liberal arts school.  I don't mean to offend, as I do not hate the people, I disagree with the way they live and pray they run into an opportunity to let God help them evaulate that lifestyle, whether it is through me or by someone with a little more tact.
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2006.04.12 | 10:25:40am ]
• ...and we should love them just as much as we love our friends who tell little white lies.
  
  well thought out, clary!!  i came to relatively the same conclusion: viewing homosexuality as a sin and defining the boundaries as to when and how in the same manner.
  
  i'd still like to hear other's opinions and their reasoning behind it.
  • posted by: earl, THE earl
  • [ 2006.04.12 | 11:25:55am ]
• Genesis 18:19
  For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
  
  Leviticus 18:22
  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
  
  Leviticus 20:13
  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
  
  Romans 1:26
  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  
  I Corinthians 6:9
  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
  
  Let the "pimpsmacking" begin.
  I understand that for brevity's sake you did not include the verses. So I decided to add the KJV exactly as it is written. Never be afraid to quote a passage rather than a verse in order to get the context of the scripture. On the whole, that was an excellent post.
  
  God (and thus the Bible) is quite clear on His stance on homosexuality - prepare to die! All sin leads to death, but the lifestyle sins are a particular problem. Which can be a strange thing since all sin is equal in God's eyes. For example, if I left my wife (without a divorce) and had an ongoing sexual affair with another woman - that is a lifestyle sin. However, if I shot and killed my wife, I would be released from the bonds of marriage and free to marry another woman. But I am digressing...
  
  According to 1 Cor 10:13, God will not allow a man to be tempted with more than he can bear. So, if God does not tempt man (James 1:13) and the temptation is not so great that we cannot bear it, then it must be a choice on our parts. Therefore, at least scripturally, the "nature" argument is out.
  
  I cannot remember (or do not know) if the Bible talks about child molestation or other forms of nurture causes of homosexuality. I assume there are external forces that act on a man that would cause him to be more prone to homosexual behavior, but in the end, it is his choice. Can you imagine a man, who never had sex, to one day have sex with another man for no reason? It is absurd. In the law, a premeditated crime is punished more harshly than a crime of the moment. Certain crimes can certainly be an accident (not seeing the man you hit with a car), but homosexual sin...no. So, short of being raped, all homosexual sex (or any sex) is premeditated. An idea is not premeditation - dwelling on an idea and forming a plan of action is.
  
  My overall opinion of the matter is this... Homosexuality is not caused by nature nor nurture, but by the conscience premeditation of a man. (This, as well as all points I made, forgives the acts or thoughts made by the insane.)
  • posted by: Bayou
  • [ 2006.04.12 | 8:44:07pm ]
• "'Unwanted' sex-change procedures: Edward Money’s patient (described by Diamond)
  
  normal male infant
  penis irreparably destroyed during circumcision (by a drunken doctor)
  Money advised the parents to raise him as a girl and the parents did (including hormone therapy and reconstructive surgery)
  showed M-type play and toy preferences
  thought he was a boy
  tried to urinate standing up
  rebelled against estrogen therapy during puberty, after which his parents finally told him the truth
  underwent reconstructive surgery to refashion a penis
  now happily married, living as a man"that was taken from this website (http://web.syr.edu/~jaclar01/gender.html)i once had a hard copy of the full story. i think it was originally published in a scientific journal and then a news magazine (like time or usa today, etc) picked it up (that was the version i previously had). i recently had been wanting to find the article again and when earl posted this, i figured i should. unfortunately, this very compact version was all that google returned. nonetheless, in case you were wondering, here is the relevance of the article:in the standard nature versus nurture debate, this article puts gravity toward nature. here's why: the argument that homosexuality is nothing but a choice and/or caused by sexual violation at a young age would follow that a person would either embrace their God-given body and "natural" sexual nature, or reject and rebel against them. it, then is totally up to that particular person, there is no predetermined (set in the DNA) sexual preference. it is all about choice, or, choice based upon certain circumstances. yet, at least in this instance, the person was born a boy, yet raised as a girl. and though this person tried to embrace being a girl (that was discussed in the full article), there was something inside that did not feel "natural" to her/him. you could argue that in this case the person still was simply choosing to reject her "nurture" and chose to rebel against her body's appearance. but you would then be arguing for going against God's design for that person. or, you could argue that God made one special exception in this particular instance and allowed for the person to have an innate sense of male sexuality. but i say that that is ludicrous. If God implanted sexuality on one being, then it is very reasonable to believe he implants it on all beings.Don't get me wrong, I know what the Bible says about Homosexuality (even when printed in the archaic KJV). Likewise, coming from a Psychology background, I know that ONE occurance does not prove anything beyond a doubt. Yet this one case DOES make me question the whole "homosexuality is JUST a choice" idea and therefore makes me question if God would encode certain people with a "gay gene" and others with a "straight gene" and say that "being gay" is a sin. it does not add up for me.Now, to stray slightly away from this for a moment, Pink, of all people, once said something that has stuck with me ever since i first heard it a couple of years ago. it was something to the effect of "right now straight people are getting divorced left and right, yet if two people truly love each other and WILL spend their entire lives together, but happen to be the same sex, too bad for them, we won't allow them to get married." that blew me away (mostly because it came from pink probably). she brings up a great point. i believe same-sex marriages will become legal in the near future, and i believe the stipulations for marriage need to be a lot tougher than what they are, whether man and woman, or same-sex. not only has it gotten too easy to divorce someone, the problem really lies with how easy it is to MARRY someone.okay, tangent over.so, Biblically speaking, it does seem apparent that Homosexuality is a sin.yet i must also point out that the 10 Commandments directly say that murder is a sin, yet there are numerous instances of where God allows one of His servants to KILL another person and even blesses them. additionally, Revelation speaks of the 4 corners of the earth--which we all know is a figurative statement (though 1500 years ago, people were killed for saying such a thing). i bring these things up to show that we must consider that what the scribes of the Bible put down sometimes depends on those individuals' understanding of God and what He has told them, or maybe God communicated those things to them in that particular way because it was all that they could understand. why did God say in the Old Testament that it is a vile sin to eat pork? was it truly evil? or was it for their own protection? if it WAS truly evil, why is it okay now? likewise, though in the OT and NT, homosexuality is written to be an abomination, perhaps, with the development of scientific studies showing that it is deeper than just a choice or a "sinful desire", we shall need to rethink on that as well.and finally, even if homosexualiy is truly a sin, it is still a forgiveable sin. even if it is a lifestyle sin, it is forgiveable, for as Christ said, the only unforgiveable one is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
  • posted by: casey
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 12:06:42am ]
• I understand the point you were trying to make, but please don't make up numbers. The population density of Kansas according to the 2000 U.S. census is 33 persons per square mile. Census Info
  As for humans covering 3% of the earth...there is a LOT of ocean out there. Are you including that? Are you talking about the population density of the earth? That would be 105 persons per square mile (not including ocean). About.com
  I am aware my second source is not as reliable.
  • posted by: Bayou
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 5:44:21am ]
• The inherent flaw in the Literalist Christian's point of view is that they believe the Bible is 100% truth because...the Bible says it's 100% truth.  Why, then, should I, as a non-Christian, believe that what you quote from the Bible is truth?
  • posted by: Anonymous Coward
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 6:49:17am ]
• Here are a couple of websites that tell why people should believe in the Bible and there are also plenty of books showing the scientific proof of the Bible.  But what it really boils down to is being a converted Christian.  If you are not a Christian, then the Bible is really another book that is written in a language that you cannot understand without the Holy Spirit's guidance.  When I wasn't a Christian, the Bible did not make a lot of sense and I just thought it plain boring.  After accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior, the Bible makes plenty of sense and has changed my life.  Sure there are times that I need further clarification on something it says, but I normally find the meaning as I continue to read it. 
  
  10 Reasons to Believe in the Bible
  More reasons to believe
  • posted by: bh4bama
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 9:44:05am ]
• As for casey...Nice post, but, seriously, seperate paragraphs next time. I would reply more to your post (and I might later), but I think the post by the Anonymous Coward is more pressing. (BTW, I only refer to you that way, because it is how your post is signed.)
  
  A belief is a strong conviction that something is true. If every person in the world believed something, it would not make it true. It would just mean that everyone is wrong. If every Literalist Christian believed that the Bible was 100% true, then it still would not make it so just because they believed it. Truth is universal and absolute. If you disagree with that, then do not bother to keep reading.
  
  The Bible was written by men in different languages over 1000's of years. The men who wrote it were imperfect (we believe this, because they admit it). Accepting writings by imperfect men then translated by imperfect men to be absolutely accurate and PERFECTLY true can be hard to believe.
  
  Here is where things become my opinion, so even other Christians might disagree with me. I am a mathematician. I see absolute and universal truth in numbers and equations. In a base 10 system, 2 + 2 = 4. I believe it. It is not difficult for me to believe it, because I can combine objects and see it in action. The Bible is the same for me. I believe in God, and I believe that the Bible is EXACTLY what He wants it to be. I believe that God would not allow His book to be anything but what he wants it to be. (Do not use the argument that the world is not the way He wants it to be. That deals with man's freewill, which is another subject all together.)
  
  You asked why you should believe that what we quote from the Bible is truth. Typicaly I do not quote scripture in discussions with people that do not believe in the Bible. (For the same reason I would not quote from a movie to prove a point.) Like all beliefs, accepting the Bible requires faith. So logicallly, stepping backwards, why should you have faith in God? You have not stated whether you are an atheist. Belief that the Bible is truth requires faith in God. (Belief in the validity of any historic document requires faith in the original author.)
  
  If you do not have faith in God, then you should not believe the Bible. It is only logical. I am aware that this only answers the negation of your question, but I hope it all makes sense.
  • posted by: Bayou
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 9:45:05am ]
• well since this can of worms has been open I shall input my two cents...it is up to you whether it is worth that much...some say it is a sin...some say it is a choice and some say it is a chemical imbalance.  You see studies on the gay community and it seems that homosexuals what to start a new race... the question i pose is are they a new race...a race of peoples that like the rest of us can't control the color of our skin and if so is it evolution...now i don't care who you are christian, methodist, catholic, agnostic, or atheist, you can't deny evelution...there is science, there is proof, but can science be believed...I say who cares...i read the posts and have friends who would unknowingly try to make people believe that being homosexual is a sin...but if you dont believe in sin then how do you clarify what a sin is...I have some great friends who are gay and through talking with them I have found out that it is not a choice...I believe that some people are gay it has always been a tendency of human nature...take acient greece in the time of socreties...those men only had wives in order to reproduce...you can say it is what society says, biliefs, but i pose the bigger question...Are you so caught up in the religious right or wrong of it that you no longer see homosexuals as humans who can live thier life or do you just see them as someone to make a beliver of...yes the bible says go forth and make believers of all the nations...but is preaching the same story...is preacher what you have heard or been taught to tell others really making believers of the world...that in itself is another can of worms and maybe another post for my section of this sight... and to answer the original post...websters definition of homosexuality is as follows...2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex
  • posted by: andy
  • [ 2006.04.13 | 7:10:45pm ]
• They can want to start a new race until Kingdom come.  The problem with that is simple, a race of people, in order to survive, but reproduce to continue their race, that is basic instinct and a prime factor of life in general. Homosexuals cannot beget homosexuals, or anything else for that matter, it completely refutes the nature of the term.  The closest it may fit is a subculture, much like gothics or jocks or cheerleaders or nerds or stoners.  The lifestyle these people lead may or may not have been a choice for them, but they will spend the majority of their days playing the part.
  
  To answer Andy's bigger question, I interact with some of the same people you do, and do not look down on a single one as a person, or a great mind, or a gifted artist or orator, or educator.  I used to, boy did I used to, but that has changed since I have begun to become more aware of what compassion really means  Neither do most others who can safely live day to day without uttering the phrase "git-r-done".
  
  It's scary sometimes to listen to the more vocal of the GLBT community tell tales of their personal lives, as it is for most people who would hear of thigns that exist so differently from their own identity and lifestyle, but I cannot condemn them, it is not my place to.  I can only live my life according to my socialization, my core realm of beliefs and political statutes, and that is to show them Christ first by living according to what He has taught me, and let him show them what the truth is about their own life, and if necessary, assist them.
  
  I cannot find Webster's dictionary credible anymore as it has listed phat as actual language - phat - adj. [probably alteration of 1fat] (1963) slang : highly attractive or gratifying : EXCELLENT
  • posted by: claryam
  • [ 2006.04.14 | 12:07:37am ]
• To answer the original question, I say he is a homosexual when he acts on it at 50. Homosexuality is sex (or sexual acts) with the same gender. For those 10 years, he was successfully resisting his temptation to sin against God and himself.
  
  As for the rest in general, I think it's a choice. Saying someone is born gay is like saying someone is born a thief, liar, murderer, etc. Let me clarify before someone jumps all over me. I am not comparing a homosexual to a murderer in any way other than the simple fact that the Bible says it's a sin. I think the reason it is so hard to see that way (for some/most people) and why I would get throttled for a statement like that, is because a sexual sin isn't hurting anyone else directly. At least that is how they see their lifestyle, and I have to say I pretty much agree. BUT it's still wrong.
  
  As a final thought to my blurb, everything is a choice. The easiest choice is not always (and usually not) the right choice. For someone that considers themselves homosexual by nature (or "born that way") I think it is simply their struggle that they choose to give in to rather than fight. It's pretty easy once you convince yourself that it's beyond your control. It's the equivalent of if the guy in cinderella man had resorted to stealing to support his family. He would have been very well justified (but still breaking the law).
  
  2c
  • posted by: JoeHeff
  • [ 2006.04.14 | 9:10:24am ]
• I too used to think it was choice...and then i talked to to some homosexuals...some have never been atracted to the oppisite sex...both parents are straight...of the five gay people i know three have had this feeling...they were only with a memeber of the oppisite sex because they were trying to "deny a sin" we shall say...now i am not saying that this goes for the whole gay comunity and of course there are exceptions to every rule but ask if it is possible that it is not a sin... for clarrification, what is a sin and how is it distinguished...some will say the bible distinquishes what is a nd what is not a sin...but outside the bible...how do you clarrify a sin...against the written law of the land...against the moral flexability of each man...against the beliefs of another religion...are the sins of the catholic church the sameas the  "sins" of a buddhist?...I merely pose questions to look for  answers while trying not to be intolerant...not saying i succeed...BLack and white or a color wheel of gray?...who is "right" and who is "wrong"...and can we as humans be the judge?... Yes God says what is right and what is wrong but humans interprit God's word in different ways...who has the right interpritation?  methodist, catholic, presbyterians, Lutherian...i could go on and on with different denominations...but the general theme is freewill...if it is a sin...only God knows...If you feel it is a sin dont do it...i would love to hear a homosexuals comment posted on here rather than a bunch of married or single white males in there 20's...of course i don't know half of you but it is a curious thought...if all of us commenting are of the same race religion and age then how is the opioon and thought goign to reflect anything other than different views of the same thought...now i am merely ramblin but i am 23 white and raised catholic...think what you want...I guess my moral is don't surround yourself with the same type of people...even jesus hung out with the leapors and homeless and diseased as well anyone willing to believe...christians try to be more christ like yet judge and try to preach to the "unsaved"...if your are truely a christian...you don't need to preach...people will ask...
  • posted by: andy
  • [ 2006.04.16 | 1:03:53pm ]
• I had a group of really close friends in High School. After graduation, one of them, Bill, came out and told us he was gay.  My friend David asked him at what point he knew, and he said "You remember how old you were when you started liking girls?  That's when I knew."
  
  His parents we unhappy and sent him to counsling and all, but eventually they accepted it and are now 100% ok with it.
  
  It's not a choice any more than it's a chooice if someone likes the taste of Jelly Belly popcorn jelly beans or not.  You do or you don't.  There is no proof over nature vs. nurture.  In fact, I recently read an article abvout 2 identical twin boys that are about 10 years old.  One is a typical little boy playing with guns and sticks, while the other likes to paint his fingernails and wishes he was a girl.  Their genotype is identical, as was their raising- so those studying the 'causes' of homosexuality are baffled.  The best consensus out now is that both DNA and enviornment play a role.
  
  As for Earls question- at what point should the man be considered gay?  It's really only a matter of semantics.  You could say, upon seeing an old picture of someone who you know is currently involved in a homosexual relationship, however during the time the picture was taken he was in a heterosexual relationship, "That's Steve.  He's gay." and you would be correct.  You could say "That's Steve.  He's gay now." and also be correct.  If Steve never considered homosexuality at or before age 30, was he gay then?  I think the way you answer that depends on the view you have of homosexuality. 
  
  My view on the subject is basically do whatever you want, but don't expect me to like it if you throw it in my face all the time.  I really couldn't care less that Bill is gay as long as he doesn't put the moves on me next time he has a bit too much whiskey at the Christmas party.  Many people seem to think it's immoral, or a sin.  I don't.  I'm not religious though.  Others view it as a disease.  Maybe it is, maybe it's not.  After all, the purpose of human pair coupling is to procreate- an impossibility for homosexual couples (barring artificial means).  If you are in the camp that thinks it's an evil scourge on humanity- take heart.  Due to the recent social acceptance of homosexuality, fewer closet homosexuals will stay in the closet and have unhappy heterosexual relationships and pass on their gay genes to future generations.  Rather, they will be in homosexual relationships and the gene (if there is one) will start to work it's way out.
  • posted by: ChrisM
  • [ 2006.04.18 | 1:34:43pm ]

post a comment