Christianity and Homosexuality

[Gift-of-god]

I think it would be useful to start with a useful, consistent and working definition for what is or isn't natural. If some Christians explain homosexual behavior as sinful on the grounds that it's unnatural, then obviously their definition differs from that used by someone who holds that it is.

The problem I see when people say that homosexuality is natural because we can observe it in the animal kingdom is that what constitutes natural behavior for one species isn't necessarily so for another, so that argument isn't particularly convincing. I can understand why Christians reject it.

Now, what would be the definiton of natural used by those Xians who espouse this argument?

[Nova Magna Germania]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

I'm not even gonna bother with the 2nd part. However, the 1st part:

Source: "Non-consensual sex experienced by men who have sex with men: prevalence and association with mental health"

"Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

So 14% seems comparable to 5-15%. Of course, percentages may change depending on the methods (in the study it was <14 yo, it could be <16 or <18) and participants. In the study participants were: "The study participants (N=358) ranged in age from 19 to 35 years (M=28.6; S.D.=3.6)...The majority of the respondents described themselves as white (72.6%), as single and never married (70.6%), and 87.7% considered themselves gay or homosexual (see Table 1)"

So if participants were older (less protection for children in past) or belonged to certain minority groups (eg: Aboriginal people), percentages could have been higher.

[The Alma Mater]

Homosexual giraffes- yes. But it could be a coincidence
And of course, having non-reproducing members in a group is not limited to homosexuality. The concept of Alpha males anyone ? Or most of the insect world...

Isn't the benefit of being an alpha male first pick of the females?

First or only pick. Animals further down the pecking order might never get permission.

[The Alma Mater]

Now, what would be the definiton of natural used by those Xians who espouse this argument?

"As god intended it according to my interpretation" of course.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I'm finding it hard to believe that we are having the same conversation.

Tell you what, why don't you simply summarise your argument, and we'll start again.

I think it would be useful to start with a useful, consistent and working definition for what is or isn't natural. If some Christians explain homosexual behavior as sinful on the grounds that it's unnatural, then obviously their definition differs from that used by someone who holds that it is.

The problem I see when people say that homosexuality is natural because we can observe it in the animal kingdom is that what constitutes natural behavior for one species isn't necessarily so for another, so that argument isn't particularly convincing. I can understand why Christians reject it.

Precisely. Are we to conclude that we should chase down a zebra, bite it on the neck and suffocate it until it is dead. Then, chew through its abdomen before we can say "bon apetit'?

Or, do we go around urinating on stuff to claim it? "That's mine *spray*. Thats mine too *spray*"

I discount what animals do in thier realm because they are not humans. Only humans fall under God's "Law of Chastity".

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

I'm not even gonna bother with the 2nd part. However, the 1st part:

Source: "Non-consensual sex experienced by men who have sex with men: prevalence and association with mental health"

"Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

So 14% seems comparable to 5-15%. Of course, percentages may change depending on the methods (in the study it was <14 yo, it could be <16 or <18) and participants. In the study participants were: "The study participants (N=358) ranged in age from 19 to 35 years (M=28.6; S.D.=3.6)...The majority of the respondents described themselves as white (72.6%), as single and never married (70.6%), and 87.7% considered themselves gay or homosexual (see Table 1)"

So if participants were older (less protection for children in past) or belonged to certain minority groups (eg: Aboriginal people), percentages could have been higher.

I never finished college so I may be missing something, but what was the point here, as it relates to my post?

[Dundee and Carlisle]

I am a Christian, British Episcopalian to be exact and I can assure you I loath people who commit adultery, homosexuals etc. in equal measure.

[Nova Magna Germania]

Christianity condemns the act of sexual contact between two men. It does not, however, condemn the tendencies of a homosexual male or female i.e. their lifestyle and mannerisms. God tells mankind to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but with what? Not necessarily more humans.

Animals practice homosexual acts more and more in these times, but will they go to Hell? Should they know better?

Christianity does not hold that animals are capable of sin, as animals are not aware enough to understand right vs. wrong. Some Christians also hold that animals to not posses a soul.

Also, as far as I recall correctly, animals do not perform homosexual acts for pleasure, but to indicate dominance.

Quite similar to the "big bad prisoner / prison bitch" relationship.

Umm are you trolling (stereotypical homophobe being ignorant)? Or are you actually that ignorant?

[Camarone]

The 10 commandments are very clear and any one that does not live by them and the other rules set in the bible is not a good christian. Any Christian who try's to say that homosexuality is not a sin or is not clearly against the laws of god is dead wrong and should not consider them selfs christians. I do not want to offend anyone but the gospel is clear and anyone who rejects any part of it rejects it as a whole.

[Ascon]

Now, what would be the definiton of natural used by those Xians who espouse this argument?

Precisely. Are we to conclude that we should chase down a zebra, bite it on the neck and suffocate it until it is dead. Then, chew through its abdomen before we can say "bon apetit'?

Or, do we go around urinating on stuff to claim it? "That's mine *spray*. Thats mine too *spray*"

I discount what animals do in thier realm because they are not humans. Only humans fall under God's "Law of Chastity".

Right this is prettymuch what I'm getting at in terms of definition. Generally speaking, Christians would probably define natural as being behavior consistent with God's design. It's natural for a beaver to build a dam but not for cats to do so. It's natural for humans to drive cars but not sheep.

I don't know or care whether God designed animal species to engage in homosexual behavior because it isn't relevant to human behavior and so we come 'round again to the philosophical question I asked long ago: Is it natural for human beings to engage in homosexual behavior? Obviously, Christians will say "no" because their belief in the Bible's message is that homosexual behavior is sinful. It's not a huge leap to tie "sinful" to "unnatural" although I find that to be overly simplistic, since fornication is both sinful and "natural" in terms of human behavior.

So what makes homosexuality both sinful and unnatural while fornication is only sinful? (From a Christian perspective)

Either it is, in fact, not natural behavior for humans and that results in it being sinful, or it is natural but sinful anyway, like fornication? This is where you'll probably see the biggest division among Christians over the issue, with still others probably asserting that whether it's natural or not is irrelevant. If God forbids it then end of story.

Personally, I think most fall into the third category, with the next biggest group being the first. People often feel compelled to explain the details and minutia of everything without really spending time thinking it through, resulting in the sort of inconsistent replies you'd get if you asked 100 random Christians this question.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

The 10 commandments are very clear and any one that does not live by them and the other rules set in the bible is not a good christian. Any Christian who try's to say that homosexuality is not a sin or is not clearly against the laws of god is dead wrong and should not consider them selfs christians. I do not want to offend anyone but the gospel is clear and anyone who rejects any part of it rejects it as a whole.

The gospel is far from clear. If it were, there would only be one Church.

[Cattidome]

I'll try not to fall for any christian girls.

[Nova Magna Germania]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

I'm not even gonna bother with the 2nd part. However, the 1st part:

Source: "Non-consensual sex experienced by men who have sex with men: prevalence and association with mental health"

"Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

So 14% seems comparable to 5-15%. Of course, percentages may change depending on the methods (in the study it was <14 yo, it could be <16 or <18) and participants. In the study participants were: "The study participants (N=358) ranged in age from 19 to 35 years (M=28.6; S.D.=3.6)...The majority of the respondents described themselves as white (72.6%), as single and never married (70.6%), and 87.7% considered themselves gay or homosexual (see Table 1)"

So if participants were older (less protection for children in past) or belonged to certain minority groups (eg: Aboriginal people), percentages could have been higher.

I never finished college so I may be missing something, but what was the point here, as it relates to my post?

By this: "A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.", I assumed you meant that sexual abuse of children may be an important aspect influencing sexual orientation.

[The New Everlasting]

I am a Christian, British Episcopalian to be exact and I can assure you I loath people who commit adultery, homosexuals etc. in equal measure.

Good to hear an Episcoalian with balls. Your Church is going through some shite.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Now, what would be the definiton of natural used by those Xians who espouse this argument?

Precisely. Are we to conclude that we should chase down a zebra, bite it on the neck and suffocate it until it is dead. Then, chew through its abdomen before we can say "bon apetit'?

Or, do we go around urinating on stuff to claim it? "That's mine *spray*. Thats mine too *spray*"

I discount what animals do in thier realm because they are not humans. Only humans fall under God's "Law of Chastity".

Right this is prettymuch what I'm getting at in terms of definition. Generally speaking, Christians would probably define natural as being behavior consistent with God's design. It's natural for a beaver to build a dam but not for cats to do so. It's natural for humans to drive cars but not sheep.

I don't know or care whether God designed animal species to engage in homosexual behavior because it isn't relevant to human behavior and so we come 'round again to the philosophical question I asked long ago: Is it natural for human beings to engage in homosexual behavior? Obviously, Christians will say "no" because their belief in the Bible's message is that homosexual behavior is sinful. It's not a huge leap to tie "sinful" to "unnatural" although I find that to be overly simplistic, since fornication is both sinful and "natural" in terms of human behavior.

So what makes homosexuality both sinful and unnatural while fornication is only sinful? (From a Christian perspective)

Either it is, in fact, not natural behavior for humans and that results in it being sinful, or it is natural but sinful anyway, like fornication? This is where you'll probably see the biggest division among Christians over the issue, with still others probably asserting that whether it's natural or not is irrelevant. If God forbids it then end of story.

Personally, I think most fall into the third category, with the next biggest group being the first. People often feel compelled to explain the details and minutia of everything without really spending time thinking it through, resulting in the sort of inconsistent replies you'd get if you asked 100 random Christians this question.

I would say that "natural" is irrelevant. It falls under fornication, which is a sin anyways.

[The Alma Mater]

The 10 commandments are very clear and any one that does not live by them and the other rules set in the bible is not a good christian. Any Christian who try's to say that homosexuality is not a sin or is not clearly against the laws of god is dead wrong and should not consider them selfs christians. I do not want to offend anyone but the gospel is clear and anyone who rejects any part of it rejects it as a whole.

So people with glasses who dare enter the church should be put to death, as should people wearing polyester-cotton clothing ?

Oh, and please none of that "the old testament became invalid after Jesus" stuff. Jesus himself said that was bullshit.

[Gift-of-god]

...Generally speaking, Christians would probably define natural as being behavior consistent with God's design....

Oh, I see. Well, then their definition of natural is "As god intended it according to my interpretation", as The Alma Mater said. Which is arbitrary, as far as I can tell, and not logically supported.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They are certainly ABLE physically to have homosexual sex.

Yeah, I know. God programmed them to.

He programmed the ability to. IMHO, homosexuality is mostly environmentally related.

Now, it is possible for some sort of genetic mutation to occur that causes this, I will grant you that. I cannot discount this any more than I can discount hermaphodites, albinos, primordeal dwarfism etc. I am not sure that God MAKES this happen as He ALLOWS it to happen as part of our tests. Now, that said, if it is a genetic thing that cant be helped, would gays be held accountable? Hard to say. I am inclinded to believe that most gays are influenced environmentally, not genetically.

So maybe the real question is: What's in the air that is causing men to become gay?

Thier legs

Just a joke people, Lighten up.

All behaviors have a genetically based dude, else they wouldn't be expressed.

Look. By environmentally I mean things like:
A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.
A boy has crush on a girl. Boy asks girl to dance. Girl denys boy. Boy begins to hate girls.

I'm not even gonna bother with the 2nd part. However, the 1st part:

Source: "Non-consensual sex experienced by men who have sex with men: prevalence and association with mental health"

"Approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13][14][15]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

So 14% seems comparable to 5-15%. Of course, percentages may change depending on the methods (in the study it was <14 yo, it could be <16 or <18) and participants. In the study participants were: "The study participants (N=358) ranged in age from 19 to 35 years (M=28.6; S.D.=3.6)...The majority of the respondents described themselves as white (72.6%), as single and never married (70.6%), and 87.7% considered themselves gay or homosexual (see Table 1)"

So if participants were older (less protection for children in past) or belonged to certain minority groups (eg: Aboriginal people), percentages could have been higher.

I never finished college so I may be missing something, but what was the point here, as it relates to my post?

By this: "A boy gets molested by his Uncle. He has a sexual response. He assumes he is gay and continues with the lifestyle.", I assumed you meant that sexual abuse of children may be an important aspect influencing sexual orientation.

Yes. And it appeared that your graph substantiated the claim. That is where I was confused. Did the graph refute or substantiate?

[Kobrania]

I am a Christian, British Episcopalian to be exact and I can assure you I loath people who commit adultery, homosexuals etc. in equal measure.

Isn't hate/wrath/loathing a sin?

[Ascon]

...Generally speaking, Christians would probably define natural as being behavior consistent with God's design....

Oh, I see. Well, then their definition of natural is "As god intended it according to my interpretation", as The Alma Mater said. Which is arbitrary, as far as I can tell, and not logically supported.

What's your definition?

[Nova Magna Germania]

Yes. And it appeared that your graph substantiated the claim. That is where I was confused. Did the graph refute or substantiate?

You think 14% for men who have sex with men vs 5-15% for the general male population substantiates your claim?

[Redwulf]

The 10 commandments are very clear and any one that does not live by them and the other rules set in the bible is not a good christian. Any Christian who try's to say that homosexuality is not a sin or is not clearly against the laws of god is dead wrong and should not consider them selfs christians. I do not want to offend anyone but the gospel is clear and anyone who rejects any part of it rejects it as a whole.

So people with glasses who dare enter the church should be put to death, as should people wearing polyester-cotton clothing ?

Oh, and please none of that "the old testament became invalid after Jesus" stuff. Jesus himself said that was bullshit.

And besides, Camarone is CITING the OT. That's where the 10 commandments are from.

[Gift-of-god]

...Generally speaking, Christians would probably define natural as being behavior consistent with God's design....

Oh, I see. Well, then their definition of natural is "As god intended it according to my interpretation", as The Alma Mater said. Which is arbitrary, as far as I can tell, and not logically supported.

What's your definition?

My definition of what is natural for humans would be any behaviour that humans do in all societies across time and space.

So, things like love, murder, getting sick, having babies, bitching about each other, laughter, homosexuality, etc. are all natural.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Yes. And it appeared that your graph substantiated the claim. That is where I was confused. Did the graph refute or substantiate?

You think 14% for men who have sex with men vs 5-15% for the general male population substantiates your claim?

You are saying that 14% of homosexual men were abused and 15% of hetero men were abused, so the abuse has no affect on homosexuality? Fine. That is what I was questioning. However, the sample size seems a bit small.

[Ascon]

My definition of what is natural for humans would be any behaviour that humans do in all societies across time and space.

So, things like love, murder, getting sick, having babies, bitching about each other, laughter, homosexuality, etc. are all natural.

Does that mean something like, say, surfing the Internet is unnatural because not all humans in all societies do it?