arguments against pro-gay: what to say?

[Riddikulus]

Read post #129 again.  Animal behaviors that appear to be sexual may be shows of dominance, greetings, and ways to end conflict.   

It is very kind of you to worry about the real furries' behaviors, but animals don't have souls.

I've read post #129. Unless, I'm missing something - and that's a possibility - it doesn't answer my question; especially when there appears to be conflicting views on the topic.

And once sarcasm in the form of non sequiturs enter a conversation, it's time for me to call it quits. Thanks for your time.

[Asteriktos]

Animal behaviors that appear to be sexual may be shows of dominance, greetings, and ways to end conflict. 

Darn, do humans do this to? If so, I'm missing out. Sexual relations as a form of greetings... can't say I've ever experienced that... but it'd be a nice change 

[Tallitot]

A follower of Christ is anyone who considers himself a Christian. For a spear-chucker like GiC any Christian needed to make a rhetorical point will do.

I personally view I John, the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles as basic guidelines for Christian behaviour. That doesn't mean everyone will, given the practical difficulty of following them....

Why do you refer to GiC as a "spear chucker"? Maybe you should google the term before you use it.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans.   

Another argument:  Romans 1:16-32

I think using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument and the height of homophobia. Why are you trying so hard to prove homosexuals don't exist? Does their existence make you uncomfortable?

Besides, if you're going to argue from Scripture, then argue from Scripture. Don't just post Scripture and expect me to interpret it the same way you do. Such a practice has caused 30,000 Protestant denominations.

[ozgeorge]

Come on everyone, lets all side hug.

[ialmisry]

lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?

No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)

Hmm. Sex drive is natural biology. Are you saying that homosexuals have a natural biological impulse to have sex with members of the same gender?

No, I think she is saying they are unnatural.

[ialmisry]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

Forbidden fruit.

[Papist]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

Forbidden fruit.

Wait, are you saying that people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex or choose to act on this attraction?

[Heorhij]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

lust, boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

But why did my friend A. "chose" to become a homosexual when he was growing up in the former USSR? There was no peer pressure - the opposite; no liberal indoctrination - the opposite...

[Heorhij]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?

Forbidden fruit.

Why did I not choose it then?

[GiC]

lust,

Ok, if you have lust, that's not a conscience decision, that's a natural biological reaction.

boredom, impulsiveness, liberal indoctrination, recruitment, rebellion, peer pressure, and etc........

Why have 4 million Americans tried heroin?

Those are all good reason to try heroine, not good reasons to have homosexual sex. If you friends says, 'I scored some black tar, want to get high', then it would seem quite reasonable to say, 'sure, hook me up'. But if the same (guy) friend say, 'hey, want to go have sex'...couldn't quite see myself saying, 'sure, hook me up'.

Isn't this intuitively obvious? Does it really need to be explained?

No.  (Having) Sex is one of the primary forces that drives all thoughts, emotions and behavior. (Freud)

So it is not intuitively obvious to you? AH! Now I understand what's going on here...carry on.

[Fr. George]

I'm not picking proverbial a dog in this fight, but...

Heorhij, don't you think that there might be certain "posers" around? Maybe people of a younger age would engage homosexuality (even not for a lifetime) just to draw some attention or provoke.

I don't know. All gays whom I know told me that they were born this way and never had any choice.

In psychology we acknowledge that self-report is shaky at best.  I'm neither doubting nor contradicting the substance of their statements, just pointing out that it's not scientific data and, from a scientific/rational standpoint, not reliable.

Agreed. But then, if they are not telling the truth, WHY would they choose this life? What's so attractive about it when the vast majority of people does not approve it? Moreover, in some countries it's a criminal offense to have a homosexual sex. Why would ANYONE choose that?  

1. Caution: the unreliability of self-report does not necessarily mean someone is voluntarily lying; they may merely not know the truth.

2. I don't know why anyone would choose certain death over eternal life - but we all seem to do that a whole lot in our lives on Earth.  I won't attempt to explain homosexual attraction - I haven't studied the issue enough to.

[Rosehip]

I know people who grew up far from any gay communities and with likely zero to little of any sort of "indocrination" and turns out, they are gay.

[Riddikulus]

Come on everyone, lets all side hug.

 

[Heorhij]

I know people who grew up far from any gay communities and with likely zero to little of any sort of "indocrination" and turns out, they are gay.

I know such people, too. Again, like I said, in the former USSR where gay sex was a criminal offense punishable by at the very least 8 yers of hard labor camps, and where the prevailing (and official!) notion was that homosexuality is extremely rare and a terrible, grave disease so that homosexuals must be subjected to insulin shock in psychiatric wards etc. - some people WERE gay. My closest childhood friend grew up as gay as they come. Some of my family members are gay. SO, WHATEVER it is, it's NOT "boredom, lust, indoctrination" etc. These people suffer, and, placed in the society that looks down on homosexuality, sometimes pretend to be who they are not, and poison many lives of many people who are near them...

[ms.hoorah]

Here is my argument:  There is not conclusive proof that there is a biological basis for homosexuality in humans.  

Another argument:  Romans 1:16-32

I think using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument and the height of homophobia. Why are you trying so hard to prove homosexuals don't exist? Does their existence make you uncomfortable?

Besides, if you're going to argue from Scripture, then argue from Scripture. Don't just post Scripture and expect me to interpret it the same way you do. Such a practice has caused 30,000 Protestant denominations.

"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

26      For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
 27     Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28     And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind to do those things which are not fitting;
29     being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,
30     backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31     undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32     who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
________________________________________________________________
Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32  God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.

[GiC]

I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I had no idea that the footnotes of the Orthodox Study Bible had become dogma in the Orthodox Church...I guess a lot has changed since I left.

You must of missed the great Council of Nashville (I think that is where the publisher is HQed).  The Orthodox Study Bible footnotes were recognised as Holy Tradition.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32  God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.

That's nice. Are you going to make your own argument yet, or should I just leaf through my bookshelf and get it over with?

[ozgeorge]

The ultimate argument:

[augustin717]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

[PeterTheAleut]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

"using Scripture to attempt to prove there is no biological basis for homosexuality is an ignorant argument"

The Othodox Study Bible-New Testament and Psalms states that homosexuality is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodox Study Bible- New Testament and Psalms (Romans 1: 26-32  pages 339-340)

Romans 1:26, 27  Error means delusion.  Paul, and the rest of Scripture, is clear. To claim that homosexuality is natural or an “alternative life-style” is delusion.  Rather, it is unnatural, shameful, and unacceptable to God.

Romans 1:29  Sex, of course, is not evil, for it is a gift of God.  But sex outside of marriage is immoral, for it violates God’s law.

Romans 1:32 God will also judge those who approve of unrighteousness.  All humanity (even the ungodly) knows God’s righteousness through creation (v. 20) and conscience (2:14,15).  While those who excuse themselves may form an unrighteous brotherhood with the vices, all will know they are deserving of death at the final judgment.

That's nice. Are you going to make your own argument yet, or should I just leaf through my bookshelf and get it over with?

Well, with respect, Orthodox Christians don't rely on their own subjective understanding. We accept and submit to the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Teachings and Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church. Ms. Hoorah's "own argument" is simply a defense of Orthodox Truth, which frees her from the trappings of subjectivity and reletavism that so easily ensnare those who rely solely on mortal rationale and materialistic science.

Selam

[augustin717]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.

[PeterTheAleut]

"The Orthodox Study Bible" is almost a contradiction in terms. The whole idea sounds so Protestant.

Why?  The Orthodox don't read their Bibles?

Not really. We were taught that reading&explaining the Bible was for the clergy in the context of the services of the church, not other contexts.

Who taught you this?

[augustin717]

The local clergy.

[ozgeorge]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

[minasoliman]

This is an interesting struggle.  I watched a documentary on how Christians justify homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That was very interesting to watch.  While I'm not convinced by their arguments, I must say it's no wonder why the Anglican church went in the direction they did, and I recommend that those who want to be serious about this debate within the Christian community to go watch it.  The whole idea is a reinterpretation of the Bible where it analyzes Greek definitions of what is considered translated as "homosexual" and seems to argue that these are not what was meant.  In those days, they argue, it seems that homosexual behavior was associated with some sort of "prostitution" and not an honest love within the confines of what they practice today as gay marriage.  The weakness behind this argument, imo, is that there was never an instant in Christian history that allowed "gay marriage."  How come?

The other argument:  suppose there is a gay gene, or suppose there is "natural" occurrences.  I don't think that changes the moral sphere.  Sooner or later, we find that a lot of human behavior which is associated with "sin" under Christian definition may tend to originate from multifactorial processes, including some sort of genetic predisposition.  So then what?  Well, that's where struggle comes along.  Who knows what that "thorn in the flesh" might have been?  Many think it's a metaphor for people's most stinging sin affecting their spiritual lives.  Can that be because people find it natural to succumb to it, unnatural to fight it?  And yet, maybe you don't want to be type of person?  Maybe you feel like you didn't "choose" it, and you wish it was a choice.  Doesn't that sound familiar:

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.  But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.  I look at that person, and I think to myself, I am no different than you, struggling from my own tendencies too.  Does God hate me too as many fundamentalist Christians claim that God would hate fags?  Pure disgrace, and I think it's not the homosexuals' faults that homosexuality is so free even among Christian denominations, it's the homophobia from so-called Christians that cause this, the lack of sympathy and empathy and love.  Many leave Christianity altogether because of this hypocrisy, and many who love Christ and wish to continue to worship Him without this hypocrisy find themselves to have to justify this specific behavior, because surely the God of Love does not represent the homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated.

This is my two cents.  Back to study.

God bless.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene? 

[SolEX01]

Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene? 

How about exploring the "lacks sympathy, emphathy and love" gene?   

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

Oh, don't worry, you're ALWAYS fun Ozgeorge.

Selam

[Riddikulus]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

 

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

This is an interesting struggle.  I watched a documentary on how Christians justify homosexual behavior is not a sin.  That was very interesting to watch.  While I'm not convinced by their arguments, I must say it's no wonder why the Anglican church went in the direction they did, and I recommend that those who want to be serious about this debate within the Christian community to go watch it.  The whole idea is a reinterpretation of the Bible where it analyzes Greek definitions of what is considered translated as "homosexual" and seems to argue that these are not what was meant.  In those days, they argue, it seems that homosexual behavior was associated with some sort of "prostitution" and not an honest love within the confines of what they practice today as gay marriage.  The weakness behind this argument, imo, is that there was never an instant in Christian history that allowed "gay marriage."  How come?

The other argument:  suppose there is a gay gene, or suppose there is "natural" occurrences.  I don't think that changes the moral sphere.  Sooner or later, we find that a lot of human behavior which is associated with "sin" under Christian definition may tend to originate from multifactorial processes, including some sort of genetic predisposition.  So then what?  Well, that's where struggle comes along.  Who knows what that "thorn in the flesh" might have been?  Many think it's a metaphor for people's most stinging sin affecting their spiritual lives.  Can that be because people find it natural to succumb to it, unnatural to fight it?  And yet, maybe you don't want to be type of person?  Maybe you feel like you didn't "choose" it, and you wish it was a choice.  Doesn't that sound familiar:

14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.  But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.  I look at that person, and I think to myself, I am no different than you, struggling from my own tendencies too.  Does God hate me too as many fundamentalist Christians claim that God would hate fags?  Pure disgrace, and I think it's not the homosexuals' faults that homosexuality is so free even among Christian denominations, it's the homophobia from so-called Christians that cause this, the lack of sympathy and empathy and love.  Many leave Christianity altogether because of this hypocrisy, and many who love Christ and wish to continue to worship Him without this hypocrisy find themselves to have to justify this specific behavior, because surely the God of Love does not represent the homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated.

This is my two cents.  Back to study.

God bless.

Well, for the most part I agree with you. I was with you when you talked about struggling against what seems or feels natural. In a fallen world, sin feels natural. Yet we are called to struggle against it. In the light of this reality, all of us must humbly acknowledge our own sin first and foremost, struggling against it without self-righteously condemning the specific sins of others with which we personally may not be tempted.

Where we depart is when you say, "...homophobic Christians who continue to preach homosexuality as sin and homosexuals as God-hated." Those who preach homosexuality as sin are not necessarily "homophobic," nor do they necessarily preach that homosexuals are "God-hated." Just because a few misguided fundamentalists erroneously preach that homosexuals are hated by God does not mean that Orthodox Christians should bow to the "homophobia" propaganda.

Homosexuality is a sin, promiscuity is a sin, beastiality is a sin, adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, pedophelia is a sin, polygamy is a sin... PERIOD. As individuals, we may each feel a certain proclivity towards any one of these sins, but we must not justify or rationalize our depraved inclinations. Instead, we must STRUGGLE against them and strive to overcome them by the grace of God and the power of the Cross. And we shall never be victorious over sin as long as we deny that sin is in fact SIN.

Selam  

[minasoliman]

Gebre,

I'm sorry if I confused you with what I wrote.  What you quoted is not something meant as if I would personally say it, but rather I was attempting to write what Christians who justify homosexuality do say.

I agree with you that not all who say homosexuality is wrong is necessarily homophobic.

God bless.

[Tallitot]

Is there an unwritten forum rule that we must have one "Gay" thread a week?

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene? 

Don't be silly. It's so much easier to wring one's hands over someone else's sins. Looking at your own sins takes all the fun out of it.

[prodromas]

Hey guys, I have had a little break from the forum and sadly its threads like this that are the reason.
I'm pretty sure Christ didn't say "love thy neighbor (but not if they are gay)"
This anachronistic attitude that sexuality was such a separate and definable concept over 200 years ago is non existent.
I think this is an absolute non-issue since it is a personal matter for each and every Christian to bear and it is between them, their spiritual father and God. If "gay" threads are going to exist why not "masturbation threads" or "I just stared at that girls cleavage in class" threads.

I'm sorry for coming out of hibernation with this diatribe but it just makes me sad that this is still even discussed. Making it such a separated issue forces for it to be put in the limelight and discussed in such inappropriate ways. Hopefully the next time I sin I won't be cast away from confession or the Eucharist.

[Heorhij]

I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.

Absolutely, but for some of us this transcending can be done in the context of marriage OR in the context of celibacy; for others, it is SAID to be possible ONLY in the context of celibacy. And the latter presumes that the group on whom celibacy is imposed (homosexuals) will BY DEFINITION (made by whom, and based on what evidence, other than lines from Scripture interpreted according to the conventional majority prejudicial views?) do something horrible if they marry with one another.

But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.

Me too, and I very passionately believe that no one can, be him a bishop or a patriarch or even a council of bishops and patriarchs - it is simply impossible. That belief of mine annuls all claims, made by whoever and on whatever ground, tha gays cannot marry because their sex is "unnatural" and thus wrong.

[DavidH]

Homosexuality is a sin, promiscuity is a sin, beastiality is a sin, adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, pedophelia is a sin, polygamy is a sin... PERIOD. As individuals, we may each feel a certain proclivity towards any one of these sins, but we must not justify or rationalize our depraved inclinations. Instead, we must STRUGGLE against them and strive to overcome them by the grace of God and the power of the Cross. And we shall never be victorious over sin as long as we deny that sin is in fact SIN.

Selam  

Great summary, Gebre! There may or may not be a "gay gene" or genes for other sins, there is a fallen nature we must all struggle against. We must love the sinner enough to hate the sin that binds him. And hate the "judgment gene" that sometimes afflicts those who accept the Church's teaching on right and wrong... of course, Pharisee fever is an airborne virus that seems able to afflict anyone holding any position whatsoever whether they are religious or not.

[ialmisry]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

....but just putting in the mental...

[ozgeorge]

The ultimate argument:

And once again, Ozgeorge demonstrates the ultimate Straw Man argument.

Selam

Does he? I thought he was having a bit of fun.
Trying to put some fun in fundamentalism.

....but just putting in the mental...

LOL! I'll pay that one!
But I now am wondering what the modulus is if that's the argument.

[BoredMeeting]

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene? 

I was about to ask if genetics provide some sort of automatic forgiveness for certain sinful behaviors.

With the right genome mapping, we could find a cause, and therefore an excuse, for any sin and make guilt, confession, and penance a thing of the past!

[Heorhij]

And once we've exhausted this topic, are we going to explore whether or not there is a prostitution gene, or a gossip gene, or a "makes outrageous and ridiculous claims during parish council sessions" gene? 

I was about to ask if genetics provide some sort of automatic forgiveness for certain sinful behaviors.

With the right genome mapping, we could find a cause, and therefore an excuse, for any sin and make guilt, confession, and penance a thing of the past!

What an interesting approach: define something as "sinful" absolutely arbitrarily, and then ask, whether genetics excuses what you arbitrarily define as sin just like murder, adultery, theft...

Genetics certainly does not excuse engaging in usury (which very sinful and which we all do, including our clergy).

[Feanor]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

[Heorhij]

I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.

Yeah?

Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.

The Church should finally recognize it. What you and I recognize or not matters only as much as we actively persuade the Church to overcome old bigotry and to change Her position on gay marriage. May the Lord help Her, and us.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: arguments against pro-gay: what to say?