Difficult articles on homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosephJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorolfr said:
That bible verse also talks about the men being inflamed with lust. Lust usually refers to an unbridled, uncontrolled and excessive desire for something whether it be sex or money or power. It’s bad regardless of one’s sexual orientation. The relations of many gay men are no more excessive than those of the average straight couple, so I don’t see how this verse could apply to them.
Click to expand...
The verse also refers to the fact that same-sex couples exchange natural relations for unnatural.
 
It could just be for these particular Romans that were attracted to women that this applies to, but some parts talk about homosexuality in general.
 
Last edited:
Real quick I want to clarify- I am asking why the Lord teaches what he does through the church. I am not saying I disagree. I am of the opinion that It is harder to accept the lords help out of doubt if we do not acknowledge those doubts… I am also of the opinion that dialoging about our doubts makes us better and more human arguers to those we seek to invite to the church. But I hope I do not give the impression that I would disobey church law much less an infallible teaching…
 
Those two saints are also [according to boswell] described by a Greek word which basically means “loving pair” (with Eros not Philia as the root). Again I can’t find the primary source so maybe it’s just a fabrication.
 
ἀφέντες
The Greek word used in Romans 1:27 for “abandoned,” meaning “to send away, leave alone, permit.” Only the first meaning implies a recent occurence. The other two could describe a lifelong or even generational condition-- a custom or lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
What does the verse say?
Inflamed with lust for one another.

Do you assume people here can’t read, or are feeble minded?
 
Last edited:
As in a whole generation.
And, culture is transmitted. It is taught, from infancy.
Hence we have lgbtqetc activists infitrating early education in all possible venues. They understand how culture can be changed by targeting children.
 
Last edited:
Norseman82 said:
The verse also refers to the fact that same-sex couples exchange natural relations for unnatural.
Click to expand...
If someone is straight and abandons relations with women to have sex with men, then he’s abandoning what is natural for him to do what is unnatural for him. But for many gay men, being attracted to other men is all they’ve ever know and it seems natural for them. For such a gay man to try and have sex with a woman would be unnatural for him.
 
puppson said:
What does the verse say?
Inflamed with lust for one another.

Do you assume people here can’t read, or are feeble minded?
Click to expand...
But many gay men aren’t “inflamed with lust” for other men any more than most straight men are “inflamed with lust” for their wives or girlfriends. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with my same-sex partner for more than 20 years, and I’m not “inflamed with lust” for him. Guy Irwin, bishop of the Southwest California Synod of the ELCA, is a gay man who is married to another man and I doubt that he’s “inflamed with lust” for his spouse.
 
Last edited:
What does your personal relationship–which you constantly announce–have to do with correctly interpreting Scripture?

And btw, “Guy Irwin” has zero credibility here.
 
Last edited:
puppson said:
What does your personal relationship–which you constantly announce–have to do with correctly interpreting Scripture?
Click to expand...
I’m just saying that a bible verse that talks about people being “inflamed with lust” obviously doesn’t apply to me or to many other gay men. So, it’s irrelevant for our own lives. And when we have discussions here in CAF about gay people, as a gay man, it makes sense for me to describe my own experience of being gay rather than just giving something I’ve gotten second hand from some book or off the Internet.
 
Last edited:
Norseman82 said:
40.png
JosephJohn:
I have trouble seeing the natural law argument since one could imagine a same sex couple who truly have self sacrificial love for each other, are sexually exclusive, and committed having a very similar relationship with one another as an infertile straight married couple would. In many cases (depending on your view of certain other peripheral sexual acts) they would be doing exactly the same things granted the act could never come to it’s fulfilling conclusion.
Click to expand...
How about this for a natural law argument: The parts don’t fit.
Click to expand...
Even if there was just one way to have sex that would be a bad argument. As there isn’t, it’s not even a bad argument.
 
Romans 1: 27–“the natural”–
“φυσικὴν: natural, according to nature.”
Italics mine.

Homosexual intercourse is unnatural according to God, who is speaking here in the Person of the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul. Unnatural for everyone, everywhere, for all time.

I’d explain the whole verse, but that seems futile. And I have my OT course to attend to.
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Lol. I think gay people who are sexually active would say otherwise. I don’t think they have any trouble having the parts fit.
Click to expand...
Living in the Sodom and Gomorrah society that exists so strongly today it is increasingly difficult to discuss with people living this lifestyle that what they are doing is unnatural. Their whole premise is based on youth, appearance and sex. It is only when they become older and are suddenly deserted by their so-called gay peers because they no longer hold the appeal of a self-indulgent society do they come to realise their loneliness is the result of a life of sexual pleasure rather than that of committing to a loving and caring relationship.
 
Melbourne said:
Their whole premise is based on youth, appearance and sex.
Click to expand...
I don’t really agree with that statement. They don’t have a single premise, and for most of them, their lives hardly revolve around sex. It doesn’t need to, because they are free to be sexually active as long as it isn’t hurting anyone.

I don’t believe gay people in relationships (now) grow to be any lonlier than heterosexual people do. The gay people I know in relationships take those relationships as seriously as heterosexuals. They don’t live “lives of pleasure” as you describe it. Do you know any gay people? Do you interact with them on a regular basis?
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
Norseman82:
The medical term for our “parts” is the reproductive system, not the recreational system.
Click to expand...
Serious question: what is the reproductive function of the clitoris? From my understanding…and I certainly may be wrong…it’s only function is for the pleasure of the owner? It serves no reproductive function. Any help here?
Click to expand...
Sex, from a human perspective, doesn’t need to be enjoyable at all. I know why it is - we’re animals and it evolved as an encouragement to fight off the other suitors. Let’s face it, no-one is going to go head to head with the pack leader in what could be a fight to the death if all you get for it is the equivalent of a hand shake.

But if you believe it was desingned that way then you’d have to ask why. Somebody in the design meeting surely would have mentioned some glaringly obvious problems with it.

The fact that a) it feels good, and b) men are generally much bigger than women, has probably caused more distress in the history of the planet than any other facet of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top