No, it would not. Everyone is differentially burdened. Whether it being born into disadvantage, whether it is being subjected to an abuse. And did you miss Joie’s point number 1:
Humans have only two functions: To survive and to reproduce. Anything else is secondary.
Good thinking.
David - you’re back! I was feeling this conversation was a bit one way. You ignore my posts! Could you respond to 66?
I suppose you mean that humans have only two BIOLOGICAL functions? Biologically, the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. But psychologically, let alone spiritually, there is surely more involved than that regarding sexual intercourse, as I stated previously, such as physical and emotional intimacy, bonding, and love. Otherwise, we are little more than animals, and this idea is quite Freudian.
This is true of rabbits Zoltan!
First, I have skipped a bit, so I apologize if you have already dealt with some of what I have to say.
I wouldn’t mention these things to gay-persons outright. However, it is a basic logical proposition. If you exclude a primary purpose of pro-creation from the equation, the only purpose left in the gay sex is the pleasure function. If the participants are merely using each other for pleasure, then their concerns and actions towards the other are entirely self centred.
I liked your list, Joie, but #19 is no good. Have you read Athenian literature? I have, I do it every day. The men talk about teenage boys EXACTLY the way men nowadays talk about supermodels. Their conversation makes absolutely no sense unless they genuinely experienced attraction.
Please refer to post #110 for my response. I think what I state applies to human sex, whether straight or gay. Of course, sometimes self-centered pleasure is the sole purpose of sex; other times, the sole purpose may be money. Neither of these is ideal; far from it. But as my previous post suggests, it is often more complicated than that.
*Post #72 [Meltzerboy] This is an interesting point. Sexual intimacy goes beyond biological sex for the purpose of procreation and is a part of emotional intimacy and love in a relationship.
Perhaps biologically, but not at least in the perception of the person. Sex engenders emotional intimacy by mutual self-gratification, and whilst it does have the couples respect each other in that regard, most will still perceive it as mainly being self gratifying. You only need to flick on a modern sitcom for proof of that (not that I don’t like modern sitcoms, I’m not a Puritan).
Again, you mean sexual in the sense of biological partner. In that sense, the natural partner would be the opposite sex. But my point is to show that “sexual” is multifaceted, consisting not only of the biological sexual act, since intimacy, bonding, and love all play a significant role in sex. And even the opposite-sex physical act may not be desirable if, for example, the mind of the participant is elsewhere, such as fantasizing another partner, either opposite- or same-sex, or going through the motions of sexual activity without passion or compassion, or not truly desiring to pleasure one’s partner. To speak ONLY of what is natural is to leave aside the complexity of human sexuality.
Is that what is happening in our society today? Does it partially explain the current trends?
Yes.
No, I mean sexual as in “sexual”. A sexual partner is one with whom one engages in sexual relations.
Hi there
Awesome post. I agree with everything you wrote.
It’s easy to blame the fall for what we can’t explain.Hi there
I’m a little short on time, but since I started this thread I should try my best to respond…
What makes you think that the exterior design of the body is so much more important than the interior design?
Yes it’s true that the exterior male body is made for the exterior female body and vice versa. This has been repeated ad nauseam on this thread.
You want to conclude that this proves that only male-female relationships are part of God’s plan for sexuality.
But it’s equally possible that God’s plan includes some people who are designed for the opposite sex in their exterior body but the same sex in their interior body.
You seem to think that this apparent contradiction is enough to show that same-sex attraction cannot be from God.
But what do you know? God’s ways are higher than your ways. Moreover, one person on this thread already explained that twin studies show that some people are genetically predisposed to develop of homosexuality. Did God make a mistake?
So what should people with same-sex attraction do? Follow the way God made them on the outside so that the parts fit?
What makes you think that following the exterior design of the body is more noble than following the way you’re designed on the inside?
I need to make it clear that my argument is not based on desire. One or two people have suggested this.
I’m not saying that just because a desire exists, it is from God. There are all sorts of desires that are not from God, such as the desire to murder. You can’t say that just because you feel like murdering someone, God designed you to be a murdered.
I’m not talking about desire but the design of our sexuality. You might think that someone’s sexuality is not a part of the body. You might think it’s something psychological. But I think there’s ample reason to believe it’s both psychological and physical.
At least one person has tried to make a connection between same-sex attraction and the fall. His point is that God did not create anyone to be attracted to the same-sex but that homosexuality was one of the things that went wrong after the fall.
What I appreciate about this argument is that he’s wrestling with the point I brought up at the beginning. But he still has to complete his thought.
What reason does he have for thinking that homosexuality is part of the fall?
I can see why someone might think that being born with a failing heart is part of the fall. They are denied a full life.
Some people might think that autism, Down syndrome, and global developmental delay are also part of the fall. I would disagree with them. Some of the most wonderful people I know have these exceptionalities.
But I don’t see why you would jump to the conclusion that homosexuality is part of the fall.
Do you think it’s part of the fall because their exterior bodies are designed for opposite sex relationships?
If so, we’re back at the beginning. How do you know that God didn’t make it that way on purpose? Why wouldn’t God want some people to be attracted to the same sex? What appears to be a contradiction to you may not be a contradiction to God. God’s ways are higher than your ways.
It seems to me that if you want to say that same-sex attraction is part of the fall, then you have to explain how same-sex attraction is akin to being born with a weak heart. You have to show that it is intrinsically harmful.