Mathew 19:12

[Sandy68]

I need clarification of this verse. I understand one of the reasons why men cannot marry (Kingdom of heaven)–but what does "some, because they were born that way".

Isn’t it believed that homosexuals are not born that way? The verse as I read it, lets it be known that some men are born homosexual. And from the rest of my limited knowledge, I understand that man should not “act” on their desires because it is depraved, unordered and a grave sin.

I’ve studied biology and anatomy over the years and I was always confused in this area. From what I learned, many “glitches” can take place in utero.

I have family members who are homosexual and really are quite “different” in behavior, appearance and desires.

If we are all God’s children and born in His image AND He created and knew us before we were born–why did he want some men to be born that way?

 

[crazzeto]

I’m not so sure that’s a good translation, since a homosexual can’t be equated to a eunuch. After all, an eunuch can’t have any sort of relations at all, as they are missing essential equipment, a homosexual on the other hand is by definition chaste.

When Christ refers to a eunuch, it should not be interpreted with out the necessary chaste element. Someone born a eunuch there for, is someone who by birth for some reason must be chaste. Perhaps due to defect their stuff just doesn’t work? Something a little closer along these lines.

 

[Sandy68]

thank you. can I have a full translation of this verse please.

 

[crazzeto]

Here’s what the Rev George Leo Haydock had to say about the verse, it covers everything but the aspect you cover in this thread:

Mat 19:12 And there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, &c. It is not to be taken in the literal sense, but of such who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single life. — He that can receive it, let him receive it. Some think that to receive, in this and the foregoing verse, is to understand; and so will have the sense to be, he that can understand what I have said of different eunuchs, let him understand it; as when Christ said elsewhere, he that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But others expound it as an admonition to men and women, not to engage themselves in a vow of living a single life, unless, after serious deliberation, they have good grounds to think they can duly comply with this vow, otherwise let them not make it. Thus St. Jerome on this place, and St. John Chrysostom where they both expressly take notice, that this grace is granted to every one that asketh and beggeth for it by prayer. (Witham) — To the crown and glory of which state, let those aspire who feel themselves called by heaven.

 

[Nita]

… a homosexual on the other hand is by definition chaste.

…

Could you clarify your meaning crazzeto?

 

[crazzeto]

Could you clarify your meaning crazzeto?

Certainly, “homosexual” includes the word “sexual” which implies activity why by definition means this individual is not chaste.

Edit
That said, some peole can have a natural SSA inclination… Which when not acted upon, is something else entirly now isn’t it?

 

[puzzleannie]

I need clarification of this verse. I understand one of the reasons why men cannot marry (Kingdom of heaven)–but what does "some, because they were born that way".

Isn’t it believed that homosexuals are not born that way? The verse as I read it, lets it be known that some men are born homosexual. And from the rest of my limited knowledge, I understand that man should not “act” on their desires because it is depraved, unordered and a grave sin.

no the verse does not allude at all to homosexuality. the NAB says “some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, some because they have been made so by others, some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom”
this refers to eunuchs, or those who are celibate, not married, specifically in the first two cases, those incapable of performing the marriage act. Homosexuals are capable of normal intercourse, and of heterosexual marriage.

the DR has it "for there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb;

thr RSV CE has it for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth

a eunuch is not a homosexual, and vice versa, and in fact a eunuch cannot perform the penetration of sodomy either, but could only be the receptive passive partner of such an act

 

[NHInsider]

I need clarification of this verse. I understand one of the reasons why men cannot marry (Kingdom of heaven)–but what does "some, because they were born that way".

Isn’t it believed that homosexuals are not born that way? The verse as I read it, lets it be known that some men are born homosexual. And from the rest of my limited knowledge, I understand that man should not “act” on their desires because it is depraved, unordered and a grave sin.

I’ve studied biology and anatomy over the years and I was always confused in this area. From what I learned, many “glitches” can take place in utero.

I have family members who are homosexual and really are quite “different” in behavior, appearance and desires.

If we are all God’s children and born in His image AND He created and knew us before we were born–why did he want some men to be born that way?

If you step back from the hot-button issue of gender identity and SSA, you can ask this same question about diabetes, or tay-sachs disease, or a congenital heart defect, or any of the myriad other things which, as you know from your studies, can take place in utero. Only in the case of homosexuality, and only in recent years, has it become commonplace to assume that all the other things are defects and gender confusion is not.

So - do we think God “wants” some babies to be born with heart defects, or webbed fingers, or cleft palates, or any of these other things? Or do we regard them as unfortunate effects of the broken nature of creation - people with unusually difficult crosses to bear?

And do we say to diabetics or people with spinal bifida or whatever “that’s the way God made you, so carry on” - and then stand by while they harm themselves by living “normal” lives?

Now I know that some people would regard what I wrote as “hate speech” because it suggests that SSA is a defect. The Church’s official position is that it is “disordered.” And no kind of prejudice or hatefilled action or attitude can be justified on the basis of a disorder. So I do not hold this position “against” anyone - including very close and dear family members. At the same time, I do not condone actions which the Church (and the Bible) teach are outside of God’s will.

 

[peary]

I need clarification of this verse. I understand one of the reasons why men cannot marry (Kingdom of heaven)–but what does "some, because they were born that way".

Isn’t it believed that homosexuals are not born that way? The verse as I read it, lets it be known that some men are born homosexual. And from the rest of my limited knowledge, I understand that man should not “act” on their desires because it is depraved, unordered and a grave sin.

I’ve studied biology and anatomy over the years and I was always confused in this area. From what I learned, many “glitches” can take place in utero.

I have family members who are homosexual and really are quite “different” in behavior, appearance and desires.

If we are all God’s children and born in His image AND He created and knew us before we were born–why did he want some men to be born that way?

The verse has nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - to do with homosexuality, but it has everything to do with physiological problems with regard to undeveloped or handicapped sexual organs, or being mentally challenged whereby marriage is not an option. Sometimes conjoined twins make it impossible for marriage consumation because of two in one body which may not be fully developed. Or, it might even be those who have physical deformities. Homosexuality is a choice of sexual expression.

 

[NHInsider]

Homosexuality is a choice of sexual expression.

I don’t believe it one has a choice “to be or not be” attracted to members of the same sex, or to be transgendered, or any of the other gender-identity permutations. I do believe that everyone has a choice about their sexual activity.

 

[Nita]

Certainly, “homosexual” includes the word “sexual” which implies activity why by definition means this individual is not chaste.

I was questioning because in post #2 you said they were chaste by definition – not unchaste. Probably just a typo where you forgot to put the word “not” before “chaste”.
I don’t think the word “homosexual” implies activity any more than the word “heterosexual” implies activity. A homosexual can be chaste.