Same sex attraction

[vsedriver]

As a church, we should strive to separate the labels from the people being labeled, to separate the sin from the sinner, and see these people, no matter how disordered their actions may be, as normal people with abnormal problems, not “pedophile Bob” or “S&M Jane”.

Right, the Church does see them as people. The Church however can not ‘normalize’ their abnormal problem nor their disordered actions.

 

[Betterave]

You think Id post something without thinking about it first?

I already know what I said to you, and I still hold it strong. I don’t think you’re changing anything by debating somebody on an internet forum.

I think that might be true given one necessary and sufficient condition: if and only if you never listen to anyone and you are never affected by anything that anyone else says to you and everyone else reciprocates this behavior, then and only then will your claim be true. But that condition never holds, so your claim will in fact always be false.

 

[Betterave]

As one accursed with same-sex attractions, I deny that it is my “very nature” to have sexual relations with other men.

And despite what most people probably believe, LCMS_No_More is not alone in denying this. Many same-sex attracted people feel this way, even when they are pressured by mental health/psych professionals to deny their God-given nature, as they understand it, and to embrace a gay identity by having homosexual relations. And who can doubt that this kind of thing would be reinforced by homosexual adoptive parents? Obviously people mean well, whether wanting to normalize their gay/lesbian idenitity or in encouraging others to do so, but we can’t make the truth (or love for all, whatever anyone is going through or believes!) optional here.

 

[Betterave]

the funding for the foster system is based on the number of kids in the system. It is not in the foster system’s best interest to matriculate children out of it till they are 18. Courts do not make it easy to end parental rights. Many of these kids should have been removed from their situations as infants. Again, the system works overtime to keep parents and kids together, even when the kids are living in a foster home.

I am not completely against single parent or gay parent adoption. But it should be reserved as a last resort and not as an ideal or equal standard to a traditional two parent male/female family. An older, hard to place kid might do better with any kind of stable home than the bouncing from foster home to foster home.

I’m also in favor of terminating parental rights for any kid who’s been in the system for 2 years. If parents can’t get their act together by then, then courts need to do what is best for the kids.

Foster home ‘bouncing’ is also why orphanages (we’d probably call them ‘group homes’ these days) may not necessarily be such a bad thing, especially, let’s face it, for “hard to place” kids, who might benefit from the close guidance of a dedicated professional care-giver. My understanding is that stability is one of the most important keys for kids. I think that’s a major reason why single parents (homo or hetero) should be avoided if possible - they’re far more likely to be unstable.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

The point, however, is simply that if we are placing children for adoption, we ought to *prefer *to place them in a stable home with a mother and a father. I don’t see why that should be controversial.

I’m just wondering why if a child is not able to be placed in the best cast scenario (stable home with a mother and a father) we must skip over the option of placing them in a stable home with one parental role filled. As far as my knowledge goes, an orphanage does not guarantee a stable environment with the presence of either parental role for a child (at least not consistently).

 

[Edward_H]

What makes homosexuals different from pedophiles, sadomasochists, etc is that we have at least some evidence to support the idea that homosexuality could be attributed in part or whole to biological factors, while we have no such evidence to support a biological connection to pedophilia, sadomasochism, and so forth.

Well, in case haven’t heard, a large percentage of pedophiles were victims of child abuse, so I would definitely qualify that as “life experience”. As for therapy, I’m not suggesting that pedophiles might be able to find normal attractions, but therapy might be of help in the way of controlling their (unfortunately dangerous) desires. I suppose, in some ways, pedophiles and homosexuals are similar. Both have extreme stigma and prejudices attached to them, both are unlikely to be “cured” through therapy or any other means and both have trouble sustaining normal heterosexual romantic relationships (albeit, in the case of homosexuals, this is absolute). This brings me back to an earlier point. We are a society of labels, and the labels geared towards one’s sexuality can be particularly harsh. As a church, we should strive to separate the labels from the people being labeled, to separate the sin from the sinner, and see these people, no matter how disordered their actions may be, as normal people with abnormal problems, not “pedophile Bob” or “S&M Jane”.

The distinction you make is not unequivocal. There are many homosexuals who are in practice bisexual. That there’s even reports of “confusion” among them should tell us that sexual attractions are not wholly biologically driven.

And there’s as much or more evidence that homosexuals have had comparably bad histories, mainly disruptions between them and their fathers. Many lesbians have had bad histories with sexually abusive and physically abusive fathers too.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Fortunately God doesn’t say that. You can not got to hell for who you are. You only go to hell if you lead an unrepentant, sinful life and reject Jesus as your savior.

Scripture, the Word of God, tells us that engaging in sexual relations outside of marriage is sinful behavior. Doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight. The rule applies to all.

Uhm if they are born gay, then that is who they are.

That is their orientation.

and if they’re born that way, then why the flip would god send them to hell for it?

 

[davidv]

Uhm if they are born gay, then that is who they are.

That is their orientation.

and if they’re born that way, then why the flip would god send them to hell for it?

False. A person is much, much more than their sexuality.

 

[BlueShadow123]

False. A person is much, much more than their sexuality.

No kidding.

But their orientation is who they are sexually.

Did you really think I meant thats all they are?

I should have been more specific.

 

[davidv]

No kidding.

But their orientation is who they are sexually.

I don’t think so. If you have cancer is that who you are medically? I am not the sum of my passions, no matter how strong they are. I am most fully myself when my intellect is in charge of my passions.

Did you really think I meant thats all they are?

I should have been more specific.

Yes you should be more specific.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I don’t think so. If you have cancer is that who you are medically? I am not the sum of my passions, no matter how strong they are. I am most fully myself when my intellect is in charge of my passions.

Yes you should be more specific.

There are differences between both genders, physically and mentally.

If one is gay, it more than likely has to do with hormones which would make them somewhat different mentally.

Unless of course you have the same mentality as a woman.

And you do… but there are some differences no doubt. Thats how nature is.

 

[Betterave]

Uhm if they are born gay, then that is who they are.

That is their orientation.

and if they’re born that way, then why the flip would god send them to hell for it?

this canard has already been answered: He wouldn’t.

 

[Betterave]

I’m just wondering why if a child is not able to be placed in the best cast scenario (stable home with a mother and a father) we must skip over the option of placing them in a stable home with one parental role filled. As far as my knowledge goes, an orphanage does not guarantee a stable environment with the presence of either parental role for a child (at least not consistently).

I certainly never said we should exclude that option from consideration in less than best case scenarios. There are no guarantees either way (even in best case scenarios, obviously), but I don’t believe that single parents are necessarily better at filling parental roles than group homes. There are a lot of variables that might swing what is best either way.

 

[BlueShadow123]

this canard has already been answered: He wouldn’t.

Good!

 

[Sonoran_Son]

I certainly never said we should exclude that option from consideration in less than best case scenarios.

My fault, that was the impression I received from your previous posts.

There are no guarantees either way (even in best case scenarios, obviously), but I don’t believe that single parents are necessarily better at filling parental roles than group homes. There are a lot of variables that might swing what is best either way.

I agree. I believe there are more variables to consider in situations like this.

 

[Seeker2010]

Nature does not intend people to be born blind, but some are.

If nature does not ‘intend’ for it to happen, why then does it? EVERYTHING is natural because everything IS. People are occasionally born blind. It happens.

So are you saying that people who are born blind are the norm just because they exist?

Depends, I suppose, on how you are defining ‘the norm’. Statistically, certainly, both blind people as well as homosexuals are outnumbered by their more ‘normal’ brethren. However, the same could be said of left handed individuals. Just because some status, such as blindness, homosexuality, or left handedness, is statistically ‘abnormal’ doesn’t make it ‘abnormal’ from the perspective of good and bad.

 

[davidv]

If nature does not ‘intend’ for it to happen, why then does it? EVERYTHING is natural because everything IS. People are occasionally born blind. It happens.

All this proves is that the word “natural” is meaningless in determining whether something which “is”, “ought to be”. In this particular case it seems quite clear that what “ought to be” isn’t.

This fact indicates to me that reason can be used to determine what “ought to be” for other features of humanity.

Depends, I suppose, on how you are defining ‘the norm’. Statistically, certainly, both blind people as well as homosexuals are outnumbered by their more ‘normal’ brethren. However, the same could be said of left handed individuals. Just because some status, such as blindness, homosexuality, or left handedness, is statistically ‘abnormal’ doesn’t make it ‘abnormal’ from the perspective of good and bad.

“norm” and “normal” are also meaningless in this discussion for the same reason that “natural” is.

 

[Edward_H]

The answers aren’t found in our words, or in our ability to wrestle with words, but in our subordination to His will for us.

We reject His will or want to reinterpret it to suit our own desires. This is plain.

 

[Betterave]

All this proves is that the word “natural” is meaningless in determining whether something which “is”, “ought to be”. In this particular case it seems quite clear that what “ought to be” isn’t.

This fact indicates to me that reason can be used to determine what “ought to be” for other features of humanity.

“norm” and “normal” are also meaningless in this discussion for the same reason that “natural” is.

No, wrong answer. The right answer is that “EVERYTHING is natural because everything IS” is a nonsensical claim that only someone completely unfamiliar with the ordinary use of the word ‘natural’ would make. Who could seriously claim that “is natural” is a semantic equivalent of “is”? The only opposite of “is” is “is not”; the opposite of “natural” is “unnatural” (not “is not”). Who could seriously claim that “unnatural” means “does not exist” or “is not”? That’s nonsense, surely.

 

[davidv]

No, wrong answer. The right answer is that “EVERYTHING is natural because everything IS” is a nonsensical claim that only someone completely unfamiliar with the ordinary use of the word ‘natural’ would make. Who could seriously claim that “is natural” is a semantic equivalent of “is”? The only opposite of “is” is “is not”; the opposite of “natural” is “unnatural” (not “is not”). Who could seriously claim that “unnatural” means “does not exist” or “is not”? That’s nonsense, surely.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. The meaning of natural can be so ambiguously used as to conflate “is” and “ought”. And when used this way it is not helpful to this particular discussion (the OP).