They're Gay, They're Christian And They're Celibate!

I’m reminded of a young homosexual man I met two decades ago who noted that the point of ministering to homosexuals was not to help a homosexual fornicator become a heterosexual fornicator. It was to help him (or her) become chaste, which is per 1 Cor. 7 a valid endpoint referring either to marriage or celibacy. Jesus did, after all, affirm celibacy for the purpose of glorifying God in Matthew 19:12.

Is same sex attraction different than being homosexual (someone who acts on their same sex attraction)?

Is it a sin if someone is attracted to members of the same sex and chooses not to engage in sex or marry someone of the same sex because they believe that both are sin?

I have same sex attractions. I choose not to act on them. (Obviously I am not celibate as I am happily married). I’ve chosen over the decades to NOT have adulterous relationships.

[Ron Bean]

Is same sex attraction different than being homosexual (someone who acts on their same sex attraction)?

Is it a sin if someone is attracted to members of the same sex and chooses not to engage in sex or marry someone of the same sex because they believe that both are sin?

[Jim]

I have same sex attractions. I choose not to act on them. (Obviously I am not celibate as I am happily married). I’ve chosen over the decades to NOT have adulterous relationships.

Did you mean to say you have same sex temptations, or did you intend to say opposite sex temptations as a point of comparison?

I have same sex attractions …. all to the female gender!!!

I am certifiably hetero!!!!!

I am curious if any of you have come across this article.

AGAINST HETEROSEXUALITY

The author would claim that the homosexual/heterosexual categorizing of humanity is a modern social construct that Christians should reject. I am curious to what your thoughts would be in response to it.

Chris,

The author seems to be Catholic. That doesn’t negate the argument he makes, but it does indicate he does not accurately understand scripture, which calls for skepticism about his writing. Obviously, there were homosexuals prior to the 1800s. Homosexuality was rampant in Greek culture, and scripture deals with it specifically. Since it is also referenced in Leviticus, one has to assume it is a part of human history dating to the earliest days. They must have had a name for it, so I don’t really understand the argument the author is trying to make. I don’t see any ground being lost by identifying a label for the activity.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

I don’t see any ground being lost by identifying a label for the activity.

The author’s point is that we should not simply categorize people as hetero/homo since that is a false identifier, something that the person is powerless to change. Obviously we need a word to describe the activity, since it has been around for most if not all of fallen humanity’s history. But the Bible does not slot people as hetero/homo, and neither did society for thousands of years. His point, as I understood it, was that we should not allow people to excuse their homosexual sin by saying they are homosexual any more than we should allow people to excuse their theft by saying they are a kleptomaniac.

Here is a hopefully more helpful article which explains the point.

Darren,

I guess I just don’t see the label as an excuse. It identifies a chosen activity, just like calling me a history teacher identifies an activity in which I participate. It only becomes an excuse when people claim they are biologically predisposed to the activity of homosexuality. That’s something I reject just like I would reject someone saying I became a history teacher because I was biologically predisposed to the activity. The label isn’t the issue. The issue is the the debunked but perpetuated myth that any sexual orientation other than opposite sex is a biological issue.

It only becomes an excuse when people claim they are biologically predisposed to the activity of homosexuality. That’s something I reject

Don’t pigeonhole me as a conspiracy theory nutcase…but sometimes it makes me wonder if the prevalence of the gay movement is a biological shift as a result of vaccinations. Consider autism statistics. It’s gone from one in thousands to one in a hundred in less than a generation. Why?

I’ve seen my own sons experience biological changes as a result of shots, i.e. no allergies to having allergies. Could it be that something in the inoculation formulas is creating a biological shift in the areas of sexuality for particular individuals with genetic markers responsive to certain triggers?

I tend to think that the concept of Romans 1 has been embraced by a now globalized culture intent on forced tolerance by invasive media; mainstream, fringe & social. Rationally it’s more likely that people are just doing what they want, when they want, with whom they want and being patted on the back for it. So the door to same sex attraction is not only wide open, but has a people mover embedded in the floor.

But, again, the vaccination cocktails have changed over the years, and so has our demographic composite representation in the homosexual community. Just brainstormin’

Micah, there could be some biochemical interaction, but I’m going with Romans 1 for the most part.It seems to match the data far better IMO. And as I noted on the other thread, it appears in Romans 1 that it’s not an endpoint, but a midpoint, in the descent of man. Yikes!

Chip, the article is written by a Catholic and would support his points differently that we would. But I believe the main point he makes is valid and worth considering. When modern people use the terms homosexual/heterosexual they are thinking in terms of orientation. The idea of fixed biological orientation is a modern construct that does not have any precedence in human history.

The author of the article also mentions the author Michel Foucault who advocates the position that homosexual attraction and behavior is a social construct rather than a biological construct. His arguments fit very well with Romans 1 and are worth considering. Personally, I believe our attractions, likes/dislikes, are profoundly influenced by our culture/society in in ways many of us do not recognize or admit.

[Bert Perry]

Micah, there could be some biochemical interaction, but I’m going with Romans 1 for the most part.It seems to match the data far better IMO. And as I noted on the other thread, it appears in Romans 1 that it’s not an endpoint, but a midpoint, in the descent of man. Yikes!

It’s kind of a good news/bad news situation. The more we descend into morass globally while simultaneously connecting technologically, the more accurate Revelation appears to be. So, we can look forward to Jesus mopping up the mess at some point.

[CLeavell]

Chip, the article is written by a Catholic and would support his points differently that we would. But I believe the main point he makes is valid and worth considering. When modern people use the terms homosexual/heterosexual they are thinking in terms of orientation. The idea of fixed biological orientation is a modern construct that does not have any precedence in human history.

The author of the article also mentions the author Michel Foucault who advocates the position that homosexual attraction and behavior is a social construct rather than a biological construct. His arguments fit very well with Romans 1 and are worth considering. Personally, I believe our attractions, likes/dislikes, are profoundly influenced by our culture/society in in ways many of us do not recognize or admit.

I guess I’m just dense. I agree the label identifies a orientation. I would argue the origin of the orientation is social not biological as you have. I still don’t understand why labeling the orientation a person has chosen is detrimental to the cause of Christ. Help me see the trees.