Sexual Orientation

wolfsbane

Seems paedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a choice, according to James Cantor, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, a psychologist and senior scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. He is editor in chief of "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment" and blogs at Sexology Today:
Do pedophiles deserve sympathy?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

What does that say for the 'I was born that way' defence offered for homosexuality? A brother puts it well on this short piece I posted on another thread:
The Divine Institution of Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-Bdcd8cZ0&feature=youtu.be

NOTE: According to WND, James Cantor is a homosexual psychologist and scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health who serves as associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
HAS THE NORMALIZING OF PEDOPHILIA BEGUN?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/has-the-normalizing-of-pedophilia-begun/


*********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Wiggles88

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems paedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a choice, according to James Cantor, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, a psychologist and senior scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. He is editor in chief of "Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment" and blogs at Sexology Today:
Do pedophiles deserve sympathy?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html

What does that say for the 'I was born that way' defence offered for homosexuality? A brother puts it well on this short piece I posted on another thread:
The Divine Institution of Marriage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt-Bdcd8cZ0&feature=youtu.be

NOTE: According to WND, James Cantor is a homosexual psychologist and scientist at the Sexual Behaviors Clinic of the Center for Addiction and Mental Health who serves as associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.
HAS THE NORMALIZING OF PEDOPHILIA BEGUN?
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/has-the-normalizing-of-pedophilia-begun/

Homosexuality and paedophilia are two very different things. Practicing homosexuality between two consenting adults hurts no one and there is no logical reason to oppose those consenting adults from being happy together. Practicing paedophilia involves a child who is too young to comprehend what is going on and is therefore unable to consent to it ergo it is wrong for the adult to force himself/herself onto the child even if it is a sexual orientation.

SloomyRengen

Paedophilia's definition as a sexual orientation has no bearing on the morality of sexually assaulting a child, which is what any contact of that nature with children is. Why do you only compare it to homosexuality though? Last I checked there exists heterosexuality also as a sexual orientation which is just as bestial and fun as being gay. Just trying to aid you in forming a rounded and thorough argument here, something I'm sure you'll appreciate.;)

Corkfeen

Are you serious, you're equating two consenting adults in a relationship to pedophilia? Pedophilia is not being normalised at all and it's just an ultraconservative website making a claim while clearly illustrating their homophobia.

In a related commentary on WND, Reisman said, “The APA path to pedophile norms follows the success of the homosexual anarchy campaign. Arguably, the pedophile media lobby directed the passionate boy-boy kisses on the TV series ‘Glee,’ to enable fellow ‘minor-attracted persons’ to increasingly be seen as a boy’s sex ‘friend.

What the hell is a homosexual anarchy campaign? There isn't a pedophile media lobby.....

From the CNN report...

The best example of this effort is the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld in Germany, supported financially by private donation. It began with a media campaign aimed at people struggling to resist their sexual interests to children. By offering counseling and other services, it is expected that they can remain offense-free. Hundreds of people contacted the Dunkelfeld project after it was established. People from all over the world, including Austria, Switzerland and England, turned to the assistance.
...

It's too early to tell whether these efforts are effective over the long term, but preliminary reports are encouraging.
Even though very few researchers study the causes of pedophilia, we hope that the scientific community will learn more as new tools and opportunities become available.
If it is the brain's wiring that ultimately determines who will go on to develop pedophilia, can we detect it early enough to interrupt the process? Until we uncover more information, we will do more good by making it easier for pedophiles to come in for help rather than force them into solitary secrecy.

It's not an attempt to normalise pedophilia, it is to take preventative measures against those who are predisposed to it and to treat it early. This is to avoid endangering children who cannot consent and would suffer severe psychological damage as a result.

wolfsbane

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Homosexuality and paedophilia are two very different things. Practicing homosexuality between two consenting adults hurts no one and there is no logical reason to oppose those consenting adults from being happy together. Practicing paedophilia involves a child who is too young to comprehend what is going on and is therefore unable to consent to it ergo it is wrong for the adult to force himself/herself onto the child even if it is a sexual orientation.

Indeed, they are different in the way you say. One involves non-consent, the other not. As to homosexuality not hurting anyone, that is at least disputable - the Christian will say it degrades the spirit of both parties by its unnatural affections and acts, and brings God's wrath for its perversion of His provision of sex.

But my point was not to link homosexuality with paedophilia - just to show that the common homosexual defence 'I was born this way/ it's an orientation, not a choice' is invalid. Even if true, it establishes no more than the same defence does for paedophilia.


*************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

wolfsbane

Corkfeen wrote: »

Are you serious, you're equating two consenting adults in a relationship to pedophilia? Pedophilia is not being normalised at all and it's just an ultraconservative website making a claim while clearly illustrating their homophobia.


What the hell is a homosexual anarchy campaign? There isn't a pedophile media lobby.....

From the CNN report...

It's not an attempt to normalise pedophilia, it is to take preventative measures against those who are predisposed to it and to treat it early. This is to avoid endangering children who cannot consent and would suffer severe psychological damage as a result.

I did not quote the site to debate their assertion about normalising paedophilia. I linked it to give the source of my quote regarding Cantor's sexuality. So I'm not equating both sins, nor do I know anything about a homosexuality anarchy campaign.

But maybe I'll follow it up, now that you point it out.

******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Wiggles88

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed, they are different in the way you say. One involves non-consent, the other not. As to homosexuality not hurting anyone, that is at least disputable - the Christian will say it degrades the spirit of both parties by its unnatural affections and acts, and brings God's wrath for its perversion of His provision of sex.

I doubt any homosexual couple are concerned with your worrying about their spirit. Christians will say its wrong because a book tells them so, not a particularly logical reason I would say.

But my point was not to link homosexuality with paedophilia - just to show that the common homosexual defence 'I was born this way/ it's an orientation, not a choice' is invalid. Even if true, it establishes no more than the same defence does for paedophilia.

Sure it was, you just happened to pick links from a highly homophobic website which are saying just that...

tommy2bad

I wouldn't have a problem defining pedophilia as an orientation, the question is one of degrees.
To what extent is it a pre disposed orientation or one that is the result of conditioning. The recidivism rate for pedophiles is high so I'm inclined to presume it's inate. Being a pedophile isn't a crime, assault of children is and that applies to homo, hetro and peado. as it should.
As to what this has to do with homosexuality is another thread (probably a big long one that already has run over the same ground over and over).
That video btw just reminds me that it isn't just the bad language that I hate about rap. :P

christmas2012

its natures way of saying this man cannot pro create its like the same with homosexuals/lesbiens..

there not meant to parent/father children..

tommy2bad

christmas2012 wrote: »

its natures way of saying this man cannot pro create its like the same with homosexuals/lesbiens..

there not meant to parent/father children..

What, pedophilia? Eh I don't think so, their not infertile you know, which if nature was putting her oar in would be the way of saying 'can't procreate'

christmas2012

But with their sexual attraction to children it almost as much seals their fate,and with homos(look i know theres technology around now,and some sneaky pedos gays getting in hetro relationships to have kids,but nature did dictate their initial sexual attraction)..

tommy2bad

christmas2012 wrote: »

But with their sexual attraction to children it almost as much seals their fate,and with homos(look i know theres technology around now,and some sneaky pedos gays getting in hetro relationships to have kids,but nature did dictate their initial sexual attraction)..

WOW, just wow!
That has to be trolling.
Must. Not. Feed.

Zillah

wolfsbane wrote: »

But my point was not to link homosexuality with paedophilia - just to show that the common homosexual defence 'I was born this way/ it's an orientation, not a choice' is invalid. Even if true, it establishes no more than the same defence does for paedophilia.

You seem to be confusing a few things here.

When a gay person says "I was born this way" they are usually saying it in response to someone saying something like "You are a deviant" or "You chose to be this way", or, indeed, "You are an abomination in God's eyes". You can hardly claim that God disapproves of your nature when it is He that defined that nature.

No one is claiming that their nature compels them to act on their sexuality, however. A reasonable person's response would be that suppressing one's sexuality tends to be a very unhealthy and, often, dangerous thing to do. Just look at the suicide statistics for gay teenagers, it is really quite horrifying, and almost exclusively the fault of a society that tries to convince them that they are dirty and broken down to the core, and weak for not being able to change.

The key difference with paedophilia is that because expressing it would harm children the individual simply has to endure the consequences of suppressing their sexuality because the alternative is unacceptable.

qrrgprgua

Wolfsbane.. The problem is today its not politically correct to question someones sexual preferences.. Right and wrong all depends on consent. Attraction to a young boy/girl is seen as perverted, wrong, "to be fixed".. And rightly so. Atraction to someone of same sex is seen as normal.. ... Both are sexual orientations. From a secular point of view 2 men deciding to live their lives together is really their issue. Its their informed choice. As christians do we say they have to follow out beliefs?

Zillah

tommy2bad wrote: »

WOW, just wow!
That has to be trolling.
Must. Not. Feed.

Certainly some long-term planning there!

Corkfeen

wolfsbane wrote: »

I did not quote the site to debate their assertion about normalising paedophilia. I linked it to give the source of my quote regarding Cantor's sexuality. So I'm not equating both sins, nor do I know anything about a homosexuality anarchy campaign.

But maybe I'll follow it up, now that you point it out.

You just assume the two are comparable which they are not. One causes a lifetime of pain for a child. While the other is between two consenting adults who love each other. Both parties are gay and choose to enter a relationship, this causes no harm whatsoever to either party and there is no reason it should not be socially acceptable.Being homosexual is natural and the next part is key, it is two people of the same orientation in a relationship of their free will. A child is incapable of consenting and it will cause psychological harm to them, it infringes upon their human rights and the negative consequences are endless.

Being gay does not affect the rights of anyone and does not endanger anyone. The fact that you think that your point is legitimate is far more worrying. There are plenty of practises that are technically natural that aren't legal but that is because they endanger others or infringe upon the rights of others. However homosexuality does not do any such thing and there's no reason to say that there's something wrong with it.

wolfsbane

Zillah wrote: »

You seem to be confusing a few things here.

When a gay person says "I was born this way" they are usually saying it in response to someone saying something like "You are a deviant" or "You chose to be this way", or, indeed, "You are an abomination in God's eyes". You can hardly claim that God disapproves of your nature when it is He that defined that nature.

No one is claiming that their nature compels them to act on their sexuality, however. A reasonable person's response would be that suppressing one's sexuality tends to be a very unhealthy and, often, dangerous thing to do. Just look at the suicide statistics for gay teenagers, it is really quite horrifying, and almost exclusively the fault of a society that tries to convince them that they are dirty and broken down to the core, and weak for not being able to change.

The key difference with paedophilia is that because expressing it would harm children the individual simply has to endure the consequences of suppressing their sexuality because the alternative is unacceptable.

God did not make us selfish or vicious or lazy or - or any other sinful thing we just do because we are that way. We became that when Adam fell. We are all born just naturally heading off in our own way, not God's.

That applies to sexual orientation too. God made Adam and Eve heterosexual. After the Fall, sexually perverted desires came in as well. Men and women became dissatisfied with their husband/wife and looked for heterosexual excitement in others. Some find it is homosexual rather than heterosexual activity they desire. Others find it is with children or animals. Others find their desires crossing several of these. All sinful departures from the origin sexual natural God gave men and women.

So the "I was born this way" is no defence. At best it establishes how depraved we are even without society's pressures.

******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

qrrgprgua

Corkfeen wrote: »

You just assume the two are comparable which they are not. One causes a lifetime of pain for a child. While the other is between two consenting adults who love each other. Both parties are gay and choose to enter a relationship, this causes no harm whatsoever to either party and there is no reason it should not be socially acceptable.Being homosexual is natural and the next part is key, it is two people of the same orientation in a relationship of their free will. A child is incapable of consenting and it will cause psychological harm to them, it infringes upon their human rights and the negative consequences are endless.

Being gay does not affect the rights of anyone and does not endanger anyone. The fact that you think that your point is legitimate is far more worrying. There are plenty of practises that are technically natural that aren't legal but that is because they endanger others or infringe upon the rights of others. However homosexuality does not do any such thing and there's no reason to say that there's something wrong with it.

I agree with most above. But when you say natural,, its not really natural for a Man to be attracted to men? I am not saying its wrong.. Its like being blind naturally people see..?

My brother is Gay, has a partner for years, very happy, openly is what he is, all family support him and he helps us.. He sees nothing wrong with his life, he harms no one and he made his decision. as a society I think we should allow others to live their life as they want in this regard. As Christians faith is a gift and we should not judge those who don't believe.

wolfsbane

Corkfeen wrote: »

You just assume the two are comparable which they are not. One causes a lifetime of pain for a child. While the other is between two consenting adults who love each other. Both parties are gay and choose to enter a relationship, this causes no harm whatsoever to either party and there is no reason it should not be socially acceptable.Being homosexual is natural and the next part is key, it is two people of the same orientation in a relationship of their free will. A child is incapable of consenting and it will cause psychological harm to them, it infringes upon their human rights and the negative consequences are endless.

Being gay does not affect the rights of anyone and does not endanger anyone. The fact that you think that your point is legitimate is far more worrying. There are plenty of practises that are technically natural that aren't legal but that is because they endanger others or infringe upon the rights of others. However homosexuality does not do any such thing and there's no reason to say that there's something wrong with it.

But I am not equating the two as to degree of wickedness. The paedophile is indeed the much greater offender, since he harms the non-consenting, innocent child.

I am saying both are wicked. Consent to sin does not make it right. God hates it and will punish those who do not repent of all their sins, homosexuality included.

If you think I'm saying the State should punish homosexuality, you are mistaken. Consenting adults should be left to their own morality and behaviour.

What I don't want the State to do is try to make me declare homosexuality is not a sin. I believe in civil and religious liberty, my own as well as others. The homosexual has the right to assert the morality of his sexuality; I have the right to assert its immorality.

********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Wanderer2010

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed, they are different in the way you say. One involves non-consent, the other not. As to homosexuality not hurting anyone, that is at least disputable - the Christian will say it degrades the spirit of both parties by its unnatural affections and acts, and brings God's wrath for its perversion of His provision of sex.

But my point was not to link homosexuality with paedophilia - just to show that the common homosexual defence 'I was born this way/ it's an orientation, not a choice' is invalid. Even if true, it establishes no more than the same defence does for paedophilia.


*************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Wow, your ignorance is shocking. Im a homosexual and I WAS born this way, the same way I have blue eyes and brown hair. I cant make it any clearer than this: Homosexuals fancy people of their own sex because they are reacting to a natural sexual innate bodily urge in the exact same way that straight people fancy women, thats it, in every other way we are like regular people, we get sad angry happy fat thin, some of us are thin some fat etc. And as for the Christian view on that, I would take their hypocritical opinion with a huge dose of salt, given they have been using religion as the mask to cover the biggest paedo organisation that ever existed, all in the name of God and religion.

Himosexuals dont have to "defend" themselves, they are what they are, end of story, and no amount of conditioning will "cure" it. Please think about what you post before you spout such nonsense. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

qrrgprgua wrote: »

As Christians faith is a gift and we should not judge those who don't believe.

Correct. God judges them. But we are commissioned to call all sinners to repentance, to warn them to flee from the wrath to come. If we love them, we will not spare their feelings and leave them to the fire.

***********************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Actor

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, your ignorance is shocking. Im a homosexual and I WAS born this way, the same way I have blue eyes and brown hair. I cant make it any clearer than this: Homosexuals fancy people of their own sex because they are reacting to a natural sexual innate bodily urge in the exact same way that straight people fancy women, thats it, in every other way we are like regular people, we get sad angry happy fat thin, some of us are thin some fat etc. And as for the Christian view on that, I would take their hypocritical opinion with a huge dose of salt, given they have been using religion as the mask to cover the biggest paedo organisation that ever existed, all in the name of God and religion.

Himosexuals dont have to "defend" themselves, they are what they are, end of story, and no amount of conditioning will "cure" it. Please think about what you post before you spout such nonsense. :rolleyes:

I have no doubt that there are many Catholics of homosexual inclination (we all have our vices), but they are called to lead chaste, Christian lives.

qrrgprgua

What is a sin and what is unlawful are 2 different things. My brother knows my religous views and i know his..

Faith is a Path we follow, sex outside marriage with whoever is a Sin. And in our eyes is wrong. And society can't tell us to change out faith or to say our faith is wrong.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Just look at the suicide statistics for gay teenagers, it is really quite horrifying, and almost exclusively the fault of a society that tries to convince them that they are dirty and broken down to the core, and weak for not being able to change.

It is indeed it is horrifying. To think that someone could be driven to suicide.

However, in relation to the second part of your post, it is my understanding that suicide rates amongst gay men in places like San Fran, Amsterdam and other cities that would have large gay communities and a population that you would think generally doesn't actively disprove of gay lifestyles is not significantly different to other cities maybe not considered as gay friendly. I can't say why this is.

Anyway, yet another thread on homosexuality.

wolfsbane

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, your ignorance is shocking. Im a homosexual and I WAS born this way, the same way I have blue eyes and brown hair. I cant make it any clearer than this: Homosexuals fancy people of their own sex because they are reacting to a natural sexual innate bodily urge in the exact same way that straight people fancy women, thats it, in every other way we are like regular people, we get sad angry happy fat thin, some of us are thin some fat etc. And as for the Christian view on that, I would take their hypocritical opinion with a huge dose of salt, given they have been using religion as the mask to cover the biggest paedo organisation that ever existed, all in the name of God and religion.

Himosexuals dont have to "defend" themselves, they are what they are, end of story, and no amount of conditioning will "cure" it. Please think about what you post before you spout such nonsense. :rolleyes:

Did I say you were not born that way? I said even if you were, that is no proof that it is morally right. The article claims paedophiles are born that way - yet you and I condemn their desires & behaviour.

As to hypocrites claiming to be Christian, yes, there always has been a lot of that about. A reasonable man will test their sincerity by comparing their behaviour with their God's commandments.
*************************************************************
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

qrrgprgua

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is indeed it is horrifying. To think that someone could be driven to suicide.

However, in relation to the second part of your post, it is my understanding that suicide rates amongst gay men in places like San Fran, Amsterdam and other cities that would have large gay communities and a population that you would think generally doesn't actively disprove of gay lifestyles is not significantly different to other cities maybe not considered as gay friendly. I can't say why this is.

Anyway, yet another thread on homosexuality.

Indeed.. My brother was bullied for years in school... Being Gay is not easy.. Lets be careful, life is hard enough without saying to a gay man.... Go and be a lonely bachelor for the rest of your life. Sometimes company and to have a companion is good.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, yet another thread on homosexuality.

Yes, it is drifting from my original point regarding the 'I was born that way' homosexual defence.

Lock it if you like.

LizT

tommy2bad wrote: »

WOW, just wow!
That has to be trolling.
Must. Not. Feed.

I'd question any poster that joined 2 months ago and has racked up over 2000 posts in that time :rolleyes:

Zillah

wolfsbane wrote: »

God did not make us selfish or vicious or lazy or - or any other sinful thing we just do because we are that way. We became that when Adam fell. We are all born just naturally heading off in our own way, not God's.

That applies to sexual orientation too. God made Adam and Eve heterosexual. After the Fall, sexually perverted desires came in as well. Men and women became dissatisfied with their husband/wife and looked for heterosexual excitement in others. Some find it is homosexual rather than heterosexual activity they desire. Others find it is with children or animals. Others find their desires crossing several of these. All sinful departures from the origin sexual natural God gave men and women.

So the "I was born this way" is no defence. At best it establishes how depraved we are even without society's pressures.

Right; so your position is and always has been "Anything other than monogamous heterosexuality is wrong and perverted". Paedophilia being defined as an orientation really has nothing to do with it, this thread is basically just a soapbox for you.

Also, if you're so convinced that heterosexuality is the natural order as defined by God, how do you explain the widely documented examples of homosexuality in animals? They are not moral creatures and could not be subject to moral failings, they simply execute their natures as God designed them. Isn't it strange that we and animals behave in such similar ways, even though we are fundamentally - supposedly - different classes of creatures?

You also mentioned original sin. While we're on the topic, I'd like to note that I find it really strange that God would design reality in such a way that a disobedient act from a pair of humans would have an impact so pervasive, wide-spread and possessing such longevity.

PopePalpatine

wolfsbane wrote: »

1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

wolfsbane, do you believe every single word in the Bible is true?

Snappy Smurf

Just as I thought that the forum was getting boring, along comes a thread on homosexuality!

Well I think there is only one 'orientation' as such: the man is oriented to the woman for the purposes of making baby.

I think this issue of suicide is missing the point. Young guys who feel suicidal and also are feeling these attractions need to be loved and affirmed as men. I speak from experience here. Without affirmation and love, they die, either spiritually, or physically, or both. Telling them to embrace their (disordered) attractions is not an effective remedy to wholeness. It's just like pouring petrol on a fire in order to put it out.

I don't think labeling, or encouraging young men to self-identify, as gay or homosexual is a useful exercise. How about we love them as brothers? I think that would be a good start. And I think we need to listen to their pain and sadness. Is this support available in our churches? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In many cases, I suspect it's not.

davidgrn

Wolfsbane you are right. Paedophiles and gay people are sexual sinners and are exactly the same. God will punish us.

Feel better?

Zillah

Snappy Smurf wrote: »

Just as I thought that the forum was getting boring, along comes a thread on homosexuality!

Well I think there is only one 'orientation' as such: the man is oriented to the woman for the purposes of making baby.

I think this issue of suicide is missing the point. Young guys who feel suicidal and also are feeling these attractions need to be loved and affirmed as men. I speak from experience here. Without affirmation and love, they die, either spiritually, or physically, or both. Telling them to embrace their (disordered) attractions is not an effective remedy to wholeness. It's just like pouring petrol on a fire in order to put it out.

I don't think labeling, or encouraging young men to self-identify, as gay or homosexual is a useful exercise. How about we love them as brothers? I think that would be a good start. And I think we need to listen to their pain and sadness. Is this support available in our churches? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In many cases, I suspect it's not.

Uh huh. And if you love young gay men as brothers they'll magically stop being gay at some point, will they? Or are you maintaining the utterly antiquated and divorced-from-reality notion that gay people aren't really gay, they're just confused, even the the ones in their fifties who are happily married to each other and raising families?

tommy2bad

Wolfsbane, I wonder if this thing about orientation is a bit of a red herring, Whether it's a choice or not isn't the issue.
The issue is that your religious conviction is that it's wrong and you want this enshrined in law.
The thing is, thats a theocracy, they never end well.
Morality and legality are two different things, something being legal doesn't make it compulsory. Something being illegal dose however make that thing forbidden. To justifies such a restriction you have to prove harm, quoting the bible may convince you that hell fire is the end result of one choice but not convince everyone, unless it's going to harm you then thats their choice. You can't stop the wicked going to Babylon.

I don't think labeling, or encouraging young men to self-identify, as gay or homosexual is a useful exercise. How about we love them as brothers? I think that would be a good start. And I think we need to listen to their pain and sadness. Is this support available in our churches? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In many cases, I suspect it's not.

Snappy Smurf, thats a good question. And a good point, stop seeing people as labels and start accepting them as people. Of course that requires a non judgmental acceptance Disordered attractions, tut tut.

JimiTime

A fantastic testimony here from a repentant homosexual. His honesty is refreshing.

http://moorematt.com/2012/07/08/dear-gay-kid/

Check out this for honesty:

So did God make me straight? Nope. He made me ALIVE. I still am attracted to men, but all of the sudden, things became so much bigger than my sexual preferences.

Read the whole article, its good to get such a perspective from a homosexual who is not trying to make the bible fit around his desire, nor is he trying to hide the fact that he is still attracted to men in order to blend in.

doctoremma

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wouldn't have a problem defining pedophilia as an orientation

I completely agree. If people are wired in such a way that they feel attraction to men, women, children or their family pet, I couldn't really condemn them for it.

What I DO care about is any criminal activity resulting from that desire. Sex with someone too young to consent is illegal, for very good reasons. A defence of "I couldn't help it, it's the way I was made" isn't cutting it as an excuse for criminal activity.

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

I completely agree. If people are wired in such a way that they feel attraction to men, women, children or their family pet, I couldn't really condemn them for it.

What I DO care about is any criminal activity resulting from that desire. Sex with someone too young to consent is illegal, for very good reasons. A defence of "I couldn't help it, it's the way I was made" isn't cutting it as an excuse for criminal activity.

Good point. It's not about 'orientation', it's about actions people choose to commit.

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

Good point. It's not about 'orientation', it's about actions people choose to commit.

Whilst I agree with this, that doesn't mean I think "orientation" (of whatever nature) is irrelevant or unimportant to the person. The "orientation" part (rather than the "action" part) is intrinsic to anyone's character.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

But my point was not to link homosexuality with paedophilia - just to show that the common homosexual defence 'I was born this way/ it's an orientation, not a choice' is invalid. Even if true, it establishes no more than the same defence does for paedophilia.

Outside of Lady Gaga songs I don't really think that is used much as a 'defense' of homosexuality any more.

As you point out it is an inherently flawed argument in support of homosexuality. Firstly being born a particular way is irrelevant to whether such desires are moral or not. Secondly there is an implicate assertion in such a defense that yes it is wrong but I can't help it. The argument "its not a choice" implies that if it was people wouldn't choose it.

Modern homosexual communities that are no longer defined by outside anti-homosexual notions (ie they are much more comfortable simply being gay) seem to find such arguments in defense of their sexual orientation irrelevant, the defense is covered quite adequately in the notion that it is two consenting adults doing something that has no greater demonstrable damage or harm than any heterosexual relationship.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

A fantastic testimony here from a repentant homosexual. His honesty is refreshing.

http://moorematt.com/2012/07/08/dear-gay-kid/

Check out this for honesty:

So did God make me straight? Nope. He made me ALIVE. I still am attracted to men, but all of the sudden, things became so much bigger than my sexual preferences.

Read the whole article, its good to get such a perspective from a homosexual who is not trying to make the bible fit around his desire, nor is he trying to hide the fact that he is still attracted to men in order to blend in.

This is a story about a guy burning out on an empty promiscuous lifestyle. It isn't about being gay and it's insulting to imply that such hollow promiscuity is either ubiquitous for gay men or unique to gay men.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

A fantastic testimony here from a repentant homosexual. His honesty is refreshing.

http://moorematt.com/2012/07/08/dear-gay-kid/

Check out this for honesty:

So did God make me straight? Nope. He made me ALIVE. I still am attracted to men, but all of the sudden, things became so much bigger than my sexual preferences.

Read the whole article, its good to get such a perspective from a homosexual who is not trying to make the bible fit around his desire, nor is he trying to hide the fact that he is still attracted to men in order to blend in.

No offense, I'm sure you posted that with the greatest of intentions, but it is anti-homosexual bashing threw and threw. The post is full of comments such as "The gay lifestyle is driven by sex, not love." and "There was no love in the gay lifestyle, only a desire for more. More sex, more alcohol, more drugs, more out of control nights."

Now either this guy was unlucky to experience a gay community devoid of long term relationships (and apparently hooked on drink and drugs), or his experiences were biased by swallowing Christian propaganda so he saw only the bad in a community that probably contained good and bad. Either way such sweeping statements applied to all homosexual groups is ridiculous.

This guy has simply replaced one denial of reality (that he was gay) with another denial of reality (all gays are hedonistic coke addled sex addicts and relationships with them should be avoided) :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

This is a story about a guy burning out on an empty promiscuous lifestyle. It isn't about being gay and it's insulting to imply that such hollow promiscuity is either ubiquitous for gay men or unique to gay men.

Actually, its got more to do with God giving him life, and how things are so much bigger than sexual preference. And also, how it seems to him that his promiscuous life actually brought him to put himself in Gods hands. He reckons that without the homosexual desire, he could have been a sleepy cultural Christian who never gave God a second thought. But through his life of sin, he became broken before God, who built him up. So now, he is alive in Christ, and the realisation of the big picture showed him the insignificance of sexual preference in this context.
Its more a spiritual lesson, told from the perspective of someone who was caught in a particular form of sexual sin and directed at young people who may be in similar circumstances.
Its so much bigger than his particular experience with gay culture. I think most Christians would recognise that promiscuity etc, is certainly not confined to homosexuals. Whatever ones sexual preference, promiscuity is a moral epidemic in western civilisation. So that part of his story, could easily have been written by a young straight man. Its a shame that that is all you took from it.

Snappy Smurf

Zillah wrote: »

This is a story about a guy burning out on an empty promiscuous lifestyle. It isn't about being gay and it's insulting to imply that such hollow promiscuity is either ubiquitous for gay men or unique to gay men.

Well maybe I read it in that article or somewhere else, but apparently men are much more promiscuous than women, and the main thing that limit's men's promiscuity is the women. So if you take the women out and make it all guys, that's even more promiscuity. It is widely acknowledged that promiscuity is a big problem in the homosexual community, probably to an even greater degree than the heterosexuals, as promiscuous as they are.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

This is a story about a guy burning out on an empty promiscuous lifestyle. It isn't about being gay and it's insulting to imply that such hollow promiscuity is either ubiquitous for gay men or unique to gay men.

Actually, its got more to do with God giving him life, and how things are so much bigger than sexual preference. And also, how it seems to him that his promiscuous life actually brought him to put himself in Gods hands. He reckons that without the homosexual desire, he could have been a sleepy cultural Christian who never gave God a second thought. But through his life of sin, he became broken before God, who built him up. So now, he is alive in Christ, and the realisation of the big picture showed him the insignificance of sexual preference in this context.
Its more a spiritual lesson, told from the perspective of someone who was caught in a particular form of sexual sin and directed at young people who may be in similar circumstances.
Its so much bigger than his particular experience with gay culture. I think most Christians would recognise that promiscuity etc, is certainly not confined to homosexuals. Whatever ones sexual preference, promiscuity is a moral epidemic in western civilisation. So that part of his story, could easily have been written by a young straight man. Its a shame that that is all you took from it.

He just happens to demonise gay people and perpetuate offensive negative stereotypes at the same time. He could have just as easily addressed his message to young or Godless people, he's the one who made this about homosexuality, don't try and make out that I'm manufacturing that element.

finality

The thing is, "I was born like this" isn't a defense for being homosexual in itself.

It is, however, a defense against the notion that homosexuality is a choice and that people can change their sexual orientation. Asking a gay person to become straight is like asking you to become gay, OP. Leaving morals completely out of it here, and going only on the basis of attraction. You were born heterosexual and if you were asked to change that, you would be unable to.

"I was born like this" isn't a basis upon which to claim something is moral. I think that's what you were getting at, OP, and you're right there. But I don't think any reasonable person attempts to use it as such. As I said, it's merely a counter-argument to being told that one's sexual orientation is a choice.

Still, comparing homosexuality and paedophilia in ANY other context is ridiculous. A lot of very good points have been made on this matter so I won't reiterate.

Are you trying to use the point you made in the OP to somehow imply that gay marriage should be illegal? Listen, even if homosexuality were immoral according to your religion, that should have no bearing on the law. If everything that religion deemed immoral were illegal, our laws would be, frankly, laughable. It does state in the bible that it's immoral to wear a garment made of two different types of material. The morality of any religion has no place in law.

If you have no issue with homosexuality being legal, that's all well and good. As long as you don't try to stand between two people who love each other and happiness, you're completely entitled to your beliefs.

PDN

finality wrote: »

"I was born like this" isn't a basis upon which to claim something is moral. I think that's what you were getting at, OP, and you're right there. But I don't think any reasonable person attempts to use it as such.

No reasonable person would attempt to do so, which would be fine if only reasonable people posted on boards.ie.

Unfortunately, with monotonous regularity, it is an argument that keeps being trotted out by morons who visit this forum.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

He just happens to demonise gay people and perpetuate offensive negative stereotypes at the same time. He could have just as easily addressed his message to young or Godless people, he's the one who made this about homosexuality, don't try and make out that I'm manufacturing that element.

Of course it is about homosexuality, because the sin he struggled with is homosexuality. It's based on his experience, and realistically unless you were there to claim these are mere stereotypes your criticism is lacking.

The point of his post is to show how he found Christ. You could replace that sin with many others for me, and no doubt for other Christians on this forum.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

He just happens to demonise gay people and perpetuate offensive negative stereotypes at the same time. He could have just as easily addressed his message to young or Godless people, he's the one who made this about homosexuality, don't try and make out that I'm manufacturing that element.

But he couldn't have just addressed it to a generic youth. He specifically wanted to direct it at people who he can empathise with. Its like if I'm speaking out against taking heroin, I can be very wise, and speak the truth. However, someone who has overcome the grips of heroin can reach the heroin user on a much more personal and empathetic level. They can tap into specific moments, experiences and thought progressions etc. His experience is his experience.

Zillah

philologos wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

He just happens to demonise gay people and perpetuate offensive negative stereotypes at the same time. He could have just as easily addressed his message to young or Godless people, he's the one who made this about homosexuality, don't try and make out that I'm manufacturing that element.

Of course it is about homosexuality, because the sin he struggled with is homosexuality. It's based on his experience, and realistically unless you were there to claim these are mere stereotypes your criticism is lacking.

The point of his post is to show how he found Christ. You could replace that sin with many others for me, and no doubt for other Christians on this forum.

As a gay person with plenty of gay friends I think I'm pretty well positioned to comment on whether its a stereotype or not, thanks. Well, put it this way; if this was an article about the emptiness of "the black lifestyle" do you think it would sound racist? Why is it ok to paint an entire sexuality with one brush but not a race?

philologos

The problem is there's no evidence to suggest sexuality is biologically determined as race is. One may have desires but it is a choice to act on them.

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

The problem is there's no evidence to suggest sexuality is biologically determined as race is. One may have desires but it is a choice to act on them.

You seem to be suggesting that acting on them is in some way inherently bad, beyond "my holy book told me so" there is no reason to suggest that this is so. If a homosexual couple wishes to act on their desires in a safe and responsible way then all the best to them.