• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God And Homosexuality

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
What is a child? How old were you when you had your first sexual experience, and with which gender, if I may ask, please?

I was an adult. Same sex.

I answered that question once for you already. Please don't make me repeat myself yet again. Go back and actually read what I've written to you in this thread. You're not listening, you're simply angling to prove your preconceived theology true. Again, that does not motivate me to participate in this cross-examination of my life.
 

Mitty

Active Member
I recently reread the book of Leviticus, and am confident it does not describe anal sex. I encourage you to take your mind from the gutter of sexual deviance and instead be open minded:
That's just your personal opinion.

So what does Leviticus 18 & 20 & Romans 1:26-27 describe as disgusting and "vile" and "unseemly" if you like it both ways and believe that the bible doesn't say that anal sex of women and men is disgusting and that it is the "natural use of the woman"?

Do you think that Leviticus 18 & 20 say that man lying on the floor playing tiddly winks or chess with mankind as with womankind is disgusting and that anal sex isn't and is the "natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27)?

Homosexuals need a third partner to produce a child, have only recently been partially accepted in society, and have exactly what the Bible says, pain and suffering, sometimes persecution-imposed, sometimes self-imposed. IMHO, Jesus wants people to be whole, healed, instead.
Is that why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of a wife, and why he asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs?
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I wasn't sexually abused or "imprinted" as a child, and had a generally good relationship with my father growing up. And yes I've always been gay. I answered several of your questions, till you started alleging that I was lying simply because my experience didn't match your stereotype.



Such as? How did you figure out what "reality" is?



AKA anecdote.



Yes, you did. The fact that you don't even realize you're doing it is part of the problem.



Trauma by definition is something that happens to a person, as a result of some event.

Trauma | Psychology Today

So yes, all trauma is from outside the person themselves. One example of trauma is being gay or trans and being raised in a deeply homophobic or transphobic home.

Your anecdotes of gay people you know are not representative of all gay people. You understand that, right?

I was moved to the understanding I have after reading about a secular psychologist who had counseled several hundred gay men. His anecdotal evidence and mine are statistically significant.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I was an adult. Same sex.

I answered that question once for you already. Please don't make me repeat myself yet again. Go back and actually read what I've written to you in this thread. You're not listening, you're simply angling to prove your preconceived theology true. Again, that does not motivate me to participate in this cross-examination of my life.

Not preconceived theology--anecdotal knowledge of a pathology/lifestyle.

For example, you say you have a great relationship with a father--but his theology is a polar opposite to yours.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
That's just your personal opinion.

So what does Leviticus 18 & 20 & Romans 1:26-27 describe as disgusting and "vile" and "unseemly" if you like it both ways and believe that the bible doesn't say that anal sex of women and men is disgusting and that it is the "natural use of the woman"?

Do you think that Leviticus 18 & 20 say that man lying on the floor playing tiddly winks or chess with mankind as with womankind is disgusting and that anal sex isn't and is the "natural use of the woman" (Romans 1:26-27)?

Is that why Jesus loved one of his disciples instead of a wife, and why he asked his followers to accept that some men do not marry because they are so born from their mothers' wombs?

Ask 100 people what this means, "A man must not lie with a man as with a woman, they should be put to death" and 99 of them will say, "homosexuality is forbidden".

I'm talking to the 1 in 100, for sure, but that's okay. I believe Jesus rejoices when the 1 sheep returns to the fold!
 

Mitty

Active Member
Ask 100 people what this means, "A man must not lie with a man as with a woman, they should be put to death" and 99 of them will say, "homosexuality is forbidden".

I'm talking to the 1 in 100, for sure, but that's okay. I believe Jesus rejoices when the 1 sheep returns to the fold!
Then those 99 people are WRONG WRONG WRONG and are completely irrelevant. Leviticus 20 obviously only says that anal sex is forbidden, and is also extended to anal sex of women as described in Romans 1:26-28, and does not say that men playing tiddly winks with men is forbidden.

And do those 99 people say that it was also forbidden for Jesus to love a particular disciple instead of a wife? And can they tell us how often Jesus ejaculated and whether it was more or less often than he defecated?
 
Last edited:

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I was moved to the understanding I have after reading about a secular psychologist who had counseled several hundred gay men. His anecdotal evidence and mine are statistically significant.

According to who? Which peer reviewed research supports your conclusions?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Not preconceived theology--anecdotal knowledge of a pathology/lifestyle.

My sexual orientation is not a pathology. The fact that you are referring to it as such demonstrates that your understanding is abysmally out of date and not evidence-based.

For example, you say you have a great relationship with a father--but his theology is a polar opposite to yours.

I said I had a good relationship with my father in childhood. Again, you demonstrate that you are not reading for comprehension. You are reading to confirm your preconceived theology.

Very obviously, yes, his lack of acceptance of my sexuality since coming out as an adult has created strain in our relationship. But we still love each other, talk to each other, see each other, share our lives, etc.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Homosexuals need a third partner to produce a child,
I find it quite irrational to even mention this as though it's a problem.
For one thing, it's not true. My partner has four kids. He tried to "straighten" himself out by getting married and making babies. Twelve years and four kids later the marriage, built on sand, finally collapsed in an ugly divorce.

But more to the point. I can understand why primitive people would try to maximize procreation and build it into their iron age ethics. But we now live in a world of well over seven billion people. We need to start reducing the population, not maximizing procreation.

Maybe gay people are God's way of saying "Get over the be fruitful and multiply" thing!
If it were, would you just not hear Him? Because you're too busy listening to what you want to hear?
Tom
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Then those 99 people are WRONG WRONG WRONG and are completely irrelevant. Leviticus 20 obviously only says that anal sex is forbidden, and is also extended to anal sex of women as described in Romans 1:26-28, and does not say that men playing tiddly winks with men is forbidden.

And do those 99 people say that it was also forbidden for Jesus to love a particular disciple instead of a wife? And can they tell us how often Jesus ejaculated and whether it was more or less often than he defecated?

Ejaculation and defecation aren't sin. Muslims have an apologetic like "How can Jesus be Allah/God, since He defecated?"

Jesus explained that what you eat makes you neither clean nor unclean, as it passes through your body. What makes us clean or unclean is the heart. How is your heart before God today, do you think?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
My sexual orientation is not a pathology. The fact that you are referring to it as such demonstrates that your understanding is abysmally out of date and not evidence-based.



I said I had a good relationship with my father in childhood. Again, you demonstrate that you are not reading for comprehension. You are reading to confirm your preconceived theology.

Very obviously, yes, his lack of acceptance of my sexuality since coming out as an adult has created strain in our relationship. But we still love each other, talk to each other, see each other, share our lives, etc.

There is some bad communication here on my part, for which I apologize. The two things, one or both of which that are prevalent in homosexuality, are lack of closeness/distance/aloofness with the same sex parent and/or sexal imprinting (first sex experience(s)) with the same sex.

A third factor is the modern generation that was told they might be gay if they lack opposite sex attraction. Yet most boys feel girls "have coodies" when they're prepubescent.

So when I meet a man, for example, who says he's always been gay, I ask (respectfully) for details. Often, I hear, "I've always had this hole in my heart/life", which hole is best healed by Jesus IMHO. And when I hear, "I've never liked girls," well, I didn't either, before the onset of puberty.

"Pathology" isn't just disease study but the study of injury. In my experience gays have some wounds, and not only from societal pressures. But again, gays and straights who aren't born again need to be so IMHO, to be healed. Gays AND straights.

Thanks for understanding. Thanks for your patience with me.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I find it quite irrational to even mention this as though it's a problem.
For one thing, it's not true. My partner has four kids. He tried to "straighten" himself out by getting married and making babies. Twelve years and four kids later the marriage, built on sand, finally collapsed in an ugly divorce.

But more to the point. I can understand why primitive people would try to maximize procreation and build it into their iron age ethics. But we now live in a world of well over seven billion people. We need to start reducing the population, not maximizing procreation.

Maybe gay people are God's way of saying "Get over the be fruitful and multiply" thing!
If it were, would you just not hear Him? Because you're too busy listening to what you want to hear?
Tom

Sounds like there's a struggle between evolutionary biology and will/self-will. I know you believe evolution gives us the desire to procreate, and that scientifically speaking, procreation benefits our species in most cases. We're not out of food and resources yet, but sadly, our generation is angry and unwanted, as we kill a third of our babies before they're born. Or would you tell me evolution is "warning" us to limit our babies now?

Tom, when I wrote, "gays need a third partner to procreate," and you give an example, saying "not true", I hope you realize your example WAS a third person, a woman who had four children with a man who now has a male partner(s) going forward. That's an example where I find you're not listening, just grinding an axe.

Grind one with me and not with God and you'll do fine IMHO. We both talk to/at God too much and don't listen to Him often enough, I would say.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
There is some bad communication here on my part, for which I apologize. The two things, one or both of which that are prevalent in homosexuality, are lack of closeness/distance/aloofness with the same sex parent and/or sexal imprinting (first sex experience(s)) with the same sex.

So here's the thing. You seem to be taking your anecdotal correlations that you've come across and implying that they indicate some kind of causation when it comes to homosexuality. I'm sorry, that dog just don't hunt, on a couple levels. 1, your anecdotes have not been reproduced in peer-reviewed research, and 2, correlation is not causation.

As far as LGBTQ kids not being as close with their same-sex parent goes, let's think of a reason why that might be. LGBTQ kids are often gender-nonconforming in their affect, behaviors, interests, etc. So it makes some sense that they would not have as close a relationship with a cis/straight same-sex parent, because the parent doesn't know how to relate to them. But that indicates that the queerness caused the lack of closeness, rather than the lack of closeness causing the queerness. See the difference?

A third factor is the modern generation that was told they might be gay if they lack opposite sex attraction. Yet most boys feel girls "have coodies" when they're prepubescent.

:facepalm:

I suspect you don't mean to come off this way, but that is deeply condescending to gay people. You really think I'm gay because I believe women have "coodies?" Seriously? You don't think gay people are smart or mature enough to distinguish lack of sexual attraction from prepubescent coodie fears? If you want me to believe you actually respect us as human beings, ridiculous assertions like this really don't help your case.

So when I meet a man, for example, who says he's always been gay, I ask (respectfully) for details. Often, I hear, "I've always had this hole in my heart/life", which hole is best healed by Jesus IMHO. And when I hear, "I've never liked girls," well, I didn't either, before the onset of puberty.

I suspect that the bulk of gay people you've met who say things like that are likely Christians or were raised Christians. Christianity (the conservative varieties, anyway) drill into our heads from as early as we can remember that being gay is something unnatural, shameful, sinful, disgusting, dangerous, a sign of spiritual deficiency, fill-in-your-favorite-negative-adjective-here. It's quite difficult to free oneself from that indoctrination, even years after one has walked away, even if intellectually one understands it doesn't make sense.

"Pathology" isn't just disease study but the study of injury. In my experience gays have some wounds, and not only from societal pressures. But again, gays and straights who aren't born again need to be so IMHO, to be healed. Gays AND straights.

Again, there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that homosexuality is caused by a "wound." Homosexuality is just a natural variant of being human. It has occurred across cultures, across religions, across time, dating back millennia.

Thanks for understanding. Thanks for your patience with me.

You're welcome.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ask 100 people what this means, "A man must not lie with a man as with a woman, they should be put to death" and 99 of them will say, "homosexuality is forbidden".
Immaterial. 99% of Christians can't explain the theology of their own church, either. Uninformed surface reading =/= exegesis of the text in question.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I don't have A (ONE) gay friend, but many, and have counseled Christians and non-Christians who struggle with gay desires, so your point that I'm prejudiced is moot. I AM biased, because I'm a fundamentalist, yes, and much of what you presented is subjective and even fashionable today.

Why would you avoid transparency with me? I'll make it simple for you:

EVERY gay person I've met/know who never had straight desire/attempted to perform straight sex/cover up/etc. were either distant from their same sex parent/guardian or imprinted when early sexual experience was gay experience.

I asked a few questions to get you thinking, not to trick you or entrap you, but when people identify as gay today? I should wonder whether they are temporairily so/experimenting/feeling empathy with the persecuted, etc.
1) You've contradicted yourself when you say that your prejudice is "moot" and then go on to say how biased you are.
2) Do you have a degree in psychology or psychiatry? Because if you don't I have no idea why you're counselling anyone about things you are admittedly biased about in the first place.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I was moved to the understanding I have after reading about a secular psychologist who had counseled several hundred gay men. His anecdotal evidence and mine are statistically significant.
As I pointed out to you before on another topic, your anecdotes are cherry-picked and therefore don't come anywhere close to statistical significance.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Iron age thinking is not all there is to the Bible! For example, you know how the disciples asked, "Who sinned? This man or his parents, that he was born blind?" and that Jesus elevated their thinking by responding, "Neither, it's so the power of God [by this next healing] is on display." But the disciples forgot that Moses wrote, "Who makes a man blind or deaf or seeing? It is I, the Lord, I Am!" I encourage you to reread the Bible, this time recognizing how progressive and prescient it is in many ways.
First of all, I have a graduate degree in biblical studies, so it's likely that I'm more aware about the bible (and the ways in which it is correctly exegeted -- and ways in which it is incorrectly eisegeted) and its theological composition than you. I'm aware of the progressive nature of the NT (and OT) teachings as compared to the general mind set of the times in which the texts were produced. But I'm also aware how very easy it is for people to "get in their own way" when dabbling in the interpretive process. It's this sort of "interpretive" nonsense that mires the texts in such iron age thinking. I encourage you to get a graduate degree in biblical studies before you begin to sound like an "expert" on the subject.

Science recognizes humanity, but science recognizes procreation as survival of the species, so I think you might be cherry picking there, since homosexuals need a third partner to procreate.
Sex isn't all about procreation. Science recognizes that, as well.

The Bible doesn't address being born gay
Because the biblical writers weren't aware of orientation as a natural part of the human condition.

but it does address why some homosexual sex happens, and gives us insight as to how (some) people come to be gay or how some on the scale of sex who identify as straight have gay sex at times.
that insight is limited by lack of knowledge.

Prepubescent men often think girls have coodies, and I didn't want to have sex until I had pubescent sex desire, so "I always knew I liked boys and disliked girls" is part of the myth to me. Again, you see the Bible as myth and whatever society says as binding, so how can we enhance your thinking here?
Immaterial. My thinking needs no "enhancing." First, I'm straight as an arrow, and I thought girls had cooties in school. But I also know that I was attracted to girls at an early age. I had a "girlfriend" when I was 5. Second, I think you're confused about how I view the bible vs. society. So, how can we enhance your thinking here?

The issue is people turn to homosexuality from lust or brokenness (Romans 1) and God wants us to be wholistic and whole.
Not so in all cases.

Jesus heals and IMHO you should let Him heal your mindset that everything is clean and decent in bed. It sure is--for married straight couples, who've made vows to one another and often, God.
What about for married homosexual couples, who've made vows to one another and God?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
There is some bad communication here on my part, for which I apologize. The two things, one or both of which that are prevalent in homosexuality, are lack of closeness/distance/aloofness with the same sex parent and/or sexal imprinting (first sex experience(s)) with the same sex.

A third factor is the modern generation that was told they might be gay if they lack opposite sex attraction. Yet most boys feel girls "have coodies" when they're prepubescent.

So when I meet a man, for example, who says he's always been gay, I ask (respectfully) for details. Often, I hear, "I've always had this hole in my heart/life", which hole is best healed by Jesus IMHO. And when I hear, "I've never liked girls," well, I didn't either, before the onset of puberty.

"Pathology" isn't just disease study but the study of injury. In my experience gays have some wounds, and not only from societal pressures. But again, gays and straights who aren't born again need to be so IMHO, to be healed. Gays AND straights.

Thanks for understanding. Thanks for your patience with me.
This is outdated nonsense that was discarded many years ago in the fields of psychology and psychiatry.

People don't "turn gay" because their mommies told them that "boys have cooties."

Homosexuality is not an "injury" either.

Everybody has wounds, that's all part of life. But "wounds" don't make you gay any more than "lack of wounds" makes you straight or any other such nonsense.
 

Piculet

Active Member
This is outdated nonsense that was discarded many years ago in the fields of psychology and psychiatry.

People don't "turn gay" because their mommies told them that "boys have cooties."

Homosexuality is not an "injury" either.

Everybody has wounds, that's all part of life. But "wounds" don't make you gay any more than "lack of wounds" makes you straight or any other such nonsense.
Homosexuality seems to be on the rise though?
 
Top