Detransition?

6,371 Views | 102 Replies | Last: 26 days ago by The Banned
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

And why would kids raised in the exact same environment by the same parents supposedly choose to be gay? While the other kids are straight? Are there some that are maybe "acting out" or whatever? I guess.
Because we're not machines created off some assembly line. The same inputs will not necessarily correlate to the same outputs. Being raised in the same environment will tend to create the same choices in life (son choosing the same career path as his father, struggling with the same sins, same political parties), but not always.

Some people are more strong or weak willed than others, more/less emotional, deal with anxiety differently. Given the same "prompts" and a person will end up more chubby than their sibling, more prone to alcoholism than their sibling, academics, career ambition, and a host of other things that make us all different. Despite being raised in the "exact same environment."


I don't know but being gay seems like a huge jump for me. Growing up we knew who the effeminate guys were in elementary school. Why would anybody choose that?

I mean, my grandkids are four and six and male and female respectfully. They already flirt with the opposite sex. And it seems like if one is exposed to the exact same environment as their siblings and respond differently, doesn't that mean they were wired that way?
Watch the video I linked. The effeminate boys you mention notice they aren't as strong or aggressive as other males. They typically don't have a good relationship with their father because of this. They feel like they are missing an ingredient, so to speak. 9 times out of 10, they are just slow developers, and they even out after puberty, at least to the degree of "normal guy". Maybe never a jock, and maybe still pulled towards the arts, but they will still be a man with normal sexuality if patiently loved and taught that he is still a regular boy. However, because of the emotional trauma in early childhood (often times being singled out as effeminate and not accepted by their peer group) and lack of stable, adult male connection, they become confused and it carries into their sexuality.

But this only accounts for the more effimate ones. But not every gay guy is effeminate, so you can't say we can identify homosexuality in early life based on that. There are definitely gay men that have masculine phenotypes. They also have trauma and confusion in early life, but it manifests differently. All we can say is that we can identify in early life slower developers, not homosexuality.

And again, no one is CHOOSING to have homosexual desires. It is something that afflicts the person, and they must grapple with. Just like no one CHOOSES their addiction. They dabble in something and the feelings become overwhelming. But anyone who actually acknowledges they are addicted to something want to not feel that way anymore. Even if they die of liver cirrhosis, they likely did it in a spiral of self-loathing and helplessness. Most older homosexuals will tell you they would have done anything to get rid of the feeling. But that doesn't mean the feeling was engrained in them since birth.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

And why would kids raised in the exact same environment by the same parents supposedly choose to be gay? While the other kids are straight? Are there some that are maybe "acting out" or whatever? I guess.
Because we're not machines created off some assembly line. The same inputs will not necessarily correlate to the same outputs. Being raised in the same environment will tend to create the same choices in life (son choosing the same career path as his father, struggling with the same sins, same political parties), but not always.

Some people are more strong or weak willed than others, more/less emotional, deal with anxiety differently. Given the same "prompts" and a person will end up more chubby than their sibling, more prone to alcoholism than their sibling, academics, career ambition, and a host of other things that make us all different. Despite being raised in the "exact same environment."


I don't know but being gay seems like a huge jump for me. Growing up we knew who the effeminate guys were in elementary school. Why would anybody choose that?

I mean, my grandkids are four and six and female and male respectfully. They already flirt with the opposite sex. And it seems like if one is exposed to the exact same environment as their siblings and respond differently, doesn't that mean they were wired to respond that way?

So you think being gay is a choice? Like alcoholism or the other things you mentioned? I mean, "choosing" to be gay just seems to be different than being prone to addiction.


Derm stop thinking with Sola feels. Part of nurture is what happens as you make choices; you're in a trap where the choices you make don't change you, when in reality they do (meaning even how you think reshapes and rewires your brain). Don't treat this like a tulip discussion where it's once gay always gay.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

dermdoc said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

And why would kids raised in the exact same environment by the same parents supposedly choose to be gay? While the other kids are straight? Are there some that are maybe "acting out" or whatever? I guess.
Because we're not machines created off some assembly line. The same inputs will not necessarily correlate to the same outputs. Being raised in the same environment will tend to create the same choices in life (son choosing the same career path as his father, struggling with the same sins, same political parties), but not always.

Some people are more strong or weak willed than others, more/less emotional, deal with anxiety differently. Given the same "prompts" and a person will end up more chubby than their sibling, more prone to alcoholism than their sibling, academics, career ambition, and a host of other things that make us all different. Despite being raised in the "exact same environment."


I don't know but being gay seems like a huge jump for me. Growing up we knew who the effeminate guys were in elementary school. Why would anybody choose that?

I mean, my grandkids are four and six and female and male respectfully. They already flirt with the opposite sex. And it seems like if one is exposed to the exact same environment as their siblings and respond differently, doesn't that mean they were wired to respond that way?

So you think being gay is a choice? Like alcoholism or the other things you mentioned? I mean, "choosing" to be gay just seems to be different than being prone to addiction.


Derm stop thinking with Sola feels. Part of nurture is what happens as you make choices; you're in a trap where the choices you make don't change you, when in reality they do (meaning even how you think reshapes and rewires your brain). Don't treat this like a tulip discussion where it's once gay always gay.


You are correct. God can change anything even sexual attractions.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

And why would kids raised in the exact same environment by the same parents supposedly choose to be gay? While the other kids are straight? Are there some that are maybe "acting out" or whatever? I guess.
Because we're not machines created off some assembly line. The same inputs will not necessarily correlate to the same outputs. Being raised in the same environment will tend to create the same choices in life (son choosing the same career path as his father, struggling with the same sins, same political parties), but not always.

Some people are more strong or weak willed than others, more/less emotional, deal with anxiety differently. Given the same "prompts" and a person will end up more chubby than their sibling, more prone to alcoholism than their sibling, academics, career ambition, and a host of other things that make us all different. Despite being raised in the "exact same environment."


I don't know but being gay seems like a huge jump for me. Growing up we knew who the effeminate guys were in elementary school. Why would anybody choose that?

I mean, my grandkids are four and six and female and male respectfully. They already flirt with the opposite sex. And it seems like if one is exposed to the exact same environment as their siblings and respond differently, doesn't that mean they were wired to respond that way?

So you think being gay is a choice? Like alcoholism or the other things you mentioned? I mean, "choosing" to be gay just seems to be different than being prone to addiction.
Yes, people have the power of choice. To determine what is good for them and to subsequently choose it. Part of a parent's responsibility is to identify areas where the child is choosing to their detriment and to correct it. The earlier the better because "wiring" or "choices" that are not corrected become engrained to the point that it's more difficult to undo.
10andBOUNCE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My appeal to Biblical context seems to have fallen on deaf ears. How about an appeal to what the Church Fathers taught on these matters?

The following is per ChatGPT when asked what Chrysostom taught….

Quote:

John Chrysostom explicitly condemns homosexual acts in several of his homilies, particularly in his commentary on Romans 1.

In Homily IV on Romans, he interprets Paul's passage (Romans 1:2627) as an indication of deep moral corruption:
"All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males… For their soul is more dishonored than their body, and that their madness is more grievous, I say not than fornication only, but even than adultery itself."

Chrysostom even goes as far as to say that such behavior degrades the human soul more than other sins because it inverts what he sees as the natural order of creation.

Chrysostom upheld a strongly hierarchical and patriarchal view of gender, rooted in a literal reading of Genesis and Pauline epistles.

While Chrysostom is revered as a saint in many Christian traditions, including the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, his teachings on sexuality and gender are seen today by many scholars and theologians as historically situated and problematic from a modern ethical and human rights standpoint.

The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
10andBOUNCE said:

My appeal to Biblical context seems to have fallen on deaf ears. How about an appeal to what the Church Fathers taught on these matters?

The following is per ChatGPT when asked what Chrysostom taught….

Quote:

John Chrysostom explicitly condemns homosexual acts in several of his homilies, particularly in his commentary on Romans 1.

In Homily IV on Romans, he interprets Paul's passage (Romans 1:2627) as an indication of deep moral corruption:
"All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males… For their soul is more dishonored than their body, and that their madness is more grievous, I say not than fornication only, but even than adultery itself."

Chrysostom even goes as far as to say that such behavior degrades the human soul more than other sins because it inverts what he sees as the natural order of creation.

Chrysostom upheld a strongly hierarchical and patriarchal view of gender, rooted in a literal reading of Genesis and Pauline epistles.

While Chrysostom is revered as a saint in many Christian traditions, including the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, his teachings on sexuality and gender are seen today by many scholars and theologians as historically situated and problematic from a modern ethical and human rights standpoint.


Your appeal hasn't fallen on deaf ears. Pablo is the only one seeming to advocate for a way to make it work. If we all (for the most part) agree with what scripture is saying, why appeal to it? The rest of the discussion is figuring out how to work with the situation at hand. Pacifist is doing that with a spiritual director, clearly. Derm just has practical questions.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.


The problem with the argument is its incompleteness: it makes sense if God gives no other commands or blessings through scripture. The purpose God gives to humans (subdue the earth and fill it / multiply), blessing the faithful with children (life is a product of love), Christ himself saying what the sacrament of marriage is, and so on, and so forth. Combine that with the plaintext reading of what you reference, and historical tradition and interpretation, and it's clear this isn't simply a translation issue.

Believe what you want, but the Bible isn't a word exercise in dead languages to parse meaning, which is what this argument reduces it to. We're a church, tradition is democracy through time (Chesterton), we have more than guessing games to rely on! Be confident in your faith and trust that God desires not the death of a sinner.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
powerbelly said:

Praying for the continued guidance from the Holy Spirit.
Thank you.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.
This is a modern reinterpretation. We do not find any church fathers that interpreted it this way. It's been understood to mean the masculine and the effeminate partner in the act, if you catch my drift.

And even worse, if this is referring to young temple males, it is condemning underaged children for actions committed against them. Kids for being forced to have sex with men aren't allowed to inherit the kingdom of Heaven and are just as guilty as the adult males? They are listed together and they receive equal condemnation in this view. I think you would disagree with that.

But to your question on whether they are born gay or not, the conclusion is abundantly clear. The problem is, no one likes the conclusion. LGBT iterations are verifiably proven to be predominantly caused by environmental factors. You can do the math yourself: less than 30% of homosexual tendencies are genetic. This means over 70% of homosexual tendencies are due to environment. If it's due to environment, by definition they are not "born this way". No one really debates this. They just don't shout it from the roof tops because the logical conclusion is that it isn't natural. This would be a death blow to LGBT ideology. If the bias wasn't in favor of LGBT lifestyles, this would be an open and shut case. The sad reality is that by telling them they are born this way, they are being kept from searching for answers as to why they feel this way.

All LGBT people deserve our empathy and compassion. Some of the methods of "praying the gay away" that were popularized decades ago were horrifying. So are some of the methods we used to treat alcoholics, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc. Just because they were treated incorrectly in the past doesn't mean a correct treatment doesn't exist.
Scotts Tot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.


dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

dermdoc said:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.
This is a modern reinterpretation. We do not find any church fathers that interpreted it this way. It's been understood to mean the masculine and the effeminate partner in the act, if you catch my drift.

And even worse, if this is referring to young temple males, it is condemning underaged children for actions committed against them. Kids for being forced to have sex with men aren't allowed to inherit the kingdom of Heaven and are just as guilty as the adult males? They are listed together and they receive equal condemnation in this view. I think you would disagree with that.

But to your question on whether they are born gay or not, the conclusion is abundantly clear. The problem is, no one likes the conclusion. LGBT iterations are verifiably proven to be predominantly caused by environmental factors. You can do the math yourself: less than 30% of homosexual tendencies are genetic. This means over 70% of homosexual tendencies are due to environment. If it's due to environment, by definition they are not "born this way". No one really debates this. They just don't shout it from the roof tops because the logical conclusion is that it isn't natural. This would be a death blow to LGBT ideology. If the bias wasn't in favor of LGBT lifestyles, this would be an open and shut case. The sad reality is that by telling them they are born this way, they are being kept from searching for answers as to why they feel this way.

All LGBT people deserve our empathy and compassion. Some of the methods of "praying the gay away" that were popularized decades ago were horrifying. So are some of the methods we used to treat alcoholics, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc. Just because they were treated incorrectly in the past doesn't mean a correct treatment doesn't exist.


So if environment is so important why do kids raised exactly the same way have different sexual identities. Does one have the 30% genetic proclivity and the other doesn't? The environment is exactly the same. There are twin studies also.

Basically what you are saying is that being "gay" is just a sin like any other sin and if you are truly born again you will lose it? I don't buy that after working with devoted gay Christian's for years.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Scotts Tot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Howdy, it is me!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You keep making comments that seem to imply that Calvinists believe gay people are doomed to hell…not so.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:





So if environment is so important why do kids raised exactly the same way have different sexual identities. Does one have the 30% genetic proclivity and the other doesn't? The environment is exactly the same. There are twin studies also.

Basically what you are saying is that being "gay" is just a sin like any other sin and if you are truly born again you will lose it? I don't buy that after working with devoted gay Christian's for years.
No kid, even twins, are raised in the exact same environment. They have different friends. They have different teachers. They interpret the same interaction with parents in different ways. Identical twins don't simply agree on everything. They can go to the same movie and have different views on how good or bad the movie was. As Martin (I think) said, we aren't robots. We are not simple input - output machines. In fact, the reality that the majority of identical twins where at least one twin is gay, the other identical twin is not. It's a perfect example of genetics not being the primary factor. Something happens TO the person. What that is is different in every case.

The bolded is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Some may be blessed with that freedom, but the story of most that have left that lifestyle is a much deeper spiritual exploration of who they are and who they are created to be. It takes a long time and deep investigation into how they got to where they are. It's God who gives them the grace to realize that what they are doing is wrong, but the healing process is one that they have to chose to go through. And it starts by separating your identity from the feeling. The identification with the feeling is harmful.

I encourage you to go listen to the video I linked. This is a man who actually lived it, rather than two straight men discussing it. Everything I'm telling you is the view held by Christians who have left homosexual lifestyles.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I see I have poked the proverbial hornet's nest. Would encourage all to dialogue with lesbian and gay couples to better understand.

We can parse scripture all day, however, in the end it is about people.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry about attributing that quote to you. And yes, I am well aware of the various forms of love define in the Greek language- hence my reference to romantic love, aka Eros.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A point of clarification.

I have distinguished heterosexual love between a man and a woman and homosexual love between persons of the same sex. While both, in my opinion, share a romantic aspect, they have a different dynamic in the sense that love between a man and a woman have a uniative and procreative aspect- wheats love between persons of the same sex only have a uniative aspect.

This may seem insignificant, but I think there is something there that reflects the love of God. I'm still trying to understand, but I don't believe it to be a perversion of God's love because of the effects.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Howdy, it is me! said:

You keep making comments that seem to imply that Calvinists believe gay people are doomed to hell…not so.
They have to be celibate, correct? If they are not, that proves they are not of the elect.

And I am not a Calvinist so I would seriously like to hear what a Calvinist thinks about gay folks. Thanks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

I see I have poked the proverbial hornet's nest. Would encourage all to dialogue with lesbian and gay couples to better understand.

We can parse scripture all day, however, in the end it is about people.
Actually it is all about Jesus. And what would He do?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Scotts Tot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.


What about a gay male who does not have sex until he marries a male?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.


What about a gay male who does not have sex until he marries a male?
Tots, i think this is what you are missing in the question of "born this way". Men wanting to have sex with a woman have a solution: get married. But men born to want to have sex with men don't have this solution. This is why it's so important to the LGBT movement for "born this way" to be a thing. It makes God fundamentally unfair to create you to want something you can't have.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

dermdoc said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.


What about a gay male who does not have sex until he marries a male?
Tots, i think this is what you are missing in the question of "born this way". Men wanting to have sex with a woman have a solution: get married. But men born to want to have sex with men don't have this solution. This is why it's so important to the LGBT movement for "born this way" to be a thing. It makes God fundamentally unfair to create you to want something you can't have.

Exactly.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jumping in late:

First, no two children in the same family are raised in "exactly the same way". Dramatic differences, other than sexual preferences, exist between children of the same family.

Second, some close friends had two sons: one straight and one gay. The gay son was abused by a 5th grade Sunday school teacher who was abusing all of the boys in that class. Something like 75% of those boys turned out to be gay, a percentage way higher than the statistical average.

Third, and finally, it is not "unfair" to remain celibate one's entire life. In fact, it can be a higher calling. We shouldn't tolerate, excuse, and justify sin simply because otherwise would be "unfair" in our biased, sinful eyes. (And gay marriage is a modern creation that has no precedent in any culture at any time before the present, as far as I know.)
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KingofHazor said:

Jumping in late:

First, no two children in the same family are raised in "exactly the same way". Dramatic differences, other than sexual preferences, exist between children of the same family.

Second, some close friends had two sons: one straight and one gay. The gay son was abused by a 5th grade Sunday school teacher who was abusing all of the boys in that class. Something like 75% of those boys turned out to be gay, a percentage way higher than the statistical average.

Third, and finally, it is not "unfair" to remain celibate one's entire life. In fact, it can be a higher calling. We shouldn't tolerate, excuse, and justify sin simply because otherwise would be "unfair" in our biased, sinful eyes. (And gay marriage is a modern creation that has no precedent in any culture at any time before the present, as far as I know.)
Agree with one and two. I would add context to "unfair" though. Celibacy is not unfair for the heterosexual, because he has the choice to marry or not (don't want to go into any manosphere stuff here about incels). Accepting celibacy is accepting a grace from God to focus more on him.

But if the homosexual is born gay (which you seem to agree he is not) then he is forced into celibacy if he wants to live a chaste life. He doesn't get to choose. The whole premise for Christians beginning to accept gay marriage is based on "born this way" and that's why it's important to show that it's incorrect. "Born this way" prevents potential healing and true marriage.
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good points, but although most heteros do have the choice to marry, a few do not. God may close doors to some and some may not marry or remarry due to spiritual conviction (e.g., I had a friend years ago who was divorced, but believed that he was still "married" to his former wife so believed that he did not have liberty to remarry).

In addition, there are many, many circumstances in which married men may not be able to receive the physical benefits of marriage. Many in the military have been married but separated from their wives for years at a time. Other married men have had wives incur diseases or conditions that preclude sex. In neither case are those husbands free to find physical "solace" or "relief" outside of their marriage, no matter how "unfair" it might be.

There are many, many things in life that God grants to some and denies to others. That may seem unfair from a worldly pov, but is not unfair from a Godly pov.
Scotts Tot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

dermdoc said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.


What about a gay male who does not have sex until he marries a male?
Tots, i think this is what you are missing in the question of "born this way". Men wanting to have sex with a woman have a solution: get married. But men born to want to have sex with men don't have this solution. This is why it's so important to the LGBT movement for "born this way" to be a thing. It makes God fundamentally unfair to create you to want something you can't have.

I'm pretty sure I understand the motivation on the part of the LGBT community to paint certain proclivities as immutable characteristics of a person. My assertion is simply that same-sex attraction is a cherry-picked issue among countless other tendencies and circumstances that all humans face uniquely, whether from birth or otherwise, which is used to paint God as unjust. Many other circumstances people are born into, whether environmental, health-related, or genetic hard-wiring, have no remedy. Does this make God unfair?
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KingofHazor said:

Good points, but although most heteros do have the choice to marry, a few do not. God may close doors to some and some may not marry or remarry due to spiritual conviction (e.g., I had a friend years ago who was divorced, but believed that he was still "married" to his former wife so believed that he did not have liberty to remarry).

In addition, there are many, many circumstances in which married men may not be able to receive the physical benefits of marriage. Many in the military have been married but separated from their wives for years at a time. Other married men have had wives incur diseases or conditions that preclude sex. In neither case are those husbands free to find physical "solace" or "relief" outside of their marriage, no matter how "unfair" it might be.

There are many, many things in life that God grants to some and denies to others. That may seem unfair from a worldly pov, but is not unfair from a Godly pov.
What we're getting at is the difference between intrinsically unfair (unfair because it was designed that way) and experientially unfair (my particular situation doesn't fit the norm). One sets God up as the culprit of the unfairness, while the other is an unfortunate condition of a fallen world. As long as homosexuality isn't "born this way", it's as experientially unfair as the heterosexual situations you mention.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

dermdoc said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

The Banned said:

Scotts Tot said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Quote:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not.
Yes, we are born sinners. You cannot escape it. Salvation requires a new disposition. Or a new "habit" as Catholics put it.

I can't understand why people get so hung up on the "born this way" argument, which only ever seems to serve as an absolution when it comes to the issue of sexual preference. In all other areas of human behavior nearly all Christians agree on the depravity of man and the need for repentance. Why must the proclivity from birth enter the equation?

If you think these behaviors are sinful, why should science proving gays are "born that way" matter, if all of us are born with a propensity to commit all kinds of sin? If a straight man has a desire to constantly hook up with promiscuous women, we tell him it is sinful even though he was "born that way".
Because by understanding the problem, God can help us heal it. Sure, some may be miraculously relieved of the desire. But the reality is that there are many homosexuals that prayed and prayed for the desire to go away, and felt abandoned by God. If God made them to have that desire, and refused to help the remove it, how does that help these individuals in their faith?

I don't think any Christian denomination teaches that God "made" man wanting to constantly hook up with as many women as they can. Children aren't born sexual. If you reach puberty with the desire to bang as many women as possible, it's due to experiential views of sex, not innately biological views. Sure, we find many women attractive. But the desire to sleep with them is a separate matter.




My point is that under a ethical worldview that views homosexuality as sinful, you could replace "homosexuals" with "adulterers" or "porn addicts" or "alcoholics" and your sentence would no be less valid.

As to your second point, I never said children were sexual, but I would argue that most heterosexual young men who are not tethered by a chaste moral framework would have as much sex as they could get away with, and their proclivity to desire sex was wired from birth.
Would you agree that, for the most part, men want to have as much sex as possible with a woman, not as many different women as possible? As atheists like to remind us, marriage was around prior to Christianity. The idea of one man, one woman has been around for awhile. Most cheaters tend to cheat because they aren't getting what they want from that one woman. The minority of men who cheat do so because they just want someone new

Yes I would absolutely grant that. My overarching point is that most men want to have sex, and a lot of it, long before they enter into marriage. Regardless of hetero- or homosexual proclivities, the subjugation of their appetitive will to align with their moral compass is a struggle of almost all men to some degree. If (assuming a moral framework that views homosexuality as sinful) a man acts on his same-sex attraction, is he absolved from the sin if his proclivities were hard-wired rather than a result of his environment? We easily accept that the heterosexual young man who acts on his sinful impulses with his girlfriend is clearly sinning while succumbing to the base hard-wiring of his biology, but when it comes to homosexual behavior there are those who want to grant a free pass because the man was "born that way".

I'm just trying to point out that it feels like an egregious double standard in my view.


What about a gay male who does not have sex until he marries a male?
Tots, i think this is what you are missing in the question of "born this way". Men wanting to have sex with a woman have a solution: get married. But men born to want to have sex with men don't have this solution. This is why it's so important to the LGBT movement for "born this way" to be a thing. It makes God fundamentally unfair to create you to want something you can't have.

I'm pretty sure I understand the motivation on the part of the LGBT community to paint certain proclivities as immutable characteristics of a person. My assertion is simply that same-sex attraction is a cherry-picked issue among countless other tendencies and circumstances that all humans face uniquely, whether from birth or otherwise, which is used to paint God as unjust. Many other circumstances people are born into, whether environmental, health-related, or genetic hard-wiring, have no remedy. Does this make God unfair?
What other genetic issues do you see being used as reason man is bound to a particular sin?
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

My questions basically center on whether gays are born gay or not. And I personally do not think the science is settled there.
If they were created that way and I am not a Calvinist who believes God created people He preordains to hell. I have a hard time believing that is a damnable sin.
And the original Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture in Leviticus and by Paul when studied closely suggest more of abuse by adult males of Temple young males.
But whatever, y'all are not going to believe that and think that I am "liberal" when I am actually being very conservative by exploring the translations deeper. And sure, every translator has a bias.
I will leave the judgement up to the Lord and love and pray for everybody.
You should read some Sam Allberry. He's a pastor who has always been same-sex attracted, but he does not act on it because that would be sin. The fact that he is same-sex attracted is not sin. If he engaged in sexual impurity of any kind (homo or hetero) that would be sin.

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/the-christian-debate-over-sexual-identity
KingofHazor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

What we're getting at is the difference between intrinsically unfair (unfair because it was designed that way) and experientially unfair (my particular situation doesn't fit the norm). One sets God up as the culprit of the unfairness, while the other is an unfortunate condition of a fallen world. As long as homosexuality isn't "born this way", it's as experientially unfair as the heterosexual situations you mention.
Very interesting.

I'm not sure that distinction makes any difference, ultimately. Sure, you've distinguished them and given them different names but that would not seem to make them substantively different.

And the argument that they're not substantively different is that God is in control of all. You could argue that is even more unfair for a normal kid to have been molested and then become homosexual than it is for a kid to be "born" homosexual.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.