|
Post by maolsheachlann on Apr 30, 2019 14:05:36 GMT
The classic text in the New Testament by which homosexuality is condemned is Romans 1:27: "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Let it be understood that I am in no way questioning Church teaching on homosexuality, which I fully support-- indeed, I think it should be taught more forcefully and confidently, though obviously with pastoral sensitivity.
What bothers me is the implications of this passage. St. Paul seems to attribute homosexuality to pure perversity, and this seemed the view in society at large until relatively recently. Now it seems accepted that a large amount of people are innately homosexual (whether from the time of birth, or otherwise) and that this can't be changed.
So I suppose the options are these:
1. Attraction is irrelevant. Reason should tell us that sexual relations between men and women are natural, and all others are unnatural. That is all St. Paul meant. 2. St. Paul was wrong about the motive of at least some homosexual activity. 3. Homosexuality (the sexuality, not the activity) is actually a choice and not innate after all. 4. Homosexuals in the sense we understand them today, people who are attracted to their own sex and not to the opposite sex, are a recent phenomenon. (This sounds crazy, but aren't we always being told that the concept of a homosexual or a bisexual was unknown in the classical world, despite homosexual acts being accepted in ancient Greece and other societies?)
|
|
|
Post by assisi on May 7, 2019 21:10:22 GMT
I suppose we can begin by at least acknowledging that St. Paul is clear about the sinfulness of the homosexual act when he says:
Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
Regarding the question of innate homosexuality versus homosexuality as a choice, this is interesting to pursue from both a scriptural basis and a biological basis. I would like to return to this topic later.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 7, 2019 21:31:08 GMT
I think that number 1 is probably the best explanation. As regards whether or not homosexuality is innate, perhaps there is a middle ground: that one is not born homosexual, but can become such due to psychological trauma or sexual abuse. Milo Yiannopolous I think would be an example of the latter, if not the former.
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on May 13, 2019 21:32:36 GMT
Previous verses for context: For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
### Paul seems to be saying that God was wrathful as people did not glorify Him, instead glorifying images of humans and animals. For this lack worship God punished people and "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts", "God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done". This suggests that homosexuality is in the heart and mind and God's punishment was to make them give into these desires so that they could be punished.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on May 13, 2019 21:49:37 GMT
Previous verses for context: For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. ### Paul seems to be saying that God was wrathful as people did not glorify Him, instead glorifying images of humans and animals. For this lack worship God punished people and "gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts", "God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done". This suggests that homosexuality is in the heart and mind and God's punishment was to make them give into these desires so that they could be punished. But God does not compel people to sin, as this would contradict the doctrine of free will. It might be the case that having rejected God's grace made them more vulnerable to that behaviour, but God didn't MAKE them do it.
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on May 14, 2019 11:28:22 GMT
[/quote]But God does not compel people to sin, as this would contradict the doctrine of free will. It might be the case that having rejected God's grace made them more vulnerable to that behaviour, but God didn't MAKE them do it.[/quote] Yes, that would be a contradiction. It is the phrase "God gave them over" that makes me think along these lines. It is an active action rather than passive. As punishment God handed people over/delivered them to their lustful desires. They would then commit forbidden punishable offences, that was their punishment for not bowing before God.
"God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they would do what ought not be done"
I read this as the mind is already depraved, God handed people over to it so that they may do wrong and be punished for not gloryfing him.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Aug 30, 2019 19:22:17 GMT
A recent scientific study which looked at the genetic make up of over 400,000 people has concluded that there is no single "gay gene". There was small variations that occurred for people in same sex behaviour: "The Harvard and MIT researchers concluded genetics could account for between 8-25% of same-sex behaviour across the population, when the whole genome is considered.
Five specific genetic variants were found to be particularly associated with same- sex behaviour, including one linked to the biological pathway for smell, and others to those for sex hormones.
But together they only accounted for under 1% of same-sex behaviour."In summary: "David Curtis, honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute, University College London, said: "This study clearly shows that there is no such thing as a 'gay gene'.
"There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation."Another theory put forward elsewhere is that (some) homosexual orientation may be caused by a mother's hormonal imbalance affecting the developing brain of a child in the womb. A theory worth looking at more closely. At least it looks like the genetic theory can be discounted. Full article at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49484490
|
|