Talk:Homosexuality
From Theopedia
Are you sure that the arguments, "for" and "against", are both assuming that homosexuality is a "sexual orientation"? This is a problem of equivocation, that causes no end of trouble for the attempt to discuss this issue publicly. Christians for example ordinarily are debating not the propensity to commit an act (genetic or otherwise), but the morality of those who commit it. We distinguish temptation from sin, and we do not infer that a moral excuse arises from genetic propensity, any more than if such an orientation were habitually conditioned. Regardless, performing acts that are contrary to the command of God is sin. Debate "for" or "against" a sexual orientation is something geneticists and psychiatrists may wish to investigate. It is not homosexuality in this sense that is of interest to both sides of the arguments "for" or "against", however. Mkmcconn 17:04, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Contents |
RollBack of InTheNameOfAstrologicalCoincidence Edit
Whereas the current discussion on homosexuality is labelled a "Stub", we need to move it forward in a way that is consistent with the Reformed Christian identity of Theopedia, and that thus begins with the biblical teaching on homosexuality. Other Wikis such as Wikipedia strive for "No Point of View" but that is not the policy of Theopedia.
I would be supportive of a greater recognition, on this page, of the various points of view within the Christian community, as long as a loving and sensitive expression of the "orthodox" view is given primacy. Mrd 17:45, 26 April 2006 (PDT)
- I'm somewhat concerned by the external links.
- With Mkmcconn, I'd want to ask, What's the issue being discussed in the links? I see articles on gay marriage, homosexuality and homosexual practice. These are not the same issue!
- Are we binding ourselves unnecessarily to a general policy of putting links under the heads "critical" and "favorable" when to describe them as such, in this context, is perhaps less than helpful? I can imagine that writers may not like an article they'd written on the topic to be listed as "critical" if it focussed on how the church can show Jesus' love to homosexuals (as, for instance, Chad Thompson writes). Wooster (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2006 (PDT)
- I think you make some good points here. I'm also thinking, should not an article on "gay marriage" perhaps go under a marriage article. Even there, we don't have to put it under "critical" but we can clearly add that it supports gay marriage or whatnot. JordanBarrett (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2006 (PDT)
- You're quite right, it would make sense for gay marriage to go with marriage. And from a development point-of-view, I'd sooner we started with marriage and moved onto gay marriage, rather than writing a marriage article as a reaction against gay marriage, which is bound to unbalance it. I also just plain don't like negative theology. Now, not being married myself, I'm probably not best qualified to write about it. So who's volunteering? : ) Wooster (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2006 (PDT)
No position adopted
Referencing passages against homosexuality seems to indicate that this article has taken the position that homosexuality is opposed by the Scripture. I wonder why such a position is not made more clear in this article and the main humanity article. --Alex Woehr 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because they're both under-developed. Jordan Barrett (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Inherited homosexuality
The humanity article raises the question of whether some people are inherently homosexual. I certainly think this question should be answered clearly, and I took a stab at it below:
- Certain individuals and groups have tried to advance the argument that some people are designed to be (or born) homosexual because of their genetic makeup. While people certainly have a variety of propensities to different sins, in no way does that excuse the person for indulging that sin. The inclination to homosexuality is perhaps different from a tendency to natural sins such as laziness (in that the desire for sleep is a desire created by God) that can be legitimately fulfilled, but homosexual desires are twisted from the original desire for the opposite sex that was given at the creation of Adam and Eve.
Let me know what you think. I frankly don't particularly want to research this to find a citation (ugh), but I do think we need to be clear on this issue. --Alex Woehr 03:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I made some changes to the above statement. It's a good start. Jordan Barrett (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except for the phrase "original desire for marriage", I think that the statement above is good. I used it as a model for building a new paragraph around the Time article, where this difference between innate tendency and moral obligation is brought out.
- But I do not believe that the Bible says that there is an "original desire for marriage that was given at ... creation" - which would seem to imply that anyone who does not seek marriage is living contrary to a creation-mandate; but who would say that this is the Bible's teaching? → Mark (Mark McConnell) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mark, that's a good point. For everyone: do the changes above reflect a better choice in wording? Jordan Barrett (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- One comment. The gene pool was corrupted by sin. We are just as likely to find genetic propensity for serial killing as we are for homosexuality, or anything else. Supposing that some genetic link to homosexual tendencies was found, although this is not yet the case; it would still not justify the result. I think this is what Mohler is getting at. The pro-homosexual view assumes if a genetic link were found, their case is made -- which is simply not true. Jim Ellis 12:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Proper references, citations?
Regarding comments to Jordan by User talk:Russell Davis‎ on 1/19/2009 because of edit Rollback on 12/24/2008: Don't misunderstand me: I am ardently against the culture's approval of the practice of homosexuality. But with a sensitive and controversial issue, it is especially important to provide references and citations. This is what makes the introduction to this article woefully inappropriate. - Aaron Shafovaloff 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
