If you recall what was going on when you first mentioned left-handedness, you were asserting that all human births are wholly and irrevocably part of God's will - something I dispute on the basis that humanity can affect those births. As a counterexample, I mentioned a hypothetical scenario where a mad scientist when out of his way to affect the birth.
You rejected that counterexample on the following basis: "This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life."
That's why I originally called it "hypothetical." But, to be completely honest, it's only hypothetical in that someone probably WOULDN'T do such a thing. The actual mechanisms are well within the grasp of current technologies.
That said, if you could reject MY counterexample on the sole basis of it being hypothetical, I figured I could reject your comparison between homosexuality and lefthandedness IF I could find genuine differences between the two.
Quid pro quo.
THAT was the reason I objected to the comparison, and that's the reason I listed the key differences, including but NOT limited to the fact that homosexuality seems to hinder its own propagation.
Certainly, procreation isn't the only reason for sex (you called me a stoic before; and I rejected the ntion then). Certainly, there's no reason to reject the infertile as bad people. And certainly, human value is not based on genetic content.
But the entire theory to evolution (both micro- and macro-) is that genes that hinder propagation dwindle over time, in terms of total populations. Let's say something like infertility is caused by a combination of 5 genes. When those 5 genes are present and the trait is expressed, the infertile either CANNOT pass on those 5 genes or has a very hard time doing so. So, in terms of sheer numbers, those genes cannot compete with genes that do not decrease the sperm count, etc. Certainly, the person isn't bad for having those genes, but it could be said that those genes themselves are "bad", insofar as they impede their own long-term survival.
And I would think that IF homosexuality is caused by one's genes (granted, a very BIG "if", one that I don't necessarily believe), it is similar to infertility in that - when expressed - it significantly reduces its own chances for survival to the next generation.
And I think the fact that homosexuality hinders propagation while left-handedness doesn't is a BIG difference. If my hypothetical example is too different from the actual case, than I suggest that left-handedness is simply too different from homosexuality.
That was it: the extent of my argument.
...
Cetainly, the Bible doesn't explain what nature is, but I think it addresses WHY nature is what is, and why it even exists in the first place. The explanation of the mechanisms of the universe is certainly the domain of science, but the explanation of th MOTIVES behind the universe is beyond the scope of science and firmly in the domain of theology.
The Bible doesn't cover what makes us male and female, but it does explain why were made male and female - and, honestly, the VAST majority of humans are genuinely male or female.
Certainly, the Bible also delineated what was clean and unclean, but it loosened the same restrictions in the New Testament. I believe that God did this - set up the impossible standards then gave us a pass - as a metaphor for grace, just as burnt offerings were a precursor to the cross. God set up the standards of perfection because He is God Almighty, can and should demand perfection. It's clear that no man can conform to those demands, so He graciously lowers the restrictions (using the word "graciously" literally).
He lowered the standards most notably during the events of Acts, certainly, but Christ began the process - specifically with racial purity among other examples. While contemporary Jews considered Samaria to be a land of half-breeds, Christ told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) and became a living example of kindness to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:7-26).
But, while Christ removed barriers of purity and perfection, he kept intact the sanctity of marriage. Certainly, I could quote the already oft-used passages in Matthew, and I could quote the restrictions of divorce (whatever exceptions were made, they CERTAINLY were supposed to be rare dissolutions of the otherwise unbreakable bonds of matrimony). But look again at the woman at the well: Christ paid no notice to her ethnicity but convicted her on her promiscuity. Clearly, Christ thought marriage was important. Even if you can make the case that homosexuals can marry (an argument that I clearly disagree with), I don't think monogamy can be overturned at all.
I read the Bible for moral guidance, not to dictate to me what science or history states. By *guidance,* however, that doesn't mean that I have to take *everything* literally. My morality is based on the Bible, but I don't think it is, nor was intended, to be the last word. Through the study of contextual knowledge, I study to see why certain passages were written, and the motivation behind why a book may have written such a passage. Nine times out of ten, it was written to cover a *different* practice than what us, as modern readers, have interpreted it to be.
You talk about free will and how God cannot control everything. Why is the Bible now immune from human imperfection? Because you and a whole mob of right-wing Christians say it to be?
Again, it's a question of what is meant by "literal". I personally think that the Bible is more-or-less what God intended it to be. And when the Bible says Moses, David, Christ, or Paul said such-and-such, I believe that it actually historically occurred. Even so, things like the first half of Genesis and most of Revelation are probably metaphor. And while I believe Christ DID say to cast you eye, I don't think He meant it literally.
But I also believe that the Bible isn't the last word of morality - THAT falls to the Holy Spirit. However, I also believe that if the Bible was correctly interpreted, the Holy Spirit will never contradict it.
(I admit: whether a seeming contradiction is the result of a misinterpretation OR mistaking the Holy Spirit for my own selfishness - or worse spirits - is a difficult question, but my belief is what it is.)
And, yes, my belief in the near perfection of the Bible appears to be inconsistent. But, I also believe in miracles great and small (parting the sea, the Resurrection, a thousand minor miracles throughout any given day on this planet) that are also the result of direct interference from the Almighty. I believe that God has more-or-less kept His eye on the Bible: He inspired its authors to write what He wanted and its scholars to keep it from being contaminated.
But note: I believe the Bible is
more-or-less perfect. I grant that the current manuscripts might just be incomplete and we should continue looking for older, more accurate texts. And I also grant that certain translations (certainly including the KJV) have seriously mistranlated a few verses. BUT I believe the Bible as a whole is generally as it should be.
In terms of human births, I certainly believe God DOES influence what happens. But I simply don't think he has complete control over the physical universe - I think he has relented some control to give our free will meaning.
He's not totally in control, but he's not totally absent. That belief allows for the Bible to more or less correct with rare exception - and it allows for births to be more or less what God intended without being *precisely* what He desired. It seems to me that my belief is internally consistent.
As it stands, your distinction as to why this is immoral stands on two premises:
--the Bible, which I have sufficiently pointed out that it doesn't address homosexuals (only activity in the context of heterosexuals doing it in idol worship [male temple prostitutes] or in the humiliation of houseguests [Sodom and Gomorrah]), both of which are customs that are completely foreign and non-existent to us in the modern era. The homosexual act is *not* the primary emphasis of these passages. St. Paul made lots of tirades against pagan worship practices, for instance, so passages that claim to refer to "homosexuals" are likely referring to these temple prostitutes, or, at bare minimum, otherwise heterosexual individuals performing same-sex acts.
The intended *sin* in these passages was the idol worship or the act of humiliating someone's house guests, not the homosexual act. It is simply a device to create a point. You can call that "legalism," but that is what they believed back then. You can think of homosexuality as a sin; that is your right. But to think that Christians who disagree are somehow just being defiant or ignoring the Bible is simply not the truth. You cannot use the Bible to back up your assertion on this essentially, without taking it out of context. Poor translation and cultural over the centuries is much of the blame. The Bible is not immune to fads either...much of the New Testament conforms to popular Greek philosophy of the time.
However, call it human imperfection and cultural bias over the centuries, but people have missed the point. No homosexual acts are done in the context of either anymore, but if they were done, I would agree that they would be sinful. Idol worship does not love God, and the humiliation of strangers, clearly rape with these heterosexuals going against their own usual *natural* attractions to women, is obviously repugnant.
Homosexuals *nowadays* live life just as heterosexuals--some want lifelong, monogamous relationships and to adopt children and others want to sleep around. *Neither* is any different to how heterosexuals live their lives nowadays. I am personally opposed to the sleeping around, but I am opposed to it for people of any sexual orientation, gay or straight.
If I may, the Biblical position that I've defended stands on two ideas:
1) That homosexuality is explicitly prohibited.
2) That heterosexual monogamy and chastity are the only two sexual lifestyles actually sanctioned.
From the first time that I mentioned the Biblical reasons, I put forth both arguments: To support #1, I suggested Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27. (I'll get to their validity in a moment.) To support #2, I quoted Genesis 2:27, Matthew 19:4-6, 19:9-12, and Mark 10:6-9. I also said the following:
"That said, I do believe the message is clear: the only two sanctioned paths for humanity are a lifelong marriage (i.e., heterosexual monogamy) or chastity."
Now, I may have been utterly wrong in #1: you've defended your position well, and I grant that I may have been inadequately aware of the intended meaning and historical context.
BUT that still leaves #2, that heterosexual monogamy and chastity are the only ones Biblicall supported.
If #2 is true (and I think it is), the question then becomes this: if a lifestyle isn't Biblically covered, is it permissible or impermissible? I believe that humanity hasn't honestly changed that much in two millenia, and that those sexual lifestyles not covered are not Biblically permissable. You can believe otherwise, but you either have to indicate that the Bible allows for such exceptions (and I REALLY don't think you can find legitimate proof of that) or admit that you're bringing in your own ideas.
It seems to me that your bringing in your own ideas, that you don't use the Bible for "the last word." That's fine, but that also means that I may be right about my original assertion: that homosexuality ISN'T biblically supported.
--your personal disgust. If we are defining morality now on personal internal disgust, you should know that gay men find heterosexual affection to be disgusting, not to mention the sight of two lesbians in affection, disgusting. Lesbians probably find the sight of two men and heterosexuals disgusting. That is just the way things work, but personal disgust is not a way to define morality for everyone...but is fine to define morality for yourself.
Honestly, I admit that as a heterosexual male, I find the idea of two men having sex a bit off-putting. But I also find surgery disgusting (necessary as it is), and I can't STAND okra (a vegetable common in the South). But I still think surger is a good thing and fried okra is morally permissable.
BUT, that's not the reason I find homosexuality immoral; I never suggested that, and I nevere offered any defense of that argument.
Further, lesbianism doesn't disgust me the way male homosexuality does, but I still suggest both are equally immoral.
This was the closest I came to the subject, near the beginning of this discussion:
"If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live."
And...
"I should perhaps explain further:
"Homosexuals are free to be themselves (decency laws notwithstanding) publically AND privately. Moreover, if they practice their sexuality in private, you'll hear no complaints from me.
"BUT, let's say they publically suggest that the practice is as normal as heterosexual monogamy. They're still free to do so, but I will also exercise my right to disagree."
I don't think I said ANYTHING to suggest my ARGUMENTS were based on personal disgust.
Not *all* Christian religions agree with you, nor do many non-Christian religions. If a homosexual couple wanted a Christian church marriage, there are *several* denominations that will perform them. You cannot take a monopoly on the term "marriage."
In which case, sure, the other denominations should have the right to define "marriage" according to their consciences. Mormons used to allow polygamous marriages, and I thought they were within their rights to do so. Either way, the state should grant legal protections for couples, etc., and the church should be able to define marriage as they see fit - and *I* will personally remain in a church that only recognizes heterosexual marriages.
Anyway... it appears we have now BOTH our positions across, and ended this discussion amicably. Feel free to continue to weigh in. If not, we'll cross paths in other threads.
Glad we both stuck to talking this through, and I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
Bubba
