Comments on: Smooth thinking on sexuality: Labels don’t communicate well

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:17:18 +0000

Jag –

I like the way you think 😉

By: jag

jag — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:27:24 +0000

Don –

You state:

“These are not sexual orientations! They are lusts. When Paul addressed the desire of a woman wanting to get it on with another woman or a man wanting to get it on with another man in Romans 1:26, 27, he did not call it sexual orientation. He called it a vile affection, a lust.”

Well, since the bible stated that it was better to be married than to “burn with lust,” I suppose heterosexuality is no different from homosexuality. (1 Corinthians, 7:9). They are all lusts.

Perhaps allowing same-sex couples the same “remedy” for their lusts as heterosexuals might just be the way to go. Let them marry. Perhaps that’s what God was suggesting after all.

Thanks for the thought.

By: Don Costello

Don Costello — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:50:51 +0000

Does anyone wonder why Paul never mentions sexual orientation in Scripture. Or maybe he was referring to it in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 when he warned that some in the church would not endure sound doctrine, but would “turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” These myths cater to the lusts that burn in their heart, driven by unclean spirits that promote these lusts. How many sexual orientations are there? 5? 10? 20?

Homosexual, Bi-sexual, Trans-sexual? What about a man who wants to get it on with a horse, is he an equesti-sexual? These are not sexual orientations! They are lusts. When Paul addressed the desire of a woman wanting to get it on with another woman or a man wanting to get it on with another man in Romans 1:26, 27, he did not call it sexual orientation. He called it a vile affection, a lust. Quit trying to be smarter that God, and make his word the final authority in sexual matters.

Don

By: jayhuck

jayhuck — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:05:19 +0000

Eddy,

You can point your finger in one direction only but, in an honest discussion, you recognize the possibility that both sides may be less than perfect in their approach. It seems there’s enough closed-mindedness and bigotry on BOTH sides to muddle discussions for a long time to come.

I agree with you Eddy – There IS enough closed mindedness and bigotry on both sides to muddle discussions.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 02:27:32 +0000

Jayhuck–

I think Ann and Mary have been trying to point out that the focus here seems to be on all the ‘ex-gay’ inconsistencies. Yes, they have them. But it doesn’t mean that the other side isn’t guilty of pretty much the same. You can point your finger in one direction only but, in an honest discussion, you recognize the possibility that both sides may be less than perfect in their approach. It seems there’s enough closed-mindedness and bigotry on BOTH sides to muddle discussions for a long time to come.