In fact, you can sue for divorce due to lack of sexual activity, or incompatible sexual proclivities.

I'm a conservative gay man of 43 years, involved in a monogamous relationship for over 6 years. I'd like to enghage with you on this topic. I'm no expert, but I'll give you my feedback from a purely personal perspective.

First off, by your own admission, you are uninformed. I always recommend to bloggers that they try a little research prior to posting. I think that might have helped you here because your lack of knowledge about this topic has resulted in an insensitive post. I'll try to point these areas out as I proceed.

"What is homosexuality? Odd question - but one that I think really does need an answer."

I'd suggest you try looking up a few definitions, from doctors, psychiatrists, dictionaries. This is not a new topic! My own definition: One who feels an emotional attraction to a member of one's own sex. Please note the use of the words emotional attraction, not sexual attraction. Just as a straight person would not agree with a definition of heterosexuality that says, One who has sex with members of the opposite sex, homosexuals prefer to be defined by more than their sexual proclivities.

"The real issue is whether or not a man who left his wife in order to engage in an adulterous homosexual relationship should be made a bishop."

No, the real issue is whether this man shoud be made a bishop, period. Only the people who vote get to decide what the 'issues' are, you don't, and neither do gay activists.

"When this issue first came up back in 2003, what struck me most forcefully is that this man Robinson, allegedly a man of God,"

Questioning the motives of this man is quite beneath you. I could reply that you are allegedly a human, but this post makes you out to be quite alien. I'm gonna have to throw a flag on this one - cheap shot, unfair shot, unfounded and not backed up.

"would find that his sacred vows of matrimony were not nearly as important as his desire to engage in a certain sort of sexual activity."

And did he actually say My desire to have sex with a man is more important than honoring my vows? You are asserting quite a bit here. His actions might lead you to conclude thusly, but he didn't say that and you don't know what's in his heart. Another flag.

The second part of your sentence is where I think you begin to go wrong. "His desire to engage in a certain sort of sexual activity." I hope that you believe me when I say that us homos desire emotional initimacy with someone of the same sex, it is not only a desire for sexual activity. Believe it or not, since the advent of AIDs there are many homosexual relationships that do not involve any sex. You must agree with this basic point if you are to meaningfully debate this issue. In my case, as a man, I feel emotionally drawn to men, and physically attracted to men, but when I entered into my relationship it was to express my love for my partner.

Did you get married just for sex, for a particular type of sexual activity, or was it an expression of your love?

"Sex, of course, is an important component to marriage, but am I to divorce my wife if she refuses to engage in a certain type of sexual activity? What am I supposed to do if she ever became physically unable to engage in sex with me? Am I free to divorce - are my vows made null - because I'm not getting the sex acts I wish?"

Although you assert that the answers to all of these questions is No, in truth, the answer is yes. You can indeed sue for divorce because you aren't getting any.

"... My life is not a matter of "sex ergo sum". I am not defined by the sex I have, or don't have - I am the same man whether I am having sex on a regular basis, or if I'm not having it at all."

You should then give the benefit of doubt to homosexuals and allow them the same. For instance, I'm gay, my life is not a matter of sex ergo sum. I don't define myself by the sex I have, but people like you want to define all gays by the sex they have. This is purely hypocritical. You're applying two different standards here.

"And yet for homosexuals, it seems to be that absent the actual homosexual act, homosexuality doesn't exist - or at least isn't true homosexuality."

It seems? Based on what? You are simply erxpressing your own opinion here. Flag.

If I became impotent tomorrow and could not have any more sex, I would still be gay. The same goes for you (although you'd still be straight). Why can't you apply the same logic to gays and straights? What gay person has asserted to you that if they weren't having homosexual sex they would not be gay? Who ever said that?

"It is said of Robinson, as it is said of all homosexuals, that he was born that way."

Another flag! As it is said of all homosexuals - okay, I'll bite, who said that? Some might say that but others do not. I believe it to be true, but I don't know that it has been, or can be, proven. What has been shown to be a fact is that people can learn behaviors so that even straight people can engage in homosexual acts, and vice versa. I've engaged in both straight and gay sex.

"- for whatever reason, he was created with an innate attraction to members of his own gender."

We don't know why, but God does.

Quite probably true, but you must remember that attraction involves much more than sexual attraction. Were you only attracted to your wife by the thought of sex, or did it have something also to do with her personality, or the way she laughed, or how much fun you have with her?

"Being born that way didn't prevent Robinson from falling in love with a woman, marrying her and then producing children."

No ... we can always act against our true nature if we try hard enough. He should not have gotten married and he should not have had children, but that doesn't mean he wasn't always gay.

"- but we are also assured that Robinson didn't become his true self until he broke his marriage vows, tossed aside wife and children (who had an absolute claim on him) and started to have sex with a man."

We are assured that Robinson did not feel that he was true to his nature until he accepted his homosexuality. And another flag - why must you use loaded words to describe the situation? Did Newt Gingrich 'toss aside' his wife?

"This indicates that homosexuality isn't a thing like hair color or height, but is at least partially a voluntary act."

Being gay or straight is not an act. Engaging in gay or straight sex is an act. It is importqnt to separate the two: I was born gay, I choose to engage in [blank] sex.

" - that while a person may have latent within themselves an desire for a certain thing, until they act upon it, they aren't that thing in any complete sense."

This is so wrong. This amounts to saying that every virgin out there is neither straight or gay, they aren't anything until they've had sex. So was Jesus gay? Straight? I guess he wasn't either. Indeed, if you have children I guess they aren't straight, at least until they start having sex. Does this really make sense to you?

I am not defined by a particular sexual act, and either are you. If you stopped having sex tomorrow you would still be straight. If you were (God forbid) molested by someone of the same sex or even raped, you would still be straight. Engaging in homosexual activity is a choice, being emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex is not (IMO) a choice, it is always there. Holding a desire to be intimate with someone of the same sex is not a choice. Do you desire initimacy with your wife? Is that a choice or something that you feel, always? Was this type of desire for women not always within you, even before you ever had sex for the first time?

"There is really no other way to explain Robinson's actions"

Thios lets all of us readers know that you aren't willing to be open to other viewpoints.

" - if homosexuality were really just a thing, then Robinson would have come to terms with it and then, in prayer and discussion with his wife, would have worked out a way of living which would not have required an abandonment of sworn, holy oath."

Just tell me, please, how to work this out. Let's say your wife comes home and tells you that she is attracted to women, and she feels emotionally bonded to the homemaker next door - how are you gonna work that out? You're gonna be fine with staying married even though she is no longer attracted to you, physically or emotionally, and wants to get it on with the neighbor? That's crazy talk! You act as if working out this rather large problem is nothing but a thing. If you're married to a woman, but feel emotionally attracted to men, this is not something that is so easily worked out. It strikes to the core of marriage - intimacy. If you feel as if you will only be emotionally right if you are intimate with men, how can you square that with sacred vows?

"... it is still a choice in the end - a choice to either engage in homosexual sex, or not engage in it."

Of course, just as you choose to engage in straight sex, but absent that activity on your part - would that make you gay?

One again, until you understand and agree to the basic premise that engaging in a physical act does not define one as gay or straight you just aren't going to see my side of the debate. Young teens explore with members of the same sex at a rate of almost 50%, according to some surveys. Not all of these teens are gay, they are exploring intimacy (and dealing with hormones).

"So, is it a thing, or an act? Does an innate attraction to members of the same sex trump all, or can a man be entirely gay, but still married and have children?"

A man can be thoroughly gay and never act on it. For some this might not be a problem. For many, this can cause severe emotional scars and destroy self esteem. It can lead to abuses of various sorts and even suicide. At the very least, a failure to acknowledge one's true nature leads to a life half-lived.

It's called being in the closet. You can be fully homosexual on the inside (by having sexual fantasies about members of the same gender, for example) yet on the outside, pretend to be hetrosexual for societal or whatever other reason. You're right that its not like hair color, but that's because homosexuality is a mental state that you are born with. Perhaps Robinson was scared on in denial, I don't know and neither does anyone save for himself.

Just to be clear on one point of theology, God does not create sin or perversion. He is not the author of evil. Every new human life is a new creation, but it is a creation making use of corrupt human material (flesh) which manifests itself in various and sundry ways.

When it comes right down to it, the sinful nature can show itself in many evil ways...stealing, lying, murder...and the murderer is not excused from guilt because "God made me that way." No, we are called upon to resist the impulses of our sinful nature and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, resist sin and live according to God's will.

Having said that, I freely admit that I am no better or worse a sinner than any homosexual. But when I lust after women to whom I am not married, I am not going to simply say, "Oh, well, God made me that way, it's fine." I confess my sin and turn in repentance and faith to my Savior, who died for my sin of heterosexual lust just as He died for Jerry's sin of homosexual lust. Yes, sin.

SunBeltJerry,

I thank you for your interesting response - but it still leaves a large question mark, and perhaps I'm just not able to phrase it properly.

Perhaps we'll start with this: You state that some homosexual relationships have no sexual component at all and (correct me if I'm wrong) that a large element in homosexual attraction is a desire for a level of intimacy apparantly not obtainable, for a homosexual, in a heterosexual relationship. Granting this is true, what really constitutes intimacy? Why should this desire for intimacy make such an overwhelming claim on a person's life - ie, make them feel unfullfilled unless they renounce their oath, sworn to God on high, that they will love another person until death do they part?

I love my friend Bill - we've known each other since 1971 and we've had a massive amount of shared life experiences. There are things we know about each other that likely no one else on earth knows - there is an easy familiarity with us and even though we live far apart, when we come into contact it is as if we just left off the conversation five minutes ago.

That is a pertty intimate relationship, right?

It does not in any way compromise the intimate relationship I share with my wife (who, also, knows things about me that no one else knows - including Bill). The love I feel for Bill (and I believe Bill feels for me) does not in any way make either of us homosexual.

Given all that - why does the homosexual act seem a MUST in the life of at least the overwhelming bulk of homosexuals? Bishop Robinson had a pretty nice life - including, with his wife (the mother of his children) a level of intimacy which no other relationship could surpass (this doesn't exclude some other level of intimacy equaling it - but watching your child come out of the body of your wife; I cannot grant that anything can be more intimate than that) - you state that for some homosexuals to not acknowledge their nature can lead to problems, even suicide in the worst instances. Does acknowledging one's homosexuality require an overt act? Does a person HAVE to do something?

One more point - I'm getting less and less interested in the "expert" opinions on this subject: I'm just entirely too familiar these days with the amount of politics which intervenes betweens dispassionate study and the actual report on the study. On the matter of homosexuality, I only grant that people who are homosexual seem to be born with that way - this is consistent with observation, and with the beliefs of my Catholic Christian religion. The question I asked at the start is a serious question asked by a man who has spent a lot of time studying the issue, but has come to realise that a vast amount is unknown in this area - and not looked at simply out of fear of causing offense.

Oh, as an aside - I'm not so much talking about a complete refusal of the spouse to engage in sex but, instead, either a physical inability to engage in sex, or a refusal to engage in certain sexual acts. In these instances - even if the law is otherwise - no decent person could consider themselves legitimate in seeking a divorce.

I think the problem with homosexuality is the stereotypes that have manifested in many societies. That is that homosexual men are sex craving lunatics. It seems without the regulating woman component, men end up engaging in casual sex with many partners, sometimes in prearranged locations such as bathhouses. I suppose if you take the sex drive of two men this is what you end up with, if sin or guilt is not a worry.

The straight white christian is still perfect as god intended. Because god mad the straight white man perfect, he gets the luxury of sinning the least.

Homosexuality has been with us since man evolved. I'm sure that over the past 25,000 years it is come and gone in and out of cultural acceptance.

I read the point of being intimate with another man who is a dear friend. Well, reverse that and say you were that intimate with a woman, but couldn't be attracted to her. That is homosexuality.

I personally believe that if you removed the social stigma of homosexuality, there would be much more stability in homosexual relationships. Currently it seems that all they can do to express intimacy is F***.

Regardless of what Robinson and gays say or believe, not everyone in the church supports his and their openly homosexual lifestyle. Many or most were taught and believe it is wrong, and for Robinson to have been made a bishop in the church is a real [the ultimate] slap in their face -- to put it very mildly.

How absurd that liberals say they are "sick unto death" of seeing ... the church ... hijacked! On the contrary, it is they who have hijacked the church from those who believe in traditional church teachings -- just as they have hijacked our culture and society! Just another case of liberals trying to force their views and lifestyle on others. Then they try to make others feel guilty of their own beliefs so they will accept the new liberal agenda for the world.

For whichever reason one chooses, Robinson should never have been made a bishop in the church knowing how divisive and fundamental this issue is. If his church members believe that is proper, then those members and churches who support that view and lifestyle should break off and start their own denomination. Failing that, those members and churches who support Robinson should be involuntarily separated from those who hold traditional beliefs. If that means a break-up of the church, then so be it.

It's time that those who oppose the liberal invasion into every aspect of our lives and culture stand up and "JUST SAY NO"! They don't need to feel guilty about their views. They don't need to defend their opinions. They don't need to accept the liberal agenda. JUST SAY NO!!!

As for the claim that homosexuals and lesbians are "born that way". I don't buy that either. The purpose of sex is for procreation of the species. Now suddenly we are to believe that all of the homosexuals and lesbians were "born that way" by a change to those genes. I can't say that could never happen, but I don't believe that is the reason in the majority of cases.

AAR

"Failed Sodomy / Homosexual Acts
Abortion Commonly Follows Practical Sodomy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to establish the link between abortion and sodomy one must understand the essence of sodomy. The term sodomy is a take off from the warped lust portrayed in Genesis 19:4-5

"Before they went to bed, all the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old--all the people to the last man--closed in on the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them." "
As horrendous as abortion (the murder of the most innocent of all human beings) is, sodomy is the far graver sin. Acts of sodomy produce no eternal spirits that have the opportunity to enter Heaven. With abortion there is an eternal spirit –produced at the instant of conception– who will have the opportunity to choose between good and evil in non corporeal1 form and thus will be able to accept or reject eternal life.

The practice of sodomy falls into three classifications, classical, practical, and failed:

Classical sodomy, the form commonly understood by most Old and New Testament Bible readers includes sexual activity between two persons of the same sex –whether male or female– or any sexual act between any human being and an animal (dog, sheep, donkey, monkey, etc.).
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." [Leviticus 20:13]
"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity." [Romans 1:26-27]
"The angels too, who did not keep to their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." [Jude 6,7]
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God." [1 Corinthians 6:9-10]
"Anyone who lies with an animal shall be put to death." [Exodus 22:19]
"But as for cowards, the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." [Revelations 21:8]

Practical or inherent sodomy is in essence no different than classical sodomy. The initial command of God is foundational for arriving at an understanding of practical sodomy.

God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply;
fill the earth2 and subdue it." [Gn. 1:28 and 9:1,7]
The essence of the command is procreation. The essence of the term sodomy then includes any use of the sexual faculty –by two humans or one human and an animal– that by act or intention precludes the bringing of new human life into existence. The use of the sexual faculty without being open to its intended result is contrary to the will of God who designed into human nature the very strong urge for relationships designed to produce human forms for occupancy by eternal spirits designated to share the magnificence of His existence. God, an intellectual being, designed compatible beings capable of both utilizing His creative capacity and sharing with Him in an intellectual manner. (The concept should be clear that in both classical and practical sodomy the result is the same – use of one's sexuality faculty in a manner that is not open to pregnancy.)

God created in order to have an uncountable number of intellectual beings to share eternal existence with Him. This was, is, and forever will be the whole point of every facet of creation. His desire is unalterable. Our choice is to share in building the Kingdom to its fullness according to His will or to be rejected for occupancy in His Kingdom.

The necessity of intellectual life is foundational to all other considerations. To place limits on procreation is to limit the creative capacity of God who is Himself without limits. Without procreated intellectual life there is no reason for created existence. To use one's sexual faculty without acceptance of life as its natural consequence is condemnatory. While repentance is for a time available, no number of good deeds can ever take the place of life forever lost to God's Kingdom.

Saint Paul expresses the importance of pregnancy as follows.

"But she will be saved through motherhood,
provided women persevere in faith and love
and holiness, with self-control." [1 Tim. 2:15]
(Motherhood occurs at conception)
God not only refers to pregnancy as being a blessing for women, but has established His own version of Natural Family Planning that is intended to increase the probability of pregnancy. God ordered women's fertility cycle in such a fashion that in conjunction with required sexual abstinence the incidence of pregnancy would be at its greatest when copulation inevitably takes place. While there is no requirement to be married, –St. Paul comments that in single life one can be of greater service to God and His community [1Cor. 7:7, 32-34]– those who do marry should be mindful of the initial commandment given by God to humanity ("Be fertile and multiply.").

The learning of self-control is importantly associated with the admonition against sexual activity during a woman's menstrual period and for a period of seven days. Seven days is the often used period of time for preparation, purification, and celebration. The following quotations are associated with menstrual impurity:

"When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening." [Lv. 15:19]
"If a man dares to lie with her {during the period of menstrual uncleanness}, he contracts her impurity and shall be unclean for seven days; every bed on which he then lies also becomes unclean." [Lv. 15:24]
"If she becomes freed from her affliction, she shall wait seven days, and only then is she to be purified." [Lv. 15:28]
"You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation." [Lv. 18:19]
"If a man lies in sexual intercourse with a woman during her menstrual period, both of them shall be cut off from their people, because they have laid bare the flowing fountain of her blood." [Lv. 20:18]

"Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their land, they defiled it by their conduct and deeds. In my sight their conduct was like the defilement of a menstruous woman. Therefore I poured out my fury upon them (because of the blood which they poured out on the ground, and because they defiled it with idols). I scattered them among the nations, dispersing them over foreign lands; according to their conduct and deeds I judged them." [Eze. 36:16-19]
Sexual abstinence, as prescribed above, is God's method of birth control. God's interests are often opposite those of man. Sexual inactivity increases the sperm count in males, and, the period of required abstinence normally places the female into her period of fertility. Evidence now indicates that at this time women give off a pheromone (an imperceptible sexual scent which attracts males) and many women also enjoy a period of moderate elation which makes them more open to or desirous of sexual activity. ("According to one study, women increase their sexual desire and activity by 25% during a three-day period around ovulation. — Not only is a woman more likely to want sex at ovulation, but she is also likely to enjoy it more as well.")

"Then David sent messengers and took her. When she came to him, he had relations with her, at a time when she was just purified after her monthly period. She then returned to her house. But the woman had conceived, and sent the information to David, "I am with child." [2 Sam. 11:4-5 ]
When a male and a female are directly associated in a work environment, over a period of time, bodily rhythms governed by hormonal activity will open them up to promiscuity. During a woman's period of monthly fertility her hormones activate and make her more vulnerable to sexual advances. Men, lacking in sufficient self-control, are open to sexual inclinations and advances particularly if circumstances allow for intimacy. (Ref.: The secrets our body clocks reveal (Chap. 5), by Susan Perry – ISBN: 0-89256-315-X)

The following are some of the specific acts that fall under the concept of sodomy:

Sexual copulation using a condom, spermicide, cervical cap, or any material device or chemical agent which is intended to inhibit or destroy the sperm before it reaches the egg, or to otherwise prevent it from making contact with the egg /ovum.
Intentionally abstaining from sex during a woman's fertile period, that is, the use of the woman's natural rhythms with the desired intent of avoiding pregnancy – the contraceptive mentality. When there is grave / serious (unselfish) reason for using the woman's natural rhythms to avoid pregnancy for a temporary or indeterminate period of time the Catholic Church makes exceptions for this and only this form of pregnancy spacing (Humanae Vitae §10.4; §16.2). The following passage of Sacred Scripture should always be kept in mind.
"Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life
in this world will preserve it for eternal life." [John 12:25]
Sexual copulation following any temporary or permanent form of desired sterilization including, but not limited to, tubal ligation, vasectomy, or an unnecessary castration or hysterectomy. NOTE: Tubal ligations and vasectomies can often be reversed and when financially able a moral attempt to do so must be made.
Withdrawal prior to ejaculation, mutual masturbation (ejaculation outside of the vagina), and oral sex.

Failed sodomy. Abortion is commonly the product of failed sodomy.
Abortion, the worst possible type of murder as it takes a totally innocent human life, is less of a sin than sodomy which totally rejects the creation of human life.
The following acts are all offensive to God. Acts that are unintentional or considered as compulsive in nature (readily stimulated or habitualized) and a sincere attempt is made to avoid further occurrences of commission may be considered as being inadvertent sins and readily forgivable when properly confessed. Those sins that could have more readily been avoided and are knowingly committed are referred to as advertent sins. These sins require a much more difficult change of heart. Sins that are committed defiantly (with ill will or contempt) have the gravest of consequences and the likelihood of proper repentance is limited. [Lv. 4,5; Nm. 15:30]

masturbation - a member of either sex who stimulates one's own genitalia with the desire to produce orgasm (sexual satisfaction).
fornication - copulation between an unmarried male and an unmarried female that is open to procreation.
adultery - copulation that is open to procreation where either the male or the female, or both, is married to another party.
sodomy - sexual activity between two beings desirous of producing orgasm that by act or intent avoids natural procreation. Such activity can be between two males, two females, a male and a female, or between a human and an animal. Sodomy is a graver sin than murder. – Unless there is life there can be no murder.
fetish - an unnatural focus upon a part of a person or an object that can lead to orgasm. - an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression.
transvestite - a person who adopts the dress and often the behavior typical of the opposite sex especially for purposes of emotional or sexual gratification.
transsexual - a person with a psychological urge to belong to the opposite sex that may be carried out to the point of undergoing surgery to modify the sex organs to mimic the opposite sex.

heterosexuality - orientation toward persons of the opposite sex. Heterosexual activity must always be with self-control. Copulation must always be limited to activity with one's spouse. Heterosexual thoughts must be constrained. Non rejected adulterous thoughts are mortally sinful.
"But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has
already committed adultery with her in his heart." [Mt. 5:28]
homosexuality - orientation toward persons of the same sex. Homosexual orientation as with heterosexual orientation is of itself not a sin unless it is self-willed. Homosexual activity is always gravely sinful and falls under the general term sodomy. Homosexual thoughts must be avoided or restricted as much as possible or sin is committed.
Apart from within a moral marriage all forms of sensually stimulating conduct is conducive to promoting sexual activity and should be avoided by those who say they believe in God and are desirous of entering Heaven. Immodest dress, prolonged or inappropriate physical contact (petting, necking, kissing, hand holding, etc.), under some circumstances prolonged proximity, and enticing expressions are all to be avoided.

Many believe that the world is or is becoming overpopulated. Many citizens and governments favor population control. Promotion of population control is against God's expressed command to be fertile and multiply. Proponents of population control are, at the very least, intellectual sodomites. Anyone who favors birth control by tampering with reproductive processes is just as guilty of sodomy as those who commit direct acts of sodomy. Chapter five of Matthew's Gospel makes it clear that knowledgeable association with sin is also sin. {Mt. 5:21-22, 28, 31, 34]

One who has faith in God trusts in God!!"

Just another case of liberals trying to force their views and lifestyle on others.

This is a laughable comment... It seems that the people who are saying that homosexuality is an abomination are forcing their dogma on the gays. Afterall, the burden of proof in our society is on the accusor.

Jeremiah's whole post can be debunked if one denies the premise that the bible is inherently true.

Someone argue against homosexuality without citing the bible, and I'll gladly debate.

Georgia Frawg,

What is there to deny that SODOMY is WRONG?!!!

It always has been, and ALWAYS WILL BE WRONG!

There is absolutely nothing in the bible against homosexual women. Indeed, it's probably because they are more acceptable to all societies and therefore never made it into the bible as the writers forgot about them.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/special.html

There is a nice link to visit that has two people that know much more about the bible and homosexuality duking it out. A bunch of our opinions is pretty much entertainment (to help insomnia?)

More lesson's for you liberal sodomite fruitcakes!
__________________________________________________
The Sin of Sodom
Serious Questions and Bible Answers about the Homosexual Movement

What is a Sodomite?

A sodomite is a person who practices sodomy--a homosexual. God's word doesn't use such terms as "homosexual," "gay," and "lesbian." Some might argue that a sodomite is nothing more than an inhabitant of Sodom, but God uses the word "sodomite" in reference to homosexuals long after the ancient city of Sodom is destroyed (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).

Isn't it more proper to refer to sodomites as "homosexuals" and "gays?"

No, because God refers to them as "sodomites." "Homosexual" is a neutral technical term, while "gay" is a nice term that the sodomites have invented for themselves. Due to the constant brainwashing tactics of Hollywood and the Media, "gay" has been adapted by most everyone as the proper title for these people. To be "gay" is to be "merry" and "joyful." To be a "sodomite" is to be wicked and sinful (Gen. 13:13). So "gay" is certainly NOT the proper title. We are warned in Isaiah 5:20 that God is very displeased with people who apply good words to evil things: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Drunkards are not "chronic alcoholics," fornication is not "pre-marital sex," and sodomites are not "gay."

How do we know for certain that sodomy is a sin?

Because God's word declares it to be a sin, over and over again. The very first time "Sodom" occurs in the Bible God sends us a sound warning: "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." (Gen. 13:13) In Genesis 18:20, we are told that the sin of Sodom is "very grievous." Then in Genesis 19:4-7 we read of a case where the Sodomites seek sexual relations with a total stranger! Shortly after this incident, God destroys their entire city because He couldn't find even ten righteous people dwelling there.

Later, in the book of Leviticus, some very sharp warnings are given about sodomy. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Then Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Webster defines an "abomination" as "extreme hatred" and "detestation." That's how God feels about sodomites.

Hundreds of years later we read that sodomites are in the land and they are committing "abominations" (1 Kings 14:24). King Asa, a good king over Judah, did "that which was right in the eyes of the Lord" when he "took away the sodomites out of the land" (1 Kings 15:11-12). Several years later there were still some sodomites left in the land, so King Jehoshaphat, the son of King Asa, also did that which was RIGHT in the eyes of the Lord by taking the sodomites OUT of the land (1 Kings 22:43-46). We also read that King Josiah did the "right" thing when he "brake down the houses of the sodomites" (2 Kings 22:2; 23:7).

In Isaiah 3:9, God makes reference to the boldness of the people who commit this grievous sin: "The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves." Is this not a perfect description of the modern day sodomites who parade up and down the streets demanding their rights? Ezekiel 16:49 says that PRIDE is a chief sin of the sodomites. Perhaps this is why we read about "Gay Pride" parades. Proverbs 16:18 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Some say only the Old Testament speaks against sodomy but that the New Testament is silent about it. This is not true. The New Testament clearly condemns this sin. Romans 1:21-27 speaks about the sodomites. Paul says they are vain in their imaginations, they steal God's glory, they are foolish, unclean, vile, and against nature. In II Peter 2:6, the word "ungodly" is used in connection with sodomy. Paul said in I Corinthians 6:9 that these people would not inherit the kingdom of God.

Friend, sodomy is wicked in the eyes of God!

Don't most professionals agree that a person's sexual orientation is of biological or genetic origin?

Yes, but they're dead wrong. The majority of professional people once believed the earth to be flat. Were they right? The majority of astronomers once believed the stars could be numbered. Were they right? The majority of scientists today believe that men have evolved from monkeys. Are they right? In Genesis, the majority of the world thought Noah was crazy. Were they right? The majority thought Jesus Christ should be crucified. Were they right? Listen friend, if you're running with "the majority," then you are on a collision coarse with the Devil! IGNORE THE MAJORITY! Just trust God's word. God says that sodomy is WRONG, so it's wrong. Period.

Besides, there are many professional people in the medical field who believe that sodomy is an acquired behavior. The book, Shadow In The Land, by Congressman William Dannemeyer, cites several authors who disagree with the biological and genetic theories. The following are among them:

"Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and choice of sexual object. Such an object choice is acquired behavior; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." (Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, International Journal of Psychiatry 10, 1972: 118-25)

"Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child's psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system or the nervous system at birth." (John Monday, Sexual Dimorphism and Homosexual Gender Identity, Perspectives in Human Sexuality, 1974, p. 67)

Doesn't the American Psychiatric Association consider sodomy to be normal?

Yes. In 1974, the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. Naturally, the sodomites make a regular habit of informing us of this, but they fail to inform us of HOW the APA came to this decision. Beginning in 1970, the sodomites started invading the annual APA convention. Although not invited, they made it a regular habit to burst into the annual meetings like uncivilized barbarians. Once in the panel rooms they would resort to shouting and name calling, in hopes of intimidating as many people as possible. They also found it effective to appeal for pity by whining about their sad plight, which they compared to racial discrimination against blacks. By much sympathy pleading and very little factual evidence, the sodomites won the hearts of a few psychiatrists and also a panel of their own in 1973. Then after a very effective letter campaign, the sodomites had applied enough pressure to seal their victory. Finally, in a 58 to 40 vote, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1974.

Why not just leave the sodomites alone and let them live their own lives?

Because God hates this sin and He doesn't want it "left alone." Sin is like a cancer: when ignored it spreads. As we've already seen from God's word, God commends those who oppose sodomy, so we too need to speak out against this abominable sin before it overwhelms us and destroys our nation like it destroyed Sodom. No, we should not HATE the sodomites, but we should firmly oppose their sin as the word of God commands us.

Can a sodomite be cured?

Man says, "No, because it isn't a disease," but God tells us there IS a cure, because there is a cure for ALL SIN. God is willing to cleanse any person of this sin and forget it forever! Some people have the strange idea that God cannot forgive certain sins, but the Bible says otherwise!

1 John 1:7 says, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."

Revelation 1:5 says, "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood."

Friend, Jesus Christ has the cure. You can ignore what the medical profession says about there being no cure for homosexuality. There IS a cure, and YOU can have it TODAY - if you'll confess to God that you're a sinner, repent of your sins (Luke 13:3), and receive His Son as your one and only Saviour. Sin is sin, whether it be sodomy, murder, stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, pride, rebellion, or anything else. All have sinned and come short of God's glory (Rom. 3:23) because all have been born with a sin nature (Rom. 5:12; Psa. 51:5). Jesus Christ shed His sinless blood and died to pay for your sins and He rose again the third day for your justification. The Bible says He'll save you if you'll RECEIVE Him as your Savior:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (John 1:12)

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom. 10:9-10)

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)

Friend, the decision is all your's. You can believe man and pretend that God made you to be a sodomite, or you can believe God and ask Him to save your soul from Hell through the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

Jeremiah, are you insane!?
Homosexuality can be cured though Christ?!
Repeat after me: I WILL STOP LISTENING TO JAMES DOBSON!

Homosexuality cannot--I REPEAT--cannot be cured!
Some people are just attracted to the same sex.........what's the big deal behind that? It's not like God will become so angry that He will punish humanity by causing a world wide storm tht would wipe out all those who accept homosexuality!

And whatever happened to the concept of all of us being ALL of God's children

teen,

RE: "Homosexuality cannot--I REPEAT--cannot be cured!"

Do you know that for a fact?

Why not? After all, it can be CAUSED by liberalism!

AAR

Christ....................................
Jeremiah, are you seriously under the impression that homosexuality can be cured? Cause if you really think so, then I got some news for ya: IT CAN'T BE CURED.

Homosexuality is not--I REPEAT--is not a disease. The truth is that some people are attracted to the same sex.............and I ask you, what's the big deal?

Another reason I HATE you Christian Righties--you preach tolerance and acceptance from one side of your mouth, but persecute gays for being who they are from the other side of your mouth.

Teenage Liberal Quote--

Homosexuality cannot--I REPEAT--cannot be cured

And whatever happened to the concept of all of us being ALL of God's children
__________________________________________________

TEENAGE LIBERAL FRUITCAKE!

God has put up with FOOLS LIKE YOU even though you THINK you are WISE!

some food for thought!

Romans 8:12-17

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--BUT IT IS NOT TO THE SINFUL NATURE, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are Sons of God.

ALL POWER AND SUCCESS COME FROM GOD!!!

TO HIM BE THE POWER AND THE GLORY FOREVER!!!

teenage illiterate

You should be more respectful of Jeremiah, as he has earned it. Grow up.

I do agree, however, that homosexuality cannot be cured. Therefore --- and Jeremiah's with me, I'm sure --- the only options available are move the gays to their own island (or whatever) or some sort of population reductive action.

You said it yourselves, libbies, the gay cannot be cured. What on Earth are we to do with the gay? Really, it leaves people like us, normal, average people, with no other choices.

Have you seen those supposedly "cured" gays? They're all like Clay Aiken, more effeminate than a high-school cheerleader. no, the gay cannot be cured.

What would you do with 'em?

......................another thing TEEN FRUITCAKE.................

Can you read Gods mind?

Do you know when his return is?

God could come back in minute, any day or any year!!!!

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!!!

That's why it pays to be READY!!

Jeremiah,

re: Romans 8:12-17

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--BUT IT IS NOT TO THE SINFUL NATURE, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are Sons of God.

ALL POWER AND SUCCESS COME FROM GOD!!!

TO HIM BE THE POWER AND THE GLORY FOREVER!!!
**************

Amen, brother. This is an excellent opportunity to provide some spiritual/biblical guidance to those who obviously are in great need of it.
:)

Engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. Why? Because God said so. 'Nuff said.

Teenaged,

Perhaps the problem is the word "cure" - but what I do know for a fact is that some men who lived a distinctly homosexual life have ceased to do so and are now living a heterosexual life. They eiher were not gay (which calls into question the innate nature of homosexuality) or they were, indeed, changed - not cured, but convinced by whatever means that they could be happy living a heterosexual life.

My question still remains - does "gay" require an act, or is it just a thing? If it is just a thing, does anyone have to actually do the act in order to be happy in life? Is sex the measure of the life, or is it something else?

To Jeremiah, CotC, and Freedom1:

Thank you for exposing yourselves as the Christian facists that you are. Now everyone knows how hateful you guys really are.

http://forum.newshounds.us/viewtopic.php?p=155026#155026

I see my old homophobic buddy Jeremiah is back to bash the queers again. Funny how he only crawls out from under his rock when the gay topic come up isn't it?

Mark,

The individual you describe is neither gay, nor straight, he is known as a bi-sexual, which have attractions to both genders, with one usually being more pronounced than the other.

There is strong research to indicate that MOST humans have a latent bi-sexual attraction to varying degrees.

AAR
In your world view is there any societal ill that is not the result of liberalism?
There seem to be a few that are a result of adherence to rigid religious fundamentalism as well. Theocracies have taken hold in many Middle Eastern countries with the result that women have no rights and have to cover all but their eyes in public, conversions to any but the established religion results in public execution after torture. Thieves are summarily punished by chopping off hands and feet. The Muslims believe they are carrying out the will of G-d just like the Christians did during the Inquisition of the 1500's,or the Reformation of the 1600's when so many were tortured and martyred in the name of religion. Our country was populated by those seeking tolerance and freedom to practice as their concience dictated.
Liberals are not against Christianity;they just believe it belongs in church and at home-not in government.

Teenage liberal,

Two thousand years ago Romans burned Christians at the stake for defending God and His Biblical teachings. Not much has changed in 2,000 years. Now, people are still metaphorically burning Christians at the stake by calling us "hateful" and "Christian fascists" just for defending God and His Biblical teachings. God is our Creator. As a Christian, I acknowledge that God alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Your problem is not with me or with Jeremiah. We are just echoing what God has already determined. Homosexuality is a sin because God has determined that it is a sin. If you disagree you're going against God's teachings. I suggest you pray on that. God loves you and so do I.

Jeremiah says in one of his posts

To use one's sexual faculty without acceptance of life as its natural consequence is condemnatory.

does he then imply that hetrosexual intercoure with a wife who is past the childbearing age is sodomy?? Or with a wife who has had a hysterectomy for medical reasons (not for the purpose of contraception) also sodomy??

Just a question given his defination of sodomy

"Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."(John 13:23 )

Some folks interpret this verse to mean that the L&S might have taken an interest in more than just His disciples souls, going so far as to suggest that Yeshua Himself might have spent some time up on Brokeback Mountain.

To refute this assertion, most scholars point out that the ancient Greek word for love used in the Gospels refers to the spiritual - as opposed to the carnal - sort. I'm not quite sure the ancient Greeks are the people we should be turning to for reassurance here. After all, they are the folks whose alphabet included the letter Nambla.

Either way, the L&S is not keeping track of who's playing hide the salami with whom. He's much too busy making sure the Colorado Rockies play mediocre baseball. And when He does come back for His curtain call, the only thing he's going to be looking to put in anyone's ass is His foot.

Golfer:

Sarah conceived Isaac when she was 90 years old (Gen. 17:17), and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist even though she was "barren, and... well stricken with age." (Luke 1:7) So past childbearing age doesn't seem to pose a problem.

Then there's Mary, who conceived the Baby Jesus without even playing at "hide the salami". Which goes to show: the Lord is a powerful baby-making force. Hell, I imagine if He wanted He could probably make a man conceive.

Seems like what's "condemnatory" here is Jeremiah questioning the Lord's omnipotence.

kritter,

Off hand, I can't think of any problems that aren't some how the direct of indirect result of liberalism!!!

It isn't the religious fundamentalists who are the problem. It is the liberals who disagree with them and are determined to change their traditions, beliefs, values, and lifestyles instantly. People have held their religious and cultural beliefs for generations, hundreds of years, even thousands of years. Liberals come swooping in, decide those beliefs are "wrong", and demand those who believe in them give up their views and convert to the religion of "liberalism".

Things don't happen that way. Cultures may change their beliefs as the generations change, but that is generally done gradually, slowly, and incrementally over years or many generations with minimal social and cultural disruption. Liberals can not accept that. They must have instant gratification. It must be done THEIR WAY and done NOW!

Yes. Liberals are responsible for most of the hate and divisiveness in America today! Liberals must have instant gratification. It's not enough that Conservatives, Christians, and others tolerate their views and lifestyles. No! Everyone else must "convert" to liberalism and they must do it NOW! Within the past 50 or so years, liberals have used the courts to impose their views and values on Americans exactly that way. Liberals can't wait and allow time to make their views more acceptable as younger and new generations get comfortable with the ideas and perhaps agree with and adopt them. No. Liberals must force them on people and generations who do not agree, will not agree, and will not change.

Who knows, if liberals keep attacking Christians and their beliefs, maybe Christians will finally wake up and say we've had enough. Who knows, maybe Christians will get so mad that they change the Constitution and stop the liberal agenda, period! Would that be a good thing? I wouldn't want to see that, but maybe that's what it will take to stop the imposition of the liberal agenda and their "religion of liberalism" on everyone else!

Think it can't happen? The majority of Americans, 80% give or take, say they are Christians; although, most probably aren't what you would call active in their faith. That's more than enough to change the Constitution if something happens to a majority of those energized. What could cause that? A religious event? Finally getting fed up with the liberal agenda and lifestyle? Keep attacking Christians. Keep forcing your liberal agenda on everyone else. Keep using those activist liberal courts and the activist liberal "law givers" to circumvent the Constitution!

Liberals speak of tolerance... then start tolerating the Conservatives, Christians, and their traditional values, views, and lifestyles which have existed for generations and even thousands of years. Stop trying to change everyone to the latest liberal view and idea!

And no, Christianity and religion does not belong just in the church and home. Liberals constantly preach that religion and politics do not mix. That's not the case. We've seen what happens when Christians sit back and allow liberals to implement their agenda. Liberals support the atheist religion, but oppose Christian values and morals.

Yes, religion and government do mix! Christians must elect representatives who support their lifestyle, morals, and values. Christians must stop the liberals from imposing their own immoral lifestyle on everyone else.

Yes, Christians had better wake up and get right the middle of politics... and do it NOW!

Yes, Christians and religion are under attack from the liberal left. All one has to do to know that is to watch and read the daily news. Watch the ACLU and their attacks on religion and Christians. They don't even want Christmas trees or Christmas carols in our schools!!!

AAR

axis,

"homophobic" -- another hate word from the liberal play book intended to discredit the individual when you disagree with their opinions and views!

"crawls out from under his rock" -- another attack on the person when you disagree with his ideas and opinions!

AAR

Some hilarious comments on thsi thread!

"The purpose of sex is for procreation of the species. Now suddenly we are to believe that all of the homosexuals and lesbians were "born that way" by a change to those genes."

So you only have sex to procreate?

"After all, it can be CAUSED by liberalism!"

Are you serious? Talk about the religious right! Sheesh!

AAR writes

They don't even want Christmas trees or Christmas carols in our schools!!!

If The Savior had not come some 2000 ago and allowing some liberities with history, we may well have jewish menorah in schools. And if that same Savior arrived here today to bring His Good News, would He not is seeking to put away the old covent of laws and bring a new one of Love for Him, for God, for the Holy Spirit, and for neighbor be considered a liberal!! He demanded change and did not offer for savalation that change take place over generations, but that you accpet Him NOW. That youy take up His cross now!!

And would not his followers be offended by the menorahs in the schools??

Again just a question from a liberal who is most definately a Christian and believer in the Savior

OhioGolfer,

His followers would be more concerned that liberals want all mention of God removed from public view!

Christmas trees and Christmas carols are viewed by most Americans and people around the world as part of the Christmas holiday and not as a religious symbol. Yes, Christ is part of the word. Yes, some Christmas carols do contain religious words, but they are part of America's traditions. Even non-Christians and atheists sing them without feeling they are furthering, supporting, defending Christianity or that it in anyway compels them to become Christians or to believe in God -- just as the Nativity Scenes were part public displays in America for years -- centuries. It is only a few liberals, atheists, the ACLU, and a handful of people who have nothing better or worthwhile to do with their lives who believe these are "pushing" or supporting Christianity and must be removed from all public property. Most people would never even give it a second thought -- they just think of those things as part of America's tradition and holidays.

Ask the average person what Christmas is meant to celebrate. See how many say it celebrates the birth of Christ!

The Jewish menorah is thought of as a religious symbol by most people, but even so, seeing it in a public display does not offend me in anyway whatsoever, nor does it offend the vast majority of Americans. That too has become part of America's traditions.

AAR

People are born gay? - where has this been proved? I know about the studies by LeVay, Hamer, Bailey, Pillard. Each states that their research does not prove that homosexuality is genetically or biologically determined.

"Homosexuality is not "normal." On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the *idea* of the norm. Queer theorists - that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders - have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm ... " Lesbian author Dr Camille Paglia.

Plenty of research points to environmental factors having a huge impact on sexual orientation. (eg people who were sexually abused as a child are three times more likely to live a homosexual lifestyle. Edward Lauman)

However gay activits don't want to hear this, they want society to believe that being gay is something you are born which like your skin color and that it can't be changed.

Orientation can be changed (difficult, but not impossible): eg Here.

People are born gay? - where has this been proved? I know about the studies by LeVay, Hamer, Bailey, Pillard. Each states that their research does not prove that homosexuality is genetically or biologically determined.

"Homosexuality is not "normal." On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm; therein rests its eternally revolutionary character. Note I do not call it a challenge to the *idea* of the norm. Queer theorists - that wizened crew of flimflamming free-loaders - have tried to take the poststructuralist tack of claiming that there is no norm, since everything is relative and contingent. This is the kind of silly bind that word-obsessed people get into when they are deaf, dumb, and blind to the outside world. Nature exists, whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm ... " Lesbian author Dr Camille Paglia.

Plenty of research points to environmental factors having a huge impact on sexual orientation. (eg people who were sexually abused as a child are three times more likely to live a homosexual lifestyle. Edward Lauman)

However gay activits don't want to hear this, they want society to believe that being gay is something you are born which like your skin color and that it can't be changed.

Orientation can be changed (difficult, but not impossible): eg Here.

AAR

On the money, as always, when you say, "homophobic -- another hate word from the liberal play book intended to discredit the individual when you disagree with their opinions and views!"

See how liberals bend and twist words until they have no meaning? "Homophobic" means fear of homosexuals.

Conservatives do not fear homosexuals.

We are concerned when homosexuals try to teach our children, for their perversity might seem normal and perhaps they can convert some stragglers.

We do not want to have the homosexual come-on to us in a bar or club. That makes us look bad and means people --- even lifelong friends --- might get the wrong impression. And what makes that homosexual think I'd want his advances, what, like I put out some sort of vibe?

And oh, God if I'm stuck with one of them working at my office, like that temp last month. Man, that was just creepy.

But being creeped out by homosexuals, being concerned about them converting our children and being enreaged when they think we're homosexual, none of those feeling is "fear."

Learn the definition of a word before you use it. Get an education and get a job, loser liberals.

AAR, you just keep dishing kritter and the rest of them all the shit they want to eat and they just keep coming back for more, eh?

I don't believe Robinson is a "true" man of God - I believe he has been planted in that community by activist so that beginning with the Episcoples this would then cross over into other denominatiosn. What has and is doing; is nothing but an abomination. Read Romans! It broke my heart when this story came out~

The Wrong Reverend Rabbi Judas

How dare you question Jeremiah's originalist reading of scripture?

Perhaps you interpret the word of the Lord, maybe you have more insight into His infinite wisdom, but a purist like Jeremiah absorbs the words without filter.

The you think he is questioning God's omnipotence shows the value of your interpretive skills.

JJ

While I agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of your post, I take issue with its basic thesis.

Have you ever met a "man" who has been cured of his perversity through Christ? Somehow, the Christ takes but the perversity don't and you end up with some half/half Michael Jackson kind of deal.

No, personal experience shows me that the gay cannot be cured. We gotta think outside the box about how we'll deal with them. It's for the children, you know.

Mark:

Excuse the misspellings

I appreciate your reply. I have to say that after reading some of the comments that I am disappointed:

"Having said that, I freely admit that I am no better or worse a sinner than any homosexual. But when I lust after women to whom I am not married, I am not going to simply say, "Oh, well, God made me that way, it's fine." I confess my sin and turn in repentance and faith to my Savior, who died for my sin of heterosexual lust just as He died for Jerry's sin of homosexual lust. Yes, sin."

This type of response doesn't really advance the discussion. I am not going to argue any religious aspect of this issue. I don't like being called a sinner, and I'm not discussing the religious aspects of this issue.

Another poster wrote, "That is that homosexual men are sex craving lunatics." I think your readers need to acknowledge some basic facts, men desire sex more often than women. Therefor, it is only logical that male/male relationships involve a greater level of sexual activity. Studies have backed this up; frequency of sex is greatest in male/male relationships, second place goes to heterosexual relationships, thrid place goes to female/female. (I win!)

Someone else writes that most of us were taught that gay sex is wrong. I guesas that's true, we were taught that, but that does not make the teaching true.

It should also be understood that I, as a gay man, have no issue at all with a church that does not want a gay member. It's a private organization which holds certain beliefs, they can do as they choose.

Someone else writes extensively about a liberal agenda. It's true that liberals tend to support gay 'rights' more stridently than conservatives, but I am conservative and do not feel that this is a liberal or conservative issue in any way. I wish to be treated equally and I hope that people will accept my lifestyle. But they don't have to accept it, and they don't have to treat me equally (unless it is illegal to do otherwise).

Someone else writes, "... The purpose of sex is for procreation of the species."

Who says? Isn't it possible that one purpose is also enjoyment? How many posters here engage in sex only for procreation?

Someone else posts about abortion and sodomy and quotes extensively from religious sources. This doesn't advance the debate for how can I argue with beliefs that are a matter of faith? And why do you permit such posts? My post was (apparently) reviewed before posting, did you review this one? And then decide it was good to go?

Also, apparently your readers do not what sodomy is as sodomy can exist in a heterosexual relationship and is merely 'perverted' sex, NOT homosexuality.

And some other buffoon posts, "I do agree, however, that homosexuality cannot be cured. Therefore --- and Jeremiah's with me, I'm sure --- the only options available are move the gays to their own island (or whatever) or some sort of population reductive action."

Why do you allow such posts?

Now to address your response, ann this will be based on personal experience only.

"
Perhaps we'll start with this: You state that some homosexual relationships have no sexual component at all and (correct me if I'm wrong) that a large element in homosexual attraction is a desire for a level of intimacy apparantly not obtainable, for a homosexual, in a heterosexual relationship."

Correct with some explanation. There are differing levels of intimacy. There is the intimacy you might share with a close girlfriend that you've known for twenty years (no sex), and then there's the intimacy you share with your wife/girlfriend. Difficult for me to define the precise difference, but both you and I know that such a difference exists.

"Granting this is true, what really constitutes intimacy?"

I believe that all persons need to share some level of intimacy with someone to achieve true happiness (in this mortal body). For me, the intimacy I achieved with a former girlfriend (yes, we had sex) did not fulfill and meet my needs or otherwise make me truly happy. For whatever reason, to achieve true happiness, I still desired an intimate relationship with a man. I must also say that, like intimacy, there are different levels of sex and sexual gratification. I think you might agree that we've all been in relationships that were emotionally intimate and that also included sex, and yet, for almost all of us, even some of these relationships did not meet all of our needs.

"Why should this desire for intimacy make such an overwhelming claim on a person's life"

Has your desire for intimacy with a woman made an overwhelming claim on your life? All perosns, IMO, need to be involved with other persons on an emotionally intimate level to achieve happiness, fulfillment, a sense of self-worth, a sense of value, etc.

" - ie, make them feel unfullfilled unless they renounce their oath,

We feel unfulfilled if we cannot engage in an initimate relationship with a man. There is a subtle but important difference between that and saying that we feel unfulfilled unless we renounce our oath. If we don't renounce our oath, and yet still enter into an (illegitimate) intimate relationship with another man, then we could feel fulfilled. So we could violate our oath and still feel fulfilled, but we would still feel wrong (harbor guilt) about violating the oath. So we would have to both enter into the initimate same-sex relationship AND renounce our oath to be true and happy.

"sworn to God on high, that they will love another person until death do they part?"

I just can't get into the whole religious aspect here; I have found that you can't get someone to agree that an article of faith is wrong.

"I love my friend Bill - we've known each other since 1971 and we've had a massive amount of shared life experiences. There are things we know about each other that likely no one else on earth knows - there is an easy familiarity with us and even though we live far apart, when we come into contact it is as if we just left off the conversation five minutes ago.

Notice that in the described relationship, you don't live together, talk to each other each day, see each other each day, share financial burdens, etc. The relationship you describe is loving and intimate, but it is in now way equal or analogous to the type of relationship I am describing that I feel is necessary for a healthy emotional life.

"That is a pertty intimate relationship, right? It does not in any way compromise the intimate relationship I share with my wife (who, also, knows things about me that no one else knows - including Bill)."

Yes, but(monkey!) - The relationship you describe is intimate but not complete or equal to the one you have with your wife. If you were not married and had only your relationship with Bill, would it fulfill all of your emotional needs and could you be truly happy? I think not. For one thing, you would not be behaving in a manner that you probably feel you were created to behave in.

"The love I feel for Bill (and I believe Bill feels for me) does not in any way make either of us homosexual."

Actually, I think it does. That is, if you truly feel that you could be happy with only this intimate relationship with a man, and that you did not need the love and intimacy of a woman, then I feel you could reasonably call yourself gay in that, you desire the intimacy of asame sex relationship and that is all you need for true happiness. You don't really feel that way, though, do you?

"Given all that - why does the homosexual act seem a MUST in the life of at least the overwhelming bulk of homosexuals?"

Why does the heterosexual act seem a MUST in the life of the overwhelming bulk of heteosexuals? I suppose that on an instinctual level, as corporate beings, we have a built-in need for sexual gratification. I suppose that God instilled this in us. I suppose that there is a statistically significant but small percentage of persons who have been created with a sexual attraction towards the same sex. I don't pretend to know the purpose. Without the belief that God created everything as he wanted them to be, I would guess that homosexuals are simply a random, naturally occurring phenomenon, like really smart people.

"Bishop Robinson had a pretty nice life"

Your opinion whicgh could very well be wrong. I had a nice life before I came out, but I wasn't happy.

" - including, with his wife (the mother of his children) a level of intimacy which no other relationship could surpass"

I'm not understanding how you can know this to be true?

"(this doesn't exclude some other level of intimacy equaling it - but watching your child come out of the body of your wife; I cannot grant that anything can be more intimate than that)"

Perhaps, but I don't understand your point. As I wrote earlier, there are different levels of intimacy and only the indidual knows what type will help them to be happy and fulfilled. It's probably not a matter of the magnitude of intimacy, but rather, the type of intimacy required for a particular indivdual.

wo thousand years ago Romans burned Christians at the stake for defending God and His Biblical teachings. Not much has changed in 2,000 years. Now, people are still metaphorically burning Christians at the stake by calling us "hateful" and "Christian fascists" just for defending God and His Biblical teachings. God is our Creator. As a Christian, I acknowledge that God alone determines what is right and what is wrong. Your problem is not with me or with Jeremiah. We are just echoing what God has already determined. Homosexuality is a sin because God has determined that it is a sin. If you disagree you're going against God's teachings. I suggest you pray on that. God loves you and so do I.

-- That is a crock. The only time that issue comes up is when you take a religion, which is a persona