Thanks for starting this thread. I am a stranger to these feelings except for about 15 seconds in high school when I wished that my dearest friend was a girl. I have been accosted physically more than once by homosexuals as well as being propositioned, so I do have some prejudice, but I also have an open mind and like to learn about human sexuality.

I thought @Tristan would be commenting here, but he might be withholding because he has his own belief system on this subject. I know there will be others checking in though, so wait and see what happens. There are guys with SSA on the Get Help section, so perhaps they'll find this.

True, Rocky, I do have a different belief system - one that actual tries to get it right with scriptures, not secular psychology. And just to set the record straight: Any man who claims to be beyond homosexual lust is boasting foolishly and is in the sin of pride. It's all part of the Mystery of Homosexuality. There are men out there so beautiful as to beggar the imagination, and no so-called 'heterosexual man' is safe from their beauty.

I am glad that Josh has found some victory over his homosexual lusts, but I disagree with his belief that he is entitled to blame his father. We can fault this false allowance on the Religious Right that promotes the heretical dogma of Reparative Therapy theory that claims that homosexuality is the result of a 'broken' home life (distant, abusive dad and/or domineering mother), causing a 'broken sexuality' (that is, normal in-born heterosexual desires being forcibly replaced by homosexual desires, hence such therapy is geared toward 'repairing' that developmental damage). As a general theory of homosexuality it is clearly wrong, yet it has a bit of truth in it. But I never saw Jesus claim that we can blame any of our actions on our parents.

The generally accepted psychological view of homosexuality by the secular world is that its cause is more nature than nurture. This is also wrong as a general theory, yet it too has a kernel of truth to it. But both views share the common fault of failing to appeal to the spiritually fallen natures of people. The truth is that nature, nurture, and spirit all play a role in our sexual/idolatrous lusts.

The Bible does not deny the effects of both the nature and the nurture on our desires, yet it proclaims an even stronger realm of influence - that of the spiritual realm, whereby we exhibit lust for things that goes beyond physical needs to the point of abusing ourselves and others in its vain pursuit.

That is why Jesus told us that from out of the heart comes evil thoughts. (He didn't blame anybody's parents!) And that is why Paul told us that he would not himself had recognized the full power of lust in his own life if he had not been informed of it in the commandment of scripture: thou shall not covet. And that is why John told us that human lust can be examined in three dimension: the lust of the flesh (for sensuality), the lust of the eyes (to behold beauty), and the pride of life (to feed our egos) [1 John 2:15-17]. It's all part of the Mystery of Iniquity and the Mystery of Beauty - a very toxic subject!

And in like manner, James informs us that the spirit that dwells within us lusts to envy (James 4:5 KJV).

We normal humans are all born with varying lusts by kinds which vary by intensity among us. Some feel homosexual lust 'from birth', yet feel no craving for wealth or power. Others feel the craving for wealth from a very young age, but horniness is rare to them. We each have our personal spectrum of lusts, which are influenced by nature and nurture, and the spirit realm.

And remember to think this, Rocky, when it comes to the possibility of homosexual lust in your own being: But for the grace of God there go I.

The Bible declares that there is a one-size-fits-all solution to overcoming every kind of Lust:

Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).

Reparative therapy denies this because it claims that one has to employ psychology to discover the 'root cause' of one's homosexual feelings. False. Whatever the root cause is, the solution is always the same: Walk in the Spirit.

Victory in Jesus

Thanks for posting this, @Josh4Jesus.

I am a homosexual, and I feel okay being a homosexual.

My homosexual feelings have troubled me spiritually. I feel that maybe I have the chance of going to Hell, but then I start to think about my beliefs in Jesus. Those are another story.

But what doesn't make sense is that I just am not attracted to females. When a female walks by I may think, "She's beautiful," and then look down. When a male walks by I may say the same thing, and if it's true I might look again. It just happens this way, and I don't know why.

I believe that the greatest way to question homosexuality and heterosexuality is this:

If being gay is a choice, is being straight a choice? Do straight people choose to be gay? Is everyone who is straight really gay and choosing to be straight? Is everyone who is gay really straight and choosing to be gay?

It's an interesting way of viewing the topic.

I have uncertain beliefs about this topic, mostly in regards to homosexuality and sexual "intercourse" between same-sex couples. I lean towards the belief that it is not a sin to kiss a person of the same sex, when in love with that person. I believe that kissing with love is the same for any couple. I am a little iffy, though, when it comes to the sexual part of the relationship. I lean more towards the belief of celibacy in a homosexual relationship. Celibacy is so hard, but it can't be impossible.

I find this to be another interesting way of looking at homosexuality and the Bible. I notice how as culture changes, Christianity changes. I believe that Christians of the 100s AD and of the Middle Ages would find devout Christians today to be sinners. Let's look at just these two issues:

- the majority of Christians do not wear veils anymore (Paul instructs it)
- many Christian women have short hair (Paul instructs against it, and from what I remember, he even calls male-like hair an abomination to the Lord)

I believe in Jesus, but I don't see a connection between the literal interpretation some Christians claim to adopt with the Bible and then the Christian customs that exist today. Yes, culture has changed, and women shouldn't have to wear veils. I believe that. But Paul didn't. Paul seemed to believe in it firmly, along with the idea of women with long hair.

So what I am trying to say here is, is our truth (in regards to the law, not to Jesus Christ himself), goign to change? Are the guidelines for correct behavior going to change? Will oru view on homoseualty change as a Christian community?

@stwy2zeppelin....good questions.....fair....I don't see hair and veils on the level of sexuality and SSA, but I think I understand the nature of your quandary ....I don't think the question and struggle over homosexuality has changed one iota since the time of Christ or earlier, Moses...it was the same question then and now...I write this because I think it is a rather weak argument to insist that our culture is so very much different than that of Israel and the time of Christ....in effect, that we have evolved or have developed to such an extent that that part of the Bible regarding homosexuality doesn't apply to us anymore?....I don't get that line of reason at all....it actually seems very arrogant in favor of "us" and "our times", as if the Biblical times were rather shallow and immature, especially regarding matters of sexuality....

This is where I agree with Tristan...there are "kernels" of truth in the modern arguments of nature and nurture influencing an individual, but those are minor reasons behind a man or a woman choosing to still pursue someone of the same sex, which are "major" reasons why someone could, in effect, feel very confident in their same sex attraction....Of Course They Would!....they have reenforced countless thousands of times, maybe more, the mindset and decision to cultivate SSA within their lives.....

Tristan can speak more to this...I am writing as an "outsider", but I can relate in terms of my penchant for porn and continued perusal and investment of time....through many choices...MANY choices...but it's not a way to live the rest of my life...it's not a perfect parallel to those with SSA, but it is a similar struggle in terms of whose allegiance and teaching are we gonna choose: God's or our own.

I find it interesting how some people refer to themselves here. Stwy admits to being a homosexual, and yet Josh seems to have gone to some length to avoid doing so. I see that a lot. Christians who say they 'struggle with same-sex attraction' or even outright admit to being sexually attracted to their own gender... yet refuse to admit to being gay, and will act very defensively if accused a such.

Some Christian writers go one further, and write as if there were no such thing as a gay man - only straight men who are in denial, or afflicted with a disease that must be cured. Box turtle bulletin did an interesting article on the subject: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/03/06/243

I feel bothered when some say that homosexuality is a result of an absent father figure, a feminine father figure, sexual abuse, or any other negative experiences. I have never been abused. I have a father who is not so "macho," but when I was younger, he chastised me for being once-in-a-while flamboyant. On that note, aren't there many gay teenage males that have very strict, masculine father figures?

That's all I will say in regards to "debate." I know that this forum is not meant for long debate.

I will provide the Bible passage that I have referred to, about short hair and veils on women, and long hair on men. I intended to make a parallel between interpretations of homosexuality in the Bible and interpretations of cultural rules such as the ones presented below. I learned as a Christian that sin is sin. Is it a sin, according to Paul, for a woman to be bare-headed or for a man to have long hair? Can a man or woman act with these types of "shames" without repenting for them, and still go to Heaven? If our view as Christians has changed regarding clothing and the type of shame it brings to us, will our view on the shame of homosexuality change as well?

New International Version (NIV)

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[b] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
Footnotes:

[a] 1 Corinthians 11:7 Or Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair; but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. A man ought not to have long hair
[b] 1 Corinthians 11:10 Or have a sign of authority on her

@stwy2zeppelin I think your avatar note says "come unto me all that are heavy laden..." but I can't make out the rest of it, or what the background or black object is... care to clue us in on your avatar?

8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.
Huh?

That whole section just makes no sense at all to me. A women has authority over her headwear 'because of the angels?' An open contradiction between 8 and 12. Either this is an incredibly bad translation, or it's just untranslateable - something that could only make sense to a person of the time.

The 'very nature of things' part sounds a lot like how more recent christians appeal to natural law. It has the same flaw too - what seems to be so obviously the case to one culture that it must be divine writ is, to another, in contradiction. The writer of that text thought it so self-evidently obvious that it would be disgraceful for a women to have long hair that he didn't even see reason to justify why - that would be pointless. Yet to us, 1900 years later, such a view would just seem silly.

"Man (the first man, made by God) did not come from woman, but woman (was made from the side of) man." But to balance things out, man still must be born of woman, so neither is independent of the other.

Actually, all humans are, in essence or prototype, female until they are ten weeks old in utero. Nearly all the genitalia are shared by each sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homologues_of_the_human_reproductive_system , but get differently modified or in some cases, never grow, such as the uterus that is attached to the prostate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostatic_utricle. Some say, no, we're neither male or female at first, and I say, men have mammary glands for what reason? So, males derive their orgasm from the female's superior ability. Many have asked, what is the evolutionary reason for the female orgasm, and the answer has been to get them to have more sex; they have them for the same reason men have nipples, because we come from a common prototype. (Yes, I contradicted myself, but don't bother me.) Biblically, the female is called the "weaker vessel", that is, the more fragile and expensive, ornate vessel that you tend to look at more than actually use. She is the superior of the race, physically, being made not from the ground, but from materials already fashioned, she is a refinement upon the male. http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/fetus.html

The concept in the passage was that women, specifically married women, were to show their deference to their husbands by wearing their hair long, and by wearing veils, to show proper order and respect for authority. Angels were believed to attend Christian services and some have said demons are the most faithful in church attendance (to disrupt and distract). So, godly angels, being sensitive to any type of rebellion, having suffered one among their own ranks, would be particularly offended by rebellion among God's people. Wearing veils was a custom of the day, and different dress habits I think were indicative of marital status as well as "ladies of the evening". Men were considered to be the proper sex to hold authority and teach in the early Church, following the dictates of the synagogues from which the churches sprang. A woman who cast off her veil in celebration of "Christian freedom".. i.e, "there is neither male or female, bond or free" would be out of order to do this.

I think a man should avoid appearing effeminate, and a female should avoid appearing masculine.

stwy's point is somewhat valid and times do change. However, the passages that condemn anal sex, whether hetero or homo are pretty blunt and don't seem bound to culture or time. For example, the list of taboos in Leviticus 18 seem to be in stone as it were. When we can discern that a rule or law was attached to the culture, then I think we can make allowance for change. Even in the passage he quoted, Paul said " If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." Other translations render that word "practice" as "custom", in other words, this was the custom in all the churches Paul visited. It may not be the customs that would be adopted in West Africa, or Ireland, or China for example. Likewise, the custom of a woman needing to be a virgin on her wedding day, I think, served more of a cultural, temporal concern, than any moral long term symbolism.

The forums are meant for discussion...for debate....so I believe all should feel free to voice their opinions and engage with each other...hopefully in a civil, honest manner...

To Tristan's earlier point that any heterosexual CAN be attracted to another man....I wholeheartedly agree.....which further adds to the discussion on how "choice" is made and how it affects our lives...

At seminary I went through a deeper time of reflection regarding homosexuality, having lunch a few times with a man who was deeply involved in the gay lifestyle for many years, with sexual relationships....he also had worked for many years in administration of a well-known international missions organization....he knew the struggle and contradictions of teaching on homosexuality, let alone the inappropriate behavior of the Top Brass in the organization in regards to mature Christian Love...."Johann" (not his real name) "chose" out of the lifestyle and got married to a lovely woman, had a couple of kids, though he still struggled a bit with attraction to men...it was a reality of his life, but that didn't give him full justification to just "not fight it"...he resisted and obeyed God and denied his "natural attraction"...he believed it was wrong....

Johann also sternly warned me: Don't have dinner with a homosexual man, wanting to reach out to him with God's Love, in hopes of helping him...."I've seen too many heterosexual men, with the best of intentions, turn to the Gay Lifestyle." That was sobering....but made sense to me....I had a compassionate heart for homosexual men, was hanging out with women left and right, and wasn't bonding healthily with men, that I found myself becoming more "effeminate" and open to homosexuality....every little step by little step....many small "choices"...it got me closer and closer to SSA....I then had to make strong, clear choices to stop and reverse direction.....

That sounds rather dubious. Sexual orientation can sometimes change, but for that to happen past puberty is a very rare thing indeed in either direction.

I don't doubt you at all BW. Now, I'll be totally politically incorrect and say that I believe there are homosexual demons that will try to entice single men into that life because they know it dishonors God and the image of God in man; they (demons and their puppets) tried it on me for over a dozen years. I even had a demonized homosexual call me on the phone after I changed addresses. I don't even think I knew the new phone number, yet this same anonymous weirdo called me that used to call me at my old address wanting to know what I was wearing and what I was doing. It really freaked me out. (The only possible solution is the caller was my new roommate because the call came when he wasn't home. I think I would know his voice though, because we had been friends for years.) I don't doubt that there are pressures and inclinations that make the homosexual lifestyle attractive, esp. to lonely single guys who may have other social backwardness.

However, I still don't believe that most men who go through puberty as heterosexuals can become sexually attracted to a man. Sorry, call me a homophobe, but that would be a lie.

If I'm understanding Tristan correctly, his point is that it "could" happen and for no one to assume, in a prideful state, that it will absolutely not happen...to which I agree, out of principle and from personal experience....

As for homosexual demons, I have often wondered about that....I didn't want to assume that any discomfort on my part about homosexuality MUST be because there are demons roaming about...but I didn't want to disacknowledge any possibility thereof out of hand, either...I've honestly felt disturbed, spiritually, when intermingling with perfect strangers or personal friends of mine who were involved to various degrees in the homosexual lifestyle...Christian or not...I don't think that any demonic presence present was purely to harass or attack me, but also a reality of that man's soul being afflicted towards a distortion against God's Will...

I think that any homosexual demons must be dealt with as other demons...repent of any sin, rebuke any attacks, binding them/casting them away, maybe with fasting...cleansing one's temple and being filled again with the Spirit...then, as with other sin, when choices are made to return to the sin, it can become an idol or at minimum a distraction, with some issues/sins being more influential or powerful than others...walking onward in progress is key, not absolute perfection/shame...

I write this all being direct, but please try to trust me that I am still coming from a place of mutual respect and love...not meant to ridicule nor degrade...rather a spirit of wanting to help and spur one another on in our journeys...

I only want to know, why are we bickering on this? Adam and Eve. Why would God be okay with homosexuality if it goes against his master plan? And as a man who has been walking away from those feelings after being taken advantage of by a man, why would anyone be okay when Paul calls it perversion...Romans 1:26,27? Jesus came to right this, not be okay with his children debating over it...why not just let him have control of our lusts, and have him correct it if we are being lead by the Spirit? He can and will if we ask, show us the woman we are to be with when the time comes, and if we are diligent in our seeking of him, he promised us this. Maybe not even have a relationship with anyone, like Paul, who was not married. I am just wondering why we fight about this today in the Church, when we were given specific instructions and what Jesus says on the subject in every translation, so why do we point out other things to use them as a scapegoat? I am confused brothers....

I love people who struggle with this, I mean I was there, but as long as we are "taking sides" we cannot help those people I feel, please forgive me if I was offensive, but I just don't understand.

I don't think anyone is fighting on this actually, @Tyswi18 and thanks for joining the conversation. I admitted that I have had some limited feelings in that direction and I also felt there were repeated attempts to push me in that direction, but I was never interested. I don't hate homosexuals, nor am I particularly uncomfortable around them. As customers and in some other settings, I've had good rapport, however as I said, I've also been physically accosted twice that I can remember right now, as well as propositioned more than once. All I can say is the devil is a fool sometimes. Like the time I had no money ($4), the rent was past due, I had no roommate, no job, no car, no food in the house except a can of string beans and as I looked across the housetops i saw the convenience store and the thought came to my mind that I could get some things I needed there, or rob the store.... I recognized that the suggestion wasn't my thoughts and laughed out loud at him, and I would do the same thing if he told me I would kiss or have sex with a man... I don't care how "desperate" I am or was... no, I don't think so. damned devil.

@Tyswi18...I echo EC....I don't think we are fighting nor even bickering...but some clear opinions are being aired....seems healthy and respecting thus far....the benefit I see is that there are further contexts of the Bible to be discussed as well as life experiences and observations that help gird up one's faith in this overall topic...that's all... :]

I'm up for some bickering, but I just can't see an opening. Obviously there is plenty of stupid going on here. Demonic influences, really? The middle ages ended some time ago, you're supposed to have outgrown such things now. It's just difficult to argue against the nonfalsifiable. Like trying to convince a believe there is no Santa: For every perfectly reasonable objection they can counter with some ever-more-fantastical magic.

I don't buy it...you always find an opening...don't shovel that around here!

It's difficult to go against some ever so fanciful, seemingly astute argumentation that flies against the face of actual evidence....now who is the true Magician here....as they say: "He sure can talk, but what is he saying..."

One does not need to explain homosexual attraction on the basis of demons when the Bible is clear that the main reason is plain old carnal lust:

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves; Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (Rom. 1:24-27).

It's just Lust, lust lust! Can we put that issue to rest now? And furthermore, I, as a former active gay man of 22 years, can testify that homosexual sex is literally bodily unclean.

By the way, I am a college-educated man who believes in demons and angels and my own invisible spirit within me. I cannot explain the passions I feel in jealousy against beautiful men by mere materialistic reasoning. I need the Bible to reveal the spiritual nature of my passion: The spirit within us lusteth to envy (James 4:5 KJV).

What this verse reveals is that plain old carnal lust is spiritual, and in fact resides within our own spirits and needs no further prompting from the devil, though the devil may prompt us to go all the way down the slippery slope to sin. Lucifer had no material body, yet he suffered from beauty-lust: Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness (Ez. 28:17).

It's not unscientific to believe in the invisible. Today's science holds that 97% of the material universe is invisible. Or is that claim an act of faith?

Suricou, do you think you are the only one here who knows something scientific? I've read Popper and the refutation of him by Lakatos. The issue here is not falsifiability. The issue here is deciding which theory of homosexuality is better at explaining male homosexuality to me, a former male homosexual. I need to choose between either a purely materialistic theory (Darwinian evolution), or one based on spirituality and Biblical insight. For me, it is the latter. The incredible passion I felt as a homosexual, and sometimes still do, makes no sense to me from a purely materialistic viewpoint. But that's my choice at explaining.

Victory in Jesus

EC, you wrote, "However, I still don't believe that most men who go through puberty as heterosexuals can become sexually attracted to a man."

That is heresy. It directly violates scripture that God can turn anyone over to homosexuality (Rom. 1). It also is prideful boasting of invulnerability, contrary to scriptures:

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:12).

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (Gal. 6:1).

It is NOT meekness to counsel those who are overtaken by homosexual lust to declare to them your own invulnerability to homosexual lust. To be a 'spiritual' counselor, one must reside in the 'spirit of meekness'.

Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility (Prov. 18:12).

You boast that you have already been tested and proven invulnerable to homosexual lust and that you would never give in to it, but scripture declares otherwise. Besides, I only claimed that no man is beyond experiencing homosexual lust, not homosexual acts, though they are also possible. In any case, being 'tempted' to homosexually prostitute your body for money is NOT what I am referring to.

EC, you think you've been sorely tested already? Ha! Please! You ain't really been tested until you've been tested by the best there is out there. There are men out there more beautiful in face and physique than any woman I've ever seen. (And I'm not referring to androgynous men, and money isn't the issue either.) Beware of your boasting. It's a challenge to God to confront it.

The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day (Isa. 2:11).

If Jesus could go through homosexual lust in order to make him a fit High Priest to the rest of us, then why can't you admit that you and other post-pubescent 'straight' men (most of whom are unregenerated by the gospel of deliverance) might possibly experience homosexual lust?

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

James tells us how we are tempted to sin:

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (James 1:14).

Therefore, that is how Jesus was tempted to sin - through his own lusts. But you claim to be beyond that possibility.

Your prideful boasting only separates you from people who really do experience homosexual lust, be they believers or non-believers. You do indeed have some sort of unchristian version of homophobia.

Do you think you are the only guy in the world who has been propositioned by other guys against your desires? I have too. Big deal! You make too much of that. It has no doctrinal value. Look for doctrine in the scriptures.

You constantly boast that you are beyond all possibility of homosexual lust. Why is that particular lust such a big deal to you? And why do you feel the need to assert your invulnerability to homosexual lust here over and over again?

Victory in Jesus

Strange as it may seem, homosexuality makes sense from a naturalistic perspective. You just need to remember that evolution isn't a perfect designer. It can't even evolve specific behaviors well. It selects for patterns in DNA which shape interacting proteins which direct biases in a self-wiring neural network that selects behavior. That's a lot of steps in between DNA and the end result, and in those many steps there are other consequences.

That is the reason porn works. There is an obvious evolutionary advantage to a desire to mate, but it can't just evolve as highly focused switch. Instead humans evolved a complex collection of instincts relating to mate selection and stimulus-seeking. Homosexuality is just a slightly unusual manifestation of the same instincts. It probably can't be evolved out, otherwise it would have been already.

There is no survival-of-the-specie advantage to male-male mating, especially if it is exclusive and wide-spread thoughout a given population.

OK, Suricou, although I tried to be very specific in how my intense jealous lust for guys (that turned sexual) was beyond any sense of sexual biological reproduction gone astray (as appears to be the case in animals), I will try to sharpen the distinction.

What did NOT occur when I was a homosexual man: Gee, I wonder if I might possibly be successful at siring offspring with that modestly attractive androgynous male over yonder? In other words, there was nothing confusing to me about my homosexual desires. I just didn't understand why I had such hyper-intense unwanted homosexual desires and why I couldn't get rid of them by the means that I tried.

What it was really like for me when I saw a beautiful man: Wow! What a beautful gracile man he is!! I just got to have crude sex with that guy or die trying!

In a biological interpretation, the first scenario makes sense in a misguided sexual way, but the second scenario makes no biologic sense at all. That was my original point. This kind of irrational super-lust that I actually experienced for decades is better explained as a spiritual manifestation than a biological one. Its origin in my case was neither nature (purely materialistic) nor nurture (environment), but was due to my spiritually fallen nature.

From an evolutionary perspective, why should I care if I, a male human, am beautiful or not? The Bible tells me why.

Also, I can't tell you what goes through the minds of homosexual animals, but I can tell you that biology (in the sense of reproduction) was never on my mind when I lusted for other men. Furthermore, I never cared to do intercourse with other men, so my experience with homosexuality can't be dismissed as merely a broken form a heterosexual sex drive turned somehow to the wrong gender.

"There is no survival-of-the-specie advantage to male-male mating."
I never said there was. I said that evolution isn't as simple as merely selecting beneficial traits. It selects for genes (And gene regulators) that cause beneficial traits, even if they have other incidential effects.

"What did NOT occur when I was a homosexual man: Gee, I wonder if I might possibly be successful at siring offspring with that modestly attractive androgynous male over yonder?"
That isn't what heterosexuals think either, most of the time. The typical thoughts of a heterosexual tend more towards 'She(/he) is hot! I want.' If people just mated for reproduction, no-one would want to use contraception.

That's not true, SR...you're stating the obvious superficial attraction and desire, but people subconsciously size each other up in more profound ways, though they might not be the most profound of individuals....like: "How would this man/woman be a great partner for life...for family time...for broader social connections...".....there is much more involved, owing from our own development as a species...deeper motivations as well which includes what Tristan is addressing, the spiritual aspect of humankind...

Another thing to factor in are pheromones and how women subconsciously choose who they want as mates, as well as the Sperm wars studies.

@eastcoast, yes, I'm pretty sure it is the "Come to me all you who are heavy laden . . ." scripture. I started using that as an avatar a long while ago, and it still stays with me.

You can tell that I have troubles with the Scriptures.

"However, I still don't believe that most men who go through puberty as heterosexuals can become sexually attracted to a man. Sorry, call me a homophobe, but that would be a lie."

That's not homophobic, it makes sense. I believe that some men adopt the gay lifestyle just because it feels good, just like how some people have sex just because it feels good. But, I also believe that there are those that are gay because it is what they are, while there are also those that have sex because it is a sign of love, not just a way of getting physical satisfaction.

@Tyswi18, you are not offensive in any way. I completely understand you. What you described is going on within me. I sometimes ask myself, "Why am I attracted to men? Why am I gay? It only makes sense that man and woman are meant for each other; they procreate. So why am I not attracted to women? Nothing happened to me as a child. I was attracted to other males even before I knew that gay existed!"

We are supposed to live beyond feelings, but these feelings that I have require me to rethink what some Christians have said.


We have to remember, everyone, that in older times, it seems that people rarely married for love. They married for offspring. Today, the United States values marrying for love (most Americans seem to find arranged marriages to be appalling).

So, is having children the basis for a relationship anymore? Many straight parents can't have children and instead adopt.

What if we took this discussion in a slightly different direction. Can a man romantically love another man? Not just sexually or emotionally, but can a man love a man the way a husband loves a wife? Can a woman love a woman?

This has become a very tricky subject for me as well. What is the tricky part is that which involves sex. What I have been thinking, however, is that perhaps a same-sex relationship without the "intercourse" is okay with God. Perhaps a man can live with another man and a woman with another woman while remaining celibate.

I have mixed emotions about this topic, but I know what I am attracted to, just as many straight men know what they are attracted to. I cannot explain why I am not attracted to females, but just like with many other parts of life, only God has the answer.

God bless all of you, and I want to stay now that I thank every one of you for your responses and opinions. They matter to me. :D

' "However, I still don't believe that most men who go through puberty as heterosexuals can become sexually attracted to a man. Sorry, call me a homophobe, but that would be a lie."

That's not homophobic, it makes sense.'

Does it indeed make sense? I don't think so.

I'm not claiming that a man will lust on another man for the first time as an adult and then become gay, though that is possible. I am just claiming that if God brings a so-called 'straight' man to the worst place in his life and then places a beautilful man in front of him, that that man can experience a spontaneous homosexual lust.

Let's examine a thought experiment:

Imagine a hypothetical 'heterosexual' middle-aged man, named Norm. He’s in a bad marriage. His wife is talking about divorce. His business life is in decline. He’s just been demoted back to sales, and he finds himself in another unfamiliar city, alone at night after a stressful day at sales, that didn't go well. He's depressed. He’s walking down a lonely, poorly lit street, after a long evening of drinking alone. He stumbles around a corner and finds himself face to face with the most beautiful young man (in his early 20s) he has ever seen. This young man is a hustler, selling sex for a living. He is more beautiful of face than the most beautiful woman Norm has ever seen, and for the first time in his life he has a strong homosexual attraction to this man – another man. The hustler propositions Norm, and whether or not Norm accepts the offer, it’s too late for Norm to deny his homosexual lust. In fact, as depressed and drunk as he is, Norm is in no mood to deny it. Norm can't seem to take his eyes off the face of this beautiful young man.

Men experience the lust of the eye (1 John 2:16) for beauty, and beauty has no gender. There are beautiful men out there more beautiful than any woman. I know. I've seen them.

What I find interesting is that so many so-called 'straight' men refuse to admit this as a possibility. I don't understand why. It truly is irrational.

I believe in the latent bisexuality of all men. All that's needed to bring out the latent sexuality of any man is the right circumstance. Therefore, let him who thinks he stands, take heed lest he falls.

Victory in Jesus

I'm sorry, @Tristan. I put a contradiction to the "makes sense" statement. I should have clarified my viewpoint. I forgot to take out that part of my message. I do believe that a straight man can be tempted by homosexuality, the way a straight man can be tempted by heterosexuality. Lust is lust. Anyone can be tempted by anybody to commit any sexual act, or any misdeed for that matter.

The hypothetical situation with norm can be altered to replace the homosexual hustler with a female prostitute. Both situations involve lust and temptation. Both situations involve an action that violates a commitment.

I also believe that there is some sort of bisexuality in all males and females, but that in some, it's not as strong as it is in others. There are gay men who sometimes fall in love with women, and there are straight women who sometimes fall in love with women. I know a gay man that once said he was gay, and now says he doesn't believe in any labels. He believes that love has no gender, and that whomever your spirit is attracted to, that person could be right for you. It's a radical viewpoint, but it is interesting.

"However, I still don't believe that most men who go through puberty as heterosexuals can become sexually attracted to a man."

The following quote is from a men's confession post: "I have been dealing with porn addiction for about 14 years. Recently I have turned to gay porn and checking out guy hook up sites."

Such confessions of 'straight' men turning to gay porn or homosexual acts after a long heterosxual life are not that uncommon on the confessions blog. And I wonder how many confessions of porn use by supposedly straight men do not include the additional info that that porn is homosexual, at least in part.

I don't quite understand why some straight men turn to homosexual pornography. I'm not sure if it's an inclination many straight men have biologically, or if it's just a way of seducing oneself. Some people like looking at themselves in a mirror. Perhaps straight men who look at homosexual porn feel the same way looking at it. I'm not sure.

What percentage of heterosexual copulation is consciously about procreation on the guy's part? Not very much. Then what is heterosexual sex about for the guy? It's about the lust of the eyes for beauty and the lust of the flesh for sensuality. So, biology isn't the real motive for most heterosexual experiences for men. And that becomes more obvious when the sex is other than vaginal intercourse (since that is how procreation occurs). Sexual lust in men, gay or straight, is spiritual, not biological.

Obviously, homosexual sex is not about biology, either. It too is about the lust of the eyes for beauty and the lust of the flesh for sensuality. (Although gay men differ greatly on what they call a 'beautiful' physique or face on a guy.) The gay community has its ongoing arguments about gays discriminating based on gay 'beauty' and what should be the standard of beauty for a gay man and whether or not the gay community should even tolerate discrimination based on beauty (as a philanthropic goal). But gay men have their sexual types just as straight men do. (Big muscles vs. gracile or lean. Hairy vs. smooth. Rugged vs. pretty. etc.)

Very few beautiful men ever end up on male reviews - which, by custom, require body builders with mesomorph frames. Though some of these beauties have toned bodies, and have the so-called 'swimmer's build' on an ectomorph frame. The gay community has a name for these ectomorph beauties but I prefer not to use it.)

So-called 'straight' men who happen upon gay porn may find themselves looking at naked images of some of the most beautiful men who have ever existed - images of men they probably never saw in their entire lives until they saw them by chance or by mere curiosity surfing gay porn on the Internet. I think that part of the draw that beautiful men have on other men is the feeling of experiencing awe and other-worldiness, because beautiful men are NOT supposed to even exist at all! Beware the siren's voice. (How does evolution explain the existence of beautiful men?)

These so-called 'straight' men who turn to gay porn are doing the same things they did sexually when they looked at straight porn - fantasizing and masturbating. (Although they may also be envying!) The only things that are different are the gender of the person in the image and the types of fantasizing the viewer may have. Obviously, maturbating to porn, gay or straight, has nothing to do with procreation. For a guy, sex is mostly the indulgence of lust, not biology intended for procreation.

Once you see that for a guy his sexual lust is from out of his fallen nature and not about 'biology' (procreation), then it's easy to see why a so-called 'straight' man could lust for another guy, if that guy is anywhere near as beauitful as the women he has lusted on. I assure you, in gay porn on the Internet, if you look long enough, you'll find men as beautiful and more so, and you'll wish you hadn't. For this reason straight men should never, ever look at gay porn.

@Tristan.....Is there a growing trend right now for Christians to refer to themselves as "homosexual" even though they have been delivered of lust, do not actively pursue the lifestyle, and/or remain celibate/marry heterosexually?

It seems that there is a new play on words in this regard....I'm not sure whether it is trustworthy or if it's another attempt to subtly shift the public towards accepting homosexuality ultimately and completely.....

I would appreciate your perspective on this....Thank You.

Please excuse me for being blunt, but I would like to point out that an erection, whether gay or straight or whatever, is biological. We are made for sex, but our spirituality advises us to control it.

"Beautiful" is relative. I don't say this to counter any argument made here. It's just meant to be a comment. I believe that all human beings are beautiful, and that what I as an American call beautiful is completely dependent on my upbringing. In that case, I will say that a superficial categorization of beauty does not exist in God's eyes.

The only troubling part I see in your argument, @Tristan, is the purpose of sex. If sex is not meant for procreation and it is only meant as a temptation (lust), then does that mean that we are ultimately all meant to be virgins? If so, then there are inconsistencies with the Bible. If not, then how do we explain sex as simply an indulgence of lust and as not intended for procreation? Is the purpose of sex simply to tempt us?

I believe that God created sex to be good and beautiful. Sex needs to be exercised with God in great consideration. God = Love, therefore Sex = Love. The context of sexual intercourse is very important.

We have to include biology with spirituality, because in the end, it is our biology that doctrinally conflicts with our spirituality. We cannot ignore either of them. Yes, for some Christians, it might be scary to confront biology with spirituality, but it is confronting reality.

Spirituality is meant to be a perspective through which to consider our biology. The only way to make sense of our physical world is through spiritual matters. Thus, we cannot think of one without the other, I believe.

@Becomingwhole10 - I am not aware of a trend of guys freed from homosexual lust continuing to refer to themselves as 'homosexual'. I do not continue to refer to myself as 'homosexual' because Jesus delivered me of all sexual desire, that is, all desire to have any form of sexual climax with anyone of either gender.

This is one problem I have with Celebrate Recovery, though I recognize that those groups do a lot of good. But, unless I'm mistaken, they want one to confess to being a 'recovered' alcoholic or 'recovered' homosexual, etc, as if Jesus isn't enough to deliver them permanently. I wish it were instead called Celebrate Victory, for Jesus gives us the victory over lust.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit and you will NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).

@stwy2zeppelin - God invented beauty! He does not see all people as equal in physical beauty. He declared very few males to be beautiful, including young Moses, young David, and Absalom. God declared that His own Son Jesus did not have beauty (Isa. 53:3).

I did not say that sex is only meant for procreation. I said that most guys use sex strictly to fulfill their own lusts (which originate from their fallen spiritual natures), and that that lust has nothing intrinsically to do with procreating the human specie. Sex is therefore for men typically a fulfillment of spiritually fallen desires (lust) acting out in the physical realm ('biology', as you called it).

We must all decide if we are to view sexual desires and acts from the Creationist biblical viewpoint, the secular evolutionary viewpoint, or some other viewpoint. I choose the Creationist biblical viewpoint.

God delivered me of my lust for sex, therefore I do not desire to have sexual climax any more. My desire for sex was always lust and never a biological instinct, as most people falsely believe it to be. Born again believers can have sex within a legitimate monogamous union of male and female, but they won't be slaves to sexual desires, because Jesus will have set them free from slavery to sexual lust.

God proclaimed in Romans 1 that He can turn an entire society over to homosexuality as a sign of that society's rejection of God. So, it didn't surprise me at all when I learned that the historian Flavius Josephus took it for granted that the angels who showed up at Sodom were beautiful young men (http://knol.google.com/k/sodom-and-gomorrah 'The View of Josephus'.): “And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lot’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty.”

I see no difference in motive between the attempted rape of the angels who visited Sodom and the rape of Amnon against his sister Tamar. The rapists saw irresistible beauty in their victims. Human beauty knows no gender and men will lust for human beauty of either gender. Contrary to our intuition and comfort, beautiful men exist, and our lusts can react to them.

The Bible doesn't tell us what the angels looked like. All I can say is that Josephus's surmise makes sense. One thing I look forward to in heaven is the beauty of angels. David told us that God Himself is beautiful and is desirable to look upon:

One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple (Ps. 27:4).

There is an absolute standard of physical beauty set down by God, but we humans pervert that standard. God wants us to level the playing field for all people, not by perverting the standard of beauty, but by de-emphasizing the importance of human beauty over the beauty of holiness or the physical needs of others. As Jesus said, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63). And God said this,

But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7).

You all seem to have trouble understanding how instincts work. So I'm going to talk about a different instinct, one without any of the subtle details of sexuality. One of the simplist instincts of all: Why excrement stinks. It'll do as an example, because a simple aversion is about as basic as I can think of.

Human perception is configured to find the smell of feces to be unbearably horrible. To the vast majority of people, it's the type of stench that will result in immediate opening of windows and reaching for the air-freshener.

The reason for this is quite apparent, regardless of if you approach the problem from a evolutionary or creationist position. It's a simple instinct to avoid exposure to disease-causing microorganisms. It works very well, too. It doesn't matter if God personally wrote into the genes or if it appears through natural selection because those lacking the aversion tended to die of six types of digestive illness.

But look at what this instinct does at a baser level. When a person detacts that appalling smell, do they think 'I detect the presence of chemicals characteristic of feces, which means a dangerous risk of pathogenic organisms?' No, they think 'Ugh, must get away from the stench!' Disease doesn't pop into their minds at all. People have been thinking like this since long before anyone knew bacteria existed. The instinct has a function, but the way it subjectively feels isn't obviously related to it's actual function.

Sex is like that, but many times more complicated. It's a whole set of instincts there to optimise reproduction and reproductive fitness, but that isn't how they manifest subjectively. Lust exists because it aids in breeding, but that doesn't mean the lustee thinks 'I wish to further advance the survival of my genes with that potential partner.' The drive manifests at a much deeper level than that: The urge to mate. Children don't even factor into it. Even a clear definition of 'mate' doesn't fit into it: Just about anything that stimulates the right parts of the brain will do the job, with the easiest route being to just stimulate the right parts of the body.

Such a complicated set of instincts also can't be encoded precisely at a genetic level. The human brain is not a computer program, to be configured with mathematical precision. At best genetics can code for structures in the brain which will bias it towards certain stimulus-response patterns, subject to a tremendous amount of individual variation and environmental influence. That is why there is such variety in human personalities, and why some people feel sexual and/or romantic attraction to their own gender.

To the best of my knowledge there has been no "Gay Gene" found yet...please correct me if I am wrong with substantiated, quality, respected peer-reviewed, non-political studies....

@Tristan....Thank You for your thoughts....I agree with you that there is such a thing as a more "superficial" beauty attested to in the Bible...and IMO it is not bad at all, but, again IMO, there is a kind of PC feel to the idea that physical beauty is not to be enjoyed or praised at all....why not?....and while there are rather subjective attractions to various "types" of beauty, surely some just stand out head-and-shoulders above the majority of creation itself!

With that in mind, I appreciate what you stated:

"God wants us to level the playing field for all people, not by perverting the standard of beauty, but by de-emphasizing the importance of human beauty over the beauty of holiness or the physical needs of others."

There is no simple gay-gene, though there is some evidence that genetic factors and even prenatal environment can influence sexual orientation. Influence, not determine.

It's occasionally joked in liberal circles that if someone were to invent a prenatal test for homosexuality, many churches would reconsider their opposition to abortion.

There is no gay gene that has been discovered.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be a theme here that God has a certain definition for beauty. Beauty is relative and dependent on society. I do not believe that God has a certain definition for human beauty. I believe that he sees all humans as beautiful, no matter the race, color, background, or ethnicity. The writers of the Bible probably saw certain things as beautiful because it is the way their society worked. This subject is like the veils that Paul insisted that women wear, and the issues with long and short hair.

Also, I do imagine that God is a beautiful Light. I can't imagine God with a definite male form. Another way to look at this is this: God is beautiful, but is He beautiful according to Christian Americans, Christian Indians, Christian Africans, Christian Asians . . . ?

I accept everyone's opinion very much. Thank you for contributing! :D This discussion is very interesting.

Good points on micro-evolution by SR and Stw2 on how the definition of beauty is subject to one's cultural ideas. Don't quite agree with SR entirely that the "lustee" (or would that be lustor?) isn't thinking at all about children, since typically by the time a person is old enough to understand that they want sex, they also know that sex makes babies. Before the days of contraception, pregnancy was almost a given I would think. Agreed that having a baby wasn't the number one thing on men's minds, but for women, being childless was considered very shameful, so they craved giving birth, esp. to sons.

I read recently about a tribe that had no word or concept for masturbation. (I probably told you about this before.) The anthropologist had to try to explain what it was to their contact tribesmen. In their society, sex was such a normal part of life from a young age, apparently they never had a need for solitary devices. (Maybe they had more women than men, dunno.) Anyway, the National geographic type person asked them what do you guys do, when your wife is on her period, etc.? They sheepishly admitted to adultery, though as in most societies, that is a taboo. In Bible days the girls married at 12 years plus 1 day and typically they had been purchased to be a virgin when that day arrived. (I'm sure some married older than that, but not much older.) Their husbands could be much older men, but typically they would be young males as young as 14, but on average 16, who have been trained in their trade to provide for their family. Usually the couple's first home would be in part of the groom's parents' home that he had prepared. (Like Jesus said to His bride, "In my father's house are many abodes. I go to prepare a place for you, and I will come again to receive you to myself.") Anyway, my point which I've made many times, that societies that faced the biological facts of life in a rational planned manner, don't have the "problems" western, Christianized society now faces. I would reckon than even homosexual leanings were modified by this cultural mentality. I would like to find that article again to see if they covered that aspect of sex in the tribal life.

Standards can be strange things. There do seem to be a few hard standards for what is beautiful - symmetry is always good - but most of it is very cultural. For example, I submit one of the the greatest beauties in the history of art: The Birth of Venus. http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Birth-of-Venus-by-Boticelli-fine-art-692055_1024_768.jpg

Beautiful? By the standards of the time, incredibly. This is the Goddess of beauty herself, depicted by a highly skilled artist. A supermodel of the era. And yet, viewed from today... is she really? Her breasts are far too small compared to our own image of beauty as seen in a thousand scantily-dressed celebrities, her weight a little too healthy rather than the borderline-underweight we see now, and her hair of a truly ridiculous length. What was the epitome of perfection then is really no more than modestly attractive now.

Still has the symmetry though.

Here's a good one: Recognise this face? http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5bb353ef0147e040ccb1970b-pi

It's a face everyone seems to know, but... where from? A point to think about.

East: Of course people have sex for reasons other than reproduction - that is why they put so much effort into inventing contraception.

Your point on ages is complicated by the greater complexity of modern life. Back in the biblical times, even the more recent times of the NT, it was possible to be trained and independent at sixteen. Off to learn at nine, a few years on the job. You can probably imagine Jesus in the workshop with Joseph learning to work wood - he must have done something to put food on the table before starting his career as a messiah. Today life is just much more complicated - you need a year-long course in mathematics just to figure out what bank account you should put your money in, and good luck getting a job as anything higher than shelf-stacker without a few more qualifications. You can't even get to your workplace without knowing all the intricacies of paperwork for a government ID, driving licence and life insurance. Life is complicated, the old married-at-sixteen just wouldn't work.

I'd propose an alternative, highly un-biblical model: Accept that young people are going to screw around a bit. It can't be helped. Their instincts drive them to sex, their emotions are in turmoil. The best you can do is make sure they know how to use contraception and let them mature naturally. Most of them will eventually settle down, in their own time.

I been trying to keep up with all the comments for the most part and can see some of the tension between what the Word of God says and what our humanistic logic says.

We must come to the point where we realize that it doesn't matter what you think, what I (Josh) think or what anyone thinks....rather....what does God say in his revealed revelation, The Bible?...that is what matters.


For those of you wrestling with SSA, don't take any form of false encouragement whatsoever, be bold and hold onto what Christ has said. We must hold onto where our true identity is as the Men of God, our identity is in Christ alone! We got the forgiveness and with that even the healing from these addictions and temptations.

I want to offer a strategic form of spiritual warefare/intercession....

What if Men in the Body of Christ who struggled with SSA came together to fast, pray, worship to make intercession unto the LORD for these feelings and burdens we bear?...

But not only for ours alone, but uniting our suffering to Christ for the salvation of those caught up in the homosexual lifestyle so that they too can be saved, and delivered?

There would be much fruit!


And for those of you who don't believe in the power of prayer read (Ephesians 6:18)

This has got to be one of the dumbest conversations I have ever witnessed- two sides, contradicting even their own arguments, on the idea that truth is fixed, and which truth is the most fixed? How absurd that you can control truth, which if anything is the real meaning of Homosexuality- truth is not dead, it does not take one form or the other, there is no order which you can protect- it is dynamic, the end result, Raven wins for promoting a philosophy that while mostly fixed has the grace of theory with only the best fleshed likelihood and confirming that, in that dynamos of a defiant truth beyond all of us, these desires are mostly normal- as for the Religious- you offer no one any hope- they are forced to crawl up to a vicious god, who made their body, and damns it for its nature. And if they are to some how sell their soul or scuttle off out of the wake of this slaughter, they are to live as a cur or speak like a fool, believing in something that has caused them to mutilate their genius.

Here are some better arguments than all this biology crap. Which to point out someone's particular senselessness, argues at one point 'There is not reproduction of the species in homosexual attraction', then says 'but the lust of the eyes is a spiritual thing', akin to all the sins he is apposing. The first, I must gander is based on the command do go, multiply and further the earth- well, correct me if I am wrong, but without the lust of the eyes, there's not much multiplying without it for us human beings. So what is it, are we to not prosper or are we to prosper? Perhaps you're on the idea of 'no flesh is justified' and include lust in this idea universally, which is funny, because I don't see you railling against heterosexuals, except to attack their lust, but I presume you support their marriages- even though lust is a justification of marriage- and doesn't help us, in that case when we address gay marriage. Further more, the necessary traits of 'lust' are not being considered, everything is being called awful, from one side of the spectrum by the religious for just being sexual. Lust need be insatiable- and that is variable, how do you quantify it- are you first going to sit and study copulating couples and then define them as lustful based on whether they can still have sex after one copulation? Three? Four? Will breaks count? What if they are still hard but not having sex? How do you define sex, and then compare it to the requirement of insatiable? Most I would consider insatiable to not mean even how long you can have successive intercourse- it is taking something from your desire that is not yours- it is insatiability without control- total chaos- which causes you to lose your mind and think only about meeting your desire however you can- like the Sodomites, but WAIT, their behaviour is not about the raping of men- it is about their whole outlook on life- 'They did not give to the poor and needy, but were without want.' They lusted after everything, weather sex or not- and took it or kept it because of insatiable and uncontrollable desires. Lust must be asking then, what am I over coming, over taking without regard for any opposition or consideration, or even my satisfaction? What are you raping, what are you taking what are you destroying- do you even need that now? Otherwise you become stupid- and desire becomes meeting your own needs, because the conditions are meaningless- you could call someone lustful because they satisfied themselves, and in no way desiring more still do their duty and service their partner. Throwing around lust without meaning is just stupid and it's the only way it has been used in this whole conversation.

Now, all the other things I have mentioned about homosexual sex in the past aside, why exactly does everyone else LEAP to meaning homosexual adults- even in consenting committed homosexuals? The translation on this passage is always muttled, we never know exactly what Paul means, he uses a popular slang, likely vulgate usage and not much written down, meaning, it's either the practice of something, and called something else by the artists philosophers and playwrights, like how we might describe in a romance novel minage-troi, but in vulgate dispense 'threesome'. And while Paul is writing to Romans in both Letters he denounces this 'slang' and mysterious thing, which might rather be the name of a racey club church goers were attending for all we know, we don't know their make up, or acculturation- there were slaves and all manner of other strata- so he could even mean the behaviour of a secret society which he got some inside wind on. He could be telling Corinth or Rome, Stop going to the Masonic Lodge for all we know- and likely least of all because of the sex they were having, likely because of the rites they were performing there, the pledges, the types of humiliation and possibly human sacrifices- perhaps Dionysian communities, which Rome banned because of their propensity to cause sedition and lewd manners. Considering that Christianity was a fringe sect, like Dionysian and Dianna cults, one full of Chaos, and the other believing that the way to paradise was to murder a man- it's no wonder they rubbed shoulders, as Christianity was seditious too- but it was not about conspiracy and destruction of human life.

But here's the argument that most intrigues me- one we take for granted all the time. Child molestation and rape ran wild in all parts of the ancient world- but where's Paul's denunciation of that? We take it for granted, and we are shocked when it happens in our day! But no one was shocked about it Paul's day- yet, as the Christians made a habit of increasing marriage age constantly, and indeed, they're the ones who phased out child rape by opening Inns where children offered up to guests were not part of the courtesies provided for patrons. Where is that protest, hmm? Where's the protest which makes most sense- from a religion which placed so much value on 'letting the little children come unto me.'? I believe quite fervently that Paul means people who rape children here, though any manner of the other possibilities which do not include homosexuality as anything exceptional among other present behaviours, but I am confident, that a complete silence makes no sense given other facts- and neither does singling out homosexuals when all the ancient world was filled with brutal practices- there's nothing against child molesters- bullshit! And consider the people who produced and commissioned the King James Bible- Noble Englishmen and playwright/actors- who wouldn't you know many had a penchant for the comeliness of young boys? Coming along to a passage which damns you, or your patron is not going to go over well. And further more the ancient world was so ontop of this boy love they castrated young men in order that they would always appear 'delicate'.

What's more, those denouncing Homosexuality are going to have to meet yet another conditional requirement of this kind of behaviour- namely idol worship. Which is to say, you wont be able to find it- not in any way in our day and age which sets it apart from any other demographic, which is to say it can be used in sinful ways- which is not a denunciation of the whole thing, but only that it can be corrupted. Paul is very clear that the cause of all this chaos and insatiability and every kind of ransackery perpetrated by 'pagans' is due to their idol worship. Which brings more examination to the idea of why Christians attack so virulently their fellow human beings than why their are committed homosexuals in mature, loving committed and stable, intimate relationships.

The uncharitable, unfeeling, arrogant, patronising, and bigoted shit storm that comes out of Christian's mouths about this- to one of the most marginalised, endangered branches of society, with one of the highest if not the highest suicide rates, is nothing less than black hearted nazism, murder of reality, the end of dynamic and the service of anti-christ. A bunch of Jesus followers asking homosexuals to save their peace of mind, instead of laying down their lives in service for fellow human beings, it just, there is no word for the hideous spirit which takes a knife to another person's soul and calls it just and righteous and love- it is Solomon 'only a fool hurts someone, then calls it a joke.' And then takes others whose soul they have shredded and lets them pantomime the rest of their lives like a burst pinata which lay down and gave them what they wanted after they beat the shit out of them- well, they got the message of Jesus- how to steal the life of those you murder- and just because they're still walking doesn't mean they're alive.

Now someone has likely brought up beauty, and calls this an idol calling out lust. But their understanding of lust, and their understanding of beauty and that nothing is pure of sexual either, I cannot take them credibly. For instance, when treated with the prospect that God created beauty, he said God only gave it to some men. First, he doesn't understand lust, even though it is a part of him, and he doesn't understand how the bible talks about whom he believes is Jesus in Is. 54. He has said that Jesus would be without beauty. Except this person doesn't even have an understanding of Greek, applying beauty to mean physical, and that Jesus was not going to be 'the fuckable' kind of guy, he would have no eros. Except, while Eros is the best example of what happens, when using Greek words for beauty, the word means the kind of beauty and the love which goes with it. Which in this case, you could say, Jesus will not be about the love making, or he wont have the sex as it were- but why does that matter- we're talking about Cyrus, supposedly a parallel to Jesus- so what good is it to be 'not sexy' and 'not about the sex- in fact, why have sexual beauty and therefore, sexual acts come into it? We're talking about liberation here. Then there's another beauty and the following act of love as the same thing: Agape, you've all heard it, unconditional, universal love. Which is highly unpracticed for you CHristian people- it seems you have so many conditions, for the sole purpose not even to protect yourselves, but just dismiss people. Anyways- Agape- if it's a Jesus parallel, why deny him Agape? Jesus was filled with nothing but heart yearning unconditional love, and the offering of it as the word implies. So what's left- the ordered beauty, the harmonising beauty- Ironic eh, you're arguing for God's established order, the way he made it all, 'how it's supposed to work, emphatically, undeniably- which you're just lucky enough to agree with.' And the one beauty, that your saviour doesn't have, the one love he lacks, is the love of the established order, running things smoothly, going with the flow, establishing congeniality and balance and tension free atmosphere- he has no love for it, no love to go along with it, he's crass, shit disturbing, rabble rousing discontent, a dissident, someone who rails against convention, and turns things backwards, inside out and upside down- because the only beauty here which makes sense, is relevent, is what Cyrus did- turned the established order on its head- he came in and did what no body else was doing- liberated the Jews. Jesus, had no Kallos- general, universal aptitude for just letting things alone- this is the beauty, to harmonise, the in fact in the classic 'know they self' sit in his place. And you know what demographic flies in the face of all those same such things in our day and age- homosexuals!

Now, after all that hermaneutic I will be back to address some sociology, I'm not going to let this become a closed self-defeated system about bible accuracy, we've made the bible speak really, now we're going to call reality itself.

Now, lets look at reality as I said:

Christ Heghes in his book War is a Force that gives us meaning, points to the fact that when our worlds fall apart into chaos, homosexuality is not a cause, it's a symptom. He focuses on a Croatian warlord and her female lover, a pair of lesbians. He makes note, that when there is no more normal, because war, is also a symptom of a world in chaos, and then goes on to state, that in this chaos, the only order we do and can reach for that makes any difference is Love.

There's plenty of study, statistical and modern and historical- showing that when cultures reach their zenith and are about to collapse, homosexuality increases. Our time is much, much, different- because while homosexuality increases, it is taking the shape of exclusive committed relationships- people, in the chaos reaching for love, for order, for sense, for stability- and not letting go. To boot, it's against the established 'norm', which has already been confirmed to be unsustainable, and there are many other practices as well, promiscuity etc. when we think we're doomed we want to breed like crazy, or at least release some pressure. But the key is two fold, which is the order which is still insisting on its sustainability, like a pack of frantic fools- as though it still works, while it not only continues its destruction- but stifles millions of lives along with it for that very denial? And which is the attempt to forge something hopeful in reality- even a reality based not purely on biology, or 'what works' but what makes sense, what is really worth it? What asks the question, what are we living for, what keeps us sane, what allows us to envision something which makes sense as human beings- Modern Christianity in a rigid form makes no sense anymore- it has calcified, if it tries to move it goes threw the worst kinds of pandamonium and amputation, it's lost all relevance as a helpful hopeful refuge for survival- just look at a Democrat or a Republican in the US- they offer nothing which can save us- or anyone for that matter- they do not even offer means which acknowledges religious involvement in dissidence, probably because the only activists movements who have accomplished progress have been religious based, and when they require the carrying on with the status quo- they cannot have that kind of authentic religion anywhere, whether muslim, christian, hindu, or buddhist, wiccan- nothing! It has to fix truth, and at that point it cannot move and it cannot think. It promotes the doing of the same useless pattern which has created death, and it's not angry at homosexuals for being sinners, it's angry at homosexuals for proving that CHristianity is not what it calls itself, it has gotten into bed with every black god that has sucked the life and blood and worth out of everything- and then denies that anything is wrong. They're mad at homosexuals for being prophets of example, that their way doesn't work for human beings on the fringe who want something real- they're angry that love need only be defiant and committed, and refuse cause, regime, ideology, for something higher, for unconditional universal love- they're mad that every time there is girl girl love and man man love- that it proves Christianity is insane, and that human relationships of every healthy ilk, on their own, just by insisting on carrying on, is better than a thousand lather spitted hysterical maniacs who can't let go of something which isn't really powerful if it intercepts the raw, beautiful, terrifying reality of intimacy, and that incomprehensible power is more established than shuffling a deck of flash cards and selecting conditions on how to live which separate us, in order to feel powerful supernatural and in control of something otherwordly.

But they're missing the point- we live in this world, nothing that is otherworldly can help us- the worship of idols which did not live among humanity except as animals, and who only touched people to kill or screw them never helped us. And the worship of some man as a higher power which allows us to dismiss people, worry about heaven, staple everything with the ideal of God in heaven, rather than the God in every human being, who by seeing and respecting does the homage, no where more greatly so in unrelenting patient love- strange how we miss that- that unrelenting, as in long suffering, as in patience. Nothing made greater than it is has ever helped us, nothing removed from what keeps us alive with epiphany about what matters, has ever helped us! Knowledge and reason has not helped us, it just made us long to escape this scrap heap. Animism never helped us, it made us fuck and murder each other in total chaos. The only thing that helps us is love which never lets go, fully aware of the reality which reminds us that the person we're hanging onto is the only thing which makes us grip in the first place. All these scriptures and literal miracles, and literal gods and literal resurrections allow us to do is throw people away based on some delusional preconception of a heavenly reality so much better, and so much separated from all this... humanity- in otherwords, from all this gracious accident of existence.

But what is important, is to look not only practically, but humanly upon the marginal groups, prostitutes, homeless, homosexuals- not simply because what we are living for is each other, but because they show us the way of doing that in a world in chaos. They are symbols of hope and sense when the world has fallen apart- they are the example of persistence. They are the resourceful ones who, by the status quo have been assaulted and marginalised, who have had hard lives because of their present place, and hard lives before that most likely, majority wise before it- they know how to survive, and when you have courageous relationships against the status quo which has failed.

You talk about a God who does new things, YET HERE IS A BRAND NEW THING! but somehow he is unchanging- certain homosexuals are teaching you Christians what the only thing worth living for is and you hate them and patronise them for choosing sense, and life, and being seen and heard, and held and known- you ask them to be healed and find the 'victory', so they can ease the nattering feeling that the ship is breaking apart and this is the last hurrah, so that you can 'keep on giving in marriage and drinking and congratulating mountains of bullshit', Yet they some have entered better and more wisely into the only ark which will weather the storm- love with another human being, defiant enough not to care how it makes sense, but that they will hold on to one better place on earth- and if not both in that pact- then they will be remembered and yet live- but you ask them to save you- save your discomfort- shut up and fade away- and deny reality- blend-wash into the masses without inundation- where no one can be loved at all, because there is no divinity to be found by seeing the wonderful face of another human being, in an ocean where everyone keeps their head. And you go about making drowning without rescue sound intelligent.