Does nature discriminate against same sex people

[Sojourner]

In the modern, "enlightened" era in which we live there is no shortage of enthusiastic advocacy and public support for same sex relationships. Two men or two women can now freely exchange vows and be married, reaping all the social and economic benefits of any traditional married couple. Colorful parades by exuberant LGBT people bearing Gay Pride accoutrements traverse roadways, encouraging all to "celebrate diversity." advancements by the LGBT community have become a juggernaut, rolling over anyone critical of the same sex lifestyle. Who cares about God's opinion anyway, right?

The gay lifestyle's association with mental illness has been duly abrogated from the psychiatric journals, and there is a solid a support system in place on all political, economic, commercial and social fronts. Moreover, with workarounds like in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and adoption, even the reproductive impediments faced by same sex pairings are easily circumvented. The pathways have been cleared of obstructions and successfully paved for success.

In fact, only one opponent remains: nature. From the late 70's to the mid 80's, the burgeoning plague of AIDS was viewed as the "gay disease." It remained exclusively a problem of the gay community until sexual crossover by bisexuals, contaminated syringes, and a tainted blood supply spread the disease to the general population. And more recently, medical science has revealed that newer maladies are now targeting gay men. Recently, the CDC warned that an outbreak of meningococcal disease in Florida seemed to be predominantly affecting men who have sex with men. And now reports reveal that this same demographic is more susceptible than most to the newest scourge to arise on the world stage, known as Monkeypox.

 At some point, logic dictates there is direct correlation between the activities of gay men and diseases that seem to target them. And while the world may roll its eyes at the suggestion, some of us suspect this connection to be rooted in a natural consequence of unnatural sexual activity.  In Romans 1, Paul speaks about those who rebelled against God, both in pagan forms of worship, and in sexual deviation. Expounding on the latter, he states:

Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 

I believe that last verse holds a deeper meaning than may first be seen. Paul speaks of men having sex with other men, as reaping in themselves the consequences of their ungodly actions. Venereal disease like gonorrhea and syphilis could be encompassed by Paul's verbiage. Yet, the significance of more recent sexually transmitted diseases disproportionately affecting homosexuals should not be overlooked. Is it coincidence that men engaging in sexual activity condemned by God develop failures in their immune system that opens them up to diseases?

Natural law is a sort of "biological governance" designed and implemented by God. Like the law of gravity, it is a thing we must accept and adapt to, as it is not readily dispensed with as an inconvenience. One can see homosexuality as being unfairly targeted by diseases, or else see a natural law at work. One thing is certain: God is concerned with neither allegations of homophobia, nor being a target of the cancel culture. Maranatha.

[Athanasius]

Romans 1 is about all humanity who reject God (v18 - 19), with same-sex activity as a specific example (I think the cultural reasons for the example are evident enough); it's not a specific condemnation of same-sex activity to the exclusion of all the other ways humanity rejects God. So I suppose an argument from Romans 1 would be applicable to everyone, not just those engaging in same-sex activity. Are we then prepared to ask if nature discriminates against everyone?

Homosexuality qua mental illness is/was a horrific way to view and conceive of those who experience same-sex attraction. Theologically, 'disorder' re: the impact of sin on the world is probably a better word. Even then I wonder if it implies something too negative. Of course, while I'm not same-sex attracted (well I suppose that depends on your metaphysic), I do have a very real existential stake in the game, and after all this time I've decided that 'mental illness' aren't quite the right words. Clearly, I'm insane, but you know. I don't think we do anyone any favours by picking out same-sex activity as something especially egregious when compared to improper opposite-sex activity. Adultery earned the death penalty too.

So no, I don't think nature specifically discriminates against same-sex (attracted) people. It would be an everyone or no one affair.

[Sojourner]

My intent was to emphasize the part of Paul's text related to my post. I made it clear Paul was addressing rebellion against God and pagan worship in addition to sexual deviation. What I said was:

In Romans 1, Paul speaks about those who rebelled against God, both in pagan forms of worship, and in sexual deviation.

Understand that I do not sit in judgment on anyone -- for homosexuality or any other sin. I stay busy addressing my own faults and failures. But I cannot condone what God has unequivocally condemned as an abomination. Others are welcome to their own perspective of the matter. I do not think homosexuality is any more a sin than say, murder, adultery, or rape. But then, which of these are socially acceptable? Are there any advocacy groups for murderers, adulterers or rapists? Do we see festive parades in their honor with people marching in solidarity with any of them? Sin is sin, and all sin is rebellion against God.

The point is, of all the things expressly forbidden in the Bible, only homosexuality is both socially acceptable, and enthusiastically supported -- in defiance of God's word. (Well, there is divorce, which I also hate). I only single out homosexuality because it's already so singled out by society. Defending what God has condemned is a precarious position I won't put myself in -- though a great many Christians don't seem to have a problem with it . But that's between them and God. (Know also that I differentiate between same sex attraction and the deviant behavior it leads to).

As for Christians who are all in for gay rights, I'm reminded of the Corinthian church saints who felt they were being broadminded for tolerating a congregation member who was shacking up with his stepmother. Paul was apalled that they were okay with it, and let them know he had turned the man over to Satan's power to be punished until he repented. I truly wonder how Paul would react to Christians supporting sodomy. More importantly, what does God think of it?

[journeyman]

Sojourner said
Does nature discriminate against same sex people

Certainly it does because by nature, same sex people can't reproduce.

[IMINXTC]

Romans 1 speaks of a time when mankind, in early stages of their earthly progression, experienced the presence of God in an intimate, conscious fashion, certainly aware of the beginnings of the race and circumstances of Eden and the fall.

Ultimately, God gets repeatedly slapped in the face by man, who resists both the attributes and will of a holy creator.

Removing His presence from the immediate conscience of man allows humans to pursue sin without His moral constraint, thus setting the stage for eternal destruction.

God, today, gets the ultimate slap in the face as men and women are induced into believing that sin is approved and even sanctioned by His people.

Evil is increasingly good, while good is increasingly evil.

Romans 1 actually covers nearly the entire swath of human wrongdoing, while noting several examples, including disobedience to parents.

[Athanasius]

I do not think homosexuality is any more a sin than say, murder, adultery, or rape. But then, which of these are socially acceptable? Are there any advocacy groups for murderers, adulterers or rapists? Do we see festive parades in their honor with people marching in solidarity with any of them? Sin is sin, and all sin is rebellion against God.

I'm not sure why you're contrasting same-sex (sexual) activity with murder, adultery and rape, but what you have here is a false equivalency that is the kind of poor argument that only serves to delegitimize the Christian view. I think anyone would immediately point out that same-sex relationships are consensual as opposite-sex relationships are, whereas murder, adultery and rape aren't. (In the case of adultery consent concerns the non-cheating spouse.)

Even then, same-sex relationships aren't socially acceptable everywhere, but I suppose in those places the equivocation is between homosexuality and some kind of sexual deviancy. I suspect it's more obvious in those circumstances, and the false equivalency is more easily recognised, e.g., I doubt you would suggest those in same-sex relationships ought to be thrown off the roofs of buildings. The trick is recognising the same or similar equivalency in arguments outside of that context, e.g., within the context of a culturally pseudo-Christian West.

I'm not arguing that God condones or blesses same-sex relationships, to be clear. I'm saying that we need to be careful with our arguments because what are we left with once the "why homosexuals but not murderers?" arguments run out? We're left with a relationship where both spouses are of the same gender and the argument against is fundamentally religiously rooted in a teleology that not a lot of people share these days.

The point is, of all the things expressly forbidden in the Bible, only homosexuality is both socially acceptable, and enthusiastically supported -- in defiance of God's word. (Well, there is divorce, which I also hate). I only single out homosexuality because it's already so singled out by society. Defending what God has condemned is a precarious position I won't put myself in -- though a great many Christians don't seem to have a problem with it . But that's between them and God. (Know also that I differentiate between same sex attraction and the deviant behavior it leads to).

To divorce, we could add: drinking? gluttony? greed? porn? some general hedonistic attitudes? There are a lot of things expressly forbidden in the Bible that socially, in our society, just aren't a big deal. How many obese Christians sit in Sunday pews every morning?

The singling out of homosexuality, or LGBT (add any other letters or symbols you like) is, I suspect, the consequence of how this group of people was treated in the past by so-called Christian (moral, ahem) majorities. I don't know about you, but the New Testament doesn't present a Jesus who goes around pointing the finger at everyone's sin like a lot of Christians today like to do. I think the situation today could have been a lot different if the past wasn't as cruel as it was, and religious people, particularly, weren't on their high horses.

I get to spend my time justifying my existence to Christians who make loads of assumptions about me the minute they see me. It's no wonder LGBT peoples go at it like they do -- it's annoying. The same with the 'hate the sin, not the sinner' attitude, which implies some kind of moral superiority on the part of the 'hater'. But who knows, maybe I'm too close to the issue. Or maybe I need to be.

As for Christians who are all in for gay rights, I'm reminded of the Corinthian church saints who felt they were being broadminded for tolerating a congregation member who was shacking up with his stepmother. Paul was apalled that they were okay with it, and let them know he had turned the man over to Satan's power to be punished until he repented. I truly wonder how Paul would react to Christians supporting sodomy. More importantly, what does God think of it?

Well, what did God say to those condemning the woman caught in adultery? What would he say about the treatment of LGBT people by the church -- do we think that doctrinal orthodoxy will save us from the disappointment of a God who told us to love our neighbours, and even our enemies, as we love ourselves? There's a place for pointing out that same-sex activity is sin, and any part of the church that argues that God is in favour of such behaviour are clearly wrong, but how we do that is important.

Romans 1 condemns everyone. Porn is a bigger or at least a more prevalent sin/moral issue than same-sex activity. The world perceives a certain disingenuousness when it comes to the topic because it seems like lip service is paid to all the other pet sins Christians engage in while same-sex activity is indeed singled out as something especially egregious.

[Redeemed]

Well, what did God say to those condemning the woman caught in adultery?

That's a very good point. I don't see any difference between congregations or denominations that make practicing homosexuals pastors and preform same sex weddings and others that point out that homosexuality is a sin but will "marry" couples that have been divorced several times over.
Aren't the pastors/preachers that preform these ceremonies condoning and participating in adultery?

It is a very good point.

It leads to me to question though; must we deal with the hypocrisy of some in the church before we can discuss these kinds of topics?
I think Sojourner asked an interesting question worthy of discussion. And no, you didn't outright say "You can't discuss this!" obviously.

I'm not accusing you of anything I'm rather simply curious as to your thinking on this.   

[IMINXTC]

Christ died for the homosexual, and while the act of homosexuality is forgivable, there is a great push today to actually condone the homosexual lifestyle within the church.

That is the problem with popular social trends today as same-sex is not only condoned but embraced, and the increasing pressure is upon society, even schoolkids, to embrace it and to not dare to question it.

Just as the homosexual act is against nature, so there is a natural revulsion against same-sex activity, a natural revulsion, which denotes the "egregiousness" expressed by many.

While no-one is attempting to condone murder, per example, within the pale of Christianity, there is an orchestrated and very certain determination to acknowledge unrepentant homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle within the confessing church.

Repentance being the essential scriptural key.

[Athanasius]

That's a very good point. I don't see any difference between congregations or denominations that make practicing homosexuals pastors and preform same sex weddings and others that point out that homosexuality is a sin but will "marry" couples that have been divorced several times over.

Aren't the pastors/preachers that preform these ceremonies condoning and participating in adultery?

I think that may depend on how we view marriage. What I mean by that, is that if we view marriage as a social contract for the benefit of tax deductions (or something), then anyone officiating a marriage is performing what is little more than a perfunctory role for the sake of paperwork. Is that person necessarily condoning or participating in the relationships of the people they marry? I don't see a reason why we would think so.

If we view marriage religiously, then I think there we have the potential for conflict between the beliefs of the pastor or officiant with respect to those requesting to be married. Is that condoning necessarily though, or participating? Should a person who has been divorced more than once be never ever allowed to marry ever again? How does one determine what is loving if the couple is formed in part by one's child who isn't in relationship with Jesus as they should be?

Religiously, I don't think there is such a thing as same-sex marriage in the eyes of God, so any such ceremony is performative and empty. For the one divorced multiple times? Possibly the same.

It leads to me to question though; must we deal with the hypocrisy of some in the church before we can discuss these kinds of topics?

I think I'm commenting on the approach the church has taken to those who are same-sex attracted, rather than to the ability of the church to speak on sin because of the hypocrisy of literally everyone in the church. In going back to the story, I think what I'm saying is that there's recognition of those things that are sin, and then there's the question of what we do with that recognition, and where Jesus extended mercy, forgiveness, etc., we go for, "Now Paul in his Epistles commanded us..." -- or was that Moses in the law?

And again, I'm not arguing that we excuse sin, celebrate sin, or teach as positive what the Bible clearly speaks against. These are questions that are deeply existential to me. What I am saying is that nature discriminates against everyone, and everyone who rebels against God are turned over to their own desires, etc. I don't think it helps the capital-C-hurch, in the West at least, to polarise itself and define its position against the position of those who are so accepting of everything that their brains have long since fallen out of their heads. I think what the capital-C-hurch needs is to show the love of Jesus to people in the messy circumstances of the everyday.

It's not that society accepts homosexuality as valid and fine and whatever, and Christians don't. It's that society and Christians fundamentally disagree over the metaphysics of humanity. In the world, I'm celebrated, and in the church, I'm viewed with suspicion of condemned, because of one regretable, unfortunate, idiotic aspect of my psychology (er, well, and biology too probably). But the problem is that the whole of me isn't as I should be, and that's true of all of us. It's a distraction to fixate on one particular thing.

I think Sojourner asked an interesting question worthy of discussion. And no, you didn't outright say "You can't discuss this!" obviously.

Obviously, I engaged in a way that seriously considered Sojourner's question. Using Romans 1 we must conclude that nature discriminates against everyone who rejects God. Or rather, that's what life looks like when God is rejected.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Christ died for the homosexual, and while the act of homosexuality is forgivable, there is a great push today to actually condone the homosexual lifestyle within the church.

That is the problem with popular social trends today as same-sex is not only condoned but embraced, and the increasing pressure is upon society, even schoolkids, to embrace it and to not dare to question it.

Just as the homosexual act is against nature, so there is a natural revulsion against same-sex activity, a natural revulsion, which denotes the "egregiousness" expressed by many.

While no-one is attempting to condone murder, per example, within the pale of Christianity, there is an orchestrated and very certain determination to acknowledge unrepentant homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle within the confessing church.

Repentance being the essential scriptural key.

would you mind going into a bit more detail about what you mean when you say that there is increasing pressure upon society, schoolkids etc  to not just condone but embrace homosexuality?

Why do you believe that there is a natural revulsion against same sex activity, or maybe what do you mean by natural revulsion and how does this natural revulsion express itself?

[Athanasius]

Just as the homosexual act is against nature, so there is a natural revulsion against same-sex activity, a natural revulsion, which denotes the "egregiousness" expressed by many.

I've always found the 'natural revulsion' argument to be suspect from a historical perspective, given that same-sex activity, pederastry, etc., have been prevalent throughout human history. I wonder how much of the 'natural revulsion' is informed by more recent social developments, and whether there's any natural revulsion to the degree suggested.

(What I think is most interesting here is the question of determining 'natural' states of affairs when we can't help but work from a socially informed context.)

[Redeemed]

Agreed. Like I wrote I was curious. Thanks!

[IMINXTC]

As if whatever subjective perception one chooses actually matters.

I believe Gen 19 portends a societal condition that quickly approaches, focusing almost entirely on this phenomenon of same-sex deviance, and frightening, practically  militant resistance to those who would stand against it.

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;" 2Pt 2:6


"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7

While huge protestant sects continue to wage existential wars with and within each other over something as scripturally clear as this issue - in the name of "love," and "God," surely one has legitimate reasons to fear what lies not  too far ahead.

Men and women make choices in light of a preponderance of warning, but often with a little help from religious apostates.

[Sojourner]

Well, what did God say to those condemning the woman caught in adultery? What would he say about the treatment of LGBT people by the church -- do we think that doctrinal orthodoxy will save us from the disappointment of a God who told us to love our neighbours, and even our enemies, as we love ourselves?

Jesus of course said to the accusers,"he that is without sin, let him cast the first stone," which is akin to Paul exhorting us to get the logs out of our own eyes before focusing on the speck in the eye of another. True enough.

But, what did Jesus say to the woman herself? He said, "Go, and sin no more." He told her to change her lifestyle. You infer that calling homosexuality a sin shows a lack of love, and disappoints God. However, downplaying homosexuality and enabling those in its grip to continue in a lifestyle that will ultimately send them to hell is not love. It's facilitating a soul's downward spiral into damnation. Do you not think God would be disappointed with that?

I've overtly emphasized my view that that sin is sin, regardless of the type, and that homosexuality is no worse than many others. But you've ignored that, asserting that I'm fixated on homosexuality to the exclusion of all other sins--which simply is not true. I've pointed out that this sin stands out from others because it is the only one that is publicly affirmed and "celebrated," even among some Christians. You've proven my point by continuously minimizing and downplaying it, making me out to be some kind of hate-monger for even mentioning it. I believe you, like many others, are emotionally invested in the matter, hence the myopic view and rigorous defense.

[Sojourner]

As if whatever subjective perception one chooses actually matters.

I believe Gen 19 portends a societal condition that quickly approaches, focusing almost entirely on this phenomenon of same-sex deviance, and frightening, practically  militant resistance to those who would stand against it.

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;" 2Pt 2:6


"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7

While huge protestant sects continue to wage existential wars with and within each other over something as scripturally clear as this issue - in the name of "love," and "God," surely one has legitimate reasons to fear what lies not  too far ahead.

Men and women make choices in light of a preponderance of warning, but often with a little help from religious apostates.

Satan is using the LGBT agenda to divide people both in the church and society in general. In society, its growing power and influence demonstrates there is a dark spiritual power behind it. Comprising only about 5 percent of the population, Gay people hardly leave an economic footprint and wield scant buying power. Satanic power per Ephesians 6:12 is therefore the logical explanation as to why retailers fear the threat of an insignificant boycott, and bend to the will of Gay advocacy organizations. There is a small degree of support from non-LGBT people, but not enough to warrant the fearful reaction. Networks and production companies even regularly consult with GLAAD to ensure there is adequate representation of positive gay characters in programming and films.

In the organized church, affirmation and validation of same sex relationships has given way to a growing number of denominations opening the door to gay clergy. The wolves in sheep's clothing have invaded the pulpit. Jesus warned that the love of many would grow cold because iniquity would abound, and we're seeing that as God's opinion decreases in relevance to professing Christians. It's getting to the point one cannot even mention homosexuality in the context of sin without brethren getting defensive. We're seeing the spiritual battles foretold in Scripture, and the modern church is increasingly beginning to resemble that of the Laodiceans.