Jump to content


Are We Welcoming Of Those Of All Sexual Orientations?


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 Raven

Raven

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:
    Female
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:47 PM

I would like to add a couple of points here, if I may....

Sadomaschism is not a sexual orientation, but simply a type of sexual behaviour. It is more than possible that people into S&M, bondage, role-play, etc are sitting beside you in church already. As long as people are consenting, what kind of sex they have is their business, IMO. Would it change your mind about the people you know if you knew about their particular, personal kinks? Would you want to be judged by yours?

Rape is also not a sexual orientation. Rape is not about sex, but about control, power, and denigration. If you like your sex (as it was phrased above) through the force of a knife to someone's throat against their will, that's not a sexual orientation, but a whole different issue. Everything I've heard/read about rape indicates that the people who commit these kinds of crimes are not typically able to be rehabilitated, so there isn't much of an argument for a "reformed" rapist. Do I think they should be included from the church community? If there is a chance that they might harm a member of the community, than the community has a responsibility to look after itself. Of course, that's not to say that you might not be surprised by someone's behaviour (just because they haven't raped before, doesn't mean they might not tomorrow) but knowing what we know about sex crimes, it's wise to be cautious. I believe that prison study/worship programs are a positive idea, though.

Homosexuality is not related to these other issues, and considering homosexuality in the same conversation as child rape gives life to a dangerous, unsubstantiated slippery slope. Are some homosexuals child molesters? Yes - but so are some heterosexuals. Again, rape is not about sex.
  • 1
"I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go."
Gen 28:15

#42 Inthedark

Inthedark

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 121 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    NZ

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:27 PM

I work with some of the criminal people you have discussed in this thread. As others have pointed out, homosexuality has nothing to do with the others in the list who partake in criminal offending.

There are usually mitigating circumstances in why a person chooses to abuse children, or rape or commit other crimes; things that have happened to them in their past at a critical time in their development, which allow them to behave without remorse in their partular "normalised" behaviour. A child abuser I dealt with some years ago was repeatedly raped by his father every other night as a young boy, always together with violence. The boy grew up to do the same, to seek out opportunities to act out what happened to him and he did this through a church group. The investigation uncovered that over a 5 year period he sodomised many young children. Most parents were unaware but some did become aware and chose to pray for him together with him rather than report the abuse. Imagine how their son felt when he gets the courage to reveal the offending that has taken place against him and they do nothing except pray, and so the systematic sodomy continued night after night. I'm getting off track... :rolleyes:

I suppose my point is the people who commit these types of crimes are damaged, possibly beyond repair with regard to right thinking. They can try to control their feelings if given the right tools to do so but they may "fall off the wagon" on occasion. When they do so, lives are destroyed as a consequence. They will seek out opportunity to offend or at least fantasise about offending, so church groups, scouts, youth groups are attractive places for certain people with particular interests. There is a trust that comes with being with such organisations, which is not earned but tends to be given simply by association with that organisation. There are signs for others to see if their eyes are open to the signs.

These people are in our community whether you like it or not and they always have been. Be smart as to risky situations but be Christian in your values I suppose is what I am saying. If you are aware of their feelings and they are trying to control that side of them, support them. What other choice do we have? People are still people. Just be smart about it. I know of at least one male in my congregation who has sexual fabtasies about young children. He is married with a couple of kids and a puppeteer amongst other things. I simply manage situations where my kids are at church in whatever environment so that I know there is no oppportunity for him to offend - he has not offended that I know of, simply had the thoughts.

Just be kind and be smart.

I'm rambling again.

Regards

Paul
  • 1
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion."

-Dalai Lama

#43 GeorgeW

GeorgeW

    Site Sponsor

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,932 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Florida

Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:39 PM

Paul,

Good thoughts, thanks.

George
  • 0

#44 StillSeekingGod

StillSeekingGod

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:
    Female
  • Location:
    Belgium

Posted 09 March 2017 - 02:39 PM

In alluding to inclusivity, Point 4 says that we are Christians who are welcoming of "those of all sexual orientations". Given a recent book discussion that we are having on this forum, I thought it would be good to ask: does this stance apply to:

1. Pedophiliacs?

2. Rapists?

3. Those who commit incest?

4. Sadomasicists?

What do you think? Should we really be open to "those of ALL sexual orientations" or should lines be drawn? If you think lines should be drawn, where should those lines be? Would you be comfortable worshipping or fellowshipping with someone who has the above mentioned "sexual orientation" for the sake of inclusivism?

 

I don't really understand why number four is in that list? 

Also, what if people are one of the first three but recognize it is wrong to act on the feelings they have because it hurts others? Shouldn't they be allowed to be a Christian and join this blog? Thoughts and actions are two different things...

 

It is just something I wanted to ask, I have no real answer to all my questions. I just wonder what you, and others, think.


  • 0
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
 
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
 
I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

#45 Burl

Burl

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Central Florida

Posted 09 March 2017 - 03:33 PM

This is a dead thread. Inactive for years and I don't think any of the posters are still around.

Have you have read Romans? Chapter one is often used to preach against homosexuality, so that might be a good place to start.
  • 0
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

#46 StillSeekingGod

StillSeekingGod

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:
    Female
  • Location:
    Belgium

Posted 09 March 2017 - 04:14 PM

This is a dead thread. Inactive for years and I don't think any of the posters are still around.

Have you have read Romans? Chapter one is often used to preach against homosexuality, so that might be a good place to start.

I have read it. All I read is a text about lust, not love which just leads me to believe that the concept of loving, committed homosexual relationships wasn't something that the people of that time understood. All I interpret is that homosexual lust is not something positive. It tells me absolutely nothing about the value or the sinful nature of a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sleeping around and satisfying lust is completely different from finding someone that you love and building a life with them.


  • 1
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
 
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
 
I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

#47 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,586 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted 09 March 2017 - 05:00 PM

As Burl mentions, this thread hasn't been contributed to for some time, however threads are never 'dead' as all threads are available in our archive and any new comments always appear to all members as 'new content', so threads often get reignited by new members coming along.

 

I don't understand why any of those groups are on the list as a sexual orientation, because by definition sexual orientation is simply about what gender one is attracted too - heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual.

 

S & M is simply a 'practice' so to speak and can be enjoyed by homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals alike.

 

The others are not an orientation so to speak, but obviously they may be an 'attraction' for some, and in all instances they are criminal in our modern society because they usually don't involve consent and usually harm others.

 

As for deciding who can and who can't participate here, anybody is free to contribute and participate in the Forum as long as they follow the forum etiquette/guidelines.  As for whether they should be 'allowed' to be a Christian or not, well I don't have that call and I'm not sure anybody else on this earth can decide who is and who isn't allowed to be a Christian (although I'm sure many think they can). 

 

Personally, I think the author of Romans didn't like homosexuality for whatever reason.  Probably not all that unusual - gays have always been a minority group in our society and like most minority groups, they often suffer at the hands of the majority!  Thankfully our society has developed over time and many now recognize the legitimacy of homosexual and bisexual sexual orientations and accept these sexual orientations.  Unfortunately, many still believe that the writings of some people nearly 2000 years ago necessarily applies to society today.  I see no reason for that to be the case but if some of the writings are useful, then great.

 

For me, I couldn't care less for sexual orientation and my golden rule would be if you do no harm, then you're alright by me.


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#48 Burl

Burl

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 487 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Central Florida

Posted 10 March 2017 - 10:12 AM

I have read it. All I read is a text about lust, not love which just leads me to believe that the concept of loving, committed homosexual relationships wasn't something that the people of that time understood. All I interpret is that homosexual lust is not something positive. It tells me absolutely nothing about the value or the sinful nature of a loving, committed homosexual relationship. Sleeping around and satisfying lust is completely different from finding someone that you love and building a life with them.


I agree in a general way but I don't think you can get all of that out of Romans 1. You are also missing a good bit.

Paul's point is that 1) God makes his presence obvious by natural observation and 2) that denying God in the presence of such overwhelming evidence results in God gradually letting such humans slide back to their animal natures.

Homosexuality is only used as an example of Paul's greater point, and we really do not know specifically what type of homosexuality Paul was talking about. The homosexuality of Rome was not what we see today. For example, pederast/catamite relationships were normal.

Watch Ben-Hur again. Some of those Romans were gay, yet not a single chariot had a rainbow bumper sticker! ;-)

It really is irrelevant. Romans is not a sermon on sex. Taking a self-selected verse or phrase and using it out of context is a terrible way to read the bible, but people do it all the time. That is called proof-texting and it is intellectually dishonest.

The overarching point of Romans was encouraging the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentile Christians as equal and complimentary. I think today accepting Christians of differing sexual orientations is a fair parallel to Paul's insistence on accepting familial/cultural differences.
  • 0
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users