Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are

Forum Quick Jump

28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 8/3/2011 4:09 PM (GMT -6)

Maybe it's the lingo. When I hear someone say, "Sexuality can flex over time" I head, "God never intended any particular sexuality for human beings--homosexual is as good as hetersexual as far as God's concerned." So "flexible" means "morally acceptable" to me. If that's what it means, then I'll disagree. I think God's creational intentions for human beings are fulfilled in heterosexual relations.

But if by "flexible" you mean simply that someone who feels they're a hetersexual can come to feel they're a homosexual and so move from hetero to homo-sexual behavior, and visa versa, then sure, I'd agree. People can and do change their minds/feelings about their own sexual identity. If this were not so then I'd have no hope to hold out for homosexuals becoming hetersexuals. So yeah, we can change. But that's different than the morality question. Because I think homosexual behavior is immoral in the strict sense, I'd be unable to incorporate them into ALL aspects of church life (e.g., leadership, teaching, etc.). But I respect your opinion on this B.

Having said that, I actually don't have a problem with gay marriage, since 'legality' and 'morality' aren't the same thing.

Tom

KIXYTΘEMTA

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 8/5/2011 7:45 AM (GMT -6)

Tom: Having said that, I actually don't have a problem with gay marriage, since 'legality' and 'morality' aren't the same thing.

Jeff: I think the gay rights agenda has so emptied marriage of any significance as a "natural" institution that it would be more rational to make all such relationships fall under contract law for legal purposes. Then marriage, as it's currently conceived by most theists, could be done by churches for the relevant religious reasons. Government no longer seems competent to adjudicate marital issues in a manner that is conducive to human flourishing. By insisting that a biological father has no say whatsoever over his own unborn baby because of the new view of "privacy," we are now in a political state where only biological mothers are considered to be "natural" parents. All else is deemed mere positive law. So we might as well make it all purely contractual to make it fair in any meaningful, coherent sense.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 8/6/2011 8:10:23 AM (GMT-5)

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 9/4/2012 1:52 PM (GMT -6)

m.youtube.com/watch?v=TWB-nXbU6ms

Brandon

Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine

28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual