Against Heterosexuality

I think that Paul was referring to the overall intimacy involved in the entire act of human sexuality. It was the spiritual, emotional one-ness that he seems to have in mind.

I think that sounds a little Manichean, arguing against the goodness and intentionality of our being created, male and female, in the image and likeness of God. Specifically as beings who are male-and-female, we express the image of God in our capacity to cooperate in procreating new human life. Jesus Himself specified about marriage that the two become one flesh, not spiritually and emotionally.

St. Paul also said, "Glorify God in your bodies." It's hard to square that with using your spouse up the **** because her natural makeup isn't good enough.

bkmk

Or a graduate student in philosophy.

Um, excuse me. But you lifted my words out of context and attempted to change their meaning.

I was saying that I’m not sure that Paul agrees with the Catholic view that all “sodomy” is equal. Paul clearly puts same sex sex acts into a different category than other sins, including other sexual sins. That is indisputable for anyone who reads Scripture. Yet, I do think the author of the original article makes a good point that we shouldn’t simply acquiesce in sociologically-driven constructs such as The Homosexual. I think there is great wisdom.

But Paul certainly does have a category of those people who have been turned over to their depraved mind...and those people are clearly people who perform same sex sex acts.

Jesus Himself specified about marriage that the two become one flesh, not spiritually and emotionally.

Jesus did say that they become one flesh (quoting Genesis 2:24) AFTER the man leaves his father and mother and is cleaved to his wife. What does it mean to cleave? According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: to adhere firmly and closely or loyally and unwaveringly. Notice that it is cleave AND become one flesh. There is a bonding between the husband and wife that replaces the bonding to the parents and of which, sex is one part. That sure seems to be talking about the spiritual and emotional bonding to which you are objecting. When God created Eve for Adam, He wasn't just making a complementary set of genitalia. He was making a helpmate to meet all Adam's earthly needs, not just for procreation.

St. Paul also said, "Glorify God in your bodies."

The same Paul also wrote this in Romans 14:

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.

The entire chapter has the theme of allowing each to practice his or her own conscience before the Lord. God's Word is binding on the believer, not someone else's conscience or sensitivities. Unless you have chapter and verse to back up your distaste of these practices, I think that Paul is telling you to mind your own business. I'm not defending those sexual practices but I am saying that only God gets to define sin for others. If you find those practices distasteful and you think they are sinful, then don't do them but your conscience isn't binding on other believers who have different convictions unless you have specific guidance from God's Word.

LOL! Ever notice how students start echoing the “voice” of the writers they are reading at the moment? This guy was researching “the English perversion”...

I think you’re confusing the nature of the act, which we can observe is wrong by natural reason, with the imputation of sin to a person who commits the act. We don’t need “chapter and verse” to see that using a woman as if she were a man or an animal is contrary to our bodies’ design.

Going back to the author’s premise, we can learn certain things from nature, if we truly believe God is the intentional Author of nature. If we start complicating things with too much sociology or psychology, we drift off them simplicity of the fact that some acts are moral and some acts are immoral.

I think you’re confusing the nature of the act, which we can observe is wrong by natural reason, with the imputation of sin to a person who commits the act. We don’t need “chapter and verse” to see that using a woman as if she were a man or an animal is contrary to our bodies’ design.

Is it sin for a husband and wife, legally married to one another, to engage in the sex acts you mentioned in post #45?

Going back to the author’s premise, we can learn certain things from nature, if we truly believe God is the intentional Author of nature. If we start complicating things with too much sociology or psychology, we drift off them simplicity of the fact that some acts are moral and some acts are immoral.

This natural design argument is unnecessary when God's Word clearly speaks and says something is sin, such as homosexuality. Where God' Word doesn't speak, we need to tread lightly in declaring things moral or immoral. Mankind may conclude that some act is wise or unwise based on such things as design of the physical body but to issue a moral judgement and declare something immoral or sinful absent God's Word is presumptuous.

I think we’ve reached an impasse, but that’s okay, life is like that.

Thank you for the discussion!