Gene Scarborough:
]
Ed---1. I simply think there are certain people who are in a male body with female hormones flowing in predominence and vice versus. Some people are born more feminine than others in a male body and more macho in a female body.
1. Ed: And what evidence do you have to support your theory? (what you think) And Gene where you say Some people are born more feminine than others in a male body and more macho in a female body. Why do you use famine for female traits and Macho for male traits, since Macho is more negative. See this definition (ma·cho
[mah-choh] adjective; a. having or characterized by qualities considered manly, especially when manifested in an assertive, self-conscious, or dominating way.
b. having a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate.
2. Gene: Instead of an either/or, I think we have a continuum where the sexes meet and sometimes cross. This strange mix is an act of God in creation as testosterone and estrogen flow in both bodies of men and women.
That's the hormonal factor.2.Ed: Again where is the evidence? This theory has been around for years with no conclusive studies to support the idea that even wide differences in hormonal levels produce a significant correlation of sexual desire for the same sex partners. And I do not buy the idea that "This strange mix is an act of God in creation... the Bible explicitly says" male and female created he them". Homosexuality I believe is one of the many results of the fall.
3.Gene: There is also a
social factor. In this day of 50% divorce, too many children are raised by a mother with the father absent. This is particularly difficult since boys do not see a good male role model. The Gay men I know have all been reared by a seriously domineering mother---and turned out to be more like her.
3. Actually that 50 % rate is misleading, only 41% of first marriages end in divorce and a higher percentage of childless couples divorce, which tends to negate your theory. See
http://www.divorcerate.org/ And Gene exactly how many gay men have you known and how many of their mothers have you known? But then how do you account for gay females. And BTW some children who have had passive mothers grow up to be homosexuals and some heterosexual. And both passive and domineering women have both Gay and Straight children Also many homosexuals have brothers and sisters who who have grownup as heterosexual. And Gene Many children w/o fathers in the home have better male role models than some with an "intact family". Keep in mind singles ministry is my preferred ministry area.
4. Studies are being conducted as we speak. Past studies reflect the the things I have cited. Some of this is beyond the control of church or person. It "just happens" and we should be more sensitive than to stone them as the Bible demands in the OT = or ostricize them with emotional stones of derision.
4.. No Gene it does not just happen ! If social scientist believed that, they would not be conducting the very studies you refer to. And there are studies that counter the "things" you cite. And who here has suggested that we stone anyone. I advocate assisting them to re-orientate their chosen sexual preference. see my reply to #3.
5. In no way do I condone nor encourage homosexuality. In every way I am trying to be compassionate and understanding to the point I don't believe we need to deny same-sex partners a place in society deserving health care and other benefits of a heterosexual couple. I daily observe men being submissive to a butchy wife. Yet we don't choose to see it as "strange." It's just overly simplistic to take the view of ostricism of same sex partners who are being decent citizens and enjoying the peace and joy of their authentic self---whatever that might be.
5. Ed: And Gene you don't consider the term "butchy wife" a form of derision? And why would you consider the combination strange. No one I have read suggest we deny homosexuals heath care. It is the terms of heath care that are in question. Since when has God promised peace and joy to every one living on their own terms.
And Gene, what is the"view of ostracism" that you call overly simplistic? And are you under some allusion that all homosexuals are "being decent citizens". And no I am not denying that some are. But some are quit crude and obnoxious just as are some heterosexuals.