I wasn’t sure what you meant by ‘inherently’ in this.

I apologize, that wasn’t quite clear was it. The “inherently” was qualifying the “different,” not the homosexuality. A homosexual is only different than a heterosexual by what sex they are more or only attracted to. Homosexuals are not more promiscuous nor more violent. Almost any other difference in lifestyle by homosexuals can be contributed to the general intolerance of them by the outside community. As homosexuality becomes more accepted, how the lifestyle is perceived and even acted out will change – homosexuals will, and have, found it easier to walk in a mall holding hands than being forced into underground kink bars.

I wasn’t sure what you meant by ‘inherently’ in this. Could you clarify, explain, exposit…?

So while we are looking at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits et. al., we should probably be doing the same with heterosexuality, no?

Absolutely. Heterosexuals who are having multiple partners, or engaging in *ahem* “alternative” practices, are placing themselves and others at risk. Such behaviors are not to be encouraged.

http://de-conversion.com/2007/10/17/another-look-at-homosexuality-and-christianity/

Why not look at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits, etc. and then, if notable risks loom, acknowledge them and deal with them? And if notable benefits are seen, acknowledge them?

I think that is what has happened and the issue is a non-issue. There is nothing inherently different between a heterosexual and a homosexual beyond their preference in sexual relations. Even indirect sexual issues, such as promiscuity and scary sexual “perversions” are been shown to be of equal quantity among the two persuasions. If we want to get all OT about it, why not look for what guys are “spilling their seed” and call them unclean (although maybe that is what 50% of the population does do).

Alcoholics hurt people because of their weakness. If alcoholics just drank themselves to death, there probably wouldn’t be such an issue. A homosexual is no more likely than the next guy to jump you in the alley so he can have anal sex with you. If a man wants to give oral sex to another man, how has this planet got any worse?

So while we are looking at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits et. al., we should probably be doing the same with heterosexuality, no? Well, Box Turtle Bulletin already has.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf

Permit me to throw a possible curve ball into this discussion.

A thought on sexual orientation being intrinsic. For the moment, we’ll just say it is…. So? There’s quite a lot of evidence that alcoholism, tendencies toward violence, complacent personality, monomania, altruism and a host of other behaviors possess substantial intrinsic bases. But we don’t just say, “Let’s tolerate all those since they are inborn.” Instead we look at them and say, “Well, complacency isn’t too bad. We might give those folks some lessons on assertiveness so they don’t become doormats.” and “Hmmm… alcoholism is not at all good. We should help those folks learn to avoid alcohol for their own sakes and the sakes of others.”

Given that we approach many other behavioral orientations or predispositions by assessing their weaknesses and strengths, harm and benefit, and so on: why should we just look at homosexuality and say, “It’s just the way they are. Leave them be.” [Sorry. That sentence ran on didn't it?]

Why not look at homosexuality in terms of potential risks, benefits, etc. and then, if notable risks loom, acknowledge them and deal with them? And if notable benefits are seen, acknowledge them?

Seems to me that the “Just let them be.” approach is not really the caring way.

Sorry, Britt, but you can confidently lay out your version of proper interpretation, and tomorrow someone else will come along and lay out an equally “proper” but totally contradictory interpretation! Each side (and there are usually four or five rather than just two) has its scholars, its language experts, its antiquities professors.

There’s no clear, obvious answer to any of these big questions provided by the bible or any other ancient text. They don’t speak to the issues we’re confronted with today because modern society has progressed so far, leaving them behind and woefully inadequate as texts written by primitive people in pre-scientific civilizations. It is high time to leave them go, in my opinion.

We now know that sexual orientation, like so many other human traits, is influenced by hormones and genetics – not by demon possession, madness or moral “failure.” That information really changes the conversation about how to treat homosexuals, doesn’t it? Since the bible doesn’t even acknowledge genetics, it really isn’t helpful to determining the appropriate response in the 21st century toward homosexuality.

I actually quite agree with you, the Bible certainly says homosexuals are abominations, etc. So why not follow through with the Old Testament punishment if Jesus only came to fulfill the ceremonial laws? Why aren’t Christians today forcing our politicians to allow for the systematic stoning of everyone who leaves the gay bar?

And while you sitting there with the exegetical plank in your eye, are you wearing braids or any fancy jewelry that might draw a little bit of attention to yourself – I am sure that you will still get into heaven, but “Paul” would certainly be frowning at all you women wearing such frivolities.

Britt’s comment points out two great shames, the fact that people need to re-invent scriptural interpretations to be remotely ethical in today’s world, and that other people feel the need to justify their hatred and bigotry with ancient texts created by tribe in a era where the thirst for blood was the prime motivator in a group’s actions.

“Doesn’t the Old Testament ‘holiness code’ also condemn eating shellfish and pork, and it says you must wear a certain type of clothing, etc. If you are going to condemn homosexuality, you should also condemn these things! If these things are acceptable, then so is homosexuality!”

This faulty reasoning is easily refuted and frankly, it is an embarrassment (this is true not because I disagree with its content but because it lacks a valid argument). It is truly pitiful to watch desperate men cling to straw-man arguments in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable while claiming to be superior in logic. Casual students of the Bible should not attempt to expound upon it. Anyone with even a basic working knowledge of the O.T. law cringes to see someone present such a poor specimen of Biblical exegesis. Incidentally, this is a prime example of someone judging truth, rather than allowing truth to judge them.

Now, bear with me as I expose the error of this common argument. The Bible contains two covenants, commonly referred to as the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are differences in purpose and content between these two covenants (which could be extensively elaborated on). Therefore, in discussing matters regarding the distinction between the “covenant of law” and the “covenant of grace” there are certain absolutes that we must recognize and understand:

[1] The law of God is divided into three spheres: civil, ceremonial, and moral.
[2] Christ came to fulfill the law.

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”
Matthew 5:17

[3] The ceremonial law has been fulfilled by Christ and is no longer applicable for believers under the covenant of grace – rituals, dietary, circumcision, animal sacrifice, etc…

This is apparent for many reasons, namely: a) The Bible teaches this, (Rom 10:4; Heb 7:19; Heb 9-10) b) If kept, it must ALL be kept and this is impossible in that the temple/priesthood no longer exist (see: Rom 2:25). c) The Apostles made a clear distinction between O.T. ceremonial dictates and N.T. moral absolutes leaving no doubt that such ordinances were not to be considered N.T. commandments. For example:

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
1 Cor. 7:19

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Galatians 6:15

Consider that under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle Paul, referred to circumcision (an ordinance of O.T. ceremonial law) as nothing and that it neither availeth anything. Strong language if indeed we are to keep the ceremonial law.

[4] On the other hand, the moral law of God was likewise fulfilled in Christ but is still in effect under this covenant. Every moral commandment expressed in the O.T. has been reiterated in the New Testament (this includes laws and commandments forbidding fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality, and sodomy). Hence, the fulfilling of God’s moral law is an obligation, as it has always been, for all men, whereas, the ceremonial and civil laws were generally binding upon O.T. Israel. This is not to say that there is no wisdom expressed in the ceremonial and civil laws (much of the U.S. criminal code is based on Biblical civil law) but only that they are different and distinct from God’s eternal moral law. Therefore, a shallow comparison between the three in an attempt to present a contradiction, as those who use this argument do, is not only futile, but reveals an uninformed mind. I realize this is very brief, however, I am attempting to save time.

Thus, in summary: there are three types of laws in the “holiness code”: the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. Only the Jews were obligated to keep the ceremonial and civil laws (dietary laws, etc.). However, all people are obligated to keep the moral law, which is written upon their consciences. The moral law is taught by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament. When they told people to repent or perish (Luke 13:3), they were commanding them to stop breaking God’s moral law. If you are not compliant with the moral law of God, which forbids all lust, including masturbation and homosexuality, you are headed for hell. But if you repent and trust in Jesus, who died for your sins, to save you and set you free, then you will be saved and set free by the power of God! He is not willing that any should perish, even sodomites, but that all should repent and find mercy for their crimes against God! No excuses! Call upon Jesus’ name now!

Needless to say, the O.T., as well as the N.T., clearly condemns homosexuality. An honest handling and interpretation of Scripture will yield nothing otherwise (Romans 1:21-28).