[This is Dani’s reply to Eileen’s original post here . Luke]
[And for the record I didn’t raise the topic this time round!!!! ;) Dani]

I myself was more offended by Dani’s letter, which I had not seen until the reference to it above. It seems to imply that those arguing for the acceptance of gay and lesbian people in the church have thrown away any and all morality in the sexual area. Far from it. Promiscuity, paedophilia, prostitution, unfaithfulness, one night stands, pornography, etc etc are equally unacceptable be it heterosexual or homosexual behaviour we are talking about. However there is a view in the church, amongst people who do wrestle with what the Bible says in its entirety that not all sexual activity between persons of the same gender is sinful. That in the context of faithful, committed, long term relationships sexual expression may be something which is not only OK but capable of being blessed by God for the same life enhancing, love increasing sustaining reasons that it is so blessed in similiar heterosexual relationships. Contrary to what Dani suggests Child prostitution and pedophilia do not follow on from an acceptance of homosexuality as night follows day. I find that implication offensive. Dani that may not have been your intention but that is the import of your letter

I’m not sure if you have read the article which I wrote my letter in response to.  If not, before you read any further here, and certainly before you reply to me (if you choose to do so), please go and read it here .

The letter you saw in the paper was edited down by the letters editor. Since we are discussing what meaning I was attempting to convey through my words I think it only fair that you see the original, and complete letter.

If, as John Shelby Spong claims, what we view as right and wrong, moral or immoral, true or false is based on, and subject to, the shifting sands of human whim (rather than the will of the eternal God) then how long will it be before arguments are brought forth for the ‘new truth’ that multiple partners, unfaithfulness and adultery, and pornography of all kinds “enhances life, increases love and calls people into a new humanity?”. Oh wait. That’s already happened hasn’t it? What’s next? Child prostitution? Paedophilia? After all, arguments could be made by the perpetrators of these two sexual activities that their life is enhanced, their love increased and that they are called to a new humanity as a result- and henceforth that such activities should be called ‘holy’.

If we claim that truth, and consequently morality, is completely dependent on the desires and whim of the created order rather than the creator then Bishop Spong is indeed correct- we will no more be able to hold back ‘new truths’ than stand on the shore and hold back the incoming tide.

John Spong’s arguement in his article was that truth and morality are not constant (ie. based on the will of an unchanging creator God) but that they change in response to human desire and whim (which he conveniently claims can be backed up by scientific and medical data- in itself a sweeping and grossly overconfident statement… but we have already hashed that out elsewhere).

His criteria for sexual activity which can and should be described as ‘holy’ is that it is ‘faithful’ (faithful to what I have no idea), ‘enhances life’, ‘increases love’ and calls each partner into a ‘new humanity’. His words are so deliberately vague and ambigious that in it’s most distilled form it simply means - if it feels good it has to be OK so go ahead.

My arguement was that if that is the criteria we need use to determine moral and immoral sexual behaviour then we can easily justify a huge range of sexual activities - even those we currently regard as criminal. A pedophile could very easily argue that by engaging in sexual activity with a child he is enhancing his life, increasing his love and being called into a new humanity. And frankly if we are defining what is moral by the result the behaviour produces who are we to be able to legitimately argue against that and claim it is immoral? It is completely subjective.

Pedophilia is abhorrent to us. Reading this you know that kind of behaviour is disgusting, disgraceful, sick and criminal. But if we follow Spong’s guidelines then we have absolutely no foundation to decry it.

Now, regarding how you read my letter…

Eileen you’ll notice that not one place in my letter do I even refer to homosexuality.

I did not, and do not claim that Child prostitution and pedophilia follow on from an acceptance of homosexuality as night follows day as you say I do. Child prostitution and pedophilia are a result of sinful nature - not an acceptance of homosexuality.

I claim that the moral justification of child prostitution and pedophilia could be successfully argued from Spong’s forumla for determining his ‘new truths’.

Now, if you want to argue that you believe homosexual activity is morally justifiable because God has instituted it as part of his will and plan for his people (as ‘proactive’ not ‘reactive’) and that you have come to undertand through this through careful study of the scriptures and prayer - well I’ll disagree with your understanding but applaud you for ensuring that your understandng of ‘truth’ is based on God’s revealed will.

However, if you want to argue (and I don’t think you are) that you believe homosexual activity is morally justifiable because it enhances life, increases love and calls each partner into a new humanity without reference to God’s framework of truth and morality (instituted by the creator for the creation) then I will not applaud you in any way shape or form. And neither will I applaud Spong.

I fear I am garnering a bit of a reputation on here for being the one who picks on homosexuality and homosexuals. In reality nothing could be further from the truth - however, your response, Eilieen, to my letter which didn’t even mention anything to do with homosexuality only furthers my concern.

Thnk you Dani for your response. the link with homosexuality was made by the Herald in its inclusion in your printed letter of the Title of Spong’s article

Good v homosexuality ... last stand of the Bible quoters

I wonder why you have responded to and quoted some parts of Spong’s article and ignored those bits which clearly show that he is not saying

if it feels good it has to be OK so go ahead.

as you suggest is the implication of his remarks? In fact Spong in the very article itself says

Does this mean that those people who accept the new consciousness must condone all homosexual behaviour? Of course not. Some homosexual behaviour is depraved. Perhaps people haven’t noticed that some heterosexual behaviour is also depraved.

Prostitution, pimping and child molesting are overwhelmingly the proclivities of heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Multiple partners, divorce and unfaithfulness are not unknown in the heterosexual world.

The day will surely come and it must come when any sexual behaviour that violates the sacred personhood or the solemn vows of any human being will be called evil and will be opposed by the church. But sexual activity that is faithful, that enhances life, increases love and calls each partner into a new humanity will ultimately be called holy.

I find it hard how to see how you can say

I claim that the moral justification of child prostitution and pedophilia could be successfully argued from Spong’s forumla for determining his ‘new truths’.

in the light of Spong’s clear renunciation of any behaviour that violates the sacred personhood of another. As you so forcefully say

Pedophilia is abhorrent to us.

and reading the article one would say “and Spong agrees” (in the context of his article he is saying it is depraved and violates the sacred personhood of the child) , which is in fact about the opposite of your conclusion that

But if we follow Spong’s guidelines then we have absolutely no foundation to decry it.

I would and do want to argue that I believe some (note not all) sexual activity between persons of the same gender is morally justifiable because God has instituted it as part of his will and plan for his people (as ‘proactive’ not ‘reactive’) and that I have come to undertand through this through careful study of the scriptures and prayer - just as I have come to understand that some (note not all) sexual activity between persons of opposite gender is morally justifiable because God has instituted it as part of his will and plan for his people (as ‘proactive’ not ‘reactive’) and that I have come to undertand through this through careful study of the scriptures and prayer. In other words I think one has to apply exactly the same moral expectations on people regardless of their sexual orientation. Part of the judgement about whether such behaviour is morally justifiable is the context in which it happens. Is it in the context of a faithful, just, respectful loving relationship of mutual commitment. But this has already been debated out in other forums, and I suspect nothing I will say will move you to the understanding that God may indeed love and bless sexually active homosexual persons.

I think we are going to go around in circles on this Eileen and end up in futile debate with each other- so at this point I just want to make two comments.

1) I hope now you can see that you misread the meaning of my words when you initally read my letter. Homosexuality as an issue in itself had nothing to do with what I wrote. It was Spongs moral framework that was the point of contention

Part of the judgement about whether such behaviour is morally justifiable is the context in which it happens. Is it in the context of a faithful, just, respectful loving relationship of mutual commitment. But this has already been debated out in other forums, and I suspect nothing I will say will move you to the understanding that God may indeed love and bless sexually active homosexual persons.

Eilieen when have I ever said that God does not love sexually active homosexual persons? When? I think that comment was completely unfair.

No surprises that I agree with Dani.

The issue Dani raises, Eileen, is that John Spong’s morality as he describes it has a subjective rather than an objective foundation. We may agree on the buzz-word principles but not on what they mean or how to extrapolate them to sexual ethics.

In the scriptures, we believe, is already an objective basis for sexual ethics - objective in so far as it is laid down in painstaking specifics by the creator and therefore not subject to our manipulation.

Whatever the rightness or wrongness of our belief, Dani’s diagnosis is spot on - Spong’s sexual ethics lack any foundation except human whim and desire. His approach to God is a ‘design-your-own’. If we embrace the principle of imagining our ethics rather than accepting them from God, then who can say where the limits to the human imagination will be?

The inclination of man’s heart has been evil since the fall. Will we not continue to justify in spiritual terms that which we want for reasons of the flesh? Of course we will. That is what Dani points to. Unfortunately our world is already so corrupt that she has to reach out past abominations like abortion and general promiscuity to paeophilia in order to find something still sufficiently abhorrent to most people to make the point.

Eileen, I share Dani’s belief that John Spong’s “emerging new consciousness” effectively undermines the ethical basis on which society has hitherto prohibited varieties of sexuality currently regarded by right-thinging sorts of peole like us as abhorrent, namely poly-amory, paedophilia, prostitution etc.

You say

I find it hard how to see how you can say Quote:
I claim that the moral justification of child prostitution and pedophilia could be successfully argued from Spong’s formula for determining his ‘new truths’. 

in the light of Spong’s clear renunciation of any behaviour that violates the sacred personhood of another. As you so forcefully say Quote:
Pedophilia is abhorrent to us.
and reading the article one would say “and Spong agrees” (in the context of his article he is saying it is depraved and violates the sacred personhood of the child) , which is in fact about the opposite of your conclusion that Quote:
But if we follow Spong’s guidelines then we have absolutely no foundation to decry it. 

Nobody is suggesting that John Spong approves of prostitution or paedophilia or polyamory (though the Episcopal Church of the USA includes a number of lobbyists for the full acceptance of bisexuality - which if it means anything surely includes multiple partners).

But what I think Dani is saying, and I agree, is that the moral basis for disapproving of these things which was hitherto regarded as the written word of Almighty God, becomes, under Spong, merely the shifting opinions of people.

Certainly, the overwhelming consensus now is that these things are “abhorrent” and that none of them is

sexual activity that is faithful, that enhances life, increases love and calls each partner into a new humanity

and that prostitution, paedophilia, polyamory etc. are each a type of

sexual behaviour that violates the sacred personhood or the solemn vows of any human being

Spong too regards these things as abhorrent.  Good!  But who is to say whether future generations will agree.  I’ll bet London to a brick that in some American seminary somewhere, there is a new heresiarch-in-waiting who is prepared to come out and press the envelope even further.

The former Anglican Primate of Scotland, Richard Holloway, has pointed out that certain men are genetically predisposed to seeking mutliple partners.  Anyone who has studied Latin, Greek or ancient history will be conscious of the fact that sexual relations with children were not always as frowned upon as they are these days - it was God’s word, not the “abhorrence” of men, which banished these practices from civilised opinions and behaviour.  Ah, but I can hear the rumble in the distance of the

new definitions based on new scientific and medical data that are invading and winning the minds of educated people

Get used to the future, guys.  After all as Bishop Spong says:

One can no more hold back new truths than one can stand on the shore and try to hold back the incoming tide

_____________________________________________

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Matthew says…

John Spong’s morality as he describes it has a subjective rather than an objective foundation.

This is seen no clearer in the way Spong handles Scripture in order to condone or at least soften homosexual relationships. One way is by describing St. Paul as a closeted homosexual. This is all based on Paul’s own negative feeling of his own body, his attitude towards women, his refusal to marry and so on. Even Paul’s “bodily ailment” (Gal 4:13) for Spong, is due to his suppressed homosexual condition.

An argument for any sexual ethics need to be based on firmer grounds than what Spong seems to do for the most part.

Dani you wrote

Eilieen when have I ever said that God does not love sexually active homosexual persons? When? I think that comment was completely unfair.

I apologise for any distress my comment has caused you. I am guilty of lumping you and your comments with those in the wider Anglican Communion who in this whole sexuality debate have claimed that this is a salvation issue and that sexually active homosexual persons will not inherit the kingdom of God. I am sorry if I have misjudged you and that is not your view. Please note I said “love and bless”. I probably should have been more precise and spelt out that by saying “loved and blessed by God” I mean and therefore will inherit the Kingdom. (I believe God loves all people all of the time, and I expect you probably do too, its just some of our behaviour that God doesn’t like, but that doesn’t include all homosexual activity) I probably should also have said at least some sexually active homosexual persons. Again I am sorry for any offence I have caused. I will now go back into exile somewhat saddened and frustrated that the God who leaps forth to me from the pages of scripture seems to be so alien to the one I discern behind most of the contributions to these forums with some notable exceptions (thank you Nunc!).

Dear Eileen,

I will now go back into exile somewhat saddened and frustrated that the God who leaps forth to me from the pages of scripture seems to be so alien to the one I discern behind most of the contributions to these forums with some notable exceptions (thank you Nunc!).

I am sorry that you feel this way. None of us claim to be perfectly expressing the love of God here. But I would hope that you could at least lend us the credit that we are acting out of a motive of love as we believe God has revealed the standards of love to us, even if you believe it is misplaced. I have tried to lend you the assumption of good motives, even though I think your conclusions are spiritually dangerous, I wish you could do the same for Dani & I et al. Dani certainly does not believe that any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is compatible with a life lived under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and nor do I. It’s not a convenient belief. I for one wouldn’t have made sexual ethics up that way if it was up to me. It is imposed upon us by God, because we have the humility to let him do so.

The God who leaps forward to me from the pages of scripture is deeply concerned for anyone who wilfully continues in sin and so jeopardises their salvation. That same God informs me that I must reach out to all people - including homosexual people - with that same love that encourages them to desist from any sin.

The God who leaps out of the pages of scripture said:

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9b-11)

and

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sin is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Heb 10:26-27)

Why does this God not leap out to you from scripture? This God is not to be trifled with. Sin matters, even if we are predisposed to it.

Since I believe what God says through his apostles, there would be no greater hate I could show towards sexually active homosexual persons or anyone else persisting in any other sin, than to encourage them to be complacent about their sin. My love for them, modelled on God’s love, implores them to repentance and faith, so that they are

“not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.” (Heb 10:39)

Your brother because of Jesus

Matt

Homosexuality thread #209502935902

In reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 I believe “sexually immoral” differs from “men who practice homosexuality” in the following respects:

If say a young man in a christian congregation has his eye on a female member of the congregation, and because of his natural sexual impulses desires her, he plans to woo her, and ultimately begin a sexual relationship with her through marriage. All natural stuff up to now, no sexual immorality here so far.

On the other hand we have a male member of a christian congregation with his eye on another male member of the congregation with sexual stimulus taking place. Even at this stage I think we have “sexual immorality” rearing its ugly head. But this male does not act on this inclination, although having this desire dormant. He does not act because of his desire to please God.

I think the two cases ie. homosexual versus heterosexual desire and relationship, differ greatly. The heterosexual inclination in man is condoned by God but the homosexual is not, at any stage, I contend.

I think we should bear this in mind when arguing about this matter.

YBBC, Ken

I don’t think many of you like what I have to say, but sometimes you have be cruel to be kind.

Dani, Matthew, and Ken, I sincerely believe that your views are evil.  To desecrate, to pathologise the innermost personhood of another--their psycho-sexual orientation--causes unaccountable suffering (especially in a religious context).  I call your views spiritually harmful, and all the more harmful because they are advanced subtly, under the authority of a sacred text, and with supposed ‘loving intent’.  I believe that your view on this issue is akin to anti-semitism, in its prejudicial nature and its effects.

We will never agree on the homosexual question, because it involves issues of scriptural interpretation.  So when communication becomes impossible, I think each side should rest content in its position and call the view of the other evil. 

Let’s not shrink from this, but boldly hold either that sex outside marriage is evil or that all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is evil.  Let’s declare it from the pulpits. 

When resolution is impossible, we may say nothing but “may God prosper that which is correct.”

Chris

Re: Homosexuality thread #209502935902

[quote author="Ken Austin"]I think the two cases ie. homosexual versus heterosexual desire and relationship, differ greatly. The heterosexual inclination in man is condoned by God but the homosexual is not, at any stage, I contend.

I think we should bear this in mind when arguing about this matter.

YBBC, Ken

While I respect your view, Ken, I have to disagree.

To my mind, whether or not one lusts in their mind - and does not act it out physically - after a member of the same or different sex is viewed by God in the same manner.  I cannot see how a heterosexual inclination can be raised above that of a homosexual inclination as something that God may “condone”, whereas whenever homosexual attraction occurs, a different rule applies.

Perhaps I am biased as I have confessed on another thread that I do have the odd(*) inclination towards men - unacted upon thus far by God’s grace.  We are in a fallen world, however, sexually as well as physically / mentally / etc.  Not that it gives us carte blanche to allow anything, but if, our sexual nature has fallen and same-sex attraction occurs, should we not apply the same principles as we do to other sins [as the article Matt posted in another thread stated - I think]? 

While I have read that some people have been “cured” of their SSA feelings, others [like myself] take it as it comes - I want to get angry unjustly sometimes [esp. when driving!]; I’d like to copy games and CDs; I envy other’s possessions… : yet no-one offers [as far as I know] “curing” services for these.  I do not deny that if it is a real problem people should seek counselling: I encourage that, but many of us can (we believe) deal with it on a day-to-day basis.  God has been very gracious to me in that I (seriously) have a 0% sex drive...my friends call me “eunuch”! ;-) Thank God for his mercies.

Getting off track...what a surprise!?!?  Could you further expand your view Ken on why “[the] heterosexual inclination in man is condoned by God but the homosexual is not”?  Perhaps I am being dense, but I cannot see how the two differ.

Thanks,
Ian.

[*] Added this @ 13.00: by ‘odd’ I mean “occasional” - not “strange”.  Just clearing that up.

Hi Chris:

you posted while I posted - I wasn’t ignoring you! ;-)

I got a bit confused with the second half of your post, but that is no doubt down to me.

I think calling fellow posters “evil” is a bit too much, but I can understand the sentiment in terms of this being a hot issue.

If you read the views of others on the other homosexuality thread, you may see that many of the posters here do not hate people with SSA or in homosexual relations: they believe [as I do, I must confess] that a homosexual relationship, despite how committed they may be, does not seem to be confirmed in Scripture.  I am sure you do not want posters here to go against their conscience, which I think would be a great sin.  If you believed something was wrong, you would try and stop people - perhaps view it like that.  You do not have to agree with their opinions, but I think respect goes a long way.

Oh, and Eileen - please don’t go.  A variety of thoughts and challenges makes this place the interesting site it is.  Please re-consider.

God bless,
Ian.

A couple of things in response to the last couple of posts.

Thanks Matt for a most excellent post (<-- I feel like that should be followed up with a ‘dude!’).

[quote author="Ken"]On the other hand we have a male member of a christian congregation with his eye on another male member of the congregation with sexual stimulus taking place. Even at this stage I think we have “sexual immorality” rearing its ugly head.

I am afraid I tend to agree with Ian and disagree with you Ken.  I believe it is the conduct (ie. action) which is sinful, not the condition (or inclination). We are all tempted in many ways by our sinful nature to act upon it and commit sinful acts. Temptation does not automatically equal sin.

[quote author="Christopher"]We will never agree on the homosexual question, because it involves issues of scriptural interpretation. So when communication becomes impossible, I think each side should rest content in its position and call the view of the other evil.

Believe it or not Christopher but I do actually empathise with you in regards to feeling frustrated and hurt at Matt, myself and others on here for the views we hold. And I also share your struggle in trying to work out what to do when it seems an agreement shall never be reached. Should we say ‘Thats it! No more’ as you suggest or should we continue trying to wrestle with the issue and communicate with each other. I’m not sure. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle but I don’t know exactly where- and since I’m still not convinced it is the right and godly thing to let the matter drop altogether I wanted to respond to something you mentioned in your post.

[quote author="Christopher"]To desecrate, to pathologise the innermost personhood of another--their psycho-sexual orientation--causes unaccountable suffering (especially in a religious context).

I don’t believe that our sexuality, our sexual orientation, or our sexual lifestyle is what encapsulates our innermost personhood. We are far more, as God’s people, that simply a sex drive. However, the reality is that within our ‘innermost personhood’ (which I assume means who we are, our identity) is a desire to sin. Paul’s anguish over his own sinfulness is clear in Romans 7 “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”.

I guess what I am saying is that just because something seems ‘natural’ to us (or as you describe it - our ‘innermost personhood’) doesn’t make it right in God’s sight. It is natural for many people to lie (and I know because as a kid I lied like crazy- which has meant an enormous struggle for me as I have become an adult). It doesn’t make it OK to do so. It is natural for many people to hop from one person’s bed to another but it doesn’t make it OK to do so.  It is natural for a proudful person to boast in themselves and act selfishly. It doesn’t make it OK to do so.

Ack. You’re right. Can we all agree to disagree? Should we? What does everyone else think?

[quote author="Ian"]Oh, and Eileen - please don’t go. A variety of thoughts and challenges makes this place the interesting site it is. Please re-consider.

Ditto. As much as we seem to agree on very little Eileen, your posts keep me accountable and keep me working hard to give answers for what I believe.

Homosexuality thread #209502535902

Ian Holder said

Getting off track...what a surprise!?!? Could you further expand your view Ken on why “[the] heterosexual inclination in man is condoned by God but the homosexual is not”? Perhaps I am being dense, but I cannot see how the two differ.

Ian, not meaning to upset you, but I would place the Christian discussion on homosexuality in the same category that it occupies in the general political/social scene. There is a strong gay lobby out there which is not content with a general tolerance for homosexuality, but now wants to go one step further, by having gay sexual relations condoned as normal and natural behaviour.

If the mating game begins with sexual attraction between male and female, and this relationship eventually ends in marriage, I cannot see any sin anywhere down the line.

Heterosexual desire is natural, and not a sin in God’s eyes, because it begins a relationship which is part of God’s plan for mankind to mate and multiply.

(The old cliche: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)

YBBC
Ken

Re: Homosexuality thread #209502535902

[quote author="Dani"]
Ack. You’re right. Can we all agree to disagree? Should we? What does everyone else think?

I tend to say “Yes”.  While not wanting to end discussions, if people are approaching a question from two completely different angles and reconciliation of views seems impossible, perhaps it is best to “agree to disagree”.

[quote author="Ken Austin"]Ian, not meaning to upset you

Not upset at all, Ken: please do not worry - it takes a lot for me to get upset generally.  I just wanted to see where you were coming from.

[quote author="Ken Austin"]
, but I would place the Christian discussion on homosexuality in the same category that it occupies in the general political/social scene. There is a strong gay lobby out there which is not content with a general tolerance for homosexuality, but now wants to go one step further, by having gay sexual relations condoned as normal and natural behaviour.

I suppose the view here depends on whether you believe SSA to be genetic or not [see “Homophobia & The Church” thread for discussion there] and any religious beliefs.  As I have said, I tend to consider SSA feelings to either be genetic or from “the Fall” or both.  However, I do not see Scripture condoning same-sex sex.  As Dani said [great post BTW!], there are many things that are/seem “natural” in our fallen state, but are not good for us.

[quote author="Ken Austin"]
If the mating game begins with sexual attraction between male and female, and this relationship eventually ends in marriage, I cannot see any sin anywhere down the line.

Heterosexual desire is natural, and not a sin in God’s eyes, because it begins a relationship which is part of God’s plan for mankind to mate and multiply.

(The old cliche: God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve)

I am not meaning to seem picky, but wouldn’t you need to qualify “heterosexual desire is .... not a sin in God’s eyes” further?  For example, what if I lust after another man’s wife: that is heterosexual desire, yet forbidden in Scripture.  Please do not think I am trying to “catch you out” or anything similar: it is a genuine question.  That may be a natural reaction [lust for a man after a woman they find attractive], and in this world we live in many people find themselves attracted to people of the same sex.  While perhaps not part of the plan, it is “natural” in our fallen nature [at least in my view].

Thanks for detailing your views, Ken.  Much appreciated.
Ian.

I’ve been thinking a little over the weekend about this.

[quote author="Ken"]Heterosexual desire is natural, and not a sin in God’s eyes, because it begins a relationship which is part of God’s plan for mankind to mate and multiply.

I think we often forget that God created sex for the marital relationship (ie. for union between husband and wife and for procreation) not simply that he created ‘heterosexual sex’ (as opposed to ‘homosexual sex’).

It’s a subtle difference but I think it helps us to understand the issue that Ken has raised and Ian has responded to properly. The context of heterosexual desire should always acknowledge that it was created to be expressed within marriage.

So in and of itself is heterosexual desire any more of a natural inclination condoned by God than homosexual desire? I’m not sure. For example an individual could be inclined to a sexually immoral form of heterosexuality (eg. mutiple partners, adultery etc) but just because the inclination is heterosexual doesn’t mean it is anymore condoned by God than a homosexual desire.

I’m not sure if I am making sense here. I’m trying to wrap my head around it and don’t think I am quite getting there. Can someone help me out? (Or tell me I am completely wrong!!!)