Good information on 'Born Gay' Studies

[Guest lnj]

My concern with homosexuality whether it is male or female same sex..where is the line of so called "decency' drawn for the Gay person? Eg: A 25 year old Gay male attracted to a 12 yearold boy...??

Wow, I wasn't expecting that post. Unless they have other problems, homosexuals are not pedophiles, any more than a straight man with personal probems is.

The question is where does one draw the line?

Say it did happen, a man had a preteen boyfriend, would the general consensus in the gay community be that this is peadophile behavior or would it be overlooked?

I say it would be overlooked because the line IS blurred.

[Guest lnj]

My concern with homosexuality whether it is male or female same sex..where is the line of so called "decency' drawn for the Gay person? Eg: A 25 year old Gay male attracted to a 12 yearold boy...??

Wow, I wasn't expecting that post. Unless they have other problems, homosexuals are not pedophiles, any more than a straight man with personal probems is.

The reason why I asked you that is because I have a soon to be 14 yearold son who is goodlooking and could easily earn money today as a male model. His looks frighten me in the sense that it WILL at some stage attract the WRONG attention - from males. As a mother I NEED to know what the mindset of the Gay community is and PROTECT my son and not be ignorant in the case of (if ever) future issues. A concerned Mother is what I am.

[Guest lnj]

My concern with homosexuality whether it is male or female same sex..where is the line of so called "decency' drawn for the Gay person? Eg: A 25 year old Gay male attracted to a 12 yearold boy...??

Wow, I wasn't expecting that post. Unless they have other problems, homosexuals are not pedophiles, any more than a straight man with personal probems is.

The question is where does one draw the line?

Say it did happen, a man had a preteen boyfriend, would the general consensus in the gay community be that this is peadophile behavior or would it be overlooked?

I say it would be overlooked because the line IS blurred.

It's peadophile behavior regardless of anyone's sexual orientation.... just because they're gay that doesn't mean that they are more prone to stalking kids, if that's what you're getting at.

Not quite.

I don't think you are getting my point or maybe you are simply using misunderstanding as a diversion to my question, but I won't continue on with it.

A shame really because I wanted to take this window of opportunity into understanding the view of gay males and how this view could someday(hopefully never) impact on my son.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

My concern with homosexuality whether it is male or female same sex..where is the line of so called "decency' drawn for the Gay person? Eg: A 25 year old Gay male attracted to a 12 yearold boy...??

Wow, I wasn't expecting that post. Unless they have other problems, homosexuals are not pedophiles, any more than a straight man with personal probems is.

The reason why I asked you that is because I have a soon to be 14 yearold son who is goodlooking and could easily earn money today as a male model. His looks frighten me in the sense that it WILL at some stage attract the WRONG attention - from males. As a mother I NEED to know what the mindset of the Gay community is and PROTECT my son and not be ignorant in the case of (if ever) future issues. A concerned Mother is what I am.

He could just as easily be attracting the wrong attention from females. If fact, this is more likely considering the majority of people are heterosexual.

Look at it this way. The homosexual mindset is no different from any other mindset. A hetero man likes women, a hetero woman likes men. A homo man likes men, a homo woman likes women. A homosexual man who goes after young teens is just as criminal as a heterosexual man who goes after young women. Men "in general" are more likely to go after younger sex partners, but the majority do not go after people half their age.

I would be more worried about your son attracting unwanted attention from women than men.

[Guest lnj]

A homosexual man who goes after young teens is just as criminal as a heterosexual man who goes after young women.

Yes we know that law if we look at it from a logical, moral viewpoint. The question is this : In the gay(male) community where does paedophile behaviour start and "so called normal attraction" end? Is the line blurred and does it bend to suit situations?...

Rock Hudson I believe, liked hairless young males...did that make him a paedophile or was that "accepted attraction" in the gay community? See what I'm saying?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

A homosexual man who goes after young teens is just as criminal as a heterosexual man who goes after young women.

Yes we know that law if we look at it from a logical, moral viewpoint. The question is this : In the gay(male) community where does paedophile behaviour start and "so called normal attraction" end? Is the line blurred and does it bend to suit situations?...

Rock Hudson I believe, liked hairless young males...did that make him a paedophile or was that "accepted attraction" in the gay community? See what I'm saying?

Yes I understand what you are saying. I know a few homosexual friends, and they would be just as appalled with a 25 year old taking advantage of a 12 year old as you and I would be. NAMBLA is not exactly considered a "moderate" group.

Now I cannot speak for the gay community, but from my knowledge I don't think there is much of a difference when it comes to the thoughts of age that you and I have.

[Guest lnj]

Ok - I'll leave it at that..Thanks.

[artsylady]

"Like I said previously, unless you walk in their shoes, pointing your finger and telling them that they are wrong is an exercise in ignorance. Its like, if someone loses a parent, and you say "I know what you're going through." But, unless you've lost a parent of your own, you really don't. That's just how I see it."

I don't point my finger at them and tell them they are wrong. What makes you think I would behave in such a way?

However.... I also don't condone the behaviour because I do beleive that THAT would be wrong.

"I had a paragraph written about strong compulsions - so strong that people truly beleive that the compulsions toward wrong cause people to actually believe it's in their dna somehow - or they were 'born to' be a woman, be gay, cut off their limbs, have an addictive personality, etc, etc, etc. I would like to know your thoughts on this if you don't mind.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking?"

I guess just read the post and then consider that instead of being 'born' this way, maybe gays just have a strong compulsion, like so many compulsions many of us humans have. Something that leads them away from the ideal that God has in mind for them?

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai."" They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples."

Okay, how do you know that they were referring to male temple prostitutes? If the word simply is man and beds then how do you read that much more into it? Why wouldn't Paul have simply used the words that mean "male temple and prostitiutes?"

Besides, Jesus said clearly "one man, one woman".

"Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai.""

I had also heard that Paul coined this phrase. Did you hear this as well?

I think the fact that there is the word that means 'male and bed', plus all of the other references, plus the fact that Jesus said "one man one woman" makes things quite clear on what God intended for us.

"Well, I would respond by saying that those against homosexuality are blinded by their faith. What I mean by that is that many believe that Paul was writing from his own knowledge and experience. During the the 1st century, even an educated person like Paul would know very little about human sexuality, compared to present-day sexuality researchers."

Maybe that's why he made up the word that combined 'men' and bed"?

"And, I might sound like I'm reaching for straws (I'm not), but the NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences."

Before I suppose for a moment, when he used the word offenders here, what greek word was used directly before it to describe these offenders?

"So you don't believe in love at first site? My wife and I of 9 years may disagree. "

Would you have given up your life for her at first sight?

[artsylady]

I know you commented on these verses, but I didn't understand what you were trying to say at all.

Sorry.

Here it is again.

"24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;"

I'm not sure how you can read this in it's context and not think it's condemning homosexuality. I think it's very clear.

[secondeve]

I know you commented on these verses, but I didn't understand what you were trying to say at all.

Sorry.

Here it is again.

"24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;"

I'm not sure how you can read this in it's context and not think it's condemning homosexuality. I think it's very clear.

You know what I'd love to see? Someone come out and say that the Biblical verses against homosexuality need to be taken in context, about the fact that they were referring to a specific tribe under blah conditions - perhaps mentioning that homosexuality was condoned in Greek society, and the Jews and Gentiles historically weren't on great terms - and so, arguably, the whole mentioning of the idea isn't so much against being gay as against being Greek. Or something.

I mention it only because - in my mind, anyway - this type of logic is identical to the kind used by many Christians I've met on the boards to say that the commands to stone adulterers (for instance) or for the Israelites to take women slaves from the tribes they captured weren't really saying that these things should be done, always - that instead, they shoul be situated in a broader social/political context rather than being meant for us to carry on literally today. Because from where I'm sitting, it all just looks like a pick'n'mix interpretation to keep various injunctions and smooth over others which it would now be impossible to obey or, in some cases, to intellectually condone.