Re: Unable to Change?
Submitted by John Doe on September 10 2001 10:14:32
In reply to Unable to Change? submitted by Cat Daddy on September 10 2001 06:03:40
|
Yes there are people like Dennis Rodman, who will have sex with anything that moves. But for someone who is a Kinsey 5 or 6, or in other words totally or nearly totally gay in his orientation, he is in a very tough spot. After all, as Frued said, there are two things that are needed for happiness, Love and Work. It is unrealistic to think that a person will fall in love with someone to whom he has no sexual attraction. By insisting thay he remain celibate for all of his life, you are condemming him to a life without love. I find it hard to belive that Jesus was suggesting tthat is how a person should live. Furthermore, discrimination cuts down on the ability of that person to find fullfilling work, making it all the harder for him to be happy. From the point of view of scripture, Dennis Rodman has much bigger fish to fry other than the fact that he occasionally does it with men. The central point of scripture when it comes to sex is that sex should be done in the context of a commited lifelong relationship. The bible talks far more about adultery than it does about homosexuality. It even goes so far as to say that second marriages after divorce constitute adultery, yet the church pews are filled with those on their second or thrid marriages. It also takes a dim view of all pre-marital sex. Yet in this day and age, how often are both the bride and groom virgins on their wedding day? Probably less than 5%, yet the church has no problem performing the cerimony and blessing the union. So why do so many fundimentailist christians single out homosexuality as the ultimate sexual sin? Why should they be concerned if others are doing it. Would they be in favor of say restricting the marital rights of those on their second marriages (except widows and widowers), not giving them the same status in terms of inheritance, insurance and taxes, that the society gives to first marriages? if not, why should they be opposed to giving those same rights to homosexual unions? |
Follow ups: