Sex on the physical level is an ingredient in the cake we know as God; don’t we all want our cake and eat it? Sex, as any other experience in which there is great reward ( watching a sunrise, petting a pet, hugging a friend, etc.) points to a Great and Loving Creator God.
For instance… One could say that if one had sex and didn’t believe in God after having sex, he or she really didn’t have good sex since it didn’t even have a spot of eternity in it.

Now let us use an example of the sex appetite and I believe one person can speak for all since Jesus spoke for all ( That is to say that if one person hits a bulls eye in darts, a bulls eye can be hit in dart’s ) but of course the driftwood floated downstream with the force of singular popularity and it’s against the natural grain to love a winner if your a loser. You know, the one’s missing the mark.

Let us say that a young couple get married and are truly in love and their bed is one of enormous pleasure. Two years after their marriage… the wife has a terrible car accident and is paralyzed from the neck down. The husband is penalized by association and of course their physical sex life abruptly comes to an end. Does the husband go looking for physical sex elsewhere? Will he sell out for the truffles? After all it’s just sex …. nothing to do with God and after all 100 years tops and then pushing up daisy’s. The true wife would want pleasure for her husband even if it hurt, the true husband would want his wife more than his pleasure…. you can see the walk to the cross for that joy set before Him.

The first Adam lived from the outside in ( A living soul.) The second Adam lives from the inside out, ( A life giving Spirit. ) That is why Jesus said, “Behold I knock on the door, if anyone hears me and opens the door and lets me in, I will sup with them and they with me.

That’s actually a really good analogy, Richard. Thanks!

One might see a loss of romantic experience as being unfair like a loss of running experience being unfair to one being in a wheelchair.

Both being heart breaking to each but the fact is ….there are those in wheelchairs that are “running” better than some with two stury legs. There are those without romantic partners who have an ongoing romance with reality that would put many romantics to shame. There are some in prisons that are in greater freedom than many who are not in those type of prisons.

Now non of this might ring true to some, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t seen this.

Some being can not be expressed using externals that would fortify a core value as being Life since Life is a person and as being the peace that, passes all understanding.

I always like to see the Truth expressed as a desire to Oneself in whom everything consists in the upmost sufficiency it is very dificult if not impossible to give something one does not have.

As my being a GED certificate owner, Jesus had to come down to my level of understanding the homosexual outcome of the participation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ( Death); and He gave me a living answer, that is to say… He is Life to me.

So that I could understand, He brought into my mind over the years the example of the Positive and the negative and expressed to me the domination of the positive as being male since the male can father many, many more children than the female can bear. ( Vine and branch, bride and groom, etc.) Now I use the term male as strickly enforcing the dominion of the Positive as the cornerstone and enabling me to go on further in my sufficient and welcomed God-given insight which I’m sure is only the tip of the iceberg.

Man, in his self proclaimed crowning as being the all wise one, made himself a positive (truth) to God’s Positive (Truth) and therefore unable to experience nor express the delight of the intimacy of the Bride and Groom most of us know as a given… two males or two females in their greatest accomplishment of complete physical and emotional intimacy can not, I again say not, produce life out of that intimacy, That intimacy can desire to sustain life in many ways but its only hope to survive is to prop itself up by climbing or wrapping itself around a proven given, or that is to say, it realizes it needs the air that there is to blow up that balloon.

I believe God uses the temporal to reveal, through His eyes, the fact of the fallen world which He came to save us from and gave us His Life for the present moment of eternity. My loss of hair and a few teeth describe death to me and the futility of making them my chief concern. Physical ailments of any degree, anywhere, speak to me of improper relationship in in that physical body. Mental ailments of any degree anywhere speak to me of improper relationship in balances there, and spiritual ailments speak to me of non relationship. Not to as who sinned first but that the Glory of God may be revealed.

So in ending, the fall of mankind didn’t create man or woman but a servitude to death.

But you are saying that God has told certain people that they may never have a romantic relationship without it being a sin. That’s where I’m baffled.

Yes, we’re born sinners and do what sinners do: we sin. And that’s miserable, regardless of your particular poison.

But Jesus Christ is the propitiation, the replacement, the atonement for our sin, giving us a way to avoid the pressure and power of God’s Wrath (Romans 3:25). But that grace doesn’t just save us from hell, it also give us a great new life (Romans 5:1-5, Romans 6, Ephesians 2:1-10) of being lead by the Holy Spirit of God (Romans and valuing things as God does (I Corinthians 2:9-16).

The same goes for any activity, attitude or behavior (including homosexuality … it deserves no better or worse treatment). God said it’s wrong therefore, it is sin.

The “nature” argument actually works against you, should you buy into the concept of original sin and sin nature, because being born homosexual would, essentially, be no different than every other human being on the planet. We’re all born with the nature and desire to sin (that is, to do things God said not to and ignore things God said to do), see Ephesians 2:1-3 and Romans 5:12-18. We’re all (not just a particular class) denied ultimate liberty (the ability to fulfill our purpose for existing), eternal life and all the gifts of the Creator because of this in-born sin passed down from father Adam.

The issue isn’t consent. Your point was that it is unreasonable for God to forbid someone a relationship who is only attracted to a specific gender/age. It seems that you think such a thing is reasonable sometimes, just not in the case of homosexuality. It was my point that it is perfectly reasonable for God to give us desires that He expects us to deny.

“It doesn’t seem fair to me for God to make a person attracted only to children; but it certainly isn’t unfair for society to deny such people relationships with children.”

The issue isn’t about society denying the indulgence, it’s about self-deprivation because of our desire to be obedient to God.

“The point is that an entire class of people are denied one of the most important parts of life because of a mere circumstance of birth.”

Your assumption that the larger the group of people who have the forbidden desire, the more unreasonable the prohibition, doesn’t really mean a whole lot. For instance, we’ve all had the desire to lie, but God says not to. If there was ever a big group of people being denied a natural impulse, this is it! But just because the group vulnerable to the sin is large, doesn’t mean the prohibition of the activity is unreasonable.

“Or does a person who God ‘calls’ to the priesthood absolutely have to comply, or be considered a sinner?”

Well, since I’m a protestant, I’m not talking about priests. I’m talking about people who have been specifically called to singlehood (like the Apostle Paul was). Yes, if God calls you to do something, and you do it not, it is considered a sin.

Yep.

“That would make it a bit different, but one could also ask why God would allow a heterosexual man to be called to a life of celibacy and yet still give him the desire for both a sexual and emotional relationship.”

A person may feel called to the priesthood, which would deny them romantic relationships, but… do priests *choose* to serve God? My understanding was that they do, but perhaps I’m wrong. If they choose not to become a priest, they have the ability to become involved in romantic relationships just like everyone else. Or does a person who God ‘calls’ to the priesthood absolutely have to comply, or be considered a sinner?

“What about the man who simply cannot fall in love with adults? He is essentially denied a romantic relationship, since he could never have a romantic relationship with anyone but children (extreme, yes, but analogous).”

Hmm, I think *most* pedophiles can also be attracted to adults, but for the sake of argument I’ll concede there are some who can’t. The difference here is that sexual relations with children are by definition nonconsensual, because very few children could have the maturity level to comprehend what they are being asked to do, and in virtually all pedophilic encounters there is at least some level of coercion on the part of the adult. No such issue exists with gays; both parties are consenting adults. It doesn’t seem fair to me for God to make a person attracted only to children; but it certainly isn’t unfair for society to deny such people relationships with children.

“Sometimes we are born with desires we are not permitted to fulfill. It’s not just the homosexual given the burden. It happens quite often.”

But the point here isn’t the desire. Of course we all have desires that we shouldn’t indulge, and not just because they’re prohibited by religion. We all have desires that even I agree should not be acted on. The point is that an entire class of people are denied one of the most important parts of life because of a mere circumstance of birth.

Assuming that homosexuality is nature, and not nurture (there is evidence that indicates one or both, depending on the test subjects), and assuming that God directly intervenes in the genetic makeup of every human ever born, it would seem cruel for him to demand that they spend a lifetime rejecting their natural sexual and emotional desires.

However, many of us are born with higher inclinations for alcohol, sex, etc., but that just means that our battle may be different than the next guy.

You may say that the subject of homosexuality is different since it denies more than just carnal desires, but our desire to love in a romantic relationship (since it would be difficult, if not impossible, to truly romantically love a member of the opposite sex). That would make it a bit different, but one could also ask why God would allow a heterosexual man to be called to a life of celibacy and yet still give him the desire for both a sexual and emotional relationship. (the apostle Paul, for example) Doesn’t that seem unfair too? What about the man who simply cannot fall in love with adults? He is essentially denied a romantic relationship, since he could never have a romantic relationship with anyone but children (extreme, yes, but analogous).

Sometimes we are born with desires we are not permitted to fulfill. It’s not just the homosexual given the burden. It happens quite often.