So, and to continue currently, we alter the plumbing to suit the orientation. And that often requires major surgery and large medical bills. The other choice is to implant a couple of electrodes in the improperly firing sex centres in the basal ganglia and with tiny imperceptible electric current, burn out the sexually inappropriate sex centres. Given around a year or so of expected confusion, the sexual orientation ought to become normal for the sexual plumbing. And the procedure could be done in a few minutes in a day clinic, with far less expense.

It would need to be by choice as the respondents would feel their, [normal for them,] different sexual responses were to be changed.

It is thought these abnormalities are the result of female hormone loads at the time of conception/pregnancy and the stress load on the mother. It could also have a genetic component and passed on by the female line?

Simply put, not everything penned in the bible by mere men, ain't necessarily so! Some of those writers if alive today, would be medicated or even institutionalized.

I mean, hearing voices coming out of thin air is very disconcerting, but even more so when you understand, what they're saying!
Alan B.

Alan B

The vast difference between your view and mine is; you speak “to” madness, whereas I speak “ of” it!

Dan

Alan B,
Are you justifying adult male sex with boys because there is a natural attraction

Hi ttnb

Your question about whether people take the Bible into account when forming a view on same-sex marriage is an interesting one. Many people who consider themselves Christian do indeed take the bible into account when forming a view on this, but there are different ways of approaching the Bible and interpreting it, and that can lead sincere and thoughtful Christians to reach opposite conclusions.

There are seven texts in the Bible that may condemn homosexuality: Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 9:1-13; Judges 19:16-13), the Holiness code (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), and three sections of the Pauline epistles (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-11).

I think the differences of interpretation of the “seven texts” rest on three broad questions:

Does the activity described refer to homosexual acts and homosexual relationships as we understand them today?

If it does, Does the condemnation reflect social taboos relevant only to their time and culture, or are they permanent and enduring commands; and

Do these reflect a broader biblical view of proper sexual conduct?

All of these questions are debated by theologians and Bible scholars as well as in the churches more broadly.

My own view is that homosexuality is understood and experienced very differently nowadays from in Biblical times; that these texts reflect social prejudices of their time and do not have enduring authority (the Holiness Codes also condemn tattoos and wearing clothing made of more than one material, for example, but we can safely say these are not binding on modern Christians). I also think the broader message of love and inclusion that we find throughout the Bible is a more important guide when we grapple with modern social issues than reproducing the particular social conditions and values prevailing 2,000-3,000 years ago.

And, as Ray points out, Jesus apparently had precisely nothing to say about homosexuality. But he had lots to say about religious authorities that exploit and tyrannise the people they are supposed to care for.