I posted this in a comment thread in YouTube the other day, under this video, as I was replying to a former 'ex-gay':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxlI9lm-tS0

If there is anything incorrect, please let me know so I can edit it. Do note this is just the tip of my beliefs as to why I believe the LGBTQIA is inherently not sinful. The arguments are also very broad, and aren't fully in detail as YouTube hates me so yeah.

A/N: Edits are for grammar fixes and extra notes.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

COMMENT:

Whilst I understand the point you are getting across, and your perspective (I used to hold such conservative values), as well as your analogy, to simply put being queer as:

"giving up kissing women (or whatever sex one may be..)"

is arguably ignorant and egregious, and it shows how much not only you categorise and undermine the LGBTQ community, but it shows how much you undermine your own sexuality, sexual fluidity, masculinity and femininity and etc... A kitchen is simple. It is bland and generic. Sexuality and gender is not. And NO, gender is NOT binary, because *hello*.. intersex people. (Seek response B)

I will explain the tip of the iceberg as to why I believe otherwise. (There are four parts, A, B, C, D. I suggest you read them all for a full understanding of my perspective.)

- You state that due to repetitious insistence on male and female marriage being joined in marriage as a gift from god, homosexual relations/marriages are not:

A) This requires historical context. The only reason hetero marriage was referenced was because it was literally the only option. There was no such thing as homosexuality, and the word 'homosexuality' was a mistranslation from 1946.

The only HINTS of same sex relations were prostitution and pederasty by a dominant figure and a submissive figure of the same gender. (SEEK PART C.) (which we can both agree are immoral, a sin and pederasty as abuse, but was heavily normalised during that era of time.) There is absolutely no reference to queer, stable relations being sinful whatsoever. 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10 are often mistranslated to homosexuality, when really, arsenokoitai (the word that is translated to homosexuality), as stated before, is a mistranslation and more accurately goes along the lines of rape and/or assault.

We can see this in John the Faster's (a saint of Constantinople), Penitential:

>QUOTE: “One must also ask about the perplexing, beguiling , and shadowy sin of incest, of which there are not just one or two varieties but a great many very different ones. One type is committed with two sisters of the same father or mother (or both). Another involves a cousin; another the daughter of a cousin; another the wife of one's son; another the wife of one's brother. It is one thing with a mother-in-law or the sister of a mother-in-law, another with a stepmother or a father's concubine. Some even do it with their own mothers, and others with foster sisters or goddaughters. In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives. [

>Note from article: Boswell argues against "arsenokoitia" meaning "homosexuality". It must mean, he argues, "anal sex". The Latin translation in PG, insisting that it means "homosexual sex with other men", ends up translating the text "Many men even commit the sin of sleeping with men with their own wives"!] ”

(Note from me: I don't agree with John Boswell with everything, he often exaggerates his findings regarding homosexuality in ancient Christianity, but I do agree with this analysis to some exten, however I believe the definition borders more so incest and assault as stated before..)

LINK OF PENITENTIAL: https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/pwh/johnnest.asp

B) This statement also implies that marriage is only for the sake of reproduction. Firstly, that is entirely contradictory to Josephite marriages then, (a practice where a man and woman marry and live together without engaging in sexual activity), infertile couples and *intersex people*. (as referenced before)

*There are around 30-40 differing types of intersex people, but I will be specifically looking at Swyer Syndrome, Chimerism and Mosaicism. Do note that this is just a broad and generic explanation of these intersex types for the sake of me being able to explain this easily* (DSD & PMDS is also vaguely mentioned.)

A little elaboration on what that is:

Swyer syndrome, or 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis, is a rare genetic disorder of sex development. People with this condition have male (XY) chromosomes but look and identify as female. They possess a functional vulva, vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes, but lack functioning ovaries, meaning they require medical care to go through puberty…

But Caelum, If one’s appearance/one’s outward gender should match their gender of birth, then where does that leave one with Swyer syndrome????

A person with Swyer Syndrome, grow up, live, and identify as women.

This creates an impossible contradiction for your worldview:

Viewing her chromosomes: You have to call her a man. If she marries a man, you must call it a 'same-sex marriage' and demand a divorce. This is absurd because they look like a traditional husband and wife.

Appearance: You allow the marriage. But the moment you do, you admit that chromosomes do not determine gender identity.

Furthermore, because she lacks ovaries, she is naturally infertile. Yet, no conservative church would ever deny her a marriage or demand a divorce due to infertility, just as they wouldn't for any infertile heterosexual couple.

To elaborate even further, conditions involving chimerism or mosaicism (where a person’s body contains a mix of both XX and XY cells).

There are documented cases of people with these conditions who have an externally male appearance (they live and identify as men) but possess a functioning uterus inside. Through modern medicine, these individuals have actually become pregnant and given birth to children.

By appearance: You have a pregnant man.

By chromosomes: Their body is a mix of both male and female genetic profiles.

In the womb, two distinct fertilised embryos (one male, one female) fuse together into one single baby.

They grow up with an outward male body, lives as a man, and has a male gender identity.

However, due to the absorbed female cells, he has a hidden, functional uterus and ovarian tissue internally. (this can also be the case in those with an overlap of PMDS and DSD, other intersex conditions.)

If this man partners with a cisgender man, they can physically conceive and carry a child together. (Oh no!! the possibility of same sex pregnancy!!! so scary!!!)

If they partner with a cisgender woman, they look like a same-sex lesbian couple to your rules. If they partner with a cisgender man, they look like a gay couple. But reproduction is happening either way.

Anyways… what I’m trying to say, is that "reproduction is only between a standard man and a woman, therefore only hetero marriage is valid" is INVALID, as intersex people exist, and intersex is a variety, meaning some people can only reproduce with those of differing chromosones, even if they both share the same outward gender in appearance. (Whether that be male or female). This proves that gender and sexuality are neither binary.

And yes, early Christian historical figures have acknowledged such a state of being* (Seek Response C) , and not to mention, Adam was literally intersex before God separated him to make Eve (It’s written in the Torah.):

>QUOTE: “Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When the Holy One blessed be He created Adam the first man, He created him androgynous. That is what is written: “He created them male and female” (Genesis 5:2)”

LINK: https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit_Rabbah.8.1?lang=bi

(you can find more info on this on reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/r1j0sf/what_does_deuteronomy_225_mean/ )

C) An example of an early Christian acknowledging this:

Justin Martryr – (a literal Church Father btw):

>QUOTE: “[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites [aka intersex people], and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. . . . And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).”

Now, you may be thinking:

“Caelum this clearly is against homosexuality as it references sodomy –“

It isn’t, and to say that this piece is against homosexuality is saccharine and intrinsically arrogant/contradictory to the alleged study of something using Christian analysis.

Justin Martyr is addressing prostitution and pederasty, as well as the hyper sexualisation of women and intersex people. They all fall under sodomy. I also want to use this statement to state my fourth point.

D) The only reason as to why the LGBTQ community exists is due to the constant and literal millennium of discrimination fired towards those who have a fluid gender orientation and/or sexuality.

The LGBTQ community is a community. And it is supposed to be a support for those who have been hurt and wounded by society, or even the church at times. Your statement is saying it is a choice, and it simply isn’t, whether that be sexuality wise, or gender wise.

And not everything in the community is sexual. I am attracted to males, as a man myself, and I personally am repulsed by sex (no, not because of ‘religious obligation,’ that’s just how I am. I lack interest in sex. I am a bi asexual.) And like how I can’t develop feelings for me to wish to have sex, it’s the same as how gay people can’t ever fully stop being gay, as you said:

>“you can definitely be a Christian and still struggle with some same sex attraction.”

Is it really a struggle with same sex attraction, or is it a rejection of oneself to fit the norms of a conservative and warped tradition that hasn’t developed in its understanding regarding queer people since the first A.D?

>“…temptation to sin (no matter what the sin is) will never go away, but us as christians are told to deny our flesh and pick up our cross daily”

I agree. But at the end of the day, the LGTBQ community is.. a community. It isn’t inherently bad, being in it, but idolising it is. I do not agree with majority of people that are interviewed within the video, never had, and never will, but the main problem isn’t if whether your gay, or in a queer community. It’s whether you put it over God. Just like how one can do with other community. Like a community that challenges one’s intellect, that could resort to one being obsessive with their intellect to a negative extent. (A good example of this is the movie Rope, 1948.)

That does not mean however, that having intellect is a bad thing. Hypothetically then, as an example: I am smart, that therefore makes me a Christian who just so happens to be smart. That is the same as me being bi. I am bi. That therefore just so happens to make me a Christian who just so happens to be bi. But that doesn’t change nothing. I am a Christian first, whether smart or bi.

But the only reason as to why majority of queer people put it over God is because of…

1:

Blatant homophobia and discrimination (Both historically and currently, as shown in linked video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_F9gNxpohE - Specifically, the timestamp 32:48.)

2:

Because of this blatant prejudice, this often leads to queer Christians (as shown in the video linked), to have a weak doctrine and dogma. However, this isn’t their fault, rather moreso it is the fault of the 3 doctrines (orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, but mainly the last two) and their history regarding dealing with gay people. Such prejudice has often lead to religious lives collapsing entirely and forcing one to resort into private adultery due to social events and a lack of understanding given to them. A good example of this is in Fellow Travelers, and the character - Tim/Skippy Laughlin, as well as Clive from Maurice 1987.

>1 Corinthians 7:36:

>”If his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.”

But until full understanding on both sides, both sides are both gonna be harmed by such a rift.

I used to be like you; I love you and see you and I understand you. But you don’t have to supress yourself to develop a close, loving relationship with God.

You are a Christian first yes. But you can also be a Christian who just so happened to be gay. Like how one can be a Christian that just so happened to be straight. There is no superior sexuality.