Pete Buttigieg Openly Blames His Sin on God

Romans 1 comes to mind as well...

 

God did not create him gay, but due to the curse, he was most likely born that way. Whether to act on that nature is his responsibility.

 

I guess the words "extremely devout Episcopalian" don't mean much these days, sadly.

 

It's meant that for at least 30 years.

 

While I understand what you meant that people are born in sin but also responsible for their actions, I would steer away from saying a homosexual is "born that way." One, when they say that they definitely mean that it is "in their DNA" and they can't help but be homosexual, act homosexual, live homosexual. Two, that isn't true biblically, and identical twin studies have pretty much debunked it from the scientific angle.

 

The newest studies seem to refute the older studies. Nothing in the Bible refutes my opinion. Have you ever met or counciled with gay men who hate being that way? Have no desire for women? Have had strong same sex attraction since puberty? Have fought the urge and never acted on it, but it is who they are?

 

This guy is a hot mess. He says that Evangelicals should not have voted for Trump for religious reasons.

He also says that he won 80% of the vote in South Bend, a city of 102,000 people. He got 8,515 votes out of just over ten thousand total votes in a longtime Democrat city. How can a vote total of 8,515 make you presidential?

 

Which ones are these? The one I looked at last night (“Sexual Arousal Patterns of Identical Twins with Discordant Sexual Orientations,” by the Department of Psychology at the University of Essex in Colchester, United Kingdom) was published very recently -- October 8, 2018. If I am capable of understanding technical language correctly, they concluded that “Factors other than genetics must account for differences in identical twins’ sexual orientation and arousal...Thus, consistent with the overall conclusion from other research, environmental factors unique to an individual can have a substantial influence on sexual preferences and physiological sexual arousal.”

While this is heart-wrenching, it does not prove that certain persons are born predestined to be homosexual or must have same-sex attractions. It also buys into the popular idea that one’s sexual attraction “is who they are.”

 

These DNA differences may be linked to having same-sex partners


And again, how is my position un-Biblical?

 

I think many of us depraved sinners are drawn to the dark side. I am overweight, thus guilty of gluttony. Sure, I am genetically predisposed in that direction. But as the man said, its not the cards we are dealt, but how we play them that reveals our love of God. Anyone can add, remove or redefine to make God's word to no effect, but such behavior does not reflect a love of God.

 

Thanks for the link. Even the American Psychiatric Association (which seems to have a vested interest in the matter) does not say that the newer studies refute the older studies. They say, rather, that “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”

My original response was to your statement that Pete Buttigieg “was most likely born [gay].” Initially my point was that it is not biblical to say that, because there is no biblical proof – neither that one specific individual was “born gay,” nor that all people who prefer same-sex relationships are “born gay.” If you wish to make a positive biblical case for it, feel free to do so.

Now, I think we may agree that same-sex attraction and homosexuality are related to sin and the curse, and did not exist before then. For the reason of sin and the fall, all people possess the capacity to have same-sex attractions, pedophilia, idolatry, a lying tongue, a murderous heart, an adulterous mind, and so on. We are all born sinners, but that does not translate into an innate nature that a person has predestined for specific sins. Ultimately, the purpose of people like Buttigieg saying they are “born gay” is to create a cloak for their sin, not to agree with any biblical topic. In fact, in the linked article “Buttigieg said his marriage to his husband has not only made him a better person but has also brought him ‘closer to God,’ as well.”

Even if someone could prove that human have an innate “born-in” cause for behavior such as homosexuality, it still would not make the behavior moral. God determines what of our behavior is moral or immoral, and the Bible is the source by which that knowledge is presented to us.

 

The majority of people have the "born in" cause for hetero$exual behavior, BUT it is still wrong to exercise that behavior outside of marriage, SO, regardless of the questionable "born in" desires it is incumbent to the individual to refrain from $ex whether straight or gay outside the approved parameter!

Which brings up the very questionable reason for anyone to flaunt his $exual desires publicly!!

My opinion? Their daddy can't stand being ignored. His ego got him into trouble a very long time ago with The Creator!!

 

Think you said un-Biblical.
I said in my opening post there was no excuse for the sin. Common sense will tell you that there is a genetic factor in homosexuality. Some kids by the time they are 10 everyone knows they are going to be queer. Raised right beside normal straight brothers. Have you ever lived on a farm? If you have you will know about the app 1 in 10 Bulls that swing both ways. They are not exclusive homo, but they would just as soon try to breed a bull as a cow. They don't care. Most bulls are not like that, but about 10% are.

 

LGBTQ Victory Fund National Champagne Brunch.....!?! ohoooooo how gay!

 

I wrote "isn't true biblically" (post # 6), which I suppose isn't much more than a hair's difference from "unbiblical." As I said, feel free to present a positive biblical case for individuals specifically being born homosexual. I suppose that we agree that you and I and Pete Buttigieg are all born sinners, born under the curse, but I wouldn't agree that anyone is born to be a homosexual, a murderer, a thief, a pedophile, and so on.

Here I think we are in agreement, which may mean our differences are in the details and not the main substance.

I suppose my sense isn't that common. By the time kids are 10 years old there is more than plenty of time for nurture, environment, sexual abuse, and all sorts of factors to play into the equation. Further, I suspect that no two kids are raised exactly alike, even in the same home by the same parents.

Have lived on a farm, and still do (though I am not currently raising any livestock). I'm not up on animal psychology, but I doubt it is right to consider animals homosexual in the sense that humans are. I've never seen any animals that are exclusively so, regardless of what behaviour they may engage in. Even then, it doesn't have to be inborn preference, since animals exhibit learned and adaptive behaviour. A dog will hump his master's leg; not sure what kind of sexuality you call that. I once had a chicken that squatted in front of a hog. I don't remember whether the hog was a boar or a sow, but it really doesn't matter. The hog may have appeared to be lovingly caressing her, but had I let the situation fester, I'm fairly certain the hog would have eaten the chicken. The behaviour of domestic and wild animals is intriguing and often entertaining, but no guide for either human behaviour or morality, in my opinion.

 

My point is that my position is not un-Biblical. My position does not contradict scripture. It has to contradict scripture to be "un-Biblical." Scripture is silent on the matter.
Nature and nurture determine human behavior.

 

We can argue over definitions, I suppose (to how much profit I know not), but I believe that the Oxford Dictionary Definition of unbiblical -- "Not found in, authorized by, or based on the Bible" -- can well apply to something on which scripture is silent. If the scripture is silent on this matter, then it is "not found in" neither can it be "based on" the Bible.

 

People like his husband more than him.