But the first verse that popped into my mind was, “It is better to marry than to burn in lust.” There are others like it: behaving unseemly toward one’s virgin. (Don’t have the references at hand.)

Clearly, those in circumstances such as those above, would have fully functioning systems *and* the remedy of what to do with them. So, using that logic, I can fully understand where Michael is coming from. Straights have a stated alternative. Curiously, the verses do not state to strive harder for celibacy, i.e. surrender more, etc…

And that I have always wondered about when Paul (and Jesus to some extent) seems to extol celibacy as a better way. The conumdrum for me is why so many ssa or gay Christians who want to embrace celibacy (because of their beliefs) don’t seem to be given the gift of celibacy. I have had some folks tell me there is no such thing as a “gift of celibacy” but to me it seems that Paul must have had it to some substantial degree — at least I infer that — and I am not the only one who sees that in his writings.

AM, I like your style!

These passages have been very important in helping me see how badly the church has mangled scriptural teaching about marriage and sexuality. I cannot see that Paul in these passages is saying that marriage is about procreation–in his comments here and in his comments about widows remarrying, he is clearly saying that marriage is an acceptable means for people to release their sexual urges. (He doesn’t tell widows that it’s okay for them to remarry–he DEMANDS they remarry, even if they’re clearly past menopause, on account of their sexual desires.) Marriage maybe a poor second-place option to chastity, but that’s all it is–certainly not the foundation of civilization!

So, yah, gays and lesbians either get left out in the cold or (as I believe) should be given the option of marriage.

I also agree with you about the gift of celibacy. Martin Luther pointed out that the calling to ministry quite plainly did not always come with the calling to celibacy; it was only the church who made that extra burden on the monks and priests. Again, the lack of understanding on this issue has left gays and lesbians out in the cold. It is unreasonable and (I believe) legalistic to demand they remain chaste.

As I said, I was trying to figure out what, if any, kind of sexual behavior might be morally OK for the SSA-only male, like me.

You:

I made no value judgements. I’ve announced that I try not to pronounce them. I have freely stated my bias and yet you continue to request that I also pronounce value judgements. I choose not to go there.

Fair enough, Eddy. I was just asking for your opinion. I respect your decision to avoid value judgements. I won’t push for one. I guess each person will have to work this out between himself and God. We can leave it at that, OK?

That would be similar to me responding to any point you made with ‘so you’re saying that ex-gays are misguided and mistaken’? LOL. That may well be your point but I give you the space to ask your questions, to make your observations, to build your case if that’s what you’re doing without forcing you to announce a conclusion before you decide to.

As I’ve said, I’m exploring. I’m asking questions. The Lord knows ‘wet dreams’ are an infrequent topic of conversation. I made no value judgements. I’ve announced that I try not to pronounce them. I have freely stated my bias and yet you continue to request that I also pronounce value judgements. I choose not to go there. God has convicted you to lighten up on ‘attacks and attitude’; He’s convicted me to lighten up on ‘pronouncing judgement’. Just as your attacks and attitude weren’t conducing to furthering productive converstation, neither is my pronouncing judgement or stating what is or isn’t sin. Always leads to a detour and never furthers the conversation.

You had mentioned wet dreams as one alternative. For me, they are not. I know that gay sex with another person is out. For me, so is heterosexual marriage.

So what’s left? It seems that only masturbation would be — and that it would be desireable, morally, to be able to do this without gay fantasy.

I was not trying to accuse you of coming to a conclusion. I was trying to come to one for myself — something that would still be Biblically OK.

I think we all agree that science ought to be doing more study in the area of ‘the origins of sexual orientation’. Some of us here feel that science has caved in to societal pressure and that they aren’t researching as thoroughly as they could. We believe they have a bias that would likely affect the outcome of their studies.

At this point, science hasn’t yet determined if homosexuality is inborn, genetic, learned or a combination of factors. It’s all still theory. But all of us here feel pretty strongly about our points of view so, in reading, you’d think we were talking facts not opinions. I, for example, hold to what’s been termed a ‘conservative religious’ viewpoint and feel very strongly that while there may be some pre-natal influences that it’s a learned or conditioned behavior. Others are quite adamant that they were ‘born this way’.

Some say that this polarization–both sides feeling so strongly about their views–has impacted the scientific study. But it does go on. Warren, our website host, has a pretty good eye for what’s being done and, if it’s significant and newsworthy, he’ll usually bring it here as a topic for discussion. So, please, keep checking back in and if a topic hits close to your concerns, feel free to join in on the conversation.

I am guessing that English is not your native language. That’s okay. Your involvement would help us to speak more clearly.

Not that it’s anyone’s first choice but we can’t rule out ‘wet dreams’. Some would rather avoid them for fear that the dreams would be more erotic than a controlled fantasy but the element of choice and willfulness is absent. And…as odd as it may seem, God can work through dreams. I’ve known one or two ex-gay men who practiced resisting masturbation and they even wound up having a hetero wet dream or two. Shocked ‘em!!! They hadn’t been aware on a cognitive level that some of their barriers and aversions to heterosexuality had fallen by the wayside.

But it led to this response from you
:

So, no wet dreams — have waited since age 12 or so for that. Am almost 56 now. Can’t satisfy a woman heterosexually in marriage. No gay sex. Masturbation maybe OK sometimes… But complete sexual abstinence would be preferable for the SSA-only male like me. Am I getting this right?

So this doesn’t quite explain what you do:

When I do it, I am usually just trying to sum up what I understand the other person to be saying — to check if I am getting it right. I don’t assume you have an agenda.

I should probably phrase it like — “I think I understand you to be saying “X”…Is that correct?”

So, although I was still discussing…provided a good bit on masturbation (at your request) and thought I’d round out the topic with ‘wet dreams’ as another option we hadn’t discussed…you tried to sum up what you thought I was saying with:

But complete sexual abstinence would be preferable for the SSA-only male like me. Am I getting this right?

Did I speak a word about a ‘conclusion’? How can you be ‘getting this right’–my conclusion on the matter when I haven’t spoken it?

My belief system did shift in a way I never expected. But it certainly does not follow the same logic as yours does.

What logic do you mean? How does our belief system differ? Do you mean BIblically?

I guess statements similar to “So you’re saying thus and such” really get under my skin.

When I do it, I am usually just trying to sum up what I understand the other person to be saying — to check if I am getting it right. I don’t assume you have an agenda.

I should probably phrase it like — “I think I understand you to be saying “X”…Is that correct?”