Hi Robert-I,

Thank you for the thoughtful, reasoned response. I think I understand what you're saying. But, to be honest, I often find your writing to be a bit over my head. I'm not an academic; I'm a fairly simple guy, and I think in simple (but hopefully logical) terms. Let that be a brief disclaimer.

OK, from reading your post (and the quote below), I get the impression that you believe that zoosexual relationships are NOT approved by God. Do I understand that correctly?

My interpretation of scripture is that God is not pleased with this transformation of consecrated loving potential to temporary exploitative usage. ...
Certainly in the case where animals are just being used as surrogates, you can rule out these liaisons as holy.

As you know, I believe that homosexual relationships are NOT approved by God; neither are zoosexual ones. [At least on the latter, we seem to be in agreement.] I see the issue in fairly simple terms: Heterosexuality is the "norm". God obviously designed for men and women to be attracted to each other and to procreate. Now, as we know, there are exceptions to the rule: some are attracted to others of the same sex, others are attracted to animals, there are many different variations. The question is, are the alternative sexual identities (and practices) acceptable or not?

It seems to me that you take a very low-level, "targeted" approach to making this decision. You look at a particular sexual identity, and even a particular set of relational circumstances, and you ask the question, "Is this acceptable to God?" On the one hand, you have come to believe that "loving homosexual relationships" ARE acceptable to God. But on the other hand, you believe that "loving zoosexual relationships" (limited as that term may be) are NOT acceptable. [I know you have reasons for making this distinction; I'm not discounting them, I'm just stating the "bottom line".]

I think of it differently: I look at the "big picture". First I consider what all sexual orientations have in common. Then, I break them into two categories: "the heterosexual norm", and the "the alternatives".

First of all, what do all sexual orientations (hetero, homo, pedo, zoo) have in common?

- Sexual orientation is NOT a choice! I think we're probably all in agreement on this. [I certainly did not choose to be sexually attracted to boys.]

- All sexual orientations have fundamentally similar genetic or developmental origins. Obviously there are differences, otherwise we'd all have the same orientation; I'm just saying that, fundamentally, at the highest level, sexual orientation is formed in a similar way for all people.

OK, let's consider "the heterosexual norm" (excluding extremes such as sadomasochism):

- Heterosexuality is obviously necessary for the continuation of the human race, as it is the only means of procreation.

- Heterosexual relationships (particularly in the context of marriage) have clear Biblical support.

Let's consider the "alternatives". In this category I'd include homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, sadomasochism, etc.:

- On the whole, alternative sexual orientations do NOT allow for procreation. [If one considers sadomasochism an "orientation", this might be an exception, but few would consider it healthy, Godly, or normal.]

- No alternative sexual orientation has clear Biblical support. [This can be argued, of course, but if there IS Biblical support, it's debatable at best.]

- Some alternative sexual practices are clearly detestable (to any reasonable human being). For the sake of argument, I won't include homosexuality; but what about the extreme cases?: sex with animals, adults having sex with infants and toddlers, sex with the dead, sex involving physical violence. Without trying to be specific and say, "is it loving? is it monogamous?", at a high level, the fact remains that some alternative sexual practices simply are NOT acceptable, and can not be considered Godly by any decent human being. [My personal belief is that ALL alternative sexual practices are unacceptable, but I know not everyone agrees with this; still, the extreme cases should provide common ground for all of us.]

As I see it, these broad categories provide for a reasonable, logical grouping. Now few would argue AGAINST the heterosexual norm -- that should be a given. But what about the alternatives? It makes sense to me that all alternatives should be grouped as one, and should be accepted or rejected as one (rather than trying to justify why one or other subtle variation is OK). On that basis, and given the reasons listed above, it makes sense to me that all these alternative sexual orientations/practices should be rejected as "NOT approved by God".

I don't know if I have done a decent job of explaining my position. I tried, but I doubt I'll be changing your mind any time soon. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree. Still, I hope the above makes some sense. If I have misrepresented anything, or have confused any of my terminology, I apologize (and ask for grace). [I'll put it down to tiredness.]

Blessings,
Rainboy