Hi CSL,

Sorry for the delay in responding. It has been a busy week.

Rainboy (I love your nick!),

Thanks :-) For what it's worth, until you explained your nick a while back, I thought your real name was Clive. I even though, "Wow, he's brave to spell out his name in full on this board". Guess I need to brush up on my knowledge of CS Lewis.

I do not believe that zoophilia is acceptable because equality in the relationship is purely impossible. There are many supporting arguments, but this one is central, and self-complete.

I do not believe that homosexuality is acceptable because two men can't procreate. There are many supporting arguments, but this one is central, and self-complete.

Sorry, I'm being sarcastic (and I'm half joking). I guess what I'm trying to say is, it doesn't really seem like a slam-dunk argument to me (and hardly self-complete). Who's to say that equality is necessary for a loving, Godly relationship? I know this is a very different situation, but what about a married couple where one spouse is in a coma for years, and the other spouse lovingly takes care of his or her needs day in and day out. No one would call that any less significant a marriage because one spouse is not mentally able to respond to the other. Again, it's a very different situation, but the point is, just because there is no equality doesn't necessarily mean a relationship is not good or pleasing to God. Is there anything in the Bible that says there must be equality in relationships?

I arrive at this and most of my beliefs and logical conclusions by observing that God speaks God's will to us through 4 paths:
**The Bible, the Word of God in text.
**The Law of Love, the basis of the Bible's two Testaments
**The Laws of Nature, the patterns into which God has formed our reality
**The Guidence of the Holy Spirit, the direct Revelation God gives to all Christians in our hearts, extracted by careful meditation, prayer and discernment.

I see what you're saying, and I tend to agree with this in principal, however, I don't see how these 4 paths provide a clear defense for homosexuality, and yet simultaneously provide an argument against zoophilia (or possibly other alternative identities).

** The Bible: I don't really want to open a can of worms here, because I can't argue much in this department, but from what I've seen so far of the Biblical defense of homosexuality (excluding the love aspect, which is under a separate point, so I won't include it here), the Biblical evidence in support seems pretty shaky. There is at least as much content that is (seemingly) negative towards homosexuality as to cancel out any possible "support" in this department.

** The Law of Love: This, I grant you, can be seen as a defense of homosexuality. However, zoophiles can use it just as easily to support their beliefs.

** The Laws of Nature: Zoophiles clearly loose in this argument. But what about homosexuality? I hesitate to bring this up, but (unprotected) gay sex, by nature, presents more of a health risk than (unprotected) heterosexual sex. Many would argue that it goes against the "laws of nature".

** Guidance/Revelation: This one is all up to personal interpretation and opinion. I can believe God is saying one thing, and you can believe He is saying another, but He is the only one who knows for sure. [I know you're not using this as a defense for your position; you're just stating that it's something you personally use in your decision process. I do the same.]

I'm going to comment on your other post here, too:

As I stated previously, you must prove that all "alternative sexualities" can be lumped together in order for the defeat of one to automatically defeat the others. If you cannot prove that, then each must be treated as a separate entity (or sub-group: zoophilia[dog] is probably the same as zoophilia[horse], though I do argue that pedophila[girl] is different from pedophilia[boy] and both are different from ephebophila, and all are differnt from homosexuality which is different from bisexuality, which are different from transgenderedness- which is not even a sexuality.)

We're looking at this from a fundamentally different point of view. It seems that you are looking at it from the view that the origin of the sexual orientation is irrelevant; it's simply a matter of whether or not the orientation can have a Godly application in real life. [Am I basically right on that?]

On the other hand, I think the origin of the orientation is very significant: We know God designed and created heterosexuality. Few would disagree. But did He design and create the others? [Or are they a warping of his good design for heterosexuality due to us living in a broken, sinful world?] I think we can agree that he DIDN'T design and create zoophilia, right? [Why would He? It clearly goes against all our cherished beliefs about what is right and good in the world.] So, what about homosexuality? Did He design and create that? If we say "yes", that means we believe He designed and created homosexuality, but zoophilia somehow just happened that way, and is an example of sexual brokenness.

I find it really difficult to make such a distinction between the two. In my opinion, it is MUCH more logical to believe that either ALL sexual identities were designed and created by God (in which case zoophilia and necrophilia would be of His design, and blessed by Him), OR, that there is only ONE primary sexuality designed and created by God, and everything else is simply that sexual design "gone wrong" (as a result of living in a broken, sinful world). Based on this view, I don't see why it is necessary to prove that all alternative sexual identities are the same in order to eliminate all as valid options. From my perspective, if my sexual identity is NOT the way God designed and created it to be, then why pursue it? I don't want to encourage and foster brokenness in my life! If His design is heterosexuality, that must be my goal.

Now it seems to me that you would take a more pragmatic view on the issue, but to me it is pretty black and white: always make it my goal to conform to God's design.

I hope that makes sense. Even as I'm typing it out, I'm trying to work out in my mind the best way to say what I believe ... and it's not always easy. Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts. Thanks for being willing to discuss and debate this issue. [I hope nothing I said was too offensive!]

If you want to continue discussing, that's great; but if you want to agree to disagree, that's fine, too. [Eventually we'll start going around in circles (if not already).]

Blessings,
Rainboy