Hi Robert-I,

I'm glad you decided to get clarification on this.

One major difference is that "the norm" rhetorically suggests that the socially/morally desirable thing is also the prevalent thing and that anyone deviating anywhere from the mainstream of society is probably going wrong. "Para. vs. kata physin," "against and for nature," as in St. Paul doesn't comment on society at all but instead suggests that behaviours are either harmonious with how God created things or are disharmonious with the creation.

Based on your description, I do NOT subscribe to the former view. [Just because something is "normal" in society does not make it right!] Though I was not specifically thinking of Paul at the time, I guess you could say my view is more along those lines. However, I would tend to describe my view as "Christian, common-sense, observational". I'm a simple guy. I'm not super-brainy. I don't analyze Biblical passages to the N'th degree. The only PHD I have is a "Press Here, Dummy" camera. [There's nothing wrong with being smart, of course; but that's just not me.] I tend to believe that God doesn't expect believers to be geniuses in order to follow His leading and faithfully serve Him. As such, my perspective on this issue is fairly low key. I try to be logical and apply common sense to what I see around me, and I filter it through the lens of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. [I hesitate to bring this up, because I don't want to get us side-tracked off the main issue. Gotta keep focused here :-)]

Maybe it will help to add the following to the discussion. It is taken from my reply to CSL in this same thread (https://www.cblf.org/messages/53424.htm). It's basically my view stated in a slightly different way.

CSL: 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 look forward to your thoughts on this issue.

Blessings,
Rainboy