So, based upon my first post in this series, our “sexuality chart” might look something like this, with a different chart for each person:
(If this chart doesn’t make sense to you, you may want to go back and read that first post.) In that first post, I divided off “same-sex-attraction” from “opposite-sex-attraction” and then further subdivided by context/time/development, individual persons, and attractive qualities. I ended up with a rather complex (and perhaps confusing) view of human sexuality. In this post, I will discuss some possible implications of the theory proposed in my first post on how we (and especially Christians) can view “homosexuality.” In my first post, I divided off “same-sex-attraction” from “opposite-sex-attraction” and proposed that “opposite-sex-attraction” is a natural quality that may or may not be realized in every human being. In some people, it is a potentiality that has not been realized. This is not meant to imply that the absence of opposite-sex-attraction is purely genetic, psychological, spiritual, etc. It may result from one of these causes, a combination, or an entirely different cause, but I am not here primarily concerned here with the origin of opposite-sex-attraction or its absence.
Here, I would like to present a proposition…
The rest of this post can be found in my book, “I Desired You: An Intellectual Journal on Faith and Sexuality.” You can order a copy here.