Passion, Priorities, and Behavior are a Choice

Consensual sexual behavior is a choice, ALWAYS.  Mind you, I said "consensual."  This does not include rape or abuse . . .   To give consent is to agree to participate, therefore; a choice.  For the past several years, the claim of the LGBT . . . is that a person is born gay and has no choice.  Now, Kevin Spacey  has "come out" and says otherwise.  'I choose now to live as a gay man':
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5030547/Kevin-Spacey-come-sout-gay-years-rumor-control.html#ixzz4xHdXLUzc Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The fact of the matter for all of us, is, we choose the actions we take, and consensual sex is based upon a choice to act.

As a less than passionate person when it comes to sex, I've given some thought to not only my feelings, but done my best to look at sexuality from a Scriptural perspective.  It is possible, however; to simply "not burn with passion" as the Apostle Paul indicated.  Although long term abstinence in marriage is not G-d's plan for a man and woman, if it is mutual, the legal marriage/partnership can be maintained . . . for years.  As it turns out, we humans really haven't changed much.  For some of us, passion is not expressed sexually, and it's really work to try to do so.

Although Ezekiel 16:49 gives specific reasons as to why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, Genesis indicates there was an open, brazen immorality in those cities as well.  I found it interesting that Lot had two daughters and two sons-in-law, indicating marriage, but he told the townsmen, his daughters had never been with a man.  I've heard an explanation, claiming to understand the custom of that day and the term marriage was really more like "engaged," but the consummation of Isaac and Rebekah's marriage in Genesis 24, pretty much disproves that theory.  I've also heard the theory that Lot had more than the two daughters mentioned, but Scripture doesn't confirm that.  My theory is a bit simpler.  Since the sons-in-law elected to not leave with Lot and family, it sounds like they preferred the men of Sodom . . .

As mentioned earlier, not all of us are sexually passionate.  Before this sexual agenda of our modern day, I truly believe there were what used to be called, spinsters, and "confirmed bachelors."   I don't believe all those single women and men were gay, they just had different priorities.  On the other hand, some of them might very well have preferred the same sex, but it certainly was not openly declared as their "identity."  Sadly, I believe many young people are being influenced to identify as gay, when they are simply not "burning with passion" for the opposite sex.  Now that it is being introduced at such a young age, we need to remember, there is a natural phase of childhood in which boys do not like girls and vice versa!  That doesn't mean all the second graders are gay!  The Apostle Paul was a man with a mission and that was his passion.  Paul also mentions in the last days, humans will be "lovers of self;" while "love" has sadly been mistranslated and redefined in an overtly sexualized society.

 I believe King Solomon has been misunderstood through the years.  The man had 700 wives and 300 concubines and his comments about women were not all that positive . . . I'm guessing many of his marriages were political in nature, and we are told that he built a separate palace for one of his first wives.  So rather than think he was always chasing women, I'm thinking he couldn't find a woman to suit him.  We know he was poetic, years later remembered for his "clothing of splendor," and there are a couple of indications he was a mama's boy.   Am I stereotyping?  Perhaps . . .

In a recent discussion, I was asked if I thought Solomon was gay.  First, we do know that he had great regard for Torah, the law of G-d, so no; I do not believe he participated in sexual sin.  I then went on to say, in reading Ecclesiastes, I'd say he had some issues, but he had a respect of Torah and was far too wise to limit himself to be defined by his sexuality.  He was a man and knew he was a man with a very powerful position in life.  He had more on his mind than his own body!  Back before all this "free time" folks didn't have so much time to ponder their feelings and question their bodies . . . It's not so long ago that men were recognized for their careers and professions.

My mother was greatly concerned that I was not feminine enough, so she insisted that I participate in things that really didn't interest me, for example; piano lessons.  I also learned to sew and although I don't really care for sewing, none of the feminine endeavors hurt me a bit . . . I'm just not terribly talented in some of these areas.  I truly appreciate that I can sew and provide keyboard accompaniment, but also that I've had the opportunity to hunt, fish, do farm work, and run a business, as a woman!  I don't really understand why talents and accomplishments were ever labeled gender specific.  I can't really think of a famous female pianist, and there have been male tailors throughout time.  It's our society that made sexuality such an issue, and now with all the strange additives to food, entirely too much free time, and influence of the agenda; people are choosing confusion.  Meanwhile, what are they actually accomplishing, beyond spreading the confusion?

Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of what I'm saying.  As a man, he was the most diverse athlete in the 1976 Olympics, winning the Decathlon.  I read he's the father of 6 children and has been a motivational speaker.  Now that he's decided to be a woman, what's he done?  Had his picture taken and given interviews about his wardrobe . . .

We are born in the body in which we arrive and except in very rare cases, we have either XX or XY chromosomes.  There is nothing to debate.  Passion, priorities, and behavior are a choice, for each of us.

So G-d created man in His own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created He them.    Torah of Holy Scripture