On the other hand, calling Christ a “normal heterosexual” is a bit of a loaded statement because frankly abnormality is the new norm nowadays and it’s hard to find even a truly “normal” heterosexual.
Monks commit themselves to a life of chastity, following Christ. Are they considered asexual? I don’t think that’s the right term. Rather, I’d say that they sublimate their sexual energies towards a higher kind of love—divine eros. The “sexual life” of the monk is thus not something below nature (asexuality) or according to nature (physical eros) but above nature (divine eros). Whatever desires that Christ allowed Himself to feel He transformed and deified. The love that Christ has for His bride, the Church can be called a divine eros.
Wow. Nobody is saying that sexuality is sinful? It seems pretty clear from the previous posts that to look upon another with longing is apparently the definition of lust. In fact, the impression I am getting is that having sexual desire in any form equates to lust.
It seems pretty clear that what is being communicated -- that sexuality is a "lower" function, one according to an animal nature, lower than angels, and according to the flesh. We all know the scriptural implications of such a view... "they worshipped the creature rather than the creator" and "living according to the flesh." While going the full nine yards and calling it sinful was not attempted, the ball is at inches and goal.
I find it really interesting that immediately a change of direction was taken to look at monks and "asexuality" when we all are more than very aware that monastics have rigorous discipline to overcome sexual temptation. Why would it not have been more appropriate to instead transition over to the spinster who avoids marriage because of neurotic tendencies instilled through the shame poured out by a sick society regarding her own sexuality? After all, that discussion was taken onto other public forums such as Facebook to claim that I was "basically attacking single mothers"?
The reality is according to the scriptures, the fathers as a whole, and the liturgical works, the marriage bed is undefiled. And I mean the marriage bed here on Earth, not among the Angels. And the marriage between one man and one woman is the icon of Christ and His Church. One where at every liturgy, we physically receive Christ inside ourselves. Neither is an animalistic act -- it is designed, implemented, and blessed by God for human beings. The relation of husband and wife and that of mother and child are the most fundamental relationships we have. Trampling on those is unacceptable.
Even if this were to be lain parallel with St. Paul's discussion regarding meat sacrificed to idols, it would follow that for those to whom sex is defiled, to them it is defiled. To those of whom sex is not defiled, it is not defiled. It is a sin to cause either to stumble for whom Christ died. So, again, as Protodeacon Patrick stated: Don't go there!
As for those temptations/passions which Christ endured, there is no evidence that He did not experience sexual feelings or longings. Just like his Anger and overturning the money changers was not sinful, nor his hunger and being tempted by Satan to turn stones to bread, these things weren't sinful because he controlled his thoughts and actions. I just don't see what the problem is... still!