Gays and Church

Dagobahn Eagle · August 30, 2003

Why don't Christians organize protests and picket seafood restaurants, oyster bars, church barbecue suppers, all grocery stores, barber shops, tattoo parlors, and stores that sell suits and dresses made of mixed wool, cotton, polyester, and other materials? All of these products and services are "abominations" in Leviticus. When have you heard a preacher condemn the demonic abomination of garments that are made of mixed fabrics?

Christians today like to selectively apply their own morals to this section of the Bible. They interpret the section of Leviticus incorrectly and use it to condemn homosexuality because it doesn't suit their personal tastes. I don't see any of them so concerned with the fact that they're not following any of the other guidelines from those passages - you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually lives like that.

So they hate all sins, but pick homosexuality.

They hate all sinners, but pick the homosexuals.

Nicely put, I'll put a star in your book for that one.

-The Eagle

Kurgan · August 30, 2003

You're forgetting the popular Christian motto:

"hate the sin, love the sinner" ; )

ShockV1.89 · August 30, 2003

Tell that one to Reverend Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" campaign. *shudders*

Dagobahn Eagle · August 30, 2003

Stay away from gays until you do... That's exactly what the church is doing, but they're getting crap for it. They're not ACTIVELY hunting down and beating gay people to a pulp.

And your definition of leaving somebody alone is to speak up in favour of striping them of their rights?

So technically, if I shave my head and put on a swastika armband, and walk back and fourth in front of the white house with a huge poster saying blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry and vote, I'm staying out of black peoples' business?

Many churches are actively hunting homosexuals. Many churches do actively try to strip gays of their rights. Many churches do say a lot of bad things about homosexuality, often in gay peoples' faces.

You ought to be honored to know the Church doesn't want you around...

Ask yourself: If suddenly all *insert your national heritage here* weren't allowed to vote and weren't allowed to make use of communal services in your country of residence, how honoured would you be?

"I'm honoured I'm being kicked out of *your homeland here* by the Neo-Nazi regime that just couped the old govt."

Honoured? Yes indeed I am. Nothing honours me more than being prescecuted:rolleyes:.

Thrackan Solo · August 31, 2003

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Tell that one to Reverend Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" campaign. *shudders*

Geez shock, I hope you dont think that all christians are that way...I think that he is a radical and is taking the Bible out of context, just like people take it the other liberal way.

I am a Christian, you probably have figured that out, and i dont hate gays i hate the way they live and dont say"they were born with it" because if they were born with it then there would be more of them. I dont care what they do with there time and what they do in there "sex life" but dont try to form our government around them and there lifestyle.

Dagobahn Eagle · August 31, 2003

Geez shock, I hope you dont think that all christians are that way...I think that he is a radical and is taking the Bible out of context, just like people take it the other liberal way.

Don't worry.

jedispy · August 31, 2003

And the bible? I'll leave you with one quote:

[reverendlovejoy] Have you ever actually sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not allowed to go to the bathroom...[/reverendlovejoy]

Well that is what you get from basing your theology from the Simpsons. I've never read the Gospel according to Matt Groening, but something tells me that it would "fall short of the glory of God."

Warning: this is a very long post.

To start out, I am a Christian. I am not Catholic or Episcopal. I do not hold to any specific denomination of Christianity. I am what I like to call Evangelical. I hold to any and all Christian denominations that exegetically teach the biblical Truth of the Gospel.

Secondly I have a bachelor's degree in Biblical and Theological studies. So you could say that I just happened to know a thing or two about the Bible.

As for the topic of homosexuality, let me continue by saying that I have homosexual friends. What are they? They are my FRIENDS. They are not just co-workers, or someone I bump into once in a while.. They are people that I have a relationship with. I do not hate gay people. Sure I don't agree with their choice of lifestyle, but I can still be their friend anyway. I don't like the Green Bay Packers (I'm a Vikings fan) but I don't hate Packer fans. It would be as stupid for me to hate Packer fans as it would to hate gay people.

"But wait....homosexuals are born that way....right?" No. There is ZERO scientific proof that they are born that way.

I'm glad someone brought up left handedness. I'm left handed. Did I ever choose to become left handed? No. I was born left handed. I can't write well with my right hand at all. I can choose to learn how to write with my right hand, but I will be truly left handed my whole life. My left handed nature is caused by a recessive gene that I got from my parents. There are other people in my family that are left handed. My sister is one of them. She too got the recessive gene. With left-handedness there is actual scientific evidence to show whether or not a person is right handed or left handed. If one person, who is an identical twin, is left handed, then the twin also will be left handed.

If there is a birth defect in one identical twin, it will be in the other. Personality traits in one identical twin will exist in the other. So how about homosexuality? Logically if one twin is homosexual, then the other must be. Ah....this is where genetics does not apply. I actually know of a case. Two friends of mine are identical twin brothers, we'll call them Tom and Bob. Tom is gay, and has had several sexual relationships with other men. Tom claims he was born with his homosexual desires. It if was truly GENETIC, then Bob would be gay too. However, Bob has no attraction toward males. Bob had never had an attraction toward males. Bob is straight, happily married to a gorgeous woman, and is a proud father. He's a straight shooter with not a gay bone in his body. And let me tell you, he'd have a real problem if someone put their gay bone in his body. (BA DUM BUM!!!)

Genetics is all around us. It is in pretty much everything you inherit from your parents. As is the case with genetic cases of diabetes, heart disease, alcholism, alzheimers, and baldness, you would logically be able to look into the family history and find other cases of homosexuality. I've never heard of any cases where someone had homosexuality in their family tree. I have however heard of MANY cases of children that were sexually molested by another family member (male and female). It is to no suprise that they in turn became homosexual. I have one word: TEXTBOOK. Does this mean all gay people were sexually molested as a child? I have never met every single gay person that has existed or does exist, so I don't know the correct answer to that. I would say it is not likely that all were, but I would be curious to see the statistics.

You can't be born as something, and not have it be a genetic case. There is however one thing that is genetic, and yet is not inherited from parents. That is a birth defect. Mental retardation, blindness, irratic heart pulses, dwarfism (midgets and that whole bit), deafness, cystic fibrosis, cleft pallat <sp?>, and any other birth defects you can think of all have one thing in common, they are not good things. Now is homosexuality a birth defect?? Well I do not believe it is, but I have no proof one way or the other. However if it were a birth defect, then would it be a good birth defect? Well....no. The title "good birth defect" is contradictory and self defeating.

Homosexuality is not genetic. There is no gay gene. There is no evidence of a gay gene. (There is better evidence of WMD in Iraq). Biologically, humans were created male and female (the whole Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve argument). This is true whether you believe in God's 6 day creation, or more evolutionary methods. This isn't Star Trek. We do not have 3 genders. We have male and female. The sexual nature of humans is used primarily in the function of procreation, although not entirely. Now if a male got another male pregnant (or female to female) then I would question our current concept of the biological NATURE of humans. However, males do not have the sexual organs that females have (and visa versa). Again, procreation is not the sole purpose of sex. I am 25 and happily married to a fine upstanding Christian woman. I love her with all my heart. I love having sex with her (sorry for the personal info, but I do have a purpose in it.) I love the intimacy we share. It is spiritual, physical, emotional. Sexual love is one of the best ways to show another person that you love them. We do not have any children, and we don't plan on having children any time soon. What does the Bible say about this? Well actually the Bible supports this type of love. The Greek word that is used for this type of love is eros which literally means erotic love. (Keep in mind that this is NOT the same verb used when speaking about homosexual love).

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are gay, because they want to be gay. Does anyone ever truly choose to be gay? I would say so. Many times gay people become gay in their teen years. Let's face it, it is hard to be an adolescent. I was one of those scrawny little uncoordinated boys that was good for one thing, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I was an emotional ball of raging hormones. When I discovered what sexuality is, i pretty much got out of control. I can't recall ever liking boys, but I did question whether or not I liked girls. Does that mean I was gay? No. It means that I was in a period of seeking, and I did not know my own identity, let alone my sexual identity.

Adolescence is the crossroads where sexuality is found. This is where the decisions are made. This is why there is a high number of adolescants that lose their virginity. This is often when teens start masturbating. This is when teens often get addicted to porn. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Gay people are gay simply because they want to be gay. They like being gay. There was a friend of mine recently who admited to me that he is struggling with homosexual temptations. I asked him if he'd ever had any homosexual relationships. He said he did not. He is a Christian, and he knows what the Bible says about the homosexuality and other pornea. I asked him if he wanted me to pray with him, and help him with his struggles. He resolved to tell me "no." I asked him for his reasons, and his response was that he doesn't necessarily want to be hetero. Shocked, I looked at him and said "o.k."

Gay people want to be gay. Let me put it in another way. I have blond hair. I was born with the genes that would cause me to grow blond hair. Now I can choose to dye my hair any color. Let's say I dye my hair blue. Do I now have blue hair genes? Of course not. I was born with the genes that will make me bald (praise God they haven't taken affect yet ). However, I will be bald eventually. I can choose use Rogaine or get hair transplants. However, my genes are what they are. I was born with genes that would make my skin pigmentation white. I can tan as much as I want, but I will always have european genes in my DNA. In this same way people are born as people. People are born with all of the genes that make us people.

Gay people are not born gay. It is not natural for someone to be gay. It is also not natural for people to hate gay people. There is no "gay basher" gene. For a straight man to call a gay man a fag, and pass judgement on him, yet he himself likes to go to strip bars and look at porn, he is a hypocrite. Earlier I used a word called pornea. We've seen this word elsewhere. Pornography is maybe a little more familiar to us all. Pornea is the Greek word for all general sexual sin. Lust, sexual addiction, pornography, prostitution, rape, sexual abuse, incest, bestiality, premarital sex/fornication, adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality all fit under the concept of pornea.

Why do people go to strip clubs? Because they want to. Why did so many Catholic priests sexually molest little boys and girls? Simple. They wanted to. Why is the Porn industry so big today? Simple, people want their porn. Why do a lot of people have sex before marriage? Does someone force them? Does our law require it? No. They have premarital sex because they want to. In terms of the Bible and the moral teachings inside it, these are all sexual sin.

Does this mean that the Bible condemns gay people? The Bible condemns homosexuality, not homosexuals. For those of you that have quoted scripture, keep in mind a few things:

1. Old Testament = Old Covenant. This means that the Old Testament is the foundation for the basis of everything in Christianity. The covenant that God made to Moses exists here. This covenant includes the Law of Moses.

2. New Testament = New Covenant. This is the new Covenant in Christ Jesus. (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, 2 Cor 2:12) This new Covenant replaces the old covenant. This does not mean that the Old Testament is now obsolete. By no means!!

3. The system of Crime and Punishment in the Old Testament has been done away with for the believer in Christ. HOWEVER the moral standards of the Law still apply.

4. The Old Testament system of sin atonement has been replace with the new covenant. Believers no longer need to sacrifice animals. Christ came as that sacrifice of sin atonement, once for all. All sins of the believer, past, present, and future have been forgiven.

5. The old covenant was only for the Jews. If you wanted to have your sins forgiven, you had to become a Jew if you weren't one already. The new covenant has been extended for all people, regardless of enthic background. All people are able to come to salvation.

So as you can see, this is not a matter of an obsolete section of scripture. This is not a matter of contradiction. It is a matter of a total system upgrade. Covenant 2.0

There is not one place where Jesus says he hates gay people. There is not one place where he says we need to hate gay people. Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself. This is the second most important commandment according to Jesus. Well I have gay neighbors. I have gay coworkers. I have gay friends. Jesus compares Himself to a doctor. Jesus said that he didn't come to be with the healthy (those who think they are healthy) but he came for those who are sick. Jesus didn't hate anyone. I can tell you who Jesus did not have a strong like for. He did not greatly like the self-righteous religious hypocrites of his day.

For Christians, we need to check ourselves and ask the cliche of WWJD. It doesn't mean that we need to uproot the foundation of our morality. It means that we need to pull our heads out and see that there are others around us that need help, and if anything else open arms. I don't know why we Christians make such a huge fuss about homosexuals. It's not like all our fussing is going to ban homosexuality. You can't make it illegal, no matter how hard we try. It is just something that we will have to face. Like I said I don't agree with the lifestyle. But who am I going to win to Christ by judging and hating? I would be as useless as a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. We need to show them that the Bible means something. We need to show them Christ's love. We need to be the salt of the Earth, and let our light shine before others.

In conclusion, to the Christian the Bible is the foundation and basis for all morality. When Christians take a course of action that is contradictory to the moral standards of the Bible, he/she really ought to check themselves and get it straightened out before God. The Christians' conviction for righteousness is a good thing in itself. However we are never called to pass judgement on non-Christians. To non-Christians, the Bible is a mysterious book, and Christianity is a faith that unbelievers may not be certain about trusting. I assure you, Christians never mean any harm. If a Christian is guilty of hating others, then that is something that he/she needs to address to God. If a "christian" does cause harm on others, then it is seriously in question whether or not they are truly Christians in the first place.

ShockV1.89 · August 31, 2003

Originally posted by Kurgan
Stereotyping almost 2 billion people based on what one guy does?

Sigh...

No, what was I saying was that even though some Christians follow the rule "Hate the sin, love the sinner," it's still tough on homosexuals because of bigots like Phelps out there, spewing hate.

Let me start by saying that I am convinced it is not a choice, and it is something people are born with, pure and simple. I've seen enough kids come through my job with hints of homosexuality. These are second and third graders. Furthermore, this is a community in which being homosexual is tantamount to murder.

I think it's rather high handed of you to assume that all gay people are that way because they choose to be so. Would you choose to be gay? Honestly, why on earth would anyone want to be gay? All the crap they go through, not being allowed to marry, all the stereotypes, etc. It would suck, in my opinion. And yet people still continue to be gay. Perhaps because they were born to like men (or women, as the case may be).

Perhaps it is a birth defect. I admit that it sounds more likely to be a defect than "purely" natural. After all, our bodys are not really designed to handle gay sexual relations. And it would be considered a defect if we were unable to procreate.

But even if it is a birth defect, so what? Perhaps it isnt a "good" birth defect, at least, not to the people who dont have it. So what? Why should we deny allowing the people with the defect their own quality of life?

Suppose someone is born unable to walk. Shall we deny this person the use of a wheelchair? Of course not, he would probably be miserable for his entire life. Likewise, even though homosexuals might be the way they are as a result of a birth defect, that doesnt mean that we cant allow them to do whatever it is they feel they need to do to feel comfortable.

Forcing them to be straight is not going to make them comfortable. I dont care how many times you throw Bible verses at someone.

I asked him for his reasons, and his response was that he doesn't necessarily want to be hetero. Shocked, I looked at him and said "o.k."

This is not proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice because your friend was "choosing" to become gay. It sounds to me like he was facing facts, and realizing that he would not be happy living a lie and acting heterosexual when he was really gay. Big props to him.

I think its sad that you want homosexuality to be illegal, but thats a different topic...

lukeskywalker1 · September 1, 2003

I hate these threads. Nothing will be solved till it is "actually" proven that homosexuality is, or is not a choice. But on the other hand, why would God make people that were ment to defy his rules? *shrugs*

Where exactly in the Bible does it even say that homosexuality is wrong? If I remember correctly, someone posted it in a previous thread, but this was from the same "book" (Leviticus, I think) that told people that if they cut their hair, they were going to hell.

I was always under the impression that Christians followed the New Testament, not the old. The Old Testament, according to my girlfriend (a born-again Christian), is there to provide insight into the Christian faith and where it has come from, and shouldnt really be used as a doctrine to live by.

Can someone confirm? Deny?

**looks through bible**

NCV BIBLE

Matthew Chapter 5 Verse 17-18

Dont think I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they have said. I tell you the truth, nothing will disapear from the law until heaven and earth are gone. Not even the smallest letter will be lost until everything has happend.

@ Eldritch, The bible may not say homosexuality is wrong in leviticus, but it does in Romans (see the why is ok to bash christianity thread)

my view, by the church allowing a bishop to be gay, they are condoning the act, which means they are guilty of the same sin, and have disobeyed the bible. Simple as that. I do see how it could be discrimination though. But, by the guy claiming to be a christian, he is calling the bible false, because God wouldnt force you to sin (by people being born gay, means they are forced to sin)

Also, I believe you control who you have sex with...Just because you say a guy looks ok, doesnt mean your gay, unless you say it in a sexual manner...

The end of my veiw: I believe that your gay because of your own life experiences. I know a gay guy. His dad hates him. So my theory: No male attention = hes ganna find it somewhere else, whether its sexual, or emotional.. whatever it maybe...

CloseTheBlastDo · September 1, 2003

I hate these threads. Nothing will be solved till it is "actually" proven that homosexuality is, or is not a choice.

Not true, some of us in this thread simply want to know the truth. Sure, we have our own opinions at this point in time, just as you have.

But the main difference between us can be summed up with my comment above:

Of course, the tests I've seen were on a relatively small number of test subjects, so by all means I think more tests need to be done to provide more evidence either way. And of course if it turns out those results where some kind of fluke, then I will be the first to admit that I need to re-think my views.

I am willing to look at the evidence and alter my perception accordingly.

As a case in point I myself - not too long ago in fact - assumed that homosexuality was a mental manifestation rather than an inbuilt urge. UNTIL I saw the evidence to the contrary...

You, however, only believe what you want to believe. Actual evidence means next to nothing to you - as you've already admitted yourself.

LukeSkywalker, if your ignorance were only damaging to yourself, I'd just leave you to it. But unfortunately your ignorance is hurting a whole group of society - helping to keep them stigmatised and morally inferior in the eyes of many. So you can't be allowed to just spout out your verbal direahha without retort - because your words affect more than just yourself - even though your too immature to understand this.

But on the other hand, why would God make people that were ment to defy his rules? *shrugs*

Exactly LukeSkywalker - who knows why your God does anything. He sends people to hell just for being bought up in the wrong religion, no matter what good they might have done throughout their lives. From where I'm standing, your God seems pretty messed up in the head to me, and I advise he/she get some counselling...

Kurgan · September 1, 2003

The Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuals in the Church can be summed up in this expert (modern edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in english):

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on it as well. Essentially its saying that we don't really know if homosexuality is inborn, but it certainly seems that way for at least some people, and thus they should not be persecuted for it, but should try to live as best they can, despite their status as sinners (like everbody else).

A common comparison I see is with alcoholism. A tendency towards alcoholism may be in fact genetic, but that doesn't mean that it is something good, or that we shouldn't try to help people with that condition.

It doesn't say that we should try to make homosexuals turn into heterosexuals (just as many will claim that alcoholism is really incurable) but that people should learn to live with their, shall we say, disability, rather than be dominated and controlled by it.

As to saying people go to hell just for being the wrong religion, there are a great many Christians (of various denominations, including Catholics, and thus by extension I assume Episcopalians as well) who believe that simply being a Christian is not enough to assure salvation. Many who belong to the Church may still not be saved. And many outside the Church may in fact be saved, through God's mercy.

As an example, the parable of the Pharisse and the Publican is often cited:

(Bible RSV, Luke 18:10-14)

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.'

But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!'

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

(Now granted, we assume both of these men were Jews, and so they were both considered God's chosen people, but even in Jesus's dealings with other people, it is made clear that the way a person lives is more important than simple group affiliation... he reserves his harshest words for hypocrites.)

lukeskywalker1 · September 2, 2003

I'm with CloseTheBlastDo' on this one: Why do people keep comparing 'homosexuality' to alcoholism, disabilties, problems, etc.?

You say they are genetic, but people can overcome them.

I guess saying its immoral would be wrong, even though i have said that, and it is my opinion. The reason that doesnt say its wrong is because thats my perspective, and the gay person doesnt veiw it as immoral. So no one can say that.

My question, do the aniumals really know what they are doing? And if they do, since when did they learn right from wrong.. or even become good enough to be compared with people? You cant say that, because we can determine right from wrong. And our intelligence levels are higher than animals.. am i not right?

If the population goes too high, it will sort itself out; through war, famine and diseases. (im not saying thats good... im saying, it happens, and these things can take care of themselves) We dont need an alternative sex, to stop the population from growing. Im sorry, but to slow down the population growth isnt a good excuse.

What is the point of sex in the first place? there are 2 reasons, reproduction, and pleasure. Ok, so homosexuality doesnt reproduce, neither do some married couples. Lets look further into this.

*did some searches*

Homosexuality, as mentioned before, goes against God's order of things. If you do not believe in God, homosexuality also goes against Nature's order of things.

Homosexuality is not genetic, for if it was, it would be found on the X chromosome, and scientist have yet to find a gene that denotes Homosexuality. The mere fact that someone would act out that sexual attraction of the same gender, is an abomination against nature and a perversion against what humans are meant to do.

There are certain things that humans do to survive...Breath, eat, and multiply. If everyone were homosexual, the 3rd factor would be destroyed, and so would our population unless we start cloning people, and Star Trek TNG has already addressed what was wrong with that!

Some say homosexual tendencies stem from not only genetics, but develop in certain environments while others say it stems totally from spiritual problems. Homosexual orientation may originate from the actions of others--or from less apparent causes. Whatver the immediate cause, homosexual activity distorts God's original design for sex, and Nature's design for sex. While people may not be responsible for their orientation, They are responsible for what they choose to do with it.

I can understand how people have homosexual thoughts or orientation, and it's very much comparable to other urges of humans...urge to have sex, urge to do bad things because that's what to be human is. To make mistakes is human. To want other's things, or to want to steal, or to want to act out in rage is all human because we are born into a world of sin, and all people are sinners. Children lie, but they aren't taught to lie. They do it to save their butts, but still no one taught them. They do it out of instinct more or less. God knows that we are easy to fall into selfishness and sinfulness, but God also gave us the power to overcome our sinful tendencies with the help of God himself. So you can say like mentioned before that people aren't responsible fully for what they think and feel deep down, but it is totally our responsibility to ourselves to NOT act on such desires, but to deal with them knowing that they aren't good, you're not perfect and you need the help of your maker, God.

In the end, you control whether you go to bed with someone or not.

Dagobahn Eagle · September 2, 2003

So if the argument about homosexuality working against nature, does the Church really have a leg to stand on? No, not really. Not as far as I can see. But again, I suppose they still have the right to cry wolf. As long as they're not hunting gay people down and literally burning them at the stake, they can say all they want. Gay people can say all they want about straight people. So what if the Church is running its mouth. That doesn't mean you have to listen. People simply don't easily change their mind. It's best just to turn the other cheek and block it out. It's just words, people.

Problem is when it's not just something you see on TV and can choose either to turn the channel or to listen.

The problem arises when homophobes (be it religious or otherwise) start to hunt, attack, and bully homosexuals. This is especially true for middle-schoolers (I definetly know this) and other little kids. When you're in school, you're in school with those people. No way of turning the other cheek for a prolonged time.

Look, I know what you're trying to say, but it's not that easy. Real life doesn't come with an "add this individual to your ignore list" button that replaces obsenity that hurts with "I'm ignored. Press the ignore button to 'un-ignore' me."

And there's quite a bit between leaving someone alone and burning someone at the stake. Not even Hussein has burned someone at the stake that I'm aware of, and yet he's bad enough for Bush to advocate open war against him.

If words are thrown at people to hurt them, it's called bullying, which is not a constitutional right of anyone. There's also harrasment, physical violence, etc. etc.

Two parents had a closet-homosexual son. They were openly homophobic. The son, already depressed, commited suicide after overhearing their conversation about how God and everyone [supposedly] hates Homosexuals.

So watch your mouth. The lawmakers added that part about insults being an exception to freedom of speech for a reason.

-Eagle

CloseTheBlastDo · September 2, 2003

To all those who are telling homosexuals to just 'change' -I want you to do something which may be beyond some of you - and that is put yourselves in someone else's shoes for 5 mins.

Since none of you are really challenging anymore that homosexuality 'can' be inbuilt from birth, then this means that a homosexual man is attracted to men in EXACTLY the same way I as a hetrosexual man am attracted to women.

So - the first step is to think of a woman who you find physically attractive. (I'm assuming the people i need to be talking to here are hetrosexual males...)

Think about how that person makes you feel. The kind of impulses you experience.

...now imagine that someone comes along and tells you that those feelings and those impulses you just had were fundementally wrong and that you HAVE to start finding MEN attractive.

...could you do it? WOULD you do it?

...I for one would tell you I would not do it. I'd also tell you to mind your own business and go and bother someone else.

If you also would not change your sexual preference because someone says you have to, then I don't see what right you have to tell a homosexual to do the same - i.e. go against his or her natural impulses FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

Of course it's possible to do. As I've said before, people can go against their inner natures for many reasons - not just because their worried they will not make it into heaven.

Priests who adhere to chasisty are a good example of this. So a priest decides to not engage in sex for the rest of their lives. Does this mean they never have to face sexual urges again?! Or are their sexual urges are some kind of illusion that's only in their minds?!

OF COURSE NOT!

Most priests have to fight against it constantly throughout most of their lives.

The main difference is people have a choice whether they want to become a priest. i.e. your not immoral if your not a priest.

However, homosexuals HAVE to become hetrosexuals to be moral?!

The amount of people (on this forum and outside it) who cannot see things from anybody else's perspective - only their own blinkered view - is truly shocking...

Kurgan · September 2, 2003

No, what was I saying was that even though some Christians follow the rule "Hate the sin, love the sinner," it's still tough on homosexuals because of bigots like Phelps out there, spewing hate.

Understood. I interpreted the comment as saying that Phelps was somehow representative of Christian attitudes towards homosexuals at large. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misunderstanding. ; )

Let me start by saying that I am convinced it is not a choice, and it is something people are born with, pure and simple.

My point was that the Jury is still out on that one. The RCC's teaching (I can't say what other churches teach since I'm less familiar with them) is that while it may be an inborn condition, it is still "disordered" and my analogy was alcoholism. If you don't see homosexuality as a sinful condition or as unhealthy or damaging, then you have no reason to accept this understanding of homosexuality. If it is the same as race, then we have nothing to argue about. I was explaining this particular denomination's teaching.

The Episcopal Church shares a common history with the RCC, much closer than any other Protestant church. Their position may not be identical of course. Obviously they are more "liberal" on the issue of gay rights (some of them at least) in that they are debating the issue of gay marriages and openly gay clergy. In the RCC it's pretty much been a "no" as far as I can tell (no gay marriages, no openly gay clergy allowed).

I think it's rather high handed of you to assume that all gay people are that way because they choose to be so. Would you choose to be gay?

Did I say that gay people choose to be gay? Where?

Honestly, why on earth would anyone want to be gay?

Assuming for the sake of argument... Maybe they like gay sex? Maybe their friends are gay? Who knows... I honestly don't know. Being homosexual has not at all times in history been persecuted. In Greece it was considered okay (even desirable) for men to practice homosexual sex. Rome also had this custom. Of course they had an odd notion about it... if you wanted to be considered "manly" you just had to make sure you were the dominate person in the act (I won't go into details, but use your imagination if you wish). They of course assumed everybody should get married as well, so in a sense they were promoting bisexuality. Of course this was for men... women were expected to be faithful to their husbands (though there was Sapho of Lesbos, the famous Lesbian poet which is where the term comes from, but I don't know a lot about her). The Greeks and Romans also generally felt that over-indulgence in sex (or anything else) was a sign of weakness (except for certain schools of thought who felt that it was a good thing). Anyway, in those cultures, being gay might be a popular social aspect of being a man in those times.

Of course we can't go and interview those people and see what they feel. To say that its a persecuted minority and therefore nobody in their right mind would be one if they could help it does seem like a strong argument in favor of it not being chosen behavior.

Of course that is not to say it can't be learned behavior. Just as people can be trained to be killers or racists, they could be trained to be sexually attracted to certain things (this might explain why some people have "weird" fetishes). This is not unprecedented... there are people who are sexually attracted to children, animals, dead things, etc.

While most people consider those other things to be disordered, homosexuality is not. Why?

Perhaps it is a birth defect. I admit that it sounds more likely to be a defect than "purely" natural. After all, our bodys are not really designed to handle gay sexual relations. And it would be considered a defect if we were unable to procreate.

Agreed. If you can't reproduce, you're not "genetically successful."

It could be nature's way of controlling population or in cases of an unequal distribution of genders perhaps. There are a lot of possibilities. Which is why I say the jury is still out on the roots of homosexuality. As far as treating people with respect, this is very important.

Are we to treat these folks are severly disturbed individuals (like pedophiles or necrophiliacs?), as people with a health/psychological problem (like alcoholics, spouse abusers, drug addicts?), or as a protected class (racial minorities)?

But even if it is a birth defect, so what? Perhaps it isnt a "good" birth defect, at least, not to the people who dont have it. So what? Why should we deny allowing the people with the defect their own quality of life?

No, but if it is something that can be treated or helped, then shouldn't we help those people rather than let them suffer?

What if it were discovered that with gene therapy at an early stage of life (say still in the womb or in infancy) a person could be "cured" of homosexuality? Would that mean that this would be ethical to do? (to save the person from the stigma associated with being gay and the hardship in life?)

I am all for helping people in need, rather than hating them. That is why I think it is important to continue research.

Suppose someone is born unable to walk. Shall we deny this person the use of a wheelchair? Of course not, he would probably be miserable for his entire life. Likewise, even though homosexuals might be the way they are as a result of a birth defect, that doesnt mean that we cant allow them to do whatever it is they feel they need to do to feel comfortable.

Well, this gets into the various effects. If we treat homosexuality as a disordered condition, the effects might be negative on the individual or society. Do we let people who are alcoholics or spouse abusers or pedophiles or drug addicts continue self destructive behavior (with a cost to society) if they have a hard time living with their condition?

Of course some would say that being homosexual has no costs to society or the individual, others would disagree. But even if it can't be helped, that still doesn't mean that they should be left to sink or swim necessarily.

Forcing them to be straight is not going to make them comfortable. I dont care how many times you throw Bible verses at someone.

Of course we're assuming with statements like this that a person can't be "cured" and that the only possible means of "curing" is brainwashing or religious conversion (Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that homosexuality is sinful or disordered).

If homosexuality is inborn, people can learn different ways to live with it. There may also be ways to "cure" it that are biological in nature (such as early gene therapy). This is unexplored territory.

Though some people are offended by the idea I think. That doesn't mean we shouldn't research those options. I've heard people say if they could choose not to be gay, they would. Should we ignore those people?

We already have things like sex change operations and plastic/cosmetic surgery for people who don't feel their bodies are as they should be, and things like that.

I'm not saying we should force people, but if they want to, why not?

quote:

I asked him for his reasons, and his response was that he doesn't necessarily want to be hetero. Shocked, I looked at him and said "o.k."

This is not proof that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice because your friend was "choosing" to become gay. It sounds to me like he was facing facts, and realizing that he would not be happy living a lie and acting heterosexual when he was really gay. Big props to him.

Similarly many non-homosexuals look at "Gay Pride" parades and stuff like or hear about celebrities like Anne Heche or Elton John "switching around" and assume that homosexuality must be a chosen behavior.

I think its sad that you want homosexuality to be illegal, but thats a different topic...

You must not be talking about what I said, because I didn't say this.

As to "sodomy laws" here is my theory:

When the laws were established, gay sex was considered taboo. As a result, people didn't have gay sex at home, because their neighbors would notice and shun them or persecute them whatever.

So gay people would go elsewhere to have anonymous sex or sex in public places (parks, bathrooms, etc). You hear about stuff like that happening on the news every so often just about anywhere you go. It happens with straight people too, but you hear about gays seemingly more often.

So they sneak around to do it because they know if they get caught people don't know them anyway, not like if they were at home.

So in come the sodomy laws to force people to be more private about it, because if they get caught (and nobody is going to go breaking down doors to find out if people are doing certain things in their beds) they get in trouble. So this forces their activity underground, so people don't have to see it in public.

Now the unfairness of the law is that it means that a person could (in theory) decide to get their neighbors in trouble if they heard them doing the nasty and call the cops on them (assuming the cops didn't just laugh it off and ignore them). Plus it wouldn't necessarily get people in trouble if they weren't doing "certain things" in public.

I figure they should get rid of sodomy laws and instead just say "no public sex."

This would force homo and hetero sex where it belongs, in private. It would also work against things like prostitution, etc.

And for public images, this is important to people, because they don't want to go jogging and see something like that, or go on a picnic with the kids, or have a reputation for being a place where people do that stuff around them.

Of course sodomy laws are not the only thing, there are also laws against indecent exposure (except in nudist colonies of course, which are private clubs and topless bars, stuff like that) which work hand in hand with these. The idea being to encourage people to have sex in private, and so it ends up being nobody's business.

ShockV1.89 · September 2, 2003

Kurgan, most of my responses there were aimed at JediSpy, not you. I wanted to respond to his whole argument, so I didnt quote the whole thing. I guess it made it seem like I was arguing with you.

But since you made some points...

Assuming for the sake of argument... Maybe they like gay sex? Maybe their friends are gay? Who knows... I honestly don't know.

Think about it: If you were born and someone gave you the option to become homosexual and be ridiculed and persecuted, and not allowed to marry... would you do it? I certainly wouldnt. Personally, I'm damn glad I'm hetero. I wouldnt want to go through some of the crap that they have to. (Am I a homophobe for saying that? Oh well...)

Being homosexual has not at all times in history been persecuted. In Greece it was considered okay (even desirable) for men to practice homosexual sex. Rome also had this custom.

Very true. But we're not in Greece or Rome. Here, it is often viewed in a rather negative light.

Well, this gets into the various effects. If we treat homosexuality as a disordered condition, the effects might be negative on the individual or society. Do we let people who are alcoholics or spouse abusers or pedophiles or drug addicts continue self destructive behavior (with a cost to society) if they have a hard time living with their condition?

Of course some would say that being homosexual has no costs to society or the individual, others would disagree. But even if it can't be helped, that still doesn't mean that they should be left to sink or swim necessarily.

Took the words right out of my mouth. If they're doing ok on their own and they're not hurting anyone else, then whats the problem?

Datheus · September 2, 2003

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Two parents had a closet-homosexual son. They were openly homophobic. The son, already depressed, commited suicide after overhearing their conversation about how God and everyone [supposedly] hates Homosexuals.-Eagle

Well see, that's what I'm saying here. "The kid was ****ed up when I met him." If he's shooting himself because he hears people talking (Yes, even his parents), then I have no problem with him doing it. If everyone shot themselves when their parents, or their neighbors, or their clergy were verbally hostile with some sort of life choice they made, I doubt many people would be left on this planet. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they get some sort of special protection. People slander everything they lay their eyes on. I've heard enough Microsoft bashing to last me a life-time. I don't see Mr. Bill Gates popping one into his head. How about bigamists? They still prosecute some of these guys and I don't see any of THEM offing themselves.

Gay people arn't the only people on the face of the planet who

get crap for what they "choose" to do in life.

You're right. I think people who DO run their mouth about gay people are idiots. Homophobic people arn't the brightest ones in the batch. But if you're gonna shoot yourself because of it, more power to you. Make sure to get your whole head in front of the shotgun.

Dagobahn Eagle · September 3, 2003

If he's shooting himself because he hears people talking (Yes, even his parents), then I have no problem with him doing it. If everyone shot themselves when their parents, or their neighbors, or their clergy were verbally hostile with some sort of life choice they made, I doubt many people would be left on this planet.

I sort of see what you mean.

I wasn't advocating that you shoot yourself because your parents hate you. All I was quoting that story for was to advice you not to slam homos too much:).

So let's 'cure' homosexuality

I disagree.

First of all, gays do not suffer. The only problems they have is that they are hated. They are okay with not being able to get pregnant (they can adopt children or get pregnant trough donation), and they're okay with not having the oppurtunity of sticking the male organ into the female hole. Why? One word: Love. They do what gives them sexual pleasure. Every other aspect of relationships? Same as homosexuals, except from the lack of a role model of the other gender if/when a child joins the family.

Second, let's say we had the means of altering DNA all the way from the beginning of time. You do realize that humanity, time and again, have denounced certain qualities as wrong. Lefthandedness, African skin, East Asian eyelids, and so on and so on and so on. If we were to 'cure' everyone different from us, we'd live in Hitler's dream world. No diversity, to put it short.

How do we know we're doing the right thing? Once homophobia dies, what's so bad about being gay?

You can't kill the sheep because there's a wolf nearby. Better to kill the wolf or build the sheep a 'wolf-proof' little 'sheep pen'.

Think about it: If you were born and someone gave you the option to become homosexual and be ridiculed and persecuted, and not allowed to marry... would you do it? I certainly wouldnt. Personally, I'm damn glad I'm hetero. I wouldnt want to go through some of the crap that they have to. (Am I a homophobe for saying that? Oh well...)

This goes for pretty much every stereotyped minority group. See what I read above.

The same way, I wouldn't want to become a Jew and move to Palestine if somebody asked me. Why? I don't like being persecuted (sp.?) While there's nothing wrong with being Jewish (it's just another religion, you know), they are hated.

Does this have to mean it's a bad thing to be Jewish? Does this mean we should deny the Jews freedom of religion to protect them from neo-nazis, KKKs, and Palestine rebel forces and protesters? Or does it simply mean that like the Jews, I'm happy being what I am?

Like I wouldn't want to be a Jew in 40's Europe or in Israel today, I probably wouldn't want to be gay again in today's society. But does this have to mean it's bad to be gay, or that it's not bad to be straight and that I prefer being straight, like you'd prefer wearing jeans without disliking shorts?

Dagobahn Eagle

Dagobahn Eagle · September 4, 2003

The reasons I see most frequently are either so poorly backed that I could collapse them with a poke of my little finger, or seemingly backed, but easily collapsible once you know a few tricks.

Most common is the "grossness" thing, like "I don't want to see gays kiss because it grosses me out". Most likely, you'll find that the person is not grossed out by straight people (for example girls) kissing, meaning it's the fact that they enjoy it more due to homosexuality that makes them want to stop it.

To make biblical references is simply ridiculous. To make an analogy, I don't think people should eat meat. I'm trying to stop doing this myself and I've actually stopped eating fish and chicken. But if I was in a debate on vegetarianism, I wouldn't tell others to stop eating meats by quoting Buddhism or Hinduism. If I was a Muslim, I wouldn't keep people from eating pork by warning them of eternal punishment from Allah. You know what I mean? Doing so makes no sence to people who do not follow that religion, simply because they don't believe a word of what you're saying! It's also offensive, because in some cases, like with christianity, it often comes down to "do what I want you to do, or else". Not a nice way to convince.

Midgard Eagle.

CloseTheBlastDo · September 4, 2003

Well, this is it then.

The gauntlet has been thrown down.

...belittling a sub-section of society without any rational basis is by definition bigotry:

Main Entry: big·ot

Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot

Date: 1661

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

and thinking it could be right to ESTINGUISH this same group of people from existance?! (get's things in prespective when you say it like that doesn't it...) - well - I don't really have the words to describe the sickening feeling I just had when I read that back...

So prove the rationality, admit the bigotry or accept homosexuals as equals (in EVERY way) - there are no other choices...

jedispy · September 4, 2003

Originally posted by ShockV1.89

I think its sad that you want homosexuality to be illegal, but thats a different topic...

Did I say I want homosexuality to be made illegal? That's funny I don't remember saying that. I said I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I didn't say I want it illegal. In fact I said that it is idiotic to try to make it illegal. 100 years ago maybe that could happen, but not now. Here's a tip, when putting words into my mouth, please provide quotes so we can see for ourselves. O.k.?

Obviously you did not pay very close attention to what I was saying. So let me quote myself.

...to the Christian the Bible is the foundation and basis for all morality. When Christians take a course of action that is contradictory to the moral standards of the Bible, he/she really ought to check themselves and get it straightened out before God. The Christians' conviction for righteousness is a good thing in itself. However we are never called to pass judgement on non-Christians. To non-Christians, the Bible is a mysterious book, and Christianity is a faith that unbelievers may not be certain about trusting. I assure you, [true] Christians never mean any harm. If a Christian is guilty of hating others, then that is something that he/she needs to address to God. If a "christian" does cause harm on others, then it is seriously in question whether or not they are truly Christians in the first place.

To the Christian the Bible is the foundation and basis for all morality. When I say Christians, I mean born again, on fire for Christ, in a realrelationship with Christ, Christians. I do not mean people who adhere to a religion and follow traditions. This is what seculars (non-christians) don't quite understand. Yes there has been a lot of trouble cause by "the church" and "christians' in the past. I am well read on many topics of Church history. Yes the name of Christ has been used for the cause of evil. You know what? I feel terrible that it has been so too.

Jesus is not about hate. Jesus is not about gay-bashing. Jesus is about loving your neighbors unconditionally, regardless of lifestyle choice.

By Dagobahn Eagle
And for the thousandth time (spelled in laaaaarge letters in case you forgot your glasses),.

#1 You don't get to pick your orientation

#2 You don't pick who you want to fall in love with.

Who says so? Who says that the way we live is just a roll of the dice? Where is your evidence? Yeah I didn't pick being heterosexual, but that's a moot point since humans are naturally that way. If homosexuality were a part of human nature, then we would see male and female sexual organs on everyone, and we would be hermaphroditic <sp?> like earthworms and jellyfish.

As I stated before, there is not one legitimate ounce of conclusive evidence that homosexuals are genetically gay. This is not to say that life occurances can't influence how we live throughout our life. Still, the choices you make are YOUR choices. No one made you choose your life situation. Granted there is a fair degree of things that are beyond our grasp, but the vast majority of the time it is our choices that put us in the situation in the first place. (now where this is not the case is like when the Jews were forced into concentration camps. No choices they made put them there. However, this is not what we're talking about here.)

People aren't born alcoholics (well...they can be if their mother consumed alcohol while pregnant, but that's not relevant to this topic.) Alcoholism is not natural to humans. It is events in life that influence choices that lead to alcoholism. People aren't born with sexual addiction. It is events in life that influence choices that lead to sexual addiction. Same thing with homosexuality.

You cannot hide below the "hate the sin, love the sinner" umbrella forever, lukeskywalker1. You simply cannot. You hate gays, no matter what they do and don't do. And you just do not understand that you don't pick who to fall in love with more than Africans picked their skin colour.

Your logic is flawed. To hate the sin, love the sinner is not applied to just homosexuality. It is applied to all sin. Again, like I said the Bible is the utmost standard of morality for the Christian. If you are not a Christian, then I would not expect you to hold to that standard now would I?

Also your logic is flawed in the statement "you don't pick who to fall in love with more than Africans picked their skin colour." I fell in love with the woman who became my wife. I didn't just fall in love like a helpless victim of a highly contageous disease. I became interested in her, but ultimately the love thing was completely rational. I chose to grow intimately with her. I chose to pursue a relationship with her. I chose to fall in love with her. I was not hit by any dominoes or large dice rolling, thus deciding my fate. I was not genetically bound to her like I am to my skin color. I am a euro-American (white). I will always be white. I can tan, but I will just be a tan white guy. I can severely tatoo my body pastel pink if I wanted to, but I would still be a white, european American. Nothing can change the nature of that, irrelevant as it is. Love is ultimately a rational thing. Sure you can have feelings for someone, but those feelings would not be there without you having made choices along the way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am afraid that a few people have misinterpreted what I said in my previous post.

"You have a pre-determined belief that homosexuality is some kind of defect or problem."

First of all, that is not what I believe. Second of all it is not a predetermined belief, it is a belief based on the moral standard that I hold to. (the Bible.) I did not call homosexuality a "problem." I called it a choice. It is an abnormality (ie not a part of our genetic makeup) but I didn't label it a problem. (I don't agree with the lifestyle, but heck, I don't agree with a lot of what people do. Why stop to pick on homosexuality? We could talk about abortion, or pre-marital sexual relations, or drug abuse, or the porn industry. Why only pick on homosexuals?) Likewise I said that homosexuality is not a birth defect. It would be foolish to assume it was. My point in it was that there is no gay gene. Our genetic patterns match the DNA found in the ova and sperm that fused. The development of the living human will adhere directly to the DNA sequencing of the parents. Deviations from the sequencing (most often birth defects) can occur. That was my point entirely. I do not believe that homosexuality is hereditary, nor is it a birth defect.

(When I mentioned the "birth defect thing, my intent was not to say that gay is a defect, but to merely point out that defects are not positive things.)

Now before I am crucified for what I just said, let me explain myself a little better. People who are born blind have a disability. Now does that make them bad people. No, it would be idiotic to even suggest it. Now for a person who is born blind, do they see their disability as a bad thing. No. Why would they? Now let's just pretend that I'm not a Christian for just one moment. Let's say that I'm all die hard evolutionist, and I'm all down with the survival of the fittest and natural selection and stuff. To this specific world view, birth defects are considered flaws. Now that is pretending that I held to that world view. I do not believe that way though. This was merely an illustration.

Also, people misinterpreted what I meant by the textbook statement. By textbook I mean it is the most recognizable scenario. Some may call this stereotyping (however not technically when referring to cases of psychology. Stereotyping is when you go off a preconceived notion that all are the same as the first case.) I am sure there are homosexuals that have never been sexually abused. I have never met any personally, but I am sure they exist. (keep in mind, I have met a lot of homosexual people.)

As for the friends with homosexuals remark, I meant it. I have some good friends that are gay. I don't approve of their lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that I can't hang out with them. Someone made the remark that I have to support their lifestyle. No I don't. I have friends that are alcoholics. I don't have to support that lifestyle. I have friends that are sexual addicts. I don't have to support their sex addiction. Keep in mind that I don't judge them as people. That's not my job. Nowhere does Jesus say that I have to judge people. There are plenty of places where He says to love them. And that is what I do. (if any of you really knew me you would see that I am telling the truth.)

The evidence I HAVE seen though, indicated one thing VERY strongly. That among those subjects who were tested, ALL homosexual brains had a distinct and consistent difference in their brain make-up compared to their hetrosexual counterparts.

Yes I have read this report too. Like you said, they have found that homosexual brains do have differences in how they have developed. However, is it fair to classify this type of development as homosexual? So all of the tested homosexual brains had that type of development. Does this mean that there is not one heterosexual brain in the entire world that has the same type of development? If I have a child whose brain develops in that manner, does that mean that he/she is destined to be gay? I doubt it seriously. There is nothing in what you said that suggests contrary to the choice of lifestyle.

Now someone has challenged me to prove why homosexuality is wrong. Well, as I stated above, the Bible is the standard in which Christians ought to base their morality. (mind you, Christians are still sinners, just like everyone else. Any Christian that claims he/she is better than anyone else if a fool.) People can find all sorts of instances in the Old Testament where the homosexual lifestyle is condemned. However, what does the New Testament say? Remember I also said that the New Testament = new covenant. The new covenant has done away with the Old Testament system of crime and punishment. The moral standards of the Old Testament still stand firm, but the whole parts of dragging someone out to the street and executing them, that has been done away with. So now that the standard and parameters have been set, how does the Bible classify homosexuality? As I stated before, homosexuality falls into a general category called pornea which is a Greek word for "sexual sin." What are other types of sexual sin? Rape, prostitution, incest, adultery, lust, sexual abuse, bestiality, pre-marital sex, orgies. Along with lust you can also add pornography.

I know what you are thinking right now. "Rape, adultery, & sexual abuse are bad because they involve an unconsenting victim." You would be right too, but only half right. All pornea is sinful for one reason alone. 1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee from sexual immorality (pornea). All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually (pornea) sins against his own body."

All pornea is sinful. The Bible doesn't single out homosexuality.

"So far you have just made a lot of half-arsed claims without even reference to any actual evidence"

Hello?? The twins thing pal. The family inheritance via genetics. There's all the evidence you need. Did you not read it? These is not half-@$$ed claims. These are actual real-life examples. My point was that homosexuality is not genetic, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise.

"only fairly weak analogies which half the time are not consistent or logical."

Then show me where my logic fails. Maybe I need to explain it better.

Look it is really simple. People sin. I am a person, so I sin. You are a person, so you sin. Homosexuals are people. Nuns are people. Billy Graham is a person. Saddam Hussein is a person. Bill Clinton is a person (of course that can be debated.) What do people do? They sin. What is a sin? More to follow below.

"It is entirely possible to have two types of homosexuality."

Uh....I don't know. That sounds like a half-@$$ed claim to me. Just two types? Why not more than two? How about 31 flavors of it? We could open an ice cream shop and call it the Gay Baskin Robbins. (sorry about the sarcasm) There are several types of pornea. There is one type of homosexuality.

"One type I would ASSUME to be the most common, which would be the type which is inbuilt from birth.

Assumptions are not evidence. It's like the saying goes "When you assume you only make an ASS out of U & ME."

"HOWEVER, if we know anything about human beings, it is possible for human beings to go against their natural nature."

What exactly is your point? Yeah I can try to go against my nature and attempt to breath water like a fish. I can build prosthetic wings, attach them to my arms and try to fly like a bird. I can shave my head and decorate every part of my body with piercings. None of these are natural to humanity. I'm not saying that they are sinful in any way (crazy....but not sinful).

"So to me, it seems entirely possible and quite plausaible that a naturally hetrosexual man could 'experiment' with homosexuality"

Hmmm....let me think about that. "So to me, it seems...." FALLACY!!! I don't care how things seem to you. There are the facts, and there is the evidence to back up the facts. Heck, it seems to me that aliens don't really exist. Did I base that statement off any sort of logic or evidence? Of course not.

"...in the same way that a homosexual man could force himself to live a hetrosexual life because of the pressure around him from his friends / family etc."

So you are saying that a homosexual can't ever become heterosexual? Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I also know of quite a few former homosexuals (who were very active in that lifestyle) who have since changed their ways. They are happily married to members of the opposite sex, and happily have families. I asked each of them if they regret the change in lifestyle. Not one of them regrets it. Are they acting against their homosexual nature? No....they are living within their real nature as humans. Every one of them would say that too. (They did. I asked them)

'Of course this makes the issue VERY complicated indeed. And I know people such as yourself jedispy will simply assume that homosexual behaviour is ALWAYS going against the inbuilt nature of hetrosexuality."

Uh...it's called biology. Like I said earlier, humans are naturally male and female. Humans naturally go through puberty and develop sexual organs, which naturally allow procreation of the species. While sex is fun, and the intimacy of sex is wonderful, recreational sex is not the primary function of sexual organs. It is not the only function, just the primary.

"(No matter what evidence was shown to the contrary).

I can just as easily turn that around. "This makes the issue very complicated because people like you will simply assume that the biological and genetic nature of humanity can ever be changed."

Now here is my challenge to you. What is sin? You tell me what sin is. You may have a different word in mind than sin, but for sake of the argument, we will call it sin.

First Question: What would you label as sin?

Second question. What is your moral basis for this standard of sin? (ie, what is your justification for reckoning the actions and lifestyles you label as bad?)

Jedispy

ShockV1.89 · September 4, 2003

Did I say I want homosexuality to be made illegal? That's funny I don't remember saying that. I said I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I didn't say I want it illegal. In fact I said that it is idiotic to try to make it illegal. 100 years ago maybe that could happen, but not now. Here's a tip, when putting words into my mouth, please provide quotes so we can see for ourselves. O.k.?

Dont get hostile, and lose the nasty attitude. I quote you here.

You can't make it illegal, no matter how hard we try. It is just something that we will have to face.

That sounds to me like you're saying you wish it could be illegal, but you'll just have face it and live with it.

So maybe I was paying attention. Either way, I dont appreciate the condescending attitude.

Dagobahn Eagle · September 4, 2003

Who says so? Who says that the way we live is just a roll of the dice? Where is your evidence? Yeah I didn't pick being heterosexual, but that's a moot point since humans are naturally that way. If homosexuality were a part of human nature, then we would see male and female sexual organs on everyone, and we would be hermaphroditic <sp?> like earthworms and jellyfish.

"If heterosexuals were part of human nature, our butts wouldn't be big enough to get a penis into them".

"If humans were ment to be heterosexual and have children, there wouldn't be such a thing as idiocy, because it ruins your chance to become pregnant."

I don't see what being a hemaphrodite has to do with being gay. You don't need a penis and a vagina for a relationship with another man. For a bisexual, maybe, but in reality I don't believe so.

As I stated before, there is not one legitimate ounce of conclusive evidence that homosexuals are genetically gay. This is not to say that life occurances can't influence how we live throughout our life. Still, the choices you make are YOUR choices. No one made you choose your life situation. Granted there is a fair degree of things that are beyond our grasp, but the vast majority of the time it is our choices that put us in the situation in the first place. (now where this is not the case is like when the Jews were forced into concentration camps. No choices they made put them there. However, this is not what we're talking about here.)

Many Jews could have fled their ghettoes when they heard about the death camps, but as you said, that's not what we're talking about here.

People aren't born alcoholics (well...they can be if their mother consumed alcohol while pregnant, but that's not relevant to this topic.) Alcoholism is not natural to humans. It is events in life that influence choices that lead to alcoholism. People aren't born with sexual addiction. It is events in life that influence choices that lead to sexual addiction. Same thing with homosexuality.

There is no such thing as addiction to sex. It's a porn novel myth.

And again, you're proving nothing. And if you did, if nobody is born with homosexuality, then it wouldn't change much. It'd still not be a conscious choice.

Personally, I think we're born asexual and then become homosexual or heterosexual like you become left-handed, right-handed, or both.

Also your logic is flawed in the statement "you don't pick who to fall in love with more than Africans picked their skin colour." I fell in love with the woman who became my wife. I didn't just fall in love like a helpless victim of a highly contageous disease. I became interested in her, but ultimately the love thing was completely rational. I chose to grow intimately with her. I chose to pursue a relationship with her. I chose to fall in love with her.

You have to realize that it's not like that for all people.

Oh, and when you were in love with her, in the middle of your relationship, you could break up, but you'd still be in love and suffer a broken heart. I'm talking about emotional love here, not practicing love. Ever heard of "love at first sight"?

I was not hit by any dominoes or large dice rolling, thus deciding my fate. I was not genetically bound to her like I am to my skin color. I am a euro-American (white). I will always be white. I can tan, but I will just be a tan white guy. I can severely tatoo my body pastel pink if I wanted to, but I would still be a white, european American. Nothing can change the nature of that, irrelevant as it is. Love is ultimately a rational thing. Sure you can have feelings for someone, but those feelings would not be there without you having made choices along the way.

You weren't hit by a dice, no, neither was I;).

First of all, that is not what I believe. Second of all it is not a predetermined belief, it is a belief based on the moral standard that I hold to. (the Bible.) I did not call homosexuality a "problem." I called it a choice.

Being ex-gay, I can inform you that it isn't, and being ex-gay I know that better than you do. I liked this boy, I went to the States, I fell in love with a girl. I didn't choose to love the girl, didn't choose to love the boy.

Now before I am crucified for what I just said, let me explain myself a little better. People who are born blind have a disability. Now does that make them bad people. No, it would be idiotic to even suggest it. Now for a person who is born blind, do they see their disability as a bad thing. No. Why would they?

Irrelevant. Homosexuality is neither unnatural or a disability.

Dictionary.com:

nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)

adj.

1: Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.

2: Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.

3: Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

4: Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.

5: Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.

6: Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

7: Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.

8: Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.

9: Faithfully representing nature or life.

10: Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).

11: Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.

12: Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

(...)

#1: Homosexuality is found in nature in humans, dogs, dolphins, shimpanzees, and wolves, just to mention a few.

#2: See #1.

#3: Homosexuality isn't something that you've decided consciously, and even if you have, it would be part of nature if homosexuality resulted from a choice. What would be unnatural are things like a plastic arms to replace the other arm that a mine blew to pieces. A plastic arm is synthetic, thus it's not natural. You won't find a plastic arm lying around in nature, but you might find a wolf hunting another male wolf.

#4: Homosexuality isn't 'aquired' from something like a jacket or a plastic arm is, so it's natural. It's just somethng you've got in you.

#5: Homosexuality seems particular enough to me.

#6 and 7: There's nothing artificial about gayness, is there now?

#8: This one had me thinking. Seeing gayness is natural, it'd be unnatural to treat it. Never saw a dolphin give another dolphin therapy for being gay...

#9: Engaging in a gay relationship is a natural way of acting out homosexuality, so this one fits. What would be unnatural is being married to a straight woman when you're gay.

#10-12: Well, these are passing, so they're not much worth to me, lest you can say that left-handedness is 'unnatural'. Homosexuality is about to be covered by #10-12 because it's becoming accepted.

dis·a·bil·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-bl-t)

n. pl. dis·a·bil·i·ties

1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.

2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.

3. A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.

4. Something that hinders or incapacitates.

5. Law. A legal incapacity or disqualification.

#1: Homosexuals are capable of doing whatever straight people can, including having sex with someone of the other gender and getting pregnant.

#2: Homosexuality is not a disability, see #1.

#3: Depends on what is considered normal. Again, left-handedness could be a disability with this definition, but is 'normal'. Likewise, homosexuality is normal because it's natural. It wasn't considered normal before, but hell, neither was left-handedness or having a dark skin.

#4: See #1. If a homosexual wants to 'act straight' for some reason, he can.

#5: Irrelevant to discussion.

Also, people misinterpreted what I meant by the textbook statement. By textbook I mean it is the most recognizable scenario. Some may call this stereotyping (however not technically when referring to cases of psychology. Stereotyping is when you go off a preconceived notion that all are the same as the first case.) I am sure there are homosexuals that have never been sexually abused. I have never met any personally, but I am sure they exist. (keep in mind, I have met a lot of homosexual people.)

You sound as if you're saying "I think every homosexual has been abused, but I'm not sure. Maybe 1 or 2 per cent of them haven't been." You're way off.

As for the friends with homosexuals remark, I meant it. I have some good friends that are gay.

That means nothing as long as you don't like homosexuality. It's just an umbrella, a shield. "I hate blacks, but some of them are my friends".

You called homosexuality sick, didn't you? The fact that you put up with your gay friends doesn't make it more right or wrong to be gay, neither in your opinion, in anyone else's opinion, or factually, thus, it's irrelevant.

Yes I have read this report too. Like you said, they have found that homosexual brains do have differences in how they have developed. However, is it fair to classify this type of development as homosexual? So all of the tested homosexual brains had that type of development. Does this mean that there is not one heterosexual brain in the entire world that has the same type of development? If I have a child whose brain develops in that manner, does that mean that he/she is destined to be gay? I doubt it seriously. There is nothing in what you said that suggests contrary to the choice of lifestyle.

No, I never said that 100% of them would be gay. I just stated that there's a difference in their brains.

I once heard of a child who only had to sleep two or three hours a night because he used one side of his brain part of the time and the other side the other part of the time. That's probably not genetical. Is that wrong too, since it's not genetical?

I know what you are thinking right now. "Rape, adultery, & sexual abuse are bad because they involve an unconsenting victim." You would be right too, but only half right. All pornea is sinful for one reason alone. 1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee from sexual immorality (pornea). All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually (pornea) sins against his own body."
All pornea is sinful. The Bible doesn't single out homosexuality.

I believe it's been said by me and others that we don't want religion thrown in our faces that way.

Hello?? The twins thing pal. The family inheritance via genetics. There's all the evidence you need. Did you not read it? These is not half-@$$ed claims. These are actual real-life examples. My point was that homosexuality is not genetic, and there is no conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise.

I still do not see how that makes it a conscious choice, or wrong, but that's me...

I know it's not genetical, okay? Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it anything but not inherited.

What exactly is your point? Yeah I can try to go against my nature and attempt to breath water like a fish. I can build prosthetic wings, attach them to my arms and try to fly like a bird. I can shave my head and decorate every part of my body with piercings. None of these are natural to humanity.

No, because no human so far has had that happen to them.

Homosexuality, however, is natural like being left-handed is natural. And don't bring in genetics, because something can be "un-genetic" and still be natural.

Attempting to breathe like a fish is a crude analogy to trying to love another man. You can't breathe underwater, although it'd be fun. But you can love a woman. You have a 10% chance of being gay. You don't have a 10% chance of being born with gills like a fish.

About the first two humans being straight and "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

This is a fallacy when used against gays because it either means that

If 'Adam' and 'Eve' were exactly the same level of evolution as we are, it means that both 'Adam' and 'Eve' had a 1/10th chance of being homosexual. Thus, God/evolution/some other force created two humans that had the same chance of being gay as we have.
If they did not have a 1/10th chance of being gay, well, then it would mean something changed since then. Which means that it'd be unnatural to them, but not necessarily to us, because we're not like Adam and Eve. Which logically, we aren't, otherwise, I'd be brown-skinned, right? It's called evolution. Or do you say that being blonde is against nature, too, because "god created Adam and Eve, not Asbjørn and Eva"?

I'm not saying that they are sinful in any way (crazy....but not sinful).

So much for "no opinions allowed/I don't care about how things seem".

Hmmm....let me think about that. "So to me, it seems...." FALLACY!!! I don't care how things seem to you.

Then why do you post about how things seem to you?

So you are saying that a homosexual can't ever become heterosexual? Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I also know of quite a few former homosexuals (who were very active in that lifestyle) who have since changed their ways. They are happily married to members of the opposite sex, and happily have families. I asked each of them if they regret the change in lifestyle. Not one of them regrets it. Are they acting against their homosexual nature? No....they are living within their real nature as humans. Every one of them would say that too. (They did. I asked them)

I notice how you haven't bothered asking anyone who's happily married to another of the same gender if they're happy. Try, it's called seeing the other side.

Of course they're happy being married. It's called love, and exists in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It doesn't prove that homosexuality or heterosxeuality is wrong.

Uh...it's called biology. Like I said earlier, humans are naturally male and female. Humans naturally go through puberty and develop sexual organs, which naturally allow procreation of the species. While sex is fun, and the intimacy of sex is wonderful, recreational sex is not the primary function of sexual organs. It is not the only function, just the primary.

So the heck what already?

Again, you could use this statement against a good deal of things. It changes nothing.

IN CONCLUSION, there's no single thing in your post that says homosexuality is a conscious choice as in 'I want to wear a blue shirt today'.

jedispy · September 4, 2003

Heh...actually I was just joking when I said "no matter how hard we try." I can see why you would have thought that. I'm sorry for the miscommunication. Also I didn't mean to have a 'tude in that last post. I am sorry. Attitudes are hard to read in forums like this.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Start a new thread called 'Why the bible is unquestionably true - FULL STOP'. I will gladly discuss with you in this thread why I believe the bible is NOT unquestionably true.

This thread is not about the inerrency of the Bible. This thread is about :

Originally posted by The Cheat
I am sure that many of you have heard about the new bishop in the Episcopal church who is openly gay.

I was wondering what is your view on this?

I myself am a member of an Episcopal Church and one family has already left the church because of the incident. My father is a member of the vestry and nearly went crazy about it when he heard about it while we were on vacation down in Myrtle Beach, SC.

I do not believe that he should be allowed to be a Bishop because with those beliefs he goes against what the Bible has taught from the beginning with Adam and Eve.

I have nothing against gays but I do not think they should be Bishops or that a gay marriage should be blessed by a church.

This is only my personal opinion, I would like to hear some of yours.

This thread is entirely about the situation with the Episcopals and the elected gay bishop. In order for this thread to have any sense of rationale then the Bible ultimately must be brought into it. True, the claims to the moral nature of homosexuality are inherant to this conversation. However this is not a secular matter dealing with the things of this world. This is dealing with topics that are beyond the understanding of anyone not well acquainted with the Bible. Here is an example of what I mean. I wouldn't get into an argument with two doctors of physics about quantum mechanics. Why? Because I don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics.

The matter is simple. This bishop (his name escapes me right now) claims to be an overseer of the church (pastor/bishop). The Bible has strict guidelines as to who is qualified for the position of overseer. I will not bore you with the details, but pretty much what it comes down to is this: Overseers are to be people that are learned in the scriptures; people who know them; people who live by them; and lastly people whom God calls to the position.

*A person actively living drug addiction is not qualified to be an overseer

*A person who likes to sexually molest children should not be an overseer.

*A person who actively engages in viewing porn really ought to not be an overseer.

*A person who lives a profane life filled with wild drunken orgies should not ben an overseer.

*Since homosexuality is pornea, gay people should not be overseers of the Church.

I know you guys have a lot of preconceived ideas of what Christians are like, and what Christianity is all about. You probably think that Christianity is about controlling people and conforming them to our way of life. I am here to tell you that this is completely wrong. I know you may not believe it, but Christianity is actually about freedom. I know that a lot of what I am saying probably won't make sense to you. After all how can I explain the color red to someone who has been blind since birth? [figuratively speaking]

*All are sinners, and all have fallen short of the glory of God. People like to ask "I've never killed anyone before. Are you saying I'm going to go to Hell just because I swear?" My answer to them is that they try to live as perfect a life as they can, and it won't matter.

*There is no amount of good things that you can do to get into Heaven. It is not about that. It is like the old saying "it's not who you are, it's who you know." Pretty much, in a nutshell that is the message of salvation in the Bible.

*The good news is that Christ died for sinners. He died for the greedy, the vain, the boastful, the proud, the hypocrites, the Democrats (LOL...just kidding guys), the murderers, the thieves, the gossips, the liars, the self-righteous, the judgemental, the hateful, the bigots, the prejudiced, the intolerant, the arrogant, the spiteful, the druggies, the alcoholics, the addicts of all natures, the profane, and he even died for those caught up in pornea.

*The Bible says that for Christians "where sin increases, grace increases all the more." That means let's say I take a turn for the worst and become addicted to porn. Let's say I get so addicted that it tears my life apart. My marriage fails, I lose my job, all due to the addiction. Have I suddenly lost my salvation in Christ? "where sin increases, grace increases all the more." That means that Christ died already for that sin. It has been forgiven.

*Christians are sinners. That has never changed. I sin. $#it I sin every day (LOL). Christians are not perfect. The Bible says nothing about Christians leading perfect lives. We should try to live a life in accordance to God's commands, but it says nothing about being perfect.

*The good news is that anyone can be saved. I have gay friends that are Christians. God bless them. Jesus' first concern is for people to be saved. That other stuff is secondary.

*Since grace increases when sin increases, does this mean that we shall go to sinning? No it doesn't. The grace Christians have from God is not free license to simply go out and sin away. The idea is that true Christians will have develop desire to want to pursue righteousness, to bear good fruit. If Christ truly lives inside an individual, He will make the desires come to life.

*"Christians" who don't bear good fruit are questionable if their faith is real, or if they are just following the motions of "Churchianity".

*It is fair to say that the majority of people that claim they are Christians are really "Churchians." To be a Christian means to have a personal relationship with Jesus. It isn't enough to read about Him in the Bible, or sing about Him in church. Sadly, MANY people don't get that.

Like I said before, I am not on some crusade to rid the world of gays. That is genocide. I am not on a quest to make it illegal. I used to be like that. I used to hate homosexuals, but Christ convicted me of my sin. Now do I have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle? I do not agree with it. I believe what the Bible says about it. Do I hate gay people? No no no....of course not. Not anymore. Gay people are what? PEOPLE. Who did Jesus die for? PEOPLE.

I hope this clears up a few things. Sorry for getting long winded.

Jedispy

jedispy · September 4, 2003

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle
"If heterosexuals were part of human nature, our butts wouldn't be big enough to get a penis into them".

The function of the gastro-intestinal system is for waste disposal. Ever have a large turd before?

"If humans were ment to be heterosexual and have children, there wouldn't be such a thing as idiocy, because it ruins your chance to become pregnant."

Putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that.

I don't see what being a hemaphrodite has to do with being gay.

Just as much as being gay has to do with human nature.

There is no such thing as addiction to sex. It's a porn novel myth.

LMAO!!!! Oh my gosh!! You have just denied a major avenue of psychology. You might want to check the facts on this one. Sexual addiction DOES exist, and is a larger issue than you think. A lot of people say they don't have a problem with it. O.k. Well a lot of alcoholics say they don't have a drinking problem.

And again, you're proving nothing. And if you did, if nobody is born with homosexuality, then it wouldn't change much. It'd still not be a conscious choice.

And you have not proven that it is not a conscious choice. So you used to be gay. Am I supposed to be happy about that? Do you think that is all I care about? No offense, but whether or not a person is gay is of no consequence to me. How is my life affected by the fact that you were attracted to a boy once?

Personally, I think we're born asexual and then become homosexual or heterosexual like you become left-handed, right-handed, or both.

That's nice that you think that. By the way, right handed or left handed is genetic. The brain lobe hemispheres are developed one way for left handed people (a.k.a. "right brained") and visa versa for righties. I am left handed, and I have had studies done for seizures before. The doctors noted how activities such as writing generated brain activity on my right hemisphere lobe. Also Wernicke's and Brocha's areas (neural tissue that is used in speech and comprehension) are located on the opposite side of the brain than on a right handed person. This is in common to all genetically left handed people. (This does not count right handed people that learned how to write left handed, or ambidextrous people.)

As stated before, there is no conclusive evidence that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.

#1: Homosexuality is found in nature in humans, dogs, dolphins, shimpanzees, and wolves, just to mention a few.

Excellent point. Now what I am about to say will most likely make you laugh. I don't expect you to understand. (read my last post where mentioned describing the color red to a born-blind man). When humans sinned in the garden of Eden, human nature fell and became sinful. This affected not only human nature, but all nature became corrupt. In the garden, animals did not fear people. After the fall, animals feared us as they would a predator. That which lived in purity, now sank to impurity.

Now I know that you don't believe in the Bible, and you think I'm full of crap. And you know what...that's o.k. I don't expect you to believe what I believe. I believe that homosexuality is not natural. It is a product of a corrupt sinful nature. Now I'm not saying that animals sin. Let's not even bother going there because that would take us WAY off topic.

#4: Homosexuality isn't 'aquired' from something like a jacket or a plastic arm is, so it's natural. It's just somethng you've got in you.

We have sinful natures inside us too. I'm nitpicking on these because they are entirely contingent on gay being natural, which has not been proven.

#1: Homosexuals are capable of doing whatever straight people can, including having sex with someone of the other gender and getting pregnant.

#2: Homosexuality is not a disability, see #1

I said that homosexuality is not a disability. It is not a birth defect either.

You sound as if you're saying "I think every homosexual has been abused

No you are putting words into my mouth. I said every homosexual that I have met has been. I was not making a claim that all were. I pointing out that I don't have sufficient evidence in this matter.

You called homosexuality sick, didn't you?

No. I did not. I said I disagree with the lifestyle. How I feel about it is irrelevant. Maybe it makes me sick and maybe it does not. Like I said irrelevant.

I once heard of a child who only had to sleep two or three hours a night because he used one side of his brain part of the time and the other side the other part of the time. That's probably not genetical. Is that wrong too, since it's not genetical?

Illogical and irrelevant. Learning how to do a task with one's brain? I don't see your point. Also the fact that you once heard does not prove the reliability or validity of the story.

I believe it's been said by me and others that we don't want religion thrown in our faces that way.

See my previous post regarding the topic of this thread.

I still do not see how that makes it a conscious choice, or wrong, but that's me...

O.k.

I know it's not genetical, okay? Doesn't make it wrong, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it anything but not inherited.

Minding the excessive use of double and triple negatives () <Also looking for a definition of genetical>

Homosexuality, however, is natural like being left-handed is natural. And don't bring in genetics, because something can be "un-genetic" and still be natural.

Like what? Choosing to eat what foods you like? Choosing to listen to music? I suppose people can develop cancer naturally. Is that what you mean?

You have a 10% chance of being gay.

That's a nice statistic. Evidence?

[*]If 'Adam' and 'Eve' were exactly the same level of evolution as we are, it means that both 'Adam' and 'Eve' had a 1/10th chance of being homosexual. Thus, God/evolution/some other force created two humans that had the same chance of being gay as we have.

Your arguement is flawed because that is assuming that evolution is a fact. However it is a theory. It is a well put together theory, but a theory nevertheless. If evolution is not correct, then anything you say about it is false.

Then why do you post about how things seem to you?

I'm trying to recall If I used the word "seems" when relating to evidence and fact.

I notice how you haven't bothered asking anyone who's happily married to another of the same gender if they're happy. Try, it's called seeing the other side.

First of all I don't know any. Second of all there are plenty of people engaged in pornea that are happy with it.

IN CONCLUSION, there's no single thing in your post that says homosexuality is a conscious choice as in 'I want to wear a blue shirt today'.

And there is nothing in yours that conclusively points out that is it not a choice. Here is where you fail. You are looking at immediate choice only. Putting on a blue shirt is an immediate choice. I would not say that being gay is an immediate choice. It is however a choice that is made through a series of events. Tell me, when does a woman choose to be a prostitute? Does she just walk along the street corner one day and say "now that's a lucrative business!!" Does an alcoholic immediately choose to be an alcoholic? No. He/she chooses to drink enough to the point to where they become addicted.

A parable:

Bob works at a large ISP in the western United States. He does not get paid a large sum of money at his job. There are other people in the company who get paid more than him to do basically the same job. Now did he choose to be paid less? Not directly. You see it was Bob that decided to drop out of college and get a job. However, as a result of his decision, he now is paid less than anyone else. Only people with bachelor's degrees get paid the higher wages. Bob ultimately chose the life he lives.

I'm sure that if you were to be analyzed in depth, we'd find when you made your choices.

Before responding to anything in this one, please read my previous post regarding the topic of this thread. i would really like to stay on topic if at all possible.

Jedispy

Gays and Church

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived