NationStates Jolt Archive

Being a homo is a sin because it says in the bible that god made adam and EVE. thats in the bible
NOT adam and STEVE!!!!

And the irony being that statement has "dumb ppl" as its title. :D

No no, I'm an American. Just lots of irish blood. I have been to Northern Ireland though, and its not that bad. Actually quite nice, the violence is nothing like in the troubles and the police state security is pretty much a memory.
Also: Fuck England...still

See, here's one american that agrees and would justly kill all the brits because of all the troubles they have caused over the years.

Being a homo is a sin because it says in the bible that god made adam and EVE. thats in the bible
NOT adam and STEVE!!!!

This, though sounding less than intellgent in the way Crunk45 is putting it across is a good point. If God does support homosexuality then why did he not create more people in the garden of Eden to be homosexual (IE Four homosexuals, 2 male 2 female and one hetrosexual couple)

The Bible is not a perfect document. Anyone who believes it is is either deluding themselves, or hasn't read it and is simply following along like a sheep.

While that statement is true, people need to realize it is a coin with two sides. If you insist that one cannot prove homosexuality was condemned by citing Scripture, then you can't prove it was endorsed, either.

While that statement is true, people need to realize it is a coin with two sides. If you insist that one cannot prove homosexuality was condemned by citing Scripture, then you can't prove it was endorsed, either.

Here here

This, though sounding less than intellgent in the way Crunk45 is putting it across is a good point. If God does support homosexuality then why did he not create more people in the garden of Eden to be homosexual (IE Four homosexuals, 2 male 2 female and one hetrosexual couple)

You still have yet to explain why you choose the second version of the creation story. In the first version, all of humankind was created - not just Adam and Eve. Maybe you should see the story for what it is - a metaphor.

See, here's one american that agrees and would justly kill all the brits because of all the troubles they have caused over the years.
Not all the Brits. I know alot of people in England had it just as bad as people in Ireland, Oliver Twist an whatnot. It was the fucking landowning Brits that gang raped Ireland. Also Cromwell.

You still have yet to explain why you choose the second version of the creation story. In the first version, all of humankind was created - not just Adam and Eve. Maybe you should see the story for what it is - a metaphor.

Im not aware of any first version. What are you refering to?

I couldn't agree more, Hammalopolis. All of us gays know what we are talking about.

While that statement is true, people need to realize it is a coin with two sides. If you insist that one cannot prove homosexuality was condemned by citing Scripture, then you can't prove it was endorsed, either.

I never said it was.

I can state that through my reading of the Bible as a whole (rather than little snippets that might agree with me while ignoring the rest), examining Christ's philosophy, and prayer - I have come to the conclusion that God wants us to experience love. One of the highest forms of love is that which can only be shared between two people who feel it so strongly that they choose to commit the rest of their earthly lives to one another. I doubt that an all-good, loving God is going to condemn anyone for trying to find that love in the only place in which they can find it.

This, though sounding less than intellgent in the way Crunk45 is putting it across is a good point. If God does support homosexuality then why did he not create more people in the garden of Eden to be homosexual (IE Four homosexuals, 2 male 2 female and one hetrosexual couple)
Because humanity evolved from chimp-like animals in Africa, they weren't created in the garden of eden. As a personal favor to me, please don't turn this into an evolution vs. creation debate. That is a fun debate by itself, don't go and gay it up :D

I'm sorry: was that a personal comment? I may be Nigerian blah blah blah but the only great person out of your country was Napoleon, and he's dead.

I think I speak for all true americans by saying this; and by the way my ancestral heritage is Egypt, so don't even try and say the Brits are the best in the world, because the Egyptian forces kick assss.
Ok now you're just taking the piss!! :rolleyes:

Well, I hope you're taking the piss. (please be taking the piss)

Not all the Brits. I know alot of people in England had it just as bad as people in Ireland, Oliver Twist an whatnot. It was the fucking landowning Brits that gang raped Ireland. Also Cromwell.
We're still taking the piss, right?

I couldn't agree more, Hammalopolis. All of us gays know what we are talking about.
Nah, most people don't know what the fuck they are talking about (me too)

I'm a damn punk rocker from England y'all.
For how long have I diverted your attention from the matter at hand to "The UK and the US"? I have won a considerable bet thanks to you.

Going now...

Respeck.

Please don't report flaming behaviour????

I never said it was.

I can state that through my reading of the Bible as a whole (rather than little snippets that might agree with me while ignoring the rest), examining Christ's philosophy, and prayer - I have come to the conclusion that God wants us to experience love. One of the highest forms of love is that which can only be shared between two people who feel it so strongly that they choose to commit the rest of their earthly lives to one another. I doubt that an all-good, loving God is going to condemn anyone for trying to find that love in the only place in which they can find it.

I understand and respect your viewpoint on that, but realize that it isn't going to change anybody's mind. The reason is that I could take that argument and apply it to anything else I want. No offense, but people have used similar statements to justify pedophilia, which I am sure you will agree is wrong.

Because humanity evolved from chimp-like animals in Africa, they weren't created in the garden of eden. As a personal favor to me, please don't turn this into an evolution vs. creation debate. That is a fun debate by itself, don't go and gay it up :D

We are debating Christianity here, by saying "Christianity is wrong" you are making the debate irrelevent. "Christianity is wrong, there is no such thing as a sin, homosexuality is not a sin" is not a logic that works here as we are debating within Christianity.

I'm a damn punk rocker from England y'all.
For how long have I diverted your attention from the matter at hand to "The UK and the US"? I have won a considerable bet thanks to you.

Going now...

Respeck.

Please don't report flaming behaviour????
Sweet!! That was impressive!! Much respect. Except for punk music. Punk music sucks man. Essential for lots of good music to come into existence, but still shat. :p

So... gay evolution...

Im not aware of any first version. What are you refering to?

In Genesis, if you actually read it, you will find that there are two separate creation stories. Theological analysts have held for years that the two stories were written by two different authors.

The first story is the priestly story -- it is meant to demonstrate the absolute greatness of God. It is the "7-day" creation story in which God says "let there be light" etc. In this story, God creates everything in turn. All of the birds, fish, and other animals are created before God creates humanking, male and female, in God's image.

The second story is written by the author I believe they refer to as the Yahwist -- it is meant to demonstrate humanity's separation from God. In this story, God creates a garden known as Eden, then creates all of the water to water the plants. God then creates a single man - Adam. God *then* creates all of the animals and parades them in front of Adam to name and to choose a companion. Adam doesn't like any of them, so God gets the idea that Adam needs a female. Then God puts Adam to sleep, takes a rib, and creates a single woman. The two frolic around until they sin and then get kicked out. They have some kids who fight - and one of them gets punished - but is for some reason scared of a people who shouldn't exist.

I understand and respect your viewpoint on that, but realize that it isn't going to change anybody's mind. The reason is that I could take that argument and apply it to anything else I want. No offense, but people have used similar statements to justify pedophilia, which I am sure you will agree is wrong.
AGAIN there is a difference between a relationship between consenting adults and someone who has sex with children. The first implies love, the second implies rape and coercion.

I understand and respect your viewpoint on that, but realize that it isn't going to change anybody's mind. The reason is that I could take that argument and apply it to anything else I want. No offense, but people have used similar statements to justify pedophilia, which I am sure you will agree is wrong.

Pedophilia causes harm, so despite what arguments may be used to rationalize it - it cannot be condoned. It involves sex, not love. And one of the participants is not yet mentally developed enough to even participate in such love.

Love between two consenting men or women does not cause any harm to anyone.

We are debating Christianity here, by saying "Christianity is wrong" you are making the debate irrelevent. "Christianity is wrong, there is no such thing as a sin, homosexuality is not a sin" is not a logic that works here as we are debating within Christianity.

Ham didn't say that Christianity is wrong, he said that Creationism is wrong. The two are not interchangeable.

AGAIN there is a difference between a relationship between consenting adults and someone who has sex with children. The first implies love, the second implies rape and coercion.

I agree, but you've missed my point.

My point is that justifying an act--any act-- in the name of love does not, in and of itself work. I agree that God wants all to experience love, but there is a framework for it, as He put forth in Scripture. To dismiss that framework is remove all restrictions and morality becomes irrelevant.

I agree, but you've missed my point.

My point is that justifying an act--any act-- in the name of love does not, in and of itself work. I agree that God wants all to experience love, but there is a framework for it, as He put forth in Scripture. To dismiss that framework is remove all restrictions and morality becomes irrelevant.

So you believe that God has intentionally destined some people for lives without love.

That is fine, but I do not agree, as that is certainly not the God I worship.

They have some kids who fight - and one of them gets punished - but is for some reason scared of a people who shouldn't exist.
The people are Cain and Abel's other siblings. Remember there's no set timescale for that bit of the Bible, so the strictly Biblical theory is that A&E's other kids had gone forth and multiplied. A lot.

I agree, but you've missed my point.

My point is that justifying an act--any act-- in the name of love does not, in and of itself work. I agree that God wants all to experience love, but there is a framework for it, as He put forth in Scripture. To dismiss that framework is remove all restrictions and morality becomes irrelevant.
Why would such a framework preclude a relationship between two people that does not harm anyone? I explained that the love argument does work in this situation; pedophilia does not involve love, it involves lust and coercion.

Pedophilia causes harm, so despite what arguments may be used to rationalize it - it cannot be condoned. It involves sex, not love. And one of the participants is not yet mentally developed enough to even participate in such love.


Agreed, but even that can be considered relative. In ages past, and even in some modern countries, the age at which someone was considered marriagable varied wildly. We draw the line today at 16 typically, but in some places it can get a little higher or drastically lower.

Would you say someone who is 14 is too young to experience that kind of love? Perhaps they are, I don't know. I do know that there are places where a 14 year old can get married, even in the USA. I think we'd all agree that 8 years old is clearly too young, but where's the line drawn?

My point in all that rambling is that while I agree with what you said about the difference between coercion and mature feeling, it still doesn't disprove my point that practically any relationship can be justified in the name of love. It doesn't have to be pedophilia. What about incest?

Anyway, my views on homosexuality:
I believe that whatever the Bible says should be listened to and considered. That does not mean to say that you should do what it says. In the early days of the church, the Bible was formed from a plethora of information all of it supposedly from God, or influenced by him. The early leaders of the church were very selective; e.g. how many gospels do we have? 4. Hundreds were written, but only those which reflected the conservative situation of the time were chosen, and these were highly edited.

My point is, don't use the Bible so rigourously to defend your conservative arguments. By all means, use it for liberalising purposes, as any liberal points are gems for liberal argumentators, but don't forget that the large picture of the New Testament in particular could be very different.

The moral is; don't listen to purported Nigerians own own real estate in the UK who want to move to Greenwich, CT. :)

PS I don't like punk rock really. I like better (heavy!) music!

So you believe that God has intentionally destined some people for lives without love.

That is fine, but I do not agree, as that is certainly not the God I worship.

God has never intentionaly destined anyone to lack anything. Least of all love. What people who say the Bible cant be trusted have to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You cant say that the evidence is shakey and then point at the other evidence within the same body that supports your ideas.

I can't comment on this without pissing off some major religions around the globe, so I will refrain from it.

Just know that I'm a lesbian trans-girl who currently has two girls she loves more than the world. (I'm so going to burn in hell :cool: )

The Bible also claims that slavery is acceptable. This is one often quoted reasons why the bible is not necessarily always morally correct in our own age.
Also, many pro-homosexual Christians claim that the Bible only forbids casual homosexual relationships that were common in the more hedonistic parts of Ancient Greek and Roman society, rather than loving commitments.

As Jesus said, "bum-love thy neighbour..."

Oh wait...

The Bible also claims that slavery is acceptable.

Where?

I doubt Mirwania will burn in hell for what she is; she feels guilt for what she is doing, but she shouldn't as she clearly is following the right path for herself. She shouldn't listen to what ever anyone else says that is negative; critisizing people for what they are is as bad as slagging off countries for no reason... But you get my point; she should feel proud of herself for being as she is, for surely if she is faithful she will go to heaven.

God has never intentionaly destined anyone to lack anything. Least of all love. What people who say the Bible cant be trusted have to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You cant say that the evidence is shakey and then point at the other evidence within the same body that supports your ideas.

Yes you can. Some of the evidence for your moral position is shakey, and the evidence is strong for another one.

eg
I can say that Jesus was gay, but there would be very little evidence at all to support this. My position on this matter is shakey. I can however say Jesus taugh acceptance, because there is a whole lot of evidence that supports this. My position in strong.

Because its better that way!?

The Bible says that to lay with another of the same gender is a sin. It doesn't say anything about loving them, or not. The temptation of homosexuality is not the sin. Giving in to it, actuall going through with the ACT is the sin.

:sniper:

The people are Cain and Abel's other siblings. Remember there's no set timescale for that bit of the Bible, so the strictly Biblical theory is that A&E's other kids had gone forth and multiplied. A lot.

An entire land full? (ie. land of Nod), from which he could chose a wife? (incest anyone?)

Besides, that has little to do with the existence of two separate creation stories.

The Bible says that to lay with another of the same gender is a sin. It doesn't say anything about loving them, or not. The temptation of homosexuality is not the sin. Giving in to it, actuall going through with the ACT is the sin.

:sniper:

I don't want to sound like a dick, because I'm not trying to be, but you are like 100+ ages late with that. Part of love is sex. Sex is an expression of love, and simply prohibitng it for two people without any logical reason seems like a cruel thing for an all loving god to do, doesn't it?

The Bible says that to lay with another of the same gender is a sin.
No no no. That passage condemns mankinds exploitation of itself.

As far as the seperation between love and sex goes, Paul talks about men being inflamed with "Un nautral lusts" for one another, and Jesus says that even looking at a women lustfully is a sin, I presume it is the same for gays

I don't want to sound like a dick, because I'm not trying to be, but you are like 100+ ages late with that. Part of love is sex. Sex is an expression of love, and simply prohibitng it for two people without any logical reason seems like a cruel thing for an all loving god to do, doesn't it?
There WAS a logical reason to forbid it. God created man and woman, to be together. That was His plan all along. Sin distorted His plan, and that is where all this other stuff comes from. He made it a sin for a reason.

Agreed, but even that can be considered relative. In ages past, and even in some modern countries, the age at which someone was considered marriagable varied wildly. We draw the line today at 16 typically, but in some places it can get a little higher or drastically lower.

It can be quite relative, as the time course of mental and emotional development is determined to quite an extent by society and environment.

Would you say someone who is 14 is too young to experience that kind of love? Perhaps they are, I don't know. I do know that there are places where a 14 year old can get married, even in the USA. I think we'd all agree that 8 years old is clearly too young, but where's the line drawn?

In this day and age? Yes, in the US, I would say that 14 is too young. People are not forced to mature as quickly as they once were. And as young as 12, the biological factors aren't all there - the decision making portions of the brain are not fully formed. But these days, I doubt you could find many 14, 16, or even 18 year olds who are truly capable of making life-long decisions and exhibiting that type of committment.

My point in all that rambling is that while I agree with what you said about the difference between coercion and mature feeling, it still doesn't disprove my point that practically any relationship can be justified in the name of love. It doesn't have to be pedophilia. What about incest?

But your point is untrue. People can talk about love and even think that they feel it, but that is not the justification. I am talking about a specific form of love here.

As for incest, psychologically, the love between siblings or parent-children is very different from the type of love I am speaking of. Perhaps if the two had never met until both were adults it could happen, but that occurrence is very rare.

I am a sort universalist; I believe that everyone will go to heaven, regardless of their orientation or if they are "evil", and as such I am appalled by the way people are not discussing homosexuality as just an ordinary human trait. Whatever causes it, there is no way that people should be obliged to change this just because it was deemed sinful. When I was younger I was part of the Church Universalist and Triumphant (an american church), and I now regard them as an oppressive cult, but when engaged in their society I felt as if I was coming closer to God. www.tsl.org (http://www.tsl.org) One of the things that they emphasised was that humans should not exercise their own will: they should just listen to God's will. In this way homosexual people in particular were forced to become heterosexual as great pressure was put on them - if they didn't leave those ways they would die a "second death" in hell - that of the soul.

It is important to remember that what other people say may seem true to them, but it is important to interpret the Bible in your own way, and above all do not force your view on anyone else: especially if you are in a position of authority like a biblical youth club or school.

No no no. That passage condemns mankinds exploitation of itself.
And where do you come up with that? It says to lay with a man, "as you would a woman" is a sin. It doesn't mean anything other than that.

There WAS a logical reason to forbid it. God created man and woman, to be together. That was His plan all along. Sin distorted His plan, and that is where all this other stuff comes from. He made it a sin for a reason.
What reason is that? Humanity seems to haved thrived even with all the gayness. If anything we need more gay people, the world's population is spiraling out of control.

God has never intentionaly destined anyone to lack anything.

Hmmmm, God made hormones occur in such a way that some people are homosexual. God doesn't like homosexuals. Therefore God has made it so that those people are not supposed to experience love.

And yet you say that God hasn't destined anyone to anything? Hmmm, guess you must believe God isn't anti-gay then.

What people who say the Bible cant be trusted have to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You cant say that the evidence is shakey and then point at the other evidence within the same body that supports your ideas.

Not really. Only unintelligent or people who can't think for themselves are "shooting themselves in the foot" by maintaining that the Bible itself is a flawed document. I can say that the Bible is a good place to start, but must be interpreted as a whole and in light of prayer and meditation.

Why is homosexuality a sin? What part is the sin, for being gay, being openly gay or having the desire and acting on it?

Is it a sin to go to a gay rally? Is it a sin to go to a gay dance club? Is it a sin to love a person of the same gender, but not have sex?

How do fundamentalists, evangelicals come to these rather dire conclusions that homosexuals are immoral and that it is wrong?

If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?

Having asked the questions I disclose I am gay and I admit to having a bias in asking these questions.

Wahoo!
ScoMo the HomoWell it's because of this. Moses, former prince of Egypt, was on one of his mad power trips while the Isrealites were hopelessly lost in the desert. He was thinking that he's somehow gotta keep in line all of these former slaves that he stole because he could never rise to the throne of Egypt and that shepard boy over there kept making sly winks at Moses' booty. Well His-Homophobicness wasn't having none of that. So he throws that little bit of bullshit into the whole bullshit laws that "God" supposedly had him write. "Yep. I'm God's prophet, Moses, worship m.. eh, Him, yeah, Him. Oh, and no butt-fucking homos. Yeah, He'll send you all to Hell for that. Yeah, that's it."

Im not aware of any first version. What are you refering to?

Oh come on dude, even *I* am aware that there are two different versions of the creation story told in Genesis.

god can't be that intelligent really. If he made it all so it would be a certain way, and it isn't, then I think that makes him a failure. Ha!

Of course, I believe there are no gods, so it is up to people's own free will and morals to decide what is right and wrong. Unfortunatly, not everyone agrees on everything - it's just one of those things. There will always be people who dislike gay people, the same as there will always be people who dislike wearing blue t-shirts.

I personally have no problem with gay people. It's their own life, who am I to say what they can or can't do with it?

But your point is untrue. People can talk about love and even think that they feel it, but that is not the justification. I am talking about a specific form of love here.

As for incest, psychologically, the love between siblings or parent-children is very different from the type of love I am speaking of. Perhaps if the two had never met until both were adults it could happen, but that occurrence is very rare.

Different how? We're not talking about normal familial love between siblings. I think a practitioner of incest might take issue with that statement.

In fact, there is no argument to defend homosexuality that cannot be applied to incest.

Like it or not, Judeo-Christianity is a religious pattern that does not condone homosexuality. Trying to twist the writings of the Bible around to jutify and morally defend it is a waste of time. If someone wants to know why it's a sin, and if the directives of God isn't answer enough, then I don't know what to tell you.

It is wrong to discriminate and bash people based upon this precept, and while I realize a lot of people use it as an excuse to be neasty and ugly, that's wrong too. I believe people ought to make up their own minds what they believe, but please don't try and have your cake and eat it too.

My point in all that rambling is that while I agree with what you said about the difference between coercion and mature feeling, it still doesn't disprove my point that practically any relationship can be justified in the name of love. It doesn't have to be pedophilia. What about incest?

Incest results in children that have a MUCH higher incidence of birth defects/recessive genetic disorders. So it does result in harm and that is why it is banned.

undefinedundefinedundefined

Okay, it's not that the people are condeming them, it's that it's just not a normal thing. I am a Christian, but I do not condem homosexuals. I just think, in my personal opinion, that it is wrong. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Love the sinner, hate the sin is what I say. I have no problem with the homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexuality. And that is what is wrong with it, is that it's not natural, just how would the human race continue to be if we were all homosexuals? It wouldn't.

There WAS a logical reason to forbid it. God created man and woman, to be together. That was His plan all along. Sin distorted His plan, and that is where all this other stuff comes from. He made it a sin for a reason.

So God made it a sin? Why? What reason did He have for that?

Different how? We're not talking about normal familial love between siblings. I think a practitioner of incest might take issue with that statement.

In fact, there is no argument to defend homosexuality that cannot be applied to incest.

Like it or not, Judeo-Christianity is a religious pattern that does not condone homosexuality. Trying to twist the writings of the Bible around to jutify and morally defend it is a waste of time. If someone wants to know why it's a sin, and if the directives of God isn't answer enough, then I don't know what to tell you.

It is wrong to discriminate and bash people based upon this precept, and while I realize a lot of people use it as an excuse to be neasty and ugly, that's wrong too. I believe people ought to make up their own minds what they believe, but please don't try and have your cake and eat it too.
Besides the obvious, and correct, arguments of increased genetic problems associated with inbreeding, incest also undermines relationships within the family. A dad screwing his son, isn't really going to function in same capacity as a father is he? The roles of brothers and sisters can't exist in the same way if they are having sex. It creates a whole lot more stress in what is supposed to be a nuturing environment.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Hmmmm, God made hormones occur in such a way that some people are homosexual. God doesn't like homosexuals. Therefore God has made it so that those people are not supposed to experience love.

QUOTE]
Love that God instilled in humans is not about the physical body. It is about the spiritual connection between two people. It is a blessed thing, unlike lust, which is the physical connection. I believe that some people were created having to overcome homosexuality.
We are all given weaknesses as a test of our character. Homosexuals, if they overcome that, will be rewarded by the same true love for someone of the opposite gender that old couples feel when they still love each other without being attracted to them.
Many scriptures in the bible were written by people such as Paul or others, to address the issues of their time, such as the issue of men shaving their heads, and women covering theirs, but the issue of homosexuality was addressed directly by God Himself.
I don't claim to be perfect, and I have my own sins which I must overcome, but homosexuality is distasteful to God, whether we decide it is or not. Just because our culture changes to be okay with something doesn't make it right in God's eyes.
I didn't mean to offend anyone, if I did, but those are my beliefs.

God has never intentionaly destined anyone to lack anything. Least of all love. What people who say the Bible cant be trusted have to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You cant say that the evidence is shakey and then point at the other evidence within the same body that supports your ideas.

Really? What about people who are born deaf. Or with Down's Syndrome? (This post better sound familiar...)

In fact, there is no argument to defend homosexuality that cannot be applied to incest.

Except that incest produces children with extreme disabilities and disorders while homoesxuality does not.

It's hard to explain... it just depends...

The Christians say in the Bible it's wrong becuase it goes agasint it and the story of Genesis... I don't really care.

But, the passing of gay marriage in Mass, nailed the final nail for Kerry.

undefinedundefinedundefined

Okay, it's not that the people are condeming them, it's that it's just not a normal thing. I am a Christian, but I do not condem homosexuals. I just think, in my personal opinion, that it is wrong. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Love the sinner, hate the sin is what I say. I have no problem with the homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexuality. And that is what is wrong with it, is that it's not natural, just how would the human race continue to be if we were all homosexuals? It wouldn't.

Except that we aren't all homosexuals nor all of us going to be. However, I do appreciate your ability to separate what you see as a sin from the person. It's much farther than I've seen many go.

Different how? We're not talking about normal familial love between siblings. I think a practitioner of incest might take issue with that statement.

They might. But psychologically, the love between two siblings who have been raised as siblings will never be the same as that between a normal couple.

And one cannot ignore the very real *rational* reason for avoiding incestual relationships that involve sex. And sex is (or at least should be, in my opinion), the expression of love between two people in a committed relationship.

Like it or not, Judeo-Christianity is a religious pattern that does not condone homosexuality.

What you meant to say was that your particular version of Christianity does not condone homosexuality.

Trying to twist the writings of the Bible around to jutify and morally defend it is a waste of time. If someone wants to know why it's a sin, and if the directives of God isn't answer enough, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't have to twist the writings of the Bible - other people have done that quite enough. This is why I don't base all of my beliefs solely on the Bible.

I doubt very seriously that "make a woman who was raped marry her rapist" was a directive from God. However, if you would like to believe it was, that is your perogative. Same goes for "stone any woman who can't prove she was raped by being saved from her rapist" and "a woman is more unclean after having a girl baby than a boy baby" or "if you beat a slave to death and he dies right then, it is murder, but if he survives at least one night, that's ok since he was your property anyways."

It is wrong to discriminate and bash people based upon this precept, and while I realize a lot of people use it as an excuse to be neasty and ugly, that's wrong too. I believe people ought to make up their own minds what they believe, but please don't try and have your cake and eat it too.

In other words, "I am the only true Christian even though I pick and choose parts of the Bible just like everyone else. Be like me and pick and choose the same parts as me!"

Love that God instilled in humans is not about the physical body. It is about the spiritual connection between two people. It is a blessed thing, unlike lust, which is the physical connection. I believe that some people were created having to overcome homosexuality.

No, lust is the physical connection without love.

Sex is meant to be (I believe) an expression of love between two committed people. One cannot "overcome" homosexuality. At best, they can lead a loveless life and pretend to be heterosexual. But a true homosexual cannot really share that type of love with a member of the opposite gender.

We are all given weaknesses as a test of our character. Homosexuals, if they overcome that, will be rewarded by the same true love for someone of the opposite gender that old couples feel when they still love each other without being attracted to them.

In other words, you have no idea what sexuality really is because you are not a homosexual and cannot empahtisize.

Many scriptures in the bible were written by people such as Paul or others, to address the issues of their time, such as the issue of men shaving their heads, and women covering theirs, but the issue of homosexuality was addressed directly by God Himself.

It was? My Bible doesn't have any direct quote from God about homosexuality. Would you like to point it out?

I don't claim to be perfect, and I have my own sins which I must overcome, but homosexuality is distasteful to God, whether we decide it is or not. Just because our culture changes to be okay with something doesn't make it right in God's eyes.

According to God, it is alright. At least that is what prayer and meditation led by God has led me to believe. It's not my fault you would rather follow a book written down by men than God.

I have no problem with the homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexuality.

That is like saying "I have no problem with blacks, just black skin" or "I have no problem with blue-eyed people, just blue eyes."

And that is what is wrong with it, is that it's not natural, just how would the human race continue to be if we were all homosexuals? It wouldn't.

You are right. Nature is unnatural. That's why we call it nature.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?



Christians are not the only people to practice marriage. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. Many religions practice marriage, so why can't atheists or agnostics, or any other people in the human race?

You are right. Nature is unnatural. That's why we call it nature.

Okay, first off, that made absulutally no since, but whatever. I understand that we are not all homosexuals, but those few that are out there are putting into the children's minds that it's okay to be homosexuals and then as that progresses you never know what may happen, for all we know, in a few years, eveyone could be homosexuals. The point is that you see homosexuality become increasingly more common, why? Because people see it as okay. What is to stop this process from keeping on the way it is and eventually making everyone homosexuals? I have not said this in any way to offend someone, and if I did, I apologize, please forgive me.

That is like saying "I have no problem with blacks, just black skin" or "I have no problem with blue-eyed people, just blue eyes."
.

No its not, love the sinner hate the sin, may be a ghandian quote but it works as far as Christianity goes. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you belive that people are not born gay and therefore that the sin and the sinner are seprable. That ceritanly sounds like reasonableness to me

Both imply the torture and broad-ness of "paganism" which usually refers to some celtic-barbarian stuff over the greatest religious belief system the world has ever known..


Celtic were a heck of a lot more civilized in their treatment of other men, women, children and the land and beasts around them than Romans and most modern societies are. It's the Romans and the "civilaizations" they like to think they spawned that are barbaric.
And, yes, you're going to come back at me with the supposed practices that the Romans (such as Julius Caesar) claimed the Celtic Tribes performed... however, there is absolutely no archaelogical evidence to support the biased Roman claims.

No its not, love the sinner hate the sin, may be a ghandian quote but it works as far as Christianity goes. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you belive that people are not born gay and therefore that the sin and the sinner are seprable. That ceritanly sounds like reasonableness to me

Yes, this was precicely what I was trying to get through to everyone when I said that. I have a homosexual family member, he was not always this way. In fact, he almost married his highschool sweetheart. And now he is homosexual. I beleive fullheartedly that you can seperate the sin from the person.

Just because somebody holds different beliefs doesn't mean you have to persecute them. Just because somebody's gay doesn't mean they're any less of a person than you are. Just because some old moldy book says that it's wrong doesn't mean it is.

Personally, I think religion is completely retarded. It's idiotic to say that "God created every man to be equal, but I hate homos 'cause they're just wrong". That's about the same as saying Africans are stupid because they have a different colour skin. Looking down on gays or blacks or midgets or mutes is just plain bullying. Besides, if you are religious, here's some more reasoning: If God hates homosexuals, why did he let people be gay in the first place? Shouldn't thunder boom down from the sky and strike those who love those of the same gender? If God did not mean for people to be gay, why are there gay people?!

I'd beat every Christian missionary to death with their own pocket bible if I wouldn't get it trouble for it. It's wrong to make someone think like you. If you think that gays are bad simply because they're gay, then get the hell offa my planet.

(Sorry if I've offended anyone, but all the religious crap that's been hurled at me since I was little is just really, really getting on my nerves.)

Christians are not the only people to practice marriage. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. Many religions practice marriage, so why can't atheists or agnostics, or any other people in the human race?

And then there's the ever loving fact that marriage isn't all about religion. It's about about equal rights--you those pesky things the government gives married people?

Okay, first off, that made absulutally no since, but whatever. I understand that we are not all homosexuals, but those few that are out there are putting into the children's minds that it's okay to be homosexuals and then as that progresses you never know what may happen, for all we know, in a few years, eveyone could be homosexuals. The point is that you see homosexuality become increasingly more common, why? Because people see it as okay. What is to stop this process from keeping on the way it is and eventually making everyone homosexuals? I have not said this in any way to offend someone, and if I did, I apologize, please forgive me.

It's the gay agenda again! Mothers hide your children! Fathers protect your families! Gay people are out to convert you all to our way of life! <sarcasm>

First of all is IS okay to be homosexual. Secondly, everyone is NOT going to go gay juts because society starts to tolerate it--why? Because ITS NOT A CHOICE. We are seeing it become more common because society is more tolerant and because there are more people period. The absolute percent of homosexuals hasn't changed, just the percent of gay people who are out. Seriously, most of us just wnat to live our lives, have our equal rights and go about our business. We don't believe you can convert your sexuality, so why should we bother trying? Answer: We shouldn't and we don't.

And so what if your kid sees two gay people together and you are tolerant of it? Worst case scenario is that your kid is already gay (though s/he may not know it yet) but when s/he does realize it, they know their parent is still going to lvoe and accept them.

What you meant to say was that your particular version of Christianity does not condone homosexuality.


No, I said what I meant. Disagree with me by all means, but do not distort my statements.

I think it's funny that you are accusing me of the sort of arrogance that says that if other people don't believe as I do then they're bad people. I very specifically indicated that I repect the rights of other people to believe according to their conscience. in fact, my "particular brand" of Christianity teaches this.

The reason I think that accusation is so funny is that you belittle and dismiss anything I say, or those who agree with me say, all because we don't agree with you. I haven't attacked you personally, and if you feel that because I have a different moral code than you it somehow is an attack on you then I say you're being oversensitive. If you can't handle people not seeing things your way, then this debate isn't going to do you much good.

No its not, love the sinner hate the sin, may be a ghandian quote but it works as far as Christianity goes. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you belive that people are not born gay and therefore that the sin and the sinner are seprable. That ceritanly sounds like reasonableness to me

Sin implies choice does it not? So let's just play hypothetical for a moment. If it were proven that homoesxuality were 100% not a choice, would you say then it shouldn't be conidered a sin?

The passages that Endless Rehearsals thinks is clever, is really a misuse of those passages, and is taken out of context. Leviticus is in the Old Testament *much of which* was outdated with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that it is only the *third* book in the Bible, much of which is outdated within the Old Testament itself. Most of these wannabe clever tidbits are from Leviticus, the other from Exodus. Oh, and Exodus is just after Genesis.

I believe that Endless Rehearsal's point inusing those quotes was a response to the people who use a passage from Leviticus to explain homosexuality as a sin. If you wish to claim that Leviticus is outdated, and therefore not relevant, then *anything* in Leviticus should be considered outdated, and therefore have no bearing on homosexuality or anything else.

Question, if Leviticus, the third book in the Bible is so old as to be outdated... then does that mean Genesis is outdated as well? And that we should discount the story of creation as being outdated? In that case, the point of Adam and Eve is irrelevant as well.

I do not bash the idea of Christian belief. I was raised Christian. I am disillusioned, however, by the narrow mindedness and uncharitability of many people who practice the religion. Where are the Good Samaritans? It's one of the most well-known and least followed stories of the Bible.

Yes, this was precicely what I was trying to get through to everyone when I said that. I have a homosexual family member, he was not always this way. In fact, he almost married his highschool sweetheart. And now he is homosexual. I beleive fullheartedly that you can seperate the sin from the person.

Has he told you he wasn't always this way? I've heard this story before and its always turned out that the guy was always gay but afraid to admit it, even to himself. So he lived a life of deceit until one day he finally managed to accept himself.

Gee I wonder why it woudl be hard for gay peopel toa ccept themselves?

Except that incest produces children with extreme disabilities and disorders while homoesxuality does not.

Granted, but at the same time suppose there is a brother and sister engaged in a romantic relationship and she's had her tubes tied? Would you then see it as a healthy and acceptable adult relationship?

I know that you guys don't support incest. I don't mean to suggest that you do or that you should. I'm only making a point, and trying to get you to see things from the other perspective for the sake of this discussion.

Granted, but at the same time suppose there is a brother and sister engaged in a romantic relationship and she's had her tubes tied? Would you then see it as a healthy and acceptable adult relationship?

I know that you guys don't support incest. I don't mean to suggest that you do or that you should. I'm only making a point, and trying to get you to see things from the other perspective for the sake of this discussion.

Having one's tubes tied is not 100% indicative of not having a child. Homosexuality is. They are still apples and organes.

Having one's tubes tied is not 100% indicative of not having a child. Homosexuality is. They are still apples and organes.

Pracus I know you're making a point, and I understand where you're coming from but I hope you understand that this looks to me like an evasion of the question.

If the only reason for a sibling relationship to be wrong is the possibility of offspring then morality is irrelevant, since pregnancy is easily avoidable.

And so the question remains, if you take children out of the equation, what is the morality of it?

In my opinion Gays are a minority and unnatural, but humans with natural born rights like every human. they should not be denied the right to be gay and engage in gay relations, but i think gay marriage is redicilous. first of all marriage has a religious begining. Gay relationsips have a very high seperation rate so marriage is almost useless in the gay population. I have always felt that peple got married to create a stable social and economical enviorment to raise kids. gay people cannot have chindren. some also argue that gays should be allowed to adopt. In my personal opinion it would be hell to have gay parrents. Fisrt the kid has to have the totrment of other childre. 2nd they have to cope with their adnormal situation. 3rd they have to deal with the parental force that tends to make them feel like gay is what they have to be even if they are not. I think it isnt fair to the child to go through that torment and confusion. I am not anti-gay i am just pro-majority.

Pracus I know you're making a point, and I understand where you're coming from but I hope you understand that this looks to me like an evasion of the question.

If the only reason for a sibling relationship to be wrong is the possibility of offspring then morality is irrelevant, since pregnancy is easily avoidable.

And so the question remains, if you take children out of the equation, what is the morality of it?

Actually it was an evasion of the question. It's something I've been trying to understand myself and I have yet to reach a conclusion on the matter. Why SHOULD incest be wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Yet somehow there is still that voice inside of me that tells me it is wrong. I can't explain it.

Actually it was an evasion of the question. It's something I've been trying to understand myself and I have yet to reach a conclusion on the matter. Why SHOULD incest be wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone?

Yet somehow there is still that voice inside of me that tells me it is wrong. I can't explain it.

I appreciate your candor. Thanks.

And that's all I wanted to do was to point out the fact that this is how those of us on the other side of the issue feel.

Sin implies choice does it not? So let's just play hypothetical for a moment. If it were proven that homoesxuality were 100% not a choice, would you say then it shouldn't be conidered a sin?

How in the hell can it be said homosexuality is not a choice?

So if homosexuality is not a choice then that means a certain unknown force must force them to screw other men correct? It is the force that makes them screw each other!
LUKE SKYWALKER IS USING HIS POWERS TO MAKE YOU ALL GAY!!!!!!!

How in the hell can it be said homosexuality is not a choice?

So if homosexuality is not a choice then that means a certain unknown force must force them to screw other men correct? It is the force that makes them screw each other!
LUKE SKYWALKER IS USING HIS POWERS TO MAKE YOU ALL GAY!!!!!!!

Did you choose to be straight? To be male? To be female? To be white or black? To be tall or short?

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's the way we are and is much a part of who we are as our hair color or eye color or skin tone. Nothing more, nothing less.

I appreciate your candor. Thanks.

And that's all I wanted to do was to point out the fact that this is how those of us on the other side of the issue feel.

I can understand how it seems hard to accept. To you its repulsive and for a straight man (and I'm just using that as an example, the same would be true of straight women), you can't find emotional fulfillment in another man.

But the same is true for gay people. To me, the act of straight sex is down right repulsive. And I don't find emotional fulfillment in women. Don't get me wrong, I have some great female friends, but I do not find completeness there. Whether or not incest is acceptable, homosexuality should be.

Maybe I can't explain it any better than to say that it doesn't hurt anyone and its what I feel in the very center of my being, but that's the way it is. Gay people do not want to hurt others, we just want to be treated as humans with equal rights as all other humans.

Granted, but at the same time suppose there is a brother and sister engaged in a romantic relationship and she's had her tubes tied? Would you then see it as a healthy and acceptable adult relationship?

I know that you guys don't support incest. I don't mean to suggest that you do or that you should. I'm only making a point, and trying to get you to see things from the other perspective for the sake of this discussion.


Actually breeding between close blood kin only presents a very small risk of dysfunction in the resulting off-spring. To put it in persepective it is on-par with the risk increase associated with a man procreating in his 40's or a women procreating once she passes the age of 30.

Incestual taboos occur for social reasons. None of which appear to be relevent so far as homosexuality is concerned.

Actually breeding between close blood kin only presents a very small risk of dysfunction in the resulting off-spring. To put it in persepective it is on-par with the risk increase associated with a man procreating in his 40's or a women procreating once she passes the age of 30.

Incestual taboos occur for social reasons. None of which appear to be relevent so far as homosexuality is concerned.

You're actually right. It's only after generations of inbreedin occur that there get to be constant problems. However if your family already has a history of problems (hemophilia, Down syndrome, etc.) its going to be more risky than older-aged procreation.

Does that makes sense the way I wrote it? My brain is kinda addled. . .

You're actually right. It's only after generations of inbreedin occur that there get to be constant problems. However if your family already has a history of problems (hemophilia, Down syndrome, etc.) its going to be more risky than older-aged procreation.

Does that makes sense the way I wrote it? My brain is kinda addled. . .

I think so (re making sense), statistically there is a minimal increased risk over all such births, but the risk is not evenly shared. Or at least that's how I interpret your comments and how I interepret the current scientific knowledge on the issue.... :)

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's the way we are and is much a part of who we are as our hair color or eye color or skin tone. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it's a result of child abuse, so I have a hard time with some of the stuff the gays have to put up with. I'm pretty conservative, but I think these folks need a break.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?


Wow... Marriage has been around longer than Christianity has. Many cultures that AREN'T Christian, never have been and most likely never will be get married. What does that have to do with anything?

It isn't a sin to love someone, no matter what anyone says. If you believe half the people who say it IS a sin, then I'd have to say their god is a lot more hateful than they try to make him seem.

And I don't understand people comparing homosexuality to incest. Its hardly the same thing, its incomparable. The fact that two people who could spend decades together might not be able to visit the other if they're in the hospital, they're not covered by their partner's health care, they have no rights that married couples have. And why not? Because people are too bigoted and hateful to give it to them. THEN they feel the need to insult their union by saying ridiculous things comparing their relationships with incest and people marrying their dogs.

How is this any different from when our country wouldn't let african americans and whites marry? They are PEOPLE whether the closed minded would like to see them as such or not. They have rights, just like everyone else. Nobody should be able to take them away from anybody.

Sin implies choice does it not? So let's just play hypothetical for a moment. If it were proven that homoesxuality were 100% not a choice, would you say then it shouldn't be conidered a sin?

The question of choice does not apply to "being gay." Certainly, choice is a factor when you decide to have sex with a man or look at him lustfully. I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a sin. If I have a desire to lust after a woman, perhaps I don't have the choice of having the desire or not, but I know I make a choice to lust after her. I don't like how some of my Christian bretheren seem to "favor" homosexuality as a "worse" sin that other sins (The Catholics would call that a "Mortal Sin"... bah, let's not get into that).

"And the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as the person who has broken all of God's laws" (James 2:10, NLT)

It grieves me to think that Christians get hung up over this one sin. Besides, I believe that there are some things that you just can't realize are wrong without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and homosexuality is one of them. That's why I don't try to spend a lot of time trying to convince someone it's wrong, for it is not my place to do so. As it is, I am undecided as to whether or not the government should allow gay marriage.

One more thing I want to clear up: Christians don't try to pass themselves off as perfect. In fact you cannot become a Christian without admitting sin. Heck, I'll be honest. I've lusted after girls (real and fictional), stayed up late looking at internet porn (and missed church because of it), and even created entire worlds in my imagination where I was practically a sex-god. I don't believe any of that is any better or worse than having sex with another man.

I think it's a result of child abuse, so I have a hard time with some of the stuff the gays have to put up with. I'm pretty conservative, but I think these folks need a break.
Trust me, I have gay and bi friends, and they were NOT abused as children.
But yeah, I think they do definitely need a break.

I think it's a result of child abuse, so I have a hard time with some of the stuff the gays have to put up with. I'm pretty conservative, but I think these folks need a break.

It's not the result of any form of child abuse. I was not abused as a child. My parents were as good and loving as any could ever be.

The question of choice does not apply to "being gay." Certainly, choice is a factor when you decide to have sex with a man or look at him lustfully. I am a Christian, and I believe homosexuality is a sin. If I have a desire to lust after a woman, perhaps I don't have the choice of having the desire or not, but I know I make a choice to lust after her. I don't like how some of my Christian bretheren seem to "favor" homosexuality as a "worse" sin that other sins (The Catholics would call that a "Mortal Sin"... bah, let's not get into that).


That would be a good arguement. Except one thing. Homosexuality is not just about sex. It's not lust. It's about love and emotional fulfillment, just like straight marriage. Are there gay guys running around having rnaodm sex? Yes. Are there gay guys who are in love with other guys without having sex with them? Yep. They don't have sex until they commit themselves to one another. Lust isn't the issue.


One more thing I want to clear up: Christians don't try to pass themselves off as perfect. In fact you cannot become a Christian without admitting sin. Heck, I'll be honest. I've lusted after girls (real and fictional), stayed up late looking at internet porn (and missed church because of it), and even created entire worlds in my imagination where I was practically a sex-god. I don't believe any of that is any better or worse than having sex with another man.

I won't argue that "true Christians" don't pass themselves off as perfect. However too many within the ranks of the church DO pass themselves off that way. True Christians or no, they still do plenty of damage.

No its not, love the sinner hate the sin, may be a ghandian quote but it works as far as Christianity goes. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you belive that people are not born gay and therefore that the sin and the sinner are seprable. That ceritanly sounds like reasonableness to me

It's not very reasonable though - it's backwards logic. Basically, you are saying "I believe X is a sin, therefore it *must* be a choice, because I realize that otherwise God would be a horrible bastard" instead of being logical and saying "The vast majority of available evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is not a choice, therefore it is either not a sin, or God wants to make people a certain way and then punish them for it."

No, I said what I meant. Disagree with me by all means, but do not distort my statements.

If you said what you meant, then you are attempting to claim that all of Christianity agrees with you, which is extremely arrogant and absolutely wrong.

I think it's funny that you are accusing me of the sort of arrogance that says that if other people don't believe as I do then they're bad people. I very specifically indicated that I repect the rights of other people to believe according to their conscience. in fact, my "particular brand" of Christianity teaches this.

And yet you continue to claim that your particular brand of Christianity is the only form, and that anyone who does not believe exactly as you do is not truly Christian.

The reason I think that accusation is so funny is that you belittle and dismiss anything I say, or those who agree with me say, all because we don't agree with you.

I have not belittled or dismissed anything you have said. I have simply pointed out that you cannot claim it to be the opinion of all Christianity, only your personal opinion. I have attempted to point out flaws in your logic, yes, but I have not belittled you.

I haven't attacked you personally, and if you feel that because I have a different moral code than you it somehow is an attack on you then I say you're being oversensitive. If you can't handle people not seeing things your way, then this debate isn't going to do you much good.

Darling, I am not the one claiming that anyone who does not agree with me is not Christian. That's your cup of tea. I have no problem with someone holding a different moral code than me - but if you can't back it up, it really isn't yours.

In my opinion Gays are a minority and unnatural,

Ah yes, minority = bad
and nature = unnatural

but humans with natural born rights like every human. they should not be denied the right to be gay and engage in gay relations, but i think gay marriage is redicilous. first of all marriage has a religious begining. Gay relationsips have a very high seperation rate so marriage is almost useless in the gay population.

Early gay relationships, just like early heterosexual relationships have a high separation rate. However, just like heterosexuals, homosexuals who are older tend to form stable, long relationships. A good example would be the older lesbian couple who married in San Fransisco - they had been together for 50 years. Don't use stereotypes here - I could state that all sorts of groups who tend to be promiscuous while young should not be able to get married based on your logic.

I have always felt that peple got married to create a stable social and economical enviorment to raise kids. gay people cannot have chindren.

If that is your view of marriage, don't ever get married unless you want kids.

However, for most people, children are not the sole purpose of marriage. And if you look at the laws relating to marriage, very few actually have anything at all to do with children.

some also argue that gays should be allowed to adopt. In my personal opinion it would be hell to have gay parrents. Fisrt the kid has to have the totrment of other childre.

Which would happen just as much if the child had ugly, fat, interracial, amputee, etc, etc, etc parents.

2nd they have to cope with their adnormal situation.

Only because of bigots who make them feel uncomfortable about it.

3rd they have to deal with the parental force that tends to make them feel like gay is what they have to be even if they are not. I think it isnt fair to the child to go through that torment and confusion.

This is the dumbest statement ever. Does that mean we should stop heterosexual parents from having children because their children feel like they have to be straight even if they are not? Statistically, homosexual parents are *more* likely to be tolerant of whatever sexuality their children develop. And studies have shown that children of homosexual parents are no more likely to be homosexual than the general population (another indicator that parenting has little to do with it).

I am not anti-gay i am just pro-majority.

Yeah, and I'm sure you aren't anti-black, just pro-majority. And I'm sure you aren't anti-Jew, just pro-majority.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread until I saw this particular statement.

What fascinates me about arguments like this is that they only make sense when examined in a vaccum. Now I haven't read th eentire contents of this thread because it is much too long now so forgive me if I cover any ground that has already been discussed.

In the Old Testament when Mosaic Law was introduced, Homosexual conduct was punishable by death.

That's the problem, right there... see, I don't find any references to forbidding homosexuality in the Old Testament, EXCEPT in the translations. When I read it in Hebrew, I see none of what you are talking about.

If you want to believe a version of the bible that does not correspond to the original text, feel free... but I believe that those english translations are perversions of what was originally written.

You can never win this argument. You think homosexuality is forbidden in the bible, I believe that your translation is 'sloppy' and politically motivated.

Unless I convert BACK to christianity, or you learn Hebrew, we shall never agree.

A. I am gay. Not bi.
2. It cannot be consciously changed, I've tried.
III. I may not know everything but I understand genetics, which is more than I can say for everyone who's arguing its not a choice.

Maximum Kudos for the numbering.

You rock.

:)

While that statement is true, people need to realize it is a coin with two sides. If you insist that one cannot prove homosexuality was condemned by citing Scripture, then you can't prove it was endorsed, either.

And breathing!!!!

As far as I recall, although god gives the "breath of life" to Adam, there is no endorsement for breathing in the bible, either!

Guess everyone better stop doing it, since it wasn't officially endorsed.

Actually, going to the toilet isn't endorsed, either, is it?

Ah yes, minority = bad
and nature = unnatural


I will make this clear. NO ONE has provided a single thread of proof that homosexuality is COMPLETELY GENETIC. Ergo there must be a large element of enviromental effects and choice. And whilst it may be hormonal exposisure so far no one has explained what causes said levels of certian hormones to rise. And just because its found in nature does not mean its nautral for humans.

And breathing!!!!

As far as I recall, although god gives the "breath of life" to Adam, there is no endorsement for breathing in the bible, either!

Guess everyone better stop doing it, since it wasn't officially endorsed.

Actually, going to the toilet isn't endorsed, either, is it?

His point was this: -
Christians say homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible

Liberals/Gay lobby say the translation of the bible is wrong and in fact it doesnt say that

BUT said Liberals cannot prove that it is not endorced in the bible and since the Bible works on a basis of both positive and negative freedoms (It tells you both what to do and what not to do), it is logical to conclude that it is opposed as if it was supported it would be made more clear and there are passages that say that Christianity is opposed to it anyway. Without a clear endorcement logic dictates it is against it. And lets not get stupid with arguements such as "Breathing wasn't endorced" etc, because if you stop breathing you kill yourself. You need to breathe to live.

I will make this clear. NO ONE has provided a single thread of proof that homosexuality is COMPLETELY GENETIC.

Since when does natural equate to completely genetic? No one here has been arguing either side of that point but you. No one has claimed that homosexuality is completely genetic - so get off it.

Ergo there must be a large element of enviromental effects and choice.

"It's not completley genetic, so that must mean that the genetic component is insignificant." Yeah, that makes sense. Environmental effects most likely do have an effect, but choice does not. Unless, that is, you are going to continue to argue that choice and having something forced upon you is the same. A woman who walks by a rapist might get raped, but she didn't *choose* to be raped, now did she?

And whilst it may be hormonal exposisure so far no one has explained what causes said levels of certian hormones to rise.

That is still being studied - but hormone fluctuations in utero are not exactly unknown.

And just because its found in nature does not mean its nautral for humans.

Yes, because humans are not part of nature - they are God. Oh wait, I'm *sure* you don't believe that, do you?

And our closest genetic neighboors tell us absolutely nothing about ourselves, since we weren't all part of creation. Oh wait, I'm *sure* you don't believe that either.

Hmmmm......

His point was this: -
Christians say homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible

Liberals/Gay lobby say the translation of the bible is wrong and in fact it doesnt say that

BUT said Liberals cannot prove that it is not endorced in the bible and since the Bible works on a basis of both positive and negative freedoms (It tells you both what to do and what not to do), it is logical to conclude that it is opposed as if it was supported it would be made more clear and there are passages that say that Christianity is opposed to it anyway. Without a clear endorcement logic dictates it is against it. And lets not get stupid with arguements such as "Breathing wasn't endorced" etc, because if you stop breathing you kill yourself. You need to breathe to live.

You hinge your entire argument on the idea that the Bible is absolute, and yet still have not explained why any all-good God would endorse obvious evils like slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women.

The people are Cain and Abel's other siblings. Remember there's no set timescale for that bit of the Bible, so the strictly Biblical theory is that A&E's other kids had gone forth and multiplied. A lot.

Actually - there IS a set timescale.

Cain sacrificed Abel to god, (and was rewarded with immortality) BEFORE Seth was born.

Genesis 4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

But Cain has already mentioned other people:

Genesis 4:14 "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me."

Now: Seth was born in Adam's one hundred and thirtieth year:

Genesis 5:3 "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth".

Note: that is only the third child ever born, as it is only the third child mentioned... and as we see in the next verse, all the OTHER children come later:

Genesis 5:4 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

There IS a rational explanation, and you can probably work out what it is, but you don't want to hear it.

undefinedundefinedundefined

Okay, it's not that the people are condeming them, it's that it's just not a normal thing. I am a Christian, but I do not condem homosexuals. I just think, in my personal opinion, that it is wrong. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Love the sinner, hate the sin is what I say. I have no problem with the homosexuals, I have a problem with homosexuality. And that is what is wrong with it, is that it's not natural, just how would the human race continue to be if we were all homosexuals? It wouldn't.

I can't let it lie any longer.

God did not make Adam and Eve, except in your poor translation of the original text.

God made 'adam = which means the red clay, and he made Chavvah = which means life or living.

The flesh is made from the earth... 'adam is the earth, so 'adam is the flesh.
The breath of life is what animated the man, and Chavvah is life, so Chavvah is the life of the flesh.

So - God made the Flesh, and he made it Live.

I will make this clear. NO ONE has provided a single thread of proof that homosexuality is COMPLETELY GENETIC. Ergo there must be a large element of enviromental effects and choice. And whilst it may be hormonal exposisure so far no one has explained what causes said levels of certian hormones to rise. And just because its found in nature does not mean its nautral for humans.

Environmental factors = choice?!? I think not. You've provided no evidence that it is a choice at all. And as for why hormones levels might rise? It could be a plethora of things. You don't have to know why to undestand that something does happen. For instance if you fall, you're going to fall DOWN and yet we have no clue why.

His point was this: -
Christians say homosexuality is a sin because it says so in the Bible

Liberals/Gay lobby say the translation of the bible is wrong and in fact it doesnt say that

BUT said Liberals cannot prove that it is not endorced in the bible and since the Bible works on a basis of both positive and negative freedoms (It tells you both what to do and what not to do), it is logical to conclude that it is opposed as if it was supported it would be made more clear and there are passages that say that Christianity is opposed to it anyway. Without a clear endorcement logic dictates it is against it. And lets not get stupid with arguements such as "Breathing wasn't endorced" etc, because if you stop breathing you kill yourself. You need to breathe to live.

No. Christians say homosexuality is a sin, because they don't LIKE it. They use the bible to back up their claim.

The translation of the bible IS wrong.

Don't claim logic. The bible doesn't ENDORSE breathing either, which, by your argument, it should... since it "works on a basis of both positive and negative freedoms".

It is not logical to conclude that, just because something isn't mentioned, it must be negative. The Bible doesn't ENDORSE caring for your friend's child... so, by your logic, baby-sitting is evil.

The bible DOES tell us to love our neighbours (it doesn't specify a gender), so it ENDORSES love for people of both genders.

And it does tell us that it is "better to marry" than to "burn"... so, if you love someone of the same gender, and lust for them, the bible says you SHOULD marry.

No. Christians say homosexuality is a sin, because they don't LIKE it. They use the bible to back up their claim.

The translation of the bible IS wrong.

Don't claim logic. The bible doesn't ENDORSE breathing either, which, by your argument, it should... since it "works on a basis of both positive and negative freedoms".

It is not logical to conclude that, just because something isn't mentioned, it must be negative. The Bible doesn't ENDORSE caring for your friend's child... so, by your logic, baby-sitting is evil.

The bible DOES tell us to love our neighbours (it doesn't specify a gender), so it ENDORSES love for people of both genders.

And it does tell us that it is "better to marry" than to "burn"... so, if you love someone of the same gender, and lust for them, the bible says you SHOULD marry.

Read my post again, but I will explain myself on a point by point basis so you understand more clearly

1) Christians do not just claim homosexuality is a sin because they don't like it. I dont treet gays any diffrently if I meet them. It is a sin, so what. Everyone has sinned and no one is better/worse for it. Some people use the Bible to support their hate but anyone calling themselves Christians who go around insulting gays should take a look in the mirror. All have sinned.

2) There is a reason the Bible does not endorce breathing
- You need to or else you will die, God is not patronising and does not spell out everything we need to know to live down to the basic details such as "breathe, eat, sleep" etc. To condem breathing would be to support suicide which the Bible clearly does not support

3) While the Bible may say nothing specific about helping a freind by looking after her/his child for an evening, it does mention helping others and its fair to say that that falls under that catagory

4) The Bible works on both negaitve and positive freedoms. It explains sins where we commit them when we do something and sins where we commit them when we dont do something. The reason homosexuality is a sin is that it is condemed in various places in the old and new testements and nowhere is it positvely suported.

5) The Bibles phrase "Love thy neighbourgh" is not refering to romantic love. If you say "how do you know that" then you are more stupid than I thought.

6) Marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and so Gay marriage is not part of God's idea for marriage (Which is for Christians the idea, and don't come back to me saying "Marriage is pre christian and was around in various cultures" because Christians believe these were the first people. And also dont come back with this talk of all the wired versions of Genesis. If its not in my Bible then as far as I am concerend it is irrelevent). And so therefore in God's eyes they cannot marry so any Gay's having sex outside marriage are being adulterous and therefore sinning.

Environmental factors = choice?!? I think not. You've provided no evidence that it is a choice at all. And as for why hormones levels might rise? It could be a plethora of things. You don't have to know why to undestand that something does happen. For instance if you fall, you're going to fall DOWN and yet we have no clue why.

Well since no one has provided proof that it is 100% genetic there must be some enviromental factors that affect it. And since you can influence your enviroment and alter it then it can be acredited to choice.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

I don't know if this paticular blurb of wisdom has been addressed yet, but please do see these two pages for actual clarification on that common misconception:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

The second one is the most important.

Well since no one has provided proof that it is 100% genetic there must be some enviromental factors that affect it. And since you can influence your enviroment and alter it then it can be acredited to choice.


... no one has or can provide PROOF heterosexual orientation is genetic either.

Secondly, while you seem to conclude environmental factors (which hasn't been proven as a cause) = choice, forgive me for saying so, but is simply stupid. It is not a choice, suck it up and try to rationalize that with your extrinsic religiosity rather than rationalizing reality to fit your beliefs.

If heterosexuality is the natural order of things and in innate behavior explain how a choice to be homosexual supplants, in some cases completely, any hetersoexual desire?

Why is homosexuality often associated with androgynous personalities, why are gay males statistically more often left-handed or more creative than their straight counterparts? Lastly, why are persons who are literally betweeen the sexes on a neurological level invite such questioning and derision?

Oh yes, I forgot.. (xeno)phobia and misogyny are cornerstones of Christianity.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

The institution of marriage was not actually created by Christians, you know. People have been performing a binding ceremony equivialent to marriage since the dawn of time, in every major civilisation on this planet. Some have even been performing homosexual marriages. I'm afraid you might want to think of a better argument, dear.

6) Marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and so Gay marriage is not part of God's idea for marriage (Which is for Christians the idea, and don't come back to me saying "Marriage is pre christian and was around in various cultures" because Christians believe these were the first people. And also dont come back with this talk of all the wired versions of Genesis. If its not in my Bible then as far as I am concerend it is irrelevent). And so therefore in God's eyes they cannot marry so any Gay's having sex outside marriage are being adulterous and therefore sinning.

Marriage is pre-Christian. So what about what Christians believe? If you're not prepared to look outside your bible then you have no relevance anywhere except inside your own church.

Marriage is also not a religious institution. The Christian church has monopolised it, yes, but it is not inherently a Christian thing. Deal with it.

So basically, what your religion says about gays marrying doesn't matter. Or at least it wouldn't matter if someone who likes to put their god into politics wasn't elected to be the person with their finger on the button of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Guess we just have to deal with that one. Ah well, just another four years to go.

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question
...
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

I just want you to know that I adore you.

God created humans in a certain way. It is obvious from our anatomy that man and woman were supposed to be together. Homosexuality directly contradicts what God intended for human sexuality just as bestiality does.

That's the usual propaganda. I guess that's why it brought so much money in and i guess that's also why greece was a ROMAN province in the end...

Of course, let us overlook that Rome was even less than a VANDAL raid-site in the end...

why is being gay a sin? Well someone hasnt read the bible... it was the evil city of gommoroh(something sounding like that) and sodom, where men lied with men and women lied with women, and the citys were evil, it specifically says its bad and god destroyed the cities, plus god didnt design men to lie with men, and women with women, he made women for men and men for women(men first!)


Actually, the Bible says nothing of the sort. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

God created humans in a certain way. It is obvious from our anatomy that man and woman were supposed to be together. Homosexuality directly contradicts what God intended for human sexuality just as bestiality does.

See my last post.

Could someone please show me the verse where it says "And God looked down on Sodom and Gomorrah, and he said "Fuck this shit, those homos are going down." And verily he smited them." 'Cause I can't find it.


Oh, and it's a sin for the same reason jerking off, eating pork, wearing clothing of two materials, and not shouting loudly while being raped: God's a rat bastard :p

Check out some of Genesis 14, and most of Genesis 19. Also, some references are being made to Leviticus 18:22. Hope that helps!

God created humans in a certain way. It is obvious from our anatomy that man and woman were supposed to be together. Homosexuality directly contradicts what God intended for human sexuality just as bestiality does.

Wow that's quite a stretch and slightly offensive (understatement). Care to back it up with sound reasoning instead of mysticism?

I'll respect your religious beliefs, this time, but I wonder why persons with belief X can spew Y and Z garbage while others with beliefs of their own may not with such freedom. White supremacy, and a few other things, is a belief system too but I'm certain such beliefs aren't welcome on a public forum... political correctness is kinda funny sometimes. Those who bitch about it most tend to use it to their advantage most.

Marriage is pre-Christian. So what about what Christians believe? If you're not prepared to look outside your bible then you have no relevance anywhere except inside your own church.

Marriage is also not a religious institution. The Christian church has monopolised it, yes, but it is not inherently a Christian thing. Deal with it.

So basically, what your religion says about gays marrying doesn't matter. Or at least it wouldn't matter if someone who likes to put their god into politics wasn't elected to be the person with their finger on the button of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

Guess we just have to deal with that one. Ah well, just another four years to go.

Look, Christianity believes that marriage came about when the world was created. That explains why so many people around the world came up with marriage, it began at the begining of the world. That is what Christians believe and since in this forum we are dealing with Christian beliefs then dont go saying "Ah the bible is wrong" because we are not here to debate the validity of the Bible. We are here to debate homosexuality as a sin

Look, Christianity believes that marriage came about when the world was created. That explains why so many people around the world came up with marriage, it began at the begining of the world. That is what Christians believe and since in this forum we are dealing with Christian beliefs then dont go saying "Ah the bible is wrong" because we are not here to debate the validity of the Bible. We are here to debate homosexuality as a sin

But if the bible is not only invalid but a document used by many to further an agenda of close-minded bigotry and fag-bashing, then doesn't that throw the church's whole stance on homosexuality as a sin - in fact, the validity of the entire church - into question?

Ideally the two parties (people who are gay, and people who aren't and believe being so is a sin) would just leave each other the f*ck alone and get on with their lives.

Why do people need to force their own morality/beliefs on others? Surely they have better things to do ... or not.

Because those that define sin might just like it.

I think this guy says it all, really.

Ideally the two parties (people who are gay, and people who aren't and believe being so is a sin) would just leave each other the f*ck alone and get on with their lives.

Why do people need to force their own morality/beliefs on others? Surely they have better things to do ... or not.

I think the people who are gay are really wishing the people trying to ban them from marrying the people they love and enjoying the rights and responsibilities that come with a state-recognised marriage would do that.

... no one has or can provide PROOF heterosexual orientation is genetic either.


Quite right. Oh wait no there are all the hundrueds of genes reponsable for the human reproductive system. Of course hetrosexuality is genetic. The entire structure of the Human reproductive system is clearly designed for one man to mate with one woman and to create a child. And since the human reproduction system is geneticly determined then it must be genetic. Also there are all the hormones that trigger responses in both men and women that make them atracted to one another.


Secondly, while you seem to conclude environmental factors (which hasn't been proven as a cause) = choice, forgive me for saying so, but is simply stupid. It is not a choice, suck it up and try to rationalize that with your extrinsic religiosity rather than rationalizing reality to fit your beliefs.


I am getting lack of proof that it is 100% genetic and so there must be other causes. The most logical being enviromental.


If heterosexuality is the natural order of things and in innate behavior explain how a choice to be homosexual supplants, in some cases completely, any hetersoexual desire?


This is what I mean when I say choice in regard to this. It is like the choice when giving up ciggerates. Difficult but not impossible.


Oh yes, I forgot.. (xeno)phobia and misogyny are cornerstones of Christianity.

Rearly, care to prove this?

But if the bible is not only invalid but a document used by many to further an agenda of close-minded bigotry and fag-bashing, then doesn't that throw the church's whole stance on homosexuality as a sin - in fact, the validity of the entire church - into question?

Perhaps, but that is not what we are here to debate. For the purposes of this debate, let us just assume the Bible is valid and carry on. If you want to debate the valitdy of the bible, go make your own thread about it.

Read my post again, but I will explain myself on a point by point basis so you understand more clearly

1) Christians do not just claim homosexuality is a sin because they don't like it. I dont treet gays any diffrently if I meet them. It is a sin, so what. Everyone has sinned and no one is better/worse for it. Some people use the Bible to support their hate but anyone calling themselves Christians who go around insulting gays should take a look in the mirror. All have sinned.

2) There is a reason the Bible does not endorce breathing
- You need to or else you will die, God is not patronising and does not spell out everything we need to know to live down to the basic details such as "breathe, eat, sleep" etc. To condem breathing would be to support suicide which the Bible clearly does not support

3) While the Bible may say nothing specific about helping a freind by looking after her/his child for an evening, it does mention helping others and its fair to say that that falls under that catagory

4) The Bible works on both negaitve and positive freedoms. It explains sins where we commit them when we do something and sins where we commit them when we dont do something. The reason homosexuality is a sin is that it is condemed in various places in the old and new testements and nowhere is it positvely suported.

5) The Bibles phrase "Love thy neighbourgh" is not refering to romantic love. If you say "how do you know that" then you are more stupid than I thought.

6) Marriage is for one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24) and so Gay marriage is not part of God's idea for marriage (Which is for Christians the idea, and don't come back to me saying "Marriage is pre christian and was around in various cultures" because Christians believe these were the first people. And also dont come back with this talk of all the wired versions of Genesis. If its not in my Bible then as far as I am concerend it is irrelevent). And so therefore in God's eyes they cannot marry so any Gay's having sex outside marriage are being adulterous and therefore sinning.

Oooh, I'm going to enjoy this.

Don't tell me about what the bible MEANS, when you have clearly never read the ACTUAL text, and are, instead, relying on some other prejudiced interpretation to tell you what to think.

Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." The word for love there isn't the 'agape' that the greeks use to represent what is often referred to as "love, with boots on"... it is, instead, the Hebrew phrase 'ahab. Now, 'ahab, as I'm sure you well know, can not only mean the human love for god, but can also mean the human appetites (such as, for food), the human familial bond, and human SEXUAL LOVE.

If you don't believe me, pull out your concordance (which you OBVIOUSLY have one of, since you are lecturing ME on bible study), and look up 'ahab... tell you what, I'll even give you the Strong's Concordance reference number: #157.

Regarding Genesis 2:24, it is OBVIOUSLY an edit, added at a later date, and CLEARLY not written by the original author of the early Genesis texts... and how do we know? Because Adam says, in Genesis 2:23... "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man..." and continues in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh..."

The problem, which you surely instantly spotted, is that Adam CANNOT have said any of that... since: a) he was 'asleep' when his rib was taken... therefore, WOULD NOT KNOW that she was 'flesh' of his 'flesh', etc. AND: b) How would Adam know that a man shall leave his father and MOTHER, when he HAD no mother, and Eve had yet to conceive? He had no experience of motherhood... so this part was OBVIOUSLY added in later... probably to support the exact same arguments you are making now.

Given that - the better to 'marry' than 'burn' means that christians who really believe their scripture, and it's only really the NT that matters anyway, SHOULD SUPPORT gay marriage.

Also - you said the bible MUST ENDORSE something for it to be true... "it's fair to say that that falls under that category" isn't a good enough argument, unless you concede that it is ALSO good enough in regard to the married/burn argument.

By the way: there is no need to flame. I am not "stupid", as you claim.

You only hurt your own case, by stooping to such low acts.

Perhaps, but that is not what we are here to debate. For the purposes of this debate, let us just assume the Bible is valid and carry on. If you want to debate the valitdy of the bible, go make your own thread about it.

Actually we are. The topic of this thread is "Why is homosexuality a sin?"

So.. if the bible is not only invalid but a document used by many to further an agenda of close-minded bigotry and fag-bashing, then doesn't that throw the church's whole stance on homosexuality as a sin - in fact, the validity of the entire church - into question?

God created humans in a certain way. It is obvious from our anatomy that man and woman were supposed to be together. Homosexuality directly contradicts what God intended for human sexuality just as bestiality does.

Good point.

But, of course, not entirely true.

One could argue that god knows what he is doing.

One could argue that god wouldn't make our bodies designed for something, if we were not to do it, yes?

Isn't that what you were just arguing?

Okay... now let's look at the prostate... which 'god' placed in such a way that the only way to directly stimulate it is to penetrate the man's anus....

So - by your logic, god WANTS men to have things in their bottoms.

I am getting lack of proof that it is 100% genetic and so there must be other causes. The most logical being enviromental.

And yet you still refuse to prove that people can control these "environmental factors".





Rearly, care to prove this?

*cough**COUGH**HACK*...hold on a second...I'm sorry, I had to get a drink of water. I was choking on IRONY.

Don't tell me about what the bible MEANS, when you have clearly never read the ACTUAL text, and are, instead, relying on some other prejudiced interpretation to tell you what to think.

Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." The word for love there isn't the 'agape' that the greeks use to represent what is often referred to as "love, with boots on"... it is, instead, the Hebrew phrase 'ahab. Now, 'ahab, as I'm sure you well know, can not only mean the human love for god, but can also mean the human appetites (such as, for food), the human familial bond, and human SEXUAL LOVE.

If you don't believe me, pull out your concordance (which you OBVIOUSLY have one of, since you are lecturing ME on bible study), and look up 'ahab... tell you what, I'll even give you the Strong's Concordance reference number: #157.



The idea of Sexually loving you neighbourgh is rediculous, espeically when God has specified sins of adultery and lust. And anyway, love your neighbour is most fameous and more acknowleged for its apperance in the New testement as Jesus said it. What does he say there?


Regarding Genesis 2:24, it is OBVIOUSLY an edit, added at a later date, and CLEARLY not written by the original author of the early Genesis texts... and how do we know? Because Adam says, in Genesis 2:23... "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man..." and continues in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh..."

The problem, which you surely instantly spotted, is that Adam CANNOT have said any of that... since: a) he was 'asleep' when his rib was taken... therefore, WOULD NOT KNOW that she was 'flesh' of his 'flesh', etc. AND: b) How would Adam know that a man shall leave his father and MOTHER, when he HAD no mother, and Eve had yet to conceive? He had no experience of motherhood... so this part was OBVIOUSLY added in later... probably to support the exact same arguments you are making now.


How do you know God did'nt explain to Adam what had happened? How do you know that Adam wasnt aware of it in a dream he was having at the time? You dont. And how do you know God did not explain about the concept of father and mother? Obviously he would of explained it to them as they were about to have a child? Why is none of this explination in the Bible, well obviously Adam and Eve are not the ones to write all of Genesis as they died later on. Clearly God related the salient points of the begining of the world to whoever did write Genesis


Given that - the better to 'marry' than 'burn' means that christians who really believe their scripture, and it's only really the NT that matters anyway, SHOULD SUPPORT gay marriage.

Also - you said the bible MUST ENDORSE something for it to be true... "it's fair to say that that falls under that category" isn't a good enough argument, unless you concede that it is ALSO good enough in regard to the married/burn argument.

By the way: there is no need to flame. I am not "stupid", as you claim.

You only hurt your own case, by stooping to such low acts.

Gay marriage is never clearly endorsed anywhere. If you are going to tell me that when marriage is clearly defined as one man and one woman (And I will make a point here that Jesus never mentioned anything about this changing) that Gay marriage fits in to God's perception of "marrigae" cattagory, then I would like to ask how you support that? Show me a passage in the Bible which directly supports gay marriage (and not just gay sex, or gay love though there is no support for either of these things either) and then I will listen and take you seriously. As for your babysitter example, what about Namoi and Ruth. Are you going to tell me God was opposed to Naomi looking after Ruth? And the bible talks many times of being charitable and helping people. Are you going to tell me that a lack of specific reference to somewhere like Moldovia indicates that giving to Moldovia is a sin?

And yet you still refuse to prove that people can control these "environmental factors".


Without proof that it is 100% genetic, there must be other causes. Can you give me another type of cause other than enviromental? And I have given examples of where these are the case eg China, Single sex schools, read my previous posts.

Well since no one has provided proof that it is 100% genetic there must be some enviromental factors that affect it. And since you can influence your enviroment and alter it then it can be acredited to choice.

Of course, the fact that the "environmental factors" which affect sexuality occur long before you are ever able to effectively influence your own environment means nothing to you? Sexuality is most likely determined by, as I have said numerous times and backed up with evidence, genetic factors, hormone balances in the womb, and ***EARLY CHILDHOOD*** experiences. As soon as you show me a toddler who is aware enough of what their environment might be doing to their future sexuality and change that environment, I'll show you a toddler who we should allow to vote.

*cough**COUGH**HACK*...hold on a second...I'm sorry, I had to get a drink of water. I was choking on IRONY.

You made a statement requiring proof. You claim that Misogeny and Xenophobia are cornerstones of Christianity, where do you get this idea from? Was Jesus Xenophobic, was he a misoginist?

Of course, the fact that the "environmental factors" which affect sexuality occur long before you are ever able to effectively influence your own environment means nothing to you? Sexuality is most likely determined by, as I have said numerous times and backed up with evidence, genetic factors, hormone balances in the womb, and ***EARLY CHILDHOOD*** experiences. As soon as you show me a toddler who is aware enough of what their environment might be doing to their future sexuality and change that environment, I'll show you a toddler who we should allow to vote.

Can you give me specific early childhood experiances. And most things like this can be dealt with over time. As I have said, homosexualtiy may be difficult to stop but not impossible.

Clearly God related the salient points of the begining of the world to whoever did write Genesis

Really? There were two authors who wrote parts of Genesis. According to you, God gave the two people two entirely different accounts of Creation. Why would God do that?

i think the truth is that homosexual marriage is a sin simply because homosexuals are in the minority therefore are considered wrong and disruptive to society, so with all our predjudices its unavoidable that we force gay people to the outside of our harsh community. its is a sad world :rolleyes:

Quite right. Oh wait no there are all the hundrueds of genes reponsable for the human reproductive system. Of course hetrosexuality is genetic. The entire structure of the Human reproductive system is clearly designed for one man to mate with one woman and to create a child. And since the human reproduction system is geneticly determined then it must be genetic. Also there are all the hormones that trigger responses in both men and women that make them atracted to one another.

If this is all true, then just about all mammals, whose reproductive systems were designed almost exactly like ours, are sinners!!!!!!!

After all, if we were designed specifically for only heterosexuality, then so were they - but they don't practice only heterosexual sex. They can't choose anything, so quite obviously it is not a choice - it is meant to be.

If you think the human body was only designed for penis-vagina sex - explain the existence of the male "G-spot" about an inch up his anus. Explain the existence of the clitoris, the only organ with no purpose whatsoever other than pleasure which is generally not properly stimulated during sex.

I am getting lack of proof that it is 100% genetic and so there must be other causes. The most logical being enviromental.

So are skin or hair color sins? They are partially genetically defined, but there are environmental factors. I still don't *choose* either (except when I actually dye my hair).

This is what I mean when I say choice in regard to this. It is like the choice when giving up ciggerates. Difficult but not impossible.

If you think this is true, make yourself gay for a little while to prove it. Otherwise, stop being stupid. Saying that you can choose not to be attracted to whatever gender you are attracted to is like saying I could stop my periods from happening just by wishing and praying for it.

Really? There were two authors who wrote parts of Genesis. According to you, God gave the two people two entirely different accounts of Creation. Why would God do that?

The important points of the creation story I am sure are not lost in either version. So who cares about what order we were created (Man, Women, Animals) etc (although it is interesting that the order of creation in Genesis is similar to that of the order of evolution). The important points are these

1) God created man and women, to be with one another
2) God gave man and women a choice. They could live in the Garden of Eden with God forever or they could break God's commandment and eat from the tree of knowlege of good and evil. They chose to break it and sin entered the world.
3) God punished the man, women and serpant that tempted eve and voed that one day there would come someone to crush the serpant and fix the bond between human and God.

Can you give me specific early childhood experiances. And most things like this can be dealt with over time. As I have said, homosexualtiy may be difficult to stop but not impossible.

No, I can't - the research isn't completely worked out yet. It could be anything. Someone with genetic and hormonal predisopositions to a certain sexuality might naturally latch on to a same-gender role model who then influences their idea of the "ideal mate" later on in life.

However, many homosexuals are well aware that they are gay before or during the very beginnings of puberty - in other words, before they have a choice in any environmental factors that might play a role.

And considering that homosexuality is an extremely prevalent part of nature and has always been around in humans as well, stating that we will ever get rid of it is like stating that we will eventually get rid of women ever having to menstruate.

The important points of the creation story I am sure are not lost in either version. So who cares about what order we were created (Man, Women, Animals) etc (although it is interesting that the order of creation in Genesis is similar to that of the order of evolution). The important points are these

1) God created man and women, to be with one another
2) God gave man and women a choice. They could live in the Garden of Eden with God forever or they could break God's commandment and eat from the tree of knowlege of good and evil. They chose to break it and sin entered the world.
3) God punished the man, women and serpant that tempted eve and voed that one day there would come someone to crush the serpant and fix the bond between human and God.

In other words, you have never actually read Genesis. Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance.

There is no reason to believe that God created man and woman specifically to be with one another in the first creation story, only that God created humankind in God's image, and created them male and female.

There was no Garden of Eden in the first creation story - nor was there a fall of any sort.

There was no serpent, etc. in the first creation story.

In other words, you are still choosing only one creation story here.

And the order *does* make a difference. In the first creation story, it is clear that while humankind is the pinnacle of creation, we are still simply a part of creation - the icing on the cake so to speak. However, in the second creation story, the author wants us to believe that we are higher than the rest of creation - that the entire world and all the animals, etc. were created entirely for us, to do with as we please. These are obviously two very different viewpoints.

Quite right. Oh wait no there are all the hundrueds of genes reponsable for the human reproductive system. Of course hetrosexuality is genetic. The entire structure of the Human reproductive system is clearly designed for one man to mate with one woman and to create a child. And since the human reproduction system is geneticly determined then it must be genetic. Also there are all the hormones that trigger responses in both men and women that make them atracted to one another.

I state again there is no proof for HETEROSEXUAL ORIENTATION being a simple genetic trait. Genes which code for the development of sex organs have no direct bearing on neural development. Further, human anatomy is not designed and is a product of the environment, aka evolutionary pressures, therefore by your reasoning human anatomy and heterosexuality is a choice too... the one God likes, and most humans :rolleyes:

Also there are all the hormones that trigger responses in both men and women that make them atracted to one another.

Very simplistic and attraction depends solely on neurology. Believe it or not homosexuals feel attracted to the same sex, not the opposite sex nor a particular sexual activity. One can't feel attraction without being aware of the object of attraction and for the observer that does require ues of his/her brain, not a penis nor a vagina.

I am getting lack of proof that it is 100% genetic and so there must be other causes. The most logical being enviromental.

As I said earlier, most if not all things about humans are environmental. ;) What is waved around here though as "environmental" is actually best known as human reproductive ecology.

This is what I mean when I say choice in regard to this. It is like the choice when giving up ciggerates. Difficult but not impossible.

Nicotine addiction is a directly aquired physiological dependency and this irrelevant example does not answer the question. Sexual orientation develops naturally manifesting at puberty, be it environment or genetics (one in the same).

Rearly, care to prove this?

Discussions like this are not proof enough? Stronger evidence here than what you claim as proof for somethign else.

If this is all true, then just about all mammals, whose reproductive systems were designed almost exactly like ours, are sinners!!!!!!!


Animals are never refered to sinners and I am not saying that becaue our reproductive systems are the way they are that we are sinners. And our bodys are designed exclusively for hetrosexual sex, its just that some people have chose to misuse their reproductive organs. Its not like it has any purpose beyond pleasure and is not satifying pleasure at that. There are plenty of things that may feal good, harm no one (or very few people) but are still sins (eg getting drunk).


If you think the human body was only designed for penis-vagina sex - explain the existence of the male "G-spot" about an inch up his anus. Explain the existence of the clitoris, the only organ with no purpose whatsoever other than pleasure which is generally not properly stimulated during sex.


I dont know about the "G-spot" and I dont know much about the clitoris either. All I will say about the clitoris is that it is possible to get pleasure and satisfaction (albeit temporay satisfaciton) from things other than sex. Maybe this organ is stimulated then.

Without proof that it is 100% genetic, there must be other causes. Can you give me another type of cause other than enviromental? And I have given examples of where these are the case eg China, Single sex schools, read my previous posts.

You continue to misunderstand the question. I want you to tell me how the fact that there are environmental factors involved in determining sexual orientation automatically means that people can change their orientation. Also, not one of your "examples" are solid enough to act as foundation to an argument. Nice try though.

You made a statement requiring proof. You claim that Misogeny and Xenophobia are cornerstones of Christianity, where do you get this idea from? Was Jesus Xenophobic, was he a misoginist?

I claimed no such thing. This post was meant to point out the irony in a person who has yet to provide solid proof for any of his/her arguments asking for proof from others.

In other words, you have never actually read Genesis. Congratulations on demonstrating your ignorance.

There is no reason to believe that God created man and woman specifically to be with one another in the first creation story, only that God created humankind in God's image, and created them male and female.

There was no Garden of Eden in the first creation story - nor was there a fall of any sort.

There was no serpent, etc. in the first creation story.

In other words, you are still choosing only one creation story here.

And the order *does* make a difference. In the first creation story, it is clear that while humankind is the pinnacle of creation, we are still simply a part of creation - the icing on the cake so to speak. However, in the second creation story, the author wants us to believe that we are higher than the rest of creation - that the entire world and all the animals, etc. were created entirely for us, to do with as we please. These are obviously two very different viewpoints.

Well fine, I go with the first as it fits in with later refrences back to it. Can we get back to other things now.

Animals are never refered to sinners and I am not saying that becaue our reproductive systems are the way they are that we are sinners. And our bodys are designed exclusively for hetrosexual sex, its just that some people have chose to misuse their reproductive organs. Its not like it has any purpose beyond pleasure and is not satifying pleasure at that. There are plenty of things that may feal good, harm no one (or very few people) but are still sins (eg getting drunk).

And you ignore the point once again. Our reproductive systems are designed pretty much exactly the same as other mammal's - especially apes. So unless you think animals sin, you cannot state that human beings are "misusing" their organs. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals use them just as they were intended to be used, as evidenced by the fact that animals, who you say cannot sin, use them exactly the same way.

I dont know about the "G-spot" and I dont know much about the clitoris either. All I will say about the clitoris is that it is possible to get pleasure and satisfaction (albeit temporay satisfaciton) from things other than sex. Maybe this organ is stimulated then.

No, you said our reproductive systems were only designed for heterosexual sex to make babies. The male G-spot can only be stimulated if you stick something up his anus. The clitoris is stimulated during sexual activity, but not during missionary position sex. Thus, for these organs to have a purpose, God must have intended sex to be a pleasurable experience between two people - and must have intended it to sometimes be the type of experience that cannot result in babies. Thus, stating that a man who has sex with another man is "misusing" his body does not fit with your statement.

By the way, you don't know anything about the male G-spot or the clitoris? How old are you? 12?

I claimed no such thing. This post was meant to point out the irony in a person who has yet to provide solid proof for any of his/her arguments asking for proof from others.

I have provided LOADS of proof, its just back in the thread.

Well fine, I go with the first as it fits in with later refrences back to it. Can we get back to other things now.

If you go with the first, you have to give up all of your Adam and Eve related arguments. Thus, the whole "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument is moot.

I have provided LOADS of proof, its just back in the thread.

You have provided a single, completely bogus and biased source. On top of that, you provided an article that (a) didn't prove your point and (b) came from a biased source.

If you go with the first, you have to give up all of your Adam and Eve related arguments. Thus, the whole "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument is moot.

Why? Please explain? In the story I know (The one in my Bible in Genesis 1) there are only two people in the world. I dont know if that is the first or the second but it is the one I know and am aware of.

You have provided a single, completely bogus and biased source. On top of that, you provided an article that (a) didn't prove your point and (b) came from a biased source.

Ah, but unlike others, I am not the one making the claim that homosexuaity is genetic. Thus the ones making the claim need to provide the proof.

i just thought like making a post in the never ending topic.. :rolleyes:
there are some pro.. and some con.. and they never stopped arguing since there was no definite answer!

Ah, but unlike others, I am not the one making the claim that homosexuaity is genetic. Thus the ones making the claim need to provide the proof.
That is complete rubbish. If being homosexual was genetic, then why would we still have gays? Surely there are that many homosexuals who prduce offspring with women?

That is complete rubbish. If being homosexual was genetic, then why would we still have gays? Surely there are that many homosexuals who prduce offspring with women?

Exactly my point. I don't see how homosexuality could possibly have a genetic cause. If the gene or genes hypothetically responsible for homosexuality cause the likelihood of reproduction to be even 1% less than that for a heterosexual, then the gene or genes would be weeded out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations (i.e. 1,000-2,000 years). This lower likelihood can take the form of a complete failure to reproduce (i.e. the individual never has sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, or does, but so infrequently as to fail to produce offspring), or a partial failure (i.e. instead of having 2, 3 or 4 kids, the homosexual will only have 1, 2 or 3). In either case, less people in the following generation will have the gene or genes responsible, less in the following generation, and so on until the gene/genes effectively disappear.

I have provided LOADS of proof, its just back in the thread.

The key word here is SOLID. I've read this entire thread. I would know if you had provided any solid proof.

i disagree becaus esimply for centuries homos had to marry therefore spreading the gay gene amongst their forced children, and therefore inficting others heir children of course...)

Ah, but unlike others, I am not the one making the claim that homosexuaity is genetic. Thus the ones making the claim need to provide the proof.
That is complete rubbish. If being homosexual was genetic, then why would we still have gays? Surely there are that many homosexuals who prduce offspring with women?

Exactly my point. I don't see how homosexuality could possibly have a genetic cause. If the gene or genes hypothetically responsible for homosexuality cause the likelihood of reproduction to be even 1% less than that for a heterosexual, then the gene or genes would be weeded out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations (i.e. 1,000-2,000 years). This lower likelihood can take the form of a complete failure to reproduce (i.e. the individual never has sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, or does, but so infrequently as to fail to produce offspring), or a partial failure (i.e. instead of having 2, 3 or 4 kids, the homosexual will only have 1, 2 or 3). In either case, less people in the following generation will have the gene or genes responsible, less in the following generation, and so on until the gene/genes effectively disappear.

*SIGH* This argument has been disproven. Stop using it.

*SIGH* This argument has been disproven. Stop using it.

Go on, disprove it? How is my maths wrong? And what about this for a source for proof, in 2000 the American Psychiatric Association published their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation. They concluded that "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality"

i disagree becaus esimply for centuries homos had to marry therefore spreading the gay gene amongst their forced children, and therefore inficting others heir children of course...)
That is a stupid reason to disagree. However, a good reason would be to say that the genes which cause homosexuality (assuming that they did) were formed by process of evolution. Evolution of a species, besides simply being survival of the fittest, is also caused by naturally occuring genetic mutations. So even if the gene had been wiped out, it could still very easy re-occur.

Exactly my point. I don't see how homosexuality could possibly have a genetic cause. If the gene or genes hypothetically responsible for homosexuality cause the likelihood of reproduction to be even 1% less than that for a heterosexual, then the gene or genes would be weeded out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations (i.e. 1,000-2,000 years). This lower likelihood can take the form of a complete failure to reproduce (i.e. the individual never has sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, or does, but so infrequently as to fail to produce offspring), or a partial failure (i.e. instead of having 2, 3 or 4 kids, the homosexual will only have 1, 2 or 3). In either case, less people in the following generation will have the gene or genes responsible, less in the following generation, and so on until the gene/genes effectively disappear.

I have utterly no knowledge of geology and I insist the world is flat. I see flat horizons, the ground is flat, objects fall straight to earth and do not roll around. If I sail too far I will fall off the edge. Now I can see where you're coming from.

I have utterly no knowledge of geology and I insist the world is flat. I see flat horizons, the ground is flat, objects fall straight to earth and do not roll around. If I sail too far I will fall off the edge. Now I can see where you're coming from.

Please explain yourself, what has that got to do with my point.

The key word here is SOLID. I've read this entire thread. I would know if you had provided any solid proof.

Look, I am not the one making the claim. Somewhere down the line someone said something to the effect of "How can homosexuality be a sin, they were made that way its genetic" and so now I am asking for all the pedlers of that arguement to provide proof for that idea.

Go on, disprove it? How is my maths wrong? And what about this for a source for proof, in 2000 the American Psychiatric Association published their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation. They concluded that "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality"


It also mentions this

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse.

So that proves that its not genetic or enviromental. That sounds to me like you have just proved it's some sort of choice (albeit not a consious one)

You have provided a single, completely bogus and biased source. On top of that, you provided an article that (a) didn't prove your point and (b) came from a biased source.
I'm sorry but you simply don't know what you're talking about. The source was perfectly acceptable . This is a futile argument. Trust the West. In my native country (Iran), homosexuality isn't even allowed

So that proves that its not genetic or enviromental. That sounds to me like you have just proved it's some sort of choice (albeit not a consious one)

Well first of all kids, a lot of psychology is common sense and your own observations. No psychologists can claim to know the reason for any psychological processes.

And I don't understand your angle about the 'choice' comment. Are you saying it like it's a bad thing?

Well first of all kids, a lot of psychology is common sense and your own observations. No psychologists can claim to know the reason for any psychological processes.

And I don't understand your angle about the 'choice' comment. Are you saying it like it's a bad thing?
As homosexuals, myself and Neo Cannen are unlikely to mean it as a bad thing.

Labourous slaves, you have no evidence that Neo Cannen is gay; admit it, you've screwed up majorly now.





:cool: Camel cigars are cool.

Labourous slaves, you have no evidence that Neo Cannen is gay; admit it, you've screwed up majorly now.
How dare you! If I were to acuse you of being a lesbian, even though I don't know, maybe you'd have a point, but I happen to know that Neo Cannen is a fellow queer! :mad:

Well first of all kids, a lot of psychology is common sense and your own observations. No psychologists can claim to know the reason for any psychological processes.


Of course, psychologists cant claim to understand psychological process. Despite the fact that the name of their scicentific branch is what they claim to understand. Forgive me, but thats like saying doctors know nothing about medicine.



And I don't understand your angle about the 'choice' comment. Are you saying it like it's a bad thing?

I said that in 2000 American Psychiatric Association published their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation. They concluded that


There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality


And someone else said that they also said


Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse.


So it seems to me that both of these quotes put togther ammount to the disproving of homosexuality being either genetic or enviromental. Therefore it must have some degree of choice of somekind. Part of something being a sin is that while the devil can tempt you to do it, it is your choice, you are not forced to do it. So if homosexuality is a choice then it can be concluded that it is also a sin when you add the fact that the Bible is opposed to it.

I can tell you now I am fully hetrosexual

As homosexuals, myself and Neo Cannen are unlikely to mean it as a bad thing.

Oh splendid. I haven't read the whole thread in search of evidence of your sexuality.

Why? Please explain? In the story I know (The one in my Bible in Genesis 1) there are only two people in the world. I dont know if that is the first or the second but it is the one I know and am aware of.

Actually, the one you are speaking of begins in Genesis 2:4. Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 make up the first Creation story. It's not my fault you don't actually read your Bible and just accept whatever someone else tells you it says.

Exactly my point. I don't see how homosexuality could possibly have a genetic cause. If the gene or genes hypothetically responsible for homosexuality cause the likelihood of reproduction to be even 1% less than that for a heterosexual, then the gene or genes would be weeded out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations (i.e. 1,000-2,000 years). This lower likelihood can take the form of a complete failure to reproduce (i.e. the individual never has sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, or does, but so infrequently as to fail to produce offspring), or a partial failure (i.e. instead of having 2, 3 or 4 kids, the homosexual will only have 1, 2 or 3). In either case, less people in the following generation will have the gene or genes responsible, less in the following generation, and so on until the gene/genes effectively disappear.

You don't read very well do you? As we have pointed out, sexuality is a spectrum, much like skin color. As such, it is most likely controlled by a multitude of genes that also do other things. Thus, there is no reason to believe that they would be bred out.

In addition, there is evidence that the same combination that induces homosexuality in gay men *increases* the reproductive potential in women. This would mean that if women had this genetic pattern, they would reproduce *more*.

Excuse me, are you being angry? I'm sorry but I would like an apology and I'm sure Neo Crannen would like one as well for your crude behaviour.




I was taken :fluffle: from behind

I'm sorry but you simply don't know what you're talking about. The source was perfectly acceptable . This is a futile argument. Trust the West. In my native country (Iran), homosexuality isn't even allowed

As a scientist, I am fully qualified to judge whether or not a source is perfectly acceptable.

And a church-run source that says "Lesbians have sex with more men than straight women" or "All gay men do things like fisting" is pretty much bogus.

In fact, any obviously biased source is pretty much bogus. Notice that not one single person claiming homosexuality to be a choice has been able to come up with a peer-reviewed scientific article to that effect, while those of us who actually understand science have produced plenty demonstrating that it is not.

Excuse me, are you being angry? I'm sorry but I would like an apology and I'm sure Neo Crannen would like one as well for your crude behaviour.

Its Neo Cannen. And yes I would

I am gay and I have no friends.
Just cause you're queer doesn't mean you can tell others what to do.

In fact, any obviously biased source is pretty much bogus. Notice that not one single person claiming homosexuality to be a choice has been able to come up with a peer-reviewed scientific article to that effect, while those of us who actually understand science have produced plenty demonstrating that it is not.

Err, yes I have, see the American Psyciatric Assocation point

Labourous slaves, you are getting on my nerves.

Sorry Neo Cannen

Of course, psychologists cant claim to understand psychological process. Despite the fact that the name of their scicentific branch is what they claim to understand. Forgive me, but thats like saying doctors know nothing about medicine.

So it seems to me that both of these quotes put togther ammount to the disproving of homosexuality being either genetic or enviromental. Therefore it must have some degree of choice of somekind. Part of something being a sin is that while the devil can tempt you to do it, it is your choice, you are not forced to do it. So if homosexuality is a choice then it can be concluded that it is also a sin when you add the fact that the Bible is opposed to it.

No no, not even nearly as much is known about human thought processes as is known about the human body. Trust me, I study Psychology. How can you tell this? Their only proof of their theories is to conduct surveys. Far from conclusive evidence.
It is of my opinion that homosexuality is largely dependant upon environmental or 'nurture' factors. However I also feel that certian people are born with the innate potential to become homosexual, and their environment will determine whether they indeed are.
I couldn't give a damn what the bible has to say about homosexuality. Of course it's going to condemn it, it was written thousands of years ago simply conveying their moral standards, which have no relevance in today's society.
Homosexuality is a sin because most men quite frankly find the idea slightly repulsive and innately unnatural. And for you God fearing folk, God obviously would want the continuation of the Human race, his pride and joy, and if everyone was homosexual we'd die out pretty soon so OF COURSE he'll condemn it.
I think there's a bit of everthing for everyone in there...
Somebody respond so I can rant further if you wish.

I am a raging homosexual and a chicken rapist. Laborous Slaves is cool.

I agree with this one

Just cause you're queer doesn't mean you can tell others what to do.

I'm female. And straight. And that was a very mature and well thought out argument. Thankyou for blessing my ignorant ears with such wisdom

So it seems to me that both of these quotes put togther ammount to the disproving of homosexuality being either genetic or enviromental. Therefore it must have some degree of choice of somekind. Part of something being a sin is that while the devil can tempt you to do it, it is your choice, you are not forced to do it. So if homosexuality is a choice then it can be concluded that it is also a sin when you add the fact that the Bible is opposed to it.

How often have you looked over at a member of the same gender, though "DAMN I WANT TO SCREW THAT PERSON!" and then thought, "No, that's the devil speaking, I'm not going to be attracted to that person. People of my same gender are icky. They have cooties. I don't like them."

If this has never happened to you, then you have no reason to believe that homosexuality (or any sexuality for that matter) is a choice.

Labourous slaves, stop creating false quotes, or I'll report you.

Somebody has to tell these people enough is enough.

Just cause you're queer doesn't mean you can tell others what to do.

I looked up all of Erom's posts. He never said that he was gay.

I drink from the furry cup
Make up your mind.

The question is no longer "is homosexuality a sin" but rather "shall we report labourous slaves". I think no, he's quite amusing, but if you want to, I totally understand.

I personally think being gay is genetic, but not in the way you guys think of it.

I dont think there is a gay "gene", however, I believe that possible when the two types of DNA mix to form the child, perhaps if there are certain patterns that dont mix properly, it causes a defect in the DNA which causes homosexuality, and I think that it is most likely a common incorrect mix of patterns.

Let me ask you a question. This one is for the boys. You see a hot girl walking down the street. She is hot, your dream girl. Someone comes up to you and says "hey, you shouldnt like her" can you control whether you are attracted to her? Sure you can say you arent, but arent you still having the feelings on the inside that you think she is hot? You cant change that, you cant control it.

Its not a choice, get over it.

I would know, Ive tried for over 2 years to turn myself straight once, it didnt work.

Trust me, I would much rather be straight, it would make my life a lot easier.


I think this topic should be ended, its a very sensitive subject.

I looked up all of Erom's posts. He never said that he was gay.
I did however say I am female

I think this topic should be ended, its a very sensitive subject.

Well with only three posts, I can tell you havent been on here for the rest of the debate (as anyone who has would have clocked up at least 100 by now) and so I think your in the minority. If you dont like it, dont read it. Simple logic.

Personally I feel this topic has become too augmented to a useful discussion any more. Many things have been repeated over and over. However, as long as people reply, I'll try to make sense of what they say and comment on their information.

I did however say I am female

Apologies, I didnt see that. And I think you said that after I made the post anyway

Neo Cannen, I think it is rude to rebuff Mierzna just because she is a new member. I may seem like a new member, but I assure you that it has been used many times.

I think this topic should be ended, its a very sensitive subject.
I agree with Mierna here - if people can't have a sensible discussion then they shouldn't be on this site.

I agree with Mierna here - if people can't have a sensible discussion then they shouldn't be on this site.

Yes but we are having a sensable discussion. No one is going "Kill the gays" or anything stupid like that. And while I dont hold the fact that Mierna is a new member against him/her, he/she has clearly not read the forum or else he/she would know that this discussion is fine and not becoming insulting.

Is that coming from you labourous slaves?

you have frequently shown yourself to be an imbecile an unworthy to remain on this site. I'm telling you now, leave or I'll kill you with a pineapple.

Err, yes I have, see the American Psyciatric Assocation point

Yes because "there is no conclusive evidence yet" means "THERE IS NO WAY IT PLAYS A FACTOR AT ALL!!!"

Keep checking the APA and you will find that homosexuality is (a) not a choice and (b) not something to be "cured".

Then, check out behavioral science, and you will find that a range of sexuality is perfectly normal sexual behavior in mammals (and birds, and even some lower order animals). Human beings *are* animals, you know.

Well since no one has provided proof that it is 100% genetic there must be some enviromental factors that affect it. And since you can influence your enviroment and alter it then it can be acredited to choice.

Ummm, a one year old cannot incfluence their environment. We've already discussed that sexual orientation is set in stone in early life. Even if you are not born 100% gay, there are still plenty of ways it could not be a choice.

by the way, labourous slaves clearly is not a homosexual, if he was he would not ridicule them as much as he has on this site. I say, kill the heterosexuals.

I am a gayboy and I have no friends.

I'll agree with that.

I believe that there should be a roadmap to peace between homos and heteros, expecially in places like New England, where many homophobic attacks are carried out; the highest proportion in the world per population. I come from near Brighton, and I can assure you that it is possible.

I am sure it has been posted earlier but 147 of pages I don't feel like looking. Can somebody show me the scripture where it shows that homosexuality is a sin?

If you dont believe in God then thats fine. But what right does that give you to insult and poke fun at the views of others.The two aren't connected. One of the views here, and some of the illogic and misrepresentations really annoy me (see below). I'll try and keep it civil, but don't expect me not to be critical.
The thread is for people to discuss the views of Christians and why they have themTopic drift. :shrug:
Check the rest of the thread. The gay population rise in China is out of proportion with there genral population rise.Offhand, I don't recall you giving any evidence of this. The proportion of the population that admits to being homosexual (or identifies as gay) has been rising in many places around the world. And there is a really simple explanation for this; the increased acceptance of homosexuality and being gay in the west. Admitting to being gay is not quite the hurdle it once was.
And if you are going to listen to anything the Chinese government says, you need to seriously reconsdier your source useage.Well, sure, I'm not inclined to trust the Chinese government. But if there are better figures wikipedia doesn't know about them yet, nor do I. Could you repost your figures and the source you used? I seem to have forgotten them, and it's a real long thread.
When you see things like the people at Matthew Shephard's funeral where signs are being held that say "He's burning in hell now!" or "Ma aren';t your proud of your fag son?" being held by an organized Christian group, its kind of hard not to form your own opinions.Even the fundamentalists think that Fred Phelps is a nut.
Can you read Hebrew? ...
Interesting; I've never heard that translation before. However, it does appear that Jews interpret it as a prohibition against male-male sex (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0002.htm#350). Note however that the english translation is borrowed heavily from various Bibles, and I am not Jew, nevermind a rabbi.
I dont judge homosexuals. They are sinners, just like me and everyone else.:chuckle: What is the second scentence if not a judgement?
How do you know that studies which support the idea of homsexuality as genetic were not done purely "For the purpose of disproving something? Answer you cant.No I can't. But if a study makes it into a well-respect peer-reviewed scientific journal (such as JAMA), that's a strong indication that the methodology is ok, and a weaker indication that the data is honest. One of the functions of such journals is to filter out crap. Of course the motivation of the authors might be "for the purpose of disproving something". But they will have to provide something of substance to get into a journal, and lies and conjecture and bald assertions won't cut it.
Edit: Off course, your definition also covers asexuals, so maybe 'only attracted to the same sex' is even better.Yup, that's about the definition I use when using "homosexual" to describe a person or persons.
Brainwashing of people who were most likely actually bisexuals. Ok, fine - doesn't prove that true homosexuals with no attraction to the opposite sex can change their orientation.Provide some proof for this claimI can, thanks to google:

Description of Method: Spitzer recruited subjects from ex-gay ministries, NARTH, former therapists and other sources. To be included in the study, subjects had to meet the following criteria:

"Predominantly homosexual attraction (at least 60, 0-100 scale) prior to a specific effort to change attraction to heterosexual"
"Goal of functioning heterosexually"
[]* "After change effort, some change in sexual attraction (at least 10, on 0-100 subjective self report scale) beginning at least 5 years prior to interview".

--http://www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm
The more fundamental problem is the sample selection. When it comes to identifying homosexuality, scientists need to rely on self-reporting. With a random sample you can rely to some extent on people's honesty. With a sample selected the way this one was, you just can't.
I am actually shaking with anger over your refusal to listen. No one has ever said it is one hundred percent genetic. We've all said MULTIPLE TIMES that its is a COMBINATION OF GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. That however does NOT make it a CHOICE because its NOT something that can be CONSCIOUSLY CHANGED.Yeah, Neo Cannon tends to affect me that way too. But he's not worth getting angry over. Just point out what he's not listening too.
Because something is a combination of environmental and genetic factors does not mean you can change it if you want to. I can't change my height.Well, actually you could, if you could find a surgeon willing to do the appropriate surgery. But while it is known how to change height (though it is a nasty, cronic, painful proceedure), it is not known how to change sexual orientation.

Use google to search a bible site or this site:http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/
Maybe this will work. In genesis and leviticus there are references.

Yes because "there is no conclusive evidence yet" means "THERE IS NO WAY IT PLAYS A FACTOR AT ALL!!!"


Law of emprical science 1 = Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesaured.
Law of emprical science 2 = Only by repetive analysis can a cause and effect link be proved

In other words the APA said that there had not been any replicated scientifc study which has proved homosexuality to be biological or genetic. Ergo those who say it is have no proof.


Keep checking the APA and you will find that homosexuality is (a) not a choice and (b) not something to be "cured".

1) Show me where they say this and
2) If its not biological, (as they do say "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality") and not a result of enviromental influences (as they say its not "Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse") then what is it? Obviously its not a consious choice, maybe it is though (as I have said) to do with a level of overexposure to people of the same sex as you (Eg China, Single sex schools, as I have pointed out)

I am a homosexual

I am a queer
If you're both on the same side then why are you arguing?

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

No. All religions have some form of marriage ceremony (eg. handfasting in Wicca). Christian beliefs should not affect STATE marriage, as it is the state breaking the constitution in regard to religious tolerance to consider state marriages to be purely Christian in nature. Christianity was certainly, without dispute, not the first religion to practise marriage.

This is all very well for Christians. So Christians don't have gay marriages, big loss to the rest of us (sarcasm). However, we have human rights laid out by the United Nations which says the state cannot interfere with a person's religious right except for issues of national security, etc. I don't think because YOUR religion of intolerance says I can't get married, that I should be banned from it. That is enforcing your will on others and is not tolerated by the American Constitution and the United Nations.

Thankfully, handfastings can be recognised legally as well as being free from the usual Christian concepts of divorce, etc.

Where I see this discussion going very quickly -> :headbang:

Okay, if you are gay and not a christian, than why should you care that Homosexuality is a sin. If you aren't a christian and never want to be, which i pray that you change your mind, and i do pray for all kinds of people, then sin does not apply to you, because you don't care about what god says.
at least thats my opinion.

Look, Christianity believes that marriage came about when the world was created. That explains why so many people around the world came up with marriage, it began at the begining of the world. That is what Christians believe and since in this forum we are dealing with Christian beliefs then dont go saying "Ah the bible is wrong" because we are not here to debate the validity of the Bible. We are here to debate homosexuality as a sin

This has become your typical broken record response whenever you don't want to deal with something.

Ideally the two parties (people who are gay, and people who aren't and believe being so is a sin) would just leave each other the f*ck alone and get on with their lives.

Why do people need to force their own morality/beliefs on others? Surely they have better things to do ... or not.

Gay people have no need to force their morality/beliefs on others. When it comes right down to it all we want is to be treated equally.

If you're both on the same side then why are you arguing?

Stop manipulating quotes or I will report you.

I am deeply sorry for manipulating everyones quotes and I promise not to do it again

Good.

Stop manipulating quotes or I will report you.

Beat you to it. Note that his apology was deleted for the reason: Inaccurate :rolleyes:

This has become your typical broken record response whenever you don't want to deal with something.

OR, I am restating the peramiters of the debate. In any case I am right when I say it so deal with it in a way other than insulting it.

Without proof that it is 100% genetic, there must be other causes. Can you give me another type of cause other than enviromental? And I have given examples of where these are the case eg China, Single sex schools, read my previous posts.

Another type of cause? Coercion. Force. Brain washing. But then, none of those are done to gay people. And again, environmental does not equal choice.

And anecdotes with no study attached but your own meandering thoughts is not evidence.

It's a sin because a bunch of bible-thumping religious fundamentalist whack jobs have decided that they must preach to you the difference between right and wrong because you're an immoral asshole and they are the pious, perfect saint and messenger of God. :rolleyes:

Yeah I'm righteous and holy, thats only because God made me that way. I'm not holy in any way except the holiness I have through Jesus Christ living within me. His spirit giving me guidance and direction for daily living. I'm sure some of you may have seen the license plate that says "I'm not perfect, just forgiven" Thats true for any follower of Jesus Christ.

Neo Cannen, it is hardly fair to see someone reported for manipulating quotes, something that you have just done. I in no way think that Labourous slaves has been good in any way in this discussion, but I'm not sure of why you just did that. An apology would be nice.

If god liked gays he wouldnt have freaking nuked them gee I think that explains it Gays= :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :mp5: :sniper:



Guys with guns represent the rest of the world I think that sums it up :D

Neo Cannen, it is hardly fair to see someone reported for manipulating quotes, something that you have just done. I in no way think that Labourous slaves has been good in any way in this discussion, but I'm not sure of why you just did that. An apology would be nice.

Ah but my one was a piece of ironic satire which I am sure everyone apricated. He was just being stupid

Neo Cannen, it is hardly fair to see someone reported for manipulating quotes, something that you have just done. I in no way think that Labourous slaves has been good in any way in this discussion, but I'm not sure of why you just did that. An apology would be nice.

It was also me and no apology. He was immaturely insulting people by manipulating the functions provided by this board.

Yeah I'm righteous and holy, thats only because God made me that way. I'm not holy in any way except the holiness I have through Jesus Christ living within me. His spirit giving me guidance and direction for daily living. I'm sure some of you may have seen the license plate that says "I'm not perfect, just forgiven" Thats true for any follower of Jesus Christ.

Here Here (no I havent seen said number plate, I presume its just in the US. I would like to see it in the UK)

I have provided LOADS of proof, its just back in the thread.

If you will call, we've already shown that all your proof is fropm terribly biased sources.

What about the stuff from the APA. So far no one has shot that down.

its clearly placed a sin in the Bible..its not part of God's order or plan...its actually totally against it..so being a Christian or not...its still a sin...

Ah, but unlike others, I am not the one making the claim that homosexuaity is genetic. Thus the ones making the claim need to provide the proof.

You were the one who claimed it was a choice first. And you've given no proof that it is, despite being repeatedly asked for it.

That is complete rubbish. If being homosexual was genetic, then why would we still have gays? Surely there are that many homosexuals who prduce offspring with women?

You don't have to reproduce for the genes to still be floating around int he population. I"ve explained this before. Normally I don't hold with saying "go back and read" and prefer to instead explain things, but as it is a rather long explanation, I'd like to politely suggest you go read, somewhere int eh early 120s I think it was.

First off, Eve was created for the amusement of man, not Adam2. Man and woman are different because God made them that way...
But here's the real justification for it being called a 'sin' by Christian standards. It's because you cannot procreate. God said in the Bible to 'go forth and populate the land.'
Well would it be sin if gay couples want to adopt and raise children? Or if they had test tube children?

If you don't believe in 'sins' in the first place, then why do you care? What makes you any better for bashing the beliefs of others? And worse off, where do you think you're going to bring the conversation once you make those beliefs known?? Do you think you're making your life (or any one else's) better? Think about this for a minute before you answer.
Unless they plan in hurting peoples feelings, that would be sinful. If they are just mucking around jokingly-watching christians get agro, than its up to the christians to notice this and not take it seriously either instead of biblbashing them.

Okay, and another thing. It's not a sin to analyze biblical interpretation. It IS a sin to find passages and use them however you'd like. The passages that Endless Rehearsals thinks is clever, is really a misuse of those passages, and is taken out of context. Leviticus is in the Old Testament *much of which* was outdated with the coming of Christ in the New Testament. Not to mention the fact that it is only the *third* book in the Bible, much of which is outdated within the Old Testament itself. Most of these wannabe clever tidbits are from Leviticus, the other from Exodus. Oh, and Exodus is just after Genesis.
So true. Well argued. I'd like to expand on this but i don't have the time.

...

Last two things. Sodom and Gamorrah have nothing to do with this conversation. Don't let people interfere or blur the facts. And hypocrisy is "Pretending to be what one is not"-Webster's New World.
Hypocrisy is what a person is when they argue on the internet about something they pretend to be educated about. That is all.
Love that. I'm gonna keep an eye out for your posts Teh LeET d00d.

You were the one who claimed it was a choice first. And you've given no proof that it is, despite being repeatedly asked for it.

No I wasnt. Ages ago someone asked me why I thought homosexuality was a sin if it was genetic. And so far no one has proved that it is.

Law of emprical science 1 = Nothing can be said to exist untill it is mesaured.
Law of emprical science 2 = Only by repetive analysis can a cause and effect link be proved

And here's another "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

In other words the APA said that there had not been any replicated scientifc study which has proved homosexuality to be biological or genetic. Ergo those who say it is have no proof.

They have said that there has been no proof that it is absolutely genetic. However, data that suggests that it is partially so is abundant everywhere in the literature.

1) Show me where they say this and

The APA moved homosexuality out of the "disorder" category a long time ago - thus demonstrating that it is not a disorder to be cured.

As for it not being a choice, read *any* psychological journal past about 1990.

2) If its not biological, (as they do say "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality")

Which doesn't say "There is no biological etiology for homosexuality," just that there has been no specific one found.

and not a result of enviromental influences (as they say its not "Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of family sexual abuse")

No "specific" family dynamics or abuse. First of all, family dynamics and abuse are not the only early childhood environmental influences. Second of all, the fact that no specific one has been found does not rule out the probability that a variety of factors can combine to influence sexuality, just as the fact that there is not one specifc reason your skin is the color it is doesn't mean that you don't have a skin color.

then what is it? Obviously its not a consious choice, maybe it is though (as I have said) to do with a level of overexposure to people of the same sex as you (Eg China, Single sex schools, as I have pointed out)

And yet you ignore the fact that all research points to the idea that sexuality is decided long before puberty -- and I even posted an article to that effect.

Exactly my point. I don't see how homosexuality could possibly have a genetic cause. If the gene or genes hypothetically responsible for homosexuality cause the likelihood of reproduction to be even 1% less than that for a heterosexual, then the gene or genes would be weeded out of the gene pool in a few dozen generations (i.e. 1,000-2,000 years). This lower likelihood can take the form of a complete failure to reproduce (i.e. the individual never has sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, or does, but so infrequently as to fail to produce offspring), or a partial failure (i.e. instead of having 2, 3 or 4 kids, the homosexual will only have 1, 2 or 3). In either case, less people in the following generation will have the gene or genes responsible, less in the following generation, and so on until the gene/genes effectively disappear.

Because the genes for homosexuality are not passed on by homosexuals but by heterosexuals. The one gene that has been fairly well characterized so far is carried on the X-chromosome. This means gay males inherit it from their mothers. In women, the gene makes them more likely to reproduce--sending the gene on more often. In men it causes homosexuality.

Furthere, there are many many more well characterized genes such as those for sickle cell anemia that are still int he population even though those with sickle cell are far less likely to reproduce. In the heterozygous form they confer a reistance to malaria but in the homozygous form they cause sickle cell.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you Neo Cannen. If you bring it up again, you're just going to prove that you are paying no attention whatsoever. If you have questions, however, I will be happy to entertain them.

I have utterly no knowledge of geology and I insist the world is flat. I see flat horizons, the ground is flat, objects fall straight to earth and do not roll around. If I sail too far I will fall off the edge. Now I can see where you're coming from.

Too funny! But I bet he doesn't get it.

Book of Leviticus, 7:12 (it's not exact, but around there.) *You shall not be with a man as you would a woman, for that is abhorrent.* That is why it is a sin. it is still a sin if you aren't christian as well, but it's your choice to recognize it or not. It applies because America is a christian nation. 75% identify themselves as christian, it was founded by christians, and the national motto is One Nation Under God. The constitution recognizes this in the preamble. And because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the morals that dictate america are thus Christian. Yes, America has the freedom to religion and the seperation of church and state. But America being a christian nation in no way takes away that right to worship, it just reflects the majority, who in democracy are supposed to rule. (anyway, most other major religions have very similar views on homosexuality). and seperation of church of state was meant originally (as stated in The Federalist papers, written by the founding fathers) to keep the state out of the churches business (to preserve right to worship) instead of trying to bar religion for public life, as some seem to want. at any rate, marriage was a religious instituion long before the government ever got involved, as it should be. Can gays be together? sure. Are they bad people for being gay? NO. They are just living in a constant state of sin, sin being recognized by the religion that America choses. Elsewhere in the world, the situation may be differently, but Christianity dictates that is is always a sin. :headbang:

And here's another "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."


Thats not a scientific law. But since you are conceeding that you dont have proof, then none of you are in a position to beat me over the head with suposedly scientific arguements.


The APA moved homosexuality out of the "disorder" category a long time ago thus demonstrating that it is not a disorder to be cured.


I never said it was a disorder, I did say it could be 'cured' (not that I think cured is the right word). Dont ask me how exactly because I am not a counslor or anything but if it is a sin then people can stop doing it, no matter how hard it is.


Which doesn't say "There is no biological etiology for homosexuality," just that there has been no specific one found.

No "specific" family dynamics or abuse. First of all, family dynamics and abuse are not the only early childhood environmental influences. Second of all, the fact that no specific one has been found does not rule out the probability that a variety of factors can combine to influence sexuality, just as the fact that there is not one specifc reason your skin is the color it is doesn't mean that you don't have a skin color.


So you are basicly saying "We haven't got proof but if we did it would be X, Y, Z". Untill you have proof, you cant arggue any scientific point. I have a study which shows that there is no biological link (the APA one) and it goes on to say that there are no studies that do prove homosexuality is biological. So none of you can say to me that it is bilogical becaue for that you need proof, which you dont have.

I am sure it has been posted earlier but 147 of pages I don't feel like looking. Can somebody show me the scripture where it shows that homosexuality is a sin?

Genesis, Leviticus, Jude, the Epistles.


I think that about summarizes the books that I"ve heard tossed at us.

It applies because America is a christian nation. 75% identify themselves as christian, it was founded by christians, and the national motto is One Nation Under God. The constitution recognizes this in the preamble. And because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the morals that dictate america are thus Christian.

"The [First] Amendment's purpose... was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)

The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that:

individuals will have freedom of religious expression;
the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism;
the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to not give preference of one religion over another. Also, they cannot imply that a religiously based life is superior to a secularly based life or vice versa.

The text of the First Amendment:
Some early draft amendments to the religion section were:

James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
House Select Committee, JUL-28 "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed,"
Samuel Livermore, AUG-15 "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience."
House version, AUG-20 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." (Moved by Fisher Ames)
Initial Senate version, SEP-3 "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Final Senate version, SEP-9 "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
Conference Committee "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

(Source: www.religioustolerance.org)

"Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)" is called the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment. The free-exercise clause pertains to the right to freely exercise one’s religion. It states that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

(Source: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org)

Now try telling me the constitution is the will of Christianity

OR, I am restating the peramiters of the debate. In any case I am right when I say it so deal with it in a way other than insulting it.

Just point out a fact. You are happy to go off on tangents when you think it will support you. The minute it stops, you decide to drag us back to what you perceive as the reason for the debate.

And here's another "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."


Just a metaphor to explain the flawed nature of this statement.

If a teacher calls out a register and someone does not call there name, they are presumed absent becuase they did not say anything to prove they were here. Ergo they are not here.

Absensce of proof is proof of absence and before you start saying "There was absence of proof that the world was round when they thought it was flat" you are wrong. The proof was there they just hadnt found it, and when they did they changed there views. You have no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Maybe because it isnt or maybe because said proof havent found it yet. Either way you cannot say to me that it is without proof, and any proof you do have is countored by what the APA study says. Ergo we each have a study, neautrality, deadlock. Ergo it cant be proved either way. But untill you do find a study that seems to prove that homosexulaity is 100% genetic, you cant prove that it is not either envirometnal factors or choice which come into play.

What about the stuff from the APA. So far no one has shot that down.

However, the hae shown that it does no preclude a non-choice cause of homosexuality, just that it has not been shown. They've also shown that the APA 1. Does not treat it as a disease and 2. Does not consider it a choice.

Just point out a fact. You are happy to go off on tangents when you think it will support you. The minute it stops, you decide to drag us back to what you perceive as the reason for the debate.

Please provide an example. I re foucs the debate when people do the following things
1) Start saying "Why should everyone listen to christians" because I then point out that this forum is for Chirstians to explain themselves
2) Start saying "Christianity is wrong" Because I point out that the forum is for Christians to explain their beliefs not have them specificly attacked.

The legitatamet disucssion here is
1) Wheter homosexuality fits the crietra of a sin (is outlawed and condemend by God, is a choice in some way etc)

That is what we are here to debate. I only refoucs the debate when its nessecary.

Book of Leviticus, 7:12 (it's not exact, but around there.) *You shall not be with a man as you would a woman, for that is abhorrent.* That is why it is a sin. it is still a sin if you aren't christian as well, but it's your choice to recognize it or not. It applies because America is a christian nation. 75% identify themselves as christian, it was founded by christians,

A lot of people describe them as Deist.


and the national motto is One Nation Under God.


...something added only a few short decades ago to differenciate between wholesome, God-fearing Americans and them damn pinko commies.


The constitution recognizes this in the preamble. And because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the morals that dictate america are thus Christian. Yes, America has the freedom to religion and the seperation of church and state. But America being a christian nation in no way takes away that right to worship, it just reflects the majority, who in democracy are supposed to rule. (anyway, most other major religions have very similar views on homosexuality). and seperation of church of state was meant originally (as stated in The Federalist papers, written by the founding fathers) to keep the state out of the churches business (to preserve right to worship) instead of trying to bar religion for public life, as some seem to want. at any rate, marriage was a religious instituion long before the government ever got involved, as it should be. Can gays be together? sure. Are they bad people for being gay? NO. They are just living in a constant state of sin, sin being recognized by the religion that America choses. Elsewhere in the world, the situation may be differently, but Christianity dictates that is is always a sin. :headbang:

So gay people aren't bad, they're just going to hell. Yay!

However, the hae shown that it does no preclude a non-choice cause of homosexuality, just that it has not been shown. They've also shown that the APA 1. Does not treat it as a disease and 2. Does not consider it a choice.

Fine they dont treat it as a dieseas or a choice, but its not biological so people are not forced into it from birth. Ergo it fits into the basic critera of a sin. People may be born with original sin (lets not get into that) but they are not born condemed to sin by there genes and are unable to stop.

Thats not a scientific law. But since you are conceeding that you dont have proof, then none of you are in a position to beat me over the head with suposedly scientific arguements.

I am not coneding that I don't have proof, I have demonstrated evidence (not proof, as science can never *prove* anything, but plenty of evidence).

I never said it was a disorder, I did say it could be 'cured' (not that I think cured is the right word). Dont ask me how exactly because I am not a counslor or anything but if it is a sin then people can stop doing it, no matter how hard it is.

You did say it could be cured - the minute you stated that homosexuals can turn straight.

Your logic is backwards again. You state "If it is a sin, then people can stop doing it." Thus, logically, "If people cannot stop doing it, then it is not a sin." A homosexual can no more stop being attracted to members of the same sex than I can stop my monthly visitor from coming each month without getting pregnant or really old to do so.

So you are basicly saying "We haven't got proof but if we did it would be X, Y, Z". Untill you have proof, you cant arggue any scientific point. I have a study which shows that there is no biological link (the APA one) and it goes on to say that there are no studies that do prove homosexuality is biological. So none of you can say to me that it is bilogical becaue for that you need proof, which you dont have.

There is no "proof" that science can offer, science can only offer evidence. And there is quite a bit of evidence, some of which I have posted and you have subsequently ignored.

APA never said there is no biological link. They said that no repeated studies have been done on any *specific* biological link. To say that there is none would be bad science. So, no, you have not provided any study that shows there is no biological link, as this would be completely impossible to do.

If you want to ignore all the evidence and just listen to what your church tells you, that is fine - just don't attempt to call it science.

So gay people aren't bad, they're just going to hell. Yay!

Oooo does that mean they can actually leave us alone now? Oh no wait, that would make actual sense, they can't do that. *waits for illogical, scattered reply that is easily disproved but will be replaced with an equally stupid argument* :headbang:

APA never said there is no biological link. They said that no repeated studies have been done on any *specific* biological link. To say that there is none would be bad science. So, no, you have not provided any study that shows there is no biological link, as this would be completely impossible to do.
.

What they did say was "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality". Basicly there are no studies which support homosexuality being biological. Ergo you have no evidence. Or to be more fair, there may be evidence but it hasnt been found yet.

The constitution recognizes this in the preamble. And because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, the morals that dictate america are thus Christian. Yes, America has the freedom to religion and the seperation of church and state. But America being a christian nation in no way takes away that right to worship, it just reflects the majority, who in democracy are supposed to rule. (anyway, most other major religions have very similar views on homosexuality). and seperation of church of state was meant originally (as stated in The Federalist papers, written by the founding fathers) to keep the state out of the churches business (to preserve right to worship) instead of trying to bar religion for public life, as some seem to want. at any rate, marriage was a religious instituion long before the government ever got involved, as it should be. Can gays be together? sure. Are they bad people for being gay? NO. They are just living in a constant state of sin, sin being recognized by the religion that America choses. Elsewhere in the world, the situation may be differently, but Christianity dictates that is is always a sin.


The Preamble of the Constitution makes no mention of Christianity:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Further, no where in the Constitution is the word God mentioned. Even when it lays out the oath the President must take before coming into office, God is not mentioned.

You are likely thinking of the Declaration of Independence which does mention God. However, it did not establish this nation nor is it a document of our law. It severed the ties between Britain and the colonies. That's it.

The Consitution was not written until 1787 when the states sent delegations to revise the Articles of Confederation (which established the first nation). instead they scrapped said articles and wrote the Constitution.

If a teacher calls out a register and someone does not call there name, they are presumed absent becuase they did not say anything to prove they were here. Ergo they are not here.

Yes, and a teacher calling the roll is an entire scientific study. You still are missing the point. Science can never *prove* anything, it can just lead to the most likely conclusion.

Absensce of proof is proof of absence and before you start saying "There was absence of proof that the world was round when they thought it was flat" you are wrong. The proof was there they just hadnt found it, and when they did they changed there views.

You have just argued against your own point here. There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, but you choose to ignore it.

You have no proof that homosexuality is genetic.

But I, and others, have provided evidence - which is more than you have to back up your claim.

Either way you cannot say to me that it is without proof, and any proof you do have is countored by what the APA study says. Ergo we each have a study, neautrality, deadlock.

You really aren't listening are you? What the APA says does not counter anything, it simply states a fact. There are no repeated studies that point to any *specific* factor. However, there are many studies that suggest that certain factors play a role. Not many of them have yet been repeated, and most of them point to a myriad of factors, not a specific one. But you can't use a statement like "No studies have demonstrated a specific cause" and be like "THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO CAUSE AT ALL."

Ergo it cant be proved either way. But untill you do find a study that seems to prove that homosexulaity is 100% genetic, you cant prove that it is not either envirometnal factors or choice which come into play.

I can prove that it isn't choice, as can you. Again, tell me, when have you looked at a member of the same sex and though to yourself "DAMN, THEY'RE HOTTTT!!" and then thought "Nope, I don't want to be attracted to that person. I'm not going to be attracted to that person. God doesn 't want me to be attracted to that person. That person has coooties."

Fine they dont treat it as a dieseas or a choice, but its not biological so people are not forced into it from birth. Ergo it fits into the basic critera of a sin. People may be born with original sin (lets not get into that) but they are not born condemed to sin by there genes and are unable to stop.

Not a choice is a sin?

What they did say was "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality". Basicly there are no studies which support homosexuality being biological. Ergo you have no evidence. Or to be more fair, there may be evidence but it hasnt been found yet.

Guess what, there are no replicated studies proving that cyclic stretch induces bone marrow stem cells to become smooth muscle like. In fact, so far, there's only one, and it only demonstrates that there might be a link. However, I am going to replicate it - thus furthering the evidence.

You obviously don't understand how science works, so why don't you go back to church and stop trying to debate something you know nothing about?

What they did say was "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality". Basicly there are no studies which support homosexuality being biological. Ergo you have no evidence. Or to be more fair, there may be evidence but it hasnt been found yet.

AS was already said, they said no SPECIFIC etiology. Not that there wasn't one all together.

But I, and others, have provided evidence - which is more than you have to back up your claim.


Im sorry, I may have been offline when you did this and I am about to go ofline now so could you telegram me the URL's. And I have provided proof, see China, same sex schools. I would love to expand on them further but I am going to bed, see you later.