Headline: Science develops treatment therapy to cure and prevent homosexuality! (Jesus, moral)

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

That's the hypothesis!

Very interesting. I have often thought that women would be more predisposed towards lesbianism due to the emotional need rather than the physical need. While a man can easily take care of a woman’s physical needs, we aren't always equipped to do so on an emotional level. And, since there isn't much a man can do physically that a woman can't either do or simulate, what really is the need for the man at all?

One question on your hypothesis though. How do you account for the tribal tendency of an entire village raising the children rather than couples? I think this was probably the case in primitive man.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

Very interesting. I have often thought that women would be more predisposed towards lesbianism due to the emotional need rather than the physical need. While a man can easily take care of a woman’s physical needs, we aren't always equipped to do so on an emotional level. And, since there isn't much a man can do physically that a woman can't either do or simulate, what really is the need for the man at all?

Well, possibly, but fortunately for heterosexual men and for obvious evolutionary reasons, the overwhelming majority of women are overwhelmingly heterosexual.

One question on your hypothesis though. How do you account for the tribal tendency of an entire village raising the children rather than couples? I think this was probably the case in primitive man.

Well, it's not a theory of everything! There is current thinking about sort of partial genetic inheritance. Like what I mean is, we are genetically interested in our offspring, who have half our genes, and our siblings, umm, is that the same? We have a genetic interest in our close cousins, etc. So in a small village, there could be a close degree of consanguinity that would encourage that.

Also we have a general genetic predisposition to care for children, and I'm sure you can see the evolutionary benefit of that.

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Just explain why your understanding of what is sinful should have any bearing on my right to make my own moral decisions that do not affect you. And take those socks off now. In fact, in your case, I think sandals are the safest bet, as that avoids any risk of sock-sin.

BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

and you keep trying to pull me into your old testement sock claim.

we can go there, but its been done many times here. and plus this thing will go to 30 post quick.

the bible is in harmony - old and new testement and it is clear on things like adutery and on how in the new testement we are under grace about what we can eat.

but no such grace was extended to mans penis in another mans anus. in fact it was said AGAIN in the new testement that it was wrong.

in the old test. it was as barbaric as sleeping with your mother or with an animal.
in the new-test. just the same. it was not even CONSIDERED for marrage. so not Jesus never said ' gays can't marry". it was not even a topic. it was KNOWN to be wrong.

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by rocka21

BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

No, you have repeatedly told us that you do not want gays in schools, you do not want pride parades in the streets, and you want to see lifestyles other than your own behind closed doors. You ignore every post that points out these comments and repeat the fact that you "love" everyone. I suppose it is easy for you to love everyone while believing that we are all going to eternally swim in a great lake of fire for the sin of not believing as you do.

As has been stated many times, what you believe is not the issue. Stating what you believe is not the issue. Telling everyone else what to believe or to keep their beliefs where you can't see or hear them is the issue. Freedom of speech and expression is being aloud to say what you believe, teach what you believe and march through the streets if you so choose.

[Trey of Diamonds]

Here is an interesting fact for you. The bible mentions homosexuality 12 times. Of the 12, only 4 are not also related to sins such as rape or prostitution. Now if God was really that against homosexuality, wouldn't he have said a little more about it?

There are twelve mentions of homosexuality in the Bible:

• 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22)
• 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8)
• 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
• 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by rocka21

BINGO! you do have the right to make YOUR own moral decision. i am not telling you what to think , i am just telling you what i think.

and you keep trying to pull me into your old testement sock claim.

we can go there, but its been done many times here. and plus this thing will go to 30 post quick.

the bible is in harmony - old and new testement and it is clear on things like adutery and on how in the new testement we are under grace about what we can eat.

but no such grace was extended to mans penis in another mans anus. in fact it was said AGAIN in the new testement that it was wrong.

in the old test. it was as barbaric as sleeping with your mother or with an animal.
in the new-test. just the same. it was not even CONSIDERED for marrage. so not Jesus never said ' gays can't marry". it was not even a topic. it was KNOWN to be wrong.

My belief that your socks are immoral is not based on the Bible. It is based on my interpretation of my holy book, the Qble. It clearly and unequivocally states that your socks are sinful. Therefore they are immoral. What is wrong with this argument?

And btw, even your holy book does not prohibit lesbianism, and only an uncertain translation re: male homosexuality. Really not clear.
Divorce on the other hand...big no no. What do you have to say to the 30% of Christians who get divorced?

[Autodidact]

And rocka21, without getting too explicit or personal, I assure you that neither penii nor anii are involved.

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

No, you have repeatedly told us that you do not want gays in schools, you do not want pride parades in the streets, and you want to see lifestyles other than your own behind closed doors. You ignore every post that points out these comments and repeat the fact that you "love" everyone. I suppose it is easy for you to love everyone while believing that we are all going to eternally swim in a great lake of fire for the sin of not believing as you do.

As has been stated many times, what you believe is not the issue. Stating what you believe is not the issue. Telling everyone else what to believe or to keep their beliefs where you can't see or hear them is the issue. Freedom of speech and expression is being aloud to say what you believe, teach what you believe and march through the streets if you so choose.

i have told you , i dont want gays in schools?

round and round we go.......... the point i was trying to make is that gays are marching in the streets and you don't want to hear the other side.

there you go again putting words in my mouth - when did i EVER say you were going to a lake of Fire. there will be sinners in heaven. we are all sinners.

are debate seems to be , is it sin.

if i had a march in the streets saying homosexually is sin , you would call it hate.

i preach - you march ---------- see this freedom thing

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

Here is an interesting fact for you. The bible mentions homosexuality 12 times. Of the 12, only 4 are not also related to sins such as rape or prostitution. Now if God was really that against homosexuality, wouldn't he have said a little more about it?

ONLY 12 ............ LOL ..........

and we still act like we don't know where he stands on the issue.

[rocka21]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

My belief that your socks are immoral is not based on the Bible. It is based on my interpretation of my holy book, the Qble. It clearly and unequivocally states that your socks are sinful. Therefore they are immoral. What is wrong with this argument?

And btw, even your holy book does not prohibit lesbianism, and only an uncertain translation re: male homosexuality. Really not clear.
Divorce on the other hand...big no no. What do you have to say to the 30% of Christians who get divorced?

nothing is wrong with your argument as long as you throw out the new testament.
and yes, as for lesbians , its in the new testement.

as for divorce........ i think you need to read what Jesus said and Paul. in some cases its not a no, no.