Why is being gay considered wrong?

James the Persian · Jul 22, 2005

Sabio said:
Before the fall there was perfection, perfect harmony between plants, animals, man. (as it will be again when Christ returns Hallelujah!) When sin came into the world moral and physical deterioration began, the life span of man decreased rapidly, sickness and disease came into the world (which were not know before the fall), etc. This deterioration of the "state" of man results in the birth defects you mention. But there are clear examples in the NT of Jesus healing birth defects, these are worth studying and meditating on. The interesting irony is that many times people with birth defects also have great gifts from God, look at some of the incredible musicians who are blind, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, etc !

I think we have a semantical difference about sin, you say man "falls" into sin, I believe the Bible teaches that man "chooses" to sin in rebellion against God as the Genesis story of Adam and Eve teaches.

Blessings Michel, your search will yield great and lasting treasure.

Sabio

OK, I agree with most of what you wrote (though I'd perhaps read it a little more spirityually than materially), but I think Michel's view of falling into sin is closer to the truth. Since the fall we find it easy to sin and difficult to live a righteous life. Even St. Paul admits that he finds it hard to do what is right even though he wants to. I don't, therefore, think that sin is usually, or even often, a wilfull rebellion against God, but more often a yielding to temptation through weakness. This might not seem like much of a difference, but it has a profound effect on how I would view God's forgiveness. To put it in context, if a homosexually inclined person falls into sin (wording deliberate) but picks themselves up and sincerely repents trying not to do it again, I believe God will forgive them no matter how many times they fail. If, on the other hand, their sin was deliberate rebellion I couldn't see their continuing to sin in the same light and would have to consider their repentance to be false. Under those circumstances it's harder to see why God might give them a second (or nth) chance.

James

Sabio · Jul 22, 2005

IacobPersul said:
OK, I agree with most of what you wrote (though I'd perhaps read it a little more spirityually than materially), but I think Michel's view of falling into sin is closer to the truth. Since the fall we find it easy to sin and difficult to live a righteous life. Even St. Paul admits that he finds it hard to do what is right even though he wants to. I don't, therefore, think that sin is usually, or even often, a wilfull rebellion against God, but more often a yielding to temptation through weakness. This might not seem like much of a difference, but it has a profound effect on how I would view God's forgiveness. To put it in context, if a homosexually inclined person falls into sin (wording deliberate) but picks themselves up and sincerely repents trying not to do it again, I believe God will forgive them no matter how many times they fail. If, on the other hand, their sin was deliberate rebellion I couldn't see their continuing to sin in the same light and would have to consider their repentance to be false. Under those circumstances it's harder to see why God might give them a second (or nth) chance.

James

James,

We are in 99% agreement. I also beleive that if a homosexually inclined person falls into sin, but repents, our loving God "is just to forgive". On the other hand the person who promotes homosexuality is rebelling and remains in a fallen state.

Sabio

Fluffy · Jul 22, 2005

Thankyou Spinkles, I happen to agree with you completely but I had trouble articulating as such

Anotomically a man and a woman are designed to join together, a perfect fit. Two men are not, in fact when two men attempt to "join together" there is discomfort, pain, and lasting physical effects (I don't have to be more descriptive). This is not normal, and it is a "choice" to engage in something that is abnormal and uncomfortable. Why would someone engage in such an act?

This argument does the following things:

1) It argues that any form of sex which does not involve penal penetration of the vagina is abnormal. Therefore, a variety of different methods of foreplay which can be conducted by all combination of genders fall under this bracket.
2) It fails to distinguish between anal sex performed by a man and a women and 2 men.
3) It fails to argue against sexual intercourse between 2 women.
4) It fails to argue against homosexuality in any way but merely against an act that some homosexuals and heterosexuals perform.
5) It fails to appreciate the implications of the logic behind the argument, ie if one suggests that all people who don't "fit" together physically should not attempt to do so then therefore all people who DO "fit" together physically should attempt to do so.
6) It fails to introduce a moral dimension

Have you ever tried anal sex? Personally I have never sampled it but I would have thought that it was a personal preference. I dislike olives, and have tried them, but do not question why others like it. If you have found your anal sex to cause "discomfort, pain and lasting physical effects" then its probably a good idea if you choose not to continue having it in much the same way as I choose to not eat olives.

There is a dispropotionately large segment of the gay (male) population that have contracted HIV/AIDS, why is this?

The reason why the figures aren't as high in the straight population is that they have the threat of pregnancy and so take contraception more seriously on the whole. The reason why the figures aren't as high in the gay female population is because it is harder to transfer the disease between two women than between two men.

A gay male couple using the appropriate condom for anal sex (ie a double strength one) is under less risk of contracting or transferring the disease than a straight couple with a normal one. If such a disproportion is true, and I would love to see some figures, then it would be down to social views towards STIs and contraception and nothing more.

Why can't two men reproduce without third party intervention?

For two reasons. Firstly because a sperm is not designed to interact with other sperm in the same was as an egg to prevent self fertilisation. Secondly because of a lack of womb.

1) Research egg fusion, sperm fusion and artificial wombs. Whats the difference between utilising these techniques and taking a car to work instead of walking?
2) Why can't some men and women reproduce regardless of their sexual orientation?
3) Why should children be a necessary part of a gay relationship? Why should they be a necessary part of a straight one for that matter?

I'd be very interested to here your responses to these points and questions.

michel · Jul 22, 2005

I see what you mean Sabio - that Eve sinned 'proactively' - rather than having been totally 'duped' by Satan;

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

The root of all sin is doubting God's Word. Satan was successful in this approach even with one who had never sinned before and who had no sin-nature inclining her to sin. Satan merely implanted a slight doubt concerning God's veracity and His sovereign goodness. The approach so successful in this case has provided the pattern for his temptations ever since.

3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Eve, in her developing resentment against God, fell into Satan's trap, both taking away from God's Word and adding to it. God had said they could "freely eat" of "every tree" (Genesis 2:16); Eve quoted him as saying they could eat of the trees. God had said they should not eat of the fruit of one tree; Eve added the statement that they should not even touch it. These are the very sins God warned about after His written Word was finally completed (Revelation 22:18,19). Doubting God's Word, augmenting, then diluting, and finally rejecting God's Word--this was Satan's temptation and Eve's sin, and this is the common sequence of apostasy even today.

3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan's sin led him to desire to be as God, and this was the desire he placed in Eve's mind (see notes on Isaiah 14:13,14). In fact, when one questions or changes the Word of God, he is, for all practical purposes, making himself to be "god."

The threefold temptation, appealing to body ("good for food"), soul ("pleasant to the eyes") and spirit ("make one wise"), was the same by which Satan appealed to Christ in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12), and against which Christians are warned in 1 John 2:16 ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life").

3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The threefold temptation, appealing to body ("good for food"), soul ("pleasant to the eyes") and spirit ("make one wise"), was the same by which Satan appealed to Christ in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12), and against which Christians are warned in 1 John 2:16 ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life").
It was at this point that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). There could have been no death in the world before man brought sin into the world. Thus, the fossils in the earth's crust cannot be a record of the evolution of life leading up to man but must be a record of death after man. In the evolutionary scenario, struggle and death in the animal kingdom eventually, after a billion years, brought man into the world. The truth is, however, that man brought death into his whole dominion by his sin.

O.K, I am with you now.

Sabio · Jul 22, 2005

Fluffy said:
Thankyou Spinkles, I happen to agree with you completely but I had trouble articulating as such

This argument does the following things:

1) It argues that any form of sex which does not involve penal penetration of the vagina is abnormal. Therefore, a variety of different methods of foreplay which can be conducted by all combination of genders fall under this bracket.
2) It fails to distinguish between anal sex performed by a man and a women and 2 men.
3) It fails to argue against sexual intercourse between 2 women.
4) It fails to argue against homosexuality in any way but merely against an act that some homosexuals and heterosexuals perform.
5) It fails to appreciate the implications of the logic behind the argument, ie if one suggests that all people who don't "fit" together physically should not attempt to do so then therefore all people who DO "fit" together physically should attempt to do so.
6) It fails to introduce a moral dimension

Have you ever tried anal sex? Personally I have never sampled it but I would have thought that it was a personal preference. I dislike olives, and have tried them, but do not question why others like it. If you have found your anal sex to cause "discomfort, pain and lasting physical effects" then its probably a good idea if you choose not to continue having it in much the same way as I choose to not eat olives.

The reason why the figures aren't as high in the straight population is that they have the threat of pregnancy and so take contraception more seriously on the whole. The reason why the figures aren't as high in the gay female population is because it is harder to transfer the disease between two women than between two men.

A gay male couple using the appropriate condom for anal sex (ie a double strength one) is under less risk of contracting or transferring the disease than a straight couple with a normal one. If such a disproportion is true, and I would love to see some figures, then it would be down to social views towards STIs and contraception and nothing more.

For two reasons. Firstly because a sperm is not designed to interact with other sperm in the same was as an egg to prevent self fertilisation. Secondly because of a lack of womb.

1) Research egg fusion, sperm fusion and artificial wombs. Whats the difference between utilising these techniques and taking a car to work instead of walking?
2) Why can't some men and women reproduce regardless of their sexual orientation?
3) Why should children be a necessary part of a gay relationship? Why should they be a necessary part of a straight one for that matter?

I'd be very interested to here your responses to these points and questions.

Fluffy, I think you should refrain from the detailed explanations of homosexual "sex", because we do have some younger underage participants on this forum. Some of your descriptions (a woman and 2 men) should even be offensive to gays who believe in the sanctity and covenant of "partnerships". This attempt to "sensationalize" to make a point is without merit. From some of your other posts that I've read, you seem to be intelligent and able to argue with merit if you want to.

Sabio

Sabio · Jul 22, 2005

michel said:
I see what you mean Sabio - that Eve sinned 'proactively' - rather than having been totally 'duped' by Satan;
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The root of all sin is doubting God's Word. Satan was successful in this approach even with one who had never sinned before and who had no sin-nature inclining her to sin. Satan merely implanted a slight doubt concerning God's veracity and His sovereign goodness. The approach so successful in this case has provided the pattern for his temptations ever since.
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Eve, in her developing resentment against God, fell into Satan's trap, both taking away from God's Word and adding to it. God had said they could "freely eat" of "every tree" (Genesis 2:16); Eve quoted him as saying they could eat of the trees. God had said they should not eat of the fruit of one tree; Eve added the statement that they should not even touch it. These are the very sins God warned about after His written Word was finally completed (Revelation 22:18,19). Doubting God's Word, augmenting, then diluting, and finally rejecting God's Word--this was Satan's temptation and Eve's sin, and this is the common sequence of apostasy even today.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Satan's sin led him to desire to be as God, and this was the desire he placed in Eve's mind (see notes on Isaiah 14:13,14). In fact, when one questions or changes the Word of God, he is, for all practical purposes, making himself to be "god."
The threefold temptation, appealing to body ("good for food"), soul ("pleasant to the eyes") and spirit ("make one wise"), was the same by which Satan appealed to Christ in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12), and against which Christians are warned in 1 John 2:16 ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life").
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
The threefold temptation, appealing to body ("good for food"), soul ("pleasant to the eyes") and spirit ("make one wise"), was the same by which Satan appealed to Christ in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-12), and against which Christians are warned in 1 John 2:16 ("the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life").
It was at this point that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). There could have been no death in the world before man brought sin into the world. Thus, the fossils in the earth's crust cannot be a record of the evolution of life leading up to man but must be a record of death after man. In the evolutionary scenario, struggle and death in the animal kingdom eventually, after a billion years, brought man into the world. The truth is, however, that man brought death into his whole dominion by his sin.
O.K, I am with you now.

Multo bene Michel !

Satan's tactic is always to take the truth and give it a "slight twist", very seldom does he come with an idea that is diametrically opposed to God's comandments. This is what makes him so suttle in his approach. This is why the Bible says he comes as an "angel of light". We really have to be in close communion with God to avoid falling into the devil's snares!

Sabio

Ryan2065 · Jul 22, 2005

Saibo said:
The stoning of homosexuals as quoted from Lev 20:13 is under the old covenant, the law of Moses. Christians are under the New Covenant as taught and contracted by Jesus. So the stoning of homosexuals is no longer valid, loving them and trying to set them straight (no pun intended) is our calling.

So since we have a new covenant where does it say in the new covenant that homosexuality is bad? I have only found references to that under the old covenant... (I am sure I'm just missing them though)

Saibo said:
Ryan, some people take great pleasure in killing, does that make it right? What about those people who take pleasure in gay bashing, is that ok because there is pleasure invloved?

This fails to debate my point. My point is that god made it so that humans take pleasure in having homosexual sex. Therefore it cannot be bad, because god cannot tempt us to do bad things. The act of killing is a mental state, not a physical state. So tell me why did god make it feel good to have homosexual sex if its so bad?

No one here ever said anything about ori's post of this http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050028000623data_trunc_sys.shtml
Why is it? Just trying to ignore it and hope it goes away? =P

Sabio · Jul 22, 2005

Ryan2065 said:
So since we have a new covenant where does it say in the new covenant that homosexuality is bad? I have only found references to that under the old covenant... (I am sure I'm just missing them though)
This fails to debate my point. My point is that god made it so that humans take pleasure in having homosexual sex. Therefore it cannot be bad, because god cannot tempt us to do bad things. The act of killing is a mental state, not a physical state. So tell me why did god make it feel good to have homosexual sex if its so bad?

No one here ever said anything about ori's post of this http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050028000623data_trunc_sys.shtml
Why is it? Just trying to ignore it and hope it goes away? =P

New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6: 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Men take pleasure in sin (physical and mentally) until such time that they are convincted by the Holy Spirit which is not pleasurable, the suffering of conviction brings repentance and reconciliation with God.

God does not tempt us, Satan does. know your enemy Ryan.

The act of killing is a physical state and a mental state. The mental state leads to the physical act (state), all sins begins in the mental (heart) state.

Sabio

Ryan2065 · Jul 22, 2005

Saibo said:
God does not tempt us, Satan does. know your enemy Ryan.

God made it pleasurable to have homosexual sex... no? (If you say satan did then you are saying that satan altered our bodies...)
Since god made it pleasurable, it must be good, because god would not make a sin pleasurable.
You still have not responded to the article that says there is a gene that causes homosexuality... If this is the case, god made us this way (again, satan has not altered our bodies) and then it is not a sin...

michel · Jul 22, 2005

Sabio said:
New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6: 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Men take pleasure in sin (physical and mentally) until such time that they are convincted by the Holy Spirit which is not pleasurable, the suffering of conviction brings repentance and reconciliation with God.

God does not tempt us, Satan does. know your enemy Ryan.

The act of killing is a physical state and a mental state. The mental state leads to the physical act (state), all sins begins in the mental (heart) state.

Sabio

King James' version is slightly different..1 Corinthians 6

6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Scott1 · Jul 22, 2005

Ryan2065 said:
Since god made it pleasurable, it must be good, because god would not make a sin pleasurable.

You seem to still have trouble grasping the difference between body and mind. The only attributes that I would say are from God are things that have to do with my humanity... breathing, eating.... bodily function stuff...

... you would like to think that anything that creates bodily pleasure must be from God.... there are people who gain bodily pleasure by inflicting pain on others, or killing others.... many of the worlds serial killers showed these traits.

Again... 99.9% of sin FEELS GOOD... theives feel a bodily "rush" of adrenaline... etc etc.....

I can't make it more clear than that.

Ryan2065 · Jul 22, 2005

Scott1 said:
you would like to think that anything that creates bodily pleasure must be from God.... there are people who gain bodily pleasure by inflicting pain on others, or killing others.... many of the worlds serial killers showed these traits.

I thought that it was a mental pleasure one gets from killing someone? What I am argueing is that god put something in the male and female that feels good ONLY when engaged in "sinful" sex. This is the absolute only time it feels good... Therefore my only conclusion could be that it was misinterperated and that it isn't sinful to have this "sinful sex". The reason I say this is because all the other things that are sinful that cause pleasure, the things that cause pleasure also cause pleasure in other things... I suck at wording... anyone see what I'm saying and put it in better words? Basically I'm saying... god created our bodies so that we would have pleasure doing certain non sinful things. Satan saw this and now tempts us to do sinful things, using this pleasure that god gave us. My argument is that there is no non-sinful way to have pleasure with the parts that god gave us for sinful sex. Therefore its my conclusion that god put them in us to have pleasure during this sinful sex. The only way to refute this idea is to give a way to cause non-sinful pleasure with the parts that cause pleausre during "sinful" sex. Otherwise this is god tempting us, not satan.

Pah · Jul 22, 2005

orichalcum said:
You like apples?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20050028000623data_trunc_sys.shtml

How about them apples?

And here's another "bushel" http://drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/525660.html

Kinda makes all this discussion of Bible mote.

michel · Jul 22, 2005

Ryan2065 said:
I thought that it was a mental pleasure one gets from killing someone? What I am argueing is that god put something in the male and female that feels good ONLY when engaged in "sinful" sex. This is the absolute only time it feels good... Therefore my only conclusion could be that it was misinterperated and that it isn't sinful to have this "sinful sex". The reason I say this is because all the other things that are sinful that cause pleasure, the things that cause pleasure also cause pleasure in other things... I suck at wording... anyone see what I'm saying and put it in better words? Basically I'm saying... god created our bodies so that we would have pleasure doing certain non sinful things. Satan saw this and now tempts us to do sinful things, using this pleasure that god gave us. My argument is that there is no non-sinful way to have pleasure with the parts that god gave us for sinful sex. Therefore its my conclusion that god put them in us to have pleasure during this sinful sex. The only way to refute this idea is to give a way to cause non-sinful pleasure with the parts that cause pleausre during "sinful" sex. Otherwise this is god tempting us, not satan.

Ryan,

................"My argument is that there is no non-sinful way to have pleasure with the parts that god gave us for sinful sex.".....................

God did not give us parts for sinful sex, he gave us parts.
Just as God gave us a brain - not a sinful brain - if we CHOOSE to think sinfully, that is our choice.

Otherwise this is god tempting us, not satan
Are you serious?

Scott1 · Jul 22, 2005

Ryan2065 said:
I thought that it was a mental pleasure one gets from killing someone?

Some gain physical/sexual pleasure from the abuse of others....

What I am argueing is that god put something in the male and female that feels good ONLY when engaged in "sinful" sex.

Sex is not inherently sinful.... I want to make that clear. Sex between husband and wife is a beautiful thing.

Sin is a choice.... a choice we make with both mind AND body... we are not just our "souls" trapped inside sinful flesh... and we are not just robotic bodies without the capacity to choose our actions.

God make sex feel good... yes.... but that does not mean we are "slaves" to physical pleasure. It is a CHOICE to do something... whether it feels good or not is secondary to that fact that what you are trying to argue is first and foremost a mental decision made by the person.

Studies (Kinsey I believe) have shown that male human beings are geneticly predisposed to seek out multiple sex partners.... a genetic way to help propegate the species.... does that mean that because God made me this way it's ok to have sex with anyone and everyone... kids-farm animals-household appliances... ????? NO!

If I was trying to argue that breathing was sinful... sure... tell me that it is a bodily function and you have no choice..... but you continue to miss the main point in that a person must first make a CHOICE... a conscious, educated, mature decision.... to have sex..... it is not the act per se, that is sinful.... it is the CHOICE... the choice to sin.

Pah · Jul 22, 2005

Science poses an interesting question. As there are strong indications that homosexuality is not a choice, is not a matter of free will, why should there be any objection to homosexiality as sin when it is widely considerd in Abrahamic faiths that God created man. That would include a genetic componenet wouldn't it?

Ryan2065 · Jul 22, 2005

michel said:
Otherwise this is god tempting us, not satan
Are you serious?

If you agree that god made the body then he also determined what would feel pleasurable and what would not. If you agree that sin is tempting because it is pleasurable, then this is god tempting us, not satan. To argue that god gave us parts and we determine what is pleasurable and what isn't is bull. I can agree that if we have a part that gives us pleasure both in a sinful way and a non-sinful way that god made it to give pleasure during the non-sinful way and we are tempted to do things by satan for the sinful way. But if we have a part of our body that causes pleasure only when we do sinful things, then you can only say one of two things. This act is not sinful, or we are being tempted to do this by god. I really can't see any other way around this. Am I missing something? Did god not decide what causes pleasure and what doesn't?

Ryan2065 · Jul 22, 2005

Scott1 said:
God make sex feel good... yes.... but that does not mean we are "slaves" to physical pleasure. It is a CHOICE to do something... whether it feels good or not is secondary to that fact that what you are trying to argue is first and foremost a mental decision made by the person.

Studies (Kinsey I believe) have shown that male human beings are geneticly predisposed to seek out multiple sex partners.... a genetic way to help propegate the species.... does that mean that because God made me this way it's ok to have sex with anyone and everyone... kids-farm animals-household appliances... ????? NO!

Ok, I see your point there =)

Scott1 · Jul 22, 2005

Pah said:
Science poses an interesting question. As there are strong indications that homosexuality is not a choice, is not a matter of free will, why should there be any objection to homosexiality as sin when it is widely considerd in Abrahamic faiths that God created man. That would include a genetic componenet wouldn't it?

I already addressed this topic.... all human behavior other than our unconscious actions (breathing/blinking etc) are CHOICES.

I have the free will to decide to have sex... or to not.... but it is ALWAYS a choice.

Do any of you out there proclaiming "victory/how bout them apples" honestly think that a human being is geneticly FORCED to have sex.... it is a drive that is so strong that the body is turned into some sort of "humping machine" that can't decide to stop?

Apples? It's apple sauce folks... and I made a CHOICE to say that>

Fluffy · Jul 22, 2005

Fluffy, I think you should refrain from the detailed explanations of homosexual "sex", because we do have some younger underage participants on this forum. Some of your descriptions (a woman and 2 men) should even be offensive to gays who believe in the sanctity and covenant of "partnerships". This attempt to "sensationalize" to make a point is without merit. From some of your other posts that I've read, you seem to be intelligent and able to argue with merit if you want to.

Sorry that was badly phrased. It was supposed to read "a man and a woman" and "2 women". My point is that this particular argument of yours fails to address homosexuality since it targets an act that not all homosexual men perform, misses out lesbianism completely and fails to acknowledge that such an act can and is performed by straight couples.

Believe me, if I wanted to sensationalise then I would choose my words rather less carefully than the strictly scientific vocabulary I feel I have kept to previously. For the record I am one of the underage users of this forum and I'm sorry if you felt that my latest post was not up to the standard of some of my other posts. I felt that its logic was strong enough and its arguments convincing enough to be of some importance to this debate.

Edit: Scott, do you view homosexuality as a feeling/emotion, an act or both? In other words, can somebody be homosexual, in your view, if they have never done anything sexual with a member of the same sex?

Why is being gay considered wrong?

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Active Member

A fool

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A fool