gay, wrong? why?

[d.]

...

 

[Phillip]

I'd like to start by saying that I have gay friends and I have no problem with homosexual people, just with homosexuality.

The way I see it, the most important thing in the natural mind is survival. Second to that is the survival of the species(having children) seeing as how you can't very well have children with someone of the same gender, I see homosexuality as unnatural, unless possibly as a genetic tool to be used for weeding out undetectible bad genes, and until more is learned on the subject of the genome, that theory is unprovable.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I'd like to start by saying that I have gay friends and I have no problem with homosexual people, just with homosexuality.

The way I see it, the most important thing in the natural mind is survival. Second to that is the survival of the species(having children) seeing as how you can't very well have children with someone of the same gender, I see homosexuality as unnatural, unless possibly as a genetic tool to be used for weeding out undetectible bad genes, and until more is learned on the subject of the genome, that theory is unprovable.

So shouldn't it follow that you don't have a problem with heterosexuality, just those who can't reproduce? *points to uterus* With my genetic make-up, it's not likely that this'll ever be blessed with offspring. So... *puzzled look* Should be treated as less of a person or as a sinner because of this?

 

[Jaymes]

The way I see it, the most important thing in the natural mind is survival.

This may come as a shock to you, so brace yourself: 10% of the population is homosexual, at most. With 90% of the population heterosexual and breeding, we're not going to die off. Homosexuality does not interfere with the survival of the species in any way.

Second to that is the survival of the species(having children) seeing as how you can't very well have children with someone of the same gender,

Actually, with current technology, we may be able to before long. They've already done so in lab rats.

I see homosexuality as unnatural,

The many species of animals that have been observed as having homosexual members of their species disagrees with you.

 

[Phillip]

This is very important, I have no religious belief about homosexuality. I meant to say that in my first post. My view is strictly scientific. Now to address your issue in with my last post.

Since homosexuality is a decision(likely one that has the other choice being something sickening to the decision maker) I believe it might be a complex genetic block to force a person to make that decision, and therefore possibly a block to keep them from reproducing. Meanwhile, in your condition, I don't know if you're choosing to not have children, or you can't have children, but if you can't that may be simply an unfortunate genetic flaw or prenatal malfunction. If however you choose not to have children, that could have to do with outside variables(e.g. The world you would be bringing a child into cannot support life at an increasing number indeffinately; or a social decision e.g. The world you would be bringing a child into is unkind and unrelenting, and to an extent, evil)

Also, to argue against myself, I bring up the homosexual people that want to have a biological child and keep their lifestyle(adoption doesn't count, because that could be construed as an intelligent way to bypass the previously mentioned latent genetic defect by not passing it on)

As a side note, I do believe in homosexual adoptions, as long a they don't try to force their sexual opinions on the child. They are quite often better parents than the average heterosexual pair.

 

[Jaymes]

My view is strictly scientific.
. . .
Since homosexuality is a decision

I'd love to see the scientific evidence you have for this... especially since the vast majority of the scientific and psychiatric community believes that sexuality is not a choice.

As a side note, I do believe in homosexual adoptions, as long a they don't try to force their sexual opinions on the child.

I assume you'll also be for straight adoptions, as long as they don't pressure their child to be straight?

 

[Mike182]

I'd like to start by saying that I have gay friends and I have no problem with homosexual people, just with homosexuality.

The way I see it, the most important thing in the natural mind is survival. Second to that is the survival of the species(having children) seeing as how you can't very well have children with someone of the same gender, I see homosexuality as unnatural, unless possibly as a genetic tool to be used for weeding out undetectible bad genes, and until more is learned on the subject of the genome, that theory is unprovable.

i think that this position is obsurd, simply because it implies that women should not enjoy sex

speaking purely from a natural point of view, men need to have an enjoyment of sex to want to have sex (in order for continuation of the species) - and being naturally stronger than women, can have sex when ever they want it - if you accept those two premises, then there is no "natural" reason for women to enjoy sex.

obviously, women enjoy sex, so something is wrong with your theory :sarcastic

edit: the fact that women enjoy sex despite them not needing to by your standards of what is needed, sex is obviously more than just reproduction - it is for enjoyment as well, so why deny homosexuality when some clearly enjoy it!

 

[Draka]

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10

Jesus did not say these words. So what? I'm one of those crazy Christians who actually follows the ENTIRE Bible.

Well, then go ahead and follow the bible. Why don't you enlighten us all and tell us which of the hundreds of translations and versions is correct while you're at it.

KJV

9Know 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,

(no mention of homosexuality...just being effeminate...which screws a lot of women)

English Standard Version

9Do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(which reads that only male homosexuals are excluded...not female)

Worldwide English

9-10Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse.

(no mention of anything homosexual at all here)

Not every bible translates these passages the same way. So, you are left to choose which one you WANT to believe is more accurate. Since there is no way to determine this, you cannot say with any assurity that the one you are basing your beliefs on is the right translation.

 

[indecisive cookies!!!]

Then they are ignoring the words of the Bible.

you do know the bible was written by man and not god:sarcastic

 

[Halcyon]

Since homosexuality is a decision...

Homosexuality is not a decision. Sexuality is determined in utero, hormone concentrations affect the neural development of the foetus. The brain of a homosexual person is not flawed or genetically mutated, it's simply wired up differnetly to a heterosexual person.

We each have two main regions of the brain devoted to sexuality, one region tells us what sex we are, the other tells us what sex we are attracted too. Hormone concentrations, affected in a large part by the mother's uterine environment (which is often affected by the gender of previous offspring, but may be genetically determined), determine how those brain regions develop.
Once born those regions are "set in stone" and no matter of willpower, psychotherapy nor adult hormones will change them.

 

[Smoke]

As a side note, I do believe in homosexual adoptions, as long a they don't try to force their sexual opinions on the child.

That's a sound policy. I also believe that heterosexuals should be allowed to adopt, as long as they don't try to force their sexual opinions on the child.

 

[lilithu]

Hi.

I'm a Christian and I happen to be a bisexual woman.

My God, for the record, is the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ.

These are my thoughts...

God didn't intend for us to have the freedoms of the flesh that we have today. You have to understand this. Man was placed on earth to serve and worship God...not vice versa. And we were initially made perfect.

Adam and Eve had a choice to make, in Eden. They had the choice to either obey or disobey. They disobeyed and THEY BROUGHT sin upon the world by their actions. And thus, the battle of the flesh began.

We very much have the freedom to live our lives as we want to. But that doesn't mean, from a biblical standpoint that our decisions align with what God would have for our lives. We can make justifications for our actions but in the end there is only right or wrong. There is no inbetween.

From personal experience...I was very much born with an attraction to women and that's been a part of me foras long as I can remember. For many years, I struggled with that. For many years, my internal conflict was a factor that fueled my REBELLION against God and the church.

I met my husband during a time in my life where I was totally open to meeting SOMEONE to spend the rest of my life with...gender not important. But it was my husband that won me over and I took our vows seriously before I became a Christian.

I'm still attracted to woman. I'm wired that way. That's not going to change.

BUT...I've made a choice based upon my personal religious convictions and beliefs to not act again upon certain desires. Are the desires there? Of course. I'm human.

God didn't bestow upon us sinful notions. Man brought that upon themselves. God has given us a way to be redeemed from our blemishes but blemishes exist because of the fall. We have choices to make. We're born into this world with "prewired" behaviours and traits that we didn't necessarily choose for ourselves but we are still held accountable for the choices that we make throughout our lives.

And God isn't forcing anyone to follow Him and follow His laws.

I believe that God did give us freedom to exercise and His plan was for us to utlize that freedom to find our way back to Him.

We're also supposed to LOVE everyone...regardless of who they are and what they choose to do...when we LOVE we fulfill all God's laws...just thought I'd throw that in there. Whether homosexuality is an "abomination" or not...my children are being taught to LOVE everyone. :hug:

Dawny, that's a beautiful story, honestly. But tell me, how do you think your story would have turned out if you had been born homosexual rather than bisexual?

 

[Green Gaia]

Since homosexuality is a decision(likely one that has the other choice being something sickening to the decision maker)

Umm.... no, it's not. I did not sit down one day and decide, "penises are icky, I think I'll be gay now." It doesn't work that way. Also, your opinion does not explain bisexuals. I assume you have a problem with them too, if you have a problem with homosexuals.

I believe it might be a complex genetic block to force a person to make that decision, and therefore possibly a block to keep them from reproducing.

As a gay parent I find your opinion on this matter to be highly offensive.

 

[lilithu]

i think that this position is obsurd, simply because it implies that women should not enjoy sex

speaking purely from a natural point of view, men need to have an enjoyment of sex to want to have sex (in order for continuation of the species) - and being naturally stronger than women, can have sex when ever they want it - if you accept those two premises, then there is no "natural" reason for women to enjoy sex.

obviously, women enjoy sex, so something is wrong with your theory :sarcastic

edit: the fact that women enjoy sex despite them not needing to by your standards of what is needed, sex is obviously more than just reproduction - it is for enjoyment as well, so why deny homosexuality when some clearly enjoy it!

To follow up on what you said Mike, I would say that sex clearly isn't just for reproduction, given that people who are past the age of reproduction still enjoy sex.

Why should sex be enjoyable even when no offspring will ensue? I believe that sex is a bonding experience. The act of consensual sex (usually) promotes bonds of affection between the two people. This happens regardless of the genders of the people involved. Homosexuality is not unnatural - it exists throughout the animal kingdom - and it is not without purpose. The purpose is love.

<btw, love the pic of Spike!>

 

[Mike182]

To follow up on what you said Mike, I would say that sex clearly isn't just for reproduction, given that people who are past the age of reproduction still enjoy sex.

Why should sex be enjoyable even when no offspring will ensue? I believe that sex is a bonding experience. The act of consensual sex (usually) promotes bonds of affection between the two people. This happens regardless of the genders of the people involved. Homosexuality is not unnatural - it exists throughout the animal kingdom - and it is not without purpose. The purpose is love.

an excellent follow up!

 

[Green Gaia]

The purpose is love.

Ah..... love. :hearts:

 

[lilithu]

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
1 Corinthians 6:8-10

Jesus did not say these words. So what? I'm one of those crazy Christians who actually follows the ENTIRE Bible.

Sorry, but I have yet to meet anyone who follows the ENTIRE bible. Please refer to what sojourner wrote just a few posts above yours.

Some will never admit it, but we all tend to ignore scripture that doesn't fit with our sensibilities. Some of the people who insist that homosexuality is an abomination "because the Bible says so" are the same people who insist upon wearing 50/50 cotton/poly shirts, even though the Bible says that wearing clothing of mixed cloth is an abomination.

Whatever else in the bible you may follow would you not at least concede that Jesus' teachings are primary and all else is secondary?

 

[stemann]

If we are going to follow the entire Bible, we need to ask an authority on it. Luckily, someone already did it for us:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Book Antiqua,Bookman Old Style,Arial] Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.[/FONT]

Gosh.

 

[dawny0826]

Dawny, that's a beautiful story, honestly. But tell me, how do you think your story would have turned out if you had been born homosexual rather than bisexual?

I ask that question often, Lilithu. And I'm still unsure of the answer...

 

[Mike182]

I ask that question often, Lilithu. And I'm still unsure of the answer...

with all due respect to all the homosexual christians out there, i suspect that you (like me) would interprit sriptures according to your need, if your situation were different, i suspect you would have interprited scripture to be confirming of homosexuality