YOM's Views: For Better or for Worse

[Smoke681]

These are my views. These are my interpretations of the Bible. These are my beliefs. I absolutely do NOT condemn, neither implicitly nor explicitly, those who have views that oppose mine. That's my disclaimer. I think nothing less of ANY person that has opposing views to mine. ANd I mean that. Keep it in mind.

I believe that the act of homosexuality is like any other form of sexual immorality and is a sin against God.

In I Corinthians, and other places of the Bible, God states that sexual relations are a gift reserved for the confines of a marriage relationship. Therefore, ANY sexual relations outside of those confines is wrong and sinful.

God defines marriage as a coming together between a man and a woman. A man...and a woman. Therefore, if marriage was designed by God to be between a man and a woman, and sex was designed to be something shared within that marital relationship, there really is no gray area for the permission of sexual relations between a man and a man nor a woman and a woman.

If a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or a man and a woman come together sexually outside of marriage, it is wrong, according to the Christian faith.

If one is not of the Christian faith, then they have no reason to believe this, and can certainly feel free to conduct themselves as they please, because according to THEIR beliefs or lack thereof they are not in the wrong.

I wholly support and defend the right of American men and women to do as they please sexually, regardless of whether or not I agree with their actions. This is a free nation. The rights of homosexuals and heterosexuals should be protected. I don't believe homosexuals should be persecuted and I also don't believe that those who speak out against them should be either. You have a right, in our country, to be gay. Likewise, I have a right in our country to be outspoken against it. If homosexuals have the right to have parades and festivals and the like, heterosexuals have the right to have conferences and rallys and any other platform to speak against it. You can't have your cake and eat it to. As free as one is to speak and practice their beliefs, so is another.

To conclude, a marriage, according to the Christian faith, is between a man and a woman. Sexual relations, according to the Christian faith, are reserved for marriage. Therefore, it is absolutely contrary to the Christian faith to believe that a homosexual relationship is in anyway an acceptable practice, no more or less acceptable than a man and woman having sex outside of marriage. I believe that in God's eyes, both are equally wrong.

Any person who claims to be a Christian (Christ-like) but believes that homosexuality is morally acceptable is living a lie....per my beliefs and views.

[pnkpanther]

christ also denounced divorce. He left no gray area.

Do you denouce divorce and people who are divorced with such gusto as you do homosexuals?

Or do you pick and chose? how so?

and who are you to tell other christians what they're doing makes them fake christians?

The Bible was not written by God, it was written by man. I believe man imported their own bias's into the Bible.

[Smoke681]

christ also denounced divorce. He left no gray area.

Do you denouce divorce and people who are divorced with such gusto as you do homosexuals?

Or do you pick and chose? how so?

and who are you to tell other christians what they're doing makes them fake christians?

The Bible was not written by God, it was written by man. I believe man imported their own bias's into the Bible.
I absolutely do denounce divorce with the same gusto. I do not pick and choose. My parents are divorced and I resent them for it.

There is gray area, however, with divorce. In the case of infidelity and unfaithfulness, there are scriptures that support divorce/remarriage.

And as Christians, we are commanded in scripture to call out "false prophets" or those who claim to be christians yet do not adhere to scripture. And when I do/say something contrary to the scripture while professing to be a Christian I sure do hope someone will kick ME in the rear as well. ANd it has indeed been done.

[pnkpanther]

Interesting.

Now obviously I have a small sample size to work, but I haven't seen the same, lets call it zeal, when it comes to divorce.

Let me ask you this, should people be miserable and depressed to appease the bible?

I'll focus on divorce, some people get married rather young and it's just not meant to be, no matter how hard they work at it. Would living like that be "better" then moving on?

I certainitly won't give you advice on your parents (not that you'd listen) but both of my parents were much happier after their divorce and I as their son was happy that they were happy. Ideally, it would've worked out, and I would've had the "traditional" family. But the diversity made me what I am, and I'm proud of both my parents, and sometimes people just have to make a selfish decision. I'd much rather have my parents seperated and happy then still togther and miserable for the sake of the vows they took or the Bible.

I believe that the Bible is a guide and very much open to personal interpratation. I feel that it borders blasphemy to tell others that their views are wrong or that they're a false christian.

[Smoke681]

Interesting.

Now obviously I have a small sample size to work, but I haven't seen the same, lets call it zeal, when it comes to divorce.

Let me ask you this, should people be miserable and depressed to appease the bible?

I'll focus on divorce, some people get married rather young and it's just not meant to be, no matter how hard they work at it. Would living like that be "better" then moving on?

I certainitly won't give you advice on your parents (not that you'd listen) but both of my parents were much happier after their divorce and I as their son was happy that they were happy. Ideally, it would've worked out, and I would've had the "traditional" family. But the diversity made me what I am, and I'm proud of both my parents, and sometimes people just have to make a selfish decision. I'd much rather have my parents seperated and happy then still togther and miserable for the sake of the vows they took or the Bible.

I believe that the Bible is a guide and very much open to personal interpratation. I feel that it borders blasphemy to tell others that their views are wrong or that they're a false christian.
How does it border on blasphemy to point out when a fellow Christian is NOT following the very scripture that is to guide us? That's not blasphemy, that's maintaining the integrity of our faith. It's necessary.

As for divorce, I believe people should know without a doubt when they marry another that they intend for that person to be their partner for life. If they go into marriage without that, and it fails, they reap what they sow. That young and dumb thing is a lame excuse. Besides, I didn't make the rules, so it's not up to me whether they should be miserable and depressed or not. They made the decision. If they are a Christian, it's up to them to make sure it was the correct one, and if it wasn't then the consequences are theirs. If people actually respected the sanctity of marriage, and understood what it meant before entering into it, we might have less divorces in this world.

My mom is very happy now that she has divorced my dad and moved on to a new husband that she appears to love so much more than she ever loved my dad. I'm happy for her happiness, but what she did was Biblically wrong. I can't just ignore that because she's my mother -- that'd be hypocritical wouldn't it? My Dad has been a miserable wreck ever since, has remarried and divorced 3 more times, and his life is just in ruin. I've told him before maybe he should have thought about this stuff when he abused my mom and treated her like garbage for 23 years.

[IBC]

How does it border on blasphemy to point out when a fellow Christian is NOT following the very scripture that is to guide us? That's not blasphemy, that's maintaining the integrity of our faith. It's necessary.

As for divorce, I believe people should know without a doubt when they marry another that they intend for that person to be their partner for life. If they go into marriage without that, and it fails, they reap what they sow. That young and dumb thing is a lame excuse. Besides, I didn't make the rules, so it's not up to me whether they should be miserable and depressed or not. They made the decision. If they are a Christian, it's up to them to make sure it was the correct one, and if it wasn't then the consequences are theirs. If people actually respected the sanctity of marriage, and understood what it meant before entering into it, we might have less divorces in this world.

My mom is very happy now that she has divorced my dad and moved on to a new husband that she appears to love so much more than she ever loved my dad. I'm happy for her happiness, but what she did was Biblically wrong. I can't just ignore that because she's my mother -- that'd be hypocritical wouldn't it? My Dad has been a miserable wreck ever since, has remarried and divorced 3 more times, and his life is just in ruin. I've told him before maybe he should have thought about this stuff when he abused my mom and treated her like garbage for 23 years.
Eating shellfish is biblically wrong also.

[pnkpanther]

It borders on blasphemy (in my eyes) because you are taking the stance that you are the one to determine their moral compass to follow. We all have to answer for the lives and choice's we've made.

Thousands of scholars have read the bible and come up on with different conclusions of it's teachings. The bible itself offers more then one contradiction in it's teachings.

Young and dumb excuse is lame? People change over time, think of how you were five years ago, those changes keep occuring. And sometimes couples grow apart. At the time, Marriage was right for them and they thought it would last forever, but it didnt. I ask again, should those people have stayed togther and honor their vow and be miserable? Or purse happiness in another relationship.

I will buy the argument divorce is too easy, and even too quickly used. I also think Marriage is too quickly jumped into. I think hetrosexual community has done more damage to the institution of marriage then homosexual community ever could. I personally believe gays should be able to have a legal union, if the state wants to define it as marriage so be it, and the church shouldnt have to recognize said marriage. Although there are church's ran by homosexuals for the homosexual community.

what turns me off to organized religon is the proverbial high horse that many christians (and other religons) put themselves on.

Life isnt black and white as most of well know, and sometimes it is up to us to determine our own faith, our own moral compass, and i see no problem w/ one disagreeing with said choices, but to flat out say they're wrong and not real christians...well, to me, thats apointing yourself as the moral authority to judge others, and therefore blasmphemy.

[Vegas]

Eating shellfish is biblically wrong also.

That depends on whether you follow the Old Testament only. The kosher laws were specifically revoked in the New Testament.

[IBC]

That depends on whether you follow the Old Testament only. The kosher laws were specifically revoked in the New Testament.

Was contact with menstruating women included in the revocation? How about slave owning?

[Jiddy78]

How does it border on blasphemy to point out when a fellow Christian is NOT following the very scripture that is to guide us? That's not blasphemy, that's maintaining the integrity of our faith. It's necessary.

As for divorce, I believe people should know without a doubt when they marry another that they intend for that person to be their partner for life. If they go into marriage without that, and it fails, they reap what they sow. That young and dumb thing is a lame excuse. Besides, I didn't make the rules, so it's not up to me whether they should be miserable and depressed or not. They made the decision. If they are a Christian, it's up to them to make sure it was the correct one, and if it wasn't then the consequences are theirs. If people actually respected the sanctity of marriage, and understood what it meant before entering into it, we might have less divorces in this world.

My mom is very happy now that she has divorced my dad and moved on to a new husband that she appears to love so much more than she ever loved my dad. I'm happy for her happiness, but what she did was Biblically wrong. I can't just ignore that because she's my mother -- that'd be hypocritical wouldn't it? My Dad has been a miserable wreck ever since, has remarried and divorced 3 more times, and his life is just in ruin. I've told him before maybe he should have thought about this stuff when he abused my mom and treated her like garbage for 23 years.

That's an interesting concept....Sticking to scripture...How about a non-christian wedding having one partner cheat on the other? Has adultery occurred? The sacrament of marriage has not been achieved in this case, assuming my area of faith. How far is one willing to extend beyond the scripture? My guess is that you'll find many instances where you step beyond and reinterpret the situation(s) presented if you look hard enough.

[Ed Who?]

I believe that the Bible is a guide and very much open to personal interpratation.

There is little personal interpretation involved. A Christian is given a gift called The Holy Spirit when they are reborn. The Holy Spirit leads the person in many areas, including helping to interpret passages in the Bible that will cause many an unbeliever to stumble. Certain Scriptures will mean different things to different people, based on their experiences and circumstances.

[Ed Who?]

Was contact with menstruating women included in the revocation? How about slave owning?

Fortunately for you, preaching to unbelievers is very much allowed.

[Jiddy78]

There is little personal interpretation involved. A Christian is given a gift called The Holy Spirit when they are reborn. The Holy Spirit leads the person in many areas, including helping to interpret passages in the Bible that will cause many an unbeliever to stumble. Certain Scriptures will mean different things to different people, based on their experiences and circumstances.


Aquinas and I are sitting on a hill and denouncing usury at this very moment.

[IBC]

Fortunately for you, preaching to unbelievers is very much allowed.

Avoid avoid avoid.

[Smoke681]

Because this thread is titled "YOM's Views", I'm adding more.

I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.

I am 100% Pro-Life. I absolutely do NOT believe in "women's rights" to murder their unborn child. Conception = life. To me.

I believe in the right of all Americans to own and carry a weapon if they choose -- if they aren't felons and if they have passed certain weapon safety courses -- and if they utilize trigger locks. Possessing a functioning brain is a plus.

I am extremely anti - affirmative action, and I believe minorities should be against it as well. Who really wants a job they didn't rightfully earn through skill and hard work? If I were black, I'd be offended by AA. It's an absurd concept.

I do not believe women should ever deploy to a combat zone for any reason at any time. I'm almost to the point of believing women shouldn't be in the military at all.

World peace is inachievable. I wish our country would stop spending money trying to accomplish this feat.

I believe that the media has ruined any chance of our military ever again being able to fully, 100% do their job.

I believe that global warming is mostly a bunch of hogwash. Look at weather patterns over the past 200 years. Why, praytell, do most towns/cities in this world have their dates for record highs recorded decades and decades ago? Weather and climate goes in waves...there'll be a series of years where it's warmer than usual, then a series of years where it's colder than usual. Some decades are stormier than others. Waves. Up, then down, then somewhere in the middle. Stop freaking out.

[IBC]

Because this thread is titled "YOM's Views", I'm adding more.

I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.

I am 100% Pro-Life. I absolutely do NOT believe in "women's rights" to murder their unborn child. Conception = life. To me.

I believe in the right of all Americans to own and carry a weapon if they choose -- if they aren't felons and if they have passed certain weapon safety courses -- and if they utilize trigger locks. Possessing a functioning brain is a plus.

I am extremely anti - affirmative action, and I believe minorities should be against it as well. Who really wants a job they didn't rightfully earn through skill and hard work? If I were black, I'd be offended by AA. It's an absurd concept.

I do not believe women should ever deploy to a combat zone for any reason at any time. I'm almost to the point of believing women shouldn't be in the military at all.

World peace is inachievable. I wish our country would stop spending money trying to accomplish this feat.

I believe that the media has ruined any chance of our military ever again being able to fully, 100% do their job.

I believe that global warming is mostly a bunch of hogwash. Look at weather patterns over the past 200 years. Why, praytell, do most towns/cities in this world have their dates for record highs recorded decades and decades ago? Weather and climate goes in waves...there'll be a series of years where it's warmer than usual, then a series of years where it's colder than usual. Some decades are stormier than others. Waves. Up, then down, then somewhere in the middle. Stop freaking out.

Wowsers. We agree on one. It seems like you have a good justification for your views. It also seems like you see the world in a very black and white sense. I do too in many ways, just a different view.

As far as the last point, record highs have nothing to do with climate change. I think that is one you should look at the science on. A consistent pattern of temperature change is what you are looking for.

[Smoke681]

Wowsers. We agree on one. It seems like you have a good justification for your views. It also seems like you see the world in a very black and white sense. I do too in many ways, just a different view.

As far as the last point, record highs have nothing to do with climate change. I think that is one you should look at the science on. A consistent pattern of temperature change is what you are looking for.
I'll admit, science and global warming is a weak point for me. I don't really know the science, I know very basic stuff. I'm mostly ignorant on this and I know it. But I also still believe Al Gore is scaring a lot of people unnecessarily. At the same time, though, I do believe in respecting the envirnoment and recycling, driving fuel efficient vehicles, not ruining forests for condos, etc.

I probably am a mostly B&W person. Mainly because I believe most of the "gray" areas in situations are only there as a result of human beings making excuses for shit.

What do we agree on?

[IBC]

I'll admit, science and global warming is a weak point for me. I don't really know the science, I know very basic stuff. I'm mostly ignorant on this and I know it. But I also still believe Al Gore is scaring a lot of people unnecessarily. At the same time, though, I do believe in respecting the envirnoment and recycling, driving fuel efficient vehicles, not ruining forests for condos, etc.

I probably am a mostly B&W person. Mainly because I believe most of the "gray" areas in situations are only there as a result of human beings making excuses for shit.

What do we agree on?
Death Penalty. I think that we can make decisions without using absolutes, but I am not as good at doing it as I preach.

[IBC]

Because this thread is titled "YOM's Views", I'm adding more.

I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.

I am 100% Pro-Life. I absolutely do NOT believe in "women's rights" to murder their unborn child. Conception = life. To me.

I believe in the right of all Americans to own and carry a weapon if they choose -- if they aren't felons and if they have passed certain weapon safety courses -- and if they utilize trigger locks. Possessing a functioning brain is a plus.

I am extremely anti - affirmative action, and I believe minorities should be against it as well. Who really wants a job they didn't rightfully earn through skill and hard work? If I were black, I'd be offended by AA. It's an absurd concept.

I do not believe women should ever deploy to a combat zone for any reason at any time. I'm almost to the point of believing women shouldn't be in the military at all.

World peace is inachievable. I wish our country would stop spending money trying to accomplish this feat.

I believe that the media has ruined any chance of our military ever again being able to fully, 100% do their job.

I believe that global warming is mostly a bunch of hogwash. Look at weather patterns over the past 200 years. Why, praytell, do most towns/cities in this world have their dates for record highs recorded decades and decades ago? Weather and climate goes in waves...there'll be a series of years where it's warmer than usual, then a series of years where it's colder than usual. Some decades are stormier than others. Waves. Up, then down, then somewhere in the middle. Stop freaking out.

Also, I believe that abortion should be as rare as possible. That world peace is unattainable but should be the goal, and that The media, in a democracy are the gatekeepers. The keepers of info that needs to be disseminated for us to make good decisions.

[Smoke681]

Death Penalty. I think that we can make decisions without using absolutes, but I am not as good at doing it as I preach.
Neither am I.

Myy thing with the DP is that I believe it's an easy way out for the criminal. I know it uses more tax payer dollar, but making that person spend the rest of their life in a tiny concrete cell with no freedoms is much more painful for them than to just eliminate them altogether.

Granted, most on death row sit there until they die anyway, due to our jacked up appeals process, but ya know.

ANd furthermore, the death row cells and structure (23 hours in the cell, no work releases, no tv, no nothing) is how I believe ALL violent criminals should be housed.

Ahh. If I were in charge. Be thankful I'm not (I'm sure you all are).

[Smoke681]

Also, I believe that abortion should be as rare as possible. That world peace is unattainable but should be the goal, and that The media, in a democracy are the gatekeepers. The keepers of info that needs to be disseminated for us to make good decisions.
Ok. To a degree, I can agree. The media keeps this country honest, and I support that. BUT - as someone who has served in combat, I beg you to see my point: how can I and my comrades really go out there and do our job the very best we can if we're concerned about the media members present in our platoon, and how they are going to twist and relay what my next action is back to the homeland?

That's the problem with partisan media, which is what we have. All you need is a journalist out there with an agenda and shit gets jacked, regardless of a "war crime" was committed or not. With the right spin, perfect editing, and an agenda, a journalist could probably convince Joe Blow that ANYTHING done in combat is a war crime/unethical.

It's debilitating.

[IBC]

Neither am I.

Myy thing with the DP is that I believe it's an easy way out for the criminal. I know it uses more tax payer dollar, but making that person spend the rest of their life in a tiny concrete cell with no freedoms is much more painful for them than to just eliminate them altogether.

Granted, most on death row sit there until they die anyway, due to our jacked up appeals process, but ya know.

ANd furthermore, the death row cells and structure (23 hours in the cell, no work releases, no tv, no nothing) is how I believe ALL violent criminals should be housed.

Ahh. If I were in charge. Be thankful I'm not (I'm sure you all are).
A few would carry a YOM for President sign I am sure. I wouldn't. :)

I think if we make one wrong judgment, and we have, we cannot take it back at all and it ruins the whole system.

[IBC]

Ok. To a degree, I can agree. The media keeps this country honest, and I support that. BUT - as someone who has served in combat, I beg you to see my point: how can I and my comrades really go out there and do our job the very best we can if we're concerned about the media members present in our platoon, and how they are going to twist and relay what my next action is back to the homeland?

That's the problem with partisan media, which is what we have. All you need is a journalist out there with an agenda and shit gets jacked, regardless of a "war crime" was committed or not. With the right spin, perfect editing, and an agenda, a journalist could probably convince Joe Blow that ANYTHING done in combat is a war crime/unethical.

It's debilitating.

I can see your point to a degree. And you better believe I would be all for our military using every means possible to protect us. My guess is we would disagree on when we reach the point of needing protection, and also the best ways to keep us from needing protection.

[Smoke681]

I can see your point to a degree. And you better believe I would be all for our military using every means possible to protect us. My guess is we would disagree on when we reach the point of needing protection, and also the best ways to keep us from needing protection.

We may be closer on this than you think. But those aren't my decisions to make. I swore an oath to support and defend the constitutition, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't have the luxury of determining those enemies, or the extent to which they ARE enemies. I have to trust (blech) that my CIC (Pres) is being well advised in determining those enemies.

My thoughts on the current foreign situation are likely different than you think.

[IBC]

We may be closer on this than you think. But those aren't my decisions to make. I swore an oath to support and defend the constitutition, against all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't have the luxury of determining those enemies, or the extent to which they ARE enemies. I have to trust (blech) that my CIC (Pres) is being well advised in determining those enemies.

My thoughts on the current foreign situation are likely different than you think.

Believe me, there is plenty of time and space to discuss them here.

[Smoke681]

Believe me, there is plenty of time and space to discuss them here.
Indeed. But I am real busy with work as it is and i'm multi-tasking just to participate in this discussion, so I'm not tracking down those threads.

In a nutshell: I supported the war in Iraq and the war in Afghan. I personally, with my own two eyeballs, examined and assessed the intelligence that lead us to Iraq, that lead us to believe that not only did Saddam HAVE WMD, but he fully intended to use it on his neighbors. Hell, I was holding the CIA report in my hands just this week. I participated in intel teams that sent guidance up the chain pre-OIF. It was a slam-dunk, if you will.

No one was more baffled than me when we crossed the border and invaded Iraq and did NOT get shellacked with toxic gas-filled SCUDs and the like. We got hit with SCUDs, but they weren't employed with chem weapons like we anticipated. No one was more surprised than me when "Chemical Ali", Saddam's chemical General, didn't unleash his fury upon us. No one was more surprised than me when we didn't find that shit anywhere. He had it. We knew he did. What the fuck happened to it? We may never know.

But I supported what we did. What I do NOT support is our post-baghdad-seizure plan. Rumsfeld failed us, and he failed the country. We had a brilliant plan up to and leading into Baghdad. We captured Saddam. We liberated an oppressed people and region. We eliminated a possible terror safe haven.

And then WTF. Why was there not a plan for what would occur after that? There wasn't. It was completely overlooked. THe insurgency should have been predicted and planned for, and it wasn't. Now we're still there. ANd we absolutely should NOT be. We should be finished the job in Afghanistan. We should have a MAXIMUM of 15,000 troops in Iraq helping rebuild their police and military and infrastructure.

Our troops should be home, training and preparing for whenever NK or Iran lose their minds. Our troops should be spending quality time with their families before the next situation arises. But due to piss poor planning at the top, we are stuck in a lose-lose situation...a lose-lose situation that didn't have to be such. By December 2003 we should have been redeploying most of our troops home. It's a travesty and display of utter incompetance that we didn't.

I support Bush, but I believe he was ill-advised and filled his cabinet (and VP) with crooks. And that will be his legacy, and it's unfortunate.

[IBC]

Well put YOM, and well thought out as a post. Is it possible, in your mind, that there was a manipulation of intelligence? I heard many conflicting accounts pre-war. I will obviously defer to you as to what our government and military was seeing, but I was hearing something much different. Of course my sources were not quite as good :D . But nonetheless, they were there saying there were no WMDs and what he had was old and unusable. That turned out to be more correct, IMO. He certainly had them at one time though. No denying that. I wish there was an honest explanation on why we got it so wrong.

As far as post-war, I agree totally. Except for anything about liking Bush. :D

Gotta run man, nice rappin' with ya'.

[domenick2x]

Divorce:

Romans 7:1-3

(1) Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? (2) For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. (3) So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Leviticus 21:10
(10) " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.


I don't see how much clearer I can be that a literal interpretation of the Bible - the whole Bible, not simply chosen parts - is a path of conflict. The Romans quote came much later, and (to my knowledge) at no point specifically cancelled out the Leviticus scripture.

As such, ANY specific quote must be put into the context of the times. In Romans, above, we have to consider that we're talking new Testament - and that men die, so a woman can remarry. (Old Testament required the man's brothers to take the woman as a wife, often MULTIPLE wives, and give her children - the primary issue being the continuation of the race. Hey, multiple wives! The Bible says so!). In Leviticus (again, Old Testament), adultery set members of the race against each other - it had to be a powerful taboo to deter them. You wanted clear lineage (in modern terms, you didn't want to too closely mix the gene pool, as we're talking of small numbers in the first place), and threatening death was the biggest way. If both offendors would be killed, there's not much likelihood of transgression.


This being the case - and when you add in that marriage is NOT the sole proprietorship of the Christian belief - I could make an argument that the Bible is out of date with respect to homosexuality and marriage. Hell, if marriage is a sacred covenant, why don't we stone the people that use a judge instead of a priest? They must be less married than the rest of us.... right?

Key commandments, per Christ:
Matthew 12: 28-31
(28) One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
(29) "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (31) The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."



I don't mean this as a hard-core attack on Yom's beliefs. I have a difference of opinion, and it's easier to chop it in like this, since I can't have a face-to-face with him about these issues.

[Smoke681]

Divorce:

Romans 7:1-3

(1) Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? (2) For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. (3) So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

Leviticus 21:10
(10) " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.


I don't see how much clearer I can be that a literal interpretation of the Bible - the whole Bible, not simply chosen parts - is a path of conflict. The Romans quote came much later, and (to my knowledge) at no point specifically cancelled out the Leviticus scripture.

As such, ANY specific quote must be put into the context of the times. In Romans, above, we have to consider that we're talking new Testament - and that men die, so a woman can remarry. (Old Testament required the man's brothers to take the woman as a wife, often MULTIPLE wives, and give her children - the primary issue being the continuation of the race. Hey, multiple wives! The Bible says so!). In Leviticus (again, Old Testament), adultery set members of the race against each other - it had to be a powerful taboo to deter them. You wanted clear lineage (in modern terms, you didn't want to too closely mix the gene pool, as we're talking of small numbers in the first place), and threatening death was the biggest way. If both offendors would be killed, there's not much likelihood of transgression.


This being the case - and when you add in that marriage is NOT the sole proprietorship of the Christian belief - I could make an argument that the Bible is out of date with respect to homosexuality and marriage. Hell, if marriage is a sacred covenant, why don't we stone the people that use a judge instead of a priest? They must be less married than the rest of us.... right?

Key commandments, per Christ:
Matthew 12: 28-31
(28) One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
(29) "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (31) The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."



I don't mean this as a hard-core attack on Yom's beliefs. I have a difference of opinion, and it's easier to chop it in like this, since I can't have a face-to-face with him about these issues.
When Christ came, so came new law for Christians. For Christians - not jews - the law AD supercedes the law BC.

I know many say that's "picking and choosing", but it's fundamental to the Christian faith. Christ came to be crucified on OUR behalf. He shed the blood for our sins. He is now our "middle man" (for lack of better term) between man and God -- albeit Christ is God himself. Holy Trinity - yeah.

Thank God, too, because if I had to slaughter a goat everytime I sinned, or be stoned or put to death for various infractions, well there'd be a lot of dead goats and one dead YOM.

On your key commandments, hear, hear. The greatest of these is love. Love thy neighbor, more than yourself. And if everyone, including myself, would just follow that and that alone, so much garbage would be gone.

[domenick2x]

When Christ came, so came new law for Christians. For Christians - not jews - the law AD supercedes the law BC.

I know many say that's "picking and choosing", but it's fundamental to the Christian faith. Christ came to be crucified on OUR behalf. He shed the blood for our sins. He is now our "middle man" (for lack of better term) between man and God -- albeit Christ is God himself. Holy Trinity - yeah.

Thank God, too, because if I had to slaughter a goat everytime I sinned, or be stoned or put to death for various infractions, well there'd be a lot of dead goats and one dead YOM.

On your key commandments, hear, hear. The greatest of these is love. Love thy neighbor, more than yourself. And if everyone, including myself, would just follow that and that alone, so much garbage would be gone.
Agreed on the Old Testament vs. New.

Taking that in hand... aiming toward the idea of being Christian = being 'Christ-like', shouldn't we ALSO endeavor to take his message - love for God, love for neighbor, etc... and interpret that in a way that is relevant for our world today? I realize that we can't be perfect... but isn't it against God's message (via Christ) to tell someone that their finding love is 'wrong'? That's God's job... so a message of tolerance and love needs to include everyone.

There are still behaviors that were wrong then that are wrong today - prostitution, murder, etc - but I don't see the harm in viewing gay marriage any differently than heterosexual marriage - the commitment should be the same, the values should be the same - and if God wants to take me to task for it when I die, I'll argue that point to him too. In a respectful manner, of course. :)

For the rest of your points of view on the world at large... I could argue on one or two of them, but I'm generally along your line of thought.

[Smoke681]

Agreed on the Old Testament vs. New.

Taking that in hand... aiming toward the idea of being Christian = being 'Christ-like', shouldn't we ALSO endeavor to take his message - love for God, love for neighbor, etc... and interpret that in a way that is relevant for our world today? I realize that we can't be perfect... but isn't it against God's message (via Christ) to tell someone that their finding love is 'wrong'? That's God's job... so a message of tolerance and love needs to include everyone.

There are still behaviors that were wrong then that are wrong today - prostitution, murder, etc - but I don't see the harm in viewing gay marriage any differently than heterosexual marriage - the commitment should be the same, the values should be the same - and if God wants to take me to task for it when I die, I'll argue that point to him too. In a respectful manner, of course. :)

For the rest of your points of view on the world at large... I could argue on one or two of them, but I'm generally along your line of thought.
I believe in the rights of homosexuals to be homosexuals. I do. This is America, and America is a free nation in which all people regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, orientation, etc. I fight for these freedoms.

However, when a Christian -- in the public eye no less -- stands up and states that homosexuality is NOT wrong, I have a sincere problem with that. I wholly support and defend their right to be who they want to be, but I can equally wholly disagree with the morality of the act. And all Christians should. That doesn't give the right for Christians to go around puffing our chests and pulling the greater than thou card. It doesn't give Christians the right to blast homosexuals in public, advocate against their rights, etc. But we certainly can preach amongst ourselves that the act is wrong. Love the person, condemn the act. The two are possible simultaneously. My Dad is a wretched human being at times, and I hate the things he does, but I love him for being my Dad nonetheless.

In the early AD, Paul didn't walk around and allow Christians to deviate from what the scriptures said. Where he saw wrong in the Church, he called them out and held them to task. Much like Paul, I believe all Christians have a responsibility to do this. We are accountable to one another. When Pat Robertson went on public record stating essentially that NOLA residents deserved Katrina and that it was God's wrath being slewn upon them, the Christian Church should have immediately condemned Robertson for doing that, whether quietly or publicly. I was astounded when he said that. If he was thinking that in his geriatric head of his, so be it, and maybe he DID feel God was punishing NOLA (and who's to say He wasn't?) -- you don't go public in the name of the Church and state these things to a people that do not have this direct line with God that you profess to have.

Are homosexuals going to hell? Maybe, maybe not. If God distinguishes not from one sin to the next, and all sin is equal in His eyes (and I believe there's credibility to this belief) are we not all condemned for our various sins? Of course we are, no more and no less than a homosexual. Therefore to sit on a platform and say that homosexuals are evil and going to hell is wrong. However, to sit on a platform and state that the act is contrary to God's plan for human beings and is henceforth a sin -- this is acceptable and is the stance the Church should take.

I have no idea if what I just posted makes sense. It has been a very long, painful day at work and my brain is whack.

[domenick2x]

I believe in the rights of homosexuals to be homosexuals. I do. This is America, and America is a free nation in which all people regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, orientation, etc. I fight for these freedoms.

However, when a Christian -- in the public eye no less -- stands up and states that homosexuality is NOT wrong, I have a sincere problem with that. I wholly support and defend their right to be who they want to be, but I can equally wholly disagree with the morality of the act. And all Christians should. That doesn't give the right for Christians to go around puffing our chests and pulling the greater than thou card. It doesn't give Christians the right to blast homosexuals in public, advocate against their rights, etc. But we certainly can preach amongst ourselves that the act is wrong. Love the person, condemn the act. The two are possible simultaneously. My Dad is a wretched human being at times, and I hate the things he does, but I love him for being my Dad nonetheless.

In the early AD, Paul didn't walk around and allow Christians to deviate from what the scriptures said. Where he saw wrong in the Church, he called them out and held them to task. Much like Paul, I believe all Christians have a responsibility to do this. We are accountable to one another. When Pat Robertson went on public record stating essentially that NOLA residents deserved Katrina and that it was God's wrath being slewn upon them, the Christian Church should have immediately condemned Robertson for doing that, whether quietly or publicly. I was astounded when he said that. If he was thinking that in his geriatric head of his, so be it, and maybe he DID feel God was punishing NOLA (and who's to say He wasn't?) -- you don't go public in the name of the Church and state these things to a people that do not have this direct line with God that you profess to have.

Are homosexuals going to hell? Maybe, maybe not. If God distinguishes not from one sin to the next, and all sin is equal in His eyes (and I believe there's credibility to this belief) are we not all condemned for our various sins? Of course we are, no more and no less than a homosexual. Therefore to sit on a platform and say that homosexuals are evil and going to hell is wrong. However, to sit on a platform and state that the act is contrary to God's plan for human beings and is henceforth a sin -- this is acceptable and is the stance the Church should take.

I have no idea if what I just posted makes sense. It has been a very long, painful day at work and my brain is whack.
I get your point.

So, in your opinion then, homosexuality is a choice. People choose to follow that lifestyle, rather than have it be a God-granted orientation.

Because if it's NOT a choice, then how can you soapbox against them as being "contrary to God's plan for human beings and... henceforth a sin"? Are they merely held to a higher standard, having to go against their God-given nature in order to follow a higher plan that puts them naturally at odds with that plan?

You mention Paul and early AD. He certainly did his fair share of soapboxing, condemning as he saw fit... appropriate, as he had been handed 'the keys to heaven' per Jesus. However, he was a man, pure man. Maybe he misunderstood. Certainly I'd think that church leaders that followed got things wrong... heck, at this point, 3/4 of the Christian world would be in danger of being slaughtered for heresy if we were still following certain lines of thought that arose in the past from the Christian church. (And yes, I know I'd be one of those heretics)

I guess I don't see the black and white the way you do. I'm not sure if I'm right or you're right, and I hope to not actually find out for a long, long, long time.

[Smoke681]

I get your point.

So, in your opinion then, homosexuality is a choice. People choose to follow that lifestyle, rather than have it be a God-granted orientation.

Because if it's NOT a choice, then how can you soapbox against them as being "contrary to God's plan for human beings and... henceforth a sin"? Are they merely held to a higher standard, having to go against their God-given nature in order to follow a higher plan that puts them naturally at odds with that plan?

You mention Paul and early AD. He certainly did his fair share of soapboxing, condemning as he saw fit... appropriate, as he had been handed 'the keys to heaven' per Jesus. However, he was a man, pure man. Maybe he misunderstood. Certainly I'd think that church leaders that followed got things wrong... heck, at this point, 3/4 of the Christian world would be in danger of being slaughtered for heresy if we were still following certain lines of thought that arose in the past from the Christian church. (And yes, I know I'd be one of those heretics)

I guess I don't see the black and white the way you do. I'm not sure if I'm right or you're right, and I hope to not actually find out for a long, long, long time.
I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else.

I have much more to say on all this, but I must now go before I go berserk here at work.

I'll engage this again Monday. Good discussion.

[MTVike]

Flippin' newbies. :rolleyes:

J/K. Good civil discussion, guys.

There are plenty of archives to dig into on this subject here if you feel like it.

Lots of thought-provoking material.

[ryr8828]

Because this thread is titled "YOM's Views", I'm adding more.

I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.

I am 100% Pro-Life. I absolutely do NOT believe in "women's rights" to murder their unborn child. Conception = life. To me.

I believe in the right of all Americans to own and carry a weapon if they choose -- if they aren't felons and if they have passed certain weapon safety courses -- and if they utilize trigger locks. Possessing a functioning brain is a plus.

I am extremely anti - affirmative action, and I believe minorities should be against it as well. Who really wants a job they didn't rightfully earn through skill and hard work? If I were black, I'd be offended by AA. It's an absurd concept.

I do not believe women should ever deploy to a combat zone for any reason at any time. I'm almost to the point of believing women shouldn't be in the military at all.

World peace is inachievable. I wish our country would stop spending money trying to accomplish this feat.

I believe that the media has ruined any chance of our military ever again being able to fully, 100% do their job.

I believe that global warming is mostly a bunch of hogwash. Look at weather patterns over the past 200 years. Why, praytell, do most towns/cities in this world have their dates for record highs recorded decades and decades ago? Weather and climate goes in waves...there'll be a series of years where it's warmer than usual, then a series of years where it's colder than usual. Some decades are stormier than others. Waves. Up, then down, then somewhere in the middle. Stop freaking out.

I agree with almost every thing you've said in this thread. I have to question the death penalty stance though. Having contracted in prisons, my wife used to work in a prison, I wonder what deterrent there is for a life felon to keep from murdering again if his punishment is going to stay the same. Murdering staff, other inmates.

Then you have the deterrent of the death sentence for someone contemplating murder. There are people who have been in and out of prison and can't function outside of it apparently. I don't know of anyone who's on board with dying.

[domenick2x]

I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else.

I have much more to say on all this, but I must now go before I go berserk here at work.

I'll engage this again Monday. Good discussion.
*shudders*

The world, ONLY defined Biblically? Ye gods.

There's nothing in the Bible specifying quantum physics, yet you sure enjoy the fruits of THAT bit of knowledge.

Two thoughts on this keep running through my head:

a) Your assumption that Jesus, were he to arrive today, would be on board with Fundamentalist Christian doctrine - including no gay marriage, gay sex being a sin, etc - seems to me to be an AWFULLY big leap, considering his overall message...

b) Pedro Cerrano: Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball.

[domenick2x]

I agree with almost every thing you've said in this thread. I have to question the death penalty stance though. Having contracted in prisons, my wife used to work in a prison, I wonder what deterrent there is for a life felon to keep from murdering again if his punishment is going to stay the same. Murdering staff, other inmates.

Then you have the deterrent of the death sentence for someone contemplating murder. There are people who have been in and out of prison and can't function outside of it apparently. I don't know of anyone who's on board with dying.
Personally I'm torn on the death penalty issue. As a deterrent, it doesn't work. Enough numbers have been crunched to prove that to me.

But Life in prison isn't a deterrent either - the only difference there is that there is a potential for someone actually turning over a new leaf.

However... and this is where I am conflicted ... any society clearly should do what it must for the safety and security of the members. If that means some 'bad branches' need to be culled, so be it.

IF there is a death penalty, it should be quicker to the final step, and it should be WITHOUT A DOUBT. The problem is that those cases these days are often closing with a suicide.

[Hotpapa666]

*shudders*

The world, ONLY defined Biblically? Ye gods.

There's nothing in the Bible specifying quantum physics, yet you sure enjoy the fruits of THAT bit of knowledge.

Two thoughts on this keep running through my head:

a) Your assumption that Jesus, were he to arrive today, would be on board with Fundamentalist Christian doctrine - including no gay marriage, gay sex being a sin, etc - seems to me to be an AWFULLY big leap, considering his overall message...

b) Pedro Cerrano: Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball.


Egad! Lest you think People of religious faith apply their faith when it suits them this is an offensive post. Egads!

Seriously. I've posted this before. Noone really lives their lives by Biblical edicts and though some turn their backs on all of the questions answered by science they are never the serious question that make their lives easier, computers, cars, cell-phones,...) those scientific products are prefectly ok for nealy every religious person. Somehow, the result of the same scientific thinking, evolution, isn't... The curiousities of the faithful mind...

Plainly put, the Bible does a very shitty job of answering questions. It is locked into a way of thinking that is out moded; pre-evidence based discovery. It is out of date and offers little in the way of question answering ability.

[Hotpapa666]

I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else.

I have much more to say on all this, but I must now go before I go berserk here at work.

I'll engage this again Monday. Good discussion.

Do the volumes of science that say you are wrong count as "Otherwise"?

[domenick2x]

Do the volumes of science that say you are wrong count as "Otherwise"?
I don't know that they've found a definitive link to human genetics. From personal knowledge, I've seen how some of that can run in certain families.

However - there are animal kingdom comparisons - Lions can have gay relationships, some birds, etc. Unless they get choices, as opposed to being driven by instinct....

[Hotpapa666]

I don't know that they've found a definitive link to human genetics. From personal knowledge, I've seen how some of that can run in certain families.

However - there are animal kingdom comparisons - Lions can have gay relationships, some birds, etc. Unless they get choices, as opposed to being driven by instinct....

I'll save judgement and just ask you to keep reading. The information is out there.

Difinitive link to genetics, no, development is not that simple. Proteomics, Genomics, Hormones, lotsa shit goes into it.

The idea that being gay is a choice, in the general sense is a fucking joke scientifically.

[domenick2x]

I'll save judgement and just ask you to keep reading. The information is out there.

Difinitive link to genetics, no, development is not that simple. Proteomics, Genomics, Hormones, lotsa shit goes into it.

The idea that being gay is a choice, in the general sense is a fucking joke scientifically.
I've read lots of that stuff. It all puts credence to the genetic link - I'm just saying that there's still some room to argue otherwise.

[Hotpapa666]

I've read lots of that stuff. It all puts credence to the genetic link - I'm just saying that there's still some room to argue otherwise.

And what are the arguements? And what are their theores, evidence and conclusions?

No offense, but I've read the arguements, they aren't compelling. There is homosexuality programmed into being a primate. Just ask any Bonobo you find...


Anyway. Interesting talk. I'm going to sleep and I'm sure this discussion will degenerate before I can wake up.

[domenick2x]

And what are the arguements? And what are their theores, evidence and conclusions?

No offense, but I've read the arguements, they aren't compelling. There is homosexuality programmed into being a primate. Just ask any Bonobo you find...


Anyway. Interesting talk. I'm going to sleep and I'm sure this discussion will degenerate before I can wake up.
There are some indigent tribes (South America?) that have a strangely homosexual relationship between the boys and men, and at certain times then that changes to a heterosexual relationship between the men and the women. This is humans, not chimps.

I don't remember the specifics - but the suggestion was that homosexual behavior CAN be sociological/psychological in it's roots.

[Smoke681]

Do the volumes of science that say you are wrong count as "Otherwise"?
Really? Science has proven that homosexuality is genetic? Or that it's not a choice at all?

PLease, please do show me some links on this one. Not studies. Not "maybes". Give me some conclusiotory shit here.

I have my snickers ready.

[Smoke681]

And what are the arguements? And what are their theores, evidence and conclusions?

No offense, but I've read the arguements, they aren't compelling. There is homosexuality programmed into being a primate. Just ask any Bonobo you find...


Anyway. Interesting talk. I'm going to sleep and I'm sure this discussion will degenerate before I can wake up.
You're really a cynical work of a person, aren't you?

You jump into this discussion all hostile, and remain that way.

THe only reason people get hostile is when they're insecure about their argument.

Which you should be, because just as there is no "proof" that one chooses to be homosexual, there is NO "proof" that the reverse is true. Studies, possibilities, insinuations....no proof. None.

[domenick2x]

You're really a cynical work of a person, aren't you?

You jump into this discussion all hostile, and remain that way.

THe only reason people get hostile is when they're insecure about their argument.

Which you should be, because just as there is no "proof" that one chooses to be homosexual, there is NO "proof" that the reverse is true. Studies, possibilities, insinuations....no proof. None.
Quantum Physics?

[domenick2x]

Really? Science has proven that homosexuality is genetic? Or that it's not a choice at all?

PLease, please do show me some links on this one. Not studies. Not "maybes". Give me some conclusiotory shit here.

I have my snickers ready.
You mentioned originally that

"I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else."

I'm wondering how much of the science you've been reading.

[Smoke681]

You mentioned originally that

"I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else."

I'm wondering how much of the science you've been reading.
I have actually read a LOT of articles, "studies", essays, and seen a couple things on tv about homosexuality and it not being a choice. And each thing I have read always ends or begins with "we are on our way to defining that homosexuality is indeed something someone is born with and cannot change, just as people are born hetero sexual, some are born homosexual"

Someday maybe science will prove this. But until then it's just a good idea to make homosexuals feel more comfortable about the lives they are leading.

[ryr8828]

And what are the arguements? And what are their theores, evidence and conclusions?

No offense, but I've read the arguements, they aren't compelling. There is homosexuality programmed into being a primate. Just ask any Bonobo you find...


Anyway. Interesting talk. I'm going to sleep and I'm sure this discussion will degenerate before I can wake up.

The discussion degenerated when you entered it. You always claim scientific evidence but never provide it. You instead ask for proof from the other side while claiming righteousness on your side.

What does a chimpanzee engaging in homosexual behavior have to do with this? Your evolution fetish would seem to dictate that any "homosexual gene" would have to be bred out by now or the human race would have disappeared. If there's a dog in heat around my Lab will climb on another male and hump him. Does he have this homosexual gene?

Does the one homosexual in this family I know have the homosexual gene while his brother doesn't? Did his mother know he had the homosexual gene and that's why she treated him like a girl, putting him in dresses and giving him dolls before he was old enough to go to kindergarten because she already had a boy and had wanted a girl?

In this thread as in all others you post in, you race in here claiming to be right on your nonexistent scientific evidence while claiming the rest of us to be ignorant and demanding we prove that we aren't.

[domenick2x]

I have actually read a LOT of articles, "studies", essays, and seen a couple things on tv about homosexuality and it not being a choice. And each thing I have read always ends or begins with "we are on our way to defining that homosexuality is indeed something someone is born with and cannot change, just as people are born hetero sexual, some are born homosexual"

Someday maybe science will prove this. But until then it's just a good idea to make homosexuals feel more comfortable about the lives they are leading.
So you'll keep renouncing their way of life until there's final proof at hand.

Or a new book is added in the Bible.

But at that point, it's all good? Sorry, gays - no harm no foul?

[domenick2x]

The discussion degenerated when you entered it. You always claim scientific evidence but never provide it. You instead ask for proof from the other side while claiming righteousness on your side.

What does a chimpanzee engaging in homosexual behavior have to do with this? Your evolution fetish would seem to dictate that any "homosexual gene" would have to be bred out by now or the human race would have disappeared. If there's a dog in heat around my Lab will climb on another male and hump him. Does he have this homosexual gene?

Does the one homosexual in this family I know have the homosexual gene while his brother doesn't? Did his mother know he had the homosexual gene and that's why she treated him like a girl, putting him in dresses and giving him dolls before he was old enough to go to kindergarten because she already had a boy and had wanted a girl?

In this thread as in all others you post in, you race in here claiming to be right on your nonexistent scientific evidence while claiming the rest of us to be ignorant and demanding we prove that we aren't.
Your science is bad. Clearly a homosexual gene in any case could not be dominant, or the species would not survive. It would HAVE to be a recessive. Like red hair, or nub tails.

[Jiddy78]

You're really a cynical work of a person, aren't you?

You jump into this discussion all hostile, and remain that way.

THe only reason people get hostile is when they're insecure about their argument.

Which you should be, because just as there is no "proof" that one chooses to be homosexual, there is NO "proof" that the reverse is true. Studies, possibilities, insinuations....no proof. None.

On the contrary, when I get angry about things I read, it is usually because I am more informed than I want to be. For my own sanity's sake I should choose ignorance...

[Smoke681]

So you'll keep renouncing their way of life until there's final proof at hand.

Or a new book is added in the Bible.

But at that point, it's all good? Sorry, gays - no harm no foul?
You called me on it, and you're right.

There is NO amount of science, period, that will ever convince me that homosexuality is something someone is just born with. Because I'm a Christian and I do indeed believe in the Bible to be God's authority on my life, the fact that the Bible takes a pretty solid stance against it, and the fact that it's referred to as "unnatural" -- found in Romans -- will cause me to forever believe that homosexuality is a behavior. And one contrary to God.

If I die and reach the Pearly Gates and I'm told I misinterpreted the Bible and was wrong, so be it.

But if a scientific report CONCLUDED that homosexuality is something someone has no control over, I'd of course be forced to read it and be educated. But it doesn't mean I'd accept it.

[domenick2x]

You called me on it, and you're right.

There is NO amount of science, period, that will ever convince me that homosexuality is something someone is just born with. Because I'm a Christian and I do indeed believe in the Bible to be God's authority on my life, the fact that the Bible takes a pretty solid stance against it, and the fact that it's referred to as "unnatural" -- found in Romans -- will cause me to forever believe that homosexuality is a behavior. And one contrary to God.

If I die and reach the Pearly Gates and I'm told I misinterpreted the Bible and was wrong, so be it.

But if a scientific report CONCLUDED that homosexuality is something someone has no control over, I'd of course be forced to read it and be educated. But it doesn't mean I'd accept it.
Get thee behind me, Satan!


:D

[ryr8828]

Your science is bad. Clearly a homosexual gene in any case could not be dominant, or the species would not survive. It would HAVE to be a recessive. Like red hair, or nub tails.

I'm not a scientist or a geneticist. I have seen no proof provided that homosexuality is an inherited condition.

In most cases having red hair does not lead to aids or flesh eating viruses.

[domenick2x]

I'm not a scientist or a geneticist. I have seen no proof provided that homosexuality is an inherited condition.

In most cases having red hair does not lead to aids or flesh eating viruses.
Being homosexual doesn't either. Certain risky behavior does, which is why millions of African johns are dying from AIDS.

I'm not sure which flesh-eating viruses you are talking about, though.

As for dominant vs recessive, harken back to 9th grade Biology class. If you have two pure-strain beings cross breed, you will only get pure-breds. If you have two non-pures, an simple cross of dominant and recessive genes will result in (on average) 1 pure dominant, 2 non-pures (cross bred, like their parents), and 1 pure-recessive. I'd guess that any 'gay gene' isn't quite the same as a simple cross... but at most, if the gay gene was recessive, you'd see 25% of the population. If it was dominant, 75% would be gay (aka Ryr's nightmare).

[ryr8828]

Being homosexual doesn't either. Certain risky behavior does, which is why millions of African johns are dying from AIDS.

I'm not sure which flesh-eating viruses you are talking about, though.

As for dominant vs recessive, harken back to 9th grade Biology class. If you have two pure-strain beings cross breed, you will only get pure-breds. If you have two non-pures, an simple cross of dominant and recessive genes will result in (on average) 1 pure dominant, 2 non-pures (cross bred, like their parents), and 1 pure-recessive. I'd guess that any 'gay gene' isn't quite the same as a simple cross... but at most, if the gay gene was recessive, you'd see 25% of the population. If it was dominant, 75% would be gay (aka Ryr's nightmare).

Unless your study was done using only Philadelphia fans, I'd say that 25% is quite high compared to the homosexual vs. Heterosexual population.

[domenick2x]

Unless your study was done using only Philadelphia fans, I'd say that 25% is quite high compared to the homosexual vs. Heterosexual population.
Agreed. But I admitted that in the post.

I'd guess that any 'gay gene' isn't quite the same as a simple cross...

And the red hair is similarly lower (1 to 2 % of the overall population). Goddamned gingers...

[Smoke681]

Let's think logically about this for a second:

Women have vaginas. In the same exact location, males have penises. They fit together, in most cases, with perfection.

Now, when a woman and a woman or a man and a man come together, shit just don't go quite right, now does it? So therefore, men are relegated to sticking their manpoles into another man's ass (honestly, does this sound natural to you?) and women are forced to attach apparatuses to themselves in order to accomplish the mission.

Now, science this and science that. But honestly, that's really all the proof I need that human beings were created (or designed, if that's the word you prefer) to come together sexually as man and woman, and no other combination.

Sorry, any deviation from this is a perversion.

[domenick2x]

Let's think logically about this for a second:

Women have vaginas. In the same exact location, males have penises. They fit together, in most cases, with perfection.

Now, when a woman and a woman or a man and a man come together, shit just don't go quite right, now does it? So therefore, men are relegated to sticking their manpoles into another man's ass (honestly, does this sound natural to you?) and women are forced to attach apparatuses to themselves in order to accomplish the mission.

Now, science this and science that. But honestly, that's really all the proof I need that human beings were created (or designed, if that's the word you prefer) to come together sexually as man and woman, and no other combination.

Sorry, any deviation from this is a perversion.
I agree. Whether you want to think creationism or evolution, male and female anatomy are ... set up correctly for the propagation of the species.

So homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent? But if enough evidence mounts that there's no choice involved - if a minority is hard-wired to be like this - then you have to decide if that means that

a) God intended this too - his ways are mysterious...
b) Some other factor caused this continuing perversion, i.e. the mark of Cain or some such
c) Satan makes them do it.

I don't know if you believe in Satan as a manifestation of evil, or merely an alliterative device - not that it really matters for this discussion.

[MTVike]

Let's think logically about this for a second:

Women have vaginas. In the same exact location, males have penises. They fit together, in most cases, with perfection.

Now, when a woman and a woman or a man and a man come together, shit just don't go quite right, now does it? So therefore, men are relegated to sticking their manpoles into another man's ass (honestly, does this sound natural to you?) and women are forced to attach apparatuses to themselves in order to accomplish the mission.

Now, science this and science that. But honestly, that's really all the proof I need that human beings were created (or designed, if that's the word you prefer) to come together sexually as man and woman, and no other combination.

Sorry, any deviation from this is a perversion.

I beleive that most in the mental health field go along with the idea that people are born predisposed to homosexuality and then their early family/cultural experiences weigh in one way or another. That sounds about right to me.

Because personally, it's not a choice for me to go gay. There's no way physically I could be a gay man. Not happening plumbing-wise (I'm talking about pitching, of course) no matter what orientation I "choose" to be that day.

Don't you remember your own sexual awakening? It seems to me there were physical changes and reactions that seemed to happen on their own, and then they were--magically--associated with young women's bodies. No way I had the same types of feelings in the locker room.

[Smoke681]

I agree. Whether you want to think creationism or evolution, male and female anatomy are ... set up correctly for the propagation of the species.

So homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent? But if enough evidence mounts that there's no choice involved - if a minority is hard-wired to be like this - then you have to decide if that means that

a) God intended this too - his ways are mysterious...
b) Some other factor caused this continuing perversion, i.e. the mark of Cain or some such
c) Satan makes them do it.

I don't know if you believe in Satan as a manifestation of evil, or merely an alliterative device - not that it really matters for this discussion.
I'll just stand by for 100% concrete bullet-proof scientific evidence and proof that homosexuality is uncontrollable by human beings, and that it's a "born with" situation.

Because I don't anticipate that will ever happen.

[Ed Who?]

I agree. Whether you want to think creationism or evolution, male and female anatomy are ... set up correctly for the propagation of the species.

So homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent? But if enough evidence mounts that there's no choice involved - if a minority is hard-wired to be like this - then you have to decide if that means that

a) God intended this too - his ways are mysterious...
b) Some other factor caused this continuing perversion, i.e. the mark of Cain or some such
c) Satan makes them do it.

I don't know if you believe in Satan as a manifestation of evil, or merely an alliterative device - not that it really matters for this discussion.

The same argument for A) could be made about stealing, murdering, or other sins. One could make the argument that God wanted me to be a thief, which would go against Biblical teachings.

[domenick2x]

I'll just stand by for 100% concrete bullet-proof scientific evidence and proof that homosexuality is uncontrollable by human beings, and that it's a "born with" situation.

Because I don't anticipate that will ever happen.
http://www.soxfirst.com/50226711/images/head-in-sand.jpg

Cool.

[Vegas]

If someone is born to be heterosexual, does that mean they are excused from immoral heterosexual behavior?

And is all deviate sexual behavior genetic? Pedophiles are born to be pedophiles?

[domenick2x]

The same argument for A) could be made about stealing, murdering, or other sins. One could make the argument that God wanted me to be a thief, which would go against Biblical teachings.
Yes, IF you prove that someone genetically must kill/steal/etc.

[domenick2x]

If someone is born to be heterosexual, does that mean they are excused from immoral heterosexual behavior?

And is all deviate sexual behavior genetic? Pedophiles are born to be pedophiles?
First, define 'immoral heterosexual behavior'.

Mores are determined by society.

You folks seem to be of the opinion that gays can't help themselves but jump on other gays and hump to exhaustion.

[Smoke681]

First, define 'immoral heterosexual behavior'.

Mores are determined by society.

You folks seem to be of the opinion that gays can't help themselves but jump on other gays and hump to exhaustion.
You mean that's not the case?

Joking aside. Morals aren't ONLY determined by society, it's a collection of society, parents, church, etc.

Furthermore, in the case of pedophiles, rapists, etc...i DO believe they have wires crossed and/or screws loose in their heads, because I strongly believe that no level-headed human being could/would do those things. I believe people who commit certain heinous crimes do indeed have an existing mental condition that contributed to their act. Is it possible that homosexuality is a result -- side effect if you will -- of some kind of mental condition? I think I could see that.

Then you have to ask, what makes people develop mental conditions? Depression, bipolar, charles manson-ish evil, insanity, etc. You aren't born depressed (well maybe you are, babies are always born crying), you aren't born bipolar or evil. It's something that develops over time and is influenced by your environment (I believe -- I'm not a psychologist). Much the same way I believe is how homosexuality can happen.

Let the blasting begin. Last year I presented a similar theory and some people compltely lost their marbles.

[MTVike]

If someone is born to be heterosexual, does that mean they are excused from immoral heterosexual behavior?

And is all deviate sexual behavior genetic? Pedophiles are born to be pedophiles?


Interesting questions. Some time ago, homosexuality was dismissed from the DSM as a mental disorder. The folks who put together the new and improved version in the 80's no longer considered it a mental or emotional handicap.

However, pedophillia and other sexual deviations are still listed there as mental disorders. The assumption is, many times, that many of these people experience some type of trauma in their sexual development (such as abuse) that disordered the "normal" hardwiring.

[Ed Who?]

First, define 'immoral heterosexual behavior'.

Mores are determined by society.

You folks seem to be of the opinion that gays can't help themselves but jump on other gays and hump to exhaustion.

I'm of the opinion that a segment of the population has attempted to use public opinion and government to render a certain behavior as morally acceptable (in other words, condoned by God). Immoral heterosexual behavior would be considered sexual acts that are carried on outside the realms of a marital bond. Could be adultery, use of pornography, premarital sex, or anything else you might want to append to this list. And there are plenty of heterosexuals who are guilty of any one of these sins, but they are still sin. But we can repent, turn away from the behavior, and have faith in what happened on the cross.

[domenick2x]

You mean that's not the case?

Joking aside. Morals aren't ONLY determined by society, it's a collection of society, parents, church, etc.

Furthermore, in the case of pedophiles, rapists, etc...i DO believe they have wires crossed and/or screws loose in their heads, because I strongly believe that no level-headed human being could/would do those things. I believe people who commit certain heinous crimes do indeed have an existing mental condition that contributed to their act. Is it possible that homosexuality is a result -- side effect if you will -- of some kind of mental condition? I think I could see that.

Then you have to ask, what makes people develop mental conditions? Depression, bipolar, charles manson-ish evil, insanity, etc. You aren't born depressed (well maybe you are, babies are always born crying), you aren't born bipolar or evil. It's something that develops over time and is influenced by your environment (I believe -- I'm not a psychologist). Much the same way I believe is how homosexuality can happen.

Let the blasting begin. Last year I presented a similar theory and some people compltely lost their marbles.
I believe that most of the sexual deviency (I don't lump homosexuality in that group) is psychological in nature. One comparison there is the number of sexual deviants who have other issues - Dahmer and the like.

But I know several people who, other than minor issues about being 'different' when growing up, are very solid, mentally tough and not in danger of going completely crazy.

I could see a parallel with repressed sexuality being a trigger for mental issues.... I think that's fairly well documented among the heterosexual population (unless you are a Scientologist)...

[Smoke681]

Interesting questions. Some time ago, homosexuality was dismissed from the DSM as a mental disorder. The folks who put together the new and improved version in the 80's no longer considered it a mental or emotional handicap.

However, pedophillia and other sexual deviations are still listed there as mental disorders. The assumption is, many times, that many of these people experience some type of trauma in their sexual development (such as abuse) that disordered the "normal" hardwiring.
Which is precisely what I believe causes homosexuality, or at least contributes.

I do leave open the possibility that some people may be more susceptible to homosexuality, based on their mental make-up. And when you have someone who may be wired more susceptible, and an envirnoment that lends itself to it, well you end up with someone with a perverted view of sexuality.

[Vegas]

Interesting questions. Some time ago, homosexuality was dismissed from the DSM as a mental disorder. The folks who put together the new and improved version in the 80's no longer considered it a mental or emotional handicap.

However, pedophillia and other sexual deviations are still listed there as mental disorders. The assumption is, many times, that many of these people experience some type of trauma in their sexual development (such as abuse) that disordered the "normal" hardwiring.

I'm heterosexual to the core. I like looking at beautiful women as much as anyone else does. But having been "born that way" doesn't give me a license to cheat on my wife. I make the choice to remain faithful.

[domenick2x]

I'm of the opinion that a segment of the population has attempted to use public opinion and government to render a certain behavior as morally acceptable (in other words, condoned by God). Immoral heterosexual behavior would be considered sexual acts that are carried on outside the realms of a marital bond. Could be adultery, use of pornography, premarital sex, or anything else you might want to append to this list. And there are plenty of heterosexuals who are guilty of any one of these sins, but they are still sin. But we can repent, turn away from the behavior, and have faith in what happened on the cross.
Whoa there, choirboy.

Mores in the social sense are socially derived.

Morals, in the religious sense, are purely religious.

There is some cross-pollination there - but since the US is not one homogeneous cultural group, you have to be very very careful about what you are referring to. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, but we are not a Christian Nation (in the idea of having a state religion).

[domenick2x]

I'm heterosexual to the core. I like looking at beautiful women as much as anyone else does. But having been "born that way" doesn't give me a license to cheat on my wife. I make the choice to remain faithful.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was worried about you crossing that line. :)

Likewise, you would never have gay sex. But not because of the moral implications, because of the heterosexuality. It's not your thing.

Is it immoral for a gay man to have gay sex in a committed relationship (i.e. gay marriage)?

[MTVike]

I'm heterosexual to the core. I like looking at beautiful women as much as anyone else does. But having been "born that way" doesn't give me a license to cheat on my wife. I make the choice to remain faithful.

Certainly. The vast majority of disorders listed in the DSM do not connote insanity, meaning the person afflicted still knows the difference between right and wrong.

I think many of our fallen priests went into the vocation hoping they could contribute to the community without comitting the sin of homosexuality.

[Smoke681]

Thanks for pointing that out. I was worried about you crossing that line. :)

Likewise, you would never have gay sex. But not because of the moral implications, because of the heterosexuality. It's not your thing.

Is it immoral for a gay man to have gay sex in a committed relationship (i.e. gay marriage)?
Ugh. I cringe when I see the phrase "gay marriage".

But anyway; fundamentally, the Christian faith answer to that question would be yes, it is immoral. Now I know you say not all Christians feel that way, and you know my response to that. And certainly a non-believer would have no reason to think that it would be immoral.

I'd like to make an analogy, if that's ok. My dad is extremely violent -- or he was anyway, in his older age he's become a nancy -- and HIS dad was extremely violent as well. My dad's and grandad's reaction to stressful situation was usually violence in some form. Striking a person, or an object. Without a doubt some of that got passed to me. I very often have to consciously use restraint to prevent myself from acting violently in tense situations. I have a short fuse. Me having a short fuse isn't something I was born with, rather something that my environment growing up conduced. Now, in my adult life, it is certainly not acceptable for me to act violently in situations. I restrain myself and must find other ways to react. I've been ordered to anger management and did learn other ways to react. Just because my dad and grandad reacted to a nagging wife or nutty kids by beating them doesn't mean it's ok for me to do so. I can't just say "well that's how I'm wired".

[domenick2x]

Ugh. I cringe when I see the phrase "gay marriage".

But anyway; fundamentally, the Christian faith answer to that question would be yes, it is immoral. Now I know you say not all Christians feel that way, and you know my response to that. And certainly a non-believer would have no reason to think that it would be immoral.

I'd like to make an analogy, if that's ok. My dad is extremely violent -- or he was anyway, in his older age he's become a nancy -- and HIS dad was extremely violent as well. My dad's and grandad's reaction to stressful situation was usually violence in some form. Striking a person, or an object. Without a doubt some of that got passed to me. I very often have to consciously use restraint to prevent myself from acting violently in tense situations. I have a short fuse. Me having a short fuse isn't something I was born with, rather something that my environment growing up conduced. Now, in my adult life, it is certainly not acceptable for me to act violently in situations. I restrain myself and must find other ways to react. I've been ordered to anger management and did learn other ways to react. Just because my dad and grandad reacted to a nagging wife or nutty kids by beating them doesn't mean it's ok for me to do so. I can't just say "well that's how I'm wired".
You are saying nurture over nature. I don't know that that applies.

There's been some documentation of birth family traits (violence, etc) being carried on to babies that were adopted at birth by families that didn't exhibit such behavior. One could argue pre-natal influence, because it's really tough to rule that out - humans are remarkable complex creatures.

Maybe violence is a genetic predisposition. Watch your boy, see if he starts lashing out that way.

However - it's tough to parallel violence (which has strong negative social effects, except in limited circumstances) with consensual sex - whatever the flavor.

[Smoke681]

You are saying nurture over nature. I don't know that that applies.

There's been some documentation of birth family traits (violence, etc) being carried on to babies that were adopted at birth by families that didn't exhibit such behavior. One could argue pre-natal influence, because it's really tough to rule that out - humans are remarkable complex creatures.

Maybe violence is a genetic predisposition. Watch your boy, see if he starts lashing out that way.

However - it's tough to parallel violence (which has strong negative social effects, except in limited circumstances) with consensual sex - whatever the flavor.
Maybe it is a genetic predisposition. But it is never an excuse. Many people try though. It's a great way for someone who lashes out violently to have a convenient excuse "well I wouldn't be this way if I wasn't beaten as a child". Horseshit. You can change that. I know, because I have. I am the first man in many generations of my family to not beat my wife when I get angry with her. That's because I have made a very overt concsious decision and effort my entire adult life to not be that way. I've gotten some professional help to assist. I've had "violent moments" that I wish I could take back, fist fights at the bar and such. But never directed at my loved ones, and never to an extent that would land me in any kind of trouble. But it's something i have to always be aware of and work on. I've never allowed that to be an excuse. I've always held myself accountable to my actions and have NEVER used my upbringing or environment as an excuse for my actions. That's a copout.

IF homosexuality is a predisposition, that predisposition shouldn't be an excuse.

[domenick2x]

Maybe it is a genetic predisposition. But it is never an excuse. Many people try though. It's a great way for someone who lashes out violently to have a convenient excuse "well I wouldn't be this way if I wasn't beaten as a child". Horseshit. You can change that. I know, because I have. I am the first man in many generations of my family to not beat my wife when I get angry with her. That's because I have made a very overt concsious decision and effort my entire adult life to not be that way. I've gotten some professional help to assist. I've had "violent moments" that I wish I could take back, fist fights at the bar and such. But never directed at my loved ones, and never to an extent that would land me in any kind of trouble. But it's something i have to always be aware of and work on. I've never allowed that to be an excuse. I've always held myself accountable to my actions and have NEVER used my upbringing or environment as an excuse for my actions. That's a copout.

IF homosexuality is a predisposition, that predisposition shouldn't be an excuse.
So some people shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

Do you recommend saltpeter? Or is there a better option to remove sex drive?

Why aren't we using it on teenagers!

[Smoke681]

So some people shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

Do you recommend saltpeter? Or is there a better option to remove sex drive?

Why aren't we using it on teenagers!
Indeed, some people shouldn't be allowed to have sex. In the Bible, sex isn't a right, it's a gift to a married man and woman. If I'm a Christian, and I believe sex is designed by God for married men and women, then I certainly believe that if a man is a homosexual and his only sexual desire is to get diggity with another man, then certainly I believe he should abstain.

I certainly don't expect someone with differing biblical beliefs to agree with me. Again, this is what I believe, and I understand most don't agree. I have no quarrel with that. We will find out "in the end".

[domenick2x]

Indeed, some people shouldn't be allowed to have sex. In the Bible, sex isn't a right, it's a gift to a married man and woman. If I'm a Christian, and I believe sex is designed by God for married men and women, then I certainly believe that if a man is a homosexual and his only sexual desire is to get diggity with another man, then certainly I believe he should abstain.

I certainly don't expect someone with differing biblical beliefs to agree with me. Again, this is what I believe, and I understand most don't agree. I have no quarrel with that. We will find out "in the end".
Good enough.

The only problem I have, then, is your advocacy of that viewpoint. I'm not much for evangelism...

[Smoke681]

Good enough.

The only problem I have, then, is your advocacy of that viewpoint. I'm not much for evangelism...
Oh? But it's okay for homosexuals to throw their homosexuality in our face every chance they get? Parades, festivals, homosexual rights, bumper stickers, rallies, etc. I mean, they advocate for homosexuality way more than anyone advocates against it.

I'd love to see hetero sexuals throw a parade and a festival and have rallies and such, and see the ensuing outcry from the homosexual community about discrimination and hate.

[Ed Who?]

Good enough.

The only problem I have, then, is your advocacy of that viewpoint. I'm not much for evangelism...

Thus the reason the atheistic liberal left keeps these types of debates going. The message of love cannot be preached easily when people continually question why certain things are not condoned.

[Smoke681]

Oh? But it's okay for homosexuals to throw their homosexuality in our face every chance they get? Parades, festivals, homosexual rights, bumper stickers, rallies, etc. I mean, they advocate for homosexuality way more than anyone advocates against it.

I'd love to see hetero sexuals throw a parade and a festival and have rallies and such, and see the ensuing outcry from the homosexual community about discrimination and hate.
Oh wait, it's already happened, in Canada. And clergy are going to jail for it.

Go figure.

Full circle.

[IBC]

Thus the reason the atheistic liberal left keeps these types of debates going. The message of love cannot be preached easily when people continually question why certain things are not condoned.

Just to tell you, Leviticus isn't really the message of love.

[Ed Who?]

Just to tell you, Leviticus isn't really the message of love.

And a 12" pecker up the ass isn't, either.

[domenick2x]

Oh? But it's okay for homosexuals to throw their homosexuality in our face every chance they get? Parades, festivals, homosexual rights, bumper stickers, rallies, etc. I mean, they advocate for homosexuality way more than anyone advocates against it.

I'd love to see hetero sexuals throw a parade and a festival and have rallies and such, and see the ensuing outcry from the homosexual community about discrimination and hate.
Minorities get to do that stuff.

Puerto Rican Day Parade in NYC, etc.

You could always just join the Klan.... I think they'd support your beliefs.

[IBC]

Your science is bad. Clearly a homosexual gene in any case could not be dominant, or the species would not survive. It would HAVE to be a recessive. Like red hair, or nub tails.

Or....... dwarfism?

[IBC]

And a 12" pecker up the ass isn't, either.

I think that is a good part of teh populations expression of love. Not mine aqnd obviously not yours, but it is some peoples.

WTF is up with describing the length anyhow?

[ryr8828]

Minorities get to do that stuff.

Puerto Rican Day Parade in NYC, etc.

You could always just join the Klan.... I think they'd support your beliefs.

Way to keep the conversation on an even keel.

[Smoke681]

I think that is a good part of teh populations expression of love. Not mine aqnd obviously not yours, but it is some peoples.

WTF is up with describing the length anyhow?
Shock value.

[IBC]

Way to keep the conversation on an even keel.

People get a bit more riled on this site than the SB, huh?

[IBC]

Shock value.

Well, it isn't shocking, just kinda....... well, weird.

[ryr8828]

People get a bit more riled on this site than the SB, huh?

Giving credit to this site, that's the first time I've seen it recommended that anyone join the Klan.
And that's after 5 million posts having to do with Obama and his preacher.

[Ed Who?]

Just to tell you, Leviticus isn't really the message of love.

And seriously, the Book of Leviticus was written a time when Israel needed structure to come out of their period of slavery followed by disobediance. A person who fulfilled Old Testament prophesies regarding the Messiah was enough to bring down those rules.

[ryr8828]

Shock value.

I would have said 6 since that's what I'm used to looking at. I'm just a white boy.

[Ed Who?]

I think that is a good part of teh populations expression of love. Not mine aqnd obviously not yours, but it is some peoples.

WTF is up with describing the length anyhow?

Why bitch about a particular book of the Bible?

[Ed Who?]

I would have said 6 since that's what I'm used to looking at. I'm just a white boy.

This is an easy setup.

[ryr8828]

This is an easy setup.

My own dammit.

I had second thoughts when I posted it knowing it was a "softball".

[ryr8828]

My own dammit.

I had second thoughts when I posted it knowing it was a "softball".

I will admit that right now I'm experiencing shrinkage.

[IBC]

Giving credit to this site, that's the first time I've seen it recommended that anyone join the Klan.
And that's after 5 million posts having to do with Obama and his preacher.

We have called each other fascists before I think.

[IBC]

I would have said 6 since that's what I'm used to looking at. I'm just a white boy.

My balls are longer than that. :D

[Smoke681]

Why bitch about a particular book of the Bible?
This is the type of thing I'm trying to keep out of this thread.

If we're going to use the Bible as a source of our info and beliefs, we can't get all defensive when those on the other side of the discussion debate against it.

[IBC]

This is the type of thing I'm trying to keep out of this thread.

Fair enough. I was thinking someone had talked about the anti-homosexual parts of the Bible here.

There is already a million threads for that.

[Smoke681]

Fair enough. I was thinking someone had talked about the anti-homosexual parts of the Bible here.

There is already a million threads for that.
Read my revision, I knew I didn't word it correctly.

You were well in line to bring that up.

[Ed Who?]

This is the type of thing I'm trying to keep out of this thread.

If we're going to use the Bible as a source of our info and beliefs, we can't get all defensive when those on the other side of the discussion debate against it.

Fair enough. Typically any mention of the Bible having any authority begins a long cycle of quotes from the O.T. and retorts.

[IBC]

Fair enough. Typically any mention of the Bible having any authority begins a long cycle of quotes from the O.T. and retorts.

The O.T.?

[Smoke681]

The O.T.?
Old Testament.

[IBC]

Old Testament.

Gotcha.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I do believe that homosexuality is a choice, because I've found nothing Biblically or otherwise that suggests it is anything else.

I have much more to say on all this, but I must now go before I go berserk here at work.

I'll engage this again Monday. Good discussion.where does it say heterosexuality is a choice?

[Smoke681]

where does it say heterosexuality is a choice?
It doesn't. That's pretty much precisely the point. Heterosexuality isn't a choice, it's the standard. It's natural, homosexuality is unnatural. Heterosexual is God's design, homosexuality is man's perversion.

Thank you for helping me make my point.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Oh? But it's okay for homosexuals to throw their homosexuality in our face every chance they get? Parades, festivals, homosexual rights, bumper stickers, rallies, etc. I mean, they advocate for homosexuality way more than anyone advocates against it.

I'd love to see hetero sexuals throw a parade and a festival and have rallies and such, and see the ensuing outcry from the homosexual community about discrimination and hate.
you also looking to start up white history month and white entertainment television?

[Smoke681]

you also looking to start up white history month and white entertainment television?
I think it would be appropriate at this point.

[hannitykillspuppies]

It doesn't. That's pretty much precisely the point. Heterosexuality isn't a choice, it's the standard. It's natural, homosexuality is unnatural. Heterosexual is God's design, homosexuality is man's perversion.

Thank you for helping me make my point.
don't see how that proves your point. you claim that one chooses their sexuality, but somehow you didn't choose yours.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I think it would be appropriate at this point.
maybe you could protest in front of one your parents house and condemn them for getting a divorce. you know exercise your equal rights.

[Smoke681]

don't see how that proves your point. you claim that one chooses their sexuality, but somehow you didn't choose yours.
Absolutely wrong. I do not claim one chooses their sexuality. We are heterosexual beings. One chooses to deviate from that to become homosexual.

[Smoke681]

maybe you could protest in front of one your parents house and condemn them for getting a divorce. you know exercise your equal rights.
I've protested divorce to my parents a hundred times my friend. They know very well my thoughts and disagreements.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Absolutely wrong. I do not claim one chooses their sexuality. We are heterosexual beings. One chooses to deviate from that to become homosexual.
oh, you can only choose the the sexuality that you don't agree with. got it. weren't you complaining about people wanting to have their cake and eat it too?

[IBC]

This is turning ugly.

[Smoke681]

This is turning ugly.
Some people just love to stoke the fire.

It amuses me.

[hannitykillspuppies]

I've protested divorce to my parents a hundred times my friend. They know very well my thoughts and disagreements.
yeah but i mean, get some floats, shut down some streets, have a parade and harass some people you don't know from adam. i mean if they can do it why shouldn't you?

[Smoke681]

oh, you can only choose the the sexuality that you don't agree with. got it. weren't you complaining about people wanting to have their cake and eat it too?
You are indeed lost my friend. If you haven't bothered to read this entire thread, but rather just jump in and start throwing daggers, that's your problem and not mine. I'm not going to give you the cliffs notes. You are absolutely misconstruing everything I'm saying. It's called spin.

[Smoke681]

yeah but i mean, get some floats, shut down some streets, have a parade and harass some people you don't know from adam. i mean if they can do it why shouldn't you?
Is there a specific point you're trying to make? Why not just make your point, and leave the senseless drivel out of this.

[domenick2x]

yeah but i mean, get some floats, shut down some streets, have a parade and harass some people you don't know from adam. i mean if they can do it why shouldn't you?
Aren't you forgetting the white sheets?


:)

[hannitykillspuppies]

You are indeed lost my friend. If you haven't bothered to read this entire thread, but rather just jump in and start throwing daggers, that's your problem and not mine. I'm not going to give you the cliffs notes. You are absolutely misconstruing everything I'm saying. It's called spin.
i read the whole thread. i haven't misconstrued one thing you've said.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Is there a specific point you're trying to make? Why not just make your point, and leave the senseless drivel out of this.
Likewise, I have a right in our country