Homosexuality

Participant

Quote (Cato @ July 24 2009,10:40)

“Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture.” Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.

It is complex subject with genetic and environmental factors contributing to the effected orientation.

Now it is clear you view it as choice and a sinful one, sensual badness which moves on to a full course meal of bad, is I believe how you phrased it. You also claimed that, “”Immorality” is determined by what our parents teach us is immoral. Or our schools and communities, and/or frineds, and/or circumstances of survival.” So immorality is evidently circumstantial and is based on what we are taught. So if we are taught being gay is ok it no longer is immoral? No, for you clearly view it as evil. You go on and postulate that Satan tempts us with small evils first which lead to ever greater evils. Well I am not sure if Satan is a being rather then a title, but assuming he is, I would agree, that is a better method of leading people astray and into sin. Yet if that is true and homosexuality is one of those evils like petty thievery leading eventually to murder, then gay individuals should be some of the worst people in our society since they have their feet firmly planted on that slippery slope of sin. Yet I doubt gays (outside of their sexual orientation and intimate behaviours) are any worse then the rest of society when it comes to all the various other sins that we do to ourselves and one another.

Hi Cato

There is nothing genetic about it. Show us some evidence of that.

It is a matter of pure lust for that which is forbidden and contrary to nature itself.

It is Sin. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

July 24, 2009 at 7:59 pm#138752

Participant

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,02:18)

Quote (Paladin @ July 24 2009,22:04)

For THIS I do not faul the homosexual, I fault the Christians who fall for it. AND who fall because of it.

In what way do christians 'fall' because of their concession of equal rights for gays?

Stuart

Gays already have equal rights with straights.

“You have the right to remain silent.
you do not have to testify against yourself.
If you cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint one.”

It is not “equal rights” you want, it is “acceptance” of a practice God declared to be “abomination.”

As for your pretense at being a law abiding citizen,
sodomy has been against the law for thousands of years, and to practice it, homosexuals break the law. Then they practice
“in your face” defiance to justify their behaviour.

I have known liars, thieves, gossips, adulterers, etc, most of which practices are also against the law, but so far no one has had “fornicator pride month” or “liars and thieves pride” parades with an “in your face” confrontation about it.

Much of the public outrage over the homosexual community is brought on by the homosexual communities attitude of “I'm gay and you can't do anything about it.”

Society has now gone to the extreme of making discourse about homosexual activity a “hate crime.” It is a sad commentary on public officials who let fear promote stupidity in laws.

Christians have no business trying to make such abberant behaviour appear acceptable in society. God has already spoken and is not likely to publish an addendum of corrections to his bible to make it “good behaviour” under the name of
“love.”

July 24, 2009 at 9:26 pm#138762

Cato

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 25 2009,07:25)

Hi Cato

There is nothing genetic about it. Show us some evidence of that.

It is a matter of pure lust for that which is forbidden and contrary to nature itself.

It is Sin. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

WJ,

While the findings are still far from conclusive most newer studies are finding both genetic and environmental factors (especially in the womb) that indicate biological determinism in sexual orientation. From the Guardian papers (UK Dec 08)

“A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the “concordance” of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.

“In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes,” said Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men.

Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied – from sheep to fruit flies – has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.

“I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight,” Bocklandt said. “Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence.”

Less understood is the degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genes or environmental factors, such as hormones or immunological factors that may act on a fetus. What scientists call “the fraternal birth order effect”, the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male fetus in her womb.”

As far as lust goes it is separate from orientation. Lust is
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving

One can lust in either a gay or straight mindset.

Yet it is, by scripture, a sin, that is all too plain. Yet scripture also says in Leviticus they must be put to death. It is plain and direct, so do those that advocate strict compliance with scripture support this also? Note: WJ this last point is not directed at you but at others who post here that are adamant about following all scripture. I respect and believe your line about hating the sin but love the sinner. What is sin, in this case, is what I question.

July 24, 2009 at 10:05 pm#138764

Participant

Quote (Cato @ July 24 2009,17:26)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 25 2009,07:25)

Hi Cato

There is nothing genetic about it. Show us some evidence of that.

It is a matter of pure lust for that which is forbidden and contrary to nature itself.

It is Sin. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

WJ,

One can lust in either a gay or straight mindset.

Hi Cato

Like I said, no evidence just a lot of theory and speculation.

As far as the Law, we now live in the day of Grace and the law is fulfilled in Christ,.

July 24, 2009 at 10:55 pm#138771

Participant

Do you place your hands over your ears and shout “I can't hear you” quite often?

There is a huge pile of research on human sexuality and a lot of deep and sophisticated discourse on the issue throughout the world, and yet you seem happy in a little world that is governed by the ideology that you can do whatever is written in the bible and you will be right, no matter what others say.

If you are right about your belief system, that life and the universe really is that simplistic and black and white, and everyone who disagrees with you is just engaged in speculation, then I suppose you are justified.

I would suggest to you though that if you are wrong then it is a pretty naive position you have adopted, because you have ruled out any possibility that you are wrong and thus you have no way of verifying what you do believe.

As the Judeo-christian scripture has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be literally wrong about human origins and a global flood, to list just two, then I wonder where you could credibly stand beside blind allegiance to a book of myths and legends.

Stuart

July 24, 2009 at 11:15 pm#138772

Participant

Quote (Stu @ July 24 2009,18:55)

Do you place your hands over your ears and shout “I can't hear you” quite often?

Stuart

Hi STU

Ok I hear you shouting. So then can you verify unambiguous proof that scientifically what you say is true.

You are a man of science. Please point me to unambiguous “scientific” evidence that biologically a man or woman is born gay!

Didn't think so. Just more speculation and theory.

For we see many cases where gays give birth to children and their children are not gay. You might say well they chose not to be gay. Isn't that what we are saying?

I am surprised that you go down that road since you have to see “proof” for everything that you believe.

Being gay is a choice. If it were genetic then once gay always gay and scientifically we know that is not true based on the facts that many thousands that were once gay are no longer gay.

That simple!

July 24, 2009 at 11:40 pm#138779

Participant

Cato and Stu

Here is some of the kinds of facts you guys are talking about…

In recent years, the question has been applied to whether being gay is genetic or a choice. It is not a light topic. It has caused a great deal of debates in politics, faith and science.
The evidence still seems to point out that there isn't an answer. In 1991, genetic researcher Simon LeVay, compared the brains of heterosexual men and women and to the brains of homosexual men. In his reports he found that there was a slight difference in the Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH3) in homosexual men and straight men. The end results were not conclusive enough to support the genetic theory.
Critics of the report also claim that brain patterns change over the years, which also points to the behavior and outside influences. LeVay admitted in an interview in 1994, “It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.” Since then, there have been numerous attempts to isolate and find a genetic cause for being homosexual, but there still isn't any conclusive evidence to be found which supports that claim.
To put it simply, being gay is a choice. It may not be an easy one, such as deciding what brand of shoes to wear or what movie to see, but it is still a choice. For example, no person is born knowing if they prefer whole milk or non-fat, it's through experience and experimentation that individuals discover their preferences. Opinions about the laws and morality of homosexuality will always be waged, but when it comes to genetics, it can be said that the case is closed. Source

Should I say that you have your eyes and ears shut?

July 24, 2009 at 11:44 pm#138781

Participant

Paladin

Quote

Gays already have equal rights with straights.
“You have the right to remain silent.
you do not have to testify against yourself.
If you cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint one.”
It is not “equal rights” you want, it is “acceptance” of a practice God declared to be “abomination.”
As for your pretense at being a law abiding citizen,
sodomy has been against the law for thousands of years, and to practice it, homosexuals break the law.

It is on longer illegal in my country. Prior to the change in the law about 25 years ago, it was religious bigots who held enough political sway to maintain an unethical law. In New Zealand the number professing christian belief (the main adherence of religious bigots here, and I guess where you live too), will on current trends in the census, have dropped below 50% by now. Their political power is waning as, to be blunt, they die off.

In any case that was not the point I was trying to make and I grant you I could have done a better job. I mean equality within this particular church. I am under the impression that the episcopalians have some pretensions to equality, but it seems some of them mean gender but not sexual orientation.

Quote

Then they practice “in your face” defiance to justify their behaviour.

As do you.

Quote

Fornicator pride month sounds like a great idea.

Quote

Much of the public outrage over the homosexual community is brought on by the homosexual communities attitude of “I'm gay and you can't do anything about it.”

…which is brought on by the fact that bigots have used their clout to maintain laws that regulate what consenting adults can and cannot do in private, all because of their ancient goat-herder morality which still cannot possibly be questioned even now democracy has finally won.

Quote

Society has now gone to the extreme of making discourse about homosexual activity a “hate crime.” It is a sad commentary on public officials who let fear promote stupidity in laws.

Do you think it should be illegal to promote incitement to murder? That is exactly the wording of two of the scriptural quotes that you use to justify your homophobia.

Quote

Well quite. What does that tell you about the attitude of a god that creates the potential for homosexuality in EVERY animal species capable of expressing it, then a few chapters later in his autobiography condemns to death those who behave that way? I thought product recall was for correcting the mistakes of third-rate engineers.

Stuart

July 25, 2009 at 7:01 am#138827

KangarooJack

Participant

Cato said:

Quote

I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not.

Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles.

thinker

July 25, 2009 at 8:38 am#138835

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,19:01)

Cato said:

Quote

I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not.

Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles.

thinker

What does that have to do with it? There are far more straight people who are pedophiles than gay ones.

Remember this is about what consenting adults do with other consenting adults that you are objecting to, not anything illlegal.

Stuart

July 25, 2009 at 9:30 am#138836

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etiology

Participant

Quote

Please point me to unambiguous “scientific” evidence that biologically a man or woman is born gay!

I didn’t claim that people are ‘born gay’, but I did say that it is something over which people have little choice. A black and white view of it is not going to be any help in understanding the causes of homosexuality because it is not a settled matter.

Read the Holy Wikipedia. The evidence that there is a genetic factor is unambiguous. Other factor are discussed too:

Quote

For we see many cases where gays give birth to children and their children are not gay. You might say well they chose not to be gay. Isn't that what we are saying?

You really needed to pay more attention to your lessons on genetics at school. You clearly don’t get even the idea of a monohybrid cross, let alone the complex nature of the genetic effects determined for sexual orientation.

Quote

I am surprised that you go down that road since you have to see “proof” for everything that you believe.

I have never said that. Not once ever anywhere here.

Quote

Being gay is a choice. If it were genetic then once gay always gay and scientifically we know that is not true based on the facts that many thousands that were once gay are no longer gay. That simple!

Well that would seem to be wrong. The evidence shows genetic factors, and there is strong suspicion about hormonal factors and questions of bonding in early childhood. There is also the fact that many gay people came out, previously having professed heterosexuality. I don’t know very many gay people, but I never heard of one who has become heterosexual. Do you know of any? I think you are buying the nonsense of those who fatuously claim they can ‘heal’ gay people. You are aware that psychologists the world over have rejected, based on their clinical experience, that ‘curing gay people’ has any meaning at all?

In any case as I have already posted, I don’t think it matters whether people choose or not. While it may be an interesting scientific question, it is only religious bigots who are obsessively hung up on what consenting adults choose to do in private. So what if the campest of the camp flaunt their stuff in public and do whatever they choose in private? Why does that distract you so from your business?

In 1991, genetic researcher Simon LeVay, compared the brains of heterosexual men and women and to the brains of homosexual men. In his reports he found that there was a slight difference in the Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypothalamus (INAH3) in homosexual men and straight men. The end results were not conclusive enough to support the genetic theory.
Critics of the report also claim that brain patterns change over the years, which also points to the behavior and outside influences. LeVay admitted in an interview in 1994, “It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”

So WJ, why are YOU repeating that mistake?

Quote

Should I say that you have your eyes and ears shut?

You posting irrelevant material under the guise of it denying genetic links hardly casts either of us as the deniers.

Stuart

July 25, 2009 at 9:43 am#138839

Participant

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,11:44)

(Paladin)

Quote

Gays already have equal rights with straights.
“You have the right to remain silent.
you do not have to testify against yourself.
If you cannot afford an attorney the court will appoint one.”

It is not “equal rights” you want, it is “acceptance” of a practice God declared to be “abomination.”

As for your pretense at being a law abiding citizen,
sodomy has been against the law for thousands of years, and to practice it, homosexuals break the law.

(Stu) It is on longer illegal in my country. Prior to the change in the law about 25 years ago, it was religious bigots who held enough political sway to maintain an unethical law.

Even a hit-man has to make a living. Is the law against murder therefore “unethical?” “Ethics” certainly is basic to the issue, but evil practitioners opinions about what is ethical have no influence with me. If God condemns it, it ain't
“ethical.”

(Stu) In New Zealand the number professing christian belief (the main adherence of religious bigots here, and I guess where you live too), will on current trends in the census, have dropped below 50% by now. Their political power is waning as, to be blunt, they die off.[/quote]

Nope! The only real religious bigots I know all profess to believe in Atheism. There is no God and they can prove it. Therefore that God has no right to legislate morality nor ethical behaviour.

(Stu) In any case that was not the point I was trying to make and I grant you I could have done a better job. I mean equality within this particular church. [/quote]

Come to my church. You will have equal rights. You will have the right to remain silent. You do not have to testify against yourslef. And if you cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint one for you.

You will still not be welcome to “love thy neighbor” homosexually. We do not have that right to allow, that which God has declared to be an “abomination.”

(Stu)

Quote

I am under the impression that the episcopalians have some pretensions to equality, but it seems some of them mean gender but not sexual orientation.

That is because many Episcopalians still think they should be getting their religion from the bible, and “sexual orientation” is a term not found therein. It is a term invented to allow a platform for discussing what is not real.

But “orientation” while not thus called, certainly is part of Scriptural training. It goes like this; “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.” There. I'm scripturally “oriented.”

(P)

Quote

Then they practice “in your face” defiance to justify their behaviour.

(Stu) As do you.

Not at all. I do not parade in your town's main street shouting slogans and shaking my fist in defiance of ordanances and laws, and mores. And there is no point in you denying that the homosexual community engages in such behaviour, because it is going on all over the country.

(P)

Quote

(Stu) Fornicator pride month sounds like a great idea.

(Stu) What does that tell you about the attitude of a god that creates the potential for homosexuality in EVERY animal species capable of expressing it, then a few chapters later in his autobiography condemns to death those who behave that way? I thought product recall was for correcting the mistakes of third-rate engineers.[/quote]

God did not make homosexuals. He repeatedly condemned the downward spiral of bad choices that culminate in sexually abberant behaviour. Even God did not intend for some people to be gay. He calls it “abomination.”

But even God does not know everything man will come up with to degrade himself in filthy practices.

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, NEITHER CAME IT INTO MY MIND: 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, NEITHER CAME IT INTO MY MIND, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

The discussion is over. You not only do not believe such trash, you have now begun to try to shock the system with your own brand of sinful pride, with your rhetoric. I will respond to your raves no more.

July 25, 2009 at 10:36 am#138842

Participant

Paladin

Quote

And if your god does not exist, or if it does but the Judeo-christian scripture does not represent its views, then your claim is pretty irrelevant. You are entitled to your opinion but you should remember that you cannot support it with evidence, it is an unsupported assertion, and as such can be dismissed just as easily without evidence. Given the tenuous nature of your view, can you really justify your part in making life miserable for people? Is that what your god demands you do? If so, have you ever wondered why you worship such a sadist?

In Western countries the democratic process has already condemned your religious opinions from a legal point of view regarding homosexual acts on the basis that there is no victim and people are just engaged in relationships that have no ethical difference from straight ones.

What does making a living unethically have to do with it?

Quote

The only real religious bigots I know all profess to believe in Atheism. There is no God and they can prove it. Therefore that God has no right to legislate morality nor ethical behaviour.

Can you actually name a single atheist who has claimed he can prove there is no god? Would it not be insanity to claim that a god that does not exist has no right to legislate morality?

Quote

I have done nothing wrong. Does your church put people on trial? Are the outcomes legally binding, or do they just condemn people on behalf of their god?

Quote

many Episcopalians still think they should be getting their religion from the bible, and “sexual orientation” is a term not found therein. It is a term invented to allow a platform for discussing what is not real.

I think that is why the real world has condemned your attitude on this issue. Because your source of ‘information’ has not responded to any of the new findings of the last 2000 years, and according to you it cannot possibly be wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary on so many points, you are stuck with a brutal ancient goat-herder view of the world. I suppose the use of the term sexual orientation did not exist 2000 years ago. But then neither did English. Neither did internal combustion engines or antibiotics. Really it is only the Amish who have any biblical integrity, isn’t it. You enjoy all the benefits of the most recent knowledge that support your modern lifestyle but then you hypocritically reject the concept of sexual orientation.

Quote

So give back your car keys and antibiotics. They are not scriptural.

Quote

I do not parade in your town's main street shouting slogans and shaking my fist in defiance of ordanances and laws, and mores. And there is no point in you denying that the homosexual community engages in such behaviour, because it is going on all over the country.

As I explained to you before, I do not live in your country, and I remember far more marches by self-righteous christian bigots down the main street of our capital city than gay rights parades. Usually the gay pride ones are pretty entertaining but the christian ones are quite chilling.

You post your unjustified bigotry on websites, which amounts to doing the same thing.

Quote

Well he is a poor engineer then. So much for omnipotence if your god cannot get what he wants. Does your god condemn homosexuality in other animal species?

Quote

But even God does not know everything man will come up with to degrade himself in filthy practices.

I had not expected you to defeat the concept of omniscience in the next sentence! Are you sure you would not like to retract that?

Quote

I was not aware of this biblical contradiction. Interesting.

Quote

OK. Bye then.

Stuart

July 25, 2009 at 3:39 pm#138851

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,20:38)

Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,19:01)

Cato said:

Quote

I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not.

Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles.

thinker

What does that have to do with it? There are far more straight people who are pedophiles than gay ones.

Remember this is about what consenting adults do with other consenting adults that you are objecting to, not anything illlegal.

Stuart

My point was that being “oriented” toward a particular sexual preference does not imply that it is natural or that it is right. There was a time in history when having sex with children was not illegal. What about this? Suppose having sex with children should become legal again? There will be people like you saying it's okay because it's legal.

thinker

July 25, 2009 at 10:37 pm#138893

Cato

Participant

Pedophiles are found in both homo and hetero people and don't involve consenting relations between adults so they are superfluous to this discussion. As far as whether homosexual relations are natural well it appears so for they appear in both human and animal kingdoms and studies have shown their percentages across human populations tends to be fairly consistent regardless of culture or background. Now whether it is a morally acceptable that seems to change with times and cultures. Whether it is acceptable according to Christian scripture, well obviously it is not. The true argument here then is whether scripture is correct and so a true representation of divine will. I would say it is not. Stu would say their is no divine will, and most others would say it is. For those that say it is, I repeat my question if you also support the very same scripture which dictates those individuals must also be put to death?

July 25, 2009 at 11:15 pm#138894

Participant

Quote (Cato @ July 26 2009,10:37)

(Cato)

Quote

Pedophiles are found in both homo and hetero people and don't involve consenting relations between adults so they are superfluous to this discussion.

As far as whether homosexual relations are natural well it appears so for they appear in both human and animal kingdoms and studies have shown their percentages across human populations tends to be fairly consistent regardless of culture or background.

Now whether it is a morally acceptable that seems to change with times and cultures. Whether it is acceptable according to Christian scripture, well obviously it is not. The true argument here then is whether scripture is correct and so a true representation of divine will. I would say it is not. Stu would say their is no divine will, and most others would say it is. For those that say it is, I repeat my question if you also support the very same scripture which dictates those individuals must also be put to death?

I think your post asks a valid question, so I will attempt to respond with a valid answer.

The Old Testament laws were written to a people, not to a species, nor to a race. God's Old Testament laws and commandments were Only for Israel, and no other nation;
“These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab. 3 And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them; ” [Deut 1:1,3]

ALL OF US ALIVE HERE THIS DAY.
And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” [Deut 5:1-3]

THIS LAW PERTAINED ALSO TO THE CHILDREN
“The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” [Deut 29:29]

While it was a law calculated to determine whether Israel
would obey God or not, it was not a generic law to mankind; though any man could join himself to the law through covenant with Israel's God.

“And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.” [Deut 8:2]

To say God demanded the death penalty for gross disobedience, understates the fact, but it does not transfer to the New Covenant of Grace and mercy.

There is no “law requirement of stoning” for disobedience, but rather an appeal to repentance with a view toward salvaging another soul made in the image of God.

I hope this helps in understanding why the difference in the application of the laws of God.

July 25, 2009 at 11:28 pm#138895

Participant

Quote (Cato @ July 26 2009,10:37)

I think there is a vast difference in a species having sentient awareness to their own replication process, and one responding only to the stimuli of instinct.

There have been several remarks on this and other boards relating to the similarity between Human practices of choice, and animal practices of instinctive reaction, as though they constitute two ends of the same stick.

They do not. Homosexuality is not an instinctive reaction, it is a choice of behaviour. The very prefix “homo” relates to Homo Sapiens, not canis familiarus, Canis Lupis nor any of the other species not related to man. WHATEVER actions may be observed, man does not have enough information to compare the psychology of animals with the psychology of humans with any degree of expertise beyond guesswork. Supposed Abherrent behaviour observed in animals has nothing to do with the morality of men. It is not a moral decision made by animals defying God's commandments.

July 26, 2009 at 12:46 am#138898

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ July 26 2009,03:39)

Quote (Stu @ July 25 2009,20:38)

Quote (thethinker @ July 25 2009,19:01)

Cato said:

Quote

I think it is rather absurd to view homosexuality as a choice. Having sex is a choice but your orientation is not.

Some are “oriented” toward being pedafiles.

thinker

What does that have to do with it? There are far more straight people who are pedophiles than gay ones.

Remember this is about what consenting adults do with other consenting adults that you are objecting to, not anything illlegal.

Stuart

thinker

Did you process the bit where I used the word consent?

There is a universal principle here that includes children and animals not being able to make an informed decision to participate. No christian here has actually stated any equivalent principle for homosexuality. It is just an unthinking regurgitation of scripture.

Bestiality and pedophilia have victims. Homosexuality doesn't.

Obviously.

Stuart

July 26, 2009 at 12:53 am#138899