Homosexuals are gay. (Official homosexuality discussion thread)

Damien: Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

My natural inclination is attraction toward men. This passage regards heterosexuals committing homosexual acts out of lust (sins of the flesh), not homosexuals engaging in homosexual acts out of love (passion of the spirit). It does not apply.

From God Made Me Gay:

Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God.




I'd say that it's pretty clear in both versions.

Read both versions. The English standard version says homosexuals, yes. But before that, it says ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND. That's rape, not homosexuality. In earlier texts it says SODOMITES. That's lust, not homosexuality. The condemnation is a result of the translation, not of the Word.

From God Made Me Gay:

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.

Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."

Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts.

Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."

One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and origina

 

Damien, after responding to your posts in another thread, (which were very insulting BTW) i can't help think that what you say does have hate in it. if not hate, intolernace but that's just my interpretation of what you have said.

i recently did an essay on contraception in Australian history. i had to look at morality in the context of the protestant and catholic church and i must say i am glad i left it behind.

i made a statement in my essay that was paraphrased from a book on contraception. it follows "The catholic church sees sex as a sin that can only be justified between a married couple for the purposes of procreation"

this rules out many posibilites, including homosexuality.

isn't faith supposed to be universal? accpeting of all races and sexual preferences?

from where i am standing you play their game according to their rules otherwise you go to hell.






and eat pineapples

EDIT: Your stance about pedasty i agree with, perhaps this is what the church is actually condeming rather than an actual relationship. Love rather than lust.

that was rife in the middle ages, though people are only human i guess. that doesn't excuse it though.

 

"My natural inclination is attraction toward men. This passage regards heterosexuals committing homosexual acts out of lust (sins of the flesh), not homosexuals engaging in homosexual acts out of love (passion of the spirit). It does not apply."

God says you have to wait to have sexual relations until marriage. But that will be never because God does not recognize homosexual unions. IMO I don't think it matters if it's lusting or love. It's an abomination to the lord in the old testament(Lev 18:22). What makes you think it's not an abomination to him now?

Katana - I'm sorry if my posts sounded like I hate homosexuals. That is the farthest from true. I love homosexuals as much as I love everyone else. The act of homosexuality is what I hate.

 

But that will be never because God does not recognize homosexual unions.

Prove it. Who are you to say what God does and does not recognize? Just because the church doesn't, that doesn't dictate what God recognizes.

IMO I don't think it matters if it's lusting or love.

That's, as you said, IYO.

It's an abomination to the lord in the old testament(Lev 18:22).

*sigh* Won't anyone simply click the link occasionally and save me some cutting and pasting?

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws.

["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.]

Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God." This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship.

(The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)

God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality.

Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."

Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason.

When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.

M. Scott

 

Damien, you can quote the bible till all the cows come home but like a historcial source it is open to interpretation by individuals.


if you have time, i suggest you watch the "Holy Homosexuals" on here

i was watching it with a friend of mine who is gay and he agrees with me, quoting the bible is like writing a lit essay, you came make it say what you want it to

When we add the fact that these laws were talking about heterosexuals, it makes three reasons, any one of which would be sufficient, why they have no bearing on questions about homosexuals or homosexuality or on the morality of same-gender sex by homosexuals today.

again i have to agree with you, leviticus is really not a quotable book when it comes to christianity.

have you read what happens if a woman had her period? when i happens she is considered "unclean" and can't come inside while she is having it. its natural dangit!

 

"The catholic church sees sex as a sin that can only be justified between a married couple for the purposes of procreation"

this rules out many posibilites, including homosexuality

It also promotes overpopulation of the Earth.

Damien:

1. Who are you to decide who is sinning and who isn't?

2. Can you prove that Jehovah is real? If you can't, and you can't prove that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, why should I believe you?

3. Is your God a God of Love? Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like a God of hatred. Sounds like Palpatine or Tarkin to me, or even Hitler. Let's be hateful and ostracize a group of people for something they can't help.

And you can't love homosexuals and hate them for being homosexual. That's hypocritical.

4. If someone comes to a different conclusion than what the bible says I would question who was talking to that person.

So every time someone opens his or her mouth and says something other than quoting the Bible, they are speaking as a representative of the devil?

I get really sick of the close-minded attitude perpetuated in the Middle Ages by European Christians who promoted the attitude of "Convert or die" in an attempt to take over the world through the church and eliminate everyone who isn't exactly like them. This is the history of the injunction "If God didn't say it, the devil must have."

I've got a better one for you: prove that there is a devil.

Because it is detestable to the LORD.

Prove it--without using a verse from the Bible.

I say that because the Bible, written over 2000 years ago by sexist homophobic xenophobic men, is not proof.

can you please tell me how my words are "filled with hate?"

See what I just quoted above. You called homosexuality "detestable". I'm straight, but for example, if you called being a female "detestable", I would be highly offended, and rightfully so.

I have provided many quotes from the bible that justifies my hatred for homosexuality.

You provided quotes from the text of a religion that is supposed to be about God's love for the world in order to justify your hatred for an entire group of people. That's sad.

Hatred is hatred, and when you hate a group of people who have never harmed you or anyone else, the hatred is never justified.

I have never once targeted a homosexual and accused him of sinning and going against the word of God.



Why don't you try going back and re-reading your posts.

You not only have accused them of "sinning" and called them "detestable", you have also accused those of us who support them of "sinning". That, dear poster, is targetting homosexuals.

I have never made fun of, insulted, or done anything to make a homosexual feel unwelcome.

You've made me feel unwelcome and unwanted by your Palpatine-like God, and I'm heterosexual!

God says you have to wait to have sexual relations until marriage. But that will be never because God does not recognize homosexual unions.

Which puts them in quite a bit of a catch-22 situation, don't you think?

Unless you think they can just choose not to be gay.

Of course they probably can--I remember the day in my adolescence when I woke up, looked out the window, and decided, "I think I'll be heterosexual."

IMO I don't think it matters if it's lusting or love. It's an abomination to the lord in the old testament(Lev 18:22). What makes you think it's not an abomination to him now?

Maybe God got over his strong urge to act like Hitler and decided it was better to act like Ghandi.

mister-sinister: Great posts. And yes, with the dictator-wannabe that we have in office right now who is desperately trying to turn America into some fundamentalist Christian theocracy, be glad you're a Canadian. If it weren't for hubby I'd leave America for awhile myself until things became less puritanical around here.

 

if God is palpatine, thanks be i'm a rebel

is there not a quote in the bible telling us not to judge as we will be judged in the same way?

it seems we have come to a socratic conclusion, in the end we have been shown to be smarted because damien has tripped himself up.

 

Been thinking a bit about this thread, and I think I've had an epiphany of sorts. First, a reply to Dorkman about Matthew 19.


God created humans male and female. This I believe. I'd have to be pretty willful not to acknowledge that, since men and women both exist. I'm not a literal creationist, but sure. That I believe.

But then this passage goes on:

"'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."

This passage presupposes marriage, when quite clearly not everyone gets married and to not do so (assuming extramarital celibacy) is not considered a sin.

The passage does not merely presuppose marriage. It expects and commands marriage. True enough, celibacy is not considered a sin, but that's not because of this verse. There are other verses (esp. the following passage, 19:10-12) which validate the Christian's belief that celibacy is a moral alternative to marriage, but 19:5 is not one of them.


If it condemns anyone, it's people who live with their parents after marriage. Sounds like Jesus wants you to put 'em in a home, if you want to take this to its logical yet absurd conclusion.

First, if you want to argue that the verse doesn't require heterosexuality, you cannot logically turn around and argue that it requires anything.

But to answer your objection, I believe that God's will is that the married couple start their own family rather than depend on (and be ruled by) either spouse's parents. The verse does not prohibit a sick parent from staying with them; it prohibits him from ruling over them.


Jesus said "God created men and women." It was a statement of fact, not of morality.

But with the phrase, "for this reason," Jesus connected that statement of fact to the sacrament of marriage -- lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Deny that sacrament (and deny its only moral alternative, celibacy), and you defy God's purpose for making us male and female.

Last time I checked, defying God qualifies as a sin.


Now, I've been giving a good bit of thought to McCartney's comment:

"You can teach your children what you believe, but don't be surprised if God tests your faith by blessing you with a gay son."

This is at least the second time one of y'all has raised the specter of me being "blessed" with a gay child. I can't imagine a similar statement being made in any other thread:

"You think theft is wrong? Well, don't be surprised if God blesses you with a kleptomaniac."

"Demand that sex be kept within the confines of marriage all you want, but don't be shocked if you raise a slut."

These are simply baffling statements.

I've given the possibility a little thought. Very little thought, since it's really a no-brainer: if a son of mine told me he was gay, I would reaffirm my belief that embracing homosexual desires is immoral and reassure him that I would love him regardless of how he lived his life.

I've given more thought to the reason McCartney made the comment to begin with, and I think I now understand: he thinks that the situation would create some irreconilable conflict between one's love for his child and one's hatred of gays.

I don't hate gays, but McCartney thinks I do.

I think quite a few of you assume the worst of the opposition: YOU EARNESTLY BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU 100 PERCENT ARE HATEFUL HOMOPHOBES.

It explains a lot. It explains why anakin_girl must not only criticize the Bible as out-of-date, but as a book that is homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, hate-filled, full of contradictions, and (somehow) incomprehensible -- as a book whose contents should be torn out and burned.

It explains why she must define homophobia to include "a belief that they should be treated differently than heterosexuals."

(I ta

 

DorkmanScott - It all comes down to an interpretation of scripture. Although the bible does say that if you have doubt about what you're doing you probably shouldn't do it. I can't find scripture on that, because I read it a while ago.

"And you can't love homosexuals and hate them for being homosexual. That's hypocritical."

I said I hated homosexuality. Read my posts.

"So every time someone opens his or her mouth and says something other than quoting the Bible, they are speaking as a representative of the devil?"

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

"Prove it--without using a verse from the Bible."

The bible is the divine word of God.

"I say that because the Bible, written over 2000 years ago by sexist homophobic xenophobic men, is not proof."

2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

"You provided quotes from the text of a religion that is supposed to be about God's love for the world in order to justify your hatred for an entire group of people. That's sad."

God loves the world, but hates sin.

"Hatred is hatred, and when you hate a group of people who have never harmed you or anyone else, the hatred is never justified"

Homoesexuality is not a group of people.

"Why don't you try going back and re-reading your posts."

Why don't YOU go back and re-read my posts.

"You not only have accused them of "sinning" and called them "detestable", you have also accused those of us who support them of "sinning". That, dear poster, is targetting homosexuals."

I quoted the bible.

"is there not a quote in the bible telling us not to judge as we will be judged in the same way?

it seems we have come to a socratic conclusion, in the end we have been shown to be smarted because damien has tripped himself up."

I never once judged a homosexual.

 

I never once judged a homosexual. - understatement of the century

you have, even if you don't relaise it you have judged them. saying what they do is right or wrong is passing a judgment even though it may only be from your point of view.

why is society so constricting and unyielding? sometimes it makes me sick just to be human.

if you love someone, unconditionally, (as you say you love homosexuals damien) don't you respect what they do and love them regardless of that? hating what someone does and loving them is hypocrtical.

i suggest you love gays, but would love them more if they turned straight

 

"you have, even if you don't relaise it you have judged them. saying what they do is right or wrong is passing a judgment even though it may only be from your point of view."

I have quoted scripture. I have held judgement.

"if you love someone, unconditionally, (as you say you love homosexuals damien) don't you respect what they do and love them regardless of that? hating what someone does and loving them is hypocrtical."

"Hate the sin, love the sinner." - Jedi_Xen

"i suggest you love gays, but would love them more if they turned straight"

I would be happier if they were straight. That does not mean I love them anymore or less.

 

you haven't held judgement, you have given your opinion whether you dispute it or not.

you can hardly say anything nowadays without having some sort of bias, its called human nature and it's also called america

 

I ask you for proof that the Bible is true, and you quote the Bible.

If you asked me for proof that King's Cross Station in the Harry Potter series really exists, I would not quote the passages on King's Cross Station Harry Potter books. I would get out a map of the London Underground and show you where King's Cross Station is.

You are going in circles. If I believe that 1 Timothy was not written exactly as you quoted but instead has been translated to death, and if I also believe that it was written by sexist homophobic men 2000 years ago and therefore has no bearing on modern-day America (and in spite of the fact that Bubba would like to have me burned at the stake with the other witches for saying so, I still believe that), then your quoting the Bible is not going to convince me.

The Bible is not proof.

I said I hated homosexuality.

Hatred is hatred is hatred. Trying to sugar-coat it isn't going to work with me.

As I said, if you said you hated womanhood, I would assume you hated a part of who I am, and I would be offended. Saying, "I don't hate women, I hate womanhood" wouldn't cut it.

So every time someone opens his or her mouth and says something other than quoting the Bible, they are speaking as a representative of the devil?

You never answered this question--it is a "yes" or "no" question.

The bible is the divine word of God.

Prove it. If you can do it without quoting from the Bible, I'll believe you.

God loves the world, but hates sin.

He doesn't love the world very much if he only loves what he wants people to be, not who they really are.

I never once judged a homosexual.

Let's see--you called them "detestable" and "an abomination"--that's not judging them?

it never occurs to you that a church might refuse to condone what it believes to be a sin out of love for those who are contemplating sin and the subsequent separation from God.

That's one bloody judgmental church. "Oh, we don't want to see you go to hell..."

My response to that is, "Already been there and done that. Next!"

I take it that if a greeting card company recognized that homosexuals make up less than 5 percent of the population and adjusted their ratios for wedding cards accordingly, she would call the company homophobic.

Ummm...no. What the hell do percentages have to do with anything?

If the greeting card company refused to make cards for homosexuals at all, I would call them homophobic.

as a book whose contents should be torn out and burned.

If you would have actually read my posts instead of picking out the parts you wanted to refute, you would have seen that I had said "the passages that are hateful towards groups of people should be taken out and burned."

I don't think 1 Corinthians 13, John 3:16, Psalm 121, Psalm 23, Romans 8:28, or a few other passages should be taken out and burned.

The book of Leviticus should though, as should Paul's anti-homosexual and anti-female rants, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. God should have just rained hellfire and brimstone on Lot for being such a thug that he would prostitute his own daughters.

I would be happier if they were straight. That does not mean I love them anymore or less.

Yeah, right. You don't love them at all--if you did, you wouldn't be so hateful towards homosexuality.

As I said, it's like saying you love women but hate the fact that they are female.

 

congrats anakin_girl, i thought it would turn into a sparing match of "are too" "are not".

you can;t just pick and choose your facts damien, its narrow minded, if the truth is staring at you in the face accept it for what it is in its entirity.

truth is a multifaceted thing and open to interpretations, but when it is laid out in nice little rows for you its more logical to dipute ALL the facts not just SOME of them

 

As I said, it's like saying you love women but hate the fact that they are female.

Actually, I kind of feel this way. (Gay, remember? )

I'd happily date women if they were male.

M. Scott

 

one of my best friends is gay, but he's sooo hot i wish he wasn't.

why are all the best-looking guys gay?

 

Quite a few posts since I started writing my last...


Merkurian:

Sooo...what if, after careful deliberation and praying for guidance through the Holy Spirit, you come to a completely different conclusion than someone else?

Let me preface this by saying that very little is wholly outside the scope of Scripture. Proverbs exhorts prudence; if one of the two conclusions was demonstrably less prudent, there you go. The Gospels teach us to love our neighbors as ourselves; if one of the two conclusions is less charitable toward others, there you go. Peter's first letter teaches us to respect governmental authorities; if one of the two conclusions thumbs its nose at earthly governments, there you go.

But if Scripture really is silent on an issue, and if two men sincerely sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit and came to two different conclusions, I can only conclude that either subtle circumstantial differences are behind the Spirit's seemingly contradictory guidance or the matter wasn't that important to begin with -- that God does let us decide some of the minutiae for ourselves.


See, this is the reason that for my mind to be settled on a topic, it has to transcend the dictates of dogma, religious or otherwise. "Because I say that God says it's wrong" is not enough. Nor is because "what these who guys wrote a book that says 'God says it's wrong'" is enough reason. The Apostles were mortal. Christ had to constantly correct their behavior, and bereft of His direct input, they suddenly became all-knowing? I am mortal. You are mortal. Any attempt to interpret the will of the Almighty is by definition flawed. Therefore, I must treat with skepticism anyone who professes to speak on behalf of the Almighty, or to interpret His will or motives, and that includes myself.

I first of all truly wonder how your mind does settle on a topic if all sources of authority are suspect.

If the Gospels provided even a fuzzy picture of the life of Christ, certain things would still be clear, since they appear so often: Jesus was crucified, Jesus rose from the dead, and Jesus treated Jewish Scripture as authoritative.

That last bit is informative: Jesus upheld the books of Moses and the prophets as God's revealed message to man, quoting them often and promising to fulfill them completely. Like the Apostles, Moses was a mortal who needed fairly frequent correction from God. And God Incarnate still upheld his work as inspired.

The mistake you're making is along these lines:

- The Bible is a human book.
- All human works are flawed.
- Therefore the Bible is flawed.

It's similar to this mistake:

- Jesus was a human.
- All humans sin.
- Therefore, Jesus sinned.

The mistake is thinking that Jesus was merely human. He is not; He is both human and divine. Since He is not merely human, it may be the case that He has broken free of the rule that all humans sin.

Likewise, it's possible that the Bible is not a merely human endeavor. If the Holy Spirit guided its creation, it too could be inerrant.

If God could become a perfect man, who are you to say He could not inspire a perfect book?


At the risk of repeating myself, it is my belief that some people just are gay. They chose to be gay just like heterosexuals chose to be straight, which is to say they didn't. Why would God want someone to be anything other than what He made them to be?

By that logic, God meant people with short tempers to be physically abusive, and God meant people with low tolerance for alcohol to be raving drunks.

The Christian belief is this: none of us are precisely as God intended us, because the introduction of sin into the world has corrupted the world and our bodies along with it. God meant for us to be physically perfect, immortal with good eyesight and hearing and with perfectly normal desires (desiring the right objects to the right degree). Despite being phy

 

"you haven't damien, you have given your opinion whether you dispute it or not."

I have not given my opinion.

"I ask you for proof that the Bible is true, and you quote the Bible."

You have to clarify what you mean when you ask for proof. Do you want proof that Jesus was real? Do you want proof that the bible is the word of God? Tell me what you want when you ask for proof.

"Hatred is hatred is hatred. Trying to sugar-coat it isn't going to work with me."

Is hating murder wrong too?

"So every time someone opens his or her mouth and says something other than quoting the Bible, they are speaking as a representative of the devil?"

Yes, if it contradicts the bible.

"Let's see--you called them "detestable" and "an abomination"--that's not judging them?"

I quoted the bible.

"That's one bloody judgmental church. "Oh, we don't want to see you go to hell..."

My response to that is, 'Already been there and done that. Next!'"

I hate church.

"If you would have actually read my posts instead of picking out the parts you wanted to refute, you would have seen that I had said 'the passages that are hateful towards groups of people should be taken out and burned.'"

There are no passages that state they hate a group of people.

"Yeah, right. You don't love them at all--if you did, you wouldn't be so hateful towards homosexuality.

As I said, it's like saying you love women but hate the fact that they are female."

*sigh* "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Homosexuality is only a small part of who they are. They also could be a man, a doctor, a runner, etc etc.

 

But the question, "is homosexuality morally permissible," is part of a larger question: why did God make us male and female?

God made us different races as well, but that doesn't mean it's morally impermissible to marry someone of the same race.

Just because God made two different genders doesn't mean one gender has to be with the other one.

The only reason to force the idea that one gender must always be with the opposite one is if you want to force people to reproduce. And forcing people to reproduce is not necessary, as 90 percent of the population is heterosexual, and probably 95 percent of those will reproduce.

Homosexuality is only a small part of who they are.

Sure--and being female is only a small part of who I am. I am also a teacher, a cat lover, a yoga aficionado, a writer. But if you say you hate all things female but don't hate females, I'm still going to take it personally.

 

I have not given my opinion.

okay, i'll give you one point in this "me Vs you" match

Damien 1
Katana 3

why? you have not come stright out and say that homosexuality is good or bad, yet you have presented a series of evidence that support your case that your opinion is that homosexuality is sinful.

no doubt about it, you have given an opinion. haven't you ever done an essay?

Just because God made two different genders doesn't mean one gender has to be with the other one.

i beleive that there are two different genders because there are tow different points of view on life. The Horned God and Divine Mother are within us all, but if we find a different calling of sexuality we must also apreciate the values of the opposite sex.

like a gay guy not liking women


EDIT: well i can go and have lunch now at least

 

This thread has taken a noticeable turn for the worse. I'm locking it for now. I might consider reopening it in a few days. Until then, this discussion is over.

Kimball Kinnison