Apples and Oranges as far as I'm concerned.

 

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the only difference is that one is illegal and one is not. If laws were thrown out, then I don't see a difference at all.

 

Disclaimer: I am NOT advising a law against homosexuality, this is just a comparison.

1) 100% homosexuality would not be beneficial to society. Partial homosexuality IS beneficial to society. Less population pressure is good. More disposable income is good. Why do some people pretend that gay men and women want everyone to be like them?

 

I don't think that less population pressure is good argument either. Are you saying that the bigger our population gets, the more gay people, the better?

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

 

Certainly more evidence than the genetic claim, but there is no definitive argument either way. One example is the multiple cases of, through psychotherapy, homosexuals have became heterosexuals. I guess theoretically the opposite could be done, but that just goes more to proving that it is a choice (or at least NOT a genetic attribute).

 

If you go back to post 17, the argument is like global warming, the media and Gay Rights' activists have tried to make it seem like the debate is over, science has proved the genetic claim, but that of course is far from the truth.

1) 100% homosexuality would not be beneficial to society.

Agreed. :thumb:

Partial homosexuality IS beneficial to society.

I won’t get into the issues of HIV/AIDS and other STDs and the added pressures this has put on our health and insurance systems. You can argue that what people do in the privacy of their own homes is no one else’s business, but when their actions cause others to spend hundreds more a month to underwrite an insurance system that must cover everyone, I do not see this as a benefit.

Less population pressure is good. More disposable income is good.

So you’re saying that homosexuality is a desirable method of birth control? :eek:

 

This view would also attempt to justify the abortion of 40 million healthy babies. Problem is, many of these American citizens (aborted since 1973) would have been productive taxpaying members of society by now. ( I thought you liked taxpayers? :lol: ) More productive taxpayers means less demands on each individual taxpayer.

 

Reduced tax demands = more disposable income.

 

There would be a larger cushion of taxpayers supporting the social security demands of the Baby Boomers, etc. Unfortunately, we can’t go back and unabort babies we’ve already killed.

 

This point also argues against the importation of 20 million illegal aliens. I mean, if were after a reduced population with fewer demands on our tax/social systems along with more disposable income, why are we giving a wink and a nod to 20 million folks here using up our resources illegally, and not paying taxes into our support system?

 

If disposable income is beneficial to our society, nothing does this more effectively than reducing individual income taxes. The best way to achieve this is to cut the fat and waste out of our government. ( I would start with Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd… :lol: )

 

You opened with the statement that “100% homosexuality would not be beneficial to society.” Apart from your questionable contentions for reducing our population and having more disposable income, you cannot logically contend that 100% monogamous heterosexuality is anything but beneficial to society. Heterosexuality is how society has been built for millennia. It works.

 

If 100% of one thing is good and 100% of another thing is not good, how can you logically contend it is better to dilute 100% good with any percentage of not good?

 

And yet, you call me illogical…

 

2) Your comparison to unfaithful men is the same twisted, illogical pairing that we get when we're asked if we want children placed with people like gay couples and child molesters. Men that cheat on their spouse HURT their spouse knowingly, intentionally for their own pleasure and amusement. It's wrong, and it's a bad argument.

The similarity lies in allowing our physical lusts to control our decisions. Whether genetic or conditioned, what is homosexuality but a choice to place personal pleasure and gratification ahead of other, more beneficial ambitions?

 

Whether homosexuality or heterosexual infidelity, it is counterproductive to building society, families, healthy children, etc. You're grasping at straws.

If you go back to post 17, the argument is like global warming, the media and Gay Rights' activists have tried to make it seem like the debate is over, science has proved the genetic claim, but that of course is far from the truth.

Eureka!

 

You've just stumbled upon an explanation that removes all need for personal accountability... :thumb:

 

Global warming is responsible for heating human passions to the boiling point.

 

Global warming is responsible for homosexuality. Therefore, it is no individual's "fault" or "responsibility." Let's all just get it on... YEEHAW!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry... but it felt good to let that out... :sssh:

The similarity lies in allowing our physical lusts to control our decisions. Whether genetic or conditioned, what is homosexuality but a choice to place personal pleasure and gratification ahead of other, more beneficial ambitions?

 

Whether homosexuality or heterosexual infidelity, it is counterproductive to building society, families, healthy children, etc. You're grasping at straws.

 

So in your argument you would place a heterosexual person, like me for instance, who has no intention of ever having a kid, on equal footing with a homosexual?

So in your argument you would place a heterosexual person, like me for instance, who has no intention of ever having a kid, on equal footing with a homosexual?

 

Many young men your age have had equal ideas and yet had those ideas change later in life, either by their planning or God's.

Many young men your age have had equal ideas and yet had those ideas change later in life, either by their planning or God's.

Or by lack of planning. :sssh:

So in your argument you would place a heterosexual person, like me for instance, who has no intention of ever having a kid, on equal footing with a homosexual?

Where you "choose" to place your feet is your own business my friend. I would however hope that you choose to invest your passions in a committed monogamous marriage.

 

Call me old fashioned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just be careful with your footing in certain airport men's rooms. :eek:

Where you "choose" to place your feet is your own business my friend. I would however hope that you choose to invest your passions in a committed monogamous marriage.

 

According to your argument my "choice" is equal to that of a homosexual's "choice" to be homosexual. Am I wrong?

According to your argument my "choice" is equal to that of a homosexual's "choice" to be homosexual. Am I wrong?

 

Your choice is the same in reproductive sense, isn't it? Of course, in my opinion and I believe in his opinion as well, it's different morally.

According to your argument my "choice" is equal to that of a homosexual's "choice" to be homosexual. Am I wrong?

I’ve yet to bring “religion” into this discussion, but I guess it’s time. This is where I (personally) have to draw the line.

 

Everyone wants to point out Sodom and Gomorrah happened way back in the “Old” Testament… and many contend it's just a bigoted storybook, so it should be discounted.

 

The Apostle Paul however went on a pretty extensive teaching in his Letter to the Romans, an excerpt of which I include here. I sincerely hope you will read and consider it:

 

Romans 1:20-32 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

He was talking to people caught in a perverse and corrupted culture at the height of Roman decadence. Crazy thing is, it doesn’t sound too different from our own culture today.

 

While it is my opinion that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, bestiality and every other sexual deviation is wrong ( read “sinful” ) I’m not the guy who originally said these things are “degrading” “impure” “immoral” and “sinful” I just happen to agree, and chose to not pursue them for that reason. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want.

 

Here's another interesting teaching from Paul:

 

1 Corinthians 5:1-6 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

 

Again, some tough words from Paul about how to deal with sexual immorality. "Ooohhh, but isn't Paul being judgmental?" Yes, and apparently with good reason.

 

We can pretend that we are more enlightened, more sophisticated, more cultured than folks were two millennia ago, but what I read tells me that the condition of the human heart, and the stubbornness of the human mind hasn’t changed much at all.

 

We still need a Savior. :thumb:

Civilization and society does change FB. But you are right, human heart doesn't.

I’ve yet to bring “religion” into this discussion, but I guess it’s time. This is where I (personally) have to draw the line.

 

That’s really what I was driving at.

 

Everyone wants to point out Sodom and Gomorrah happened way back in the “Old” Testament… and many contend it's just a bigoted storybook, so it should be discounted.

 

The Apostle Paul however went on a pretty extensive teaching in his Letter to the Romans, an excerpt of which I include here. I sincerely hope you will read and consider it: Romans 1:20-32

 

I personally feel it falls under the Old Laws. I simply don’t find it applicable to the New Law.

 

He was talking to people caught in a perverse and corrupted culture at the height of Roman decadence. Crazy thing is, it doesn’t sound too different from our own culture today.

 

With the important distinction being Jesus.

 

While it is my opinion that homosexuality, fornication, adultery, bestiality and every other sexual deviation is wrong ( read “sinful” ) I’m not the guy who originally said these things are “degrading” “impure” “immoral” and “sinful” I just happen to agree, and chose to not pursue them for that reason. You, of course, are free to believe whatever you want.

 

Of course. I also happen to believe this "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

 

 

Here's another interesting teaching from Paul:

 

1 Corinthians 5:1-6

 

Again, some tough words from Paul about how to deal with sexual immorality. "Ooohhh, but isn't Paul being judgmental?" Yes, and apparently with good reason.

 

Paul is also mortal. Jesus had a different stance "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

I don’t have any sort of Biblical education outside of my own readings, so I can’t speak to the exact translation or the semantics of the original text, but it seems entirely possible Paul is speaking to those Christians in Corinth who look to him for guidance. His “judgment” may very well be his advice on the matter as their mortal guide.

 

We still need a Savior.

 

I’ve been saying that for hours.

 

Paul is also mortal. Jesus had a different stance "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

 

.

 

I don't see this saying REMOVE ALL PLANKS but that specific plank. So, if I have sexual impure actions in my life, I shouldn't be calling out others about that. But if I have removed those from my life, THEN Jesus indicates that a person is qualified to help remove the speck from their brother's eye.

 

He does not indicate that you can NEVER do that. Only after you have dealt with THAT sin in your life.