Do you and your friend hold that EVERY SINGLE person who has acted on a homosexual urge did so NOT out of choice?

 

Huh? Where do you get that? We hold that you cant choose the urge. I did not choose to be attracted to women - yet, I make a conscience "choice" which women to act those urges on. (I don't know how to say that without sounding juvenile - please know that isnt intended to be dirty.)

 

I quote your friend....

 

Then ask them if the situation were reversed, could they make the "choice" to go against their very being and "act" gay, if that's what society expected of them.

 

It seems that they are saying that no one would ever go against "natural choice" to act on an urge.

 

No that's not it at all. Many people attempt to go against their urges. As Tom pointed out, his brother tried "to fight who he was" and not act on those urges.

 

The issue is - why should we expect them not to act on their urges? They were born the way they were. They had no choice in how that happened. I am sure than many homosexuals would not "choose" to be - if they could help it...but why should they not be allowed to have the same basic rights that hetersexuals have.

 

I know the problem is that its hard to fathom that a God could allow a human to be born gay - then call acting on those urges a sin (an abomination even)...but there are more glaring holes in the bible's plot than that.

 

 

Regarding the problem of acting against their natural urges, do they feel that those with anger issues should not be told they need to curb their anger but it is OKAY for them going through life, yelling and being mad at people. That is their natural urge and to paraphrase your friend....

 

In short, your friend is apparently acknowledging that gay people (with anger issues) feel the way they do naturally, but he/she wants them to go against their natural drives to appease a God that your friend believes has sanctions against homosexuality (anger too).[/i]

 

 

You are kidding me. Comparing anger problems to homosexuality? I'm not going to waste the time.

This thread gets the record for most LONG posts.

 

 

 

 

You are kidding me. Comparing anger problems to homosexuality? I'm not going to waste the time.

I am comparing what people claim is their natural urges with what they claim is their natural urges. Are you saying you would support one person's claim of natural urges while denying another's right to act on their natural urges?

Tom, I know where your oming from I have a gay Uncle and A Gay Cousin...

 

I know that this thread has moved way away from Church and State and Is now a Homosexual, Anger, and Is there or Isn't there a God Thread..

 

My Uncle is 30 Years old not to much older than myself.. And As far back as I can remember he has been Wired Backwards... He was even " funny" if you wanna call it that even when we were kids. He would play with dolls and talk with a feminine voice, so you guys are saying that he made this decision at what age????? You Christian People that are condeming the gays and saying that this is a choice Do you have any gays family members???????? This has really gotten on my nerves YOU have no idea whether its a choice or not... I have been in the church for the last 4 or 5 but been going muh longer....

 

My gay Cousin has been the same way he has alot of friends that are gurls and he likes to do girl things, he tried to go out with girls but he likes guys better..

 

These gay urges were there natural urges..... Some People are differnet you have to live with it and QUIT JUDGING PEOPLE... Your all guilty of it and I've sit back and watched...'

 

Some People may choice to be GAY by choice but most are born that way... I have first hand knowledge and If you don't then how do you know ITS YOU GUESS AND OPINION... NOT FACTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you don't agree with TFRF thats fine but you are just guessing.. He may be wrong, I along with Tom may be wrong, but you guys that question everything you MAY BE WRONG AS WELL..

 

As for God... TFRF has his issues... WE HAVE ALL QUESTIONED GOD OR WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUCH A THING... No One knows for sure... The Bible WAS written by MAN...

 

Faith is hoping and believing in something that you cannot see,touch, or feel...

If doesn't matter if we know if there is or is not a GOD we will all find out after were dead... Somebody has to be right...

 

But lets get back on Track....

 

Gays should have the same rights as everyone else. There needs to be seperation of church and state. Lets not let 1 or 2 Religions that think they know it all to run the country in their religious views. The counrty was set up so everyone could have their own ewligious practices and not 1 or 2 that tell us what religion we are going to use in the federal government...

 

So get your heads out of the darkness. It is ok to debate but keep it on the topic

I am comparing what people claim is their natural urges with what they claim is their natural urges.

 

:creepy:Woah. That shouldn't be too hard...being as though "what people claim is their natural urges" and "what they claim is their natural urges" is the same thing.

 

I hope you are not attempting to say that people with anger problems are not acting on natural urges?

 

 

 

Are you saying you would support one person's claim of natural urges while denying another's right to act on their natural urges?

 

 

Sheesh.

 

No, LBBC, we both know that's not what I am saying. Anger can be a problem. It can keep people from functioning appropriately in certain settings. I don't see any comparison between it and homosexuality outside of maybe those who are having a tough time struggling with rather or not to "come out."

Seriously....back to the topic of separation of church and state....

 

The problem you have, FrontRow, is that the issue you speak of, (like LBBC's major issue -abortion), is a moral issue, and can't be "attacked" in a legislative process. If abortions were outlawed today, abortions would still occur. You are arguing the issue of civil unions/same sex marriage, but you can't legislate whether a person is born genetically homosexual, or whether they choose that. I am opposed to legislation banning the equal rights of domestic partners to legal rights, ie access to healthcare coverage for instance. However, the disticntion between a secularly legal union and marriage is a secular vs. religious issue. IMO, marriage is a religiously sanctified union of two people. A civil union is like a legal contract between two people.

Seriously....back to the topic of separation of church and state....

 

The problem you have, FrontRow, is that the issue you speak of, (like LBBC's major issue -abortion), is a moral issue, and can't be "attacked" in a legislative process. If abortions were outlawed today, abortions would still occur. You are arguing the issue of civil unions/same sex marriage, but you can't legislate whether a person is born genetically homosexual, or whether they choose that. I am opposed to legislation banning the equal rights of domestic partners to legal rights, ie access to healthcare coverage for instance. However, the disticntion between a secularly legal union and marriage is a secular vs. religious issue. IMO, marriage is a religiously sanctified union of two people. A civil union is like a legal contract between two people.

 

If "marriage" is a religious union....what about all those people who were married at court houses or, because of religious beliefs, married by someone other than an ordained minister?

 

Because they chose to not be married by and in a religious setting - is their marriage simply a civil union?

If "marriage" is a religious union....what about all those people who were married at court houses or, because of religious beliefs, married by someone other than an ordained minister?

 

Because they chose to not be married by and in a religious setting - is their marriage simply a civil union?

 

 

As much as you will hate my answer, yes.

Seriously....back to the topic of separation of church and state....

 

The problem you have, FrontRow, is that the issue you speak of, (like LBBC's major issue -abortion), is a moral issue, and can't be "attacked" in a legislative process. If abortions were outlawed today, abortions would still occur. You are arguing the issue of civil unions/same sex marriage, but you can't legislate whether a person is born genetically homosexual, or whether they choose that. I am opposed to legislation banning the equal rights of domestic partners to legal rights, ie access to healthcare coverage for instance. However, the disticntion between a secularly legal union and marriage is a secular vs. religious issue. IMO, marriage is a religiously sanctified union of two people. A civil union is like a legal contract between two people.

 

Abortions have been and will be attacked by legislative process. Partial birth abortions are an example of it.

 

I don't see the point of the last bolded sentence.

 

And just for the record, I hardly ever bring Scripture or the Christian viewpoint into my debates on abortion. I don't think you have to be a Christian, although it surely should help, to be horrified by a society agreeing to kill unborn babies.

Abortions have been and will be attacked by legislative process. Partial birth abortions are an example of it.

 

I don't see the point of the last bolded sentence.

 

And just for the record, I hardly ever bring Scripture or the Christian viewpoint into my debates on abortion. I don't think you have to be a Christian, although it surely should help, to be horrified by a society agreeing to kill unborn babies.

 

 

I didn't mean to offend you. I thought (from past conversations), you and I agree that outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. To the degree that it can be made illegal during different stages, that can be legislated, but still abortions will occur.

I didn't mean to offend you. I thought (from past conversations), you and I agree that outlawing abortion will not stop abortion. To the degree that it can be made illegal during different stages, that can be legislated, but still abortions will occur.

 

We had, newer readers wouldn't know that and wanted to clarify it.:thumb:

 

There will always be people that will want to step outside the law for their seflish desires. Drugs are illegal but we still have people doing drugs. Drunk driving is illegal but still we have stupid people who drink and get behind the wheel. No way that making abortions illegal stops all abortions.

 

But that is no reason to not make abortions illegal either. They should be illegal because it is the right thing to do.

 

Presently, while working on making them illegal, pro choice proponents MUST be pushing to reform the system that makes abortions an easy NO CHOICE for their mothers. Support and adoption systems in place. Churches need to step up and help provide for unwed mothers in a non-judgemental way in their communities. So, when pro-choice proponents say what are we going to do with the poor mothers if you make abortions illegal, the system is already in place and working great to address that.

You see - that is a complete cop out. The fact is that Christianity IS Humans. The "faith" in Jesus Christ is a human emotion; a human feeling. Faith may have not let you down (and I highly doubt that is 100% honest) but it has let down a lot of other people. "I have faith that Christ will cure me of my cancer." "I have faith that Christ will lead me to a good career." "I have faith that Christ will be coming back soon. (Said any number of times over the last 2 Millinium)"

 

"Faith" is nothing more than wishful thinking and a 24/7, 365 excuse to be able to side step the question of "Where's the proof?" Faith is not an argument, it's an excuse.

 

Not a cop out. Christianity is worship of Christ. faith is knowing that you know that you know for sure. If you want proof, get in a church full of the Spirit of God and witness healings, financial miracles, marriages and families put back together and you will know that you know.

I find a distinct difference between "morals" and "religious doctrine". I think morals have a lot more to do with a societal belief in what is good and wrong. We all know that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, and cheat. Homosexuality is an issue completely left up to religious doctrine. While we may not agree or understand it, how does it hurt us to allow to experience the same freedoms we do?

 

Basing politics on morals is acceptable if there is some logical reason to it other than "The Bible said so"

 

How do you know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie and cheat?

 

I learned about those things when someone read a 3500-4000 year old text to me, and if I'm wrong you can correct me but I think our laws in this country were based on the same manuscripts.

How do you know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie and cheat?

 

I learned about those things when someone read a 3500-4000 year old text to me, and if I'm wrong you can correct me but I think our laws in this country were based on the same manuscripts.

 

You can be totally devoid of religious convictions to realize those things. It's simply a case of rights. You have the right to own what you own, to live your life. Someone stealing from you or killing you is denying you those rights. One of my best friends is a complete atheist and is one of the most moral people I know simply b/c he believes everyone should treat others the way he would want to be treated. The Golden Rule is more common sense than sacred creed.

How do you know it is wrong to kill, steal, lie and cheat?

 

I learned about those things when someone read a 3500-4000 year old text to me, and if I'm wrong you can correct me but I think our laws in this country were based on the same manuscripts.

 

Its as if you think the issues of killing, stealing, lying, and cheating were originated in the Bible. This is simply not true. These things were considered wrong many generations prior to the Bible.