December 17, 201114 yr I'm anxiously awaiting Bama Larry or mtnref to give me a response to these.Bama Larry won't but something he has will. Law of Moses is done away with. This means the Old testament not under our authority, we have the new testament which Jesus has given to us. Its a history lesson. The OT is.
December 17, 201114 yr How do we know what Jesus said? He never wrote a single word of Scripture.2nd Timothy 3:16:17:18.
December 17, 201114 yr The one thing God gave each of us is Free Will. So I am a believer that you Choose to be gay. I can't think of reason why the maker of all would make someone gay. Then allow the Bible to state that being gay is a sin. Good news is God loves all sinners. No sin is greater. Just like I will answer for the sins I committ daily those who choose to be gay will too.
December 17, 201114 yr Author The one thing God gave each of us is Free Will. So I am a believer that you Choose to be gay. I can't think of reason why the maker of all would make someone gay. Then allow the Bible to state that being gay is a sin. Good news is God loves all sinners. No sin is greater. Just like I will answer for the sins I committ daily those who choose to be gay will too. You base those beliefs on what? Do I have free will to be 6 feet tall, or to have naturally brown hair. Do I have free will to be born in America? Do I have free will to be born into a muslim home, or a judaic home, or a christian home? Do I have free will to not have physiological anger issues when I am born to crack addict?
December 17, 201114 yr You base those beliefs on what? Do I have free will to be 6 feet tall, or to have naturally brown hair. Do I have free will to be born in America? Do I have free will to be born into a muslim home, or a judaic home, or a christian home? Do I have free will to not have physiological anger issues when I am born to crack addict? Hyperbole. There are genetics for the former items. You also know there is no proof of a "gay" gene.
December 17, 201114 yr Author Hyperbole. There are genetics for the former items. You also know there is no proof of a "gay" gene. Which part is hyperbole? Free will cannot be used to suggest that a human can "choose" to do anything they want. If that were the case I would currently be in the NBA or maybe president of the United States. However, there are certainly genetic, physiological, and even environmental factors that contribute to my situation, my abilities, and even my "choices".
December 17, 201114 yr Which part is hyperbole? Free will cannot be used to suggest that a human can "choose" to do anything they want. If that were the case I would currently be in the NBA or maybe president of the United States. However, there are certainly genetic, physiological, and even environmental factors that contribute to my situation, my abilities, and even my "choices". You are correct, but you are mixing liquids and solids. Free Will cannot be used to avoid brown hair, but it can be used to elect a gay lifestyle. Your post implied strongly that being gay was like having brown hair, and they are not. While there are certainly environmental factors that might influence one's choice to be gay, and possibly even some physiological factors, there is no evidence of genetic or gentically-induced physiological factors, no matter what Hamer's debunked reports said or whether Newsweek put "Gay Gene" on their cover in 1993.
December 17, 201114 yr Author You are correct, but you are mixing liquids and solids. Free Will cannot be used to avoid brown hair, but it can be used to elect a gay lifestyle. Your post implied strongly that being gay was like having brown hair, and they are not. While there are certainly environmental factors that might influence one's choice to be gay, and possibly even some physiological factors, there is no evidence of genetic or gentically-induced physiological factors, no matter what Hamer's debunked reports said or whether Newsweek put "Gay Gene" on their cover in 1993. You know, but there is not proof that there is not one. I know, nice grammatical exegesis there. There is also no proof that there is a gene that makes me attracted to brunettes or athletically fit women with some curves. And yet, I am sure that I cannot choose not to be. I can find other women attractive but my gestalt attraction is to the above mentioned. There is not a "love" gene at all and yet I love. More importantly, is there a hetero gene, if not then . . .
December 17, 201114 yr You know, but there is not proof that there is not one. I know, nice grammatical exegesis there. There is also no proof that there is a gene that makes me attracted to brunettes or athletically fit women with some curves. And yet, I am sure that I cannot choose not to be. I can find other women attractive but my gestalt attraction is to the above mentioned. There is not a "love" gene at all and yet I love. More importantly, is there a hetero gene, if not then . . . The death spiral of an argument is always, "well, you can't prove there is not one, either." These sort of threads are always somewhat discouraging, because at the core they devolve into semantics over belief systems. Scripture tells us in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is an "abomination." Its very strong language, there is no mincing of words. FormerKY posted his Martin Sheen speech with excerpts from Leviticus, and of course, it has been aptly pointed out that Christ is the New Covenant, and adherence to the old law (such as shaving beards, et, al.) has fallen away. However, the abomination of homosexuality has not fallen away. If you believe in Scripture, then homosexuality is sin. Its forgiveable sin, just like murder, or adultery, or coveting thy neighbor's BMW. But it is still sin. I do find some contradiction in fellows such as myself who on one hand defend the Constitution framed in the context the way the Founding Fathers intended, and on the other hand contend that the Bible is a "living, breathing, document" subject to contextual change over time, which is language I expect to hear from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. For those who do NOT believe in Scripture, or believe that Scripture should be contextualized to fit our present time, the register may simply be "No Sale." And, of course, that is fine. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince the unconvinceable. But I have never, ever once, gotten a straight answer (no pun intended) from those individuals who do not hold Scripture as their moral basis (or any other faith, for that matter, homosexuality is not accepted practice in any standard faith I am aware of) as to where the bar is set. For example, if homosexuality is non-sinful, moral behavior, then why not bestiality? Sex with children? Marriage with animals or children? Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items? Where does your standard derive from?
December 17, 201114 yr More importantly, is there a hetero gene, if not then . . . Interesting...I've never thought about that question before.
December 17, 201114 yr Even if you do not accept Scripture, you must concede that I have at minimum a very long-standing and culturally accepted standard for rejecting those items? Where does your standard derive from? Perhaps I misunderstand, but why does a standard have to "come from" anywhere? I would assert that many people feel that sex should be between consenting adults, because both parties can make a conscious choice to be in the relationship.
December 17, 201114 yr A tangent. If being gay is indeed genetic then doesn't it follow that eventually the "gay gene" could be found? When that happens and the genetic marker for "gayness" can be found during pregnancy (like Down's Syndrome now), what happens if that becomes a reason for aborting "genetically gay" children? I've got a really strong feeling that in that case some of the most staunchly pro-choice people will start advocating at least 1 restriction.
December 17, 201114 yr A tangent. If being gay is indeed genetic then doesn't it follow that eventually the "gay gene" could be found? When that happens and the genetic marker for "gayness" can be found during pregnancy (like Down's Syndrome now), what happens if that becomes a reason for aborting "genetically gay" children? I've got a really strong feeling that in that case some of the most staunchly pro-choice people will start advocating at least 1 restriction. Aargh. C'mon, dude, its Christmas.:popcorn:
December 17, 201114 yr One of my favorite radio talk show hosts made the supposition that if a genetic marker for homosexuality could ever be mapped then the liberals of this country would become pro life.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.