ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[david_x]

I will ask you for evidence for these claims even though I know you will not actually respond

Sorry I take for granted that I am above average in my knowledge of such subjects. My references of cource are in my text books.

Here is what it has on homosexuality. By doing somthing to fruit flies their eyes change colors and they exhibit homosexual behaviors.
~as far as I am concerned animals do not make somthing right otherwise we could eat our children, kill our spouses, kill for fun, and exhibit qualities like selfishness and never show love.

Again…you might want to learn a little something about genetics before making laughable statements like this

And you have a college degree in genetics?

 

[david_x]

Again…you might want to learn a little something about genetics before making laughable statements like this

So what if homosexuality is recessive, how does it appear in orientals and europeans? How come two different populations didn't develope the same mutation? Sicle cell anemia, like she said, it is almost completly exclusive to africans.

You are trying to prove that the gene is multiallelic, recessive, and has incomplete penatrance.

Um... not if its a recessive semi-coding gene... like sickle cell anaemia...

get the sickle cell gene from both parents, and you die... but get it from only one parent, and you have immunity to malaria. The evuidence suggests that genes relating to homosexuality are similar.

A few generations of breeding outside a specific group would eliminate these genes.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So what if homosexuality is recessive, how does it appear in orientals and europeans? How come two different populations didn't develope the same mutation? Sicle cell anemia, like she said, it is almost completly exclusive to africans.

Um... the O blood type occurs in Asians and europeans... all it means is that the mutation that causes the recessive gene predates that particular population split

A few generations of breeding outside a specific group would eliminate these genes.

Nonsense. Not if the gene n question provides some sort of benefit to carriers, and the research suggests, homosexuality preference in a female carrier leads to a fertility increase.

If you are seriously suggesting that a few generations of breeding will eliminate ANY recessive... there should be NO recessive genes at all, should there?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Sorry I take for granted that I am above average in my knowledge of such subjects. My references of cource are in my text books.

Here is what it has on homosexuality. By doing somthing to fruit flies their eyes change colors and they exhibit homosexual behaviors.
~as far as I am concerned animals do not make somthing right otherwise we could eat our children, kill our spouses, kill for fun, and exhibit qualities like selfishness and never show love.

And…no actual response.
gee...what a suprise

And you have a college degree in genetics?

Actually my sister in law does. She said that she would laugh at your statements about genetics if she didn't feel they were reflective of the disastrous state of education in our country.

 

[BigBadWlf]

So what if homosexuality is recessive, how does it appear in orientals and europeans? How come two different populations didn't develope the same mutation? Sicle cell anemia, like she said, it is almost completly exclusive to africans.

You are trying to prove that the gene is multiallelic, recessive, and has incomplete penatrance.



A few generations of breeding outside a specific group would eliminate these genes.

Type O blood is recessive.
Yet type O blood is found worldwide. Hmmmm




Again…you may want to actually learn something about genetics before making posts like this

You can start by learning the difference between a mutation and a recessive gene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_mutation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive_gene

 

[david_x]

Nonsense. Not if the gene n question provides some sort of benefit to carriers, and the research suggests, homosexuality preference in a female carrier leads to a fertility increase.

If you are seriously suggesting that a few generations of breeding will eliminate ANY recessive... there should be NO recessive genes at all, should there?

How can the gene be passed on if it makes people gay?

Theoretically all reccessive genes would be able to be completly removed if people did not reproduce in their community. Human nature is to go after the rare which is why people are more drawn to blue eyes, blonde hair and other reccessive traits.

Lets say a person with a widows peak, genotype ss, would marry someone outside the community (decreasing the liklyhood of that person having the same reccessive trait or straight brow line, genotype SS.) The children would all be genotype Ss. If those kids marry outside their community as well (to another SS genotype) their children would be SS or Ss, fifty-fifty chance. With each generation the chances of being Ss decrease exponentially, 50% 25% and so on. Theoretically this would mean that the trait would entirly dissapear or be so dispursed that it would never show again.

There is more than one way to get an "o" blood type. Therefore multiple mutations. Plus we have always had blood types. Animals with a homosexual trait would not pass it on for very long, as it would eventually dispearse.

Nonsense. Not if the gene n question provides some sort of benefit to carriers, and the research suggests, homosexuality preference in a female carrier leads to a fertility increase.

There is no point in being able to have more kids if the guys will never reproduce. What would cause it in women then?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How can the gene be passed on if it makes people gay?

The same way any other recessive gene that limits breeding is passed on...

It doesn't effect the breeding ability of CARRIERS!

Anyone with a basic grasp of genetics should understand this.

Again, sickle cell anaemia... if you have recessives from BOTH parents, you get sickle cell and die, if you only have it from ONE parent, you get immunity to malaria...

homosexuality (theoretically) get the genetic predisposition from BOTH parents, you are homosexual and unlikely to breed, only get it from ONE parent, and it INCREASES your fertility rate...

Theoretically all reccessive genes would be able to be completly removed if people did not reproduce in their community. Human nature is to go after the rare which is why people are more drawn to blue eyes, blonde hair and other reccessive traits.

Do you have even the faintest shred of support for this ridiculous statement?

. Plus we have always had blood types.

Just like we have ALWAYS had homosexuals...

Animals with a homosexual trait would not pass it on for very long, as it would eventually dispearse.

Care to explain why we observe homosexuality in all higher order mammals then?

There is no point in being able to have more kids if the guys will never reproduce. What would cause it in women then?

*repeatedly slaps head in frustration* The carrier whio experiences the increase in fertility is a HETEROSEXUAL FEMALE... if the RECESSIVE GENE IS REINFORCED, that is, a twin recessive male offspring is produced, the gene will express itself as homosexual behaviour...

but in FEMALES with just ONE recessive allele of the homosexual gene, it expresses as increased fertility...

If you know the slightest thing about genetics, it should take you about 10 seconds with a punnet square diagram to see how this works.

 

[BigBadWlf]

How can the gene be passed on if it makes people gay?

Theoretically all reccessive genes would be able to be completly removed if people did not reproduce in their community. Human nature is to go after the rare which is why people are more drawn to blue eyes, blonde hair and other reccessive traits.

Lets say a person with a widows peak, genotype ss, would marry someone outside the community (decreasing the liklyhood of that person having the same reccessive trait or straight brow line, genotype SS.) The children would all be genotype Ss. If those kids marry outside their community as well (to another SS genotype) their children would be SS or Ss, fifty-fifty chance. With each generation the chances of being Ss decrease exponentially, 50% 25% and so on. Theoretically this would mean that the trait would entirly dissapear or be so dispursed that it would never show again.

There is more than one way to get an "o" blood type. Therefore multiple mutations. Plus we have always had blood types. Animals with a homosexual trait would not pass it on for very long, as it would eventually dispearse.



There is no point in being able to have more kids if the guys will never reproduce. What would cause it in women then?

Type I diabetes is known to have a genetic origin, if memory serves the specific gene is located on chromzone 6 . Until about 60 years ago type I diabetes was untreatable and since the onset was pre-puberty and universally fatal there was no way for type I diabetics to pass on the gene causing type I diabetes. By your logic there should be no type I diabetes at all because the genes could not be passed on.

Hemophilia is another example. It is known to be genetic, it was, until very modern times untreatable and fatal at very young ages…therefore according to your logic hemophilia should not exist today because those who had it could not and did not pass n the gene.

Of course anyone with a basic understanding of genetics understands why such thigns as diabetes and hemophilia exist and your logic doesn't work at all

Again try educating yourself on the topic

 

[david_x]

Just like we have ALWAYS had homosexuals...

Do you have even the faintest shred of support for this ridiculous statement?

*repeatedly slaps head in frustration* The carrier whio experiences the increase in fertility is a HETEROSEXUAL FEMALE... if the RECESSIVE GENE IS REINFORCED, that is, a twin recessive male offspring is produced, the gene will express itself as homosexual behaviour...

but in FEMALES with just ONE recessive allele of the homosexual gene, it expresses as increased fertility...

If you know the slightest thing about genetics, it should take you about 10 seconds with a punnet square diagram to see how this works.

One punnett square maybe but in the long run...

what you proposed Ss (male) crossed with Ss(female) produces 25% homozygous dominent and 50% heterozygous and 25% homozygous reccessive. Now 25% of the guys do not reproduce.
None of the guys would be gay if the mother married a homozygous dominent man.

Care to explain why we observe homosexuality in all higher order mammals then?

We see selfishness in every known animal, does that mean you can't overcome it?
Research points to homosexuality being like alcoholism or lung cancer, controled by environment and genes. Anyway it is not as easy as a punnett square or even simple multialealic trait.

 

[Brieuse]

Do you have even the faintest shred of support for this ridiculous statement?



One punnett square maybe but in the long run...

what you proposed Ss (male) crossed with Ss(female) produces 25% homozygous dominent and 50% heterozygous and 25% homozygous reccessive. Now 25% of the guys do not reproduce.
None of the guys would be gay if the mother married a homozygous dominent man.



We see selfishness in every known animal, does that mean you can't overcome it?
Research points to homosexuality being like alcoholism or lung cancer, controled by environment and genes. Anyway it is not as easy as a punnett square or even simple multialealic trait.

we have gone waaay off topic here.

Why is the comment that homosexuals always existed ridiculous?

 

[ArcticFox]

I'm interested to know if anyone has any reason why we should consider homosexuality immoral or improper, without reference to Leviticus of Romans...

That is to say, is there an objective, empirical reason why homosexuality should be considered immoral or "wrong" in ANY moral framework, not just the Judeo-Christian one?

You are asking us to clap for you but you are restraining our hands; we can't do that.

The standards by which we understand right and wrong are through the creator of all things. He did not create right and wrong, but he himself is all that is good and holy and pure and righteous; his mere existence necessitates that there be right and wrong. Removing God from the picture leaves a senseless world devoid of right, wrong, and ultimate meaning.

You should seek the answers to this elsewhere; you are asking a non-theological question in a theology discussion forum. We cannot give you a theological answer if you ask us to "not use theology."

I won't comment any further on the subject, but you could look into the APA's reasons for inclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Although that has been removed from the list, you could still find materials from the past of irreligious doctors who speak to the subject.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You are asking us to clap for you but you are restraining our hands; we can't do that.

The standards by which we understand right and wrong are through the creator of all things. He did not create right and wrong, but he himself is all that is good and holy and pure and righteous; his mere existence necessitates that there be right and wrong. Removing God from the picture leaves a senseless world devoid of right, wrong, and ultimate meaning.

You should seek the answers to this elsewhere; you are asking a non-theological question in a theology discussion forum. We cannot give you a theological answer if you ask us to "not use theology."

I won't comment any further on the subject, but you could look into the APA's reasons for inclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Although that has been removed from the list, you could still find materials from the past of irreligious doctors who speak to the subject.

You don't think that general revelation is an important theological tool?

I agree with you that homosexuality is a sin but that's because both the scriptural and emperical proof show it is.

 

[BAFRIEND]

You are asking us to clap for you but you are restraining our hands; we can't do that.

The standards by which we understand right and wrong are through the creator of all things. He did not create right and wrong, but he himself is all that is good and holy and pure and righteous; his mere existence necessitates that there be right and wrong. Removing God from the picture leaves a senseless world devoid of right, wrong, and ultimate meaning.

You should seek the answers to this elsewhere; you are asking a non-theological question in a theology discussion forum. We cannot give you a theological answer if you ask us to "not use theology."

I won't comment any further on the subject, but you could look into the APA's reasons for inclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Although that has been removed from the list, you could still find materials from the past of irreligious doctors who speak to the subject.

By asking one to not qoute Leviticus or Romans... that is taking one down the slippery slope of relativism. the same relativism the gays have slid into and are asking us to worship and follow.

I will read God's Word and I will follow the Word of God.

 

[BigBadWlf]

By asking one to not qoute Leviticus or Romans... that is taking one down the slippery slope of relativism. the same relativism the gays have slid into and are asking us to worship and follow.

I will read God's Word and I will follow the Word of God.

More to the point the objection is the picking and choosing among the laws of Leviticus (Which is actually an injunction against rape…hot homosexuality) …those using Leviticus to justify their own prejudice and desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians happily ignore other laws form Leviticus.

As for Romans the injunction there is against ex-gay ministries…so go ahead and quote Romans

 

[ReformedChapin]

More to the point the objection is the picking and choosing among the laws of Leviticus (Which is actually an injunction against rape…hot homosexuality) …those using Leviticus to justify their own prejudice and desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians happily ignore other laws form Leviticus.

As for Romans the injunction there is against ex-gay ministries…so go ahead and quote Romans

Leviticus is quoted to clearify Romans...please stop taking what people say out of context. I mean I know you do it with the bible but C'MON.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]More to the point the objection is the picking and choosing among the laws of Leviticus (Which is actually an injunction against rape…hot homosexuality) …those using Leviticus to justify their own prejudice and desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians happily ignore other laws form Leviticus.

As for Romans the injunction there is against ex-gay ministries…so go ahead and quote Romans[/SIZE]

This is a blatantly false response and you know it to be so, because I have directly addressed this specifically with you, as well as others.

New Testament Christians are responsible for observing all the law that has been reiterated in the N.T. The Biblical condemnation against ALL, 100%, TOTAL, EXCLUDING NOTHING, homosexual copulation is condemned in both the O.T. and the N.T.

No picking and choosing! No prejudice! No discrimination! And NO, it is not an injunction against rape!

Here quoting from the writings of the early church, from the first few centuries. No mention of rape! No mention of pagan worship!

The early church interpreted [size=+1]αρσενοκοιτης[/size]/arsenokoités variously as, “”sodomy,” “filth of sodomy,” lawless lust, “lust,” “impurity,” “works of the flesh,” “carnal,” “lawless intercourse,” “shameless,” “burning with insane love for boys,” “licentiousness,” “co-habitors with males,” “lusters after mankind”, etc.

Quoted from; Ignatius, 30-107 AD; Polycarp 65 - 155 AD; Irenaeus, 120-202 AD; Theophilus, 115 - 181 AD; Clement of Alexandria, 153 - 217 AD; Tertullian, 145-220 AD; Cyprian, 200-258 AD; and Origen, 185-254 AD.

Note the dates, of these writings, extend from ca. 50 AD through 258 AD, more than 250 years.

Epistle Of Ignatius [Disciple of John] To The Ephesians [A.D. 30-107.]

But as to the practice of magic, or the impure love of boys, or murder, it is superfluous to write to you, since such vices are forbidden to be committed even by the Gentiles. I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them.

Epistle of Polycarp [Disciple of John] to the Philippians Chapter V.-The Duties of Deacons, Youths, and Virgins. [65 - 155 AD]

In like manner, let the young men also be blameless in all things, being especially careful to preserve purity, and keeping themselves in, as with a bridle, from every kind of evil. For it is well that they should be cut off from the lusts that are in the world, since "every lust warreth against the spirit; " and "neither fornicators, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, shall inherit the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9] " nor those who do things inconsistent and unbecoming.

Irenaeus [Disciple of Polycarp]Against Heresies Book V [120-202 AD]

As, therefore, he who has gone forward to the better things, and has brought forth the fruit of the Spirit, is saved altogether because of the communion of the Spirit; so also he who has continued in the aforesaid works of the flesh, being truly reckoned as carnal, because he did not receive the Spirit of God, shall not have power to inherit the kingdom of heaven. As, again, the same apostle testifies, saying to the Corinthians, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err," he says: "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor revilers, nor rapacious persons, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And these ye indeed have been; but ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified, but ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9]. He shows in the clearest manner through what things it is that man goes to destruction, if he has continued to live after the flesh; and then, on the other hand, [he points out] through what things he is saved.

Since, therefore, in that passage [1 Cor 6:9] he [Paul] recounts those works of the flesh which are without the Spirit, which bring death [upon their doers], he exclaimed at the end of his Epistle, in accordance with what he had already declared, "And as we have borne the image of him who is of the earth, we shall also bear the image of Him who is from heaven.

Theophilus to Autolycus Book III [115 - 181 AD]
Chapter VI.-Other Opinions of the Philosophers.

And these things the other laws of the Romans and Greeks also prohibit. Why, then, do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy, with which doctrines they have filled libraries, so that from boyhood this lawless intercourse is learned? And why should I further spend time on them, since even of those they call gods they relate similar things?

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor. [Paedagogus.] Book III [153 - 217 AD]

Such images of divine wisdom are many; but I shall mention one instance, and expound it in a few words. The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast His eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to His own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned, pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men.

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation To The Heathen

And what are the laws? “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” And the complements of these are those laws of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men’s hearts: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;” “thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery.”

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women. Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; [i.e. every possible body orifice is used for “lechery.”] and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness!

Clement of Alexandria The Instructor - Pedagogos Book 3
Chapter 3
Against Men Who Embellish Themselves

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.


Tertullian On Modesty [145-220 AD]
Chapter XVI.-General Consistency of the Apostle.

Just as, again, among all other crimes-nay, even before all others-when affirming that "adulterers, and fornicators, and effeminates, and co-habitors with males, will not attain the kingdom of God, [1 Cor 6:9]" he premised, "Do not err" -to wit, if you think they will attain it. But to them from whom "the kingdom" is taken away, of course the life which exists in the kingdom is not permitted either. Moreover, by superadding, "But such indeed ye have been; but ye have received ablution, but ye have been sanctified, in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God; " in as far as he puts on the paid side of the account such sins before baptism, in so far after baptism he determines them irremissible, if it is true, (as it is), that they are not allowed to "receive ablution" anew.

Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. Chapter VI.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one [law] prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect. of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle [Rom 1.] he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error. [Rom 1:27]

Cyprian Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews [200-258 AD]

65. That all sins are put away in baptism.

In the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor the lusters after mankind, nor thieves, nor cheaters, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers, shall obtain the kingdom of God. And these things indeed ye were: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." [1 Cor 6:9][/b].

Origen Against Celsus Book 8 [185-254 AD] [student of Clement of Alexandria]

and that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and
integrity; while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.” [Rom 1:27]​

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]More to the point the objection is the picking and choosing among the laws of Leviticus

(Which is actually an injunction against rape…hot homosexuality)

…those using Leviticus to justify their own prejudice and desire to discriminate against gays and lesbians happily ignore other laws form Leviticus.

As for Romans the injunction there is against ex-gay ministries…so go ahead and quote Romans[/SIZE]

Here is a partial list of sinful activity, including references to the 10 commandments, see numbers in (), condemned in the N.T.

Matt 15:19, by Jesus

evil thoughts
(6) murders
(7) adulteries
(OT) fornications
(8) thefts
(9) false witness
(3) blasphemies

Matt 19:18-19, by Jesus

(6) murder
(7) adultery
(8) Thou shalt not steal
(9) Thou shalt not bear false witness,
(5) Honour thy father and thy mother
(OT) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

Matt 22:37- 39, by Jesus

(1) Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
(OT) Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mark 7:21, by Jesus

evil thoughts
(7) adulteries
(OT) fornications
(6) murders,
(8) Thefts
(10) covetousness
wickedness
(OT) deceit
(OT) lasciviousness
an evil eye
(3) blasphemy
pride
foolishness:

Rom 1:29-31, by Paul

(OT) unrighteousness
(OT) fornication
(OT) wickedness
(10) covetousness
maliciousness
envy
(6) murder
debate
deceit
malignity
whisperers
Backbiters
(1) haters of God
despiteful
proud
boasters
inventors of evil things
(5) disobedient to parents
Without understanding
(OT) covenantbreakers
without natural affection
implacable
unmerciful

1 Cor 6:9-10, by Paul

(OT) fornicators [size=+1]πορνοι[/size]
(2) idolaters [size=+1]ειδωλολατραι[/size]
(7) adulterers
effeminate [size=+1]μαλακοι[/size]
abusers of themselves with mankind [size=+1]αρσενοκοιται[/size]
(8) thieves [size=+1]κλεπται[/size]
(10) covetous
drunkards
(OT) revilers
(OT) extortioners

Eph 5:3-5, by Paul

(OT) fornication
(OT) uncleanness
(10) covetousness
(OT) filthiness
foolish talking
jesting

Acts 15:20 and Acts 21:25, by Paul

(2) abstain from pollutions of idols
(OT) fornication
(OT) things strangled
(OT) blood.

Rom 2:22, by Paul

(7) Adultery
(2) Idolatry

1 Cor 5:11, by Paul

(OT) Fornicator
(10) Covetous
(2) Idolater
Railer
Drunkard
(OT) Extortioner

1 Cor 10:7-10, by Paul

(10) Idolaters
(OT) Fornication
tempt Jesus
(1) murmur (against God)

Col 3:5-9, by Paul

(2) Fornication (which is idolatry)
Uncleanness (which is idolatry)
inordinate affection (which is idolatry)
evil concupiscence (which is idolatry)
covetousness, which is idolatry
anger
wrath
malice
(3) blasphemy
filthy communication out of your mouth.
(9) Lying

1 Peter 4:3, by Peter

(OT) Lasciviousness
Lusts
excess of wine
revellings
banquetings
(10) abominable idolatries

Rev 21:8, by John

fearful,
(OT) unbelieving,
(OT) abominable
(6) murderers,
(OT) whoremongers,
(OT) sorcerers
(10) idolaters
(9) liars

Rev 22:15, by John

(OT) Dogs (sodomites)
(OT) Sorcerers
(OT) Whoremongers
(6) Murderers
(2) Idolaters
(9) liars

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Here is a partial list of sinful activity, including references to the 10 commandments, see numbers in (), condemned in the N.T.

Of what possible relevance is this list:

A. Anyway
B. PARTICULARLY in a thread that is supposed to be about NON BIBLICAL reasoning?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You are asking us to clap for you but you are restraining our hands; we can't do that.

The standards by which we understand right and wrong are through the creator of all things. He did not create right and wrong, but he himself is all that is good and holy and pure and righteous; his mere existence necessitates that there be right and wrong. Removing God from the picture leaves a senseless world devoid of right, wrong, and ultimate meaning.

Baloney.

Can you come up with a list of non-Biblical reasons why murder should be considered a bad thing? I bet you can.

Rape? Ditto.

Theft? Hiow many non-Biblical reasons to condemn it would you like?

So if there IS in fact, a logical, empirical reason to consider homosexuality "wrong", it should be as easy to explain as non-Biblical reasons why murder or theft should be condemned.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I agree with you that homosexuality is a sin but that's because both the scriptural and emperical proof show it is.

Indeed? Well, without bogging down in yet more subjective scriptural gobbledegook, please, lets see the purely empirical reasons to consider homosexuality..."sinful"?