Can anyone give me an answer?

[KCKID]

Ok then....please enlighten me as to the current destruction of "marriage". Since gays "belittle" it even though they can't get married, I want to hear what you have to say about the sad current state of affairs with it based on how heterosexuals destroyed it.

Again I have to agree with your statement. What is it now ...50% of all marriages end in separation/divorce? Marriages are being destroyed without any help from homosexuals. Furthermore, all who remarry - according to the Bible - are living in an adulterous relationship. Oh my, the sinning never ends!

Anyway, sorry to divert from the main topic.

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

ok, purely analytical here~

there is no way to procreate. Thus it becomes a fatal flaw in evolution. Fatal flaw= it should not happen and the species would die out. True arrousal only by the same sex would cause extinction of that species.

That area is not as sturdy as other sexual areas, so it tears easily and takes a long time to heal. Again, evolution discouraging this practice.

There are nerves in that area that can negatively affect the heart when stimulated. This was actually in the news, which was odd watching them word it.


That area is not clean, it is easier to spread germs and disease. It also will harbor foreign germs, rather than cleaning them out like a woman's body does. I wish I could give you links, but if you can imagine, searching up these words brings up a lot of sites I don't want to see.

Can those feelings be there? Can those emotions feel like truth? Yes, emotions can be truth to us. But we should not be guided by emotions, but by truth because emotions are so deceptive. The physical/ or evolution does not back up the emotional desire, rather it seems to make advances to be against it (ie: that area damages easy, takes a long time to heal vs a woman, can not procreate, can damage heart, can harbor infection for injury to the body).

 

[KCKID]

Analytical, yes. But a good post nonetheless.

 

[davedjy]

ok, purely analytical here~

there is no way to procreate. Thus it becomes a fatal flaw in evolution. Fatal flaw= it should not happen and the species would die out. True arrousal only by the same sex would cause extinction of that species.

That area is not as sturdy as other sexual areas, so it tears easily and takes a long time to heal. Again, evolution discouraging this practice.

There are nerves in that area that can negatively affect the heart when stimulated. This was actually in the news, which was odd watching them word it.


That area is not clean, it is easier to spread germs and disease. It also will harbor foreign germs, rather than cleaning them out like a woman's body does. I wish I could give you links, but if you can imagine, searching up these words brings up a lot of sites I don't want to see.

Can those feelings be there? Can those emotions feel like truth? Yes, emotions can be truth to us. But we should not be guided by emotions, but by truth because emotions are so deceptive. The physical/ or evolution does not back up the emotional desire, rather it seems to make advances to be against it (ie: that area damages easy, takes a long time to heal vs a woman, can not procreate, can damage heart, can harbor infection for injury to the body).

Only a minority of the population has ever been homosexual, so the whole argument that "the species would die out" doesn't work. Homosexuality is a trait found in over 450 species that are gay, lesbian, bisexual. You don't see those species in danger of dying out. It's almost like saying "if everyone wanted to be a Paramedic, the world would be in grave danger for not having anyone in the Police Force, no Nurses, lawyers", etc. As for your claim about the tears, yes it can, but with safe practice and lubrication, many do fine.

Another reason your procreation claim doesn't work is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples that have protected sex, hence there isn't any procreation going on, just sex for love and pleasure.

There are nerves in that area that can negatively affect the heart when stimulated. This was actually in the news, which was odd watching them word it.

Where is the medical evidence for this? there are plenty that have been practicing for years that don't have any heart problems. I have heard of different precautions for plenty of medical facilities, heart complications never being one of them!

 

[Criada]

ok, purely analytical here~

there is no way to procreate. Thus it becomes a fatal flaw in evolution. Fatal flaw= it should not happen and the species would die out. True arrousal only by the same sex would cause extinction of that species.

That area is not as sturdy as other sexual areas, so it tears easily and takes a long time to heal. Again, evolution discouraging this practice.

There are nerves in that area that can negatively affect the heart when stimulated. This was actually in the news, which was odd watching them word it.


That area is not clean, it is easier to spread germs and disease. It also will harbor foreign germs, rather than cleaning them out like a woman's body does. I wish I could give you links, but if you can imagine, searching up these words brings up a lot of sites I don't want to see.

Can those feelings be there? Can those emotions feel like truth? Yes, emotions can be truth to us. But we should not be guided by emotions, but by truth because emotions are so deceptive. The physical/ or evolution does not back up the emotional desire, rather it seems to make advances to be against it (ie: that area damages easy, takes a long time to heal vs a woman, can not procreate, can damage heart, can harbor infection for injury to the body).

Your first sentence aside, this post gives the impression that all homosexuals are male and engaged in one particular act...

 

[BreadAlone]

Sin does not explain away a sexual orientation to the same sex. Sin does not explain why a gay person is only attracted to the same sex (bisexuals aside).

It most certainly does. Read Romans 1..because of their sinfulness "God gave them over to their shameful lusts.."

 

[BreadAlone]

For the record (I'm not going to quote every post, so this is a "general" response)..

As to the thing about marriage, I most definately agree marriage has been demoralized and disregarded by heterosexual couples to a degree that is utterly disgusting. And they've done this, yes, without the help of homosexuality. However, adding more sexual immorality won't improve the situation.

I'm not going to respond to anything more about the Word of God that is the Bible, because it's getting too off-topic. If you really want to discuss it with me, I'm a PM away.

On a final note, I completely agree with the notion that the time of people who stand on the street corners shoving the Bible down people's thoats and condemning homosexuals would be better spent actually doing what Christ says, to be the light and salt of the world.

But rather than spreading the good news of Christ in patience, love, and humility, they beat people over the heads and turn sinful hearts off to the gospel, horribly portraying Christ and ambassadoring something that is not really Christian at all.

However, in light of this, I'm not going to "change" my views on homosexuality. It's a perverted, sinful, and immoral act, displeasing to the Most High.

But it may encourage you to know however that I will not be one of those people you may see standing on the street corners, bible in one hand, hate in the other. Rather, I aim to imitate Christ that, through my example, people may see the true nature of Christ and his church.

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

Only a minority of the population has ever been homosexual, so the whole argument that "the species would die out" doesn't work. Homosexuality is a trait found in over 450 species that are gay, lesbian, bisexual. You don't see those species in danger of dying out. It's almost like saying "if everyone wanted to be a Paramedic, the world would be in grave danger for not having anyone in the Police Force, no Nurses, lawyers", etc. As for your claim about the tears, yes it can, but with safe practice and lubrication, many do fine.

Another reason your procreation claim doesn't work is that there are plenty of heterosexual couples that have protected sex, hence there isn't any procreation going on, just sex for love and pleasure.

Where is the medical evidence for this? there are plenty that have been practicing for years that don't have any heart problems. I have heard of different precautions for plenty of medical facilities, heart complications never being one of them!

if homosexuality were evolution orientated then the race would die out (assuming there were no heterosexuals).

If you want to find the links, please search! but beware~

 

[davedjy]

It most certainly does. Read Romans 1..because of their sinfulness "God gave them over to their shameful lusts.."

I've read Romans 1, ad nauseam, that is one of the so-called "clobber passages" we talk about here. Romans 1 addresses malicious, murderous idolaters who engaged in mass sex orgies that included same sex acts. This does not address a sexual orientation or monogamous same sex relationships. Romans 1 is one of the most misquoted passages aimed against gays and lesbians, when that isn't the focus of the passage at all.

 

[davedjy]

if homosexuality were evolution orientated then the race would die out (assuming there were no heterosexuals).

If you want to find the links, please search! but beware~

The truth is, it is irrelevant, homosexuals don't represent the whole population. The point being, if all homosexuals acted on their orientation the race would not die out. What if every couple didn't want to have kids? that would be the same thing, a partnership without procreation = your same flawed logic spelled out (minus the accidental procreation).




One group does not represent the population at large, and you can't make a minority into a majority argument.

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

The truth is, it is irrelevant, homosexuals don't represent the whole population. The point being, if all homosexuals acted on their orientation the race would not die out. What if every couple didn't want to have kids? that would be the same thing, a partnership without procreation = your same flawed logic spelled out (minus the accidental procreation).




One group does not represent the population at large, and you can't make a minority into a majority argument.

I don't have flawed logic. Speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view homosexuality is something that would die out.

Strictly analitically speaking, why would evolution create homosexuality, yet the body remains the same to reject it, and the sexual result ends in the dying of that species.

You keep assuming there are heterosexuals to continue the race. If homosexuality were an evolutionary change then you can not expect that. If evolution brought around this change it would also bring about a way to procreate. If you are telling me that a homosexual man can be sexual attracted to a heterosexual woman to be able to procreate I think you are opening up a can of worms, and ultimately bring the whole theory into contradiction of itself.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

if homosexuality were evolution orientated then the race would die out (assuming there were no heterosexuals).

If you want to find the links, please search! but beware~

I've brought this argument a few times, but its usually brushed off as irrelevance. People only hear what they want to.

Good post(s) btw

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I've read Romans 1, ad nauseam, that is one of the so-called "clobber passages" we talk about here. Romans 1 addresses malicious, murderous idolaters who engaged in mass sex orgies that included same sex acts. This does not address a sexual orientation or monogamous same sex relationships. Romans 1 is one of the most misquoted passages aimed against gays and lesbians, when that isn't the focus of the passage at all.

You've read it but do you concede to the fact that you may not understand it?

 

[davedjy]

However, in light of this, I'm not going to "change" my views on homosexuality. It's a perverted, sinful, and immoral act, displeasing to the Most High.

The only thing perverted would be to have a gay or lesbian person be with the opposite sex, that would be unnatural for the individual.

 

[davedjy]

I don't have flawed logic. Speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view homosexuality is something that would die out.

Strictly analitically speaking, why would evolution create homosexuality, yet the body remains the same to reject it, and the sexual result ends in the dying of that species.

You keep assuming there are heterosexuals to continue the race. If homosexuality were an evolutionary change then you can not expect that. If evolution brought around this change it would also bring about a way to procreate. If you are telling me that a homosexual man can be sexual attracted to a heterosexual woman to be able to procreate I think you are opening up a can of worms, and ultimately bring the whole theory into contradiction of itself.

The point being, not one group represents the whole population. With your same logic, you may as well condemn couples who wish to never have children, but continue having sex. THAT too, would result in the "dying of that species".

If the "body rejects it", when done correctly it wouldn't be a pleasureful act for both parties, and it certainly is in many cases.

 

[davedjy]

You've read it but do you concede to the fact that you may not understand it?

I understand it in light of the historical context and in proper perspective. So yes, I believe I understand quite well.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I understand it in light of the historical context and in proper perspective. So yes, I believe I understand quite well.

is that the perspective of justification? It appears that way, since it seems like you oversimplified the romans passage as such.

 

[Amaryllismayfly]

The point being, not one group represents the whole population. With your same logic, you may as well condemn couples who wish to never have children, but continue having sex. THAT too, would result in the "dying of that species".

If the "body rejects it", when done correctly it wouldn't be a pleasureful act for both parties, and it certainly is in many cases.

you just equated homosexuality as a choice in your example ie:choosing not to procreate.

 

[davedjy]

is that the perspective of justification? It appears that way, since it seems like you oversimplified the romans passage as such.

You have shown your perspective...if I don't see Romans 1 as a condemnation against all same sex behavior, it suddenly becomes a "justification"?

I only simplified to avoid a derailment, Jet, which is currently starting. If you've been reading these threads, you would see that I have discussed Romans 1, and all the other clobber passages in great depth.

Direct quoting from the OP:

Can anyone tell me why it is wrong to be gay... there is a condition though... I don't want ANY quotations from the Bible.

 

[davedjy]

you just equated homosexuality as a choice in your example ie:choosing not to procreate.

No, because that would be saying that the orientation is a choice, and I never said that.
What do you mean by choice? everyone has the choice to have sex and how they do it.

Why not use those who stay celibate as your example? if they represent the population humans will die out as well. I can go on and on why the logic you presented is flawed. It's using groups that don't procreate as the example of ALL human sexuality examples = that's why the example doesn't work.