Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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).
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!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.
Your first sentence aside, this post gives the impression that all homosexuals are male and engaged in one particular act...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).
It most certainly does. Read Romans 1..because of their sinfulness "God gave them over to their shameful lusts.."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).
if homosexuality were evolution orientated then the race would die out (assuming there were no heterosexuals).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!
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.It most certainly does. Read Romans 1..because of their sinfulness "God gave them over to their shameful lusts.."
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).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 don't have flawed logic. Speaking strictly from an evolutionary point of view homosexuality is something that would die out.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.
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 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.
BreadAlone said: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 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".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.
I understand it in light of the historical context and in proper perspective. So yes, I believe I understand quite well.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.
you just equated homosexuality as a choice in your example ie:choosing not to procreate.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 have shown your perspective...if I don't see Romans 1 as a condemnation against all same sex behavior, it suddenly becomes a "justification"?is that the perspective of justification? It appears that way, since it seems like you oversimplified the romans passage as such.
gwdboi said: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.
No, because that would be saying that the orientation is a choice, and I never said that.you just equated homosexuality as a choice in your example ie:choosing not to procreate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?