Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[Wiccan_Child]

The rarities are genetic anomalies as opposed to other destinct sexes.

My point is that human sexuality cannot be split into such distinct catagories. That they are rare is irrelevant: they exist.

Explain how genders are the same as the two sexes?

I will not, because they are not.

If the word bothers you. replace it with evolved to or its function is to..

My haunt is the Creation/Evolution forum. Where I see someone call a biological system 'designed', klaxons sound. You were not referring to an Intelligent Designer, so my klaxons have fallen silent

Lots of things occur in x% of the population. In fact everything occurs in x% of the population. If you take the point of view that nothing un-natural can happen then every act be it murder, rape, theft, genocide all happens in the natural world so must be natural.

Exactly. So to call homosexuality 'unnatural' is bizarre, which is my point.

Either we waste our time coming up with a new word to describe what i am saying or you accept you know what I mean and answer the question.

Alas, you are using colloquialisms in a debate. I must assume you are not using idioms unless they are blatent or so described.

The question? I cannot answer your question, because it presumes certain facts, facts which I do not consider true. By all means, demonstrate them to me. Otherwise, I will be content to lurk in this thread.

P.S. Must work out how to use the multi-quote properly...

I whole-heartedly agree!

 

[Ohioprof]

No one is following the logic of it... what a sad world we live in...

We are following it. We just don't agree with you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Plenty of gay people have children. I have a child. I need to get her to bed, as she has school tomorrow.

BUT U WILL MAEK HER A GAY! Haha...

I honestly can't wait to be a dad. When I held my newborn sister last year... the feeling is indescribable.

 

[CShephard53]

We don't have any knowledge of how homosexuality started in humans. We don't have any knowledge of how it started in animals. Therefore, we cannot know if it is natural, as we do not know if it was human induced. Follow? That is a perfectly logical thing to say. I've asked around to professors on my campus. They assure me that it is logical.

So why don't you agree with logic?

 

[naotmaa]

We don't have any knowledge of how homosexuality started in humans. We don't have any knowledge of how it started in animals. Therefore, we cannot know if it is natural, as we do not know if it was human induced. Follow? That is a perfectly logical thing to say. I've asked around to professors on my campus. They assure me that it is logical.

So why don't you agree with logic?

Well we don't know anything for certain about how homosexuality comes about. However, it would seem to me that it would be inborn. I base on the fact that gay people are a very diverse group of people, just like straight peopl are. If it is not inborn, then that would mean that something must have occured early in their childhood. Now I've heard theories such as bad experiences with the opposite sex, relationships with parents, child abuse, etc. However I know,many gay people, inculding myself, who have had no issues like these. So that leads to my conclusion that it must have inborn. Back when I first realized I was gay, would also wonder why I was. I remember thinking, "Out of all the people in the world, why am I one of the gays?"Heh. I had come to the conclusion that it could not have been anything from my childhood, and that it was most likely inborn. What else could it have been?

 

[CShephard53]

There's no gay gene if that's what you're implying. The only things on the inborn stuff is hypothesis- not even theory. I could bore you with the details, but it's time for bed.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

wanna bet?

I don’t bet, I am a Christian. There is no consensus of scientific agreement, yet you keep assuming there is.

so... was Jesus making this comment to condemn homosexuality... or was he making this comment to confirm that both men and women are children of God?

Once again you are looking at the passage with a view about whether it condemns homosexuality or not, rather than receiving from the passage what God wants to impart. Jesus said to the Pharisees ‘have you not read?’ I think Jesus says that to us as well have we not read that in the beginning God made them male and female, it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh. So this was the reason God made man and woman. Are homosexuals men and women? I think so. So what was the reason God made these men and women? I think your worldview which I call ‘gay thinking’ is merely disbelief of what Jesus says.

It is perfectly reasonable to be a "real" Christian without believing the bible = God's word

I disagree and I would suggest you find a different word for that religion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We don't have any knowledge of how homosexuality started in humans.

I just explained it's evolutionary advantage.

We don't have any knowledge of how it started in animals.

I just explained it's evolutionary advantage.

Therefore, we cannot know if it is natural, as we do not know if it was human induced. Follow? That is a perfectly logical thing to say.

You are asking for proof of knowledge, which will never be given to you. Science gives you probable knowledge based purely on empiricism and deduction. Science tells us homosexuality is probably natural.
Review the evidence for 'nature v nurture' wrt homosexuality.

I've asked around to professors on my campus. They assure me that it is logical.

So why don't you agree with logic?

This is simultaneously equivocation and an appeal to authority.

There's no gay gene if that's what you're implying. The only things on the inborn stuff is hypothesis- not even theory. I could bore you with the details, but it's time for bed.

On the contrary, there is evidence. I don't have time for an exhaustive list, but:
Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.

Primary source: Bailey, J.M., Dunne, M.P., Martin, N.G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3)

Also cited in: Rahman, Q. and G. D. Wilson (2003). "Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger length ratio: evidence for organizing effects of sex hormones or developmental instability?" Psychoneuroendocrinology 28(3): 288-303.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And of course they couldn't have children and would have no desire to either as their sex doesn't count, only their gender.



People thought smoking was consentual and not harmful in any way. They were certainly wrong.

so what, we should assume all beahiours are harmful until proved otherwise???

 

[EnemyPartyII]

someone rep wiccan child for me?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I disagree and I would suggest you find a different word for that religion.

I'm sorry, I may be mistaken, but didn't you yourself agree only yesterday that there are parts of the Bible that are of purely human authorship?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
You are wrong again, I didnt agree that, all of the Bible is human authorship, you need to read what I write more carefully. I cant imagine which bit of the Bible you think was written by a non human.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
You are wrong again, I didnt agree that, all of the Bible is human authorship, you need to read what I write more carefully. I cant imagine which bit of the Bible you think was written by a non human.

Technically, she's still right: 100% is still a percent.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
You are wrong again, I didnt agree that, all of the Bible is human authorship, you need to read what I write more carefully. I cant imagine which bit of the Bible you think was written by a non human.

*blinks* you can't have it both ways... either the Bible was written by humans, in which case it can't be the word of God, or, the Bible IS the word of God (or bits of it) in which case some or all of it is not of human authorship... please pick a story and go with it... this chopping and changeing semantic tapdancing doesn't get us anywhere

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII
I am not having it both ways, the Bible was written by humans, it has human authors. But it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and records words give by God.
It was you who originally made the claim it wasnt the word of God.
So it is all written by humans but all either inspired by God's Holy Spirit or records God's words. This is why Christians know it is the word of God, not least because it records Jesus saying that the Holy Spirit will remind us of its truth.
Now the Bible does include history, poetry, parable and the like.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
I am not having it both ways, the Bible was written by humans, it has human authors. But it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and records words give by God.
It was you who originally made the claim it wasnt the word of God.
So it is all written by humans but all either inspired by God's Holy Spirit or records God's words. This is why Christians know it is the word of God, not least because it records Jesus saying that the Holy Spirit will remind us of its truth.
Now the Bible does include history, poetry, parable and the like.

but a page ago you implied that people who think parts of the Bible aren't the words of God belong to a different religion???

So which is it? Which version are you going with, for the record?

Christians believe the whole Bible is the word of God

OR

Christians believe that PARTS of the Bible are the word of God?

 

[RMDY]

Adam and Eve did not exist as real humans. And the resurrection did not literally happen. There was never a virgin birth either. These are all stories. They may illustrate moral points, but they are certainly not literally true.

If you don't believe in Christ, you will not understand spiritual things.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you don't believe in Christ, you will not understand spiritual things.

so what... people should believe in Christ without understanding his spiritual message first?

Something of a contradiction in there....

 

[RMDY]

Wiccan child, listen, you don't even believe in Yahwah. With that lack of faith you won't understand Spiritual things, so it is no wonder you lack an understanding about sin.

God designed us so that women and man are made for each other. Just like any kind of thing, man made something more out of it and abused it.
Homosexuality was not part of God's original design even if there is love involved between two people. God did not intend for people to partake in anal sex. We are not designed this way. People were designed to love each other, marry and be fruitful and multiply and serve God in a relationship between a man and a women. And just like in science, opposites attract as if we are two magnets. Two magnets of the same charge do not go together and are not natural. However, one can put them both together if man decides to do it, but naturally they will not. Do you see?

Man wills itself to be homosexual, but naturally that is not how God intended. Proof of that is in the design of our bodies. But Man loves to put a spin on sexuality and love. That was one of Israel's downfalls: putting a spin on love and sex and believing that it was right in the eyes of God.

 

[RMDY]

so what... people should believe in Christ without understanding his spiritual message first?

Something of a contradiction in there....

Ohioprof doesn't believe in the same Messiah I do.