Evidence that homosexuality is wrong..?

[EnemyPartyII]

So can two dogs. What's your point?

two dogs are an excelent way of achieving intimacy?

Well, whatever floats your boat there :/

 

[ReformedChapin]

two dogs are an excelent way of achieving intimacy?

Well, whatever floats your boat there :/

define intimacy...

and it's the same perversion as homosexuality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

define intimacy...

and it's the same perversion as homosexuality.

if you arent even going to address what I actually write...

 

[CShephard53]

Oh.

Well, thats a false statement then. Clearly homosexuality is inherent in God's design.

If it's so clear, and I've asked you this before, why does the Bible clearly condemn it (unless you take the liberal approach and try to explain it away- which neccessitates you to look far deeper into it making it not so clear)? I asked something similar on another thread and you didn't respond. Can I get an answer this time around, enemyparty? Why, if it's so clear that God is approving of homosexual relationships, do you have to look deep into the passages dealing with it to even try to hint that it's okay?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If it's so clear, and I've asked you this before, why does the Bible clearly condemn it (unless you take the liberal approach and try to explain it away- which neccessitates you to look far deeper into it making it not so clear)? I asked something similar on another thread and you didn't respond. Can I get an answer this time around, enemyparty? Why, if it's so clear that God is approving of homosexual relationships, do you have to look deep into the passages dealing with it to even try to hint that it's okay?

What do you think is more important to God... the Bible, or people?

 

[ReformedChapin]

if you arent even going to address what I actually write...

ironic post...

 

[CShephard53]

ironic post...

Amen. Enemyparty, you didn't address my post at all. Please answer the question. The Bible is written so we can be who God wants us to be. So the Bible is important so the people can follow God's will and recieve blessings from following His will. Asking which is more important would be like asking which is more important- gas or the car. It doesn't work because both are necessary. So, if you could answer the question directly...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Amen. Enemyparty, you didn't address my post at all. Please answer the question. The Bible is written so we can be who God wants us to be. So the Bible is important so the people can follow God's will and recieve blessings from following His will. Asking which is more important would be like asking which is more important- gas or the car. It doesn't work because both are necessary. So, if you could answer the question directly...

Well, I totally disagree with your response... God doesn't think the Bible is important, he thinks humans are important. So, to answer your question...

Why, if it's so clear that God is approving of homosexual relationships, do you have to look deep into the passages dealing with it to even try to hint that it's okay?

Because the parts of the Bible written about homosexuality refer to a time when it was a maladaptive practice, due to the subsistance economy of semi nomadic herders...

The Bible is a GUIDE, it is NOT literally the word of God and it should NOT be considered inerrant and universably applicable in all contexts... GOD didn't condemn homosexuality... ancient Palestinian tribesman did.

"Oh no! But Paul says that all scripture is useful for" yeah yeah yeah, bleat bleat bleat... I swear, the biggest threat to my Christianity is Biblical literalists.

OF COURSE GOD CARES MORE ABOUT HUMANS THAN THE BIBLE!

 

[CShephard53]

Well, I totally disagree with your response... God doesn't think the Bible is important, he thinks humans are important. So, to answer your question...Because the parts of the Bible written about homosexuality refer to a time when it was a maladaptive practice, due to the subsistance economy of semi nomadic herders...

The Bible is a GUIDE, it is NOT literally the word of God and it should NOT be considered inerrant and universably applicable in all contexts... GOD didn't condemn homosexuality... ancient Palestinian tribesman did.

"Oh no! But Paul says that all scripture is useful for" yeah yeah yeah, bleat bleat bleat... I swear, the biggest threat to my Christianity is Biblical literalists.

OF COURSE GOD CARES MORE ABOUT HUMANS THAN THE BIBLE!

Sure. Have fun with that. And by the way, how can you call yourself a Christian if you can't follow Christ? He spoke quite a few times about the authority of Scripture. Or is that just the opinion of 'nomadic herdsman' as well? Read John 16:13, and 14:23-26. As I recall, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into the apostles, and Paul and quite a few other people also recieved the Holy Spirit.

God doesn't care what He promised us? God doesn't care about what He says? Sure. Right. He cares more about us than what He's commanded us.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Christ-ian. Christ-follower.

 

[CShephard53]

Oh, and another thing. Since when are you the authority on what God thinks?

 

[djbcrawford]

Trying to get back on topic, I posted comments to this effect pages ago and didn't get much of an answer, so I'll re-summarise:

Does the fact that humanity consists of 2 sexes (male and female), the fact that their gentitalia is designed to fit together and the fact that sex is ultimately designed to combine dna and produce offspring, not suggest that a same sex sexual acts are somehow "wrong" or "un-natural"?

 

[CShephard53]

You'd think it would, but some choose to say 'it works other ways too'.

 

[naotmaa]

Trying to get back on topic, I posted comments to this effect pages ago and didn't get much of an answer, so I'll re-summarise:

Does the fact that humanity consists of 2 sexes (male and female), the fact that their gentitalia is designed to fit together and the fact that sex is ultimately designed to combine dna and produce offspring, not suggest that a same sex sexual acts are somehow "wrong" or "un-natural"?

but that doesn't change the fact that their are gays and lesbians. It would seem pointless to tell a loving same sex couple that they can not have sex because they had the "wrong genitalia."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does the fact that humanity consists of 2 sexes (male and female),

Two primary sexes, a few rare sexes, and a plethora of genders. This is more accurate, though by no means exhaustive.

the fact that their gentitalia is designed to fit together

'Designed'? Please, elaborate.

and the fact that sex is ultimately designed to combine dna and produce offspring,

Again you meantion design. What evidence is there of design?

not suggest that a same sex sexual acts are somehow "wrong" or "un-natural"?

The fact that homosexuality occurs in 2-5% of the human population is very strong evidence that it is wholly natural.

 

[CShephard53]

Two primary sexes, a few rare sexes, and a plethora of genders. This is more accurate, though by no means exhaustive.


'Designed'? Please, elaborate.


Again you meantion design. What evidence is there of design?


The fact that homosexuality occurs in 2-5% of the human population is very strong evidence that it is wholly natural.

Since when bud? Since when does a major minority make something natural? If I told you 2-5% of beetles ended up with an extra wing and couldn't fly, would you call that natural? A statistic doesn't make things natural.

And by the way, I think the topic of design would make this thread go in another forum. But who really cares what I think? Go ahead and debate design. If there's anyone on this site with half a brain, you're going to lose anyway.

DNA. That's all there is to say. DNA. Half from mom, half from dad. Spermies. Eggs. They had to have gotten it right the first time, otherwise no reproduction.

 

[Ohioprof]

Trying to get back on topic, I posted comments to this effect pages ago and didn't get much of an answer, so I'll re-summarise:

Does the fact that humanity consists of 2 sexes (male and female), the fact that their gentitalia is designed to fit together and the fact that sex is ultimately designed to combine dna and produce offspring, not suggest that a same sex sexual acts are somehow "wrong" or "un-natural"?

No.

 

[Ohioprof]

You'd think it would, but some choose to say 'it works other ways too'.

And it does.

 

[Ohioprof]

Since when bud? Since when does a major minority make something natural? If I told you 2-5% of beetles ended up with an extra wing and couldn't fly, would you call that natural? A statistic doesn't make things natural.

And by the way, I think the topic of design would make this thread go in another forum. But who really cares what I think? Go ahead and debate design. If there's anyone on this site with half a brain, you're going to lose anyway.

DNA. That's all there is to say. DNA. Half from mom, half from dad. Spermies. Eggs. They had to have gotten it right the first time, otherwise no reproduction.

Natural is anything that occurs in nature.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since when bud? Since when does a major minority make something natural? If I told you 2-5% of beetles ended up with an extra wing and couldn't fly, would you call that natural? A statistic doesn't make things natural.

On the contrary, it does. Perhaps you are thinking of 'normal'? 'Normal' is the majority instance, but 'natural' is what came about without direct external intervention, human or otherwise.

And by the way, I think the topic of design would make this thread go in another forum. But who really cares what I think? Go ahead and debate design.

You made a claim. I am asking for due justification. Nothing more.

If there's anyone on this site with half a brain, you're going to lose anyway.

I'd be happy to take you up on that, in the appropriate forum.

DNA. That's all there is to say. DNA. Half from mom, half from dad. Spermies. Eggs. They had to have gotten it right the first time, otherwise no reproduction.

Why? The gradual development of sexuality (i.e., male and female sexes) is entirely possible: just look at barnacles. More generally, look at hermaphrodites.
A lot of sexual organism considered 'primative' are normally hermaphrodites.

And in any case, I fail to see the point: how does this pertain to the morality of homosexuality?

 

[CShephard53]

I might say somewhere on my site that I don't debate people who don't listen???? Spermie. Egg. If they don't get it right the first time, no reproduction. The egg has to have the outer shell/membrane. The sperm has to have the helmet and a tail- otherwise it doesn't stand a chance.

'Normal' is the majority instance, but 'natural' is what came about without direct external intervention, human or otherwise.

Yes, exactly, and I'd like to see anyone try to prove that homosexuality came about without direct intervention- or with it. You can't prove it either way, so you cannot know whether or not it is natural. Like I said, statistics don't make something natural.