True, but it is also the truth. The website begins with a predetermined premise of reality and what ought to be, then selects particular data to back up that predetermined premise. Its methodology is painfully transparent. (Is that better?)
You obviously didn't read my entire post, Master Jedi.
Either that, or I didn't make myself clear.
Morality is learned, but sexuality isn't.
I agree we aren't controlled by our urges...but that doesn't make those urges any less natural.
As for there being homosexuals who disagree with me. I should like to meet them. (I'm not asking you to provide them). If you will take the word of a homosexual who says it is a choice...why not take the word of one who says it is not?
My point was a person is homosexual whether or not they having homosexual sex or get into a same sex relationship. Personally, I think everyone is bi..but some people just lean more to one side.
The point of the 'unnatural' arguement[sic] is that it doesn't work.
As I said above, there are no moral standards in nature. Many will argue it is wrong because it is not natural or it is not natural because it is wrong. There's no point to this agruement[sic] because it is flawed.
I just get the feeling that Christians feel a lot better convincing themselves it is a choice. Like they'd feel guilty if it was undeniably proven homosexuality was innate, natural, unchoosen, etc...
- Really? Then why all the talk about physical
parts that are "designed" to fit between a male and female?
The rallying cry of those who oppose gay rights was once based on the premise that homosexuality was unnatural. Now that the evidence casts serious doubt on that assumption, the rallying cry is, "it doesn't matter if its natural, it's still wrong." Boy, it sure would have saved a lot of heated debates if we could have cut to the chase long ago.
thank you all for the civil discourse
If homosexuality was encouraged...even in the Bible and excepted then there wouldn't be any constroversy[sic].
As for the puzzle peices[sic]...this has been said before, but logically a lot of different 'peices[sic]' fit into other 'peices[sic]' (I'm not solely talking about the human body here). Just because the peices[sic] fit doesn't mean we have to fit them there. Just because a man's ***** fits inside my ****** doesn't mean I have to have one in there. Or just because I have the ability to make children doesn't mean I have to.
Why does it have to be immoral?
I've always figured it was because of the whole sodomy...can't get pregnant thing.
I usually get it's wrong and disgusting.
I usually get 'the bible'..then I wonder...of all the things going on in the world, why does God want to bother with homosexuals?
Why give them so much heat?
To say homosexuality is a sin and harmful is pointless because (in a consenting relationship) it harms no one. I see no point in calling it immoral when it harms no one.
Why do people who think being gay is disgusting, etc...always become so involved in it?
You said that you didn't accept the word of homosexuals because you thought they were 'impaired'...or words to that effect. So, then it would be OK for me to say I don't accept the word of anti-gays and/or straights on their opinions of gays because they are blinded by stereotypes and prejudices and have never experienced being gay so they can only possibly have an empathetic (?) idea of what it feels like?
Q: What did Jesus ever say about homosexuals?
A: Nothing.
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?