Homosexuals and Bisexuals

David Brider · Apr 30, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Having sex with someone of the same gender.

Not all homosexuals are sexually active, though.

David.

Andreusz · Apr 30, 2009

CraigBaugher said:
Really dude... like, the biologist dudes, have like, ideas, but they can't prove anything dude... really...

Scientific theories are not proved. They are expressed in such a way that they can be falsified. As long as they remain unfalsified, they are regarded as true, especially if they make accurate predictions. Darwinism makes accurate predictions; creationism makes no falsifiable claims, and cannot (by definition, I think) make predictions.

Andreusz · Apr 30, 2009

Shane Roach said:
Having sex with someone of the same gender.

Neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homosexuality.

brightmorningstar · Apr 30, 2009

To Andreusz,

Neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for homosexuality.

But thats the desire the condition of homosexuality is about

David Brider · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To Andreusz,
But thats the desire the condition of homosexuality is about

No, it's not.

David.

KCKID · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To Andreusz,
But thats the desire the condition of homosexuality is about

For crying out loud ...so what if it is? Please, get a life and stop being so concerned with who might be 'having it off' with whom. I personally get so sick of the 'do-gooders' who spend too much of their lives snooping around the bedrooms of others. Please, leave it alone.

Advice to whoever it may concern: If you don't agree with some particular practice then don't participate in it yourself.

Easy, isn't it?

b&wpac4 · Apr 30, 2009

KCKID said:
Advice to whoever it may concern: If you don't agree with some particular practice then don't participate in it yourself.

Easy, isn't it?

This would not allow me to feel morally superior to others though! It would just mean that I disagree with how they live, but cannot spend much of my time trying to rub it in their faces how much better I am than they are! I wouldn't have that constant self-stroking of my own ego I have grown accustomed to!

KCKID · Apr 30, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
This would not allow me to feel morally superior to others though! It would just mean that I disagree with how they live, but cannot spend much of my time trying to rub it in their faces how much better I am than they are! I wouldn't have that constant self-stroking of my own ego I have grown accustomed to!

Unfortunately, that is probably close to the truth. I wonder how many of the 'anti-this or that' proponents on this forum would be willing to take a long, hard look at themselves, come clean ...and admit to this?

Polycarp1 · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To Andreusz,
But thats the desire the condition of homosexuality is about

So you only care about your wife when you're horny for her? If it's not true for you, why claim it is for others?

Polycarp1 · Apr 30, 2009

CraigBaugher said:
So once we put aside your name calling, and your side step dance, your answer is no... You acknowledge there is no proof, just accepted ideas...

You're sort of missing the point, Craig.

Suppose I asked you, "Tell me everything there is to know about God, and I mean everything. I want to know about Him comprehensively, so that there's nothing that can possibly be known about him that I haven't learned."

Your response would be something like, "I can lead you to Him, and tell you all I know, but no human being can possibly know everything there is to know about Him -- there's always more to learn."

A scientific theory is like that -- it's a statement that accounts for everything we know at present about some given aspect of a science, subject to change as and when we learn more. It's true for what we know about already -- it may be false under circumstances we don't yet know.

Just as what we know about God is true -- to the point we know about him. "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face"

FlamingFemme · Apr 30, 2009

I see that my post got ignored, so I'm bumping it up.
Shane, I would still like an answer to this post.

FlamingFemme said:
I've been reading the last dozen pages or so, and (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to be saying that a gay couple with children is not a family, but a straight couple with children is.
Why? What, exactly, is so fundamentally different between my family - which consists of me, my wife, and our daughter - and a man/woman couple with a child?
And, if there isn't a fundamental difference, please stop saying that my family (and, in turn, any other family headed by a gay couple) is not a family.

brightmorningstar · Apr 30, 2009

To Andreusz and David Brider.

For crying out loud ...so what if it is? Please, get a life and stop being so concerned with who might be 'having it off' with whom. I personally get so sick of the 'do-gooders' who spend too much of their lives snooping around the bedrooms of others. Please, leave it alone.

As I said if for homosexual the same sex attraction is not sex, why the same sex attraction? You are claiming the attraction is not sexual but limiting it to on sex, so it is sexual.
I am merely pointing out the definition of the word is, If anyone wants to have sex with another person its of no interest to me, but as it isn’t don’t suggest it is.

brightmorningstar · Apr 30, 2009

To FlamingFemme

Why? What, exactly, is so fundamentally different between my family - which consists of me, my wife, and our daughter - and a man/woman couple with a child?

Everything. When its says ‘our’ daughter the fundamental difference is the daughter isn’t biologically the product of the mother and the other women. It also means that if the woman’s wife is a woman then a woman is a husband and father.

And, if there isn't a fundamental difference, please stop saying that my family (and, in turn, any other family headed by a gay couple) is not a family.

Its not really, it’s a totally dysfunctional one without a man. Should you be offended by that view please know that my motive is not to offend.

brightmorningstar · Apr 30, 2009

To Polycarp1,

Suppose I asked you, "Tell me everything there is to know about God, and I mean everything. I want to know about Him comprehensively, so that there's nothing that can possibly be known about him that I haven't learned."

Your response would be something like, "I can lead you to Him, and tell you all I know, but no human being can possibly know everything there is to know about Him -- there's always more to learn."

A scientific theory is like that -- it's a statement that accounts for everything we know at present about some given aspect of a science, subject to change as and when we learn more. It's true for what we know about already -- it may be false under circumstances we don't yet know.

But then that’s not faith. The Biblical testimony of God says what you are proposing is faulty, human reasoning and that God doesn’t change and Jesus who spoke the words of God is the truth.
One cannot believe Jesus Christ is the truth and then deny what He says.

b&wpac4 · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
Everything. When its says our daughter the fundamental difference is the daughter isnt biologically the product of the mother and the other women.

Adopted children and the parents of adopted children are not really a family?

Braunwyn · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To Polycarp1,
But then thats not faith. The Biblical testimony of God says what you are proposing is faulty, human reasoning and that God doesnt change and Jesus who spoke the words of God is the truth.
One cannot believe Jesus Christ is the truth and then deny what He says.

*swoosh!* There goes Polycarp1's post right over your head.

b&wpac4 said:
Adopted children and the parents of adopted children are not really a family?

+1

FlamingFemme · Apr 30, 2009

Even though my questions were directed at Shane, I'm going to address your post anyway.

brightmorningstar said:
To FlamingFemme
Everything. When its says our daughter the fundamental difference is the daughter isnt biologically the product of the mother and the other women.

But there are plenty of families where that is the case, and they are still legitimate families - So, once again, what is the fundamental difference between my family - Which consists of me, my wife, and our daughter - and a man/woman couple raising a child?

It also means that if the womans wife is a woman then a woman is a husband and father.

Uh, no. Even though we are both female, we both bring very different things to the table in regards to our relationship, as well as our parenting. My daughter also has plenty of wonderful, strong, male role models in her life. Our family makeup does not mean that my wife is a 'husband and father'.
Not to mention the fact that studies have shown that children raised by a same-sex female couple are just as well-adjusted (if not more so) than those raised by male/female couples.

Its not really, its a totally dysfunctional one without a man. Should you be offended by that view please know that my motive is not to offend.

I'm not offended, I'm angry. Angry that you would think it is okay to tell someone that their family is not, in fact, a family. There's plenty of dysfuntional families in this world - Mine is definitely not one of them. Our home is filled with love, compassion, and understanding. Our daughter is one of the most well-adjusted and happy children I have ever met, and the constant comments from her teachers and mentors just further establish that fact. Please stop saying that my family (and any other family headed by a gay couple) is not a family.

Polycarp1 · Apr 30, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
Adopted children and the parents of adopted children are not really a family?

There is a teenage girl and two boys moving from childhood to adolescence, who regard me as an uncle or grandfather figure. Their biological father chose me for a father figure -- quite literally; he was a 16-year-old runaway, and my wife and I were fostering his best friend.

We are, Sctipture tells us, God's children by adoption and grace.

Except Brightmorningstar. Evidently biological reproduction means so much to him that he sees no love or caring for anone not a biological ancestor or descendant.

I had a five-year-old boy make emphatically clear to me the difference between his (biological) father and his (nurturing) Daddy, with the level of scorn reserved for small children to use when grownups are being ineffably stupid (which I was). I would like to turn little Kyle loose on brightmorningstar, to teach him about Jesus and His love, and what He calls us to do -- except that BMS probably wouldn't listen, unless we bound Kyle in leather and printed the important stuff in red letters inside.

I don't know what BMS considers love. I do know that there was love between my "boys" -- my fostered sons -- and myself, and that carried over to another generation. And I know, sure as God made little green apples, that that love was given by God, that He sent my "son" to me so that he and I could heal the wounds in each other's hearts -- that He had put each of us through the changes we had been through in order to equip us to be able to do that for each other. And I thank God daily for him, and for his kids.

Polycarp1 · Apr 30, 2009

brightmorningstar said:
To Polycarp1,
But then thats not faith. The Biblical testimony of God says what you are proposing is faulty, human reasoning and that God doesnt change and Jesus who spoke the words of God is the truth.
One cannot believe Jesus Christ is the truth and then deny what He says.

Of course not -- it's intellectual knowledge, and reasoning from it is subject to human frailty -- as both you and I do. Faith is placing one's trust in a Person -- Jesus Christ of Nzareth, God the Son. And He didn't merely "speak the words of God" -- He was God incarnate as a human being. And He knew and knows us and our frailties, and loved and loves us anyway.

And He alone is our Judge -- not the words of Scripture, not our fellow Christians, and most especially not their opinion of what can be induced from what He said about matters on which He did not pronoucne.

We are not told to call the acts of others abominations -- we are told to love them. That's His commandment. Go against it at your peril.

Shane Roach · Apr 30, 2009

Most people would not choose to express it as "not family", but there is a distinction between biological family that is necessary to make for legal purposes. Otherwise, you could never be adopted. Something has to be done specifically about the rights and responsibilities of the biological parents before adoption ever takes place.

This becomes more and more difficult to do the harder people try to pretend that things have "changed" that have never changed. There is still a need for marriage, for accountability, and for specific duties and obligations between men and women regarding children that are not ever applicable to gays.

Homosexuals and Bisexuals

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

brightmorningstar

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Trying to stay away

Well-Known Member

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

The Flaming One

brightmorningstar

Guest

brightmorningstar

Guest

brightmorningstar

Guest

Trying to stay away

Braunwyn

Guest

The Flaming One

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency