How Homophobic Are You?

[Polycarp_fan]

You may want to consider that facts are often considered to be the least important. What is of utmost importance is the theory which explains the facts. That is where the real challenge is. Of course ignorance is the easy, blissful option and is precisely what "Faith" represents. When the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts?

Perfect example of gay culture "changing" facts whenever someone points out what's wrong with it. Now of course, ANY disagreement with people that desire gay sex, and that desire to teach about its adherants and proponents to children in schools is seen as "homophobia."

How timely. How convenient.

There is a fact that gay actvists have tried and tried to change, and yet the Bible still, in any version that's been put out (translation/interpretation), has not one statement promoting or supporting gay sex ("same-gender" sexual acts) to be engaged in by believers. Is the Bible "homophobic?" Every "marriage" in the Bible is between a man and a woman.

But there are, many voices in the Bible that do not support it and of course do not promote. That's a fact that can only change by changing what "people" wrote that was put down in the canonized compilation. But that wouldn't be honest.

 

[Neuron]

Why does that matter?

What I'm referring to is the fact that homosexuality is not strictly a choice.

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science, vol. 253:1034-1037, 1991.

W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 50:228-239, March 1993.

Perfect example of gay culture "changing" facts whenever someone points out what's wrong with it. Now of course, ANY disagreement with people that desire gay sex, and that desire to teach about its adherants and proponents to children in schools is seen as "homophobia."

How timely. How convenient.

There is a fact that gay actvists have tried and tried to change, and yet the Bible still, in any version that's been put out (translation/interpretation), has not one statement promoting or supporting gay sex ("same-gender" sexual acts) to be engaged in by believers. Is the Bible "homophobic?" Every "marriage" in the Bible is between a man and a woman.

But there are, many voices in the Bible that do not support it and of course do not promote. That's a fact that can only change by changing what "people" wrote that was put down in the canonized compilation. But that wouldn't be honest.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Why does that matter?

What I'm referring to is the fact that homosexuality is not strictly a choice.

Gay sex is absolutley a choice.

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Simon LeVay, “A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men,” Science, vol. 253:1034-1037, 1991.

W. Byne and B. Parsons, “Human sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 50:228-239, March 1993.

Other than noting that LeVay is a gay activist (if this is the Levay from W. Hollywood you are referencing), these studies may be of some importance to you, so out of respect, I will not respond about them.

 

[Neuron]

Gay sex is absolutley a choice.



Other than noting that LeVay is a gay activist (if this is the Levay from W. Hollywood you are referencing), these studies may be of some importance to you, so out of respect, I will not respond about them.

You do realize of course that all you have done is pick one of 7 names to attack. You then attack the individuals political views as if it refutes the research. Indeed this same thing happened when someone pointed out the J. M. Bailey controversy. I can assure you I am well aware of the controversies and can produce correspondance I've had with J. M. Bailey. I have seriously considered the evidence above. Your reply amounts to a out-of-hand rejection of the evidence provided by way of strawman and ad hominem fallacies. Am I supposed to consider your post a serious argument?

Typically if a person is going to consider a proposition seriously they perform a study of that topic so that they are intimitely familiar with the content they are judging. They know how the experiments were carried out and what controls were used (or have at least checked it). I don't believe HEMI field theory is true and that is because I've read about it and don't think it is possible for the supervening electron field to restimulated closed gap junctions, it can only reopen closing gap junctions and subsequently cause the action potential previously performed. In addition to that it provides no logical process of infering that the field is conscious.


There is ample scientific evidence from double-blinded experiments and fMRI brain scans which show marked differences. MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging measures the activity of hemoglobin in the brain. Hemoglobin (blood) provides vital elements to the active areas. Which is why the scans show what the brain is doing. I know your point of view is that the bible tells you everything you need to know. But I think all it really tells you is what you want to hear. I'm interested in conversing with someone like my friend Tom who has studied philosophy or understands that there are other ways to argue than rhetoric. That's why I'm here not for ridiculous arguments.

 

[Neuron]

Gay sex is absolutley a choice.

Depends how you define "choice" if it means "anything that you do". Than of course gay sex is a choice. If you want to know what it is like to be really gay just imagine how hot you get for a woman (or whatever) and then replace it with a man.

I am not a homosexual. I'm straight and it isn't a choice I can make. I can't choose to be attracted to men. I can't even tell if a guy is good looking. Looking at a man is nothing like looking at a woman. I can't choose to be gay, can you?

 

[David Brider]

Gay sex is absolutley a choice.

Having sex is a choice. Homosexuality - being gay - isn't.

David.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Gay sex is absolutley a choice.

often claimed but never ever supported.

Does pretending that sexual orientation is a choice make justifying discrimination easier for you?

Other than noting that LeVay is a gay activist (if this is the Levay from W. Hollywood you are referencing), these studies may be of some importance to you, so out of respect, I will not respond about them.

Would you reject out of hand the research of a scientist because of the color of his/her skin?

Its basically what you did here. You don’t like the facts so you reject them by attacking the researcher

 

[Technocrat2010]

Without a doubt, YES. There is no agreement or consent to be given to sin and sinners that desire above all else to encourage others to embrace their sins.

Yet you claimed earlier that you don't care what nonbelievers do or say. Which is it, Polycarp_fan?

A person, does this or that. Leave the psychology definitions out of this. And yes, according to Jesus looking at a woman with lust is the same as doing what it is you're thinking about. Now, "gays" say that their sexual orientation is the complete equal to that of "straight people." Although in gay ideology, there is the idea of having it both ways, "just thinking" about sex with another person is the same thing as doing it "to Jesus."

??? Care to elucidate???

I do more than that, I assert that gay culture is antithetical to Apostolic truth. Gay culture promotes gay sex. One plus one equals two.

One apple + one orange =/= 2 apples. You are falsely assuming that all elements of gay culture promote sex. Please demonstrate the veracity of yoru claim.

Straight, gay, in Christian reality people are just people.

Christian reality? So we deny the unique natures and aspects of our selves?

That is an Apostolic truth. The message preached by the Apostles is salvation and remission of sins. "Repent and be baptised." Gay culture is still antithetical to Christian truth. Gay culture encourages people to engage in gay sex. That's just a fact. Even gay religiosity. Mel White just "married" his

Again, please demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

According to secular neologism. Christians are only IN the world and not of it. Secular jargon is to stay where it belongs.

As is your jargon of labeling an entire demographic as a "gay culture" which is highly stereotypical.

The Apostles, except for the added on Paul, were taught what the preached directly from Jesus. Notice no same-gender sex OK'd? In fact husband, wife, marriage, all as Jesus taught.

I'm fully aware of this. However, that does not stop it from occurring. Is it morally reprehensible in the eyes of us Christians? Yes. Does that mean it does not exist? No. Preaching against sin does not deny the existence of that sin, because there would be no point in preaching against something that does not exist.

I don't falsely "link" anything, the gay community is quite clear on what gays do.

Again; who speaks for the gay community? How do you know all gays act the way you claim they do?

You mean "Christians" that are following the Apostolic witness. It is what Christians SHOULD do. Labels from the world no longer apply to a person wne they become a Christian. In Christ we are a new creation.

Then why are you labelling gays who follow the teachings of Christ by abstaining as "Gays"? Why do you lump them with others who promote gay sex?

I am once again, being consistent on what is said by the gay community and the Apostles. Gay attraction and gay sex is what the gay community its culture and its declarations profess with no grey area about it.

You are being inconsistent. You need to verify that all elements of the "Gay community" do this.

The "culture" that defines the gay community is one of gay sex and the "culture" that promtes and approces of it. I wil be more than happy to debate the word "culture" with you in another thread if you so desire.

You need to verify that this culture is united in its views on homosexuality and religion.

In a culture come behaviors and actions that are approved of and promoted for that culture. I'm pretty sure I got that word in its proper context.

You falsely assume that culture = religion, where all must share the same beliefs on morality, etc. There is a significant difference.

It is mandated when gays and lesbians go into schools looking for children they call "questioning youth." That slogan of gay culture got me into this debate. And, I've been asked to write a book on my positions regarding gay sex in the Church. If you think things are a done deal about gay culture when gay marriage is legislated from the judiciary into existence, you are sorely mistaken. That is the beginning of the Church versus Gays era. It's be done before. The gay agenda is no myth. Gays have rule and authority over all as a very real quest. Now we have orgs like Soulforce to deal with threatening the Church every single day. Finally Christian are waking up to the elephant in the pews, and even more shocking than that, are so-called gay clergy openly defying the Apostolic witness as to appropriate Christian life.

Then we must fight against them when they attempt to change us in our Churches. Let them have all the marriage licenses that they want; but if they want to change private, religious institutions that are not required by the government to follow non-discrimination laws, they will have to deal with us first. I have no arguments here. My argument lies with your erroneous claims that (1) all gays think alike and (2) gay attraction must lead to gay sex.

If you have children in public school, the problem is there too. Gays do not desire to co-exist with the Church, they demand to lead it. That will never happen. Buildings are not The Church.

What are you talking about??? I have gay friends who desire to co-exist with the Church, and not to lead it. And I fully know that the Church is not a mere physical location.

Once the gay agenda and gay culture was enterd into the "public" schools, then opposing gay culture became a public concern. Many other people are waking up to the gay agenda, not only Bible-believing Christians. Muslims have demanded those gay indoctrination books out of schools in England. They are luckier than we Americans, they do not have the ACLU driving gay culture over everyone.

Driving gay culture over everyone? There's a line between public discourse and then forcing it into private institutions. You argue erroneously that if gays are accepted in the general public they must then be accepted in private institutions like the Church. This is a slippery slope fallacy, since by your argument we should have been overrun by a multitude of religious beliefs by now.

I'm thinking we are. Will you stand with Christians in opposing gay culture being promoted to THEIR children in "public" schools? If gay culture stayed in the gay community, I wouldn;t have to care about anything gays and lesbians do. Instead, we Christians are forced to live in our communities and leave our children and our rights at the front door of society.

Again, what exactly is gay culture? How do you verify your claim that it bears only one message and that all members of it are in agreement?

Christians are fighting against an "anything goes" condition to further influence our already debauched society. As voting members of a democracy they have the civil rights to their voice being heard.

Voice being heard =/= coercion.

You're joking right? Whether anti, non, or Christian, every gay and lesbian is demanding the very same thing. Do you not listen to "THEM?"

I have listened to many gays within the Catholic Church, who do not demand the things you are claiming. Your argument fails by stereotype.

One plus one equals two. Or, as the New Testament puts it: "By their fruit you will know them."

Have you borne witness to all fruit of gay persons? Can you verify with 100% accuracy that all gay persons have engaged in gay sex? If so, please go into detail as to what methods you used to gather the data, and how you know it is reliable.

And????? When they no longer desire to be "chaste" guess what?

Guess what happens when a straight, engaged couple chooses to no longer be "chaste" before marriage.

I don't label people as the world does.

Yes, you have. You have labeled an entire demographic as "gay community", a label that even the media of the world has succumbed to using.

If these men desire to follow the Apostolic witness, they will find a woman to love, cherish, marry and obey.

So celibacy is not a part of the Apostolic witness? Please demonstrate the veracity of your claim.

I'm sorry, I do not think "loving" a member of the opposite sex is a hate crime.

I do not think so either. Why is this an issue?

I do and I am. I've been debating gays and lesbians and their always ubiquitous anti and non Christian supporters for a long time. They ALL demand the same thing.

Have you debated every single gay person to come to this conclusion? If so, I invite you to provide proof of your claims.

The heck I do. According to gay culture, gay sex and gay life are one and the same. Go ver to Soulforce and "test things."

Since when did Soulforce speak for all gays? Again, you still need to provide proof for your claims on gay culture.

Virgin denotes 100% a normal sexuality is in place. I do not claim the labels for people that you do. I am a Christian, not a secularized person "anymore." I have been de-secularized. THAT is part of Christian culture.

You have used "Gay culture", "gay community", "gays" and "lesbians". The heck you've been de-secularized.

I am positive that the gays and their supporters know that I am defending my brothers and sisters in Christ from being encouraged to engage in gay sex.

And I am positive that there are gays who support you. I have given you examples of my own friends who also abstain from gay sex. They are still gay, but they do not engage in gay sex. Being gay does not require a person to engage in gay sex.

I have the gay community and its culture well defined because they are quite vocal in what they demand.

So your argument is that the most vocal gays define standards for everyone else - correct?

And, gay culture is antithetical to Christian life.

Define "Gay culture".

There is no support for gay sex anywhere in the Bible.

No kidding!!! </sarcasm>

The Apostles were not accepting nor did they affirm same-gender sex to be engaged in by believers. In fact, we see just the opposite.

No way!!! </sarcasm>

100% yes. John and paul make that more than clear. Evolution is nothing more than a very good guess.

All scientific theories are by definition very good guesses. Gravity? That's a theory. So is atomic theory. So is electric theory. All theories! (But if you want to debate evolution further, might I suggest we move it to a different thread to avoid derailing this one? Thanks.)

A scientific endeavor to figure out how "it" all began and where life came from. It did not come from 0 x 0.

Irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

How are you using that word?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

I do not desire to debate evolution, until atheists that use evolution to bash Christians can come up with something from nothing.

Not relevant to the theory of evolution, which makes no such claim.

0 x 0 = 0. Not exactly an endorsement for un-itelligent design.

Straw-man fallacy.

Accidents bumping into accidents are going to need far more than a few trillion years to come up with you and I debating on the internet.

Yet another straw-man fallacy. At any rate, let's move this mini-debate into another thread.

I have lived and worked in several Gay communities. What the media proitrays is not always even close to real gay culture. I posted what gay culture looks like in a gay community and was dealt with as if I presented a lie.

I have several gay friends who do not fit your descriptions. I don't think you're necessarily lying; rather, I think you're over-generalizing.

This Gay culture versus Christian truth contention, has not even begun to get the attention of the entire Bible-believing and Apostolic affirming Christian Community, but it will.

The darkness is coming, but without fear, light has overcome it.

As they say, it's always darkest before the light of dawn.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Perfect example of gay culture "changing" facts whenever someone points out what's wrong with it. Now of course, ANY disagreement with people that desire gay sex, and that desire to teach about its adherants and proponents to children in schools is seen as "homophobia."

Homophobia is refusing to hire someone simply because they are gay. As far as I've seen, the LGBT community wants the existence of non-heterosexual orientations to be acknowledged. Promoted is a little extreme: there is a difference between "Gay is OK" and "Gay is best, be gay!".

There is a fact that gay actvists have tried and tried to change, and yet the Bible still, in any version that's been put out (translation/interpretation), has not one statement promoting or supporting gay sex ("same-gender" sexual acts) to be engaged in by believers.

Well that's just simply false. The traditional translations and interpretations (KJV, NIV, etc) translate verses that could be seen as 'pro-gay' in a deliberately flawed way. Consider 1 Samuel 20:41 - " And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and [David & Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David became great." Yet the Living Translation, fearing a possible 'gay' interpretation, states they merely shook hands! Other translations omit the verses altogether!

Is the Bible "homophobic?" Every "marriage" in the Bible is between a man and a woman.

Except for David and Jonathans. And even if their marraige didn't occur, that's still no reason to say "No gay marriages, plox". You could just as easily use that argument to defend paedophilia or polygamy .

But there are, many voices in the Bible that do not support it and of course do not promote. That's a fact that can only change by changing what "people" wrote that was put down in the canonized compilation. But that wouldn't be honest.

What isn't honest is ignoring the valid exegesis simply because it contradicts your precious worldview. Instead of engaging in debate to ascertain the truth (whatever the may be), you block your ears and claim blatent untruths!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't want to disbelieve the word of God but I guess the main 'struggle' I have is reconciling logic, experience, answered prayer (?), unanswered prayer (?), opposing or/and inconsistent 'messages' from supposedly the same source (God?) with the mainstream brand of Christianity we see on the subforum which is very bent on the 'words from a book' more so than real actions or/and experiences of an individual. Occasionally I visualize what it would be like to be sharing the same pew with some of these folks. I'd be afraid of doing or saying the 'wrong' thing - expressing opposing scriptural viewpoints with them, having the freedom to 'think outside the box', for instance - in case I was accused of being a follower of Satan.

If I understand the New Testament, such a branch of Christianity is decidedly unchristian: Jesus was against all that formality and legalism.

As for the real 'hardliners' on the 'anti-gay' issue, they appear to be totally lacking - either by choice or by sheer ignorance - in their understanding of the issue of homosexuality. They have closed their minds to this matter and they instead allow the words from a book (and, at the end of the day, words are ALL they are!) to take precedence over the very REAL and PERSONAL and NON-THREATENING characteristics of some of their fellow human beings. It's THIS example of Christianity - one's personal and dogmatic interpretation of 'the word of God', the lack of humanity shown by professed Christians toward others who might be 'different' that I see so consistently on debate boards such as this - that I personally can't come to grips with.

Agreed. Not only is it a bizarre stance to hold against your fellow man (I've never understood how someone can have such overarching prejudice), it's also inconsistent with their own theology!

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets... except when it comes to those dirty f&#1072;gs" (Matthew 22:35-40)

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You do realize of course that all you have done is pick one of 7 names to attack. You then attack the individuals political views as if it refutes the research. Indeed this same thing happened when someone pointed out the J. M. Bailey controversy. I can assure you I am well aware of the controversies and can produce correspondance I've had with J. M. Bailey. I have seriously considered the evidence above. Your reply amounts to a out-of-hand rejection of the evidence provided by way of strawman and ad hominem fallacies. Am I supposed to consider your post a serious argument?

My reponse was not a "serious" argument at all. I am not a nuero surgeon, nor do I hold gay activism in high regard. I do not believe in research done that suggests that sin can be condoned. Sorry if my Christian perspective slights the guys you need to support your beliefs. BTW, are you a nuero surgeon or some other medical expert? You say that you seriously considered the research findings.

Typically if a person is going to consider a proposition seriously they perform a study of that topic so that they are intimitely familiar with the content they are judging. They know how the experiments were carried out and what controls were used (or have at least checked it). I don't believe HEMI field theory is true and that is because I've read about it and don't think it is possible for the supervening electron field to restimulated closed gap junctions, it can only reopen closing gap junctions and subsequently cause the action potential previously performed. In addition to that it provides no logical process of infering that the field is conscious.

WHAT causes a person to choose to engage in gay sex is still quite open to findings as of this very moment. I have my opinions based squarely on the research I have done living, working, eating and living with people that enjoy gay sex. It seems a very choice activated behavior.

There is ample scientific evidence from double-blinded experiments and fMRI brain scans which show marked differences. MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging measures the activity of hemoglobin in the brain. Hemoglobin (blood) provides vital elements to the active areas. Which is why the scans show what the brain is doing. I know your point of view is that the bible tells you everything you need to know. But I think all it really tells you is what you want to hear.

You're joking right? I am a man. I would be ecstatic if this "Anything goes" declaration of gay activists were reality. I'm thinking harem right now. Have you seen the Olympic Paraguayan javelin thrower?

I'm interested in conversing with someone like my friend Tom who has studied philosophy or understands that there are other ways to argue than rhetoric. That's why I'm here not for ridiculous arguments.

I use scripture, logic and reason to decide my positions. For example, there is no scripture promoting gay sex anywhere in the Bible. And adultery stays put as well.

So much for me and the Paraguayan athlete hooking up. Now I gotta go repent. (Believe me, that is on topic here. No rhetoric used.)

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Having sex is a choice. Homosexuality - being gay - isn't.

David.

"Gay" is a neologism. You can choose to be called "gay."

Now, same-gender sexual interactions, not that was not ignored by the writers of the works known commonly as the New Testament. It was soundly disapproved of to the point of absolute opposition to it.

If you want me to post the scripture support for my assertion, I will oblige you. Yet again.

 

[David Brider]

"Gay" is a neologism. You can choose to be called "gay."

Quite. But you can't choose to be gay.

David.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Quite. But you can't choose to be gay.

David.

It's a modern day theory.

Here's some excerpts from King David's take on your premise:

Have mercy on me,O God, according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.

Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your word and blameless in your judgment.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones that you have broken rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.

Then I will teach transgressors your ways and sinners will return to you.

 

[David Brider]

It's a modern day theory.

It is, yes. And it's based on the fact that nobody seems to choose who they're physically attracted to.

Unless you know any different?

Here's some excerpts from King David's take on your premise:

Not sure how anything that he had to say related to the subject of being gay. Please enlighten me.

David.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

It is, yes. And it's based on the fact that nobody seems to choose who they're physically attracted to.

Unless you know any different?

Why is that even held as a belief? Because liberals and progressives have made it so. We are given choices and advice on what to do. It's called "orientation." As of this date, there is nothing definate on what or how someone chooses what to do sexually, but what we do know, is that in almost every case, someone either tells them what to do, or literally walks them through the act. As in "sexual" orientation. I can't get specific with facts (afgain) or I'll get banned.

Not sure how anything that he had to say related to the subject of being gay. Please enlighten me.

On Pslam 51? Wow.

But I guess, since the born again thing wasn't easy for a scribe of Israel to retain knowledge of, I don't expect it to come easy to modern day folk.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

27 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."

 

[Hentenza]

41 - Your score rates you as "non-homophobic."

 

[Neuron]

My reponse was not a "serious" argument at all. I am not a nuero surgeon, nor do I hold gay activism in high regard. I do not believe in research done that suggests that sin can be condoned. Sorry if my Christian perspective slights the guys you need to support your beliefs. BTW, are you a nuero surgeon or some other medical expert? You say that you seriously considered the research findings.



WHAT causes a person to choose to engage in gay sex is still quite open to findings as of this very moment. I have my opinions based squarely on the research I have done living, working, eating and living with people that enjoy gay sex. It seems a very choice activated behavior.




You're joking right? I am a man. I would be ecstatic if this "Anything goes" declaration of gay activists were reality. I'm thinking harem right now. Have you seen the Olympic Paraguayan javelin thrower?



I use scripture, logic and reason to decide my positions. For example, there is no scripture promoting gay sex anywhere in the Bible. And adultery stays put as well.

So much for me and the Paraguayan athlete hooking up. Now I gotta go repent. (Believe me, that is on topic here. No rhetoric used.)

That's fine use your bible, but I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who appeals to authority. Now, a lot of Christians and indeed the Vatican believes that science only reveals the truth about the bible. Which is why I'm interested in having a coversation with someone who believes that the same conclusions can be acheived through different methods, methods that don't merely appeal to an authority. Why would I want to have a convseration with someone about science who rejects science and places absolute blind faith and total ignorance in the Bible? I clearly don't. I'm not interested in argument for the sake of argument. I know there are people who have taken seriously the pursuit of knowledge and who have come to theologistic conclusions like Tom. That's why I am here. I'm simply not gonna debate you on grounds of scripture when it relates to homosexuality. If you have an ontological argument for choice or some such present it.

 

[revanneosl]

4 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic."