Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

[cow451]

See post 247

See post #249. It was expressed quite eloquently. If you don't understand, then we need to just move on.

 

[rjs330]

The Bible? A minute ago you were trying to make a natural law argument--that sexual intercourse without the intention to make a baby "violated biology."

Read post 239. He responded to a post that was a discussion on biblical interpretation. It wasnt meant to be a biblical argument for or against homosexuality. It was a different discussion that was brought up by somebody else. Not me.

Unbelievers are lost no matter what. In essence whether or not they are homosexual is irrelevant to whether or not they are condemned already. I think I've made that clear MANY times.

I'm against using the Bible to tell unbelievers how they ought to live as unbelievers. Because it doesn't matter. They can't live a good enough life to be saved. So what's the point.

The argument I have made and will continue to make is that homosexuality is against biology and nature.

 

[Speedwell]

Read post 239. He responded to a post that was a discussion on biblical interpretation. It wasnt meant to be a biblical argument for or against homosexuality. It was a different discussion that was brought up by somebody else. Not me.

Unbelievers are lost no matter what. In essence whether or not they are homosexual is irrelevant to whether or not they are condemned already. I think I've made that clear MANY times.

I'm against using the Bible to tell unbelievers how they ought to live as unbelievers. Because it doesn't matter. They can't live a good enough life to be saved. So what's the point.

The argument I have made and will continue to make is that homosexuality is against biology and nature.

Why? It appears to be a part of nature, found in creatures besides humans. What about those sexual acts engaged in by both straights and gays?

 

[Ringo84]

Read post 239. He responded to a post that was a discussion on biblical interpretation. It wasnt meant to be a biblical argument for or against homosexuality. It was a different discussion that was brought up by somebody else. Not me.

Unbelievers are lost no matter what. In essence whether or not they are homosexual is irrelevant to whether or not they are condemned already. I think I've made that clear MANY times.

I'm against using the Bible to tell unbelievers how they ought to live as unbelievers. Because it doesn't matter. They can't live a good enough life to be saved. So what's the point.

The argument I have made and will continue to make is that homosexuality is against biology and nature.

Homosexuality isn't "against" anything; it just is. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
Ringo

 

[Strathos]

Does this also apply to heterosexual unmarried Christians?

Look at 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says that abstinence is a virtue and it's good for Christians to choose not to marry and reproduce.

 

[rjs330]

While his analogy may have been off, his point remains valid. Homosexuality is pretty common amongst animals species so yes...it is "natural".



I've always wondered: When God created all the animals on days 5 and 6, did he create male and female animals or just male animals; like he did with people? It doesn't really make sense that he would do that but leave only one male human.. Literal readings of these passages create a LOT of questions.

So we are now equating human beings with animals in heat? No homosexuality is not seen in nature. A dog in heat my try and hump.my leg. Would it then be natural for me to start humping people's legs cause I'm horny?

In nature we see male and female couplings in order to propogate the species. You don't see two male lions mating and becoming mates for life. Or bulls or ducks or whatever.

We are talking the biology of sexual orientation. Animals don't have homosexual partnerships like human beings do. The most we could say about sex in nature is that animals can be very promiscuous. Thus in a strict sense you could make a case for promiscuity and poligamy. Not homosexuality.

In answer to your question on the bible it can be found there. God created animals male and female and told them to procreate and fill the earth. In the case of man, he was a UNIQUE creation and God did things differently with man. He gave him a soul, and also saw that it was good that man should not be alone. So man and women were created for companionship AND to populate the earth.

If course he created male and female animals. He told the animals to be fruitful and multiply. So he created make and female animals too.

 

[Lion IRC]

By that logic, the child of a widower is in trouble.

Who would deliberately deprive a child of their mother/father by purposefully making themself a widow?

Perhaps you misunderstand the logic here. Same-sex surrogacy deliberately denies a child gender-balanced parenting.

My lesbian friends have a child. That child honours their mother; both of them.

If the 10 Commandments said Honor your two 'mothers' or your two 'fathers' then you would have a point.

 

[rjs330]

Look at 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says that abstinence is a virtue and it's good for Christians to choose not to marry and reproduce.

Was this a command from God? What else did Paul say in that passage? It feels like you are trying to take something totally out of context to make a point. Why would you do that?

 

[rambot]

Who would deliberately deprive a child of their mother/father by purposefully making themself a widow?

Why would the word "purposefully" be used here at all?

Perhaps you misunderstand the logic here. Same-sex surrogacy deliberately denies a child gender-balanced parenting.

First off, I would argue that "gender balanced parenting" is FAAAAAAAAR from important. There are enough single parents that successfully raise their kids that the concept is a bit of a silly notion.
Second, I'd suggest the only thing any kids may ever miss out on is "personality balanced" parenting.
Lastly, the aforementioned lesbian couple (who are currently raising a son and have another on the way), have specific males in their life that play a BIG role in their son's life; though not necessarily as a "parent" but certainly as a companion, mentor, leader, compassionate considerer. That kind astuff.

If the 10 Commandments said Honor your two 'mothers' or your two 'fathers' then you would have a point.

Your thoughts on when people use in vitro fertilization?

 

[Tinker Grey]

While his analogy may have been off, his point remains valid. Homosexuality is pretty common amongst animals species so yes...it is "natural".

I'd add that since humans are natural, anything a human chooses to do is natural.

 

[Ringo84]

So we are now equating human beings with animals in heat? No homosexuality is not seen in nature. A dog in heat my try and hump.my leg. Would it then be natural for me to start humping people's legs cause I'm horny?

In nature we see male and female couplings in order to propogate the species. You don't see two male lions mating and becoming mates for life. Or bulls or ducks or whatever.

We are talking the biology of sexual orientation. Animals don't have homosexual partnerships like human beings do. The most we could say about sex in nature is that animals can be very promiscuous. Thus in a strict sense you could make a case for promiscuity and poligamy. Not homosexuality.

In answer to your question on the bible it can be found there. God created animals male and female and told them to procreate and fill the earth. In the case of man, he was a UNIQUE creation and God did things differently with man. He gave him a soul, and also saw that it was good that man should not be alone. So man and women were created for companionship AND to populate the earth.

If course he created male and female animals. He told the animals to be fruitful and multiply. So he created make and female animals too.

Homosexuality and ambiguity about strict definitions of gender have been observed in nature. The only person who wants to pigeonhole into a 'pink' straitjacket or a 'blue' straitjacket is you.
Ringo

 

[rambot]

So we are now equating human beings with animals in heat? No homosexuality is not seen in nature. A dog in heat my try and hump.my leg. Would it then be natural for me to start humping people's legs cause I'm horny?

I'm really happy someone told me about "So"s Law. Because
1) No I'm not equating it with humans being in "heat".
2) Yes homosexuality is seen in nature. Let me know if examples are of interest or if you'll just ignore them anyways.
3) No, it would not be natural for you to do that. It also wouldn't be natural for you to dive underwater and swim for 30 minutes like a Blue whale.

In nature we see male and female couplings in order to propogate the species. You don't see two male lions mating and becoming mates for life. Or bulls or ducks or whatever.

careful......

We are talking the biology of sexual orientation. Animals don't have homosexual partnerships like human beings do.

In fact they have almost exactly that.

The most we could say about sex in nature is that animals can be very promiscuous. Thus in a strict sense you could make a case for promiscuity and poligamy. Not homosexuality.

whoa. This is a weeeeeird understanding of procreation and animal reproduction.

In answer to your question on the bible it can be found there. God created animals male and female and told them to procreate and fill the earth.

I remember the verse "male and female he created them"....but I couldn't find it when I took a quick scan of Gen 1 again.

In the case of man, he was a UNIQUE creation and God did things differently with man. He gave him a soul, and also saw that it was good that man should not be alone. So man and women were created for companionship AND to populate the earth.
If course he created male and female animals. He told the animals to be fruitful and multiply. So he created make and female animals too.

Ahhh....so his original plan was just to have Adam all on his own while every other species had two genders and was told to multiply?

 

[Strathos]

Was this a command from God? What else did Paul say in that passage? It feels like you are trying to take something totally out of context to make a point. Why would you do that?

I'm pointing out that scripture doesn't support the idea that everyone should always be reproducing.

 

[rjs330]

I'm really happy someone told me about "So"s Law. Because
1) No I'm not equating it with humans being in "heat".
2) Yes homosexuality is seen in nature. Let me know if examples are of interest or if you'll just ignore them anyways.
3) No, it would not be natural for you to do that. It also wouldn't be natural for you to dive underwater and swim for 30 minutes like a Blue whale.


careful......

In fact they have almost exactly that.


whoa. This is a weeeeeird understanding of procreation and animal reproduction.

I remember the verse "male and female he created them"....but I couldn't find it when I took a quick scan of Gen 1 again.



Ahhh....so his original plan was just to have Adam all on his own while every other species had two genders and was told to multiply?

No they don't. There are no homosexual relationships in nature.

Genesis doesn't have "male/female" in Genesis 1. The fact he told them to be fruitful and multiply implies male and female. The implication cannot be construed to mean anything else. We know this because of biological sciences.
2. It is also a fact that he created male and female humans. And told them to multiply. So using scripture (just for you) it can ONLY be shown that han beings were created male and female and he told them to multiply. He also created females so man wouldn't be alone. As a helper to him. He didn't create another man. And he didn't create two females. Because it takes a male and female to multiply. Thus it is nature.

I do t know what God's original plan was. Do you? A that can be said about the creation is that God said it was not good for man to be alone and he created a woman from him. I would say that was God's plan all along. To create a man and then create a woman from him to be his partner. A much more intimate coupling than the animals.

(All unbelievers can ignore this discussion as it does not pertain to you. This is just a discussion based upon a comment from rambot. I'm not trying to tell you how to specifically live your non-christian life because the bible says...)

 

[Ringo84]

No they don't. There are no homosexual relationships in nature.

Wrong.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
Ringo

 

[Nithavela]

In nature we see male and female couplings in order to propogate the species. You don't see two male lions mating and becoming mates for life.

Kenya "crazy gay" lions should be isolated for research, Ezekial Mutua, chief executive of Kenya Film Classification Board says - CBS News

Or bulls

Homosexual and social behaviours of young bulls of different geno- and phenotypes and plasma concentrations of some hormones - ScienceDirect

or ducks

or whatever.

Whatever.

 

[cow451]

Look at 1 Corinthians 7. Paul says that abstinence is a virtue and it's good for Christians to choose not to marry and reproduce.

Unfortunately there are lots of people reproducing without marrying, LOL.

 

[rambot]

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

For later....

 

[SilverBear]

Prove it.

prove what?

The other stuff you quoted, prove they are correct, prove they aren't lying. I've seen homosexuals put up the most inane arguments about any subject that is against them, so I trust them no more than you trust my guy.

People make fair assumptions when doing research. Take Evolution for instance, they assumed the heck out of that, and I'd guess you havd no problem at all with their findings. So, until you can prove him wrong, I reckon we'll just have to go with it.

What a surprise, you reject facts and documentation that you don't happen to like just so you can keep spouting a false narrative.

 

[rambot]

No they don't. There are no homosexual relationships in nature.
Genesis doesn't have "male/female" in Genesis 1. The fact he told them to be fruitful and multiply implies male and female. The implication cannot be construed to mean anything else. We know this because of biological sciences.

Ahhh....okay. So it doesn't explicitly say that. So it can certainly be LOGICAL to assume that is the case but we don't know this for set reasons. There are several species where individuals CHANGE gender for various reasons. That could EASILY be another explanation as a more widespread phenomenon that was affected by the fall.

2. It is also a fact that he created male and female humans. And told them to multiply. So using scripture (just for you) it can ONLY be shown that han beings were created male and female and he told them to multiply. He also created females so man wouldn't be alone. As a helper to him. He didn't create another man. And he didn't create two females. Because it takes a male and female to multiply. Thus it is nature.

Isn't it interesting though that the female was defined as a HELPER. THAT was the role God created for her and assigned for her. As a helper.
NOT as a vessel through which your descendents will follow. JUST as a helper.

do t know what God's original plan was. Do you? A that can be said about the creation is that God said it was not good for man to be alone and he created a woman from him. I would say that was God's plan all along. To create a man and then create a woman from him to be his partner. A much more intimate coupling than the animals.

I'd be inclined to agree with you rjs but a couple questions perculate then:
1) Why didn't God create a woman for him, then, right off the top? This wasn't to fulfill a prophesy....
2) Why would God create pairs for every other animal on the planet but not recognize that Adam would be "lonely".
3) Not sure how human's coupling "is more intimate" than the animals.....I'd argue there are at least some species that are just as intimate (or unintimate) as human beings are/can be.

(All unbelievers can ignore this discussion as it does not pertain to you. This is just a discussion based upon a comment from rambot. I'm not trying to tell you how to specifically live your non-christian life because the bible says...)

Sperm comes from a man and eggs from a woman. So homosexuals cannot have children without the opposite sex. It's unnatural. It violates biology. I know it's shocking to think that biology exists and nature exists for a reason.
Homosexuality is something that is against biology.

Out of curiousity: If my lesbian friend got raped and had that baby with her partner...would you be MORE okay with her being a mother with her lesbian partner?