Major Evangelical Adoption Agency Will Now Serve Gay Parents Nationwide

[SilverBear]

So we are now equating human beings with animals in heat? No homosexuality is not seen in nature.

Animals that display homosexuality are usually those that form long term bonds, These bonds involve far more than sex, they involve cohabitation, displays of affection and even the rearing of offspring.

I get that you don't want to acknowledge any of this but it is still there.

I also get why you want to reduce it to "heat" because it implies that the relationships of human homosexuals are only about sex. If you pretend that gays and lesbian relationships are just about sex then it becomes all the easier to compare them to animals and justify hate and bigotry. Racists use a similar ply stating that black people are incapable of actual romantic love and only engage in animalistic aspects of a relationship

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.

sure you do, it's not that uncommon at all.

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

evidence says otherwise

The most we could say about sex in nature is that animals can be very promiscuous.

[ except for the huge number of species that mate for life.

 

[SilverBear]

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.

so did the drunk driver that ran a red stoplight and rammed into my wife's car.

My children have spent most of their lives deprived of a mother.

Explain why i have been allowed to retain custody of my children even though i am depriving them so.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
Ringo

As I said before, animals can have sexual activity that is akin to the homosexual act of sex. But that doesn't make them homosexual. It makes them promiscuous.

The definition of homosexuality is: the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

You don't see this in the animal world. AND in the biology of nature those same animals cannot propegate the species unless they have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex.

There is no true homosexuality in the animal world.

 

[Ringo84]

As I said before, animals can have sexual activity that is akin to the homosexual act of sex. But that doesn't make them homosexual. It makes them promiscuous.

The definition of homosexuality is: the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

You don't see this in the animal world. AND in the biology of nature those same animals cannot propegate the species unless they have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex.

There is no true homosexuality in the animal world.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConcernedPrestigiousLacewing-small.gif

You said that there was no homosexual activity in nature. We disproved that. You are wrong. Take the 'L' and move on.
Ringo

 

[Nithavela]

As I said before, animals can have sexual activity that is akin to the homosexual act of sex. But that doesn't make them homosexual. It makes them promiscuous.

The definition of homosexuality is: the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

You don't see this in the animal world. AND in the biology of nature those same animals cannot propegate the species unless they have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex.

There is no true homosexuality in the animal world.

At this point you look like a child stuffing its fingers in its ears and going LALALALA

 

[SilverBear]

As I said before, animals can have sexual activity that is akin to the homosexual act of sex. But that doesn't make them homosexual. It makes them promiscuous.

The definition of homosexuality is: the quality or characteristic of being sexually attracted solely to people of one's own sex.

You don't see this in the animal world. AND in the biology of nature those same animals cannot propegate the species unless they have a sexual relationship with the opposite sex.

There is no true homosexuality in the animal world.

your denials of what is painfully obvious is a sad commentary on you.

 

[hedrick]

I think I've been pretty clear. A practicing homosexual is living a life of sin. Can you be saved and live a sinful life? I think God is pretty clear on that.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins

I hope Gid doesn’t work like this. I’m reasonably sure he’s OK with gays. If so, people who continually oppose their inclusion in church are living in sin. Sin isn’t just about sex. Making life unnecessarily painful for other people is surely a serious sin. I do not, however, think God will damn people because of exegetical errors, even if it causes problems for other people or results in having sex with the wrong person.

 

[rjs330]

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.
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.
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.


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?

The fact that there might be a gender change in nature, is a matter of adaptation. They still change from male to female or vice versa. It's because you still need and have always needed that for the species to multiply. The reality of natural law indicates that when God told them to be fruitful and multiply there had to be male and female. We have yet to see in nature anywhere there two males can be fruitful and multiply the species or two females can. Thus reason and logic indicates that God created it that way.

There is no other reasonable explanation.

Eve was created as a helper. But God ALSO commanded they be fruitful and multiply. Therefore the ONLY explanation is that male and female are needed for procreation and that it was also a reason they were together. This happened BEFORE the fall and further supports the point I made above. God didn't create her JUST to be a helper. As he didn't command her to just help. He commanded the two of them to be fruitful and multiply.

You are asking questions that are interesting things to consider. But God doesn't answer.

1. The simple fact that God said it is not good for man to be alone is a simple statement that indicates God knew from the start that it was not good that man should be alone. It is not an indication that God realized he made an error. It was a simple statement indicating the UNIQUE. experience of man which is separate from the animals. God didn't say it is not good that the male lion is alone. Mankind in UNIQUE in their need for relationship. And that need is met between the relationship of man and woman. AND an essential part of that relationship is the sexual relationship that is necessary for procreation.
2. The declaration was that God knew man needed a companion. No animal could meet man's need and God created the woman out of the man. Why? I have no idea. God doesn't say. We can speculate all we want, but won't come up with an answer. As God says his ways are not ours and his thoughts are not ours. Who can know the mind of God? Not me. If he doesn't tell.me, I'm certainly not going to make some declarative statement as to what God was or wasn't thinking. It would be wise for you to do the same. Because you are then trying to place your intellect on par with God's.
3. A human beings coupling is unique in that God created them unique. Man is a unique creation as seen in scripture. God didn't speak and the earth didn't bring forth man. God intimately created man from the dust if the ground and breathed into him to be a living soul. He did nothing of the sort with any other creation. In fact the other creatures were created as many. Yet man was created as one.

Nature from the creation indicates that propegation of species is only done by make and female couplings.

 

[rjs330]

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.
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.
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.


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?

The fact that there might be a gender change in nature, is a matter of adaptation. They still change from male to female or vice versa. It's because you still need and have always needed that for the species to multiply. The reality of natural law indicates that when God told them to be fruitful and multiply there had to be male and female. We have yet to see in nature anywhere there two males can be fruitful and multiply the species or two females can. Thus reason and logic indicates that God created it that way.

There is no other reasonable explanation.

Eve was created as a helper. But God ALSO commanded they be fruitful and multiply. Therefore the ONLY explanation is that male and female are needed for procreation and that it was also a reason they were together. This happened BEFORE the fall and further supports the point I made above. God didn't create her JUST to be a helper. As he didn't command her to just help. He commanded the two of them to be fruitful and multiply.

You are asking questions that are interesting things to consider. But God doesn't answer.

1. The simple fact that God said it is not good for man to be alone is a simple statement that indicates God knew from the start that it was not good that man should be alone. It is not an indication that God realized he made an error. It was a simple statement indicating the UNIQUE. experience of man which is separate from the animals. God didn't say it is not good that the male lion is alone. Mankind in UNIQUE in their need for relationship. And that need is met between the relationship of man and woman. AND an essential part of that relationship is the sexual relationship that is necessary for procreation.
2. The declaration was that God knew man needed a companion. No animal could meet man's need and God created the woman out of the man. Why? I have no idea. God doesn't say. We can speculate all we want, but won't come up with an answer. As God says his ways are not ours and his thoughts are not ours. Who can know the mind of God? Not me. If he doesn't tell.me, I'm certainly not going to make some declarative statement as to what God was or wasn't thinking. It would be wise for you to do the same. Because you are then trying to place your intellect on par with God's.
3. A human beings coupling is unique in that God created them unique. Man is a unique creation as seen in scripture. God didn't speak and the earth didn't bring forth man. God intimately created man from the dust if the ground and breathed into him to be a living soul. He did nothing of the sort with any other creation. In fact the other creatures were created as many. Yet man was created as one.

Nature from the creation indicates that propegation of species is only done by make and female couplings.

 

[rjs330]

I hope Gid doesn’t work like this. I’m reasonably sure he’s OK with gays. If so, people who continually oppose their inclusion in church are living in sin. Sin isn’t just about sex. Making life unnecessarily painful for other people is surely a serious sin. I do not, however, think God will damn people because of exegetical errors, even if it causes problems for other people or results in having sex with the wrong person.

Is God okay with any sin?

 

[rjs330]

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

For later....

Are there any homosexual animals?

No there isn't homosexuality in nature. Once again, homosexuality is not biology. There is no gay gene and in nature you must have a male and female to multiply the species.

 

[Ringo84]

"You must have a male and female to multiply the species".

Nope: Many animals can give birth without mating
Ringo

 

[hedrick]

Is God okay with any sin?

No, but he who thinks he is without sin is deceiving himself.

Furthermore, I'd guess that the most serious sins are the ones that a person doesn't recognize, and thus doesn't repent or try to change. Again, if you stop focusing just on sexual sin, but look at Jesus' teachings as a whole or even the entirety of Paul's lists, I'd bet just about all Christians not only commit sin, but repeatedly commit sins that they don't admit.

That's not to say that we should accept that, but I think it's something that God is going to forgive. I hope and believe that even people who try to exclude gays from the church can be saved.

 

[Ringo84]

If sin is sin (as hedrick rightly says), then it seems....I dunno, discriminatory?....to single out LGBTQ people as being unique sinners among all the other sinners who regularly inhabit churches.
Ringo

 

[rambot]

Are there any homosexual animals?

No there isn't homosexuality in nature. Once again, homosexuality is not biology. There is no gay gene and in nature you must have a male and female to multiply the species.

What this article does is parce out the difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual behaviour".
You'll note it does NOT deny homosexual behaviour in the least and in fact, creates a long list of examples. It does not there are "a few" animals that engage in life long homosexual relationships.
Essentially, if you read the article, it says, that these animals are bisexual.

So I imagine that makes you feel relieved.


It's also strange that Christians are using "evolution based" arguments against homosexuality in animals.

 

[Kenny'sID]

prove what?

It...look at the post closely, you'll figure it out.

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

Did you not reject facts and documents?
And are you certian the facts and documents on your end of this are all truth?

 

[public hermit]

Obnoxious paternalism is no doubt an egregious sin. Even God lets people live out their lives in freedom. Of course, in the spirit of Jonah, God probably is willing to forgive obnoxious paternalism, too. Grace is no fun when it applies to other people's sins.

 

[rambot]

The fact that there might be a gender change in nature, is a matter of adaptation. They still change from male to female or vice versa. It's because you still need and have always needed that for the species to multiply. The reality of natural law indicates that when God told them to be fruitful and multiply there had to be male and female. We have yet to see in nature anywhere there two males can be fruitful and multiply the species or two females can. Thus reason and logic indicates that God created it that way.

My bold. To be clear, you just kinda repeated your argument.

There is no other reasonable explanation.

Neither God, nor his amazing creation ALWAYS works with "reasonable explanation". You can certainly be within your rights to say "I don't know for sure".

Eve was created as a helper. But God ALSO commanded they be fruitful and multiply. Therefore the ONLY explanation is that male and female are needed for procreation and that it was also a reason they were together. This happened BEFORE the fall and further supports the point I made above. God didn't create her JUST to be a helper. As he didn't command her to just help. He commanded the two of them to be fruitful and multiply.

Then we could assume that God initially (ie....before Eve was considered) didn't want humans to procreate?

You are asking questions that are interesting things to consider. But God doesn't answer.

Mankind in UNIQUE in their need for relationship.

oh wow. Definitely, definitely not.

2. The declaration was that God knew man needed a companion. No animal could meet man's need and God created the woman out of the man. Why? I have no idea. God doesn't say. We can speculate all we want, but won't come up with an answer. As God says his ways are not ours and his thoughts are not ours. Who can know the mind of God? Not me. If he doesn't tell.me, I'm certainly not going to make some declarative statement as to what God was or wasn't thinking. It would be wise for you to do the same. Because you are then trying to place your intellect on par with God's. [/QUOTE]Rest assured I am doing NO such thing. I can't handle God's intellect and while a guess may be fun, I'd never put any weight or faith behind it.

3. A human beings coupling is unique in that God created them unique. Man is a unique creation as seen in scripture. God didn't speak and the earth didn't bring forth man. God intimately created man from the dust if the ground and breathed into him to be a living soul. He did nothing of the sort with any other creation. In fact the other creatures were created as many. Yet man was created as one.

Nature from the creation indicates that propegation of species is only done by make and female couplings.

It should also be noted that the sole premise of your argument against homosexuality is really on the basis of "can't procreate".

Ultimately though, you can get into a VERY interesting discussion on the implications there. A big one in my mind: God's people are traipsing about the Middle East and eventually get to settle down. The problem is that they have a LOT of neighbours who are heavily populated. God (obviously) is aware that homosexuality is not going to strengthen the numbers of the people of Israel.

The issue for me is that it breaks down the ENTIRE human experience to "procreation" and that the entirety of our existence (as it relates to our sexuality/gender) is to make babies. I just don't think God made us so 1 dimensional.

 

[hedrick]

What this article does is parce out the difference between "homosexuality" and "homosexual behaviour".
You'll note it does NOT deny homosexual behaviour in the least and in fact, creates a long list of examples. It does not there are "a few" animals that engage in life long homosexual relationships.
Essentially, if you read the article, it says, that these animals are bisexual.

So I imagine that makes you feel relieved.


It's also strange that Christians are using "evolution based" arguments against homosexuality in animals.

I'd like to point out that when Paul refers to nature he doesn't mean what animals in the forest do. He's referring to what is "natural" for humans.

It's actually a bit unclear how carefully he justifies that. In the long hair example, it seems that his judgement on what is natural is actually specific to his culture. There's a long Catholic tradition about natural law, but it's a bit questionable that Paul is using that.

It's equally unlikely that he's referring to things that are favored by evolution. Nor is such an argument as obvious as it sounds, since there are characteristics that aren't directly favorable, but may be associated with something else that is. (There's some evidence that this applies to sickle cells, for example.)

I don't think we really want to base ethics on this. Otherwise it would be immoral to be celibate.

I'd suggest that Christians generally think it's good to help people who aren't typical to live good lives. We don't, for example, argue against wheelchairs because God created Adam and Eve with legs. You can make a reasonable case that people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex are better off coming as close as possible to Christian marriage with their own sex, rather than trying to pretend, and making a hash of their marriage, or trying and failing to be celibate. (Paul, of course, understands that celibacy is a gift, and it's not advisable to do it if you don't have the gift.) It seems that once sex comes into a discussion, normal willingness to make allowances goes out the door. I wish I knew why. It certainly doesn't come from Jesus' teaching.

 

[rambot]

I'd suggest that Christians generally think it's good to help people who aren't typical to live good lives. We don't, for example, argue against wheelchairs because God created Adam and Eve with legs. You can make a reasonable case that people who aren't attracted to the opposite sex are better off coming as close as possible to Christian marriage with their own sex, rather than trying to pretend, and making a hash of their marriage, or trying and failing to be celibate. (Paul, of course, understands that celibacy is a gift, and it's not advisable to do it if you don't have the gift.) It seems that once sex comes into a discussion, normal willingness to make allowances goes out the door. I wish I knew why. It certainly doesn't come from Jesus' teaching.

[my bold]
I wonder if that may be a nod to the "asexual" orientation.