sin as choices

[rebelEnigma]

If I recall correctly, Jesus' blood covers past, present, and future sins such that if someone will repent, then God is faithful to forgive.

Yes, this is true. God forgives us the instant we ask Him to.

But there are a lot of people who seem to think that homosexuality is the worst sin, for some reason. Paul, former butcherer of Christians can be forgiven, but not homosexuals?

Homosexuals can easily be forgiven, the same that a murderer can be, or a liar, or an adulterer, or a thief, or a foul-mouthed blasphemer. It is not the worst of sins, nor is it the least, it's a powerful, binding sin that needs more than human willpower for it to be overcome.

Doesn't the bible say that all have sinned and fallen short? I don't get it.

We all have. Homosexuality is not the worst of sins, in fact, I'm pretty sure that it was spoken of the least in the Bible. Pride and murder are spoken of as probably the worst.

Some Christians have sometimes sinned, some even hypocritically, yet people empathize and forgive them. But when it comes to homosexuals, people don't believe that they can be Christian.

It is quite possible for a Christian to be a homosexual. The thing, though, is that the Christian must fight to overcome homosexuality and not excuse his behavior, but, rather, recognize that it is a sin. This is a huge difference between a Christian who thinks that being a homosexual is okay and that God does not disapprove.

A preacher can commit adultery and yet no one believes a Christian can be homosexual? Didn't Jesus say that only the sick need a doctor? I don't get it.

Only the sick need the doctor, this much is true.

There is a substantial group of people who *ARE* bigots against homosexuals and would gladly beat a dozen bloody for an afternoon's entertainment.

You're thinking of Fred and Shirley Phelps, and yes, I believe a more correct term for them would be "douchebags".

Or even some, like Fred Phelps, who believe that dead homosexuals are burning in hell... and rejoice rather than mourn.

He is one of the vilest speakers I have ever seen. Truly, he is without a conscience.

 

[MrPirate]

There's a difference between lust and attraction: lust completely separates the soul from the body. Attraction is merely noticing a person's physical beauty and finding it pleasing. A read this quote somewhere, telling the difference between lust and love: lust craves the body, love craves the soul. Just thought I'd mention that.

Yet you attribute lust only to people you have chosen to hate and attribute love only to your own group.

We are not going against the natural order because we are manipulating material already given to us by the earth and putting it to good use. Homosexuality isn't like this since it's an attraction to the same sex, something that is contrary to nature.

Which is why it is A, natural and B. occurring IN nature

Then, for no other reason, homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end if they cannot reproduce. How could they possibly pass on their genes if they can't procreate with their partners?

The human race stopped depending on its genes to pass things along about the same time we started making stone tools. Humanist is not passed along genetically it is passed along through socialization.

That is a physical problem and something completely beyond their control, much like other bodily problems: a misfunction of something natural.

Nice double standard here.
On the one hand you want to use the inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against one group of people …but object to using he inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against a different group of people.

It is wrong because God ordained that marriage is between one man and one woman. That's the reason, and homosexuality is a violation and a perversion of that. In short, fundamentally, it's wrong because God says so.

Not according to the bible.
Polygamy is a far more common presentation of marriage then the “one man one woman” notion.
And let us not forget such fun things as levirate marriages, concubines, the using f female salves for sexual recreation, and the use of rape to force a woman into marriage

Because those things are not under the victim's control. They can't simply change from being a Down's syndrome patient to a person without that disorder. Homosexuals, however, can, as is shown by untold numbers of former homosexuals. If it were something they couldn't change, then there would be no former-homosexuals today.

Ahh…the ex-gay lie again.

Tell me can you identify any ex-gays that are able to show they went form being homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)?

Yes. And those applied to the Israelites only because they were to be a people set apart for God.

If the lists of abominations only apply to the Israelites. Why are you bringing it up to condemn gays and lesbians?

Only because they carried numerous diseases, many of which the Israelites did not know about. Most of the laws in the Pentateuch were done for hygiene.

And the evidence that the eating of shellfish was called an ‘abomination’ for this reason…well you haven’t provided any




Wait a minute. So modern shellfish must be dangerous to eat because they wouldn’t suddenly stop carrying all the se mysterious unnamed diseases. Yet somehow I seemed to have survived last weeks encounter with a plateful of popcorn shrimp.

Yes, and I'm fairly certain that this was the sin that Lucifer was convicted of and thrown out of heaven for, not before he led 1/3 of the angels to hell with him.

of course you have never taken pride in a job well done or in an accomplishment…


And you of course are not exercising pride when you set yourself up to be just a little bit superior to those nasty lusting homosexuals.

God gave that law only the Israelites. It is no longer required, nor was it ever an abomination. It was merely something God said "Don't do, you are my people, and I want you to live this way."

Ahh…so inconvenient laws were only given to the Israelites. I see.

And the laws right next to these inconvenient laws are still in effect because…?

Yes.

And of course you have never listened to any.

You seem to think that I hate homosexuals. On the contrary, I love homosexuals very much and wish them the best of luck.

That being said, I do not approve of homosexuality and find it abhorrent. Nevertheless, I won't go to a homosexual's door and say "Change or die". If you think that just because I find another's behavior distasteful, I'm a bigot, you are mistaken.

No it is your willing ness to condemn an entire minority that does that
Along with the fact you happily compare an entire minority to criminal activity.

None of which changes the fact that what you are doing is an abomination…or will you claim that this was one of those inconvenient laws that don’t apply to you.

 

[MrPirate]

I was about to ask you that. Also, if it were an unchangeable genetic characteristic, why is it that so many homosexuals changed to heterosexuals?



Heterosexuals lust just as much as homosexuals. I never said that they didn't.

You just claimed that homosexuality was not genetic and IS a choice.

Back up your claims.

And can you show homosexuals (Kinsey scale 6) have actually changed to heterosexuals (Kinsey scale 0)?

 

[MrPirate]

Jesus fulfilled the Old testament. We are under Grace; however,he did not abolish the law( Mathew 5: 17 ) How can you have Grace, mercy, and not apply justice. That having a superior all knowing God which knows all of mans heart and most inter thoughts. Read all of Galatians

So do you adhere to all the laws of the old testament?

Do you shave?
Where clothing made of mixed fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Force rape victims to marry the rapist?
Kill naughty children?

Or do you pick and choose among them?

 

[MrPirate]

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." --Romans 1:27, KJV

You cannot deny what it says here, my friend. It specifically condemns homosexuality.

And this is from the New Testament.

This is nothing new. The various letters of Paul have historically been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, religious reformers, and the mentally ill. Currently the popular target of this discrimination are homosexuals


your claim fails on several levels


In the original Greek, the phrase for “vile affliction” translates as ecstatic or ecstasy, the original meaning was not the modern one…the word did not mean passion or lust but rather referred to ecstatic trance states described by the anthropologist Mircea Eliade. These ecstatic trances were part of pretty much every religion, such states were generally achieved by religious leaders but lay people could engage in them as well, the process was to connect to the spirit world for healing and blessing. The Modern Christian version would be “speaking in tongues” and the meditative state achieved in ritualistic prayer. Originally the condemnation was against any religion but the one Paul was founding, but as noted the non Christian process he was condemning, like so many other non-Christian traditions, found their way into Christianity.

The society Paul is writing to, both Roman and Greek, considered homosexuality be quite natural. What would have been considered unnatural for Paul’s audience would have been to force oneself to go against one’s own nature, to pretend to be something one is not. The relationships are referred to as being unnatural. the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. The word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather engage in action(s) which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. Thus the passages correctly reads that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

Since ones sexuality and sexual oriention are natural, what Paul is condemning is the unnaturalness of going against one’s nature. In the verse God punishes individuals engaging in ecstatic trance work by forcing them to be something they are not.

The sin here (aside form ecstasy trance work) is pretending to be something you are not.

Romans 1:26-27 is not a condemnation of homosexuality but a condemnation of trying to change or lying about ones sexual oriention. Thus it is a condemnation of ex-gay ministries.

 

[allhart]

If I recall correctly, Jesus' blood covers past, present, and future sins such that if someone will repent, then God is faithful to forgive. But there are a lot of people who seem to think that homosexuality is the worst sin, for some reason. Paul, former butcherer of Christians can be forgiven, but not homosexuals? Doesn't the bible say that all have sinned and fallen short? I don't get it.

Some Christians have sometimes sinned, some even hypocritically, yet people empathize and forgive them. But when it comes to homosexuals, people don't believe that they can be Christian. A preacher can commit adultery and yet no one believes a Christian can be homosexual? Didn't Jesus say that only the sick need a doctor? I don't get it.

There is a substantial group of people who *ARE* bigots against homosexuals and would gladly beat a dozen bloody for an afternoon's entertainment.

Or even some, like Fred Phelps, who believe that dead homosexuals are burning in hell... and rejoice rather than mourn.

I don't get it. If a Christian stands for truth no matter (what )he is a bigot! Even if out of love for them. I care enough to say what is truth and i would hope someone will do the same for me! Know this God speaks out of love no matter the so called cost. For he is the lover of their souls.

 

[MrPirate]

e·quiv·o·ca·tion1.the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in order to mislead or hedge; prevarication. 2.an equivocal, ambiguous expression; equivoque: The speech was marked by elaborate equivocations. 3.Logic. a fallacy caused by the double meaning of a word.

If you can’t actually respond to a post…then don’t

 

[MrPirate]

I don't get it. If a Christian stands for truth no matter (what )he is a bigot! Even if out of love for them. I care enough to say what is truth and i would hope someone will do the same for me! Know this God speak out of love no matter the so called cost. For he is the lover of their souls.

Tell me do you then the people who dress in white robes and hoods and burn crosses in peoples front yards are “loving”?

 

[rebelEnigma]

Yet you attribute lust only to people you have chosen to hate and attribute love only to your own group.

I never once said I hate homosexuals. Did you even read the rest of my post?

Which is why it is A, natural and B. occurring IN nature

Sex is between one man and one woman, the capacity for having children is there (if no physical illness or disorder has taken either of them). That is the natural order, not homosexual relations as the fundamental, unalterable purpose of sex is to have children.

The human race stopped depending on its genes to pass things along about the same time we started making stone tools. Humanist is not passed along genetically it is passed along through socialization.

What?!

Alright, so it's not a gene, which means that it can be changed.

Nice double standard here.
On the one hand you want to use the inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against one group of people …but object to using he inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against a different group of people.

A man and a woman can naturally have children together. If an illness or disorder comes along, then they can't. There is no double standard here, as there is no illness preventing homosexuals from having children, rather NATURE IS.

Not according to the bible.
Polygamy is a far more common presentation of marriage then the “one man one woman” notion.

Polygamy was tolerated by God, but not the true standard He set. Nevertheless, it was still a heterosexual union and God allowed it.

And let us not forget such fun things as levirate marriages, concubines, the using f female salves for sexual recreation, and the use of rape to force a woman into marriage

I don't think God allowed those, but try prove me wrong if you can find the verses for it.

If the lists of abominations only apply to the Israelites. Why are you bringing it up to condemn gays and lesbians?

I'm not. I have only used the New Testament to do so.

And the evidence that the eating of shellfish was called an ‘abomination’ for this reason…well you haven’t provided any




Wait a minute. So modern shellfish must be dangerous to eat because they wouldn’t suddenly stop carrying all the se mysterious unnamed diseases. Yet somehow I seemed to have survived last weeks encounter with a plateful of popcorn shrimp.

It's because we grew to understand that they carried diseases and we developed ways of killing them, making eating seafood much, much safer to eat.

of course you have never taken pride in a job well done or in an accomplishment…

Well I can't say that I ever led a group of angels in open-rebellion against the Lord God Almighty. . . .

And you of course are not exercising pride when you set yourself up to be just a little bit superior to those nasty lusting homosexuals.

You just love to make things up, don't you?

Ahh…so inconvenient laws were only given to the Israelites. I see.

I don't recall God ever giving the laws to the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or any other group out there. He gave them to the Israelites for their benefit and to preserve them so that the Messiah would come.

And the laws right next to these inconvenient laws are still in effect because…?

What in the world, man? I keep saying that I only use the New Testament to speak against homosexuality. Haven't you been paying attention?

And of course you have never listened to any.

What?

No it is your willing ness to condemn an entire minority that does that

What I said somehow kills homosexuals?

Along with the fact you happily compare an entire minority to criminal activity.

None of which changes the fact that what you are doing is an abomination…or will you claim that this was one of those inconvenient laws that don’t apply to you.

What are you talking about, man? I have not condemned homosexuals, I've merely said that homosexuality is a behavior that God says is wrong.

 

[allhart]

If you can’t actually respond to a post…then don’t

I responded just fine. Equivocation is a word that apply s to your misleading of scripture or misunderstanding of it. Either or it still apply s

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I don't get it. If a Christian stands for truth no matter (what )he is a bigot!

A Christian may not be a bigot, but he'll be mistaken for one. And, I think, that Christian will find being mistaken for a bigot as a small price if it may lead another to a relationship with Christ.

But compassion takes many forms. Jesus did not just live and die, but also healed, fed, taught, touched, and ate with people.

"If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, ' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?'"

So it is here. If anyone loves, let him live wholly. If anyone claims to love another, let him love the whole... spirit, mind, and body. If someone claims to seek the wellbeing of another's soul, will he not also seek the wellbeing of the same body?

 

[allhart]

Tell me do you then the people who dress in white robes and hoods and burn crosses in peoples front yards are “loving”?

God loves you and it can hurt to realize the truth or just facing it hurts. Your statement isn't me. Sorry!

 

[allhart]

Yet you attribute lust only to people you have chosen to hate and attribute love only to your own group.





Which is why it is A, natural and B. occurring IN nature





The human race stopped depending on its genes to pass things along about the same time we started making stone tools. Humanist is not passed along genetically it is passed along through socialization.




Nice double standard here.
On the one hand you want to use the inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against one group of people …but object to using he inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against a different group of people.





Not according to the bible.
Polygamy is a far more common presentation of marriage then the “one man one woman” notion.
And let us not forget such fun things as levirate marriages, concubines, the using f female salves for sexual recreation, and the use of rape to force a woman into marriage





Ahh…the ex-gay lie again.

Tell me can you identify any ex-gays that are able to show they went form being homosexual (Kinsey scale 6) to heterosexual (Kinsey scale 0)?





If the lists of abominations only apply to the Israelites. Why are you bringing it up to condemn gays and lesbians?






And the evidence that the eating of shellfish was called an ‘abomination’ for this reason…well you haven’t provided any




Wait a minute. So modern shellfish must be dangerous to eat because they wouldn’t suddenly stop carrying all the se mysterious unnamed diseases. Yet somehow I seemed to have survived last weeks encounter with a plateful of popcorn shrimp.






of course you have never taken pride in a job well done or in an accomplishment…


And you of course are not exercising pride when you set yourself up to be just a little bit superior to those nasty lusting homosexuals.







Ahh…so inconvenient laws were only given to the Israelites. I see.

And the laws right next to these inconvenient laws are still in effect because…?




And of course you have never listened to any.





No it is your willing ness to condemn an entire minority that does that
Along with the fact you happily compare an entire minority to criminal activity.

None of which changes the fact that what you are doing is an abomination…or will you claim that this was one of those inconvenient laws that don’t apply to you.

There needs to be more study and understanding in legalism and Grace :however the law reveals our sin.Romans 7:7

 

[MrPirate]

I never once said I hate homosexuals. Did you even read the rest of my post?

you attribute lust only to people you have chosen to hate and attribute love only to your own group.

Sex is between one man and one woman, the capacity for having children is there (if no physical illness or disorder has taken either of them). That is the natural order, not homosexual relations as the fundamental, unalterable purpose of sex is to have children.

Which is why human being ONLY have sex specifically to procreate.

What?!

Alright, so it's not a gene, which means that it can be changed.

The old…if I can’t actually formulate a response I will misrepresent what was said….ploy

A man and a woman can naturally have children together. If an illness or disorder comes along, then they can't. There is no double standard here, as there is no illness preventing homosexuals from having children, rather NATURE IS.

Double standard. On the one hand you want to use the inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against one group of people …but object to using he inability to have children to justify personal prejudice against a different group of people.

Polygamy was tolerated by God, but not the true standard He set. Nevertheless, it was still a heterosexual union and God allowed it.

So you are privy to the exact thoughts of God now?

The rest of us have to rely on the bible for that. say…do you know what the author of the bible called the second or third or fiftieth woman a man married? The author of the bible called all these women wives.

I don't think God allowed those, but try prove me wrong if you can find the verses for it.

So its my job to back up our unsupported claims now?

Levirate marries derives its name from the word levir or brother in law. A woman who was widowed without having borne a son would be required to leave her home, marry her brother in law, (and become a subordinate wife to her brother in laws wife(wives) live with him, and engage in sexual relations. Ultimately she would be required to submit to being serially raped by her brother in law until she conceived a son. This son was considered to have been sired by her late husbanded…even if the birth took place years later. Genesis 38:6-10 details the story of Tamar, who was widowed…God actually killed her first husband though no reason was ever provided. Tamar was required to marry her brother in law Onan. Onan was not happy with this arrangement, he apparently did not want to father and raise a son no one would consider his so he so during the nuptial rape he engaged in what we today call coitis interruptus. God was not happy that he was shirking his duty to his brother’s widow and killed him as well. No one knows if there was a third brother who would marry and rape Tamar. The furth chapter of Ruth expands those required to rape the good widow to include not just her brother in law/new husband but any close male relative.

I'm not. I have only used the New Testament to do so.

So you never called homosexuality an abomination?

It's because we grew to understand that they carried diseases and we developed ways of killing them, making eating seafood much, much safer to eat.

So there is no evidence that the eating of shellfish was called an ‘abomination’ for the reason you provided

And what marvelous innovations are you referring to?

Cooking? Cause apparently the Israelites didn’t have a basic understanding of the many applications of fire.

Well I can't say that I ever led a group of angels in open-rebellion against the Lord God Almighty. . . .

of course you have never committed an abomination and taken pride in a job well done or in an accomplishment…right?
And you of course are not exercising pride when you set yourself up to be just a little bit superior to those nasty lusting homosexuals...right?

You just love to make things up, don't you?

Your the one comparing an entire minority to criminals
Your the one saying an entire minority doesn’t love they can only “lust”

I don't recall God ever giving the laws to the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or any other group out there. He gave them to the Israelites for their benefit and to preserve them so that the Messiah would come.

But you feel free to ignore any of these laws you find inconvenient

What in the world, man? I keep saying that I only use the New Testament to speak against homosexuality. Haven't you been paying attention?

Again are you trying to claim that you never referred to homosexuals as an abomination?

What?

Do try to keep up with the conversation

What I said somehow kills homosexuals?

If you cannot respond intelligently to a post…then don’t

"Homosexuals can easily be forgiven, the same that a murderer can be, or a liar, or an adulterer, or a thief, or a foul-mouthed blasphemer. " http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39967572&postcount=40

What are you talking about, man? I have not condemned homosexuals, I've merely said that homosexuality is a behavior that God says is wrong.

Have you read your own posts?

 

[MrPirate]

God loves you and it can hurt to realize the truth or just facing it hurts. Your statement isn't me. Sorry!

You didn’t answer the question.

Are the people who dress in white robes and hoods and burn crosses in people’s yard “loving”?

 

[allhart]

You didn’t answer the question.

Are the people who dress in white robes and hoods and burn crosses in people’s yard “loving”?

No!

 

[SiderealExalt]

I find Christianity to be morally repugnant. The theological basis of sin just one example of it.

 

[IzzyPop]

I never once said I hate homosexuals. Did you even read the rest of my post?

It is not what you say, but the way that you say it. You claim homosexuals lust and do not love. With that statement you denigrate them, make them less than human. It makes the hate easier to justify to ones self.

Sex is between one man and one woman, the capacity for having children is there (if no physical illness or disorder has taken either of them). That is the natural order, not homosexual relations as the fundamental, unalterable purpose of sex is to have children.

So no animals other than humans ever have homosexual sex? And humans only have sex for the purposes of procreation?

What?!

Alright, so it's not a gene, which means that it can be changed.

It is not a gene or a combination of genes. While there is a genetic component, it looks that most of it has to do with hormone levels in utero. That would still put it outside them realm of choice, though. It even looks to be a natural form of population control. The more male children a woman has, the more likely the younger males will be homosexual.

A man and a woman can naturally have children together. If an illness or disorder comes along, then they can't. There is no double standard here, as there is no illness preventing homosexuals from having children, rather NATURE IS.

Really? Both of my biological parents are gay. They naturally had a child together. What does that do to your theory?

Polygamy was tolerated by God, but not the true standard He set. Nevertheless, it was still a heterosexual union and God allowed it.

And when you look at polygamous marriages and so many of them involve young (as in under 18 young) women, are you stating that God approves of child molestation?

I don't think God allowed those, but try prove me wrong if you can find the verses for it.



I'm not. I have only used the New Testament to do so.


It's because we grew to understand that they carried diseases and we developed ways of killing them, making eating seafood much, much safer to eat.

So the laws changed as we can to understand what was behind them and were able to justify the change. How is homosexuality any different?

Well I can't say that I ever led a group of angels in open-rebellion against the Lord God Almighty. . . .



You just love to make things up, don't you?



I don't recall God ever giving the laws to the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or any other group out there. He gave them to the Israelites for their benefit and to preserve them so that the Messiah would come.




What in the world, man? I keep saying that I only use the New Testament to speak against homosexuality. Haven't you been paying attention?



What?



What I said somehow kills homosexuals?








What are you talking about, man? I have not condemned homosexuals, I've merely said that homosexuality is a behavior that God says is wrong.

No. You denigrated them as a people. You claimed their emotions were less than yours. You have attempted to dehumanize them.

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't get it. If a Christian stands for truth no matter (what )he is a bigot!

A Christian may not be a bigot, but he'll be mistaken for one. And, I think, that Christian will find being mistaken for a bigot as a small price if it may lead another to a relationship with Christ.

But compassion takes many forms. Jesus did not just live and die, but also healed, fed, taught, touched, and ate with people.

"If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, ' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?'"

So it is here. If anyone loves, let him live wholly. If anyone claims to love another, let him love the whole... spirit, mind, and body. If someone claims to seek the wellbeing of another's soul, will he not also seek the wellbeing of the same body?

I think you make a good point.

I often hear Christians saying:
Homosexuality is a choice, and you can change
Gays are going to hell
Gays don't want to get married
Homosexuality is unnatural
Homosexuality is a sin

And then they claim they are doing it in love.

Do they ever ask about our life stories? Our coming out stories? (Most of them are really difficult. One of my friends was disowned. Another was kicked out of the house his last year of high school. Many of us lost our friends. )
Do they really care enough to look at research, both scientific and theoligical?
Do they really care to listen to ex-exgays?
Do they ever speak to gay Christians?

It's more of the "shame shame" and rarely anything else.
It's condemnation, but little else.

Jesus ate with the sinners, to the disgust of the Pharisees. He sat down and ate with them and loved them as people, not sinners. I simply don't see that very often from too many Christians. They would rather preach condemnation from a pulpit than come down from there and simply talk person and ask them about their life. They claim to preach warning in "love", yet have complete ignorance on the subject, on the reality of exgay ministries and ex-exgays, science, theological study or anything outside of six passages of the bible.

 

[allhart]

It is not what you say, but the way that you say it. You claim homosexuals lust and do not love. With that statement you denigrate them, make them less than human. It makes the hate easier to justify to ones self.



[/font][/size]So no animals other than humans ever have homosexual sex? And humans only have sex for the purposes of procreation?



[/font][/font][/size]It is not a gene or a combination of genes. While there is a genetic component, it looks that most of it has to do with hormone levels in utero. That would still put it outside them realm of choice, though. It even looks to be a natural form of population control. The more male children a woman has, the more likely the younger males will be homosexual.



[/font][/font][/size]Really? Both of my biological parents are gay. They naturally had a child together. What does that do to your theory?



[/font][/font][/size]And when you look at polygamous marriages and so many of them involve young (as in under 18 young) women, are you stating that God approves of child molestation? [/font]



[/font][/font][/size]So the laws changed as we can to understand what was behind them and were able to justify the change. How is homosexuality any different?



[/font][/font][/size] No. You denigrated them as a people. You claimed their emotions were less than yours. You have attempted to dehumanize them.[/font][/font][/font][/size]

I have strong sexual feelings for the same sex. Shouldn't i embrace those feelings? ( Not me. Just a statement.) Sexual hormones are very active and strong in teens,but they are not really focused. As people get older,they become better able to tell the difference between just being sexually attracted to someone and truly loving them. Research shows that martial and sexual relationships are better for those who wait until they are married to have sex. In fact, in surveys on sexual enjoyment, committed Christians report having better sex lives than other groups.