Sin is Sin All Sins Are Equal.

[Angel4Truth]

Hey, relay your message to those who need it- I didn't attack anyone.
Besides, anyone that supports gay bashing has no room to talk about attacking others.

Hmmm

 

[BigBadWlf]

Let me show how we know that. ​

Paul coined 179 new words in the New Testament.​

It is easy to see where he got this one... for he derived it from the Greek translation​

of the Old Testament called the "Septuagint"​

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos ​

Leviticus 18:22 ​

("Thou shalt not lie with mankind, ​

as with womankind; it is an abomination.")​

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos ​

Leviticus 20:13​

("If a man also lie with mankind, ​

as he lieth with a woman, ​

both of them hath committed an abomination.")​

Paul coined the term arsenokoite,​

by taking two words from the Levitical passages‑​

‑in the Greek translation‑​

‑forbidding homosexual behavior.​

That aside… the real trouble occurs when one looks at the fact that the words arsen and koite ALSO appear in Leviticus 20:11, Leviticus 20:12, Leviticus 20:15 and a few other places. If you're going to use that justification to "prove" arsenokoites means homosexual when used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 then you pretty much have to ignore the fact that it is equally likely to be referring to any other sin that arsen and koite appear in Leviticus as well.

The biggest issue with using Levitcus to attack gays and lesbians is not with the usage of "abomination" or "detestable" the problem is the translation of the word "to lie (lay) with" or shakab

Shakab is used 52 times in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape. Rape" not copulation, not carnal relations…rape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon an animal (Leviticus 20:15). In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
And a man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

The meaning can not be clearer.

The meaning is clear as mud.
There is nothing to show that arsenokoites means homosexual…nothing

The word is unique to Paul, but it clearly refers to homosexuality.

Incorrect
Arsenokoites is used in by a number of Paul’s contemporaries. It appears in the Sybilline Oracle, the Acts of John, the writings of Theophilus of Antioch, Eusebius's Preparation and many other works. It is interesting to note that these texts do not indicated that arsonokoites means homosexual, rather they indicate that the word has something to do with prostitution or more specifically the financial exploitation of women for sex.

Let us take a good look at what the word literally means...​

And see why Paul put two words together to mean ‘homosexuality'​

First, 'Arsene,'​

appears few times in the N. T., ​

and always means "male." '​

Koite' appears only twice in the N. T., ​

and is translated "bed,"​

but it does not just mean a piece of furniture on which to rest... ​

It was chosen due to the translators' unwillingness to more ​

accurately say what it meant, ​

so the word ‘bed' was used in a sexual connotation, ​

This defense is made by claiming that the meaning of this compound word is derived from the meaning of its two root words: arseno (man or men) and koitai (bed). This approach is linguistically invalid. Deconstructing compounds is generally a more sound strategy in Greek than English. It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts. To "understand" does not mean to "stand under." In fact, nothing about the basic meanings of either "stand" or "under" has any direct bearing on the meaning of "understand." This phenomenon of language is sometimes even more obvious with terms that designate social roles, since the nature of the roles themselves often changes over time and becomes separated from any original reference. None of us, for example, takes the word "chairman" to have any necessary reference to a chair. Thus, all definitions of arsenokoites that derive its meaning from its components are naive and indefensible. Using this method it would be equally valid to claim that when using the word arsenokoites Paul was condemning the lazy.

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Thus referring to a man in a woman’s bed, not in the bed of another man.

 

[Angel4Truth]

The most damming evidence that arsenokoites does not means homosexual is the fact that arsenokoites because of the meanings of its root words the that fact that it is a plural first declension noun. The word koitai, without the arseno- prefix, is feminine. Thus referring to a man in a woman’s bed, not in the bed of another man.

Thats false. The term for Christ is feminine also - by that poor reasoning then Christ is a female. Word tense doesnt mean something refers to a man or woman. Again poor reasoning designed to allow for error and cover sin.

 

[Watchman4hm]

I'll stand by my Exegesis....And the FACT still remains the same Paul coined the words IN THE BIBLE..

 

[Watchman4hm]

Sodom was known to be a wicked place. The
Bible shows that the great sin of this city
was homosexuality. This has become a
political "hot potato" in these last days.
Laws are being written to give "special" (not
simply "equal") rights to the homosexuals of
today. Schools are teaching homosexuality as
an "alternate lifestyle" and promoting it as
a moral choice. The Bible condemns it, and
Christians need to avoid the influence of
media, government officials, and others who
promote what the Bible calls wicked, as being
good.
Genesis 19:5
"And they called unto Lot, and said
unto him, Where are these men
which came in to thee this night? bring
them out unto us, that we may know them."

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
"There shall be no harlot of the
daughters of Israel, nor a
sodomite (a person guilty of unnatural
sexual relations, as between the same sex,
or with beasts) of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire
of a harlot, or the price of a dog
(Hebrew word = qadesh, = a male
devotee to licentious idolatry,
practicing prostitution with the same
sex), into the house of the Lord thy God
for any vow; for even both of these
are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Jude 7
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the
cities about them in like manner,
giving themselves over to
fornication, and going after strange (Greek
word = heteros = another of a different
kind, men with men, or angels with women,
all being contrary to nature) flesh, are
set forth for an example, suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire."

Romans 1:26-28,32
"For this cause God gave them up unto
vile affections; for even their women
did change the natural use into that
which is against nature; 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 recompense of
their error which was meet. And even as
they did not retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a
reprobate mind to do those things
which are not convenient... knowing
the judgment of God, that they which
commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them."
Homosexuality is characterized by an
unnatural sexual attraction for members of
one's own sex. The term "homosexual" may
apply to either sex, the term "lesbian"
applies to women only. Active homosexuality
causes some to solicit others to engage in
homosexual perversion, and may bring some to
commit homosexual rape. Active homosexuals
are often repulsed by the thought of
relations with the opposite sex. Some wear the clothes
of the opposite sex , and even
change their names. Often the homosexual is
fearful of involvement with the opposite sex,
and turns to members of his or her own sex in
order to receive gratification. In this
godless world, we have seen many turn to many
different types of sexual perversion.

In Romans 1:24-32, we see that the reason for
God turning their minds over to such
perversion, is the rejection of God. The
main reason for homosexuality is the apostasy
of mankind, and the sinful refusal to worship
God. A strong program of spiritual
development for the believer, and the genuine
conversion of the unsaved are vitally
important to the battle against this sin. We
must love the sinner, but hate the sin...
Then we must get the ones engaged in such sin
to realize their need to be saved. They will
not seek to remove the "reprobate mind" until
they have come to know the need of spiritual
conversion. The homosexual knows that his or
her actions are not pleasing to God, and will
seek to assuage that guilt in many different
ways. They will form their own churches,
they will often become preachers, teachers,
leaders in established churches, they will
attack any who call homosexuality a sin, they
will seek to have government outlaw the right
of Christians to preach the Bible as written
against homosexuality... etc.

 

[Nadiine]

[/size][/font]

The counterattacks on those attacking LGBTs have nothing to do with their religious affiliation whatsoever.



Please do not denigrate another's capacity to love as a "lifestyle" as if it is something frivilous and inconsequential. The use of this slur was most unfortunate. Is attending prayer meetings your "lifestyle"? Shame.

They LIVE in homosexual lifestyles. I live in a heterosexual lifestyle. Where's any denigration?

Those who practice SIN (sin as a regular habit and commonly practiced) are living a life against God. Rebellion.
Hey, there's sins I'm prone to that I cannot live in and practice. The same holds true for homosexuals and anyone else who has weaknesses or fettishes or bents towards anything God tells us is wrong.

There's no difference, those who claim Christ have to turn from sin and repent. Salvation came with a price - Christ died for it, and our price we pay is to die to self on this earth to inherit a better kingdom.
Gays have to make the same choices any other sinner does. Repent or perish and we ALL have to fight against our sin natures.

With that said, I'll try to check back in later to reply.

 

[onemessiah]

Sodom was known to be a wicked place. The
Bible shows that the great sin of this city
was homosexuality. This has become a
political "hot potato" in these last days.
Laws are being written to give "special" (not
simply "equal") rights to the homosexuals of
today. Schools are teaching homosexuality as
an "alternate lifestyle" and promoting it as
a moral choice. The Bible condemns it, and
Christians need to avoid the influence of
media, government officials, and others who
promote what the Bible calls wicked, as being
good.
Genesis 19:5
"And they called unto Lot, and said
unto him, Where are these men
which came in to thee this night? bring
them out unto us, that we may know them."

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
"There shall be no harlot of the
daughters of Israel, nor a
sodomite (a person guilty of unnatural
sexual relations, as between the same sex,
or with beasts) of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire
of a harlot, or the price of a dog
(Hebrew word = qadesh, = a male
devotee to licentious idolatry,
practicing prostitution with the same
sex), into the house of the Lord thy God
for any vow; for even both of these
are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

And that about sums up the bible's credibility on this topic-
It refers to homosexuality as "unnatural".
Nevermind the fact that it is observed in the animal kingdom among virtually all species.
I guess all those gay monkeys are going to hell too

 

[Watchman4hm]

And that about sums up the bible's credibility on this topic-
It refers to homosexuality as "unnatural".
Nevermind the fact that it is observed in the animal kingdom among virtually all species.
I guess all those gay monkeys are going to hell too

ROTFLOL..What do you expect from a world ruined by SIN in the first place...All creation groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God..THE WAY HE INTENDED THEM TO BE..The bible also refers to sin as UNNATURAL...lol..I.E. NOT THE WAY GOD CREATED THINGS TO BE..

 

[Hentenza]

Mod Hat Post
​

I am only going to warn all of you once. If the personal attacks continue the thread will be closed. Please keep it civil and read the posting guidelines for this forum here and the site wide rules here.

 

[onemessiah]

ROTFLOL..What do you expect from a world ruined by SIN in the first place...All creation groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God..THE WAY HE INTENDED THEM TO BE..The bible also refers to sin as UNNATURAL...lol..I.E. NOT THE WAY GOD CREATED THINGS TO BE..

editing- double post

 

[onemessiah]

ROTFLOL..What do you expect from a world ruined by SIN in the first place...All creation groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God..THE WAY HE INTENDED THEM TO BE..The bible also refers to sin as UNNATURAL...lol..I.E. NOT THE WAY GOD CREATED THINGS TO BE..

Oooohh, right of course....

Because somebody ate an apple, it turned the animals gay. I see the logic.

Do you really believe these things?

 

[Nadiine]

ROTFLOL..What do you expect from a world ruined by SIN in the first place...All creation groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God..THE WAY HE INTENDED THEM TO BE..The bible also refers to sin as UNNATURAL...lol..I.E. NOT THE WAY GOD CREATED THINGS TO BE..

I have pounded that fact into the ground to no avail - I have to say that I don't think people care what the bible spells out.
Romans 1 is the most powerful condemnation for both the lust and the sex act in homosexuality - it's called dishonouring to their bodies, shameful (lust) and unnatural - unnatural is clearly what is not natural/ against nature.

Then, they skip over Jesus' teaching on the prototype of the marital unit and why it is what it is:

Matt. 19
3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,
and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

That verse singlehandedly cancels out any other acceptable combination for marital relations that would be within God's will for humanity. It means that God created a male for the female at creation, and BECUZ OF THAT fact, they are to become one flesh together.
Not more than 2, and not any other combination but male and female. (other verses spell this out also)
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless,
the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;

Very simple and very clear - the examples of acceptable and common marital unions for God's people involved male & female only. Jesus spelled it out Himself by the model He gave which was God's will for the family unit.

Anyone rejecting what is so clear by teaching and example, I have to consider denial of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And that about sums up the bible's credibility on this topic-
It refers to homosexuality as "unnatural".
Nevermind the fact that it is observed in the animal kingdom among virtually all species.
I guess all those gay monkeys are going to hell too

"There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]​

Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:

Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]​

-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.
Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]​

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]​

Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]​

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction"​

"The homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. " Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The above written excerpt from the book "Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement." the portion of the book entitled "the animal homosexuality myth" by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

 

[Watchman4hm]

I once heard that homosexuality is inherited.
Kinda strange, since it took a male and a female
to create the person who so claimed this absurdity..

Wonder which heterosexual it was that passed the
homosexual gene to their offspring??

 

[onemessiah]

I once heard that homosexuality is inherited.
Kinda strange, since it took a male and a female
to create the person who so claimed this absurdity..

Wonder which heterosexual it was that passed the
homosexual gene to their offspring??

+edit- double post+
these servers on this site are driving me up the wall. Let's all chip in so the forum will stop freezing up every time you browse to a new page.

 

[onemessiah]

I once heard that homosexuality is inherited.
Kinda strange, since it took a male and a female
to create the person who so claimed this absurdity..

Wonder which heterosexual it was that passed the
homosexual gene to their offspring??

Lol...now homosexuality is hereditary? Well, I hope you pointed ^ that out to whoever told you that.

But then again, I suppose they could come back and say that a hetero could be a carrier...they "contracted" it from whoever.

 

[cheese007]

I once heard that homosexuality is inherited.
Kinda strange, since it took a male and a female
to create the person who so claimed this absurdity..

Wonder which heterosexual it was that passed the
homosexual gene to their offspring??

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/
I think that may answer some of your questions.

 

[onemessiah]

"There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals
Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.
-- Clashing Stimuli and Confused Animal Instincts
To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.[4]
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
-- Animal "Filicide" and "Cannibalism"
Sarah Hartwell explains that tomcats kill their kittens after receiving "mixed signals" from their instincts:

Most female cats can switch between "play mode" and "hunt mode" in order not to harm their offspring. In tomcats this switching off of "hunt mode" may be incomplete and, when they become highly aroused through play, the "hunting" instinct comes into force and they may kill the kittens. The hunting instinct is so strong, and so hard to switch off when prey is present, that dismemberment and even eating of the kitten may ensue.... Compare the size, sound and activity of kittens with the size, sound and activity of prey. They are both small, have high-pitched voices and move with fast, erratic movements. All of these trigger hunting behavior. In the tomcat, maternal behavior cannot always override hunting behavior and he treats the kittens in exactly the same way he would treat small prey. His instincts are confused.[5]​

Regarding animal cannibalism, the Iran Nature and Wildlife Magazine notes:

Cannibalism is most common among lower vertebrates and invertebrates, often due to a predatory animal mistaking one of its own kind for prey. But it also occurs among birds and mammals, especially when food is scarce.[6]​

-- Animals Lack the Means to Express Their Affective States
To stimuli and clashing instincts, however, we must add another factor: In expressing its affective states, an animal is radically inferior to man.
Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states (fear, pleasure, pain, desire, etc.) are limited. Animals lack the rich resources at man's disposal to express his sentiments. Man can adapt his way of talking, writing, gazing, gesturing in untold ways. Animals cannot. Consequently, animals often express their affective states ambiguously. They "borrow," so to speak, the manifestations of the instinct of reproduction to manifest the instincts of dominance, aggressiveness, fear, gregariousness and so on.
-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.[9]​

Dogs will also mount one another because of the vehemence of their purely chemical reaction to the smell of an estrus female:

Not surprisingly, the smell of a female dog in heat can instigate a frenzy of mounting behaviors. Even other females who are not in heat will mount those who are. Males will mount males who have just been with estrus females if they still bear their scent.... And males who catch wind of the estrus odor may mount the first thing (or unlucky person) they come into contact with.[10]​

Other animals engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior because they fail to identify the other sex properly. The lower the species in the animal kingdom, the more tenuous and difficult to detect are the differences between sexes, leading to more frequent confusion.

-- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]​

Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction"​

"The homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science. " Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

The above written excerpt from the book "Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement." the portion of the book entitled "the animal homosexuality myth" by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo

Couple things...can you provide the publications you found this in? I get the suspicion that most of this came out of some christian oriented text; like the very last one you listed, "Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement"....

At any rate, it's a lose/lose proposition for the gay bashers to debate this.
Either the animals knowingly have gay sex (which I never claimed btw) or there is some chemical imbalance that causes it, as your sources seem to be claiming.

If the former is true, then it proves my point that homosexual acts are performed in the animal kingdom, therefore nullifying the bible's claim that homosexuality is unnatural, and destroying the bible's credibility on the matter.

If the latter is true, then that also explains how humans become homosexual, therefore nullifying the gay bashers claim that homosexuality is a choice.

 

[OllieFranz]

ROTFLOL..What do you expect from a world ruined by SIN in the first place...All creation groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God..THE WAY HE INTENDED THEM TO BE..The bible also refers to sin as UNNATURAL...lol..I.E. NOT THE WAY GOD CREATED THINGS TO BE..

"Natural" and "unnatural" are not Hebrew concepts, they are Greek concepts. They appear nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. They do appear in Greek literature.

In the Greek Scriptures "against nature" is sometimes used a synonym for sin. In the early Greek pagan literature it had a similar, but not exactly the same, meaning. In neither did it ever refer to the "natural world" as we understand it. But by the time of Paul, "against nature" in common Greek came to mean "not what you'd expect." So when God acts "against nature" in Romans 11, He is not sinning, but doing something unusual, something unexpected.

So to say that if something is "against nature" it is a sin it is true (if that is the way the Scripture is using the phrase) but such a statement has no more meaning than saying that water is wet. The idea of "against nature" is defined by the idea of sin, just as the idea of "wet" is defined by the idea of water.

So when Paul (referencing a passage from Plato) says that the atimias things that the men and women were doing in Romans 1:26-27 were "against nature," he was saying that they were sins, nothing more. But what were these "less than honorable" (which is a closer translation of atimias than "vile") things that Plato and Paul labelled "against nature"?

In the original passage which Paul references, Plato goes on to tell us why these actions are "against nature." It is because they are done selfishly, for one's own pleasure. It is because they are done excessively, detracting from time and attention better given to more uplifting persuits. And it is because it is done without heed to the consequences. Any activity which shares these qualities (such as getting drunk) is a sin.

Although Plato chose a sexual example (and more specifically a homosexualy example), he makes it clear that the act is not what makes the activity sinful, the attitude is. Nowhere does Paul contradict this. To the contrary, most of Romans is an attempt to break us of our sinful attitudes and show us a more loving, committed and caring way. A way only made possible by Grace.

 

[LightHorseman]

You cannot blame Christians for homosexuals committing suicide! They are unhappy people at best and withpout the strength and life of the Holy Spirit coursing through them, they are hopeless dead men walking.

That is why we come here to teach the truth.

Hmm... I wonder if the facts support this claim... lets see... are the suicide rates among homosexuals in homosexual accepting societies the same as they are in non-homosexual societies? If not, then the people pushing the non-acceptance barrow ARE the ones to blame.