Why are they gay?

[Sam Gamgee]

You mean besides the fact that relativism is the norm now in comtemporary america? This is the only reason why homosexuality is now being accepted because not even scietifically is there a purpose for homosexuality, it violates the purpose of sociobiology. That's why people are taking all the verses of homosexuality and taking them out of context to fit contemporary world view.

So, is this causing more suicides? abortions? Do we see an increase in the murder/death rates as a result of homosexuality becoming "normal"? Are our children becoming less educated? Are people becoming fatter as a result of homosexuality being normal? Thinner? Are people dying in Iraq because of the gays?

I'm looking for actual proof that the act of accepting homosexuality as being "normal" is hurting society...

 

[Sam Gamgee]

In actuallity, it does not cause a problem for society. Its open acceptance only reveals a soctiety that has real problems that run much deeper. Its only symptomatic, not the cause.

Every human body has cancer cells in it that the immune system keeps in check.

Its when the immune system is weak, or malfunctions, that cancer begins to reign.

Having cancer is symptomatic, not the cause of the body's problems.

Just like the flooding of Katrina indicated poor design in the levees. The levees were the real problem, not the hurricane.

When homosexuality (which will always be with us) begins an ascension in a society? If its a nation that has believers in Christ and the freedom to worship? Then it indicates a problem with the Church. Not with the society. For God blesses a nation where the Church remains faithful to His Word. If the believers begin to seek out false doctrines to live by? Then God removes his blessings on the land and it begins the process of decay .....leading to its ruin down the road.

Matthew 5:13 niv​

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."​

Salt acts as a preservative against decay. It adds zest, as well to what would otherwise be a bland food. The problem with America and other cultures today, is that the Church is not producing salt. Its not giving forth sound doctrine. Its only telling the people what they want to hear, and using the Bible as the means to do so.

2 Timothy 4:3 niv​

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.​

The open acceptance of homosexuality is a warning to the Church! Tolerating gays is the norm of believers. Open acceptance, is not.

God is sending out a warning signal. If the Church continues to produce weak teachings and false doctrines? No immune system that is healthy? We will become a nation trampled on by men.

Secularism will come into rule. They are waiting in the wings right now to see how America will decide. Its called the Liberal Party.

Elections in free nations with Christianity do not determine who is to rule. It only reveals who is ruling the Church. No salt? No good can come from it.

God may use a major war to kill off those who are bringing the nation down to help heal it. Or, he may use disease to judge a nation. Or, he may just allow for the nation to cease being a major power..... to die a death of France.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

So, you're saying that Gays are responsible for the downfall of the society. It's not the society's fault, but it's society's acceptance of gays that is causing our ruin?

Man, I feel so powerful... I'm like Sylvester Stallone in every Rocky movie and Rambo movie combined...

Just by the way I love, I'm taking over THE WORLD!!!!!!

I need a long-haired cat to put in my lap and stroke while I laugh my evil laugh....

 

[Argent]

So, you're saying that Gays are responsible for the downfall of the society. It's not the society's fault, but it's society's acceptance of gays that is causing our ruin?

Man, I feel so powerful... I'm like Sylvester Stallone in every Rocky movie and Rambo movie combined...

Just by the way I love, I'm taking over THE WORLD!!!!!!

I need a long-haired cat to put in my lap and stroke while I laugh my evil laugh....

The cat has to be white. You have to shave your head too!

 

[Sam Gamgee]

So, since the gays are ruining society, do we get any credit for helping you breeders look better?

I mean, if society is going to pot, shouldn't we at least look good while doing it?

Let's all raise a glass to the Queer Eye guys and to Christopher Lowell. At least we're making the straight people of society look good while we're ruining it.

And isn't looking good half the battle????

 

[Sam Gamgee]

The cat has to be white. You have to shave your head too!

My head's already shaved, so I'm already half way there...

I think my tag-line shall be: "Big Gay Sam and his Big Gay Plan to TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!"

(The capitalized part needs to be yelled... and if I could get an echo machine, I'd really appreciate it... so it'd sound like "TAKE OVER THE WORLD-ERLD-ERLD-LD-LD-D"

 

[Sam Gamgee]

[glow=yellow][move]BWAHAHA
[move]HAHAHA
[move]HAHAHA
[move]HAHAHA[/move][/move][/move][/move][/glow]


That's my evil laugh... it starts off calm, but it ends in a big crazy mess...

what do you think? Good enough to ruin society?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

[glow=yellow][move]BWAHAHA[/move]

[/glow][glow=yellow][move]
[move]HAHAHA[/move][move]
[move]HAHAHA[/move][move]
[move]HAHAHA[/move][/move][/move][/move][/glow]


That's my evil laugh... it starts off calm, but it ends in a big crazy mess...

what do you think? Good enough to ruin society?

The Gay commision on World domination will be proud of you comrade. I will be writing a report and send it to the proper authorities, to ensure you get awarded for your brave service.

 

[GenemZ]

So, since the gays are ruining society, do we get any credit for helping you breeders look better?

I mean, if society is going to pot, shouldn't we at least look good while doing it?

Let's all raise a glass to the Queer Eye guys and to Christopher Lowell. At least we're making the straight people of society look good while we're ruining it.

And isn't looking good half the battle????

Wide open acceptance of gays as being a good thing is not the ruin of society. It only reveals that a society is choosing a path which is leading to ruin. Gays are not the cause. Its only symptomatic.

Its like saying cults are ruining a society. Its not the cults which are ruining. They are only a sign that its being ruined. Like mold is not the cause of destroying bread. Not using proper refrigeration, allows for the mold!

Matthew 5:13 niv
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."
​

Its the weak and impotent churches that are allowing their nation to become run over by evil. They produce no "Salt" to act as a preservative to their land. Their false doctrinal teachings shut the door to God's national blessings on a land.

The evil that is being manifested in a nation is only a symptom of the poor job that the pulpits are doing in the disseminating ofGod's Word soundly. No salt? No national blessing.

The wide acceptance of gays? (if it happens). Will not indicate how clever the gays were in promoting their propaganda. It will indicate how the majority of the churches in the land were living in religious hypocrisy.

The judgment of a nation begins with its churches.

1 Peter 4:17 niv
For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"
​

Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[Ringo84]

We are all biased?? Tell me one person that isn't. And yes I go to a nutcase liberal college..yay me.


Common sense? There's effiniate men that are straight? Just because they are act like women doesn't mean they are gay.


Lots of scientist make mistakes. Reaseachers make corralations all the time that aren't even related. There is no real evidence saying that homosexuality is genetic or "natural."


Again, for the millionth time, God's design is for you to be straight. He ment that for you, people who deviate that make a choice (whether conscience or unscience) to go against God's design....try to think of it as rebellion. I can't dumb it down anymore than that.


There is no such thing as sexual orientation just sexual "preference"...biblically is more like sexual perversion.

Again another form of sexual perversion is people who are attracted to animals, I'm assuming that homosexuality is in some ways is the same. Yes I know I'm going to make people angry, but since all of you keep insiting that "God made you that way" I guess God made these other people want to have sex with animals as well.

We are all biased?? Tell me one person that isn't. And yes I go to a nutcase liberal college..yay me.

Well..... me. No. I'm kidding. It's true that everyone is biased, but most people have the good sense to not simply dismiss a scientific study - which they haven't even seen, may I add - as simply "liberal nutcase". That's all I'm saying, genez.

Common sense? There's effiniate men that are straight? Just because they are act like women doesn't mean they are gay.

No, but it is an interesting response that could partially explain sexuality.

Lots of scientist make mistakes. Reaseachers make corralations all the time that aren't even related. There is no real evidence saying that homosexuality is genetic or "natural."

Well, I don't know. We'll have to see. Someday, science may have a way to determine sexuality.

Again, for the millionth time, God's design is for you to be straight. He ment that for you, people who deviate that make a choice (whether conscience or unscience) to go against God's design....try to think of it as rebellion. I can't dumb it down anymore than that.


There is no such thing as sexual orientation just sexual "preference"...biblically is more like sexual perversion.

Again another form of sexual perversion is people who are attracted to animals, I'm assuming that homosexuality is in some ways is the same. Yes I know I'm going to make people angry, but since all of you keep insiting that "God made you that way" I guess God made these other people want to have sex with animals as well.

Hmmm... that's an interesting theory, Genez. I don't think I've heard it before. I'll have to think about that one.

Thanks for the discussion. All I can really say is: just watch the 60 Minutes segment if you can manage, and draw your own conclusions.
Ringo

 

[GenemZ]

So, you're saying that Gays are responsible for the downfall of the society.

You quoted me. And, I did not say that. I made sure that it was not to be taken that way. You quoted me.... For what reason? To appear to have read what I said?

It's not the society's fault, but it's society's acceptance of gays that is causing our ruin?

No... I did not say that.

Man, I feel so powerful... I'm like Sylvester Stallone in every Rocky movie and Rambo movie combined...

Mock, mock, mock.... but based upon your own inability to see what was said. Not on what was said.

Just by the way I love, I'm taking over THE WORLD!!!!!!

Satan feels that way, not you.

I need a long-haired cat to put in my lap and stroke while I laugh my evil laugh....

There you go... Mock, mock, mock.

You suffer from "mock a sin?"

First get what I said, right?

Then, if it still warrants your mocking? Be my guest.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[relspace]

The wide acceptance of gays? (if it happens). Will not indicate how clever the gays were in promoting their propaganda. It will indicate how the majority of the churches in the land were living in religious hypocrisy.

It think wide acceptance has already happened. All that is left is whether they succeed in using the law to force acceptance upon everybody else.

 

[ReformedChapin]

So, is this causing more suicides? abortions? Do we see an increase in the murder/death rates as a result of homosexuality becoming "normal"? Are our children becoming less educated? Are people becoming fatter as a result of homosexuality being normal? Thinner? Are people dying in Iraq because of the gays?

I'm looking for actual proof that the act of accepting homosexuality as being "normal" is hurting society...

Desn't matter what you ask for, all that matter is God's word. The more we allow sin, the more common it becomes. We don'tyet know enough about homosexuality to know the consequences of this behavior, frankly I don't care much to find out.

 

[ReformedChapin]

You quoted me. And, I did not say that. I made sure that it was not to be taken that way. You quoted me.... For what reason? To appear to have read what I said?



No... I did not say that.



Mock, mock, mock.... but based upon your own inability to see what was said. Not on what was said.



Satan feels that way, not you.



There you go... Mock, mock, mock.

You suffer from "mock a sin?"

First get what I said, right?

Then, if it still warrants your mocking? Be my guest.

In Christ, GeneZ

You're are biased, that's why your defending the liberal point of view right now. And I'm dismissing this study becaused on other studies it's a bunch of bull.

Any objective person would admit their biased.. as ironic as that sounds.

 

[ebia]

On the contrary, in the past marriage was almost exclusively for procreation. Even in Roman and Greek culture where homosexuality was accepted. The homosexual relationship was for love and the marriage was only for procreation. In fact with all the fooling around, the real purpose for marriage was to designate which children would be heirs.

For women, the main reason for marriage has usually been security and a 'career'. For the wealthy and powerful it has nearly always been about cementing inter-family contracts. Then we'll add the social implications of having a spouse - particularly one who boosts your status. That alone leaves well less than half the people doing it primarily for procreation. Of course, while the history is interesting, it's purely academic. It's now that matters, and it's undeniable that almost no-one (Christian or otherwise, straight or gay) marries primarily for procreation any more, so to say gays can't marry because they aren't doing it for procreative reasons is absurd.

But that is not the current issue is it. The current issue is whether to finally completely change the meaning of marriage by allowing homosexual marriage.

It's relevent because the fact that no-one wants to limit hetrosexual marriage to those that will result in children demonstrates that procreation is not the real issue - it's just an excuse.

Even if a couple is supposedly incapable of having children, miracles are known to happen and the marriage is an agreement to share in the responsibility if such a thing should happen.

No it isn't. I don't know a single couple have got married so that any miracle children will be cared for. That's a side effect, not a reason for the marriage. And there are plenty of marriages where children cannot result. Zero chance.

Adoption is not quite the same thing for even a single parent can adopt a child.

You may not have noticed that single people can have children as well.

 

[relspace]

For women, the main reason for marriage has usually been security and a 'career'. For the wealthy and powerful it has nearly always been about cementing inter-family contracts. Then we'll add the social implications of having a spouse - particularly one who boosts your status. That alone leaves well less than half the people doing it primarily for procreation.

The career you are talking about is giving birth and caring for children: procreation. The cementing family contracts is accomplished by providing heirs: procreation. Boost in status by having a women in your care? Considering the attitudes of the times that is ridiculous. The boost in status was by having sons: procreation. Procreation by any other name is still procreation. Score for historical meaning of marriage: 100% procreation.

Of course, while the history is interesting, it's purely academic. It's now that matters, and it's undeniable that almost no-one (Christian or otherwise, straight or gay) marries primarily for procreation any more, so to say gays can't marry because they aren't doing it for procreative reasons is absurd.

Circular. What reason people get married for - the meaning of marriage is exactly the issue of contention.

Sure some people get married just so they can get green cards. But this does not mean we should change the meaning of marriage to accomodate this purpose!

It's relevent because the fact that no-one wants to limit hetrosexual marriage to those that will result in children demonstrates that procreation is not the real issue - it's just an excuse.

This is ridiculous. The issue is change. Marriage has never required proof of the ability to procreate, but it has always been an arrangement between a man and woman and its historical purpose is clear. It is changing this meaning of marriage that is the issue. If you want to do something different then make up your own word for it.

No it isn't. I don't know a single couple have got married so that any miracle children will be cared for. That's a side effect, not a reason for the marriage. And there are plenty of marriages where children cannot result. Zero chance.

It is never a side effect. It is always a central issue. But it certainly would not be if you change the meaning of the word. Again this is the issue of contention.

You may not have noticed that single people can have children as well.

Not really. A single man cannot give birth to a child. Why? Because the process requires something from a man and something from the woman (considerably more from the woman actually).

It is true that technology has changed the landscape of possibilities in our society in this matter with contraception and artificial insemination but the meaning of marriage comes from before these possibilities. And the question is whether or not homosexual marriage is changing the meaning of the word to something which so far from its origins that the word becomes essentially meaningless.

Everything has become so much like a market place. Shopping around for a partner with the qualities you like and avertizing your own qualities. Deciding if you want a child much like you decide if you want to buy a new car. No doubt technology will soon allow you to pick the qualities of the child you want as well. But marriage partakes of an ideal based on a commitment between a man and woman to a partnership in the task of bearing and raising children which is quite different from this market place mentality. So before you bury this ideal for good you are going to meet a little resistance first.

Look I know that from a rational and objective point of view my position looks indefensible. I know it. But maybe its not about what is rational and objective because I cannot help feeling that the proposed change in the meaning of marriage is destroying something that should be preserved. If you want to do something new then go ahead, but call it something new, like a personal contract or life partnership or something, but there is no need to destroy what we have in order to make way for something new. Let your new thing stand on its own merit without borrowing the merit of the historical tradition to prop it up.

 

[ebia]

The career you are talking about is giving birth and caring for children: procreation. The cementing family contracts is accomplished by providing heirs: procreation.

In both cases the procreation is NOT the main purpose.

Boost in status by having a women in your care? Considering the attitudes of the times that is ridiculous.

Is it? A beautiful and/or high status wife is highly valued in many cultures independent of what children might result.

The boost in status was by having sons: procreation. Procreation by any other name is still procreation. score: 100% procreation.

Only because you proclaim the purpose of any marriage that results in procreation as procreation. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

Circular. What reason people get married for - the meaning of marriage is exactly the issue of contention.

What's circular. People get married for a variety of reasons. Procreation is very, vary rarely at the top of that list. Therefore any definition that says the purpose of marriage is procreation is flying in the face of virtually every hetrosexual marriage.

Sure some people get married just so they can get green cards. But this does not mean we should change the meaning of marriage to accomodate this purpose!

I do not know a single person who has got married for the purpose of procreation.

This is ridiculous. The issue is change. Marriage has never required proof of the ability to procreate, but it has always been an arrangement between a man and woman and its historical purpose is clear.

As I said - the history is academic, so I can't be bothered to debate. Virtually no-one now marries for the purpose of procreation. If that is a change in the meaning of marriage, then it has already happened, so live with it.

It is changing this meaning of marriage that is the issue. If you want to do something different then make up your own word for it.

You don't own the word.

It is never a side effect. It is always a central issue. But it certainly would not be if you change the meaning of the word. Again this is the issue of contention.

See above - IF it is a change (which I don't accept) then that change has already happened within hetrosexual marriages. Horses and gates spring to mind.

Not really. A single man cannot give birth to a child. Why? Because the process requires something from a man and something from the woman (considerably more from the woman actually).

One doesn't need to be married (or even to have sex) for children to result.

It is true that technology has changed the landscape of possibilities in our society in this matter with contraception and artificial insemination but the meaning of marriage comes from before these possibilities. And the question is whether or not homosexual marriage is changing the meaning of the word to something which so far from its origins that the word becomes essentially meaningless.

How dare you tell virtually every married person in the world that their marriage is worthless because their primary purpose was not to have children. The idea is absurd.

Look I know that from a rational and objective point of view my position looks indefensible. I know it. But maybe its not about what is rational and objective because I cannot help feeling that the proposed change in the meaning of marriage is destroying something that should be preserved. If you want to do something then go ahead call it a personal contract or life partnership or something but there is not need to destroy what we have in order to make way for something new.

Marriage for the purpose of procreation doesn't exist. If it ever did, it's long since gone. Live with it.

 

[belladonic-haze]

The career you are talking about is giving birth and caring for children: procreation. The cementing family contracts is accomplished by providing heirs: procreation. Boost in status by having a women in your care? Considering the attitudes of the times that is ridiculous. The boost in status was by having sons: procreation. Procreation by any other name is still procreation. Score for historical meaning of marriage: 100% procreation.

I am 'barren', so what's the point of me being married and even having a relationship when procreation is the only goal in life?

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Desn't matter what you ask for, all that matter is God's word. The more we allow sin, the more common it becomes. We don'tyet know enough about homosexuality to know the consequences of this behavior, frankly I don't care much to find out.

I can't argue that...

But, if you (not you personally, but the collective "you) cannot defend your statement that "gays are harming society", please don't speak such inflammatory words.

The statement that "Gays are harming society" has nothing to do with God's word directly. It has nothing to do with the Bible directly. It has to do with gays and their relation to society as a whole.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

It think wide acceptance has already happened. All that is left is whether they succeed in using the law to force acceptance upon everybody else.

We (the gays) absolutely will use civil law to force for equal rights under civil law.

The right to serve in the military, alongside our brothers and sisters
The right to adopt and raise children
The right to a civil union


Now, God's law is a different story, and gays will not force churches to marry them. We will not force churches to make us priests or bishops (if churches want to make us priests or bishops, that's their own decision).

Understand that organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org) is only working for equal rights under civil law...

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Wide open acceptance of gays as being a good thing is not the ruin of society. It only reveals that a society is choosing a path which is leading to ruin. Gays are not the cause. Its only symptomatic.

Its like saying cults are ruining a society. Its not the cults which are ruining. They are only a sign that its being ruined. Like mold is not the cause of destroying bread. Not using proper refrigeration, allows for the mold!

Matthew 5:13 niv​

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."​

Its the weak and impotent churches that are allowing their nation to become run over by evil. They produce no "Salt" to act as a preservative to their land. Their false doctrinal teachings shut the door to God's national blessings on a land.

The evil that is being manifested in a nation is only a symptom of the poor job that the pulpits are doing in the disseminating ofGod's Word soundly. No salt? No national blessing.

The wide acceptance of gays? (if it happens). Will not indicate how clever the gays were in promoting their propaganda. It will indicate how the majority of the churches in the land were living in religious hypocrisy.

The judgment of a nation begins with its churches.

1 Peter 4:17 niv​

For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"​

Grace and truth, GeneZ

I actually understand what you are saying. Because Jesus (the definition of "Christian") died for our sins, then we, as Christians, should be just as responsible for society.

But, here's the thing. Jesus died for the sins of his Christian followers. Jesus didn't die for the sins of people who didn't follow him, right?

In the same way, today's church is not responsible for the actions of society. The church is responsible for the actions of the church. And society is responsible for the actions of society.

To say that the gays are harming society and that it's because the God is not present enough is saying that the church is repsonsible for soceity... that the church and the civil government should be combined somehow.

I completely disagree with that premise.

Do what you want in your church... believe what you want. I fully support your right to disciminate against gays when you are in God's house.

But, when you start to discriminate against gays in civil law, by not allowing me to marry (a civil union) my beloved and by not allowing me to serve in the military, and by not allowing me to be at my beloved's hospital bedside (because I'm not family) and on and on and on....

When you start doing that, in the civil arena, THAT is when I will start fighting for my equal rights...

Separation of Church and State, my friend.