Forums | MacLife

D'Eyncourt wrote:

The odd thing is that we NEVER hear of the New Testament arguments against homosexuality

That's not true.
I've detailed it numerous times.
You just do not remember that which you do not wish to acknowledge.

The phrase "Sexual Immorality" used in the NT included homosexuality - as any scholar of that culture can verify.
Furthermore, Paul gets specific in the first chapter of Romans:

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … version=31

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-23 8:37 pm)

Fed's Rights!

Freakout Jackson wrote:

Give him a break guys....res can't help himself

That was actually funny!

"religion is like a lift in your shoes....
if you need a lift, wear them, but let's not go running around nailing lifts on all the natives' feet if they don't want them.

G.C.

I'll just take the opium, thanks

M.E.

I have no idea if there is a genetic tendency towards homosexuality or not.
I do know there is a biological related to sexual lust for women, but such lust is just as immoral (and addressed more often than homosexuality) so whether or not some or all gays have a biological or genetic tendency really matters not from a biblical perspective, as the biblical perspective is that we (humans) have an inherent sinful nature.

So whether you choose to be gay or are born gay, while it certainly is an interesting scientific investigation, really has no relevance on the viewpoint/aspect of it - just like my biological desire to smurf the new single mom that just moved across the street doesn't make the lust any less sinful, nor would it make the act of doing so less sinful.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-24 9:29 am)

resedit wrote:

So whether you choose to be gay or are born gay, while it certainly is an interesting scientific investigation, really has no relevance on the viewpoint/aspect of it - just like my biological desire to smurf the new single mom that just moved across the street doesn't make the lust any less sinful, nor would it make the act of doing so less sinful.

What you're missing is that just because someone is not "born gay" does not mean that they then "chose" to be gay later.

I must admit, the suggestion that sexual orientation is 'chosen' is completely bizarre to me.  I cannot fathom how anyone could come to such a conclusion.  Did you "choose" heterosexuality, or is that just how you turned out?  Why would you think it would be any different for those of us in the minority who ended up being homosexual?

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

So whether you choose to be gay or are born gay, while it certainly is an interesting scientific investigation, really has no relevance on the viewpoint/aspect of it - just like my biological desire to smurf the new single mom that just moved across the street doesn't make the lust any less sinful, nor would it make the act of doing so less sinful.

What you're missing is that just because someone is not "born gay" does not mean that they then "chose" to be gay later.

I must admit, the suggestion that sexual orientation is 'chosen' is completely bizarre to me.  I cannot fathom how anyone could come to such a conclusion.  Did you "choose" heterosexuality, or is that just how you turned out?  Why would you think it would be any different for those of us in the minority who ended up being homosexual?

It doesn't matter to me born/chosen/whatever.

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

resedit wrote:

It doesn't matter to me born/chosen/whatever.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm still utterly baffled by what you believe.

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

I've never disputed that, but your application of the word "choice" has gone far beyond "action" in past discussions.

daemon wrote:

Damned right.

Now, what business is it of yours?

What is the context of your question?

daemon wrote:

resedit wrote:

daemon wrote:

Damned right.

Now, what business is it of yours?

What is the context of your question?

t doesn't matter to me born/chosen/whatever.

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

So, what exactly makes it your business, then? At all? EVER? IT'S THEIR CHOICE, NOT YOURS!

http://www.oceanstar.com/patti/lyrics/gloria.htm

What the hell are you asking? I don't understand your question.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-24 11:49 am)

resedit wrote:

It should of course be noted however that one does choose whether or not they act out on their sexual (or other) desires.

You're useless.

daemon wrote:

Why is this your business at all. Ever.

Um - am I not allowed to discuss my viewpoint on a topic because you happen to disagree with it?

Let me make it clear - I do not want my government (US Federal, CA State, Shasta County, Redding City) to ever pass a law restricting what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.

In fact - I'm even of the opinion that prostitution should be decriminalized. It seems kind of weird that the first amendment allows me to pay a woman to have sex with me in front of a camera for me to sell, but if no camera is there - then it suddenly becomes illegal.

I disagree with prostitution but I don't think it should be a criminal act between two consenting adults.
Whoring oneself on a street corner - sure, because that causes problems that do impact other citizens, but just the act of paying for sex when it isn't being filmed shouldn't be a criminal offense.

I do however believe that I have every right to discuss my viewpoint on homosexuality - just like you have every right to discuss your viewpoint on evangelical christians.

Want to know one of the big things that turned me off about Palin?
She got on TV and gave this story about how the hateful liberals were spreading lies about her trying to ban books that hadn't even been published when she was mayor.

So I looked it up.

No - she never did try to ban any specific book, and that list was a bull smurf list.
Yes, she did ask the Librarian what the process would be, and just happened to fire the Librarian shortly after the Librarian gave her a response stating she would never ever want to ban a book.

Palin claims she never wanted to ban a book, but just was asking in case the issue of the process ever came up.
Yeah right - and I have a 2 foot schlong.

Even though I would not be horrified to find out a book on, say, building effective IEDs out of hardware store parts had been banned - the reality is those book bans never stop there, they always start getting into ideologies, and in an internet age - any dangerous data (like how to build bombs) is readily available anyway - so a ban doesn't stop dangerous info from getting into the hands of someone smart enough to implement it. All it does is set a precedent that is then abused.

Yes - there are numerous other reasons to dislike Palin.

Point is - why do you want my perspective silenced? Do you not want the freedom to discuss your own perspective?
If people do not discuss their perspectives, is there any hope of them ever changing?
Do you think my perspective on gay marriage would have changed if I had never gotten into discussions with people of opposing viewpoints?

Do not be quick to ask someone to never discuss their viewpoint just because you don't like it.
That's a closed mind, and closed minds can be extremely dangerous. Just look at all the damage caused by religious freaks with closed minds (IE Fred Phelps).