Homosexuality against natural law

DebJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Another interesting point is that a higher percentage of gays are southpaws than in the heterosexual sector. Scientists don't exactly know what to do with that tidbit yet. Some people think that science should make discoveries according to their own personal timetable.
We'll simply learn more as we go, no more and certainly no less.

wouldn't that mean that bisexual people must be ambidextrous, also?

THE OLD BORNGAY wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah,, and your point is?.. I am what I am. the way GOD made me darling,, too bad if its not what YOU expect... Its not about you... Too may people here quick to throw stones and condemn people in God's behalf.. Most of them strait proclaiming they know everything there is to know about a gay person. You are the ones that are angering GOD... not us.

Point is, don't bring your sin into the world and push it upon us like it is supposed to be healthy or good for society. Because it isn't. No sin has ever been for our society. Try some of these for a taste of sin and tell me if its all good: Free Sex- Adultery (divorce and destroying families), fornication creating babies from unmarried woman and abortion, pornography, rape, incest, pedophile, polygamy and of course homosexuality that you want to have legal rights. Which one of the other sexual sins would you like to offer rights? If homosexuality is given rights, then why not the others. Who is sin hurting anyway??? What a bunch of lies! We won't stand with you, we will stand against you. On the side righteousness we take a stand!

Avery wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is, don't bring your sin into the world and push it upon us like it is supposed to be healthy or good for society. Because it isn't. No sin has ever been for our society. Try some of these for a taste of sin and tell me if its all good: Free Sex- Adultery (divorce and destroying families), fornication creating babies from unmarried woman and abortion, pornography, rape, incest, pedophile, polygamy and of course homosexuality that you want to have legal rights. Which one of the other sexual sins would you like to offer rights? If homosexuality is given rights, then why not the others. Who is sin hurting anyway??? What a bunch of lies! We won't stand with you, we will stand against you. On the side righteousness we take a stand!

please explain to us where you got the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

Isabella wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for sharing. You are definitely correct about homosexuality always existing. And God brought much punishment for it. As much as many don't like to admit in the gay community, God sees homosexuality as an abomination before His eyes. Only thru his son Jesus, can you be cleansed of this sin and practice it no more. It can happen. Many have taken this path successfully and are living a wonderful fulfilled life. Homosexuality is a product of rebellion against your own flesh and if you give into this sin, the Bible says you will pay the consequences. Sowing and Reaping.

Rubbish! People are born with differing sexualities. Every quote in the Bible is associated with either sexual promiscuity or idol worship. We get into problems when we pick verses out of context. Adultery is much more serious. Read the Gospels carefully and you will find that breaking the ten commandments is more serious than sexual indiscretions. Breaking a vow to God is also more serious. Therefore, if one marries and divorces 'unlawfully'(according to Biblical definitions) they commit adultery. Yet if we take all of what Jesus preaches in the Gospel, we find a bigger picture. We learn of compassion, justice, mercy and forgiveness. Why do you suppose the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 is misplaced in the bible? It is because church leaders in the 3rd century did not want Jesus to forgive adultery. The passage would have been lost had a 3rd century scribe not hidden it in the Gospel of John. It actually fits very well at the end of Luke 21. You need to stop looking at other peoples supposed sins and live as the Gospel of Matthew teaches. Matthew 7:1. If God did not want gays, God would not have created them in the first place.

Isabella wrote:

<quoted text>
The scrolls are thousands of years old. They were transformed into English so Americans can read the scroll's words.

Just by writing that alone, I will read no further of your posts. You are as steeped in ignorance as you are in bigotry. You are a waste of time and space.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
or a straight man can simply swallow a baggie... problem solved

Turkey basters and baggies.....it just gets better and better;0)

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
wouldn't that mean that bisexual people must be ambidextrous, also?

My brother is straight and ambidextrous......is he abnormal?

Avery wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is, don't bring your sin into the world and push it upon us like it is supposed to be healthy or good for society. Because it isn't. No sin has ever been for our society. Try some of these for a taste of sin and tell me if its all good: Free Sex- Adultery (divorce and destroying families), fornication creating babies from unmarried woman and abortion, pornography, rape, incest, pedophile, polygamy and of course homosexuality that you want to have legal rights. Which one of the other sexual sins would you like to offer rights? If homosexuality is given rights, then why not the others. Who is sin hurting anyway??? What a bunch of lies! We won't stand with you, we will stand against you. On the side righteousness we take a stand!

I'll give you a clue. Rape, incest, pedophilia, adultery etc. all have one thing in common....victims. Unconsenting or unable to consent victims. Consentual gay sex between two unrelated adults leaves no victims. You compare gays to many criminal activities also which is an insult to ALL gays.

They may be sins in YOUR opinion but interactions between human beings which does no harm is legal in this country. We do not base law on your opinion.

Isabella wrote:

<quoted text>
He didn't MAKE you Gay, you CHOSE to be gay. Big difference. Homosexuality is a behavior. There is no conclusive scientific proof that anyone is born as a homosexual. It is a lie told by those who want to practice the sin; nothing more. You are a product of your environment. Can you look back and see what might have triggered your homosexuality? What was your relationship with your father. That is usually where the problem exists. Lack of love by a father. thanks

There is *no* scientific proof that being gay is a choice. It is a lie told by those who wish to condemn others without reason, nothing more.

you are a product of hatred

can you look back and work out what triggered your bigotry? Was ity your relationship with your pastor? Thats usually where the problem begins. In church

And on a more important point,*where* is your PROOF that homosexuality is choice? provide that and people may listen to you

Isabella wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read those reports and again, they came up with no conclusive data that supports a gene for homosexuality. Same holds true for hetero...no conclusive genes either way. It is a sexual choice.

following this 'logic' one is forced to conclude that cerebral palsy is a choice. There are NO genes for cerebral palsy

So are you advocating that, since cerebral palsy is, according to you, a choice, we should stop supporting such people and throw them onto the streets?

Or,*perhaps* we can deduce from this that some biological effects can be *innate* but not genetic

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Guess you have no knowledge of science. It is no problem to place the sperm and the egg together and create an embryo. There are surrogate mother's, fathers and egg donors. Yes the miracle happens all the time. So much for your theory.

Listen fool. Two gay men or two gay women can not procreate together and produce a child that genetically comes from both.

DebJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Turkey basters and baggies.....it just gets better and better;0)

see what you can do with your mr. wizard chemistry set and a few odds and ends from the kitchen? amazing, huh?

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>Listen fool. Two gay men or two gay women can not procreate together and produce a child that genetically comes from both.

how about a woman all by herself? i already mentioned how they have succeeded in fertilising a woman's egg in a petri dish with her own bone marrow stem cells. it's just a matter of time until they can move it into the woman's body and she can get herself pregnant if and when she wants to. that'll sure take a lot of pressure off of men, huh? i mean, look at all the women there are in the world who won't need them to get pregnant and he can just sit and watch football on tv all he wants to.

cool, huh?

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>Listen fool. Two gay men or two gay women can not procreate together and produce a child that genetically comes from both.

So then I guess we should nullify all marriages that do not produce children? Old, infertile, child-less, we need to make a law that says your must have kids withing three years or OOPS! no marriage. There are no "miracles" that give children to heterosexual couples through a normal process.

And they may not be able to have kids together, but what does that matter? One can have a child and the other adopts it, there are plenty of straight marriages that have blended families like this, should they have their right removed? And who said it's the way of the world that heterosexual people are better? Men and women can still have children without being sexuality attracted to each other. The world could easily live on without heteros.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
how about a woman all by herself? i already mentioned how they have succeeded in fertilising a woman's egg in a petri dish with her own bone marrow stem cells. it's just a matter of time until they can move it into the woman's body and she can get herself pregnant if and when she wants to. that'll sure take a lot of pressure off of men, huh? i mean, look at all the women there are in the world who won't need them to get pregnant and he can just sit and watch football on tv all he wants to.
cool, huh?

Will never happen.

Desya wrote:

<quoted text>
So then I guess we should nullify all marriages that do not produce children? Old, infertile, child-less, we need to make a law that says your must have kids withing three years or OOPS! no marriage. There are no "miracles" that give children to heterosexual couples through a normal process.
And they may not be able to have kids together, but what does that matter? One can have a child and the other adopts it, there are plenty of straight marriages that have blended families like this, should they have their right removed? And who said it's the way of the world that heterosexual people are better? Men and women can still have children without being sexuality attracted to each other. The world could easily live on without heteros.

Nope. Any loving man/woman equation together is fine. This is the only way, this is the correct way. This is the way GOD wants it. PERIOD.

fedupwiththemess wrote:

<quoted text>I told you. Gays can't procreate together. Even in an infertile man/woman couple...GOD can still create a miracle and the woman can have a baby. Never will that happen with gays. A man can never carry a baby.

And, I will ask you again. Please tell me how gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage? You already told me what I already knew. Now, back to square one.

Isabella wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all God told those who were hypocrits not to judge. Jesus said to remove the plank from your own eye, so you can see clearly to remove the speck from your neighbors eye...to see clearly is the big message. Those who read the Bible and UNDERSTAND its meaning instead of picking and choosing for their own agenda are the ones who can see clearly the truth. Secondly, our current scientific technology is exceptional and if there was a homosexual gene, they could have clearly found it by now. Just like the germs out there. And new germs are being manifested everyday and our scientists are observing their characteristics. So again, there is no genetic chromosone in gay people that links them together or makes that sexual preference connection. NOTHING! I am sorry if I have offended anyone, but anyone that tells you differently is lying and wants you to indulge in the same sin practice as them to gain comradery. It is not productive to our world to instill rights for sinful behavior. It starts a chain reaction for more sins. Desensitizing.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged. No mention of the word hypocrite in that statement. And, if you say I am the one with the speck in my eye, I say the same is true of you and that you are picking and choosing verse to suit your ends. Don't judge me as one who doesn't gather the truth of the Bible, that too is judgmeent.

As to your comment on the sciences. The sciences of the day that did not know of the afor mentioned were state of the art for that day and, still, these things remained unkown. The best minds of the time argued, just as you are, that they would have been found had they existed. Well, they were wrong and so are you, in my opinion. It is your choice to believe you are correct and there is evidence to the effect that there altered chemistry as the underlying cause of homosexuality. whether it is genetic or not has not been proven, that is true. But, there is no proof that it is choice either, only opinion.

You don't offend me. People like you only disappoint me, To say something as ridiculous as, if such a thing existed it would have been discovered by now, is case in point.

Isabella wrote:

Read for yourselves. nothing about a genetic condition. Just sexual orientation (the direction of one's sexual "choice") explanations and how to deal with it.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justt...

All this proves is that you've shopped around and found a group of members of these groups who have joined together to create another group which supports your point of view and theirs. This proves nothing.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
go back and check, i wasn't i who had made the typo about merium and the magdeline. and yes, historians state that jesus had 13 siblings. you haven't seen any verifiable research on any of the biblical teachings simply due to the fact that you haven't studied it. get yourself into an accredited university course or nondenominational seminary.
and if you don't follow the teachings of the experts, then you have nothing to follow.

Balogna. I've done plenty of research into the life of Jesus and all you're presenting is commentary to the effect that people have said such things. You don't present any reference to back it up and, even if you did, it would be nothing but speculation. Some "experst" say Jesus never existed too. Which group is correct? You believe what you say is true because you have accepted it as the truth and, by the way, this thread isn't about the validity of Jesus. If you want to check, you'll see it has to do with whether or not homosexuality is natural or not.