Posted on 12/05/2006 11:04:34 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Sorry but that is no argument. You might also ask why people choose to be:
* Smokers
* Criminals
* Child abusers
* Alcoholics
...etc...
In fact I enjoy the odd cigar myself. Yeah I know it's bad for me. Should I now blame my genetics?
Just because it's a bad choice doesn't mean it's not a choice.
Sorry, but only credible scientific sources and study can prove your argument, not opinion. Homosexuality has been long removed as a being "choice" cause from the AMA list of pychological disorders--smokers, however, do make a choice to pick up that first cigarette.
On choice, I believe you are confusing the state of being homosexual with the act. The state of being that way is not a choice, but I would agree that the act is...
Well, this is something we agree on. I should have been more clear, I was referring to the act - thanks for making the issue clearer.
Interesting web references btw.
Actually Meandog, my last post was meant to you and snugs both.
If this were the gay daughter of Democrats they'd want to string her up and/or throw her out of the country, and/or say it was all the fault of her Democrat parents. Where is the condemnation they heap on the opposition? Why is this not Dick and Lynne Cheney's "faults" for how they raised their daughter? I sense some uneasy hypocrisy.
Veritas. I said as much in another forum and came here to see if the attitude was the same...it is...
Actually it does...
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
Source: Dictionary.com
The APA publishes an undated brochure titled "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality." They state:
"...many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
First, notice it says "many" indicating that the matter is far from settled. Second, notice that it says "biological, psychological and social factors," indicating that no scientist would say that homosexuality is purely genetic the way left-handedness or eye color is. Homosexuality is determined by one's environment, acccording to the APA, i.e. a learned behavior.
Twin studies have proven that it is not genetic as the incidence of homosexuality never approaches 100% as it would be expected if homosexuality was an inborn trait.
The gay issue becomes very complicated when someone in your family comes out. Because they are your child, brother, whatever, your blood. You want them to have the same things that make you happy. Family, children, to be safe. At least that's how I feel about it. I think the Cheney's cannot have been thrilled to find out they had a gay daughter. ( I can't think of what could have happened in the Cheney family to "make" her gay, but that is a whole other issue.)
My family contains two gay men who are raising a beautiful baby girl. She is the apple of their eye. When you KNOW people like that, it complicates things, that's all.
Actually, I have an ex brother in law with siblings and a dad with both spells and the gayness.
Great! See ya....
Spoken like a man who's never been in prison.
It looks as though you've gotten much of your information from such tripe as the Dan Brown book "The Da Vinci Code."
While I may address one or two of your points myself, rather than re-invent the wheel, I will not personally refute most of your inaccuracies (which I've read time and time again by atheists and other skeptics) but will post links to those who have:
- above article has good sections and articles on the Bible and its trustworthiness, its origins, canonization, etc.
Christian Think Tank You may want to pay special attention to this section:
Common objections to the Bible / Christianity
By the way, saying that Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality is an old chestnut that doesn't work. Remember that Jesus was a good Jewish boy, and the Old Testament was not supportive of homosexuality, among other sexual sins.
A major reason the Pharisses (who were among the major religious leaders of Jesus' day) did not like Jesus is because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, to be God.
If Jesus had supported homosexuality, if Jesus had accepted homosexuality, you dang skippy it would be recorded in the Gospels, because the Pharisees would've brought that charge against Him.
The Pharisees were constantly looking for reasons to have Jesus arrested or stoned to death. Had Jesus been pro- homosexuality, then Jesus' enemies would have brought that charge against Him, but they did not.
Had Jesus supported homosexuality, the other Jews (such as Peter) would not have considered Him a good, upstanding, Jewish teacher, so they would not have followed Jesus and died for Him and His message.
The Bible teaches that the Son (Jesus) is God, He always existed with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus existed before He became incarnate as a human. Jesus is the same God as that of the Old Testament.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, not to do away with it. Jesus wasn't against homosexuality in the Old Testament days as you imagine and then changed His mind in the New Testament.
God tells us in the Bible that He does not change His views, and neither do His characteristics change.
All this means that the God of the Old Testament who said homosexuality is wrong is the same God of the New Testament. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Old Testament that prohibited homosexuality is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament.
More:
- how homosexuals twist the Scriptures to suit their views
Homosexual Theology: Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?
Freedom From Homosexuality and the Gay "Christian" Deception
Here's an eye opening one:
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Gay Theology: Is God "Doing a New Thing"?
"Jesus Said Nothing About Homosexuality."
- you'll have to scroll down that page a little to get to the section about Jesus not specifically mentioning homosexuality
What you are NOT entitled to is to damn everybody to hell who doesn't believe exactly like you do.
God is the one who judges and sends unrepentant sinners to hell.
Jesus stated in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to God but by me."
Jesus Himself made Christianity very exclusive and taught that sin - which has not been pardoned by God because the sinner refuses to ask forgiveness - will send a person to hell.
I believe you said in a prior post that you're tired of the 'moralizing prigs' in this thread?
If so, it seems to me you're guilty of the same charge, only you're arguing in favor of morals that are diametrically opposed to Judeo-Christian beliefs (i.e. support of homosexuality).
If nobody ever made moral judgments of any kind, criminals would not be charged and thrown into prison. Abused children would remain with abusive parents. Etc.
Regarding salvation, Christians did not make the rules, God did - we are simply repeating what God has said.
Wallace T. wrote: The one difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that we are not saved by the law, but by grace. As Ephesians 2:8-10 states: "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves". The moral law is our guide to God's standards and is binding, but obedience thereto does not save.
Wallace T, I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. I just wanted to point out that the Law didn't save anyone in the OT days, either - remember, the Bible says that Abraham, for example, was justified by his faith, not by any works.
- I'm sure you already knew that. I wanted only to clarify it for anyone else who comes along :o)
[Accygirl wrote:] My mom's a teacher, so I know that most schools are very sensitive to the wishes of the parents. I very much doubt that a majority of the schools would force that on five year olds.
If this were true, there would be no need for organizations such as the ACLJ to represent Christian parents whose children have been subjected to teaching in public schools, teaching that violates the Christian parents beliefs, including, I've read, pro-homosexual teaching and materials.
You honestly mean to tell us you've never heard one news story about homosexual groups, or those sympathetic to them, trying to force kids to read "Heather Has Two Mommies" and other such literature?
And that the sexual ed courses teach the kids there is "nothing wrong" with homoexuality?
Wasn't it during the 1980s when the Surgeon General thought it would be a good idea to have first graders learn about homosexuality (specifically anal sex between two men) and how to put a condom on a cucumber?
On a similar note, we have homosexuality crammed down our throats in TV shows and in movies (e.g. Brokeback Mountain, Queer Eye, Will and Grace, the L Word, and homosexual characters on other shows) all of which is seeking to "normalize" homosexuality and make us think it's okay.
One of the common refrains one began hearing sometime in the late 1980s or 1990s in regards to homosexuality was,
"[Insert critical comment about homosexuality here], not that there's anything wrong with it [homosexuality]."
That, to me, was one of the first things that demonsrated that the homosexual activists had made some in-roads: people had to qualify any criticism of homosexuals or homosexualty by tacking on the phrase, "not that there's anything wrong with it."
[Accygirl wrote - to another poster -] First, the fact that you think that all gay people are sexual predators is offensive.
So only straight people commit crimes? There is no such thing as a homosexual who has ever molested a child, shop lifted, stolen, lied?
I don't know if the other poster stated that all homoexuals are pedophiles, but there are connections. See, for instance, this:
The tragic story of Jesse Dirkhising
or this -
Pedophiles Argue Their Case in the Journal of Homosexuality
Why would homosexuals give pedophiles a platform from which to expound their views?
If homosexuals don't like the complaint that they foster pedophilia, one would think they would have absolutely nothing to do with any group who promoties it, but that isn't the case. They are chummy with NAMBLA.
and there's many straight people who engage in risky sexual behavior or use intravenous drugs that do...
Two wrongs do not make a right, which, I've noticed, has had to be repeated in this thread many a time by others.
Straight people engaging in fornication or sexual deviancy is not excusable. Neither is homosexuality.
Of interest:
There has been a lot of sloppy thinking in this thread, such as the oft- repeated argument that "because some straight parents are abusive, this means that homosexuality is morally acceptable, and it's perfectly acceptable for homosexuals to be parents."
(I don't think great white sharks would be decent parents to a human child either, but I fail to see how that automatically legitimizes homosexual unions / parentage.)
Then there are the bizarre arguments of the strawman variety stated early in the thread that one who is against lesbians having a baby must necessarily want, demand, or wish for the abortion of that baby.
Further sloppy arguments:
that what two public figures do in their bedroom is nobody's business so nobody is permitted to pass any sort of judgment about the situation, (or anyone who has an opinion on the subject should keep it to himself or herself).
Not a sloppy argument but an observation of mine:
People who are, for reasons of morality, against homosexual parenthood are not all necessarily in favor of the government enforcing laws against it.
- But the critics in this thread continue to attribute this view to any and all socially conservative types here.
Great post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.