What undermimes marriage more?

[Alcon]

So then should infertile [heterosexual] couples not be allowed to marry?

A strawman is distorting your argument and attacking it.  That's not it.  Also, stop stealing bandwidth.

[Alcon]

I have removed a few posts here.  I'm going to be nice and assume it was just playing around gone too far, but I'd suggest that comments like those be avoided.

[Alcon]

If an infertile man or women gets married, it is a sin!

Or an elderly couple who choose to marry

No.  And I can't stand it when you liberals use this argument.  Infertility is a disease (and I know that's not the right word, but I can't think of it).  So either:
a) Homosexuality is disease.  And why would God punish people for something they have no control over.
b) It's not a disease--you're argument is shot down.

No; the result of homosexuality and infertility is the same (no kids), which is the criterion you and others were using to decide whether a marriage should be allowed.  To point out that the outcome of the two conditions is the same makes no judgement about the conditions themselves.

No--the criteria is if there are no MEDICAL abnormalities, it's OK.  In fertility it is a condition in the sexual organs that causes it.  You're brain/heart doesn't say, "I can't have kids."  There IS a difference.

So, it's a psychological "disease" (ignoring the fact that no medical organisation in the world considers it to be such; I suggest you look up what the criterea for a mental disorder are).  Are you saying anyone with a disease that prevents childbirth should not be allowed to marry?  How do you propose to enforce this if so?

Democrat and liberal are not the same thing, per se, Inks.

[Alcon]

Personal attacks in Latin?  Per se doesn't mean anything offensive.

I misinterpreted your earlier post.  If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice to rebel against God, I ask you why anyone would chose this, especially devout Christians, some of whom are gay?

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

Also, Jake, I've seen polls showing like 56% support for civil unions.  That's a lot of gay conservatives.

[Alcon]

It is a direct conscious act to rebel against God and nature.  I never said tha anyone w/ a disease should be prevented from having kids.

LOL.  I seriously doubt that is the intent.

It may not be their intent, but that is what it is.  It seems clear to me that 2 guys can't have a kid, so something must not be right.  Have you ever seen any other homosexual thing other than a human?

Homosexuality has been observed in a number of other animals.  I'm surprised you have not heard of it; it was on the news quite a lot.

[Alcon]

Personal attacks in Latin?  Per se doesn't mean anything offensive.

I misinterpreted your earlier post.  If you believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice to rebel against God, I ask you why anyone would chose this, especially devout Christians, some of whom are gay?

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

Also, Jake, I've seen polls showing like 56% support for civil unions.  That's a lot of gay conservatives.

It seemed like a personal attack b/c you emphasized it right after I said it.  So sorry for the misinterpretation.

Oh, no.  I didn't notice you said it.  I put it in italics because it is a term in another language, not for emphasis.

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  I would like to see your stats--I'm a statistics kind of person.

Here's the American Psychological Association's 1994 position release:

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

[Alcon]

I could show you a range of studies that suggest that homosexuality has no correlation with much of anything from a range of organisations.  Do you want that?

that was 1

No...that wasn't a study at all.  That was the APA's statement based on a range of studies.  Unless you think that the American Psychological Association made up study results exclusively to make that statement, I didn't think you would need further references.

[Alcon]

Per se

Please take your profanity elsewhere; I would have expected better from a moderator.

It was a mistake.  I thought he was mocking me for saying it earlier.  Alcon, I appologize.

It's cool.  I wouldn't have used the term if I had seen it in your post.  For the future, though, I try not to mock anyone, and especially not for being a haughty, Latin-using sumbitch (which I am guilty of myself).

And, as Al mentioned, I've never seen a New Testament reference to homosexuality, beyond one attacking male prostitution (which was right after a portion attacking female prostitution, too, I believe).

[Alcon]

Inks,

Here's a synopsis of the significant studies in the field:

UC Davis

[Alcon]

Ink, your getting lost as to where you are trying to go. Slow down a little.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

I Cor. 6:9, 10 (but you won't use that b/c of the Greek)

For this cause God gave them up into 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" (Romans 1:26, 27).

Both of those are in reference to prostitution, not general sex, to my knowledge.  Your Bible class is lacking.

Inks: Tell me, when did you choose to be straight?

I didn't.  Everyone comes naturally that way.

Then how do you know that it is a choice?

[Alcon]

If Joe abortion Dr. says unborn Sammy can be killed b/c he's not a life, but he can "decide" (i KNOW its the wrong word) that he's gay--there's a contradiction there.

What is the contradiction?  I am afraid what you are saying is not clear.

[Alcon]

Studies show that being gay is not a choice, that it has no correlation with anything that would suggest it is a choice.

What other Greek interpretations have you seen of that passage?  I have never seen Biblical scholars interpret it as not referring to prostitution.

[Alcon]

If Joe abortion Dr. says unborn Sammy can be killed b/c he's not a life, but he can "decide" (i KNOW its the wrong word) that he's gay--there's a contradiction there.

What is the contradiction?  I am afraid what you are saying is not clear.

If the baby is psychologically deciding that he's gay (a major decision for his life), he's probably considered a life--shouldn't be aborted.  On the othe hand, if he doesn't psychologically decide that , according to the Dr. (not me) he can be aborted.  So any pro-gay abortion Dr. is contradicting himself

Psychological decisions are all chemical.  Just because something is psychological does not mean it is conscious.  Otherwise, people could choose to be schizophrenic or not.

[Alcon]

Sodom & Gomorah

Which is in the Old Testament, not the New. But I'll run with this anyway...

It seems to me that the sins of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were the fact that they tended to rape newcomers to their cities, rather than homosexuality...

It was both.  AND I KNOW IT's IN THE OT!

Where in even the Old Testament did it say homosexuality was a sin?  You're arguing that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah proves homosexuality was a sin, but not saying how.   And, again, it's not relevant since it's the Old Testament.

[Alcon]

If Joe abortion Dr. says unborn Sammy can be killed b/c he's not a life, but he can "decide" (i KNOW its the wrong word) that he's gay--there's a contradiction there.

But Dr Joe can't actually tell if the baby in the womb will be gay or straight- he could take a guess, based on research and throw up a probability. Just the same way he can take a guess at whats it eye colour might be, or if it has his mothers or fathers nose. He may be spot on, he may be way off. You don't know until it is born.

It was an analogy, but Alcon's (i think it was his) article said that Dr.s think babies psychologically decide @ birth.  We don't know thier decision, but "they do" (I disagree w/ this--i'm explaining the article).

Dude, again, not everything psychological is decided.  There are also chemical brain functions that occur at birth.  I never, ever said the baby decides.  That's ridiculous!

Wait, are you still arguing that being gay is a conscious choice?  I thought we cleared that up for you several pages back?

When on earth did I ever say that it's not a conscious choice?

That's exactly what Joe is saying.

[Alcon]

Sodom & Gomorah

Which is in the Old Testament, not the New. But I'll run with this anyway...

It seems to me that the sins of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were the fact that they tended to rape newcomers to their cities, rather than homosexuality...

That's how I interpret it. Again the key word is disputed, the Hebrew- 'yada' - which means to know, to have knowledge of. It doesn't really have much sexual connotation to it.

men prostitutes could be written as gay men (I don't know the word).

I suggest you read this; it will clear up the misconceptions regarding the Greek translation.

Your New Testament example is flawed, and the language translation that is most commonly accepted by Biblical scholars (even many conservative ones!) does not state that homosexuality is wrong.

[Alcon]

Inks, hold up.  You don't need to reply to every post immediately.  Please take the time to read the link I gave you.

Why do you believe your sources to be more accurate?  You are simply re-stating that it could mean "gay man" in general.  I provide evidence that it was probably not, and you just say that it "could be" again.  You aren't even bothering to explain why you believe this to be the true interpretation.

It's OK to slow down in replying to our posts and articulate your reasons more clearly.  No harm, no foul.  But what you are saying is directly, strongly contradicted by the link I just provided.  If you just keep repeating the assertion would addressing my counter-assertion, you are the one putting up that "brick wall."

[Alcon]

The question you are asking makes me think that you still have not read the link provided, regardless of the subsequent translations.

[Alcon]

And what did he say?  That they could translate it into "homosexuality" with any level of true certainty?  What was his logic?

[Alcon]

And what did he say?  That they could translate it into "homosexuality" with any level of true certainty?  What was his logic?

Who?  My main Bible teacher said it was a debated passage, but b/c of the context, and previous discussions in the Bible that homosexuality is wrong + the fact that Paul wasn't an expert of Greek, leads him to believe that it means homosexual.

How does Paul's lack of Greek expertise imply that?  And certainly the context - which I believe mentions prostitution (Al or whomever, correct me if I'm wrong) - seems to not indicate that it would be referencing homosexuality.

And if it's a debated passage, why are you so utterly certain about it?

[Alcon]

Are we done for the day, b/c if we are, I'll go check my other posts, but if there's 10 of you all posting @ the same time, I'll wait?

This goes into a realm where I don't have much knowledge, so I'll wait for Al's comments -- he's the resident theologian.

[Alcon]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

[Alcon]

Where were you yesterday!

States generally doesn't actually get involved in discussions.  He waits until they cool down, posts his position in one line, and doesn't bother to reply again.

Ya, well I lot of good that did me.  I could've used help from anybody yesterday (2 days ago now--technically)--it was like 6:1!

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

[Alcon]

Well, that's what you get for being wrong.

It's an attitude like that that's gonna get this debate started all over again.

Dude, I was just kidding around.

And I share Nym's sentiments - even if I think that you may just go for the conservative position and then try to justify it, no one can accuse you of caving to pressure in a debate.  That is to be admired.

[Alcon]

Just curious, where is it that you established your belief that homosexuality is OK.  What was the thing that led you to believe that (I know "thing" is not really a good word, but I can't think of anything else).

I do not believe that anything that does not directly and intentionally harm another person is bad.