What undermimes marriage more?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Right--I know this--I just want you to explain it, so that when I counter it, you can't say that that's not what you meant.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

That's a contradiction

If gays are consiously acting in a way so it will be offensive to god, which you believe, then their intent is to anger god.

Maybe I worded my last statement wrong.  Gays know (or at least should--deep down in their heart after learning biology) that what they believe is wrong.

[afleitch]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Right--I know this--I just want you to explain it, so that when I counter it, you can't say that that's not what you meant.

?? How the hell can you counter well documented and observed homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks

Then I would say you have some serious docrtrinal issues.

[Q]

Per se

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

[afleitch]

Gays know (or at least should--deep down in their heart after learning biology) that what they believe is wrong.

Not really. If you actually lean biology you tend to realise that homosexuality is pretty common across the board from hedgehogs to humans.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

[© tweed]

Look, Inks, it's relatively clear at this point that you're wrong.  That's fine.  I've been wrong before on this board.  It's well documented and I'll even point you to an instance where I've been (badly) wrong if you so desire.

The point is, though, don't continue to argue a point here that's been refuted.  When you come to a board like this, you learn things.

If you subjectively believe homosexuality is wrong, then fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But you can't argue that it's wrong in any objective fashion nor can you argue that the motivation for being gay is to be anti-god.

[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.

[Q]

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.

What about a heterosexual couple that is medically capable of having children but decides that they desire none.  Should they be allowed to marry?

What do you think about this, Inks?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How.  Explain to me how stress effects fertility.

Impotence is the well known one.

Read about other ways here:

Reuters

Shortened the URL to avoid horizontal scrollbar.

Right--I know this--I just want you to explain it, so that when I counter it, you can't say that that's not what you meant.

?? How the hell can you counter well documented and observed homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom?

I'm talking about impotence, but forget it--I'll just make my point from what you gave me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It produces a physical incapability of fertility.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

[afleitch]

As the result of psychological problems- not 'disease' as you were originally arguing.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks

Then I would say you have some serious docrtrinal issues.

Hmm? Why would you say that? It's not certain that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation and all that) is even mentioned in the New Testament (the bit in Romans may have been in reference to male prostitution).

Certainly it's never mentioned in the teachings of Jesus Christ; which are, or at least are supposed to be, the basis of the Christian religion in all it's forms.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Gays know (or at least should--deep down in their heart after learning biology) that what they believe is wrong.

Not really. If you actually lean biology you tend to realise that homosexuality is pretty common across the board from hedgehogs to humans.

I go to a private school, so I really wouldn't know.  At least in the Bible it pretty clearly shows homosexuality is abnormal and wrong (see earlier in the post--I'm not repeating everything that was said).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Look, Inks, it's relatively clear at this point that you're wrong.  That's fine.  I've been wrong before on this board.  It's well documented and I'll even point you to an instance where I've been (badly) wrong if you so desire.

The point is, though, don't continue to argue a point here that's been refuted.  When you come to a board like this, you learn things.

If you subjectively believe homosexuality is wrong, then fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But you can't argue that it's wrong in any objective fashion nor can you argue that the motivation for being gay is to be anti-god.

And how have you proved your point correct?

[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).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

I want to see individual studies--b/c I'm sure not ALL of them agree w/ your point.

[afleitch]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks

Then I would say you have some serious docrtrinal issues.

Hmm? Why would you say that? It's not certain that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation and all that) is even mentioned in the New Testament (the bit in Romans may have been in reference to male prostitution).

Indeed. It all hinges on the translation and context of the Greek word arsenokoites/en which when you look at the context of where it is used (in lists of economic sins and those relating to money and trade) it refers to male/gay prostitution both as a trade and as a part of idolatrous temple worship.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

What about a heterosexual couple that is medically capable of having children but decides that they desire none.  Should they be allowed to marry?

What do you think about this, Inks?

Nowhere did I say that you had to have kids to be married.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As the result of psychological problems- not 'disease' as you were originally arguing.

I said 'disease' was the wrong word.  I knew that.

[Alcon]

Inks,

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

UC Davis

[© tweed]

Look, Inks, it's relatively clear at this point that you're wrong.  That's fine.  I've been wrong before on this board.  It's well documented and I'll even point you to an instance where I've been (badly) wrong if you so desire.

The point is, though, don't continue to argue a point here that's been refuted.  When you come to a board like this, you learn things.

If you subjectively believe homosexuality is wrong, then fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But you can't argue that it's wrong in any objective fashion nor can you argue that the motivation for being gay is to be anti-god.

And how have you proved your point correct?

Well, I've contributed to a group of people's posts that have proven that homosexuality isn't a choice nor is it a concerted effort to rebel against god.  Look at the APA report Alcon posted and also look at how other animal species contain homosexuals.  (This you didn't know when you got up today)  Obviously ducks in a pond aren't trying to rebel against god.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would say that any Christian who is gay has some serious problems.  

I am. And I get along just fine thanks

Then I would say you have some serious docrtrinal issues.

Hmm? Why would you say that? It's not certain that homosexuality (as a sexual orientation and all that) is even mentioned in the New Testament (the bit in Romans may have been in reference to male prostitution).

Certainly it's never mentioned in the teachings of Jesus Christ; which are, or at least are supposed to be, the basis of the Christian religion in all it's forms.

Sodom & Gomorah