What undermimes marriage more?

[afleitch]

Sodom & Gomorah

Thats the Old Testament. The 'teachings of Jesus Christ' were found in the New Testament.

[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?

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.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Sodom & Gomorah

Thats the Old Testament. The 'teachings of Jesus Christ' were found in the New Testament.

I know--I take Bible class.

[afleitch]

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

Di you choose your eye colour? Did you choose your gender while you were in the womb?

[© 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.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

[Joe Republic]

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

Di you choose your eye colour? Did you choose your gender while you were in the womb?

I didn't choose anything.  But the article said psychological something or other--I'd have to find it.  Eye color isn't psychological (but neither is homosexuality--its' a choice).

[afleitch]

Sodom & Gomorah

Thats the Old Testament. The 'teachings of Jesus Christ' were found in the New Testament.

I know--I take Bible class.

But you used it to rebut Als discussion of what the NT contains and what Christ said or did not say. Therfore Sodom and Gomorra, being part of the OT is not a valid rebuttal

[afleitch]

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

[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?

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.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

I'm not--I am saying is if you believe in abortion, then you should believe homosexuality is a conscious choice

[© 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.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

I'm not--I am saying is if you believe in abortion, then you should believe homosexuality is a conscious choice

That doesn't make sense.  Sorry.

[Joe Republic]

I'm not--I am saying is if you believe in abortion, then you should believe homosexuality is a conscious choice

That doesn't make logical sense.


Edit: You beat me to it, Tweed.

[afleitch]

That makes no sense.

EDIT: Jinx

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

I didn't.  Everyone comes naturally that way.

[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?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

I know--I'm getting a little overwhelmed--evey time I post there's 3 more posts--so could everyone slow down a little bit for me?

[afleitch]

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).

Did you look at Romans 1:25 just right before that?

'For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen'

He was talking about prostitution during idolatrous worship

[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?

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.

So then, if an unborn baby can psychologically "become" (i know it's the wrong word) gay, if it's that advanced, why can we still abort it?  IF it can "choose" it's sexual orientation--which will determine what happens the rest of it's life, shouldn't it be considered living?

You're probably trying to draw a parallel to abortion here, but I don't really understand what you're saying.  Don't try to turn this into an abortion debate.

I'm not--I am saying is if you believe in abortion, then you should believe homosexuality is a conscious choice

That doesn't make sense.  Sorry.

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.

[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.

[Joe Republic]

Inks, you really ought to remember that not everyone is a Christian.  It's vitally important that you remember that, okay?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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...

[afleitch]

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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.

It depends how you interpret the greek.  But we won't decide how to interpret it, b/c Paul isn't here to tell us.

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?

[/quote]  I chose never to become gay.  That's like me asking you, when did you chose not to murder someone--it probably never seriously crossed your mind, so there's no specific point.  But does that mean that you're a murderer @ heart?  No (at least I hope not)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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).

Did you look at Romans 1:25 just right before that?

'For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature and not the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen'

He was talking about prostitution during idolatrous worship

or homosexual practices during idol worship--but drop it--we won't agree on the greek translation.