Evidence for God from Science

Seems like you're overcomplicating biology.

Remember when you were a wee lad and you gradually came to realize that girls made you feel all funny in weird places? That's how you came to understand that you were straight. Had those funny feelings been caused by guys it's how you'd have come to understand that you were gay.

edwardmurphy wrote:Seems like you're overcomplicating biology.

Remember when you were a wee lad and you gradually came to realize that girls made you feel all funny in weird places? That's how you came to understand that you were straight. Had those funny feelings been caused by guys it's how you'd have come to understand that you were gay.

I recall you endorsing sexuality being gray rather than so black and white.

As for myself, I guess you could say I starting feeling those funny feelings down below upon waking up in the morning regardless of any thought. It's like "Oh hello, you again! You're an early riser. What do you want?"

Kurieuo wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:Seems like you're overcomplicating biology.

Remember when you were a wee lad and you gradually came to realize that girls made you feel all funny in weird places? That's how you came to understand that you were straight. Had those funny feelings been caused by guys it's how you'd have come to understand that you were gay.

I recall you endorsing sexuality being gray rather than so black and white.

As for myself, I guess you could say I starting feeling those funny feelings down below upon waking up in the morning regardless of any thought. It's like "Oh hello, you again! You're an early riser. What do you want?"

Kurieuo wrote:[I recall you endorsing sexuality being gray rather than so black and white.

That's the consensus view among those who study human sexuality. Whether or not I endorse it is irrelevant. I went black and white for the sake of brevity.

Kurieuo wrote:As for myself, I guess you could say I starting feeling those funny feelings down below upon waking up in the morning regardless of any thought. It's like "Oh hello, you again! You're an early riser. What do you want?"

Well, yeah, but in time you came to realize exactly what he wanted. Presumably it was girls.

Lol i think we may be a little too comfortable with each other in this thread

Marriage is defined by The Bible, implemented by the church.

The LGBT arguement asserts human morality over Gods morality.

Human morality is meaningless becuase it's constantly changing over time. Gods morality never changes. People who want "gay marriage" in church want it to be something it's not. At least 99% of the time.

In reality the typical homosexual male has astronomically partner counts, high STD rates, higher instances of mental health issues etc. Next time your at a rest stop look at the restroom stall dividers. To me - that's the reality of male homosexuality. It's not about "love" or monogamy. Its about lust, easy access, and carnal satiating.

Churches are accepting a mirage.

Anyways. Are there any options for churches that are traditional family orientated? Everything has changed terribly since my blissful childhood. I was raised a Christian but have fallen away, solo, and I never go to church anymore. The last time I went to Church the pastor sounded like a wimpy, old feminist. He was telling all the men in church, Jesus was gentle so they needed to become less judgmental, more accepting and "gentle". So i never went back.

I'm a sinner. Right now I'm in Las Vegas gambling, and battling the urge to commit a first time sin. I already know don't deserve to go to heaven. I pray to God will save or "delete" me rather than send me to hell. I hope God may answer this request becuase i never asked to be here on this earth in the first place.

I have no business condemning LGBT I just hate how LGBT has been empowered to destroy whatever is left of traditional Western Christian society. I have seething hate towards this "group psychology" effect, and having to pretend i accept things, that in my heart of hearts, I DO NOT.

Dammit.

I guess now I'm going to hell for holding hate in my heart by not accepting of LGBT in church right? God why is life so confusing..

To answer the question posed on the thread: YES!

I don't have as much issues with the state accepting gay marriage as much as I do with the church being forced to.

PaulSacramento wrote:I don't have as much issues with the state accepting gay marriage as much as I do with the church being forced to.

Literally this. When I see two guys wanting a marriage license, I think "Ok" but when I see the same two brow-beat Christians for *gasp* wrong-think, my BS-radar goes off, and I realize it's about much more than just getting tax benefits and hospital visits.

PaulSacramento wrote:I don't have as much issues with the state accepting gay marriage as much as I do with the church being forced to.

I agree with this, but unfortunately, too often, the first leads to the second.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I don't have as much issues with the state accepting gay marriage as much as I do with the church being forced to.

I agree with this, but unfortunately, too often, the first leads to the second.

Indeed and that is the problem.
The state is in the business of issue marriage licenses and that is all they should do.
If it is legal for same-sex people to marry then the state gives them a license.

Religious ceremonies in church are a different matter.
No church should be forced or coerced or threatened to allow for same-sex marriage in a religion that does NOT advocate it.

People do NOT NEED to be married in a church but they do need a license.

No one's rights are violated when a church that does NOT preach the acceptance of gay marriage, denies a gay couple's request ( any people REQUEST to be married in a church, the church is never obligated or required to marry them) to be married there.

No more than when a synagogue denies a Christian the request to take read the Torah.

Easy peasy solution - just eliminate all benefits bestowed by the state for ANY marriage - and then, I think, you'd see the clamor for non-spiritual/non-heterosexual marriage greatly decline. But eliminating any benefits tied to it won't keep the radicals on the extreme left from pursuing, through the courts, attacks upon faith-based preaching and doctrines as being "hate speech."

Hang on a second here...

It seems like you guys decided that the courts were forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, and then you got all sad about it. I can't help but question your methodology.

Can we pause the pity party long enough to provide some evidence that your initial assumption is true? And if it's NOT true can we cancel the gripefest, or at least shift the topic to something with a basis in reality?

A vast majority of people today are married in a civil ceremony, that is what a marriage license is; a state sanctioned license.
The presumption that two people wanting to pledge their life long commitment to each other would even want to do so in a forced religious ceremony by a pastor/priest who views it as an abomination is rather ludicrous. They have their families and friends gathered to celebrate a union, with the same intent as any other marriage to create a positive and lifelong memory.
People who are gay and wanting to marry are not doing so to mock the religious sanctity of marriage but rather to have the same legal rights under the marriage law.
This has major ramifications for property, inheritance and the legality of estate.
A good friend of mine was retelling me an encounter she had with two of her clients, one in his 80's the other early 70's. The more elderly gentlemen had suffered two strokes and a heart attack, he required 24 hour care. His partner of almost 40 years had been the primary carer.
Her job is to evaluate and allocate additional services for the elderly and a cousin who had previously had no interaction with her client was claiming power of attorney and was advocating for him to be put into a nursing home.
A 40 year committed relationship, of which the last 7 his partner had bathed and fed, clothed, loved and taken him to every appointment was being not only left out of key care decision for his partner but four decades of a shared financial life story was questionable.
This was just 2 weeks ago and she said that beforehand she wasn't too thrilled or much on board with gay marriage but this experience changed her perspective. Not that she agreed necessarily but from being involved it was without question to her who had loved this man and who legally had his best interests at heart, medically and otherwise. Point of interest they had several charities they were passionate about and that was where majority of their estate was left (animal conservation).
At the forefront of the gay marriage debate is people. Son's, daughter's, nephews, grandchildren and grandfathers and everything in between. We can disagree but to totally negate the commitment and love as not being the reason why they want the right to marry and to degrade it as nothing more than a plight to destroy the institution is wrong.

First off, that article is about buildings, not people. When I talk about forcing a church to perform a same-sex marriage I'm obviously referring to the clergy, and not the building itself.

Second, the gays have a point. If the people running a building make it available for everybody but them then that does kind of look discriminatory.

Third, none of that matters, since I specifically said "the courts." Lots of activists are engaged in lots of attempts to compel, prevent, legalize, decriminalize, monitor, revitalize, regulate, define, redefine, purge, and/or protect lots of things, but until they succeed in getting laws written and enforced it's just words.

In short, you haven't provided evidence that you're complaining about a real phenomenon.