Evidence for God from Science

Where would society be if all were homosexual? or the majority?
While the argument can be made for bisexuality in the animal kingdom ( which is usually passed off as supporting homosexuality, which it is not), homosexual species would die out.
Homosexuality is not in the best interest of the human species.
BW does make a very valid point in regards to "militant gay rights" and that story of the bakery is quite disturbing.
If gays want equal rights then were are the equal rights of the shop owner to serve OR NOT serve whomever He/she pleases ??

PaulSacramento wrote:Where would society be if all were homosexual? or the majority?

Is it a sin to not have children? Where would society be if every couple decided not to have kids? Doesn't sound very convincing.

Echoside wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Where would society be if all were homosexual? or the majority?

Is it a sin to not have children? Where would society be if every couple decided not to have kids? Doesn't sound very convincing.

Society would die out if people decided to not have kids and yes, that would be a sin and an afront to God.
Of course that wouldn't happen because of the very real and natural biological urge to procreate and while some may decide to not have kids the majority, as history shows us, would have them.
It is a simple fact that homosexuality is NOT in societies best interest when it comes to propagation.
Agreement is irrelevant.
Homosexuality is not a benefit to society.
Now, the issue is whether homosexuality is harmful to society.
There have been some cultures have have embraced bisexuality, such as the Spartans and other cultures that have tolerated bisexuality and homosexuality, such as the Roman one.
Although some forms of homo/bisuality that they practiced would not be condoned nowadays ( such as pederasty).
It should be noted that in the cultures that did, it was regulated and restricted.

There came a letter from a homosexual to one Slovak radio. The man wrote that he believes that behind all of this is agenda to destroy traditional family and that homosexuals are abused for this. He wroted that when homosexual wants to have a child he has intercourse with woman. Or will not have and will reconcile with this as is the man's case too. He wrote that only poeple who want adoption of children for homosexuals are some pedofil circles.

Ivellious wrote: First, gay people have pride parades and advocate for their position because, historically, they are among the most persecuted groups in Christian/Jewish/Muslim dominated countries. Gay pride movements are a direct result of a widespread hate of who they are.

First, where we agree. I do agree that these movements (in part) are a reaction to the ridiculous treatment from extreme fundementalist. There has been total inconsistency from the moral right on how it singles out homosexuality and turns a blind eye to divorce and adultery.

And second, do you consider pride celebrations of any other groups to be wrong? In case you forgot, gay pride parades and rallies are drawn from the black rights movement of the last century. Those "black pride" rallies sought to accomplish many of the same goals as the more recent gay pride parades. Were black people in America violating God's will by rallying together based on pride in who they are? Was the "militancy" associated with the black population in that era reason enough for Christians of the time to claim that God looked down upon their race? By your logic, I suppose it was.

This is where you make a fundemental error. You assume that sexual orientation and ethnicity are equal in terms of identity. (I say ethnicity because there is one race, human.) They are not, and to head you off at the pass, the burden would be on you to prove otherwise. Regardless of sexual proclivity, what one does with their sexual organs is ALWAYS a choice. Ethnicity is sacred and involves no choice. (Unless you are Michael Jackson.)

I tend to disagree. As far as businesses are concerned, you cannot legally discriminate against potential clients. It has always been that way in America, though perhaps not always enforced as it should.

But, That is not the way it has always been. Not at all. One of the tenets of free enterprise is the right of private property and the right to refuse to serve anyone. Now, that said, the government has gotten involved in this, and in many cases, rightfully so.

I tend to agree that gay couples should just stay away from wedding service providers that don't like their union, but that is beside the point. Discrimination is discrimination, whether you hide behind your religious beliefs or not.

Another fundemental error. This treats the term 'discrimation' as inherently bad. It isn't. Everyone discriminates for one reason or another, and many forms of discrimination are valid. For example, do illegal aliens have the right to vote? No. Your point is invalidated.

And, of course, there is a flip side. What if someone's religious belief forbids them to drink or be around the consumption of alcohol, and they drive a taxi for a living, and someone gets in their cab with a bottle of wine? Should the driver be allowed to kick them out and refuse their business because of their religious beliefs? I'd say not. Interestingly, this happened a few years back in my home state and the driver was sued for doing so. The driver lost in a landslide, with the ruling saying that if you operate a business open to the public that you don't get to impose your religious beliefs on your client list.

I'm curious, what religion?

Now tell me, if a Nazi wanted to open a business that refused non-white people under their rights to believe what they want, would the Christians rise to defend them? How about a Muslim who refused to serve Christians? The lawsuits would be flying even faster than they are with the gay marriage issues. So I'm still not convinced that your concerns are for everyone's freedom of religion...just your own.

Ironically this is an example of legislating morality. In a truly free country (which the U.S. Is not) then yes, businesses would be allowed to do this. And you and I would also be free to pickett said business and not provide them any patronage.

Do you seriously think so highly of yourself that you think every single thing gays want to or do is just to screw with your life? Newsflash: most gay people don't care about what you think or what you do with your life. Can gay people not want to raise kids just for the sake of raising kids? Most humans are hard-wired to want children of their own. Are gays any different? Not a chance. Wanting a family and kids to raise has nothing to do with destroying Christianity. Get over yourselves, not everything has to be about you and your beliefs.

So is 'want' how we jusitfy behavior? That's a slippery slope.

I have to say that is quite a broad statement. Being gay does not make you an evil, militant religion-hater.

Totally agree

This statement is pure stereotyping based on the loudest members of a group of people. This would be akin to me saying "there is a strong white supremacist attitude associated with Germans" during WWII. When, of course, most German people were never white supremacists, even during the Nazi regime.

But you are not reciprocating that response. There are people such as myself and Jac who find that we have very valid reasons to support traditional marriage and reasons why society should not endorse gay marriage. And doing so doesn't mean we cannot be loving, caring and kind towards those with homosexual tendencies. It seems to me that you lump all into one pot, the very thing you are criticising.

Here is the big question never asked in these discussions - how do you define Marriage i.e. what is your definition of Marriage?

At one time, Marriage was defined as Marriage was instituted by God. It was thought in terms like this: A covenant agreement vowed before God in front of living witness between a man and a woman agreed to this covenant and both sworn to God and each other the vows of this covenant enforced and blessed by God...

Modern social disintegration as obliterated this concept. Most people today define marriage as some sort of a love contract - not as an binding covenant oath before God and each other. Look at the quotes below from two different eras on Marriage,

Definition of Marriage from 1828 Webster Dictionary:

Marriage

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Definition of Marriage from current modern time online Webster Dictionary:

Marriage

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

... an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

You see the difference?

The modern concept - God is left out of the picture....

So, for the Christian - Marriage remains a covenant between a man and a woman before God and each other.

For the non-Christian - Marriage is simply a contract recognized by law (Law of the State). The State takes over the role of God. Do you all see this???

If the gay marriage debate was simply a matter of a contract agreement recognized by State law - we would have a non-issue and a nolo contendere on the matter.

However, the gay marriage debate goes further than this as it seeks, not equality, but domination/submission to the dominaters will...

Think of a way to destroy the church and God in a country, what better way than appeal to peoples fairness button, then use that governed by militant homosexuals who will go after pastors they deliberately select that will not marry them and charge them with a hate crime defined by the State.

THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT FAIRNESS, OR RIGHTS, IT IS ABOUT DOMINATION AND DESTRUCTION.

Ivellious makes the moral equivalency argument about hot head fundamentalist being mean spirited toward gays. The Westburrow cult group comes to mind and these twisted folk are generated into a national groupthink that all people of faith are just like that cult group. Nothing can be further than the truth - such stereotyping is a lie that seeks to slander and destroy another who is innocent of all charges.

So, I have too ask, how is the militant homosexual crowd any different from the Westburrow cult by going in and deliberately selecting businesses, churches, faith organizations, and pastors whose convictions about marriage undefiled will refuse marriage services to those deemed to make a mockery of marriage undefiled?

So you have real discrimination in reverse. Not about who must sit in the back of the bus but rather who must be shut down, cease doing business, because now Marriage is defined as a contract enforced by discrimination laws of the State crafted in such manner that justifies real discrimination and terrible abuse by greedy angry power tripers.

Now if the federal government mandated into law that Gays cannot sue churches, pastors, faith based organizations, individuals for their religious convictions,then, the gay marriage issue would fizzle out. Oh, gay couples would get married by contract laws of the the State as they are not making a vow before God but rather to receive befits and penalties due the tax code, ownership rights, wills, insurance, etc and etc. If it was about these things - nolo contendere

However, it is not. It is militant Gays, just like the Westburrow people, both who's extremism poses the real danger to social cohesion and national survivability.

People are being used as pawns, in order to bring down and destroy the USA by playing the fairness card. Sad.

Remember, the idea of Marriage came before there was ever a State that made any law. The 1828 Webster Dictionary definition of marriage contains the more actuate model of what marriage used to be understood as.

In conclusion:

So, knowing the bible, and what the bible says about God classifying homosexuality as a sin that is the same as any other sin just like lying, stealing, adultery, not honoring God's name-Character, coveting, envy, unforgiveness etc and etc, why would any decent loving gay couple want to poke their finger in God's eye and demand from him that He honor their marriage agreement?

Who is mocking who here? Any gay person doing that in a deliberate manner, deliberately targeting faith groups to marry them before God must understand how temporal mortal life is. We will all die and stand before God. Take heed how someday, you, will stand. Will it as a mocker? or as forgiven and fashioned-transformed-person God welcomes home?

Ivellious, and others – how do you personally define Marriage?
-
-
-

So, knowing the bible, and what the bible says about God classifying homosexuality as a sin that is the same as any other sin just like lying, stealing, adultery, not honoring God's name-Character, coveting, envy, unforgiveness etc and etc, why would any decent loving gay couple want to poke their finger in God's eye and demand from him that He honor their marriage agreement?

This question surely doesn't resonate with people whom don't respect God's authority to begin with. It's of little value to accuse people of sin when they don't even appear to understand what sin is - as for what and of Whom they have transgressed.

OK, so B.W. has done a great job of pointing out the true homosexual agenda - at least the agenda observed from the militants so intent upon tearing down Christian values and influence - really, ANY spiritually driven values that can only come from God. And so, as his questions/assertions appear to particularly address this issue within what has been happening within America, our courts, rulings, etc - then here are my questions: WHAT are we supposed to do about it? What CAN we do about it?

Yes, this is foremost a spiritual issue. And yet so many whom call themselves a Christian believe that God made homosexuals the way they were BORN - that their orientation is genetic and unchangeable. So many such Christians are woefully ignorant of Scripture. And because of their mindset and ignorance about the radical homosexual agenda, this is how such Christians (are they really?) vote and act out their beliefs politically. And then there are many whom refuse to even vote - convinced that merely voting for the perceived "lessor evil" is all they can ever do and that such choices are all they ever truly have, and so they believe voting to be pointless.

Let's not forget that, at least in America, the radical homosexual agenda has been mostly successfully pursued through our courts. And WHO appoints judges to our courts? Politicians! WHO are our lawmakers? Politicians! How do politicians get into office? By BOTH those that vote and those that do NOT. And so, we here in America are blessed to live in a country in which God has given us choices (yes, they are often difficult and imperfect) to impact it by at least acting out our Christian values by staying informed on the issues, knowing Scripture, and voting our values as best we can, where we can. But HUGE numbers of self-proclaimed Christians remain ignorant of Scriptures' teachings on issues, don't stay informed on political/societal issues, and tragically, even refuse to vote .

And people often refuse to vote because every candidate has flaws, and that while such a candidate may have many good points and ideas, if they aren't perceived as being right on a few other issues, then people take a "high horse" stand and refuse to vote - no matter how bad the other candidate(s) might be. THIS is precisely how a militant minority has been so successful with its radical agenda, as its opposition is leaderless, clueless and fragmented in values and their execution. But, politically and otherwise, God continuously allows us choices that are difficult and imperfect. We have to choose a horse to ride from amongst the ones that stand before us - not some (ideal) horse that doesn't even exist. We constantly choose between imperfect choices in all areas of our lives, and yet people unrealistically expect to have perfect candidates before they'll vote for them. And meanwhile this mindset only produces a never-ending stream of ever-poorer choices/candidates, and laws and judges that spring from them. Connect the dots from what is happening to HOW it's been happening - at least, in America!

Philip wrote:Yes, this is foremost a spiritual issue.

I don't want to take away from the rest of what you've said, as I think it was all on target for the most part. But I do want to add that I don't think we do ourselves any favors when we make statements like this. The culture war over homosexuality is no more or less of a spiritual issue than any other aspect of the culture war--indeed, then any aspect of any public policy issue. I could rightly say that coming up with a proper tax policy is "foremost a spiritual issue."

In fact, I notice that you go on in the remainder of your post and talk politics, and more specifically, the intersection of politics and faith for the American voter. In that light, this is really a political issue.

I think it's much better for us to argue that this is a socioeconomic issue. Put simply, it is just really bad for our entire society to embrace homosexuality as ethically valid. But then again, there are a lot of things like this we've ignored to our detriment. I mean, the entire financial collapse we just went through would never have happened if we had not built our economy on usury. And look at the divorce rate and the percentage of children born out of wedlock (especially in minority communities). Those things are major contributing factors to poverty, which dramatically increases crime rates. Look at our eating habits. We preach against homosexuality and then go out ten minutes later and engage in gluttony. There is no greater expense our nation faces right now than rising healthcare costs, which are rising in no small part due to our overall declining health. As has been said, we don't have a healthcare crisis; we have a health crisis! But, hey, just keep subsidizing sugar. Are you aware that there is high fructose corn syrup in your bread???

I could go on and on. ALL of these are foremostly spiritual issues. But from a policy perspective, they are socioeconomic issues. The simple fact is, when a culture ignores what God intended them to be, they fall apart, sooner rather than later. Homosexuality is just one example of this--it's one symptom of the broader rejection of proper social norms that we (as Christians, even!) have embraced.

[/rant]

I think it's much better for us to argue that this is a socioeconomic issue. Put simply, it is just really bad for our entire society to embrace homosexuality as ethically valid.

Jac, when I said primarily "this" is a spiritual issue, I meant as to whether or not homosexuality is sin or not and whether or not one embraces it as not being sin, whether for themselves or for others. Yep, many spiritual issues PLAY OUT politically/financially/societally, etc, but their root is from how one sees the issues spiritually. My bigger point is that Christians in America DO have a voice and opportunity to personally and collectively combat the intentions of various radical, anti-Christian, highly organized minorities, but they often fail to use their voice and vote for often-petty reasons or for a lack of understanding of God's word and/or ignorance of current societal issues. I would call these willful sins of omission and of an inconsistency in how people view and decide on a wide range other issues, in which they have imperfect choices but make one, nonetheless.

I hear you, philip, and as I said, I don't want to take away from anything you said, as I agree with it. I'm just saying that we don't do ourselves any favors by saying things like that. At the root of every issue is a spiritual matter. Gluttony is first a foremost a spiritual issue, but we don't focus on that aspect when dealing with that problem.

There are perfectly good reasons to oppose homosexuality that have nothing to do with Scripture. To put it differently, you can make a secular case against embracing homosexuality, just as you can make a secular case against abortion. I think that's actually a great point of comparison. Pro-lifers are winning the abortion debate. It is still legal, of course, but states are passing stricter and stricter laws against the practice. In some states, the rules are so strict that there is virtually no access to abortion. We're winning that debate because we're making "secular" arguments against infanticide. Just so, we should return to secular arguments about the primacy of the family. That, I think, is a much better way forward. The Left, at bottom, is anti-family. Human beings, at bottom, are pro-family. If you want to win this debate, you have to cast it in those terms, which, as it happens, are the proper terms anyway.

Of course, since this is fundamentally an issue about family, it's hardly surprising that Scripture makes a big deal about it! All I'm saying is that we should not confuse Scripture's emphasis on the matter with the primary arguments being scriptural (or making it sound like our primary arguments are scriptural). When we do that, we do ourselves no favors. Instead, we should vote our consciences (and vote with Scripture) on this issue all while we make the case to the church and the rest of the world about the importance of family and show how we must reject that which undermines the family.

Er, Jac, did you actually read what I said? I'm all for attacking the issues from a secular, political/voting, practical arguments standpoint - but so many Christians fail to do any of those. Besides the huge importance of our spiritual/evangelical efforts, God has also given people in this country ways to influence society - immediately - that are pragmatic and practical. But fewer and fewer Christians are appropriately engaged in such ways, and so those tools are quickly being eroded and fading away.

We are apparently ships passing in the night, philip. I'm not criticizing any of that whatsoever. As I said, I agree with it all!

Jac the knave, stirring up trouble again.

RickD wrote:Jac the knave, stirring up trouble again.