"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
AMEN ! Ill remember that one . Thanks.Murray wrote:if i'm a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with your views, you are a christophobic bigot for disagreeing with mine.
Amen.Murray wrote:if i'm a homophobic bigot for disagreeing with your views, you are a christophobic bigot for disagreeing with mine.
That's great. Then when you make arguments for legal restrictions on homosexuality, please leave Christianity our of it. My point was that any time you bring up God or the Bible as legitimate reasons to make laws against homosexuality, you are forcing your religious beliefs on everyone. That is not legal. I refuted the other points brought up...Despite what you say, there are ample non-religious reasons to oppose homosexual behavior.
Please show me a scientific paper showing that homosexuality is "wrong." Also, my point still stands: you can't say you oppose homosexuality because it kills people, when heterosexual sex kills even more people. That point is moot.but i do believe (and know based on scientific evidence) that the practice of homosexuality is wrong ...if for no other reason than it is a killer of thousands and harms people.
You really don't understand medicine or addiction, do you? This is a scary concept straight out of the Great Depression; that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be eradicated. You can't change what someone naturally feels and is attracted to. Homosexuality is a natural condition. It is not learned or developed. No medical or psychological professional views homosexuality as a disorder anymore. That's an ancient practice that I wish we could eradicate...Since homosexuality is inherently harmful to their bodies just as smoking or exccessive drinking is..it is therefore an addiction that people could do without and could benefit from proper treatment. And that treatment is readily available in every major city across America.
What does my family have to do with past civilizations? Seriously, talk about distracting from the point....And your supposed fact about homosexuality being accepted leading to more crime...Umm, we live in an era with more sexually-based crime than any of those societies, and we don't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life in this country. Do you have some basis to make that claim?Homosexuality in past civilizations have led to a higher rate of other sexually deviant crimes. I regret if you have friends or relatives caught up in the danger of homosexuality by lets not call something which is wrong, right . Lets try and help these folks see the light.
Common sense vs. actual studies and evidence....Like I said before, this claim is repeated endlessly, without any basis. My last post addressed this. Homosexual parenting has zero effect (in some cases even a more positive effect) on the children they raise when compared to heterosexual couples.Common sense tells us that homosexual parents are going to be the catalyst for thier children to carry on the dangerous torch. which by the time they are adults will be plauged with much greater consequences.
Ivellious wrote:That's great. Then when you make arguments for legal restrictions on homosexuality, please leave Christianity our of it. My point was that any time you bring up God or the Bible as legitimate reasons to make laws against homosexuality, you are forcing your religious beliefs on everyone. That is not legal. I refuted the other points brought up...Despite what you say, there are ample non-religious reasons to oppose homosexual behavior.
Please show me a scientific paper showing that homosexuality is "wrong." Also, my point still stands: you can't say you oppose homosexuality because it kills people, when heterosexual sex kills even more people. That point is moot.but i do believe (and know based on scientific evidence) that the practice of homosexuality is wrong ...if for no other reason than it is a killer of thousands and harms people.
You really don't understand medicine or addiction, do you? This is a scary concept straight out of the Great Depression; that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be eradicated. You can't change what someone naturally feels and is attracted to. Homosexuality is a natural condition. It is not learned or developed. No medical or psychological professional views homosexuality as a disorder anymore. That's an ancient practice that I wish we could eradicate...Since homosexuality is inherently harmful to their bodies just as smoking or exccessive drinking is..it is therefore an addiction that people could do without and could benefit from proper treatment. And that treatment is readily available in every major city across America.
What does my family have to do with past civilizations? Seriously, talk about distracting from the point....And your supposed fact about homosexuality being accepted leading to more crime...Umm, we live in an era with more sexually-based crime than any of those societies, and we don't accept homosexuality as a normal way of life in this country. Do you have some basis to make that claim?Homosexuality in past civilizations have led to a higher rate of other sexually deviant crimes. I regret if you have friends or relatives caught up in the danger of homosexuality by lets not call something which is wrong, right . Lets try and help these folks see the light.
Common sense vs. actual studies and evidence....Like I said before, this claim is repeated endlessly, without any basis. My last post addressed this. Homosexual parenting has zero effect (in some cases even a more positive effect) on the children they raise when compared to heterosexual couples.Common sense tells us that homosexual parents are going to be the catalyst for thier children to carry on the dangerous torch. which by the time they are adults will be plauged with much greater consequences.
And for the record, you're only a bigot if you stand behind lies and prejudice to justify your hate. I've refuted all the claims made by CallMeDave. If you want to stand by a bunch of arguments without any basis, go ahead. The bigots who supported hating black people, the Japanese, immigrants, Muslims, and so on stand behind the same types of arguments. You can have your religious beliefs. Just don't lie to find other areas of support. And most certainly don't tell me that your religious beliefs are justification to force your views on others.
What can we reasonably conclude about ANY lifestyle choice then, where its Participants die prematurely and very painfully , from DIRECT involvement (over 614,000 fatal AIDS cases in the U.S. / 34,000,000 worldwideIvellious wrote:I understand where you are going with this.
A. Of course. But it's all subjective to some degree. For instance, some people think eating beef is a bad lifestyle choice, I do not. In certain contexts there are easier ways to discern good from bad behavior. B might be a better place to elaborate:
B. In some instances, yes. In some instances, no. For instance: Being an alcoholic and binge drinking every other night is generally considered a "bad" lifestyle choice. It can have tragic consequences, so it fits your description. However, watching pornography, while generally considered a poor lifestyle choice in most circles, has varying levels of consequences. Some people are never really affected by it, physically or mentally/emotionally. Others can suffer from psychological problems or it can interfere with their life in other tangible ways.
To further complicate the issue, good lifestyle choices can also have negative effects on the person. But that doesn't make them bad choices. Another factor is that different societies and cultures find different things bad, so while you might point to a correlation between something you see as bad (like homosexuality) and negative consequences, I might not see it that way. I guess my point is just that a correlation between choices and negative consequences is only applicable sometimes. It's not a cut-and-dry thing you can draw a relationship between.
C. There is a clear difference between dangerous and bad. Rock climbing is a great form of extreme exercising, but is extremely dangerous too. Football hurts many kids every year. It doesn't make them bad. Again, the correlation is only applicable in some cases, and isn't a legitimate case for blanketing the "bad consequences = bad lifestyle."
Homosexuals cannot have natural sex, their bodys are not created for it. Some Hetrosexuals choose to participate in homosexual activites (sodomy), but many do not. Homosexuals can only have sex by sodomy and thus is filthy, unnatural, and immoral, thus leading to higher rates of stds. This is actually the reason why sodomy is banned in leviticus, due to the spreading of disease as a result of it.Ivellious wrote:Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?
1. You are skipping over my questions asked in my last post.Ivellious wrote:Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?
Not only sodomy, but many participate in a plethera of disgusting ways that are extremely dangerous to acquiring diseases other than HIV/AIDS ; heres a statistics table as of 1991 (how much greater the perversion , currently) . For someone to condone and enable Homosexuality, requires a total suppression of ones moral conscience ... yet this is whats occuring with the massive delusion that has swept our Nation ---Murray wrote:Homosexuals cannot have natural sex, their bodys are not created for it. Some Hetrosexuals choose to participate in homosexual activites (sodomy), but many do not. Homosexuals can only have sex by sodomy and thus is filthy, unnatural, and immoral, thus leading to higher rates of stds. This is actually the reason why sodomy is banned in leviticus, due to the spreading of disease as a result of it.Ivellious wrote:Again, I bring in the other side: Not everyone with AIDS is participating in homosexual sex. AIDS is not a result of homosexuality. There are people who die of AIDS without ever performing homosexual or adulterous acts. So I ask again: How do you say that because gay people die of AIDS, it is bad? Sex is ALWAYS dangerous, and capable of passing on STDs. The rate is higher in homosexuals, yes, but not exclusive. So I ask again, if you think that gay sex is bad because it carries the possibility of giving you AIDS, should heterosexual sex be classified the same way when it carries that risk as well?
Why did God create any of us at all, knowing we would all fall short of his righteousness? God does not create PRACTICING homosexuals, being attracted to the opposite sex is no more hated than being inclined to want to steal or lie. The difference is when you perform the action. Temptation is not itself a bad thing, it is the response.mlynchrules wrote: I am of the strong belief that Jesus/God loves all of His creations and would not create something that he does not love. Why, then, would God create people who are homosexual if He hates homosexuality?