Evidence for God from Science

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:.
I believe that homosexuality is not a choice (for almost all of them) and there's nothing they can do to change their affinity for their own gender. I don't understand it, but I can't say it's fake. God hates the sin...but never the sinner.

Thank you! That would be a huge slap in the face to people like me, who love God but struggle with homosexuality.

I think you misunderstand or I worded wrong. Your homosexuality is no more "fixable" than my attraction to women as a heterosexual male. While my attraction is normal on the surface, I still sin when I look at females in other than "clean" thoughts. My sin is no less than your sin...all sin is sin. Jesus is as my your Savior as He is mine...for no different reasons. It is not our state that matters, but our standing...and if we stand with Christ, our sins are not counted against us.

Harry12345 wrote:And at the end of the day, what really is wrong with Civil Unions? REALLY?

From the perspective of the State...nothing...unless that State is Theocratic in nature. If it is a blessing you seek from God...then we run into issues. This does not seem to be the issue when seeking rights from the State.
.
.

Harry12345 wrote:Thank you! That would be a huge slap in the face to people like me, who love God but struggle with homosexuality.

WAIT!! I'm confused...are you gay?? You say you struggle with homosexuality, yet you would vote:

Harry12345 wrote:I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

Help me understand.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Thank you! That would be a huge slap in the face to people like me, who love God but struggle with homosexuality.

WAIT!! I'm confused...are you gay?? You say you struggle with homosexuality, yet you would vote:

Harry12345 wrote:I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

Help me understand.
.
.

I beleive that engaging in homosexual acts or homosexual lust is a sin. Hence the 'struggle' thing.

I do not believe in outlawing homosexual acts, fornication and adultery... I think people should be free to follow God's laws on their own, not with the state holding their hand. That would be a 'nanny-state' which intrudes in people's daily lives which actually, most Christians oppose.

However, this works on the flipside as well. Just as I do not expect the state to try and stop people from sinning, I also do not expect the state to encourage people sinning (aka legalise gay marriage). That's STILL nanny-state intrusion!

Harry12345 wrote:I beleive that engaging in homosexual acts or homosexual lust is a sin. Hence the 'struggle' thing.

I do not believe in outlawing homosexual acts, fornication and adultery... I think people should be free to follow God's laws on their own, not with the state holding their hand. That would be a 'nanny-state' which intrudes in people's daily lives which actually, most Christians oppose.

However, this works on the flipside as well. Just as I do not expect the state to try and stop people from sinning, I also do not expect the state to encourage people sinning (aka legalise gay marriage). That's STILL nanny-state intrusion!

I just find it odd, in light of your thread about wanting an intimate relationship with another man, you'd oppose same-sex marriage. Can there not be a "marriage" without consumation if that's what the two have agreed to?

Harry12345 wrote:I also do not expect the state to encourage people sinning (aka legalise gay marriage)

Ah...and who is it that says marriage between homosexuals is a sin? Isn't simply being a homosexual a sin? If so, why would your ideas differ between a "marriage" and the acts themselves? What's the difference? No law against homosexuality is condoning or encouraging homosexuality! Remember the Bible says, "Where there's no law, there is no sin." (paraphrased.)
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: I just find it odd, in light of your thread about wanting an intimate relationship with another man, you'd oppose same-sex marriage. Can there not be a "marriage" without consumation if that's what the two have agreed to?

No, not really. If for whatever reason I found myself with a guy for a long period of time, living together and paying the same bills, I'd seek out a Civil Partnership for tax breaks and stuff. But why on Earth would I want to get married to another guy???!!! The Bible defines marriage as man+ woman!!! If I got married under British governmental law, I'd be saying to God, "I don't care about your definition of marriage, I care about the state's". I don't think God would take too kindly to that. And even if He didn't care, I'd rather not roll the dice and chance it to be honest.

BavarianWheels wrote:Isn't simply being a homosexual a sin?

Is sure hope not, otherwise I'm up [poop] creek without a paddle.

If so, why would your ideas differ between a "marriage" and the acts themselves? What's the difference? No law against homosexuality is condoning or encouraging homosexuality! Remember the Bible says, "Where there's no law, there is no sin." (paraphrased.)
.
.

No, not having a law against homosexuality isn't encouraging it. Where there's no law, there's no encouragement.

And there IS a law against homosexuality... God's Law, which trumps all others.

Harry12345 wrote:No, not really. If for whatever reason I found myself with a guy for a long period of time, living together and paying the same bills, I'd seek out a Civil Partnership for tax breaks and stuff. But why on Earth would I want to get married to another guy???!!! The Bible defines marriage as man+ woman!!! If I got married under British governmental law, I'd be saying to God, "I don't care about your definition of marriage, I care about the state's". I don't think God would take too kindly to that. And even if He didn't care, I'd rather not roll the dice and chance it to be honest.

Then you are not gay if you're not sexually attracted to men as a male...you just prefer males for close relationship.

And btw...a "civil partnership" between a man and woman in secular "legal lingo" is called a marriage.

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Isn't simply being a homosexual a sin?

Is sure hope not, otherwise I'm up [poop] creek without a paddle.

Simply being human at this point in time is sin...ALL need Christ no matter their gender preference.

Harry12345 wrote:And there IS a law against homosexuality... God's Law, which trumps all others.

Then why does this law need to be repeated if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society?

Edit: I should've asked, Why does Prop 8 need to be passed if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society here in the U.S.?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote: Then you are not gay if you're not sexually attracted to men as a male...you just prefer males for close relationship.

I struggle with sexual attraction towards men.

And btw...a "civil partnership" between a man and woman in secular "legal lingo" is called a marriage.

...And?

Then why does this law need to be repeated if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society?

Because same-sex marriage is against God's Will. If a court overturned the law making pedophilia or beastiality illegal, I'd vote against it: pedophilia and beastiality are sins... just like homosexuality.

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Then you are not gay if you're not sexually attracted to men as a male...you just prefer males for close relationship.

I struggle with sexual attraction towards men.

Then if you think it...you've already "done" it in God's eyes. I stand corrected...

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:And btw...a "civil partnership" between a man and woman in secular "legal lingo" is called a marriage.

...And?

Then your "civil partnership" is in fact a "marriage"...you don't get it? It's just a game of semantics here.

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Then why does this law need to be repeated if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society?

Because same-sex marriage is against God's Will. If a court overturned the law making pedophilia or beastiality illegal, I'd vote against it: pedophilia and beastiality are sins... just like homosexuality.

I edited my thought after you had clicked "quote" and replied.

The short of it is...pedophilia is a sin and illegal...illegal by the State because there is a VICTIM...a victim unable to consent or (God forbid if they do consent at a young age) illegally able to consent until a certain age. Beastiality because the animal is not able to consent and on another side, it's cruel! Both have grounds for being "secularly" illegal. So far there is no "ground" for homosexual marriage being illegal since there is no law in these United States that says being a homosexual is illegal. Once there is such law, THEN there would be no need of a Prop 8 to "save marriage".

BavarianWheels wrote:Why does ( why did - at this point ) Prop 8 need to be passed if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society here in the U.S.?

This is better worded in my actual thinking.

As homosexuals...both are CONSENTING ADULTS.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Then you are not gay if you're not sexually attracted to men as a male...you just prefer males for close relationship.

I struggle with sexual attraction towards men.

Then if you think it...you've already "done" it in God's eyes. I stand corrected...

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:And btw...a "civil partnership" between a man and woman in secular "legal lingo" is called a marriage.

...And?

Then your "civil partnership" is in fact a "marriage"...you don't get it? It's just a game of semantics here.

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Then why does this law need to be repeated if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society?

Because same-sex marriage is against God's Will. If a court overturned the law making pedophilia or beastiality illegal, I'd vote against it: pedophilia and beastiality are sins... just like homosexuality.

I edited my thought after you had clicked "quote" and replied.

The short of it is...pedophilia is a sin and illegal...illegal by the State because there is a VICTIM...a victim unable to consent or (God forbid if they do consent at a young age) illegally able to consent until a certain age. Beastiality because the animal is not able to consent and on another side, it's cruel! Both have grounds for being "secularly" illegal. So far there is no "ground" for homosexual marriage being illegal since there is no law in these United States that says being a homosexual is illegal. Once there is such law, THEN there would be no need of a Prop 8 to "save marriage".

BavarianWheels wrote:Why does ( why did - at this point ) Prop 8 need to be passed if there is no law against homosexuality in secular society here in the U.S.?

This is better worded in my actual thinking.

As homosexuals...both are CONSENTING ADULTS.
.
.

How about this then: a law removing tax exempt status for Churches. I'd vote against that.

Harry12345 wrote:How about this then: a law removing tax exempt status for Churches. I'd vote against that.

As luck would have it...I'm not a Church. Put it as a Prop next time.

Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic...
.
.

cslewislover wrote:Bavarian, I just can't believe there're laws against beastiality just because the animal can't consent . . .

I said "just"?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Bavarian, I just can't believe there're laws against beastiality just because the animal can't consent . . .

I said "just"?
.
.

No, but I'll change what I said. Bavarian, I just can't believe there're laws against beastiality because the animal can't consent or some may consider it cruel . . . Who knows, the animal might like it tremendously.

cslewislover wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

cslewislover wrote:Bavarian, I just can't believe there're laws against beastiality just because the animal can't consent . . .

I said "just"?
.
.

No, but I'll change what I said. Bavarian, I just can't believe there're laws against beastiality because the animal can't consent or some may consider it cruel . . . Who knows, the animal might like it tremendously.

FIrst of all...you're correct...we don't know. Second of all...society has said that beastiality is wrong and illegal...no Prop is on the ballot to legaize marriage to animals...although it has happened.
.
.