# Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage



## Double Barrel BB (Oct 14, 2008)

*Using Biology, Not Religion, to Argue Against Same-Sex Marriage*
<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By RAY RIVERA and CHRISTINE STUART
</NYT_BYLINE>Published: October 11, 2008 

<NYT_TEXT>Patricia and Wesley Galloway could not have children of their own. Yet for them, the essence of marriage is rooted in procreation. 

“It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family,” Mrs. Galloway, 60, told a legislative panel in Connecticut last year as it was considering a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. 

The bill never went to a vote, but on Friday the Connecticut Supreme Court eliminated the need for a bill when it struck down the state’s civil union law and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. 

The decision was cheered by gay couples who argued that civil unions, despite giving them the same rights as married couples, were something less than marriage. But it has caused consternation among opponents of gay marriage, many of whom, like the Galloways, say their objections are not based on religion or morality, but in nature. 

The Galloways represent one side of a debate that is often charged by undercurrents of bigotry and religious belief. The court’s ruling on Friday went on at length about the history of discrimination against gay people. 

While they are Christians, the Galloways say they refuse to use religion to defend their view of marriage because it just muddies things. And they insist they are accepting of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. 

By protecting heterosexual marriage, what “we’re trying to do is protect the foundation of society,” Mrs. Galloway, a volunteer worker from Trumbull, Conn., said in a telephone interview on Saturday. 

“Everyone who disagrees is automatically labeled a right-wing bigot,” she said. 

Her husband added, “How can you be a bigot when you’re looking out for society as a whole?” 

Connecticut joined California and Massachusetts as the only states to legalize gay marriage, adding to the long-running debate over the definition of marriage and who should be entitled to it. On one side are people who believe that marriage is the sanctifying of love and commitment between two people, regardless of gender. For others, like the Galloways, marriage encourages a long-term relationship between a man and a woman as a framework for caring for their children. In such a construct, in their view, the population is replenished, and children are raised responsibly and are less likely to be a social and financial burden on the state. 

Justice Peter T. Zarella, who was in the minority in Friday’s 4-to-3 decision, suggested the same in his dissenting opinion. 

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote, adding, “As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”

Both sides are armed with sociological studies: one set showing that children prosper better with a mother and father; the other showing that children of same-sex parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted. Connecticut began allowing gay couples to adopt eight years ago. 

For the Galloways, the notion that same-sex couples should not marry because they cannot have children is complicated by their own story. They married nearly 17 years ago, and tried to have children. When they couldn’t conceive, they became foster parents in the hope of adopting. 

“The fact that we as a couple married later in life and tried to have children of our own, but were unable, we probably value children more than most people who didn’t have to spend as much time thinking about it,” said Mr. Galloway, 48, a certified public accountant. He said that all that reflection, in addition to parenting classes they have taken, had only reinforced their belief in traditional marriage, and that children are better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father. 

Mr. Galloway, whose father died when he was 3, said being raised solely by women — his mother and his aunts — hindered his development and altered his sense of self-worth. 

“I didn’t know how I was supposed to behave as a man because I didn’t have that interaction,” he said. He said he still had difficulty developing friendships with most men. 

The notion that gender roles are unimportant in raising children is “bunk,” added Mrs. Galloway. “It is not an accident that it takes a man and a woman coming together to create a child,” she said.

On the other hand, Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a group that supports gay marriage, says numerous studies show there is no difference in the way children develop mentally and physically in same-sex households. “It’s the quality of parenting, not the gender of the parents,” she said. 

For now, Friday’s decision has set off a renewed push for a constitutional convention that could start the process for outlawing gay marriage through a referendum. The state’s Roman Catholic bishops said in a statement after the ruling that they would be “calling on the Catholic people of our state to vote ‘Yes’ ” on a Nov. 4 ballot initiative to establish a convention. 

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a group set up expressly to fight the movement toward gay marriage, said the decision could also spur action to pass constitutional amendments in California, Florida and Arizona that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. 

“I think everyone that feels outraged by this Supreme Court decision is going to take renewed energy that we have to rein in the courts,” Ms. Gallagher said.


----------



## dawg2 (Oct 21, 2008)

In less than 10 years gay marriages will be accepted in every state....it's just a matter of time.


----------



## TTom (Nov 3, 2008)

“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote, adding, “As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”


There is a simple falsehood to this statement, and it comes in the idea that monogamy is ancient. 

Ancient definition of marriage would have included multiple wives for some men as well as multiple husbands for some women depending on the society being examined. So the attempt to give extra weight and value to the idea that marriage has always been one man and one women is flawed beyond redemption as plainly false according to historic records.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Nov 3, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> In less than 10 years gay marriages will be accepted in every state....it's just a matter of time.



Yep


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 5, 2008)

More idiocy from the right.  If you're going to use biology as an argument, there is absolutely NO REASON to ban gay marriage.  Unless, of course, you completely IGNORE biology in favor of your agenda.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 5, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> More idiocy from the right.  If you're going to use biology as an argument, there is absolutely NO REASON to ban gay marriage.  Unless, of course, you completely IGNORE biology in favor of your agenda.



Welcome back

I guess you're pretty upset after even the most liberal/queer friendly state in the union voted to ban gay marriage.  Hmmmm....maybe you just need to move to europe or something where there aren't as many Bible-believen backwoods people.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 5, 2008)

I was born here.  I deserve the same rights as everyone else.  Say Hi to Satan for me when you get to Hades for spreading hatred.


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 5, 2008)

Here in Florida we passed Amendement 2 defining marriage as 1 man married to 1 woman. It's the way God intended marriage.

Thankfully, many other states including the liberal state of California did the same! God bless America!  

*Here is a message from the American Family Association: 

There is some good news 

November 5, 2008 

No doubt, it was a disappointing night with overwhelmingly bad news. But there was some good news for those who support traditional marriage. In the states of Arizona, Florida and California voters said no to homosexual “marriage.” In fact, in the Sunshine State, 60% of the vote was needed to keep marriage only between a man and a woman, and our side was able to garner 62% of the vote.

We won in Arizona, too! This is significant because a couple of years ago the marriage amendment was defeated when the pro-homosexual marriage advocates played the fear card with senior citizens.

Finally, in California, our country’s largest and most liberal state, the citizens voted 52% to 48% to overturn the state Supreme Court’s decision to allow same-sex marriage. This is BIG news! Radical homosexual groups, Hollywood celebrities and the liberal media came together to try and defeat Proposition 8, yet the pro-family and pro-marriage citizens of California won a huge victory and, if I might add, put the arrogant California Supreme Court in its place.

Your American Family Association was deeply involved in all three challenges. We kept the people of those states informed and encouraged. In fact, AFA contributed $500,000 to help achieve the victory in California. We had been saving the money over a period of years because we knew that one day it would be needed for a fight like the one we had in California. Of course, these funds came from people like you.

So despite some discouraging news on the national front, 30 states have adopted a state constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage since the legalization of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts. That is due to the hard work of people like you.*


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2008)

TTom said:


> “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote, adding, “As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
> 
> 
> There is a simple falsehood to this statement, and it comes in the idea that monogamy is ancient.
> ...



Brilliant observation that will be lost on deaf ears/eyes(?).    The times are a-changin'.


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 5, 2008)

Right and wrong never change and can never be exchanged in God's eyes.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 5, 2008)

Hooray for HATE.


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 5, 2008)

Praise be unto God!


----------



## gtparts (Nov 5, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Hooray for HATE.




You really don't get it, do you? God has made it quite clear that there are many absolutes. Being God, it is His choice to make those determinations. Not me, not you, not anyone else. He has spoken on this subject in His Holy Word and it was, is, and forever will be sin. Your feelings aside, God has ruled on this subject and it really isn't up for debate with what I perceive to be the majority of people on this forum. Very few here will buy the garbage you are trying to give away. Why waste your time?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 6, 2008)

gtparts said:


> You really don't get it, do you? God has made it quite clear that there are many absolutes.


No, _you_ don't get it.  The USA is _not_ a theocracy.  Laws banning same-sex marriage are _completely_ rooted in religion.  Seeking to punish people for not meeting the alleged requirements of your chosen religion is bigotry.  Pure and simple.  And, yes, denying gays the right to marry is most _definitely_ punitive.

Furthermore, putting the rights of minority groups up for popular vote is contrary to what this country is supposed to be all about.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 6, 2008)

The one thing that bothers me the most in same sex marriage is that the countries that allow that now have lowered their age of consent.....wonder why?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 6, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> No, _you_ don't get it.  The USA is _not_ a theocracy.  Laws banning same-sex marriage are _completely_ rooted in religion.  Seeking to punish people for not meeting the alleged requirements of your chosen religion is bigotry.  Pure and simple.  And, yes, denying gays the right to marry is most _definitely_ punitive.
> 
> Furthermore, putting the rights of minority groups up for popular vote is contrary to what this country is supposed to be all about.



Oh, I get it alright. We live in a democratic republic. Never said otherwise.

 And, yes, our law is designed to govern moral behavior and punish those who would break that code: stealing, battery, murder, etc.

 And the origin of moral code is rooted in religion, with an interest in protecting ones life and property, an altogether reasonable desire. There are also issues of promoting the common good. 

Just because something is rooted in religion does no make it wrong, dear friend.

If I have this bottled up desire to rob a bank, steal a car, sell heroin and crack, or have relations with barnyard animals at Hartsfield - Jackson Airport, am I punished for restraining myself from those acts? Does that mean that my "rights" have been violated?

If you are intolerant of  my right to propose laws based on my beliefs for passage, enactment, and enforcement, then you are equally bigoted. The gate swings both ways, bucko.

As to your last statement, this country was never intended to be about "groups" or are you unaware that our government was founded for the individual, the common good and protection of all, and the codification of law so that our new form of self-government would lead to national peace and prosperity?

How did you ever get the idea that it is governments role to see that groups have special protection? The founding fathers never contemplated such nonsense.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 6, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> The one thing that bothers me the most in same sex marriage is that the countries that allow that now have lowered their age of consent.....wonder why?



Wonder no longer, mtnwoman. The agenda is to eventually let anyone do as they please regardless of how the very fabric of society is weakened and destroyed. Total freedom is quickly recognized as anarchy, only too late to step back from the abyss.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 7, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Oh, I get it alright. We live in a democratic republic. Never said otherwise.
> 
> And, yes, our law is designed to govern moral behavior and punish those who would break that code: stealing, battery, murder, etc.
> 
> ...


As usual, equating homosexuality with crime and bestiality.  Grow up.  Furthermore, my being allowed to marry would neither affect your life nor your property.  On the other hand, laws that deny my right to marry have a direct impact on my life and property.



gtparts said:


> If you are intolerant of  my right to propose laws based on my beliefs for passage, enactment, and enforcement, then you are equally bigoted. The gate swings both ways, bucko.


Not true in the slightest.  A bigot considers those who are different to be inferior to himself.  You consider me inferior due to the sexual orientation with which I was born.  You are entitled to hate me all you want but my objection to your desire for laws to be passed against me due to your bigotry is in no way a sign that I am a bigot.



gtparts said:


> As to your last statement, this country was never intended to be about "groups" or are you unaware that our government was founded for the individual, the common good and protection of all, and the codification of law so that our new form of self-government would lead to national peace and prosperity?


And yet, laws banning same-sex marriage are targeted at _very specific_ groups.



gtparts said:


> How did you ever get the idea that it is governments role to see that groups have special protection? The founding fathers never contemplated such nonsense.


Where did I ever ask for special protection?  I want EQUAL protection whereas you want my rights curtailed due to your religion's alleged condemnation of my sexual orientation.  That is DESPICABLE.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 7, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> The one thing that bothers me the most in same sex marriage is that the countries that allow that now have lowered their age of consent.....wonder why?


Age of consent in countries with same-sex marriage:

Belgium: 16
Canada: 16 for opposite sex, 18 for male/male, 16 for female/female (wth?)
The Netherlands: 16
Norway: 16
South Africa: 16
Spain: 13 (prior to 1999, it was 12)

GEORGIA: 16

Any other lies you'd like to make about the subject?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 7, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Spain: 13 (prior to 1999, it was 12)


 

That is just SICK right there!!!!

Where is the puke smiley at!!!

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 7, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> That is just SICK right there!!!!
> 
> Where is the puke smiley at!!!


Yes, it is.  However, it used to be 12!  Furthermore, it's been 13 since 1999, several years _before _same-sex marriage was legalized.


----------



## win270wsm (Nov 7, 2008)

Famous quote from a bumper sticker:
If you are living like there is no GOD.......
You better hope you are right!


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 7, 2008)

win270wsm said:


> Famous quote from a bumper sticker:
> If you are living like there is no GOD.......
> You better hope you are right!



What it should say is:

"If you live like there is no specific God........
Then you won't judge others based on nonsensical reasons."


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 8, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Age of consent in countries with same-sex marriage:
> 
> Belgium: 16
> Canada: 16 for opposite sex, 18 for male/male, 16 for female/female (wth?)
> ...



I didn't say they were lowered, did I?...I said gays WANTED them lowered.

I'm not gonna look them all up and post.....
Canada USED to be 18 now it's 16
http://www.narth.com/docs/lowered.html

Britain lowered their age of consent because gays rallied for it.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6928/557/a

Whether they are lowered or not...can you explain to me WHY gays even want it lowered? Or can I just use my imagination?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 8, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> The one thing that bothers me the most in same sex marriage is that the countries that allow that now have lowered their age of consent.....wonder why?





mtnwoman said:


> I didn't say they were lowered, did I?...I said gays WANTED them lowered.



Actually, yes, you did say that they were lowered.

What you didn't say is where you got the information that the 'gays' asked for it to be lowered....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 8, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> [
> Her husband added, “How can you be a bigot when you’re looking out for society as a whole?”
> 
> In such a construct, in their view, the population is replenished,




Yes.... and this is very important, given that the human race is so close to extinction....


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 8, 2008)

God designed men to marry women. God definitely did not design men to have relations with other men, nor women to have relations with other women. 

I don't want my sons being exposed, indoctrinated, encouraged or taught homosexuality is anything other than a preverted sin of the flesh. 

The bible calls homosexuality an abomination (it is.)

If anyone doesn't like it they can take it up with God who will enlighten them one day. 

Case closed!


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 8, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, yes, you did say that they were lowered.
> 
> What you didn't say is where you got the information that the 'gays' asked for it to be lowered....



Ok, I see what you mean...I guess I didn't phrase it correctly.
Some countries haven't lowered the age of consent, but the gays rally for that to happen. 
I linked to 2 different places that gays have ask for it to be lowered.

I'll repeat the links...
http://www.narth.com/docs/lowered.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6928/557/a


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 9, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok, I see what you mean...I guess I didn't phrase it correctly.
> Some countries haven't lowered the age of consent, but the gays rally for that to happen.
> I linked to 2 different places that gays have ask for it to be lowered.
> 
> ...



POLITICALLY, I don't see what the problem is with this.

You make it sound like they want the age lowered so that they can 'recruit' younger teens into 'gayism'.  That's not how it is.  Did you read those articles?  They are asking for the laws to be changed to make them the same as they are for heterosexual consentual sex.   Again, it is nothing more than asking for the same rights as heterosexuals.

And for the record... NARTH is not exactly what one would call a 'neutral' source of information   That's kind of like asking the terrorists what they think about terrorism.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Yes, it is. However, it used to be 12! Furthermore, it's been 13 since 1999, several years _before _same-sex marriage was legalized.


 

It is still SICK!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yes.... and this is very important, given that the human race is so close to extinction....


 

We are just one Virus away from extinction... just something to think about....


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> POLITICALLY, I don't see what the problem is with this.
> 
> You make it sound like they want the age lowered so that they can 'recruit' younger teens into 'gayism'. That's not how it is. Did you read those articles? They are asking for the laws to be changed to make them the same as they are for heterosexual consentual sex. Again, it is nothing more than asking for the same rights as heterosexuals.
> 
> And for the record... NARTH is not exactly what one would call a 'neutral' source of information  That's kind of like asking the terrorists what they think about terrorism.


 

So I guess all of the articles I have posted in here about Kindergarden students being subjects to 'gayism' isn't a way to recruit? Come on DD, I know you are not naive?

Do you really think that homosexuals don't have an agenda?

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 10, 2008)

Our "agenda" is to be treated as human beings with the same rights as everyone else.  How _horrible!_  Attitudes like yours make me sick.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Our "agenda" is to be treated as human beings with the same rights as everyone else. How _horrible!_ Attitudes like yours make me sick.


 
So are you for spreading 'gayism' to kindergardeners?

DB BB

edited to add:
I have not heard of one single homosexual come out and say that what has been happening in the public schools, esspecially at the kindergarden level and even first grade, that it was wrong...

Edited to also add:
Links to just some of the story's I and others have posted:
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=257370
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=253807
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=250373


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 10, 2008)

DB,
There is a fundamental truth that you are ignoring in your appeal to biology:  that a certain percentage of animals of many species (seagulls, chimps, etc.) are actually gay!  They seek out and attempt to mate exclusively with members of their own gender.  

So, try again.  There is no argument from biology against same sex relationships.  Stick to theology and you might get somewhere faster.

Now, I agree with your ultimate conclusion that same sex relationships aren't God's design for His creation.  But can you or someone else tell me some New Testament scripture that supports this view?  There are lots of things that were part of Old Testament law that we consider abolished with the coming of Christ.  I eat bacon and don't make animal sacrifices to God, and think that God is o.k. with both those things.

What is the New Testament rationalization against gay relationships? (I have some ideas, but just wondering what you'll say)


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> There is a fundamental truth that you are ignoring in your appeal to biology: that a certain percentage of animals of many species (seagulls, chimps, etc.) are actually gay! They seek out and attempt to mate exclusively with members of their own gender.


 
This was an article written by: RAY RIVERA and CHRISTINE STUART

I didn't write the article... Do I think it is a the proper way to battle homosexuality, nope. Did I say I agree with this article? I post lots of stuff on here that I do not agree with, just to spark up a debate, or stir the pot as most say... So maybe you should adress your comments to the authors of the article and not me. The article is linked if you just click on the title...



fishndinty said:


> So, try again. There is no argument from biology against same sex relationships. Stick to theology and you might get somewhere faster.


 
I do stick to my beliefs, in all aspects of my life.



fishndinty said:


> Now, I agree with your ultimate conclusion that same sex relationships aren't God's design for His creation. But can you or someone else tell me some New Testament scripture that supports this view? There are lots of things that were part of Old Testament law that we consider abolished with the coming of Christ. I eat bacon and don't make animal sacrifices to God, and think that God is o.k. with both those things.
> 
> What is the New Testament rationalization against gay relationships? (I have some ideas, but just wondering what you'll say)


 
It is not only in the OT, there are references in the NT as well.

For me it is: (The blue is my emphasis)

*Romans 1*
24.Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 
25.Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 
26.For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 
27.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 recompence of their error which was meet .
28.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient ;
29.Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 
30.Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 
31.Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 
32.Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

*2 Timothy 3
*1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come .
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 
4. Traitors, heady, highminded , lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 
7. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> There is a fundamental truth that you are ignoring in your appeal to biology: that a certain percentage of animals of many species (seagulls, chimps, etc.) are actually gay! They seek out and attempt to mate exclusively with members of their own gender.


 
Also, since I do not believe that Human Beings are Animals, the above really doesn't mean much to me...

Although many people tend to show Animalistic behavior...

DB BB


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Also, since I do not believe that Human Beings are Animals
> 
> DB BB



Now that there is fuuuuuuuny!!!!!!


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> There is a fundamental truth that you are ignoring in your appeal to biology:  that a certain percentage of animals of many species (seagulls, chimps, etc.) are actually gay!  They seek out and attempt to mate exclusively with members of their own gender.  *Note your own words "attempt to mate". News flash, they are not and will never be successful; God designed it that way for a reason!*
> 
> So, try again.  There is no argument from biology against same sex relationships.  Stick to theology and you might get somewhere faster.
> ...



Please......


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 10, 2008)

Lead Poison said:


> Please......



But if God designed it that way, why are some animals gay at all?  Animals don't have the capacity or thought process to sin, right?  They're just doing what comes naturally.  To some of them, that means being gay.

So the biological world actually supports, rather than refutes, the legitimacy of homosexuality.  That's all I am saying.

Unless you're saying the only reason to ever have sex is to procreate...and if you are, I think you need to read Song of Solomon a time or 2.


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> But if God designed it that way, why are some animals gay at all?  Animals don't have the capacity or thought process to sin, right?  They're just doing what comes naturally.  To some of them, that means being gay.
> 
> So the biological world actually supports, rather than refutes, the legitimacy of homosexuality.  That's all I am saying.
> 
> Unless you're saying the only reason to ever have sex is to procreate...and if you are, I think you need to read Song of Solomon a time or 2.



Monkeys do a lot of nasty, disgusting things that I won't even describe, they do a lot of evil things to each other as well. However, they're not homosexual by design-nasty, disgusting yes! Homosexual, no.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 10, 2008)

A significant percentage of them are, in fact, homosexual.  This is a fact! I am NOT saying it makes being gay OK.  I am saying it makes a biological argument against being gay a poor argument


----------



## Lead Poison (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> A significant percentage of them are, in fact, homosexual.  This is a fact! I am NOT saying it makes being gay OK.  I am saying it makes a biological argument against being gay a poor argument



No, it doesn't. 

The biological argument says they can't reproduce and were not made to mate with the same sex.


----------



## meateater (Nov 10, 2008)

I would have to believe that ANY study that found animals to display "homosexual" behavior occurred in a lab under very controlled or shall we say manipulated circumstances. I don't recall seeing any gay deer lately!   

  SouthOfTheMasonDixon. Do you ever actually go outdoors and absorb nature or even hunt or do you just post to push your agenda?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 10, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> But if God designed it that way, why are some animals gay at all?  Animals don't have the capacity or thought process to sin, right?  They're just doing what comes naturally.  To some of them, that means being gay.
> 
> So the biological world actually supports, rather than refutes, the legitimacy of homosexuality.  That's all I am saying.
> 
> Unless you're saying the only reason to ever have sex is to procreate...and if you are, I think you need to read Song of Solomon a time or 2.



I think that anyone who believes in a "fallen, sinful world" in which God has cursed the creation so that it now is inhabited by carnivores, stinging insects, venomous reptiles, poisonous plants, lethal storms, earthquakes, floods, and other objects of disease and destruction, has an explanation for the phenomenon of homosexuality.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 10, 2008)

Some animals kill and eat their young.

Is that normal biological behavior that we can adopt into our society because it sometimes happens in nature?

Animals cannot sin because they do not have the ability to decide moral rights from wrongs. They can chose to do behavior that is 'wrong' and unnatural, just as man.


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't IMO even think this is worth discussing,we all know what happened to Sodom And Gammora.GOD loves eveyone,but is justified through HIS WORD,whom HE will punish,and why.I married my wife with no problem,we are of the opposite sex.Anything that is against the law in a secular courtroom and even with secular society,should raise an eyebrow at least.GOD gave you freedom of choice if you are gay,but as far as rights in this country to display yourself as a married couple,please get real.Homosexuality is a filthy and perverted sickness,and you are most certainly not born that way.I will definitely not tag along,and sugar coat this issue,this is just another evil in an ever increasing evil world.Don't bother retaliating I don't want to hear it,IT IS EVIL!


----------



## christianhunter (Nov 11, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I think that anyone who believes in a "fallen, sinful world" in which God has cursed the creation so that it now is inhabited by carnivores, stinging insects, venomous reptiles, poisonous plants, lethal storms, earthquakes, floods, and other objects of disease and destruction, has an explanation for the phenomenon of homosexuality.



AMEN!
Great response and post.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> POLITICALLY, I don't see what the problem is with this.
> 
> You make it sound like they want the age lowered so that they can 'recruit' younger teens into 'gayism'.  That's not how it is.  Did you read those articles?  They are asking for the laws to be changed to make them the same as they are for heterosexual consentual sex.   Again, it is nothing more than asking for the same rights as heterosexuals.
> 
> And for the record... NARTH is not exactly what one would call a 'neutral' source of information   That's kind of like asking the terrorists what they think about terrorism.



Well no kidding, I know that both side have a different opinion....and each person that believes a certain way will use the info that suits them the best.

I personally don't care what they do. As long as it doesn't lead to the lowering of age of concent.
I know that they know that when the fruit is ripened that whoever picks it first, gets it. Otherwise there would be no need for the age of consent to be lowered.
Why should it be lowered, there is a reason, it's not on principal it's so that they can have sweet pickins....otherwise there is plenty of places they can find lovers. 
Next the pedofiles will be asking for a lowering of age of consent....they can't help it that they were born that way...they like young children...please spare me. Neither can they help that they like young kids. If they could get the age of consent down to 12....oh man would they be in good pickins'. And I'm sure they wish they could.
Sexual preferance, eh.
Anyone could take my 13 yo granddaughter and make her be something...it's whoever gets to her first....got any clue about that? And I know that from personal experience.
Recruting her at school from older chicks.  Oh let's pick the cherries...I've read all about it in little notes from school...thank God my granddaughter came to me about it.
I told her I didn't care what she was, but not to be influenced by anyone about sex, or drugs.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So I guess all of the articles I have posted in here about Kindergarden students being subjects to 'gayism' isn't a way to recruit? Come on DD, I know you are not naive?
> 
> Do you really think that homosexuals don't have an agenda?
> 
> DB BB



No, I don't think it's a way to recruit gays.  I'm not naive... are you really that paranoid?

I guess I don't see things the same way you do... and it's not because of religion.  It's because that I, like homosexuals, believe that they were born that way.   

The pledge card you posted about in the other thread, I see as a way to try and stop hate, not recruit gays.

The only problem I see with it is that 
1. Kindergarten may be a bit young to start talking about that, most kindergarteners I know of don't even understand sex, much less homosexuality.

and

2.  I think it would be nice if the pledge card to stop hate was made to include all prejudices... race, sexual orientation, sex, etc.


I understand your resistance to homosexuals, but surely as a follower of the 'Prince of Peace', you can't be against an attempt to stop hate, can you?  What happened to 'hate the sin, love the sinner'?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Well no kidding, I know that both side have a different opinion....and each person that believes a certain way will use the info that suits them the best.
> 
> I personally don't care what they do. As long as it doesn't lead to the lowering of age of concent.
> I know that they know that when the fruit is ripened that whoever picks it first, gets it. Otherwise there would be no need for the age of consent to be lowered.
> ...




You forgot 'rock and roll'.  

Another closed-minded assumption that all gays must be pedophiles.  

And yeah, I've got 'clues' about lots of things.  I have a 16-year old in high school, so, sorry, you ain't got nothin' on me, honey.  I don't know if anyone has ever tried to 'recruit' her or not... if so, she never said anything to me... but it wouldn't matter anyway because she's not attracted to girls sexually.  She wasn't born that way.  I raised her to be like me   and think for herself... not to be afraid of standing up for what she believes in and who she is.    She has many gay friends and isn't prejudiced against anyone.  She's even more tolerant of 'Christian' stuff than I am... every year, I get ticked off at how they can play all sorts of Christian music at the winter school music program but no Hanukkah or Kwanza or anything else... but she doesn't let it bother her, she just wants to play music.

If you raise your kids to be confident in themselves and who they are, then you won't have to worry about them being 'recruited' for anything.  But I certainly hope that you don't raise your kids to hate.  Even us heathens don't do that.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> A significant percentage of them are, in fact, homosexual. This is a fact! I am NOT saying it makes being gay OK. I am saying it makes a biological argument against being gay a poor argument


 
Sin entered the entire world once Adam sinned.... hence Total Depravity in my belief, not just limited to man.

Animals before the fall of Adam, walked with man...

Sin is not limited to just man, sin entered the entire world when Adam sinned...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

gtparts said:


> I think that anyone who believes in a "fallen, sinful world" in which God has cursed the creation so that it now is inhabited by carnivores, stinging insects, venomous reptiles, poisonous plants, lethal storms, earthquakes, floods, and other objects of disease and destruction, has an explanation for the phenomenon of homosexuality.


 

*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No, I don't think it's a way to recruit gays. I'm not naive... are you really that paranoid?
> 
> I guess I don't see things the same way you do... and it's not because of religion. It's because that I, like homosexuals, believe that they were born that way.
> 
> ...


 

Nope not paranoid, but I have been around long enough to realize that some people of all walks in life will do anything they can to promote their agenda. So when it comes to anything that these TOTALLY DEPRAVED people try to force on to my kids and eventually my grandkids, I will do anything to protect them from those types of people...

How many times do I have to say it here.... Hate the Sin, not the Sinner!

Me and my wife have adopted 3 kids, 2 of which were severly abused when they were younger, and I am not talking beatings, I am talking just about any sexual perversion you can think about they have been exposed to it... and the people that did this to them are walking the street right now... I couldn't tell you how many times in the last year I have had to tell these 2 kids that certain things are not appropiate, you would not believe me... These kinds of people groom kids to become a certain way, and if you don't believe that these pledge cards, taking a school field trip to a gay marriage or having gay days is not trying to change our youth, than you are just as Totally Depraved as the rest of the unsaved in the world... wait that it right you don't believe in the Savior, Jesus Christ, so that explains it all... at least to me it does...

The 'Prince of Peace' as you refer to Him, also whipped the people at the Temple for sin. My God is a Loving God, but He is also a very Jealous God, His vengence and His anger is Pure.

The 'Peace', that is contained in that name is not just about 'Peace' of this world, but also 'Peace' within.  I have 'Peace' within myself, because I know where I am going when I die, and it doesn't matter what happens in this world, I have a PERFECT place that I will be when I die. God doesn't want us to just wait on the sidelines, He wants us to Stand firm in our beliefs, and being Justified by Jesus, I will always Stand firm in Him!

I pray that that 'Peace' you so deny will once and for all open your eyes, and break that barrier around your heart. I feel that once that happens you would be a Great Witness for Jesus.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Now that there is fuuuuuuuny!!!!!!


 

I am glad you had a good laugh.  I wouldn't expect anything less from an Atheist...

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> There is a fundamental truth that you are ignoring in your appeal to biology:  that a certain percentage of animals of many species (seagulls, chimps, etc.) are actually gay!  They seek out and attempt to mate exclusively with members of their own gender.





fishndinty said:


> But if God designed it that way, why are some animals gay at all?  Animals don't have the capacity or thought process to sin, right?  They're just doing what comes naturally.  To some of them, that means being gay.
> 
> So the biological world actually supports, rather than refutes, the legitimacy of homosexuality.  That's all I am saying.





fishndinty said:


> A significant percentage of them are, in fact, homosexual.  This is a fact!




Can you show your source?  You write it as fact but don't have any evidence.

Actually, I've done a bit of research on this and it is a weak argument at best to say that there are "significant percentage" of animals that are gay.  Simply isn't true.

See this link here

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 11, 2008)

Lead Poison said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> The biological argument says they can't reproduce and were _not made to mate with the same sex._




Ever drive a screw with a hammer?   It that's not what its designed for but it can be done.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 11, 2008)

meateater said:


> I would have to believe that ANY study that found animals to display "homosexual" behavior occurred in a lab under very controlled or shall we say manipulated circumstances. I don't recall seeing any gay deer lately!
> 
> SouthOfTheMasonDixon. Do you ever actually go outdoors and absorb nature or even hunt or do you just post to push your agenda?



This talks about deer, but I imagine you'll dismiss it or not even read it:

http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521864461


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Ambush, that says the word "evolution" in the title...it must be an evil lie as well...


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't know a way to get you to the article, but here's evidence of a gene controlling mating proclivities in fruit flies:
http://forums.lablit.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2693

the paper is good science, in one of the best journals in the field.  It's very convincing.  I can say that with confidence b/c I have a doctorate in chemical biology myself.

Again, I am NOT saying that being gay is OK.  I am saying the biological argument against homosexuality is ridiculous.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Remember also that fruit fly and human genes are strikingly similar in many cases. We're 90% the same genetically as they are


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

This is another text I have heard a great deal about:
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Natural-Diversity/dp/0312192398


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 11, 2008)

but 10% difference in genetic code is a HUGE number man.  I know you know that.  One coding change and you're looking at an entirely different animal....much less 10%.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Ever drive a screw with a hammer? It that's not what its designed for but it can be done.


 

Ever drive a nail with you hand?

It can be done, but I gaurantee you will have a lot of damage done to your hand in the process...

The screw you drive using a hammer will not hold near as good as if you were to use a proper instrument, a screwdriver, to drive the screw into place.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> Ambush, that says the word "evolution" in the title...it must be an evil lie as well...


 
Evolution is nothing more than trying to take God out of the beginning of Man, plain selfishness of the depraved human being.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> I have a doctorate in chemical biology myself.


 
Then you know how complex the human body is...

Like Huntinfool said, "but 10% difference in genetic code is a HUGE number man. I know you know that. One coding change and you're looking at an entirely different animal....much less 10%"

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 11, 2008)

Regardless of biology, you don't like the fact that our representative republic worked as it is supposed to...

...to enforce the will of the people (well of most of the people)!  That's what our system is set up to do.  

Actually, I don't like that it worked either.  I'm not a big fan of what's about to happen in the oval office.  But, guess what?  I have to live with it because the people have spoken.  Like somebody said earlier, you guys are doing a good job of getting your agenda out there and you WILL get that legislation passed pretty soon.  So no worries.  

The modern church is entirely too impotent to battle you for much longer.  But, for now, you either live with the fact that most people don't approve of gay marriage, fight your battle harder...or go live somewhere else.  Those are your choices.  

I know it sounds harsh since you believe you were born this way.  But thems the breaks bud.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> I don't know a way to get you to the article, but here's evidence of a gene controlling mating proclivities in fruit flies:
> http://forums.lablit.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2693
> 
> the paper is good science, in one of the best journals in the field.  It's very convincing.  I can say that with confidence b/c I have a doctorate in chemical biology myself.
> ...




Did you actually read the article?  

It doesn't say anything about fruit flies becoming homosexual.  Rather, scientists found a gene and masked that gene which in turn made fruit flies not be able to know the difference between a male or female fruit fly.  In other words, they started having sex with anything they could...both male and female.  This is not homosexual behavior, but bisexual behavior.

Again, please note an article where true homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom and I'll atleast have to modify a bit of what I've said.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Not really...90% means that most of the proteins are similar enough that a drug that works on one of them in fruit flies is likely to have activity in humans as well.  On the contrary, at the protein level, even 30-40% homology is enough to pretty much guarantee similar function.



Huntinfool said:


> but 10% difference in genetic code is a HUGE number man.  I know you know that.  One coding change and you're looking at an entirely different animal....much less 10%.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Evolution is nothing more than trying to take God out of the beginning of Man, plain selfishness of the depraved human being.
> 
> DB BB



Wrong again.  Evolutionism, the belief that the world always was and that God was not the Creator at its inception, seeks to remove the hand of God from all history.  Evolution is a scientific model for how organisms adapt and change over time.  And it's a good model; it's the basis for most biological research in the world.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Did you actually read the article?
> 
> It doesn't say anything about fruit flies becoming homosexual.  Rather, scientists found a gene and masked that gene which in turn made fruit flies not be able to know the difference between a male or female fruit fly.  In other words, they started having sex with anything they could...both male and female.  This is not homosexual behavior, but bisexual behavior.
> 
> Again, please note an article where true homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom and I'll atleast have to modify a bit of what I've said.



Homosexual or bisexual, I think the point was that sexual behavior is driven by genetics.  The Christian stand is that you aren't born that way, it's a choice.  This is research that proves yes, sexual 'preference' can be determined by genetics.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Regardless of biology, you don't like the fact that our representative republic worked as it is supposed to...
> 
> ...to enforce the will of the people (well of most of the people)!  That's what our system is set up to do.
> 
> ...



No. No. NOOO!!!! 
Once more, I am not making any claim as to the legitimacy of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.  I am merely stating that it is folly to use biology as an argument against it! 

I am not gay, as my wife, Tiffany, can proudly attest


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Did you actually read the article?
> 
> It doesn't say anything about fruit flies becoming homosexual.  Rather, scientists found a gene and masked that gene which in turn made fruit flies not be able to know the difference between a male or female fruit fly.  In other words, they started having sex with anything they could...both male and female.  This is not homosexual behavior, but bisexual behavior.
> 
> Again, please note an article where true homosexual behavior exists in the animal kingdom and I'll atleast have to modify a bit of what I've said.



Geez!  I find you some bisexual fruit flies and that isn't enough? 

I will do some lookin....I know there are good examples of lesbian seagulls and gay lions and giraffes that I have read before.  Nobody trusts me


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> Wrong again. Evolutionism, the belief that the world always was and that God was not the Creator at its inception, seeks to remove the hand of God from all history. Evolution is a scientific model for how organisms adapt and change over time. And it's a good model; it's the basis for most biological research in the world.


 


I just have to laugh at this, pardon me... a good model...  you are too funny...

DB BB


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Let me reiterate that I am not saying being gay is ok.  I am merely pointing out that this particular argument against homosexuality is flawed.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

DB, you do the cross of Christ no favors with your quick condemnation.  Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman at the well.  Would you sit and sup with a homosexual in need as quickly as with your buddy who commits the sin of gluttony five nights a week?

Jesus said "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone." It is not for us to condemn.  We are to preach the healing, transformative love of Christ to a world in need.  And if being gay is wrong, the Spirit will convict a believer of the need to rid that sin from their life.

Your attitude seems closer to that of the self-righteous Pharisees.  I sometimes forget what Jesus had to say about them....


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Homosexual or bisexual, I think the point was that sexual behavior is driven by genetics.  The Christian stand is that you aren't born that way, it's a choice.  This is research that proves yes, sexual 'preference' can be determined by genetics.



That's where I was going, Dixie.  And I am not even convinced of the evidence that gay is genetic yet.  I will say it's quite intriguing, and certainly not worthy of outright dismissal.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Nope not paranoid, but I have been around long enough to realize that some people of all walks in life will do anything they can to promote their agenda. So when it comes to anything that these TOTALLY DEPRAVED people try to force on to my kids and eventually my grandkids, I will do anything to protect them from those types of people...
> 
> How many times do I have to say it here.... Hate the Sin, not the Sinner!
> 
> ...



DB BB, I am truly sorry for the children that you brought into your home, that they had to endure the horrible things that they did, and I am glad that they have someone who loves them and wants to treat them they way children should be treated now. Hopefully they can overcome the things that were done to them in their past.

I don't know what you meant by your post... if you are saying that the people that raised your children before you and abused them were gay or not... but just as the members of Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for or represent all other Christians, neither do sick pedophiles represent or speak for all homosexuals.    There are bad seeds in every bunch.

I don't know what you're talking about as far as field trips for gay weddings or 'gay days'.  I didn't read anything about those, so I can't comment on them.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> That's where I was going, Dixie.  And I am not even convinced of the evidence that gay is genetic yet.  I will say it's quite intriguing, and certainly not worthy of outright dismissal.



I understand what you're saying.  I should have made my reply as :

"Homosexual or bisexual, I think the point was that this paper shows research that sexual behavior can be modified by genetics. "


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> I am not gay, as my wife, Tiffany, can proudly attest



 
Now that was classic!


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Homosexual or bisexual, I think the point was that sexual behavior is driven by genetics.  The Christian stand is that you aren't born that way, it's a choice.  This is research that proves yes, sexual 'preference' can be determined by genetics.



No...read the article again and don't try and determine the results based on your agenda.

"Glial amino acid transporters help control synapse strength at glutamatergic synapses in the CNS, by regulating extracellular glutamate. Knock-down with RNAi leads to upregulation of synaptic function and a subsequent inability of male flies to discriminate sexual cues. They then display promiscuous mating behaviour."

So again, it isn't a gene that determines whether or not the fruit fly is hetero, bi or homosexual.  It is an additive that keeps the gene from acting as it should or makes it over-react.  

Off topic a bit, but I actually believe that the army has biological weaponry that will cause humans to do the same thing...in other words, become so sexually driven that they'll do whatever it takes to calm that urge.  (I have no source documentation, just remember reading it somewhere).  

So I'll point it out as I see it and believe it and relate it to the article of fruit flies.  We are all born with the genes and natural instinct to determine the difference between male and female and which one is needed for reproduction.  If we are not modified or no additive is given to the human, the male will always mate with the female.  However, sin has entered into the equation and some have allowed their sin to be unregulated.  As such, their ability to determine the difference between man and woman has been compromised and their sexual desires must be fulfilled at any cost.  They stray from their normal natural innate function and turn to that which is unnatural.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> No. No. NOOO!!!!
> Once more, I am not making any claim as to the legitimacy of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.  I am merely stating that it is folly to use biology as an argument against it!
> 
> I am not gay, as my wife, Tiffany, can proudly attest





Ha!  Man, I'm sorry.  I was talking to South of the Mason....

You got caught in the cross fire!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB, you do the cross of Christ no favors with your quick condemnation. Jesus sat with the Samaritan woman at the well. Would you sit and sup with a homosexual in need as quickly as with your buddy who commits the sin of gluttony five nights a week?
> 
> Jesus said "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone." It is not for us to condemn. We are to preach the healing, transformative love of Christ to a world in need. And if being gay is wrong, the Spirit will convict a believer of the need to rid that sin from their life.


 
I went to art school with several gay people, even have some that I consider friends, but we differ on their lifestyle... I have witnessed to several, and hopefully God used me to plant the seed and He will be the one to decide if it grows or not...

You say 'if being gay is wrong', I say it is wrong and I have backed it up with scripture...

Hate the sin, not the sinner... Homosexuality is a SIN. I do not hate anyone that is Gay, but if you insist on putting your agenda out there and saying it is alright to be gay then I will call you on it everytime... Then people get mad when you call them out on stuff, and call you a hater...



fishndinty said:


> Your attitude seems closer to that of the self-righteous Pharisees. I sometimes forget what Jesus had to say about them....


 
Call me all the names you want, but it is not going to change my position on Sin. You say I am 'self-righteous'... Have I once called you a single name on this forum?

It now seems that when you can't sway someone with your arguement that you are going to result to name calling... That really shows your true intentions, and discredits anything you have to say, for me atleast.

DB BB


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

RJ,
That's why I have no problem saying that it's possible that living a gay lifestyle is a sin EVEN IF IT IS a genetic predisposition.  People are genetically predisposed to being obese, yet we are still given instruction on our bodies being the temple of the Spirit, right?

The way I read the paper when I read the whole of it was that this genetic trigger made normal fruit flies deviate from normal sexual behavior.  Thus a genetic link to sexual behavior/proclivity.  Like I said, this is still a hot topic, but the evidence is intriguing and certainly noteworthy.



rjcruiser said:


> No...read the article again and don't try and determine the results based on your agenda.
> 
> "Glial amino acid transporters help control synapse strength at glutamatergic synapses in the CNS, by regulating extracellular glutamate. Knock-down with RNAi leads to upregulation of synaptic function and a subsequent inability of male flies to discriminate sexual cues. They then display promiscuous mating behaviour."
> 
> ...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> No...read the article again and don't try and determine the results based on your agenda.
> 
> "Glial amino acid transporters help control synapse strength at glutamatergic synapses in the CNS, by regulating extracellular glutamate. Knock-down with RNAi leads to upregulation of synaptic function and a subsequent inability of male flies to discriminate sexual cues. They then display promiscuous mating behaviour."
> 
> So again, it isn't a gene that determines whether or not the fruit fly is hetero, bi or homosexual.  It is an additive that keeps the gene from acting as it should or makes it over-react.



Ummm... yeah.
If this gene didn't have anything to do with sexual behavior, the additive wouldn't affect it (ie: keeping it from acting as it should, or making it over react).  So YES... it does suggest that the sexual behavior IS genetic.
And I'm not even a scientist.



> Off topic a bit, but I actually believe that the army has biological weaponry that will cause humans to do the same thing...in other words, become so sexually driven that they'll do whatever it takes to calm that urge.  (I have no source documentation, just remember reading it somewhere).



Conspiracy theory?



> So I'll point it out as I see it and believe it and relate it to the article of fruit flies.  We are all born with the genes and natural instinct to determine the difference between male and female and which one is needed for reproduction.  If we are not modified or no additive is given to the human, the male will always mate with the female.  However, sin has entered into the equation and some have allowed their sin to be unregulated.  As such, their ability to determine the difference between man and woman has been compromised and their sexual desires must be fulfilled at any cost.  They stray from their normal natural innate function and turn to that which is unnatural.



I see.... so is 'sin' an additive that can keep genes from working correctly, or make them over-react?  What's the biological make-up of 'sin'?


----------



## Bowyer29 (Nov 11, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Hooray for HATE.



Whew, how do you read hate into everything?


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I just have to laugh at this, pardon me... a good model...  you are too funny...
> 
> DB BB



This is where I mighta picked up a hint of self-righteous attitude from you....maybe I misinterpreted.

You must admit that protestants have a special fixation on the evils of homosexuality far beyond their focus on nearly any other sin.  I don't think we do a good job of loving the sinner at all.


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 11, 2008)

I'll just say where I'm at on this.  There are most certainly psychological things that occur that CAN cause someone to BECOME homosexual...or think that they are homosexual.  

Now, that does not mean, IMO, that all people who are homosexual have had psychological damage growing up.  I do believe that certain people MAY be pre-disposed to attraction to those of the same sex.  It may even be a genetic pre-disposition.

I will say, though, that there is absolutely no way to deny that humans were designed (or evolved...however you choose to go with it) to "fit"....man and woman.  Any other combination, while it may feel natural to you, is not the norm and cannot result in another human being brought into the world.  

I go back and forth on the legislation because I actually fall more on the side of thinking that it is not the government's role to decide what someone does in the privacy of their home.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll just say where I'm at on this.  There are most certainly psychological things that occur that CAN cause someone to BECOME homosexual...or think that they are homosexual.
> 
> Now, that does not mean, IMO, that all people who are homosexual have had psychological damage growing up.  I do believe that certain people MAY be pre-disposed to attraction to those of the same sex.  It may even be a genetic pre-disposition.
> 
> ...



The "gays cannot procreate" argument is still an argument from biology, isn't it?  That's just not enough for me.  I am not saying there are no good arguments, but the New Testament is not chock full of passages disparaging homosexuality...this is not as cut and dry an issue as protestants have made it.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 11, 2008)

Let me also say that I don't want bad blood with anyone on here.  Lord knows there's enough dissent and bloodshed between Christians the world over as it is.

I just struggle to think that Christ would be as quick to condemn as we are.  That scares me. 

Jesus would probably ask his gay neighbor for advice on decorative carpentry before He would condemn him for his sin.  I hope Jesus is just as loving and forgiving toward me.  He has been so far.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know what you meant by your post... if you are saying that the people that raised your children before you and abused them were gay or not... but just as the members of Westboro Baptist Church do not speak for or represent all other Christians, neither do sick pedophiles represent or speak for all homosexuals. There are bad seeds in every bunch.


 
My point is you can groom kids to think that ANYTHING is normal, (i.e. beastiality, homosexuality, pedefila, killing, raping, hating(Westboro), etc..)  That is why being a Parent is such a HUGE responsiblity. You have to be careful not to expose your children to certain stuff, that they can not handle... Your child gets exposed to some of the stuff I listed and get exposed to enough of it, then it becomes normal...



Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know what you're talking about as far as field trips for gay weddings or 'gay days'. I didn't read anything about those, so I can't comment on them.


 
See quote just below this line of type:



Double Barrel BB said:


> So are you for spreading 'gayism' to kindergardeners?
> 
> DB BB
> 
> ...


 


fishndinty said:


> This is where I mighta picked up a hint of self-righteous attitude from you....maybe I misinterpreted.
> 
> You must admit that protestants have a special fixation on the evils of homosexuality far beyond their focus on nearly any other sin. I don't think we do a good job of loving the sinner at all.


 
It was not meant to be taken the way you took it... I just find it kinda funny that some people (scientist in particular, and I can include myself in this group because I do hold a **** in Chemistry) seem to think that the sun rises and sets on evolution and Darwin...

I apologize if I offended you, but I just found it funny... hence the words "Pardon me" in the original post...

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> RJ,
> That's why I have no problem saying that it's possible that living a gay lifestyle is a sin EVEN IF IT IS a genetic predisposition.  People are genetically predisposed to being obese, yet we are still given instruction on our bodies being the temple of the Spirit, right?
> 
> The way I read the paper when I read the whole of it was that this genetic trigger made normal fruit flies deviate from normal sexual behavior.  Thus a genetic link to sexual behavior/proclivity.  Like I said, this is still a hot topic, but the evidence is intriguing and certainly noteworthy.



Okay...I agree that all people are different and some have higher degrees of sexual drive than others.  And as I said before, if people allow their sin to go unchecked, this can go places where it wasn't designed to go.  Just as the fruit fly.  I will not say that being gay is due to a genetic break-down or genetic dis-order.  It is due to sin going unchecked.  Are some more likely genetically and take less sin going unchecked to get there than others?  I don't know.  Maybe.



Dixie Dawg said:


> If this gene didn't have anything to do with sexual behavior, the additive wouldn't affect it (ie: keeping it from acting as it should, or making it over react).  So YES... it does suggest that the sexual behavior IS genetic.
> And I'm not even a scientist.


  Never said that genetic make-up didn't have to do with sexuality.  Just said that it always was hetero-sexual or in its un-altered state, hetero-sexual.


			
				Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Conspiracy theory?


Yup...maybe...I think that the government tested it out in San Francisco or something like that 


			
				Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> I see.... so is 'sin' an additive that can keep genes from working correctly, or make them over-react?  What's the biological make-up of 'sin'?


Is this a serious question?

But to prove my point of sin causing things to over-react....take for instance a little child who is not disciplined properly by his/her parents.  When they don't get there way, their sin nature is on display.  If has gone unchecked, what do they do?  They go into a fit of rage...screaming, crying, rolling around on the floor.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> The "gays cannot procreate" argument is still an argument from biology, isn't it? That's just not enough for me. I am not saying there are no good arguments, but the New Testament is not chock full of passages disparaging homosexuality...this is not as cut and dry an issue as protestants have made it.


 

How many passages does it take to in the Bible to make it wrong?

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> The "gays cannot procreate" argument is still an argument from biology, isn't it?  That's just not enough for me.  I am not saying there are no good arguments, but the New Testament is not chock full of passages disparaging homosexuality...this is not as cut and dry an issue as protestants have made it.



My point was not that biology says it's not POSSIBLE...but that biology says it's not the norm or that it's a genetic abnormality as the article you posted shows.

It is not the normal state of things.  That was my point.


----------



## Bowyer29 (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> Let me also say that I don't want bad blood with anyone on here.  Lord knows there's enough dissent and bloodshed between Christians the world over as it is.
> 
> I just struggle to think that Christ would be as quick to condemn as we are.  That scares me.
> 
> Jesus would probably ask his gay neighbor for advice on decorative carpentry before He would condemn him for his sin.  I hope Jesus is just as loving and forgiving toward me.  He has been so far.



Amen to that!


----------



## farmasis (Nov 11, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> I don't know a way to get you to the article, but here's evidence of a gene controlling mating proclivities in fruit flies:
> http://forums.lablit.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2693
> 
> the paper is good science, in one of the best journals in the field. It's very convincing. I can say that with confidence b/c I have a doctorate in chemical biology myself.
> ...


 
Unless I am mistaking, this gene manipulation overides the males scent signaling that makes it difficult to distinguish males from females and thus confuses the male which attempted to mate with both females and males.

I think this is a far cry from saying that genetic make up determines sexual orientation.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Even us heathens don't do that.



Really? well you had me fooled, with all that laughing and rolling of eyes and rolling around on the floor and mocking and judging other folks for what they believe and how they choose to live. You don't seem to be a bit predjudice of people who believe differently than you...not a bit.

Obviously you don't take the OT seriously when it comes to this topic...so why do you harp on it so much as being right? You don't even believe it yourself...talk about spinning and twirling a "position".


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 11, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Really? well you had me fooled, with all that laughing and rolling of eyes and rolling around on the floor and mocking and judging other folks for what they believe and how they choose to live. You don't seem to be a bit predjudice of people who believe differently than you...not a bit.



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle... you're black!!
I don't care how you choose to live.  You can worship the Easter bunny for all I care.  I'm not prejudiced of people who believe differently than I do.  But, just as you don't like homosexuality being 'shoved in your face', you don't seem to have a problem when it's the other way around and it is YOUR beliefs shoved into someone's face.  

I don't care how you choose to live.  I do, however, care when YOU want to try and affect the way I choose to live. 

And my comment was that even us heathens don't teach our children to hate.  I have never taught my child to hate.  My child accepts people for who they are, regardless of their religion or their sexual orientation.  She doesn't judge anyone if they are gay, and she doesn't tell anyone that they are going to the hot place if they don't believe in the same religion that she does. And neither do I.



> Obviously you don't take the OT seriously when it comes to this topic...so why do you harp on it so much as being right? You don't even believe it yourself...talk about spinning and twirling a "position".



I don't take the OT seriously when it comes to what topic?


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 11, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Hello, Pot? This is Kettle... you're black!!
> I don't care how you choose to live.*Well thanks I appreciate the freedom you spare me. LOL*  You can worship the Easter bunny for all I care. *Brilliant come back.* I'm not prejudiced of people who believe differently than I do.  But, just as you don't like homosexuality being 'shoved in your face',*and exactly where did I say that...are you putting words in my mouth again? * you don't seem to have a problem when it's the other way around and it is YOUR beliefs shoved into someone's face.  *Like who, what, when and where, I've only expressed my beliefs here, I'm not OUT in the streets shoving crap down anyone's throat...keep it in perspective will ya or at least pay attention to what I really said and backquote if you don't mind.*
> 
> I don't care how you choose to live. *Didn't say you did, did I?...backquoting would be helpful here too. * I do, however, care when YOU want to try and affect the way I choose to live. *And how did I do that....again we're back to the backquoting. I don't even know you, except that you think you're an expert on interpretation of the Bible, you can't even backquote what I say...just do that will ya? and quit responding to imaginary things that you think that I might think...just go by what I say will ya?*
> ...



...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> ...



It's very difficult to 'backquote' you when you put your responses in a quote... they don't show up in order to backquote them.

I wasn't speaking just of your replies in this thread.  I was speaking of your responses throughout this part of the forum.

I never said you went out and shoved your beliefs in anyone's face.  What I said was, you don't mind when your beliefs are shoved in other's faces.  You would be perfectly happy if every school day started out with the pledge of allegiance (which I definitely support) and a prayer that ends in Jesus' name (which would be shoving your beliefs in everyone's face).   I said your beliefs, I didn't say you actually being the one to do it. Same goes for what I said about when YOU try to affect the way others choose to live.  Not YOU personally, but your beliefs.  You are perfectly happy with your beliefs dictating what others can or cannot do in their personal lives... such as abortion, same sex  marriage, etc.  

And no, I never said I was an expert on bible interpretation.  In fact, I don't interpret the bible.  I read what it says, and that's what it says.  I don't sit here and try to interpret it to make it fit what I want it to say. I don't wonder or try to figure out, what did ___ mean when he wrote this? He meant what he wrote.  It says what it says... no interpretation needed.  The only time anyone needs to interpret the bible is to get it to fit Christianity.

I do accept you for who you are.  I try to live by that little credo... hate christianity, love the christian.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I don't know what you're talking about as far as field trips for gay weddings or 'gay days'.  I didn't read anything about those, so I can't comment on them.



I went back in DB BB and read the links you gave for the other threads... I understand what they are trying to do with the 'gay day', to try and stop hate between the children, but I still think 5 years old is too young to be talking about any type of sexual behavior, straight or gay.  If they're going to do something like that, they should make it an 'ally' day for being friends with everyone and teaching them that everyone is different, it doesn't matter what color their skin is or what church they go to, etc.  Of course, any kids who are that young who do say nasty stuff about hating gays (or blacks, or Jews, etc.) unfortunately probably learned it from their parents, so what can you do.

As far as the wedding, I don't think ANY wedding should be a school field trip.  If a teacher wants to get married (straight or whatever) and have her students be a part of it, it should be done after school hours or on a weekend, not as a field trip.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I went back in DB BB and read the links you gave for the other threads... I understand what they are trying to do with the 'gay day', to try and stop hate between the children, but I still think 5 years old is too young to be talking about any type of sexual behavior, straight or gay. If they're going to do something like that, they should make it an 'ally' day for being friends with everyone and teaching them that everyone is different, it doesn't matter what color their skin is or what church they go to, etc. Of course, any kids who are that young who do say nasty stuff about hating gays (or blacks, or Jews, etc.) unfortunately probably learned it from their parents, so what can you do.
> 
> As far as the wedding, I don't think ANY wedding should be a school field trip. If a teacher wants to get married (straight or whatever) and have her students be a part of it, it should be done after school hours or on a weekend, not as a field trip.


 

I don't believe any of it deserves to be in our schools... much like a lot of people believe any type of "belief system" shouldn't be taught in school...

I believe that we shouldn't teach our kids to hate people, just hate sin... The world would be a much better place if everyone did this... 

It all comes back to depravity, some people do things for selfish reasons, pretty much all sinfulness can be traced back to pure selfishness..

DB BB


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 12, 2008)

DD....what keeps you up so late at night?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> DD....what keeps you up so late at night?



So that the prophecy might be fulfilled....  Isaiah 57:20  	 But the wicked [are] like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest

See how easy that is?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So that the prophecy might be fulfilled....  Isaiah 57:20  	 But the wicked [are] like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest
> 
> See how easy that is?



clever


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> RJ,
> That's why I have no problem saying that it's possible that living a gay lifestyle is a sin EVEN IF IT IS a genetic predisposition.  People are genetically predisposed to being obese, yet we are still given instruction on our bodies being the temple of the Spirit, right?
> 
> The way I read the paper when I read the whole of it was that this genetic trigger made normal fruit flies deviate from normal sexual behavior.  Thus a genetic link to sexual behavior/proclivity.  Like I said, this is still a hot topic, but the evidence is intriguing and certainly noteworthy.



Perhaps relevant to fruit flies that are being artificially manipulated in lab conditions.

I fail to see any real serious parallels to be drawn to human behavior.

But, Knock yourselves out!!!


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> Let me also say that I don't want bad blood with anyone on here.  Lord knows there's enough dissent and bloodshed between Christians the world over as it is.
> 
> I just struggle to think that Christ would be as quick to condemn as we are.  That scares me.
> 
> Jesus would probably ask his gay neighbor for advice on decorative carpentry before He would condemn him for his sin.  I hope Jesus is just as loving and forgiving toward me.  He has been so far.



More likely to say, " Go and sin no more!", or am I misquoting Him as regarding His expectations of sinners who want "living water"?


----------



## gtparts (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So that the prophecy might be fulfilled....  Isaiah 57:20  	 But the wicked [are] like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest
> 
> See how easy that is?



DD, 

Sometimes me thinks you speak a truth. 

But there is a difference in 1) recognizing a statement made in the distant past and its correlation to an event in the recent past and 2) manipulating events to conform to past statements. The recognition of prophesy and its subsequent fulfillment was made a significant time after the fulfilling event took place. 

Tell me, did the Christians manipulate not only the events as recorded in the NT, but also the prophesies that were given 400 yrs. and earlier in the OT?  

Rather a fantastic conspiracy theory in its own right.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

gtparts said:


> DD,
> 
> Sometimes me thinks you speak a truth.



I thought you'd get a kick out of that   



> But there is a difference in 1) recognizing a statement made in the distant past and its correlation to an event in the recent past and 2) manipulating events to conform to past statements. The recognition of prophesy and its subsequent fulfillment was made a significant time after the fulfilling event took place.



My point exactly.
All debating aside... have you ever actually looked up or researched the origin of the New Testament?  Who wrote each 'book', how it got into your NT, when it was added to the canon, who put it there, how many versions there were of it, which books were NOT put in and why, which books were left out but are QUOTED in other books that WERE put in, etc?    I have... and it leaves me with a very strong feeling that many things were tampered with in order to fit the doctrine.



> Tell me, did the Christians manipulate not only the events as recorded in the NT, but also the prophesies that were given 400 yrs. and earlier in the OT?



Which prophesies? You'd have to give me the specific ones in order for me to seriously give an answer to that...


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 12, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's very difficult to 'backquote' you when you put your responses in a quote... they don't show up in order to backquote them.
> 
> I wasn't speaking just of your replies in this thread.  I was speaking of your responses throughout this part of the forum.
> 
> ...


*
* 
You can copy and past the whole thing if you want to backquote me. And put your response in a different color, or just delete what you wrote and respond to each of my responses.

Of course you can still refer to where I said any of these things, IF only they were there and they are not. Or someone could tell me how to do this in blocks so that it can be relied to...like the post before this one. 
Post the number of the post where I said I hate the sin and not the sinner, and where I said anything about prayer in school....if you can.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

> Once again you are incorrect....you keep saying my beliefs as if I've printed everything I believe in this forum. I've never discussed religion or prayer in school here. As a matter of fact, I do not want religion, any religion in school, no prayer, any prayer said in school. I want to teach my children how I want them taught about what I believe and not taught by a teacher and their teachings....you simply put me along with everyone else...isn't that profiling? Isn't that accusing and judgemental on your part? And yet you say you don't do that...you most certainly do. I said your beliefs, I didn't say you actually being the one to do it. Same goes for what I said about when YOU try to affect the way others choose to live. Not YOU personally, but your beliefs. You are perfectly happy with your beliefs dictating what others can or cannot do in their personal lives... such as abortion, same sex marriage, etc. Ok I'm prochoice, because even though I don't believe in abortion....other people don't believe as I do and I cannot decide what is right or wrong for them...so therefore I'm prochoice. There you go again addressing things directly to me that you think ALL Christians believe. I don't care what anyone does in their personal lives, gay marriage or anything else, unless it effects me or my children. By one statement about the lowering the age of consent you sure do know everything about me eh?



Really?  Well you're correct then, I apologize.  I assumed you were a 'real Christian'.  My bad!  



> And no, I never said I was an expert on bible interpretation. In fact, I don't interpret the bible. I read what it says, and that's what it says. I don't sit here and try to interpret it to make it fit what I want it to say. I don't wonder or try to figure out, what did ___ mean when he wrote this? He meant what he wrote. It says what it says... no interpretation needed. The only time anyone needs to interpret the bible is to get it to fit Christianity.As a matter of fact you do do that. You have said that when Isaiah's scripture about the man of sorrows and bruised for our transgressions, you said he was talking about Israel and the Jews...no where does it say that.....that was YOUR interpretatin.
> What do you think people don't remember what you say?



Actually, it does.  The Servant is identified in Isaiah as the Jews no less than seven times.  If you need the verses, feel free to ask.

As far as your comment in the other thread about having been where I'm at, I highly doubt that.  You said that once someone has 'seen the light' of Christianity, they could never leave.  Well, I am proof that you're incorrect on that.  Which probably means you haven't been 'where I'm at'.  I say 'probably' because I don't want to get you upset again, thinking I'm putting words in your mouth


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 12, 2008)

mtnwoman said:


> Of course you can still refer to where I said any of these things, IF only they were there and they are not. Or someone could tell me how to do this in blocks so that it can be relied to...like the post before this one.



To quote something on your own, you type 





> at the beginning of what you want to quote, and then type [/ quote] (except without the space after the / ) after the part you want to quote.  Hope that makes sense....


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> As far as your comment in the other thread about having been where I'm at, I highly doubt that.  You said that once someone has 'seen the light' of Christianity, they could never leave.  Well, I am proof that you're incorrect on that.  Which probably means you haven't been 'where I'm at'.  I say 'probably' because I don't want to get you upset again, thinking I'm putting words in your mouth



Well actually I was saved at 12,hid from God beginning at about age 23 and stayed hidden until 46. Then a light bulb came on, a light bulb that I couldn't comprehend at all at age 12 or 23. But for a testimony only I was left to stray. I am like the lost sheep that Jesus left the ninty and nine to retrieve. Because I didn't know I was lost. But He did and he knew from when I left at 23 until I was redeemed at 46 where to find me. He knew where I was, He knew where to find me and He came and lifted me up out of the miry clay and brought me back unto Him. I didn't even ask for it, I didn't even know I was lost...I just woke up one morning and said Oh Lord, please help me I'm dying and He came and got me.

Don't worry about upsetting me by your words. I am only concerned for your soul...and yes I know you will say that I don't need to be, and so on....but I am.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Actually, it does.  The Servant is identified in Isaiah as the Jews no less than seven times.  If you need the verses, feel free to ask.



No, but thanks, I got it.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Huntinfool said:


> Regardless of biology, you don't like the fact that our representative republic worked as it is supposed to...
> 
> ...to enforce the will of the people (well of most of the people)!  That's what our system is set up to do.


Our government was designed by the Founding Fathers so that the interests of smaller groups would not be run roughshod over by larger.  This is why we have two houses in Congress, one with representation based on state population and one with equal representation for each state.  That is also why we have the Electoral College, so presidential elections will not be decided solely by the most populous states.  Putting the civil rights of a minority up for vote by the majority is contrary to the vision of our Founding Fathers.  Furthermore, when the "will of the people" is to deny others rights they themselves have, that's just plain bigotry.



Huntinfool said:


> I know it sounds harsh since you believe you were born this way.  But thems the breaks bud.


It doesn't sound harsh.  It sounds callous, uncaring and evil. (edit: not calling _you_ evil, mind you)


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> How many passages does it take to in the Bible to make it wrong?


How many passages in The Bible does it take to make it wrong for women to be teachers? (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

How many passages does it take for it to be wrong for divorced people to remarry? (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)

How many passages does it take for it to be acceptable to offer one's virgin daughters or one's concubine to be _gang raped_? (Genesis 19:8, Judges 19:24-26)


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

meateater said:


> SouthOfTheMasonDixon. Do you ever actually go outdoors and absorb nature or even hunt or do you just post to push your agenda?


I am not a hunter but I've enjoyed camping since I was a small child.  As far as me pushing an "agenda," all I'm doing is _responding to_ the agendas being pushed here by others.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So are you for spreading 'gayism' to kindergardeners?
> 
> DB BB
> 
> ...


First article states the action was _solely_ the responsibility of the teacher and it was done without school approval.  I do not approve of what she did.

I don't approve of what was done in the second article.  For middle schoolers and up, however, I would not have a problem.

Third article indicates the trip was suggested by a parent, not by the school.  If attending the teacher's wedding was wrong, then attending _any_ teacher's wedding would be wrong.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> How many passages in The Bible does it take to make it wrong for women to be teachers? (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
> 
> How many passages does it take for it to be wrong for divorced people to remarry? (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)
> 
> How many passages does it take for it to be acceptable to offer one's virgin daughters or one's concubine to be _gang raped_? (Genesis 19:8, Judges 19:24-26)




Wow...South...we actually agree on something.  Yup, I don't think women should be pastors either.

As far as the divorce/remarry passage, in context, I'd agree with you as well.

The last, well....I'm surprised that you'd even bring that up as it shows the sexual perversion of gay men.  Those who pounded on the door and gang-raped the virgin daughter/concubine were gay men that wanted to rape another man.  God's response to the depravity of Sodom & Gomorrah shows how acceptable it is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Putting the civil rights of a minority up for vote by the majority is contrary to the vision of our Founding Fathers.  Furthermore, when the "will of the people" is to deny others rights they themselves have, that's just plain bigotry.



How is this contrary to the vision of our Founding Fathers.  Isn't that what a democracy is?  Rule by Majority?  Also, about rights being denied....I believe our Founding Fathers had it to where only land owners could vote and lived in an era of slavery.  Were our Founding Fathers "Haters" and "Bigoted?"


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> First article states the action was _solely_ the responsibility of the teacher and it was done without school approval. I do not approve of what she did.
> 
> I don't approve of what was done in the second article. For middle schoolers and up, however, I would not have a problem.
> 
> Third article indicates the trip was suggested by a parent, not by the school. If attending the teacher's wedding was wrong, then attending _any_ teacher's wedding would be wrong.


 

on the first one: WOW!!  I figured you would have no problem with any of it, you surprised me!

The second, I wouldn't have a problem either, because I know my children are taught right... but then again, I don't believe any agenda should be pushed on any child in a public school system, that is the only way it will stay just for the public...

The third on... the students actually participated in the wedding, I have no problem with my child going to a wedding, of course I have to approve of them going and would hope to be fully informed about what he wedding was before they went, attending a wedding is different from being in the wedding...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...South...we actually agree on something. Yup, I don't think women should be pastors either.
> 
> As far as the divorce/remarry passage, in context, I'd agree with you as well.
> 
> The last, well....I'm surprised that you'd even bring that up as it shows the sexual perversion of gay men. Those who pounded on the door and gang-raped the virgin daughter/concubine were gay men that wanted to rape another man. God's response to the depravity of Sodom & Gomorrah shows how acceptable it is.


 
*AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


Couldn't have said it better myself!

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> *AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
> 
> 
> Couldn't have said it better myself!
> ...



You know...Big 7 isn't going to like all those !!!!, but I'll quote you above and add to his scrolling adventures


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> The last, well....I'm surprised that you'd even bring that up as it shows the sexual perversion of gay men.  Those who pounded on the door and gang-raped the virgin daughter/concubine were gay men that wanted to rape another man.  God's response to the depravity of Sodom & Gomorrah shows how acceptable it is.


Lot _offering _his virgin daughters to be gang-raped shows the perversion of _gay men_?

The Levite opening the door of the house and _pushing his concubine out of the house_ to be gang-raped and DIE shows the perversion of _gay men_?

Are you out of your mind?

The men in question _all_ acted in appropriately:  Lot, the Levite, the men of Sodom and the men of Gib'e-ah.

Furthermore, the men of the towns where the events occurred wanted to _RAPE _the men in question.  Gay men are not all rapists, just as straight men are not all rapists.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> How many passages in The Bible does it take to make it wrong for women to be teachers? (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
> 
> How many passages does it take for it to be wrong for divorced people to remarry? (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18)
> 
> How many passages does it take for it to be acceptable to offer one's virgin daughters or one's concubine to be _gang raped_? (Genesis 19:8, Judges 19:24-26)



I agree, all those things are wrong, too.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

This country would be in a pretty sorry state if women were barred from being teachers.

EDIT: The point is, the first two are perfectly legal and widespread in this country _despite_ Biblical condemnation.  The actions of Lot and the Levite in the third are absolutely _despicable _yet are given Biblical approval.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> How many passages does it take for it to be acceptable to offer one's virgin daughters or one's concubine to be _gang raped_? (Genesis 19:8, Judges 19:24-26)


 
In reference to Genesis 19:8,

What you miss is, did anything happen to the girls? I am not saying it is right to do it, but what did the Angels do? They pulled Lot inside and closed the doors and blinded the people that wanted to rape them. So in essense they ended up protecting Lot and his Family... If you read more of the scriptures around the verse you pulled out, you would see more of what happened... 

*The Doom of Sodom:*


> Genesis 19:
> 1.Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.
> 2.And he said, "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." They said however, "No, but we shall spend the night in the square."
> 3.Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house ; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
> ...


 
In reference do to the Judges verse:

Nope I don't believe that is right, but what is the definition of a concubine? a woman who cohabits with a man to whom she is not legally married, esp. one regarded as socially or sexually subservient; mistress. Do I agree what happened, nope, but the virgin didn't get touched.. the travelers concubine is the one that got hurt... I wouldn't doubt if she sacrificed herself for her master... to her master she was just a sex slave anyway...  again read more of the scripture around the one you posted to get more of the story:


> Judges 19:
> 20.The old man said, "Peace to you. Only let me take care of all your needs; however, do not spend the night in the open square."
> 21.So he took him into his house and gave the donkeys fodder, and they washed their feet and ate and drank.
> 22.While they were celebrating, behold, the men of the city, certain worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding the door; and they spoke to the owner of the house, the old man, saying, "Bring out the man who came into your house that we may have relations with him."
> ...


 
Does it once say that this what Lot offered or what this man in Judges offered is the right thing to do?? The Bible is full of flawwed men....

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Lot was saved from Sodom because he was a righteous man.  Apparently, being righteous includes offering your daughters up for gang rape.

The Levite forced his concubine into the crowd to be gang raped ("the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them"); she did not volunteer.  The actions of the crowd are condemned but not the actions of the Levite.  Be careful about condemning concubines, BTW, as there are many in the OT who bore children who had the blessing of the Lord.

Getting back to the point of the passages, though: the men were RAPISTS!  Claiming that God condemns homosexuality because some are rapists would mean that God would have to condemn heterosexuality, as well, since rape is by no means exclusive to gay men.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> This country would be in a pretty sorry state if women were barred from being teachers.


You've again pulled things out of context to further your agenda.  No where in the Bible does it state that women can't be teachers.  It specifically states that they should not be in leadership/teaching positions over men.  In other words, a woman can't be a pastor, elder etc etc if you hold to this literal translation.  It does not mean that the woman can't teach anybody.  Wow...what would our world be like if mothers could not teach there children anything.




SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Lot _offering _his virgin daughters to be gang-raped shows the perversion of _gay men_?
> 
> The Levite opening the door of the house and _pushing his concubine out of the house_ to be gang-raped and DIE shows the perversion of _gay men_?
> 
> ...



Okay...your english skills need some work.  I agree with you....just because a man is gay, doesn't make him a rapist.  However, you try to point to two specific instances in the Bible and both show the utter low point of society.  I just find it interesting that these two areas of rape associate it with homosexuals wanting to rape other men.  I gather from it that the Bible puts both rape and homosexuality on a similar moral level.



SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Lot was saved from Sodom because he was a righteous man.  Apparently, being righteous includes offering your daughters up for gang rape.
> 
> The Levite forced his concubine into the crowd to be gang raped ("the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them"); she did not volunteer.  The actions of the crowd are condemned but not the actions of the Levite.  Be careful about condemning concubines, BTW, as there are many in the OT who bore children who had the blessing of the Lord.
> 
> Getting back to the point of the passages, though: the men were RAPISTS!  Claiming that God condemns homosexuality because some are rapists would mean that God would have to condemn heterosexuality, as well, since rape is by no means exclusive to gay men.




No...the issue is that you are trying to pull scripture out of context and prove your point.  I wouldn't point to either of these passages (Gen and Judges) as God condemning homosexuality (yes it is there, just not my favorite passage to deal with it).  I'd use this scripture from the NT (I know, Dixie Dawg, just used to my protestant roots)) 

I Cor 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 

nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> This country would be in a pretty sorry state if women were barred from being teachers.



Actually it's talking about women preachers...women teaching men.. women being headship of a church.
There were women teachers in the NT preaching the gospel, but they were under the headship of a man.

Render under caesar what is caesars...(in other words abide by the local, state and federal laws) and render unto God what is God's (which is God's rules and regulations concerning the Bible)

If abortion is legal by the gov (caesar) doesn't mean it's alright with God's law (the Bible). Yet I am prochoice because that's what the law of the land says....however I wouldn't have one, but wouldn't protest against anyone else who did that believes differently than me.

Same with gays, if the law says it's ok for them to marry, then so be it. They don't believe that it is wrong, even though I believe what the Bible says about it. I wouldn't do it, but they can, because they don't believe as I do.

Some things will effect people who do not agree with some rules and regulations, therein lies the problem.

I don't care what anyone does as long as it doesn't effect me. God gave us free will and we all have the right according to God to practice that...right or wrong.

There are certain things that I will continue to do, sins, for the rest of my life, just no control sometimes. But there are things that I don't have a problem with temptation.

Like for example, i'd never rob a bank.
I'd never murder anyone on purpose.
I'd never hurt an animal or a child.
on and on

Since sin is sin is sin, then it's up to whoever commits the sin to repent. However if they don't follow Jesus or don't believe in God then they aren't called to do any more than to abide by the laws of the land.

I do believe that if someone is gay they still have to be saved to get into heaven. Whether they can or cannot abide by teachings of the Bible....guess what? none of us can.
Being gay is not what will send anyone to hades, being unsaved will.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> You've again pulled things out of context to further your agenda.
> 
> No...the issue is that you are trying to pull scripture out of context and prove your point.  I wouldn't point to either of these passages (Gen and Judges) as God condemning homosexuality (yes it is there, just not my favorite passage to deal with it).  I'd use this scripture from the NT (I know, Dixie Dawg, just used to my protestant roots))




Oh, I don't fault you for that, rj...   I'm just sitting over here reading, chuckling at how ironic it is that a Christian is admonishing someone else for pulling verses out of context to further their own agenda.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Especially pulling verses where the translations are suspect.

The sad thing is, my great x 11 and great x 12 grandparents came to this country in 1620 to _escape_ religious persecution and now RJC is telling me I should _leave_ this country due to _his_ religious beliefs.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Oh, I don't fault you for that, rj...   I'm just sitting over here reading, chuckling at how ironic it is that a Christian is admonishing someone else for pulling verses out of context to further their own agenda.




Now...in all seriousness...can you state a verse that I've pulled out of context to further my own agenda?

After all, context is king in my book.

Okay.....after thinking more about that question...I can think of one verse that I've quoted in all of my posts that could be considered out of context.  However, I'd argue the point that it isn't.  I'll give you a hint.  My Catholic friends would have the most to lose over it being in context and it is located on the last page of my Bible...not yours


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Especially pulling verses where the translations are suspect.
> 
> The sad thing is, my great x 11 and great x 12 grandparents came to this country in 1620 to _escape_ religious persecution and now RJC is telling me I should _leave_ this country due to _his_ religious beliefs.



Now where did I say that you should leave this country?  I just said you don't and shouldn't have the right to marry your boyfriend.  

Nope...no problem with you staying in the country.  But while you are here, I will use my right of free speech and say you are living in sin...repent of your sins and believe in Christ Jesus.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Nov 13, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Now...in all seriousness...can you state a verse that I've pulled out of context to further my own agenda?
> 
> After all, context is king in my book.



I didn't mean singling you out... I meant as a Christian in general.  Every single one of the 'messianic' prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled is pulled out of context. Not to mention pretty much every other 'parallel' Christianity uses to prove it's validity.

But I applaud you for wanting to keep things in context, even if you really can't do that and still be a Christian 



> Okay.....after thinking more about that question...I can think of one verse that I've quoted in all of my posts that could be considered out of context.  However, I'd argue the point that it isn't.  I'll give you a hint.  My Catholic friends would have the most to lose over it being in context and it is located on the last page of my Bible...not yours



Well now you have me curious... which verse is it?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Now where did I say that you should leave this country?  I just said you don't and shouldn't have the right to marry your boyfriend.


Page one:


			
				rjcruiser said:
			
		

> I guess you're pretty upset after even the most liberal/queer friendly state in the union voted to ban gay marriage. Hmmmm....*maybe you just need to move to europe or something* where there aren't as many Bible-believen backwoods people.


You are correct that I don't have the right to marry the man I love.  You are dead wrong that I don't deserve that right.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Does it once say that this what Lot offered or what this man in Judges offered is the right thing to do?? The Bible is full of flawwed men....
> 
> DB BB


 


SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Lot was saved from Sodom because he was a righteous man. Apparently, being righteous includes offering your daughters up for gang rape.
> 
> The Levite forced his concubine into the crowd to be gang raped ("the man seized his concubine and brought her out to them"); she did not volunteer. The actions of the crowd are condemned but not the actions of the Levite. Be careful about condemning concubines, BTW, as there are many in the OT who bore children who had the blessing of the Lord.


 
Does it say in the Bible what these guys did was right?

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

SOTMD,

Do you consider yourself a "righteous man"?

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

I would certainly never offer up a child for gang rape.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Or anyone else, for that matter.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> I would certainly never offer up a child for gang rape.


 


SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Or anyone else, for that matter.


 

So you do have flaws?

Still didn't answer the question... Does it say in the Bible what they did was right?

DB BB


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> I would certainly never offer up a child for gang rape.



That's not exactly unusual, I don't think most people would....well nobody that I know of anyway. What else can you not do, that might be more common......LOL
just kidding.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 13, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So you do have flaws?
> 
> Still didn't answer the question... Does it say in the Bible what they did was right?


Everyone has flaws.

God was _very_ quick to punish in the OT.  Seeing as he save Lot from death in Sodom and gave no condemnation of his actions, I'd have no option but accept that as approval.  After all, God struck Onan dead for spilling his seed, sent a pack of bears to rip apart children for teasing someone, etc.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Everyone has flaws.
> 
> God was _very_ quick to punish in the OT. Seeing as he save Lot from death in Sodom and gave no condemnation of his actions, I'd have no option but accept that as approval. After all, God struck Onan dead for spilling his seed, sent a pack of bears to rip apart children for teasing someone, etc.


 

God even killed a man for touching the Ark by accident, can't remember his name right off hand... Do I understand why? not really, but God has a reason for everything.

You sound like you have everything figured out...

DB BB


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 13, 2008)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I didn't mean singling you out... I meant as a Christian in general.  Every single one of the 'messianic' prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled is pulled out of context. Not to mention pretty much every other 'parallel' Christianity uses to prove it's validity.
> 
> But I applaud you for wanting to keep things in context, even if you really can't do that and still be a Christian


Now...that is debatable...but I know that there are other threads going on about this, so no need to rehash it and get everyone's panties in a wad



			
				Dixie Dawg said:
			
		

> Well now you have me curious... which verse is it?



Revelation 22:18-19

18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 

 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. 

Verse 18 doesn't sit real well with the Catholics/Mormons and other religious groups that have books that sit on the same level as the Bible and I'd imagine that verse 19 doesn't sit real well with folks that believe like you do


----------



## farmasis (Nov 13, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Everyone has flaws.
> 
> God was _very_ quick to punish in the OT. Seeing as he save Lot from death in Sodom and gave no condemnation of his actions, I'd have no option but accept that as approval. After all, God struck Onan dead for spilling his seed, sent a pack of bears to rip apart children for teasing someone, etc.


 
God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy on and God will not be mocked. It may not seem fair to us, but as our creator, he reserves that right. I do not believe Lot did what the Lord would have wanted by offering his daughters. The difference in Lot and the men of Soddom was Lot may have erred, but the men of Soddom lived in err. So, if we can take a message out of the story...do not continue to live in sin, especially one God refers to as an abomination and expect anything less than destruction.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 14, 2008)

God also refers to shellfish as an abomination.


----------



## crackerdave (Nov 14, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> God also refers to shellfish as an abomination.



That was Old Testament,and intended for Jews - some of whom still adhere to the "kosher" rules.

S O T M D L - [your screen name is too long! ] I say this respectfully:  I don't think you have much Bible knowledge,and you will never justify a homosexual relationship using the Word of God.


----------



## TTom (Nov 19, 2008)

The use of Lott as a condemnation of homosexuality always gets mis quoted and mis used.

Question if God was destroying the city because the men wanted to rape the angel, Then why was it that the angel was sent to warn Lott of the impending destruction and get him out of the city?

God had according to scripture already passed the destruction sentence on Sodom BEFORE the angel entered the city. After all he had been patient and lowered the bar down from 50 good men to if you can find ten good men in the city I will not destroy it.

So I ask how can the reason for destruction be happening AFTER the decision has already been made?


----------



## hawglips (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> In less than 10 years gay marriages will be accepted in every state....it's just a matter of time.



However, states are amending their constitutions in order to prevent this.


----------



## hawglips (Nov 19, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> God also refers to shellfish as an abomination.



I've had some oysters that were an abomination, but it was almost always because they were overcooked.


----------



## Ruger#3 (Nov 19, 2008)

*Interesting but....*

Interesting thread..

A couple things I pondered during my read. Using a scientific model to try to prove a point concerning homosexuality seems flawed. Scientific models conduct tests until something is irrefutable. This doesn't mean it's certain, it simply means you tested it until you cannot prove otherwise. Many scientific positions have changed as technology allowed more definitive testing. Using science seems counter to the arguement.

Our positions we take on the topic based on religion are from our faith. An unmeasurable thing that many build their life around. The two dont seem to relate very well. 

Concerning our founding fathers...

We are not a true Democracy, this would be a majority or mob rule. That would allow law to change as rapidly as our culture has, this is not the case. Medical manuals deleted  homosexuality as a mental disorder many years back but same sex marraige laws currently stand. If we want to look for intent of our founding father here's a historical perspective.

"Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws…,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans are even aware that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated emasculation as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1903, 1:226-227)."

Trying to use science as a weapon to battle those that favor more liberal laws seems counter as opens the door to uncertainty. The intent of the founding fathers seems clear and follows Christain principles. I think it is a sounder arguement IMHO.


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 19, 2008)

Quick question:

Are all sins equal?


----------



## PWalls (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Quick question:
> 
> Are all sins equal?



You mean we have never discussed that before? You have never asked that before?


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 19, 2008)

PWalls said:


> You mean we have never discussed that before? You have never asked that before?



Play along...


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

Double Barrell: I don't get your avatar saying...

Male Lions have the long hair-

In most species, the male is the more colorful one.

Samson had long hair...


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

Can someone edit the Amen!!!!!?...it makes this thread such a pain to read.


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

Outlawing homosexuality would be like banning drinking.

Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.


I hear gays say "equal rights" for gays when it comes to marrige.

It seems to me they do have equal rights:  They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone else.

I don't give a darn if someone like the same sex.  It's less harm to society than a drug dealer, prositute, corrupt CEO, ect.

There are two different types ofsins: Ones that take away from the blessings God wants you to have (drinking to excess, sloth, envy, self pity,etc)

And the type of sin that harms others intentinally...(murder, lying, drinking and driving, cheating, ect)


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Quick question:
> 
> Are all sins equal?


  OK. I'll bite. 

Equal to what?


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 19, 2008)

gtparts said:


> OK. I'll bite.
> 
> Equal to what?



It's a simple question. 

Either all sins are equal with each other (Except blasphemy of course) OR they are not equal. 

Which is it?


----------



## Banjo (Nov 19, 2008)

> Outlawing homosexuality would be like banning drinking.
> 
> Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.



This kind of comment drives me crazy....Where in the Bible does it say DRINKING is  a sin?

Jesus drank, so did His Disciples.  Wine is said to be a gift, NOT A SIN.

You can't compare homosexuality to drinking....


----------



## Banjo (Nov 19, 2008)

gtparts....

Your new avatar is my FAVORITE one so far.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Outlawing homosexuality would be like banning drinking.
> 
> Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.
> 
> ...



Allow me to simplify, as I was once intimately involved in sin and retain some knowledge of the subject.

 In truth, there is only one "type" of sin. It is always the contemplation of an action contrary to the will of God. It is not necessary to initiate or complete that action. We are specifically told to flee from iniquity. It is to be rejected out of hand because we can know the will of God in all things. Even when we are convinced in our own minds that the choice is between two or more evils, God provides a way of escape. Let's not soft peddle or water down the truth.

Grace and peace to you and yours.


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 19, 2008)

gtparts said:


> ... In truth, there is only one "type" of sin. It is always the contemplation of an action contrary to the will of God...




SO you are saying all sins are equal?


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

Banjo said:


> This kind of comment drives me crazy....Where in the Bible does it say DRINKING is  a sin?
> 
> Jesus drank, so did His Disciples.  Wine is said to be a gift, NOT A SIN.
> 
> You can't compare homosexuality to drinking....



I'm not sure where I said that drinking and homosexuality were equals in the Bible....

I said that if you outlaw them, the results would be similar- they would both still happen.

Another thing:  Why isn't there a law against adultery?

Call me a libertarian (which I'm not really)- but I don't think goverment should mandate morals.


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

Oh, and Banjo...looking at your avatar, and seeing you handle...

I have to wonder...

Boy, anyone ever tell you da you have a purty mouth?

(kidding!!)


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 19, 2008)

gtparts said:


> Allow me to simplify, as I was once intimately involved in sin and retain some knowledge of the subject.
> 
> In truth, there is only one "type" of sin. It is always the contemplation of an action contrary to the will of God. It is not necessary to initiate or complete that action. We are specifically told to flee from iniquity. It is to be rejected out of hand because we can know the will of God in all things. Even when we are convinced in our own minds that the choice is between two or more evils, God provides a way of escape. Let's not soft peddle or water down the truth.
> 
> Grace and peace to you and yours.



Agreed on the sin part, as it pertains to God-

However, if we are in the context of writing laws for the country, I do believe there is a difference.

That being said- if there EVER was a time that you HAD to choose one of the two senerios outlined in my other post
I would pick the one that would only hurt me. 

(not that that would ever happen).

It can be, however, dangerous to classify sins as "ok to realy bad"...

Because some folks may fall down the slippery slope of:
"this one is not that bad"...and fall farther from God with 
every decision like that....


----------



## Banjo (Nov 19, 2008)

> Another thing: Why isn't there a law against adultery?
> 
> Call me a libertarian (which I'm not really)- but I don't think goverment should mandate morals.



There used to be laws against adultery and sodomy.  God's Law was used as the standard.

All LAWS legislate morality in some way or another.  When wicked men are in power, we get wicked laws.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 19, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Outlawing homosexuality would be like banning drinking.
> 
> Both sins, but the law would not change the way people feel about it.
> 
> ...




Okay...this upsets me as well.  I highlighted the portion in red since the first time Banjo brought it up, you missed it.

You mention that both Homosexuality and Drinking are sins.  I agree with you on homosexuality, but where in the Bible does it say you can't drink alcohol and that it is a sin?


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> SO you are saying all sins are equal?



Okay..Dawg...I'll give you the answer you are wanting to hear.


Yes...in God's eyes...all sins are equal.

What I mean by this is that if you break the law in the least amount, you are guilty of breaking the whole law and your penalty is eternal separation from God...unless that is, you repent and believe that JC paid the penalty for your sins.....and for those that are Catholic....get baptised and do a few other things


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 19, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay..Dawg...I'll give you the answer you are wanting to hear.
> 
> 
> Yes...in God's eyes...all sins are equal.
> ...



...so being homosexual, a murderer, adulterer, or someone who steals 1 piece of gum from a gas station are all guilty of equal sins?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 19, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Double Barrell: I don't get your avatar saying...
> 
> Male Lions have the long hair-
> 
> ...


 
Simple, it says for a man to have long hair it is a shame... and comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples and oranges....



FishingAddict said:


> Can someone edit the Amen!!!!!?...it makes this thread such a pain to read.


 
 

I found someone else it bothers.... Big7 you are not alone!

DB BB


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Agreed on the sin part, as it pertains to God-
> 
> However, if we are in the context of writing laws for the country, I do believe there is a difference.
> 
> ...



Once you move to the court of secular law, the issue becomes "crime", not "sin". Need to make up your mind cause it all plays out differently in different arenas. If you mix apples and oranges the best you can hope for is fruit salad or the start of a good smoothie.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> SO you are saying all sins are equal?



Dawg2, did I stutter? I'll go a step further. gtparts sez, "God sees all sin as disobedience."

How's that for plain English?

Peace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> ...so being homosexual, a murderer, adulterer, or someone who steals 1 piece of gum from a gas station are all guilty of equal sins?



Nope...not guilty of equal sins.....but their punishment is all the same in God's eyes.

But I'll go along....we've hashed this in other threads...but again...I like to continue.

They have all sinned.  They are all guilty of the law in God's eyes.  So in other words...unless they repent and believe, they will all be spending eternity apart from God.

So...if the punishment is the same for all of them, does that make them on an equal sin status?  I don't know....you tell me


----------



## Huntinfool (Nov 19, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> ...so being homosexual, a murderer, adulterer, or someone who steals 1 piece of gum from a gas station are all guilty of equal sins?



There is no comparison of sin (other than the unforgivable versions).  

They are not guilty of equal sins.  But they are equally guilty of being sinners.  

Let me ask you this.  If I'm an adulterer and am forgiven, am I less saved than someone who steals one piece of gum?

Equally guilty sinners....guilty of different sins.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 19, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Agreed on the sin part, as it pertains to God-
> 
> However, if we are in the context of writing laws for the country, I do believe there is a difference.
> 
> ...



Ya'know, people who do that kind of "sin severity ranking" are usually involved in self-promotion at the expense of others. Such is so far removed from the life and teachings of Jesus that it's hard to figure out why we con ourselves and try to con God with such nonsense. JMHO


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 20, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Simple, it says for a man to have long hair it is a shame... and comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples and oranges....



So why does it site nature in the verse- I figured animals are the only other creature with hair.  

Why are Jesus and the disciples depicted to have long hair?  Why did Samson get his power from long hair?  

Just curious...I have very short hair, but it just seems like a random thing to have as an avatar.


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 20, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...this upsets me as well.  I highlighted the portion in red since the first time Banjo brought it up, you missed it.
> 
> You mention that both Homosexuality and Drinking are sins.  I agree with you on homosexuality, but where in the Bible does it say you can't drink alcohol and that it is a sin?



Sorry, I meant drinking in excess.


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 20, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> Nope...not guilty of equal sins.....but their punishment is all the same in God's eyes.
> 
> But I'll go along....we've hashed this in other threads...but again...I like to continue.
> 
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 20, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Sorry, I meant drinking in excess.



Ahh...gotcha....and I'd agree 100% with you on that one.


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 20, 2008)

dawg2 said:


>



I like that error message

But why the 

Roms 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life.

Doesn't say anything about the wages of venial or mortal sins having different penalties.


----------



## gtparts (Nov 20, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I like that error message
> 
> But why the
> 
> ...



Hey..... fellas! Long as your splittin' hares, I'll take two, quartered please!

Hasenpfeffer!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 20, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> So why does it site nature in the verse- I figured animals are the only other creature with hair.


 
I am not sure why nature is cited in the verse, but what I do know is that their needs to be a definate difference in the way women and men appear, just like there is a definate difference in nature.



FishingAddict said:


> Why are Jesus and the disciples depicted to have long hair? Why did Samson get his power from long hair?


 
Artistic interpertation? The majority of the images of Jesus also make him look more like a european white male... I highly doubt that Jesus looks anything like what the artist of the 1200-1600's depicted him as...

Samson, got his strength from God, nothing else... How long was Samson's hair? I have never seen an instance in the Bible that actually tells you how long it was... it could have been relatively short as compared to some people today... I believe, and I could be wrong, but a nazarite was only not to shave their head...



FishingAddict said:


> Just curious...I have very short hair, but it just seems like a random thing to have as an avatar.


 
There was a discussion on here from awhile ago about long hair on men... I put it in there, because of a personal conviction, I have extremely short hair, and I believe that a man should not have long hair... Just my belief...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Nov 20, 2008)

rjcruiser said:


> I like that error message
> 
> But why the
> 
> ...



Absolutely there are different penalties and different sins.  It says so in the Bible

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God?     Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God." [1 Cor. 6:9-10]


----------



## rjcruiser (Nov 20, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Absolutely there are different penalties and different sins.  It says so in the Bible
> 
> "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God?     Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God." [1 Cor. 6:9-10]



I'm not sure if you are serious or not.  You're adding  to it, and you are confusing my easily confused mind

But, I'll take you seriously and give you an interpretation of I Cor 6:9-10.  Notice that it says "Wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God."  That means anyone who does wrong.  So, stealing a piece of gum...wrong.  Cheating on your homework...wrong.  Taking the Lord's name in vain....wrong.  Acting out of frustration and anger...wrong.

All are punishable by eternity apart from God.  

And I guess if you want to go a bit further...it mentions robbers.  So, the kid who steals a piece of gum is a robber and is likened to a male prostitute.


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 22, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I am not sure why nature is cited in the verse, but what I do know is that their needs to be a definate difference in the way women and men appear, just like there is a definate difference in nature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm assuming that since Sampson NEVER cut his hair...it was not even close to short. 

Most men of that era had long hair and beards...the shroud of turin:


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 24, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> I hear gays say "equal rights" for gays when it comes to marrige.
> 
> It seems to me they do have equal rights:  They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, like everyone else.


Works out great for the 90+% of the population who are interested in marrying only someone of the opposite gender, doesn't it?

The point is, the _vast majority_ of the population has the legal right to marry the consenting adult of his or her choice who also chooses to be married to that person.

The rest of us are _denied_ that right simply because the other person has the same genital configuration as we.

It makes as much sense as outlawing the use of the left hand.  After all, right-handed people would have the same right to use only their right hands as left-handed people would.  _Who cares_ if people are left-handed due to biological reasons and find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use their right?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> their needs to be a definate difference in the way women and men appear, just like there is a definate difference in nature.


What about intersexed people (people born with both male and female organs)?

How are they to dress?

What length should they keep their hair?

Shouldn't they be denied the right to marry since no matter what they'd be marrying someone of at least partly the same gender?

Since God is so hot to trot on setting out OLD TESTAMENT rules for gender conformity, why was this not addressed?  Or should intersexed babies simply be put to death to avoid problems?

Gotta love how you and others pick and choose which OT laws are to be _strictly followed_ and which are fine to _disregard_.


----------



## mtnwoman (Nov 24, 2008)

I have no problem really with homosexuals doing as they please. Just like I have no problem with abortions.
For me I wouldn't do either, but since everyone doesn't believe as I do then I'm prochoice for either.

I do know that abortion has progressed thru the years all the way up to partial birth abortion.
Next thing you know the pedofiles will be picketing their right of sexual preference. If they like little boys or girls..then perhaps they were born that way and can't help it...do they deserve equal rights for their sexual preference?  OMGosh...the Bible is coming to pass right before my very eyes.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 24, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> I'm assuming that since Sampson NEVER cut his hair...it was not even close to short.
> 
> Most men of that era had long hair and beards...the shroud of turin:


 
The shroud has never been proven to be the true shroud.... The shroud is probably one of the biggest hoax's ever pulled...

Almost every picture that has ever been painted of Jesus, has him as a White European man, do you think he really looked like this? Or do you think he looked like a Jew? There are distinct facial, pigmentation and bodily characteristic differences between Europeans and Middle Eastern People...

Do you know what length Samsons hair was? It doesn't say in the Bible, but it does say that for a man to have long hair it is a shame... I think I would err on the side that says it plain as day....

Plus being a nazerite, meant more than just not cutting your hair.... this meant no wine or strong drink, no vinegar, no drinks made from grapes, no eating grapes(fresh or dried), can't eat anything that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins... can't go near a dead body, even of that of his own family if they were to die...

The nazarite vow ranged from, 30-100 days, they saved their heads and burnt them as an offering to the Lord... there were exceptions, and Samson was one, that was supposed to be a life-long Nazarite... We know though he violated several of those... and his true power did not come from his hair... God gave him his power, regardless of the length of his hair...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 24, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> What about intersexed people (people born with both male and female organs)?
> 
> How are they to dress?
> 
> ...


 
It is not only old testament law... you should really look it up... Paul wrote it in the new testament... I am think you didn't even read my post... just look at my avatar image...

Chances are there was not alot of people born with dual organs... and to tell you the truth, I am not sure what was done to them back then...

Is there ever a time that the dual organ actually both work? I have never heard of a case... I would think that if one of the organs doesn't work then the child is truely the opposite of the one that doesn't work...

Medical science can do extensive tests, even chromosome tests to determine the proper sex for the child...

I find it saddening that you spout off Biblical passages in a effort to make yourself sound so educated on the Bible, when you have clearly, to me anyway, missed the main point of the Bible..

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Nov 24, 2008)

No problem, so have you.


----------



## farmasis (Nov 24, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Gotta love how you and others pick and choose which OT laws are to be _strictly followed_ and which are fine to _disregard_.


 
All OT laws that I am to follow were picked by God and reinforced in the NT.

I am not picking any of them.


----------



## fishndinty (Nov 24, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> It is not only old testament law... you should really look it up... Paul wrote it in the new testament... I am think you didn't even read my post... just look at my avatar image...
> 
> Chances are there was not alot of people born with dual organs... and to tell you the truth, I am not sure what was done to them back then...
> 
> ...



DB,
I think this is really relevant, though....because a hermaphrodite is, unequivocally, biologically gender neutral.  How do we as Christians respond to such a person?  Do you give that person a free pass to pick the partner of his/her choice?  Better question, does it matter at all what we think?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> I think this is really relevant, though....because a hermaphrodite is, unequivocally, biologically gender neutral.  How do we as Christians respond to such a person?  Do you give that person a free pass to pick the partner of his/her choice?  Better question, does it matter at all what we think?



I think it matters to people who need differing beliefs to be false in order for their be to be true.

Would anyone here consider a Hermaphrodite to be an abomination?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 26, 2008)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> No problem, so have you.


 

Just because I don't approve of your lifestyle, doesn't mean I hate you... That is where you have it wrong...

If I hated you, I wouldn't spend the time to try and show you were you are wrong... But you have missed that too...

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Nov 26, 2008)

fishndinty said:


> DB,
> I think this is really relevant, though....because a hermaphrodite is, unequivocally, biologically gender neutral. How do we as Christians respond to such a person? Do you give that person a free pass to pick the partner of his/her choice? Better question, does it matter at all what we think?


 

How can one be gender neutral, just because of a birth defect... that they can medically test for and determine down to the chromosome, which they are supposed to be?

It matters what God thinks, and it matters to me because it is in God's Book, The Bible.

DB BB


----------



## FishingAddict (Nov 29, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> The shroud has never been proven to be the true shroud.... The shroud is probably one of the biggest hoax's ever pulled...
> 
> Almost every picture that has ever been painted of Jesus, has him as a White European man, do you think he really looked like this? Or do you think he looked like a Jew? There are distinct facial, pigmentation and bodily characteristic differences between Europeans and Middle Eastern People...
> 
> ...



The shroud looks alot more like a middle eastern man, or even indian man to me.

And you bring up a great point.  Samson did get his power from God.  And he had long hair- cause he never ever cut it til he was fooled.

God gave a man great power because he obeyed God not to cut it...until he disobeyed God.  He lost his power when he cut his hair.  Somehow I'm missing the whole part about long hair being bad.

There is much more evidence that they it's ok to have long hair than it's not ok to have long hair.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 1, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> The shroud looks alot more like a middle eastern man, or even indian man to me.
> 
> And you bring up a great point. Samson did get his power from God. And he had long hair- cause he never ever cut it til he was fooled.
> 
> ...


 
So I guess, 1 Corinthians 11:14 should be completely ignored....

DB BB


----------



## FishingAddict (Dec 8, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So I guess, 1 Corinthians 11:14 should be completely ignored....
> 
> DB BB



Does your wife/mom wear a veil?

The passage is basically saying men and woman should present themselves in different ways, like animals in the wild do, IMO.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 8, 2008)

FishingAddict said:


> Does your wife/mom wear a veil?
> 
> The passage is basically saying men and woman should present themselves in different ways, like animals in the wild do, IMO.


 
My mom is dead.

Nope, but she doesn't wear jeans, she has long hair, and conducts herself in a manner that is a Lady. When we are worshipping she does have a head covering... looks kinda like a fancy lace placemat...

DB BB


----------



## PWalls (Dec 8, 2008)

Double Barrel BB said:


> looks kinda like a fancy lace placemat...
> 
> DB BB



But, I bet she has a better name for it than that and would be disappointed that you didn't remember it for us.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 8, 2008)

PWalls said:


> But, I bet she has a better name for it than that and would be disappointed that you didn't remember it for us.


 

Yep, she would...

I think she calls it just a lace hat..

DB BB


----------

