wait, so what you're trying to say is you believe in a big bearded man in the sky but you want to preempt scientific evidence because agrhabargle i guess it makes sense (FYI, hormones are as much of a determinant as chromosomes and DNA in sex differences. This is why we have CAIS---complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, where XY individuals grow female-typical sex organs and behave as if they are females. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome). Please research how sex differences are determined genetically and through hormones before you make absurd statements that betray a lack of understanding of basic human biology. thanks.
How many times have I told you that changing the topic and hating on Christianity is not compelling? I guess you're just frustrated that science has not proven that homosexuality is genetic.
Quiz Time: Which important document is the following excerpt found? Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Answer: Spoiler Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
It doesn't have to, hormonal differences in heterosexuals vs homosexuals would be just as compelling, if you understood biology. The scientific consensus is on the side of there being an innate factor in homosexuality (well duh), and definitive proof of genetic factors will be forthcoming if needed for that specific aspect you've narrowed yourself into. But I'm glad the legal and political consensus will override that discussion anyways. Have a wonderful day, Texxx, as your America of "old-time" values crumbles one Clinton, Kagan, Kennedy, Portman, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer a day
And besides which, even if homosexuality were a "choice", what's so bad about it that it's punishable? Should we annul every marriage where condoms are used? Or if the couple is infertile? Or if the couple engages in weird kinky sex that will not produce babies?
That's your rebuttal? Really? Do you read every other word or something? Do you understand the phrase, "more likely"? Which way does your hair whorl? Any older siblings? I'm afraid you might have caught the gay.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IoZoRbP-0WM?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IoZoRbP-0WM?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTLAof9oXCI?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WTLAof9oXCI?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> <object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RGnZgC47SLA?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RGnZgC47SLA?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
I don't know if this has been posted yet... But I highly recommend this very articulate opinion piece. It's probably the closest thing to what I truly believe on this issue. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/ It's by a gay man, and the main premise is that a relationship between a man & a woman IS sacred, while so too is the ability of any two people who love each other to have a civil union. In my opinion: nothing short of a fantastic perspective. Bash away. As usual it's not my place to change your opinion, just to share mine.
No matter where one turns in the culture today, the issue of homosexuality and "gender identity" is being hotly debated. The "homosexual rights" ideology continues to seek legitimization – not just tolerance – of homosexual behavior, resulting in changing societal mores and values that deeply impact Americans in their day-to-day relationships with family members, neighbors and co-workers. Revisionist gay theology takes the movement for the legitimization of homosexuality a step further by attempting to redefine homosexual behavior as God-ordained and morally permissible. Leaders of the "gay-Christian" movement defend this position arguing that: Christians' prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality. Christian leaders speak out against homosexuality merely to raise funds and increase their visibility. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have actually been mistranslated. Scriptures that supposedly condemn homosexual behavior have been taken out of context and do not apply to our present society.
My response: Scripture begins and ends with the picture of marriage as an institution ordained by God – designed for the union of a man and a woman in a life-long, faithful, covenantal relationship. This view is affirmed by Moses, Christ and Paul, and has been upheld through thousands of years of Judeo Christian history and tradition. Pro-gay revisionists usually do not even attempt to address God's created intent for human sexuality, but instead twist Scripture and argue against those texts which condemn same-sex behavior. It remains highly unlikely that Bible translators mistranslated five references to sexual ethics in two different testaments of Scripture. Even more unlikely is the possibility that they only mistranslated Scriptures regarding homosexual behavior. Scriptures against homosexual behavior – including Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10 – are so clear and specific that they defy reinterpretation. It is intellectually dishonest to say that conservative individuals and leaders "interpret" such clear verses as "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" out of prejudice against homosexuals and use them for selfish gain. Homosexuality in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is mentioned in the wider context of sexual, immoral and prohibited behaviors, casting doubt on the argument that Scriptures condemning homosexuality have been taken out of context. References condemning homosexual behavior were addressed to highly different Ancient Near East cultures (from Hebrew to Greco-Roman) – nullifying the argument that scriptural passages against homosexuality are culturally bound and inapplicable to today's society. The argument that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality in the gospels is misleading and illogical for at least five reasons: The gospels are not more authoritative than those books of the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior. All authors of Scripture were inspired by God's Holy Spirit. The gospels are not comprehensive. Some of the Bible's most important teachings – the explanation of spiritual gifts, the Priesthood of Christ, the doctrine of man's old and new nature – appear in other books of the Bible. The gospels do not claim to be a complete account of Jesus' life or teachings. Sections of Jesus' life are not discussed in the gospels and we cannot be certain that Jesus never spoke about homosexual behavior. Scripture teaches that Jesus kept all the Law and affirmed all that the Law and the Prophets taught (Matt. 5:17-19). Undoubtedly, this would have included the affirmation of committed, monogamous male-female marriage and an unwavering condemnation of homosexual behavior. Given that all first century orthodox Jews would have held to this standard, the question of affirming homosexuality would not have been open to discussion in Jesus' day. Jesus clearly referred to heterosexuality as a standard. He specifically described God's created intent for human sexuality: "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matt. 19: 1-8; Mk. 10:6-9). The argument that "I'm a born-again believer and I'm gay, therefore homosexuality must be okay" is illogical because it assumes if one is a Christian and if one is loved by God, then what one does must be right in God's sight. Salvation does not legitimize sin. Being a Christian is not an indication, in and of itself, that one's life is pleasing to God. Conversely, Christians do not automatically become non-Christians just because they are sinning. The argument that if God's presence and gifts of love are manifest in a gay-affirming church and in homosexual relationships, it is evidence that God accepts and blesses homosexual behavior is misleading in that it assumes love sanctifies a relationship. Love is not the final standard for right and wrong. Love can, according to Jesus, interfere with God's plan for an individual. He warns His followers that love for anyone, no matter how legitimate the relationship, becomes sin when it surpasses our love for Him. Love is not enough to justify a relationship. A married man can fall deeply in love with a woman other than his wife; that will never sanctify adultery. Likewise, love between two men or women cannot justify a homosexual relationship.
2 passages from the Old Testament, 3 from the New Testament The Old Testament is also known as the Mosaic Law. I would respond to your question directly, but I have very little expertise. The link below will answer your question: http://www.thevillagechurch.net/mediafiles/article-christian-responsibility-and-mosaic-law.pdf
Comical reasons, indeed. The rest of your reply is a public display of arrogance and ignorance, I'm afraid. Fortunately for you, I doubt anyone else here is educated enough to acknowledge that objectively-demonstrable fact. So, since I'm honestly overwhelmed by the sheer amount I'd probably have to type in order to educate you beyond the predictable rationalizations in which you'd doubtless engage, I suppose you're in the clear. You're still a Rockets fan, however, and, dammit, we'll always be united in that. Or something. I dunno. Look, I'm not gonna lie to you -- I've been drinking.
