Exodus International shuts right the hell down.

[Ryantology]

"God's standards" are a dividing line that seperates man and God. Man has been told do not do X, not because there is some magical force that says X is always bad, and that God to is bound by this force. What makes X bad is because God said X is bad for us to do.

Right. A single being's whims determine what is good and what isn't. That's called totalitarianism.

The debate end rather quickly when you have a solid understanding of the very basics (have actually read the bible and understand the core of it.) Most biblical debates go one because neither party really have a basic understanding of it.

What is the one, true and correct interpretation of the Bible?

All debate begins and ends on one precept. Are we using the bible in it's entirety and are we using passage in it originally intended context? If the answer is yes then 90% of the debates will end on exposing context, along with the basic common sense understanding that we are not Old testament Jews.

Who decides what is the proper context?

The OT is still being used by God to help us see the unforgiving nature in our own hearts as Christians. When we couple this unforgiving nature with the whole "Treat others as you like to be treated and couple that with the parable of the unmerciful servant." We have all that we need to understand in this life why God does not see us as one of His own.

It's obvious why, because he has decided, for no good reason, that we aren't.

"Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." Without the ablity to forgive we inturn loose our own forgiveness. This and loving God with all of our being is the key to biblical Christianity. Not what church tradition holds onto.

Most humans are vastly more forgiving than God, else we would be killing each other all the time for whatever slight we decided was worthy of death.

Not of God. Of the Family. Of a man's personal honor and commitment to serve, honor and love all of those under his charge. Homosexuality disrupts all of this and says it is ok to persue what ever you want.

It is Christianity which fights against allowing homosexuals to raise families, and Christianity which interprets homosexuality as a blight upon honor. It is Christians who are entirely responsible for this being a problem. Why? Because the Bible tells them it's okay to hate. Just make sure you call it something else.

is living life as hetrosexuals the end goal? What if the hetrosexual couple you up hold chooses to goto hell? Does that not matter? is this perceive normalacy all that is desired?

Living life unmolested by judgmental bigotry is the end goal.

Ah, no. If the roles were reversed then the problem would resolve itself with in a few generations (or lack of them) For even your god of science and evolution says homosexuality is a sin against nature, one that's reward is an empty womb.

Which is an entirely meaningless thing to suggest as heterosexuals won't be disappearing off the face of the earth anytime soon.

Evolution and science have no god and homosexuality is no crime against a non-god. Because it is Christians who believe that sex exists only for procreation, not us. Turn off the projector.

If dad comes home and says: "you know what I think I'll be gay from here on out, sorry 'bout your current life kido but me and Chad here, we are off to do whatever it is we want to do without you and your mother... Then he deserves to be ostracized, just like if he runs off with the cleaning lady.

Yes, he does deserve to be ostracized if he runs off. And you demonstrate, yourself, that this is not a problem exclusive to gay people.

The only reason for the emphasis on Homosexuality, is because Homos get a pass while hetros still get condemned for doing the same thing.

Only in your own tiny mind does this ever happen. In the real world, straight people aren't the ones kicked out of families, or even physically harmed by them, for being straight.

[Foxaèr]

evolution says homosexuality is a sin against nature, one that's reward is an empty womb.

The number of homosexuals in society has remained consistently the same since the time of the Greeks when they embraced homosexuality with nary a qualm. That the world will one day be overrun by homosexuals who never reproduce is an absurd assertion.

---

Do you not see you own foolish Hyprocrisy here?

Not at all. One can be gay and never mention a word of it. History of homosexuality has certainly shown this, especially in the past when it was safer in the closet. Jesus never mentions anything regarding homosexuality in the bible, which is a fact. The fact that some people find scripture corroborating that Jesus may have been gay is an entirely different matter than him mentioning anything in regards to homosexuality.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

evolution says homosexuality is a sin against nature, one that's reward is an empty womb.

The number of homosexuals in society has remained consistently the same since the time of the Greeks when they embraced homosexuality with nary a qualm. That the world will one day be overrun by homosexuals who never reproduce is an absurd assertion.

Overpopulation is also a very huge problem for mankind, many scientists think we have overshot the earth's carrying capacity, the world being overrun by gay people may work very much in our favour.

And if the church/jesus's/god/i'mnotsurewho's problem is with the lack of babies, then you need to persecute all those who choose to adopt instead of reproducing, or those who choose not to reproduce, and then make all the nuns go get married and have babies, same thing for the priests and the pope. I mean, imagine if the world is overrun by nuns and priests. The human race will die within, what, 4-5 generations?

[Drich]

No. Homosexuality is explained by evolution.

Ah, no. Evolution primary mantra is survival of the fittest. One can not be deemed 'fittest' if one does not procreate. Basic birds and bees doctrine there.

Science has yet to adopt a god, let alone one of science and evolution (what an oxymoron, btw).

What I am saying is that science and evolution has become your god.
(as oxymoronic as that may sound) You have place the rules and authority of science in the spot where God is supposed to go in your life.

Science also doesn't use words like "sin". Do your reading before trying to use the respectability and integrity of science for your arguments.

The word 'Sin' is being used as a colloquialism to illustrate a principal that goes against the established laws/theories of your god science/sub category evolution.

---

Overpopulation is also a very huge problem for mankind, many scientists think we have overshot the earth's carrying capacity, the world being overrun by gay people may work very much in our favour.

And if the church/jesus's/god/i'mnotsurewho's problem is with the lack of babies, then you need to persecute all those who choose to adopt instead of reproducing, or those who choose not to reproduce, and then make all the nuns go get married and have babies, same thing for the priests and the pope. I mean, imagine if the world is overrun by nuns and priests. The human race will die within, what, 4-5 generations?

Why not start spreading disease? History has shown that world wide pandemics are much more effective in culling away unwanted populace than waiting for a species to to die off from lack of procreation.(BTW can you name any such species? No?? Wonder why? Maybe because a whole species can not "sin" again science and nature like that and expect to survive.) The only thing better than that is world war, plus on the upside the surivors/victors will have to look forward to a boom in the ecomony to look forward to. (If History is any indicator.)

[pineapplebunnybounce]

No. Homosexuality is explained by evolution.

Ah, no. Evolution primary mantra is survival of the fittest. One can not be deemed 'fittest' if one does not procreate. Basic birds and bees doctrine there.

You asked for the following block of text.

Homosexuality is explained the same way alturism is explained. A member of a family unable to reproduce is one more adult to look after the young. His/her genes is passed on through the young. Although at a lower frequency than if they actually have children themselves. The young's rate of survival goes up significantly if there is one more adult around who is not looking after their own children. In a scenario where you would usually have, say 2 adults looking after their 5 children, you now have 3 adults looking after 5. It has been shown that in nature, that the lack of an alturistic individual, one who sacrifices his/her own survival for her close kin significantly decreases the entire group's survival. In this case the homosexual individual sacrifices themselves by not reproducing, thus significantly increasing the group's survival.

The thing about evolution is, even if you don't know about it, it happened and it's still happening. Which means homosexuals contributed to your survival, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Why not start spreading disease? History has shown that world wide pandemics are much more effective in culling away unwanted populace than waiting for a species to to die off from lack of procreation.(BTW can you name any such species? No?? Wonder why? Maybe because a whole species can not "sin" again science and nature like that and expect to survive.) The only thing better than that is world war, plus on the upside the surivors/victors will have to look forward to a boom in the ecomony to look forward to. (If History is any indicator.)

Are you kidding about no species having died from lack of procreation? Ecology 101, when death exceeds birth, extinction happens. Plenty of extinction has happened, plenty is going on right now. Have you read revelation? Your god is in favour of pestilence and wars to kill us off. I care more about human suffering than your god does, and i'm not in favour of human suffering. I think mankind has been through a lot, and if we pull together we can face this crisis with our morals intact.

[Drich]

The number of homosexuals in society has remained consistently the same since the time of the Greeks when they embraced homosexuality with nary a qualm. That the world will one day be overrun by homosexuals who never reproduce is an absurd assertion.

Are you stonned Spicolie? THAT WAS YOUR ASSERTION!!! You Said: What if The Roles were reversed? I said then the problem would solve itself!!!

Not at all. One can be gay and never mention a word of it. History of homosexuality has certainly shown this, especially in the past when it was safer in the closet. Jesus never mentions anything regarding homosexuality in the bible, which is a fact. The fact that some people find scripture corroborating that Jesus may have been gay is an entirely different matter than him mentioning anything in regards to homosexuality.

I only saying this because I believe you're just slow and not stonned.

I called you a hypocrite because you said I said something the bible did not say. Then in your very next sentence you did the very thing, you accused me of doing genius.

Despite whether I am right or wrong YOUR A Hypocrite for doing the very wrong you said I did.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Maybe because a whole species can not "sin" again science and nature like that and expect to survive.

So it's not okay for homosexuals if they don't reproduce (btw, not sure if you caught up but invitro fertilization is now an option), because they're "sinning" against nature. But it's ok for priests and nuns? Or do you think they should reproduce as well? Or is there a quota of humans that can choose not to reproduce and homosexuals have to be heterosexual because priests and nuns should have priority for this quota?

[Drich]

Maybe because a whole species can not "sin" again science and nature like that and expect to survive.

So it's not okay for homosexuals if they don't reproduce (btw, not sure if you caught up but invitro fertilization is now an option), because they're "sinning" against nature. But it's ok for priests and nuns? Or do you think they should reproduce as well? Or is there a quota of humans that can choose not to reproduce and homosexuals have to be heterosexual because priests and nuns should have priority for this quota?

Read the section you quoted again princess, and then this time try and stay with in the lines.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I think we've both misunderstood each other. You mean to say there's no surviving species that is completely not procreating? Yes there is none I didn't claim that there is, it was a hypothetical first posed by you and then by me for different reasons.

But, homosexuality exists in most species. Because homosexuality increases a population's fitness. It's not "against" nature, it is valuable for our survival. So don't misrepresent the evidence to support your argument.

[Foxaèr]

History has shown that world wide pandemics are much more effective in culling away unwanted populace than waiting for a species to to die off from lack of procreation. Maybe because a whole species can not "sin" again science and nature like that and expect to survive.

You seem to lack the understanding that the human species is perfectly capable of reproducing without human to human contact/procreation.

Men donate sperm and the woman can use in vetro fertilization to become pregnant. In this way, a lesbian couple can have a family. Simply duplicate the process, but this time have the end result be that the woman is a surrogate for a gay male couple.

Thus, the survival of the species continues.