"Homosexuality is a choice" and its paradox

[NoraBrimstone]

And why they come up with the most graphic homoerotic fantasies ever to grace the web.

[Bad Writer]

That's right! And, remember, Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual.

[Godscreated]

You need to support your numbers, I have doubts they are correct. Just because there are practicing gays who claim to be Christians doesn't mean they are Christians, I know people who claim to be Christians and I believe they are as lost as last years Easter egg.
I've read Leviticus a number of times, some of the laws were meant only for the nation of Israel and some for all mankind, so one needs to study this book carefully to know the laws. That particular verse was meant for the nation of Israel and you have no idea what it is implying and I know this because you can only see what is written in the passage and not how it was applied to their lives, it was very relevant to them and there journey with God. In spirit that law has been carried into Christianity by Jesus.
Let's get this clear, I see the practice of homosexuality unnatural, even before I became a Christian, I'm not bigoted that would include hate and I do not hate homosexuals period.

Firstly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Secondly, isn't is spooky how the rules you decide were "meant for the nation of Israel" are the ones you disagree with, and the ones you decide were "for all mankind" are the ones you do?

Thirdly, "I see the paractice of homosexuality unnatural" is not any kind of argument. If "unnatural" things were actually an issue for you, you certainly wouldn't be on the fucking internet.

You can take the No True Scotsman and bury it in ......

I did not say I disagreed with any of the laws, some were perfect for their time and the Israelites, others have ageless application. Like I said you should study Leviticus and the New testament to find out which laws were meant for the ages and those that pertain to the Israelites. So you see, I did not decide which ones apply to the Israelites and the ones that are ageless, the scriptures do, actually I bet you want.

Really what is unnatural about communicating, learning, shopping and ect.

---

I do not hate homosexuals period.

Yet you would seek to deny them equal treatment under the law of this country.

What shall we call that?

You can call it whatever pleases your own little self, I do not care what you believe about me, and for what I seek is nothing more than to vote my conviction, if that vote ever arises in this state.

GC

[Bad Writer]

You mean we should practice cherry picking too?

[Esquilax]

I did not say I disagreed with any of the laws, some were perfect for their time and the Israelites, others have ageless application. Like I said you should study Leviticus and the New testament to find out which laws were meant for the ages and those that pertain to the Israelites. So you see, I did not decide which ones apply to the Israelites and the ones that are ageless, the scriptures do, actually I bet you want.

So by what metric do you decide which laws apply now and which don't? Oh, and by the way, even if we were to accept that this law applies, while others do not, you're still being selective and self serving with it, because I don't think Leviticus says a single thing about allowing gays to marry or not. It does say that you should kill them. Do you kill gays, GC?

If the answer is no, how can you possibly justify claiming this law should be followed? You aren't following it either, just the facsimile that's convenient for you!

Incidentally, he's an interesting counter view. Can you justify your position the same way, GC?

[Captain Colostomy]

You mean we should practice cherry picking too?

So it appears.

[Godscreated]

---

No I'm not. In my state gay marriage is not allowed and we're not alone in this matter most states do not allow gay marriage. In those states that do allow gay marriage it has come by vote and that vote was pushed by the gay community.

---

So, your response to an accusation of ignorance is to display even more ignorance? The changes in laws to allow for gay marriages have come primarily through litigation, then legislation and then popular vote. The LGBT community doesn't need to initiate a popular vote movement because challenging the law via litigation is a much better option - which is why it rarely does so. Its the Christian community that tries to change the laws by appealing to public opinion.

Everything you just described is by vote and yes they do appeal to the populace, if they did not they would never get it legalized, the Christian community is voting it's belief a right established over 200 years ago.
You can bet the Christian community did not push this agenda, so who's left, homosexuals.

---

If you want to stand for gay marriage that's okay with me and it's my right to stand against it and in all this discussion that's all I've been trying to say.

---

The right to stand for or against it shouldn't be available to anyone - that's what I've been trying to say. We don't argue over whether we stand for or against heterosexual marriage or someone's right to work. The question of whether or not to allow it shouldn't come up at all - it should be allowed, period.

Are you crazy people have the right to stand for whatever they want. You in this statement are disallowing homosexuals the right to pursue marriage. The last part of your statement is completely opinion, which is fine, but you will find many who do not agree with you.

---

I would be against gay marriage if I wasn't a Christian, so my Christianity does not change how I see this issue, it is in my opinion unnatural and I do know non Christians who feel this way.

---

Yes, I get that people can be bigots without religion. I get that you are a bigot and that you are not a bigot simply due to your religion, but your religion simply provides a handy excuse for your bigotry.

Bigotry contains and as I've stated in these discussions I do not hate gays, so you can come off your attitude for what I see as unnatural.

These people would vote against gay marriage without religious conviction, so would you also deny these people their right to express their views through the vote.

Where the issue in question is civil liberties - yes, I would.

So you're a socialist, one who would dictate to people what is right and wrong regardless of how the people feel, this is America and we decide by the vote.

GC

---

I've already explained to GC the evolutionary benefits of homosexuals somewhere else on this forum, in fact I think I explained it 2 more times to other people on other threads. He did not reply or refute. Anyway, that unnatural argument needs to stop, it's almost on par with the ignorance that is creationism and is blatantly dishonest when you're using a freaking computer to access a forum on the internet.

Sorry but that's is a very stupid statement at the least, and yes homosexuality is unnatural.

GC

[Esquilax]

Are you crazy people have the right to stand for whatever they want. You in this statement are disallowing homosexuals the right to pursue marriage. The last part of your statement is completely opinion, which is fine, but you will find many who do not agree with you.

You do understand that the last big marriage rights thing, interracial marriage, was decided by a supreme court case, and not by popular vote at all, right? The point being made here is that you do not put rights equality up for a vote, because to do so either further marginalizes minority groups via entrenched majority hypocrisy- which I think is what's happening now- or it paints a target on the back of every right you've ever accumulated. Do you want to spend the rest of your life with the niggling doubt over what might happen if your kind loses its majority, and the minorities you've kept down like this decide to remember your voting against them? Exactly.

There's a reason we don't apportion rights based on what the majority wants; nothing would get done otherwise.

Sorry but that's is a very stupid statement at the least, and yes homosexuality is unnatural.

GC

You keep saying that, but since you've been repeatedly told, and shown, that homosexuality occurs in nature, you're just lying here when you say that.

Also, I love the bald assertion, as if your saying it somehow makes it so.

[Whateverist]

What does you gay-dar read for Jesus?

First, according to Jewish law, despite him being the "messiah", he should have married a woman when he came of age. He did not. I do not buy into that whole "not wanting to be tempted by the flesh" bullshit. He was most likely quite tempted by the flesh, just not of the womanly kind. There have been scholarly theology interpretations indicating that Jesus had sexual relations with other men.

Hah! I knew it. Not bad for a straight guy. He's all yours though, quite a pretty boy judging by all the pics I've seen.

---

I think heterosexuality is unnatural. A penis should not go in a vagina. It's icky.

Not when I do it.

[Godscreated]

---

I see you continue with the same problem, if you even read what I post you read into it what you want to argue not what I've stated. If you had taken the time to correctly read what I posted you would have seen that I stated the scriptures do not condemn homosexuality, it condemns the actions taken. These discussions could go better if you would read what I say and not what you want me to say.

---

GC

Your misconceptions about what I do and don't understand aside, you agree that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but just the act itself. Firstly, where's the harm in gays getting married? I mean, in your eyes, as long as they're celibate, they should be able to love each other and garner the same rights that heterosexual people that love each other and enter into a legal contract with the government do.

Secondly, where in the Bible does it state that Homosexuality is unnatural? Are you just referring to the act itself being unnatural? The Bible states that it's an abomination, but not unnatural (no, the antonym of abomination is not "natural"). If you get this viewpoint from a secular understanding, where and when did you learn that homosexual acts are unnatural? Would this also make heterosexual oral pleasure an abomination? What about masturbation? Wet dreams?

All these things occur in nature, which makes them essentially natural. Your argument falls completely flat from a secular and a biblical standpoint. Let's hear the ad hoc rebuttal...c'mon, we're waiting!

Ha, ha you're funny, that is in a ridiculous way. You think you can goad me into an answer do you, well it was coming because my opinions are just as relevant as your's are, but I'll not be pushed to answer you.

Seems I was correct in my understanding of how you read and perceive what I write, you had to go back to find the answer to your question.

If homosexual acts were natural God would not call them an abomination would He. Why are you trying so hard to be ridiculous.
Read Romans 1:18-32 and you will see that the NT speaks against these an other acts and condemns those who support such actions.
Now you will see why I feel the way I do, and I'm done with this discussion.

GC