here's a good argument: If homosexuality is natural then why can't the two same sex's who are sexually attracted to each other reproduce? It's quite confusing, it almost clears up the fact that homosexuality just doesn't work.
They're not attracted to each other because they chose to. They are. Naturally.If homosexuality is natural then why can't the two same sex's who are sexually attracted to each other reproduce?
I was very intrigued when this happened, and it kind of involved a debate I was having with a gay friend at the time. We are both writers, and he was saying he was disappointed by the lack of openly gay characters in fiction. My stance was that if your character isn't gay, then he/she just isn't and you shouldn't force the character to be gay just for the sake of diversity. This is why I find the "Dumbledore is gay" thing so interesting. It was never once mentioned in the story because it didn't matter to the story or to who he was and what he had to do. His being gay was a minor facet of his character, so minor it didn't even warrant mention in the narrative. This is the attitude I think people should have about sexuality in the real world as well. Defining yourself or others just by sexuality is diminishing. It's the same as defining a person only by their skin color or their heritage or their religion. At the end of the day, it just doesn't matter. If two women or two men are attracted to each other and you aren't one of them, why do you care? It's not your business. It doesn't involve you and never will. It's been going on since the dawn of humanity and the world hasn't ended. Though maybe we should consult the Mayan Calendar for their predictions on the gay agenda to end the world...
Flemzo, I believe that the Bible is completely correct. I was just saying that the Bible can't not have incorrect parts in it. Otherwise lives wouldn't be changed!
Homosexuality is NOT natural, it's just disgusting if you ask me. I mean, look at all the diseases spread because of it? Normal sex has the same, but that's because people do it with more than one person. Whether you do it with one person or not, when you're a homosexual, it will spread disease and that will eventually result in great sickness and death. Similar to smoking.
It happens in nature, ergo it's natural.
God gave us choice: follow Him or not. Obviously He would be a dictator if He forced us to follow Him, but He's not like that.
Well, it may be a sin in god's eyes, but that's just god's opinion.
[But then it’s a conscious choice that an individual makes so I can try to respect your decisions. So if your gay go ahead and be gay it's a free world. But natural I don’t think so.
Matthew wrote:A yes, the human body was designed to eat meat. Where in the world did you get that from???
McMourning wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, there are some animals that can/do change their gender in times of need in order to reproduce. But, there are also animals who are homosexual and cannot reproduce. My neighbor has two female labs. They hump each other. (I have also seen male dogs go after each other, but that may be because of a different reason, like how a man might rape another man to feel in control.)
Kit wrote:
Homosexual people can have kids. They can adopt, they can use a sperm donor, they can be foster parents. Besides which are people deemed useful and natural only by their ability to procreate? Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?
Homosexuality is NOT natural, it's just disgusting if you ask me. I mean, look at all the diseases spread because of it? Normal sex has the same, but that's because people do it with more than one person. Whether you do it with one person or not, when you're a homosexual, it will spread disease and that will eventually result in great sickness and death. Similar to smoking.
Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
. Mostly due to a broken empathy meter.
Homosexual people can have kids. They can adopt, they can use a sperm donor, they can be foster parents. Besides which are people deemed useful and natural only by their ability to procreate? Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?
I think homosexuality is natural and yeah it's a choice too... It's true that if you are homosexual, you were born that way. But then again, it's all about the choices you make. These are choices that define you, they can be right or wrong either way they are yours.
If so, you're missing a key point. The word natural did not have the same meaning then as it does now. It meant 'contrary to the norm' or 'not thought well of'. So, basically what that verse means is that homosexuality (if we make the assumption that that is what the verse really is about) is not experienced by a majority (true) and not thought well of by society (true).
Being lactose intolerant is natural. Humans have "naturally selected" themselves so that those people who were unable to eat cheese and drink milk died early in the course of mankind. Now-a-days, we consider people who are lactose intolerant "different" as if they have some medical condition when really it is us who are "different".
It is true that homosexuals can not reproduce. This arguement goes that the point of life is to reproduce, thus hetereo-sexual is the way to go. That is why we were given genitals. However, we were also given free will by the same ?divine power?/brain to make choices.
They cannot reproduce, and that's the point. As for being deemed natural or useful, by the decision they make, they leave nature's way of 'keeping the line going', and have decided to share love with the same sex. I never said they are not 'useful' because of their ability to create, it's just like I said, they have recreated sexual attraction in their brains.
This, once again, is fact, and you can't argue with this.
If so, you're missing a key point. The word natural did not have the same meaning then as it does now. It meant 'contrary to the norm' or 'not thought well of'. So, basically what that verse means is that homosexuality (if we make the assumption that that is what the verse really is about) is not experienced by a majority (true) and not thought well of by society (true).
Where did you find that out? I've studied the Bible before, quite excessively, and have found no such translation. The word natural is what God has created, what He has produced. Homosexuality exchanges that for the 'unnatural'.
αφύσικος is the Greek word for 'unnatural'. The definition is in my Greek and Latin translation book: "adj. abnormal, freakish, absonant, constrained, uncanny, unearthly, unnatural".
“The ‘nature’ in this passage is the Greek word ‘phusis’ which means personal nature or disposition. It’s the same Greek word that occurs, for example, in 1 Corinthians 11:14, ‘Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?’ where Paul is probably using ‘phusis’ to mean custom or tradition.
“The word ‘against’ in ‘that which is against nature’ is a clear mistranslation. The Greek word here is ‘para,’ which means not ‘against’ but ‘in excess of.’ (It’s translated as ‘more than’ in the preceding verse, in fact, and in many other places in the New Testament. The Greek word meaning ‘in opposition to’ is ‘kata.’) The very same phrase, ‘para phusis,’ is even used to describe the activity of God Himself in Romans 11:23-24, ‘And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree.’
“What Paul seems to be condemning here is not homosexuality per se (in fact, the absence of any reference to homosexuality in the list of sins that immediately follows, in verses 29-31, is striking) but the satisfying of one’s desires in excess of what is fitting to one’s nature.
“In the case of the men, the plain meaning is a reference to heterosexuals giving up intercourse with the opposite sex and turning in perverseness to homosexual lust and behavior. The passage says nothing about people whose orientation is homosexual and who therefore are in no wise perverting their nature as they perceive it.
- http://gaysdas.net/index.php?option=com ... s&Itemid=3
Plenty of heterosexual people don't or can't conceive children, are they, by that logic, an abomination?
Firstly, I would to see the hard evidence that homosexuals are born that way. As for me, I have found none. You also seem to contradict yourself here... if they do choose, like you say, then how come it's a choice if they are born that way... as you have said they are? You are right that the choices you make define you. Birth seems not to these days for some. The point is it does not start at birth. It is impossible. Correct me with evidence.
The American Psychological Association states “most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive, and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.”5
Gender: