Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotcha on what, Memphis, you seem to be an intelligent person, what is your argue or debate on? Why does it have to be determined what caused us to be biologically attracted to the same sex? Is it really needed that all of us gays and lesbians do our best to be or become straight? Why? All that would happen is a population boom that would destroy the planet. If I and my 3 other gay brothers had contributed my moms fertility to the population, and that of all the other gays and lesbians, what do you think the worlds population would be at now? Significantly more than the 7 billion we are at today. I wanted a lot of kids and if I had of tried being straight, I probably would have hit the six mark easily. My being gay and knowing my self is more than enough proof for me that I was and always will be gay. I still did not hear your answer on when you chose to be straight, so I will rephrase it. Memphis; do you think you were born straight?
I know I was born straight.
The debate is, when does homosexuality start? Is it something that happens at birth? Is it something that happens after birth?
Children as young as 3 and 4 have shown sexual preference in the studies I've seen.
My point is this, we can't sit on a soap box and declare that homosexuality happens before birth, and claim that science says that its not a choice. Science doesn't say both of those things. It says its not a choice, but it doesn't say it begins at or before birth.
I personally wouldn't care if it was a choice, what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their own business, as long as its not hurting anyone else.
But as I said, we can't tell people that we know when homosexuality starts. We do know that it begins primarily before the age of 5. But saying anything else isn't be truthful to the argument. As we've seen with global warming, one mis worded statement gives fodder to those who think that one overstated report makes all of the science false.
I hold personal freedom sacred. Some "holier than thou" people, such as yourself, have been attacking that for years.
Feel free to continue.
How have I been attacking that? You ought to at least think before you post.
Really? I think everyone should be allowed to marry. You're the one suggesting we create a special class of marriage or a special version of it to suit a very small minority.
At last...someone else who has done the research.
I doubt you could find very many Christians on forums like these who even know who Molech was. Or know who the qadesh were.
Well, I'm a Messianic Jew - so I was learning the Torah in Hebrew when I was 8 Although I don't remember it much from back then, as a Jew I care more about the original meaning of the Hebrew than 99% of Christians do.
And yes, sadly the KJV decided to translate Qadesh (temple prostitute) as Sodomite, which of course all Christians rabidly lock onto as being somehow related to the city of Sodom (despite Sodom and Sodomite not originating from the same Hebrew words).
It's an unfortunate translation issue that has led those less willing to study, to condemn all gays as evil Sodomites who God smited with fire and brimstone.
How have I been attacking that? You ought to at least think before you post.
Really? I think everyone should be allowed to marry. You're the one suggesting we create a special class of marriage or a special version of it to suit a very small minority.
Feel free to continue.
So you support two men being able to marry one another?
I didn't think so. Thats attacking personal freedom.
Freedom is the ability for a free thinking individual to do whatever their little hearts want, if it doesn't hurt anyone else. Thats the bedrock on which our country was built upon. Marriage was never stated as being only between two people of the opposite sex. As such, you want to take a constitutional freedom away from people by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Personal freedom to me would allow a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry a woman, or three or more people to enter into a marriage. Personally the state shouldn't be marrying anyone at all because its a religious institution. If someone wants to enter into a contract saying that you will split all assets between the two of you equally, and have power of attorney over one another, thats already legal under the law, with no religious aspects to it.
But until you say you don't care who marrys who, and take out of that equation the sex of both partners, you're not really supporting freedom.
Really? I think everyone should be allowed to marry. You're the one suggesting we create a special class of marriage or a special version of it to suit a very small minority.
Wrong. There is no "new class" or a "special version" sought by anyone.
Straight people would be able to marry someone of the same sex if they wanted to, just as your definition of "I think everyone should be allowed to marry" is "gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex"..... which, of course, is ridiculous. But I guess so many Xtians would just LOVE to have their daughters marry gay men, and vice versa. Because THAT really is the foundation and the start of a healthy marriage.
Well, I'm a Messianic Jew - so I was learning the Torah in Hebrew when I was 8 Although I don't remember it much from back then, as a Jew I care more about the original meaning of the Hebrew than 99% of Christians do.
And yes, sadly the KJV decided to translate Qadesh (temple prostitute) as Sodomite, which of course all Christians rabidly lock onto as being somehow related to the city of Sodom (despite Sodom and Sodomite not originating from the same Hebrew words).
It's an unfortunate translation issue that has led those less willing to study, to condemn all gays as evil Sodomites who God smited with fire and brimstone.
Questioning the translation of the bible would shake the foundations of a church that has stood for over a thousand years. As such, many folks just can't stomach that.
I've read some literal translations of the bible from the original Hebrew texts, and its radically different than even the greek and latin versions that predated the KJV.
I get that, but if its irrelevant, then why include it at all? Maybe they should revise the Torah and the bible to not include those passages at all.
Well, most Christians all but ignore the entire OT unless it's convenient to use verses from it to condemn people they don't like. But in mainstream Christianity, it's rarely used (books like Job and Genesis notwithstanding). Well, the English versions are published by Conservative Bible groups - they intentionally make those verses more of a condemnation on sins they don't like. They would lose Bible sales if gays were not condemned in the Bible. Bible publishing is big business with the overwhelming majority of customers being right wing conservatives. That's why verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9 now have the word homosexual in it - it was added in 1958 by conservative publishers because gays were the new cool thing to hate (that verse formerly attacking masturbators since the beginning of the Reformation).
Quote:
But they are still in there. While most aren't going out killing people over being homosexuals, they do use these passages to prove to themselves and others that God doesn't approve of homosexual behavior.
Yes, they do so wrongly. The Bible also condemns wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish, or wearing glasses in Temple. Find me one Conservative who abides by those laws.
Quote:
Its not irrelevant if its still contained in the book. And while I agree that the bible and Torah have both been grossly mistranslated, if you get an english translation version of either book today, it still contains these passages.
See above - they've been manipulated to attack specific groups.
Quote:
Until the day they are removed completely from the books, they will always be used to justify homophobia.
Of course they will. All the more reason we need to educate society that blind literalism is a dangerous view to take of a 4000 year old book.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I don't remember it much from back then, as a Jew I care more about the original meaning of the Hebrew than 99% of Christians do. 
