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.
You don't need to allow it, that's what you stated above. In the past, Evangelicals denied that someone was born with a sinful proclivity toward attraction to the same sex. They explained those homosexual urges as being created by the media, bad parents, friends and other pyscho-social elements. Evangelicals then began to realize the futility in that reasoning because certain homosexuals like Haggard grew up in a loving and supportive Christian environment yet were gay. When critics would ask Evangelicals to explain this discrepancy, they couldn't do so, therefore they altered their tactic and accepted that one could be born with homosexual urges but that it was a sinful tendency like anything else.
I think all Evangelicals believe deep down that homosexuality is a natural thing but since they were raised to believe certain things, they have to find a way to rationalize how one can be born a homosexual and how that idea can fit within their Evangelical culture which is to reject homosexuality.
Again - I can only speak for myself.
Homosexuality is as natural as stealing, lying, adultery, greed, selfishness, etc. Everyone, including myself, have weaknesses in certain area(s). Even if our parents try to lead us away from sinful issues - the drive is still there - it will always be there as long as we are alive on earth.
He was being sarcastic. He is mocking the American Taliban (Evangelicals) who claim that homosexuality is a choice. It is a good point. Why would someone like Ted Haggard choose to become gay? He was a prominent evangelist who had a family and made millions. The last thing he wanted was to to be attracted to men. Likewise, I'm sure this politician wished he was not attracted to men. When are Evangelicals going to get a clue and realize that people are born that way.
Like most leftists, you conveniently omit facts in favor of the most convenient of self-serving possibilities. It may be true that people are gay from birth, but from an evolutionary point of view we would have to ask what function does it serve in propagating the genes of the "gay" child? Why would the forces of natural selection permit the "gay" trait to continue in the face of fierce sexual competition?
As for the TV evangelists, I know a lot of church pastors who live a very humble existence as is the norm. The millionaire TV preachers you cite will have to give account for their actions. I personally would rather explain why I was a closet gay than why I spent millions on myself while others suffered.
There are more sins than homosexuality - theft, murder, heterosexuality outside of marriage, lying, etc. As far as being born into homosexuality - I don't know for sure - but I will allow it for argument sake. Whatever the case - sin is still sin. The reason I believe it is possible is because everyone has a certain tendency towards certain sins - so homosexuality can be included in that. I can't speak for anyone else.
The motivation to sin involves some perosnal benefit in a sane and mentally competent individual. Gluttony involves pleasure from eating food. Lying and theft can enable us to acquire power. Lust or Cheating on one's spouse enables us to gain physical pleasure by engaging in sex with a different partner. Murder can enable us to acquire power by eliminating competition as dictators have done. What benefit would one gain by choosing to engage in a homosexual realtionship vesus a heterosexual relationship? I don't believe homosexuality is a sin but even among theological standards, I fail to understand how it is a sin.
Like most leftists, you conveniently omit facts in favor of the most convenient of self-serving possibilities. It may be true that people are gay from birth, but from an evolutionary point of view we would have to ask what function does it serve in propagating the genes of the "gay" child? Why would the forces of natural selection permit the "gay" trait to continue in the face of fierce sexual competition?
As for the TV evangelists, I know a lot of church pastors who live a very humble existence as is the norm. The millionaire TV preachers you cite will have to give account for their actions. I personally would rather explain why I was a closet gay than why I spent millions on myself while others suffered.
I'm not a "lefty." I'm a registered Republican and a moderate. And if you "righties" actually spent more time reading books other than the Bible, you would have read studies the demonstrated homosexuality among certain animal populations that scientists believe could be a form of population control to prevent a species from overpopulating and outgrowing its resources. And what is self serving about accepting that homosexuality is innate? What do I gain from that?
Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, issued a statement taking full responsibility and apologizing to his family, constituents, friends and Senate colleagues.
“I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment,” said Ashburn, who through a spokesman declined to be interviewed. “I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did.”
Quote:
Campbell said the black Chevrolet Tahoe Ashburn was driving was a state car. He said an adult male was also in the vehicle but since he was not arrested, the CHP wouldn’t release much information about him
Like most leftists, you conveniently omit facts in favor of the most convenient of self-serving possibilities. It may be true that people are gay from birth, but from an evolutionary point of view we would have to ask what function does it serve in propagating the genes of the "gay" child? Why would the forces of natural selection permit the "gay" trait to continue in the face of fierce sexual competition?
Even if homosexuality is a type of mutation and fails to result in propagating one's genes, please explain how that makes a human being less worthy of civil rights and the right to get married? Do we deny rights to people because they were born with cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease? What about those who were born with a condition that made him or her infertile?
This is not shocking at all. Proves that the more "anti-gay" someone is, they are hiding something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
Again - I can only speak for myself.
Homosexuality is as natural as stealing, lying, adultery, greed, selfishness, etc. Everyone, including myself, have weaknesses in certain area(s). Even if our parents try to lead us away from sinful issues - the drive is still there - it will always be there as long as we are alive on earth.
I need to go - I will check in on this later.
Sounds like you have "gay urges" but you are doing your best to avoid them? Hmm?
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.
