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.
If you search this forum for similar threads, you will find several posts with links showing where homosexual behavior is documented in hundreds of different kinds of animals.
Animals do not have souls and any way they act does not make them sin or go against their self respect. When we sin we hurt ourselves and our relation with God. This applies to all sexual sin, adultery, etc, etc.
Animals do not have souls and any way they act does not make them sin or go against their self respect. When we sin we hurt ourselves and our relation with God. This applies to all sexual sin, adultery, etc, etc.
Sin is irrelevant here. The argument that was made was that homosexuality isn't natural. It was pointed out that it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Furthermore, whether or not it is natural does not determine whether or not it is good. Things such as vaccines are not natural; however, they have saved millions of lives.
Sin is irrelevant here. The argument that was made was that homosexuality isn't natural. It was pointed out that it occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. Furthermore, whether or not it is natural does not determine whether or not it is good. Things such as vaccines are not natural; however, they have saved millions of lives.
Than yes, it goes against natural law. This is why the church can speak against it and always will. Natural law is what we are created for. Even if animals do it it's is not natural. Animals do a lot of things humans don't like eating their young.
Animals do not have souls and any way they act does not make them sin or go against their self respect. When we sin we hurt ourselves and our relation with God. This applies to all sexual sin, adultery, etc, etc.
Animals are/have souls
KJV Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature (Hebrew nephesh /soul) that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
JPS Genesis 1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so.
DBY Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul (Hebrew nephesh), that was its name.
Many translations use "living creature" instead of soul(s), because that is what the word in both Hebrew and Greek means: soul/living creature.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-23-2014 at 06:10 AM..
Reason: Red is reserved for Moderaator actions.
Animals do not have souls and any way they act does not make them sin or go against their self respect. When we sin we hurt ourselves and our relation with God. This applies to all sexual sin, adultery, etc, etc.
I believe animals have souls and go to heaven just like we do.
Than yes, it goes against natural law. This is why the church can speak against it and always will. Natural law is what we are created for. Even if animals do it it's is not natural. Animals do a lot of things humans don't like eating their young.
You are correct in one way. Some early church father somehow came to believe hyenas were both homosexual AND they dug up human bodies to feed upon. They were considered to be demon possessed. By about the twelfth century homosexual humans were being considered as hyenas, and the pogroms began in earnest. I can't remember the church father now, but the writing is called Bestiary.
And to help you see your own heart, janelle, for a split second when you read the lines about demon possessed and homosexuals considered to be hyenas you thought, "Why yes they are."
It's so much easier to persecute and hate a group of people, when you view them as not human, sub-human, and/or deserving of "good" people's spite.
No negative effect is merely your opinion because you see nothing wrong with homosexuality. So of course you see no negative affect. And if there is, you find some way to justify it. Back to the Christian baker, they lost their business. That was probably a business that they risked money and a lot of time and hard work into building. That's a negative effect. But the attitude from the liberal homosexual side was - Good they deserved it! Because the law is the law.
But what if the law supports something you find immoral? I bet you would change your tune.
I find every word you write to be immoral and sanctimonious according to my religion, but the law says I must respect your right to speak or write as you please. And because I value the same privilege, I protect your right to put your left foot in hell.
On the other hand, you don't even have to think about going somewhere to buy a cake. Nor are you overly concerned about a car driving down the road looking to beat you up for what you are as opposed to who you are. But a homosexual man? You don't think he is faced with that at all. But Rice University did an empirical study of people going into places of employment with hats on their heads. The student subjects had no idea what was written on the hats. On some were written "Proud Texan." On others "Gay Pride." Do I have to even draw the conclusion for you? Which interviews lasted longer? You know the answer because what was practiced on the students wearing the gay pride hats is what you are practicing constantly.
Religious zealotry in the hands of unthinking, uncaring, unempathetic, and sanctimonious people is a dangerous thing. All the most private and what should be the most loving and caring moments in a person's life---conception, marriage, birth control, and even death---religious zealots want control of for every one in this country. Your religious freedom is becoming more and more a danger to our society as a whole. As much as I value it myself, it does appear to be our undoing as a nation. We have the Christian version of the Taliban walking among us. Frankly the zombies of World War Z are not nearly as frightening.
Having a partner to share life with is a positive. Having one that you are both emotionally and sexually attracted to is even better. Why does that need to be explained?
Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
So I guess he made someone suitable for gay and lesbian people too. Because it's not good for them to be alone.
When you want to legally put a "religious" connotation on marriage and require everyone else to follow YOUR definition--then you are interfering with other people's lives. You are putting the entire basis of the First Amendment at risk. You are attempting to institute a theocracy---and everywhere that has been tried it has been a fricking disaster.
You are in no way harmed by Adam marrying Steve. But you, and those like you, who constantly throw "sin" in the face of Adam and Steve are harming THEM according the American Psychology Association.
What has always confused me is the hypocrisy with which Christians that do so, say "we love you as God loves you," while at the same time treating Adam and Steve with such contempt and hardly concealed hate that it is no wonder so many homosexuals are turned off to even the slightest attempt to find God.
And is it an act of self-righteousness on the part of so-called Christians. Well, we currently have at least three active threads on homosexuality, and in the two years I've been on CD there have been more threads on it than any other "sin" even though it is among the least practiced "sin" in the entire nation.
A bunch of politicians decided they could get your vote by stirring up irrational fear and disgust over something you don't understand. I don't understand it either, but I'm not afraid of it. I don't believe my 43+ year marriage to one woman, the only woman I've known biblically is challenged either. I don't believe Adam and Steve getting married is going to turn my granddaughter into a "raving homo."
So my conclusion is that many in your shoes are simply prone to being brain-washed--sort of like the Germans with the Jews. The politicians get your votes to protect you from the "vast majority of homosexuals that are about to overwhelm your society." And the people who are just afraid of homosexuality get to sit smug in self-satisfaction and see their selves as "righteous," not haters because it is GOD who is doing the condemning. It's been the same pattern with every single type of hate and discrimination throughout the history of Christianity--and if I knew other religions I would guess they have the same qualities. The most fearful people become the most fanatically religious and then commit atrocities on others--always small minorities with whom they think they have nothing in common--and feel justified because THEY didn't commit the atrocities--they committed the "righteous" act of their God.
What a bunch of hooey. Wake up and get your head out of the sand. Adam and Steve aren't going to turn you or your family into homosexuals. They just want the right to get service from any entity that holds itself out for public business--and maybe the right to worship God--just not a god like you're trying to serve.
And how do I know the APA doesn't receive nice big fat funding from gay lobbyists in exchange for showing some bias towards pro-gay findings? Funny how many studies until the last decade said one thing clearly. A child functions best when raised by both a father and mother. I find it interesting that every secular study is 100% pro-gay now around the exact same timing that gay people are gaining political power.
Furthermore, there have been noted flaws in the APA study claim. Here is a website that references the flaws like this:
It's ironic that your accusation of studies being funded by gay lobbyists turns out to be the other way around. Loren Marks and Mark Regnerus turned out to be in cahoots with each other. Mark Regnerus - whose study was funded for $800,000 by an anti-gay conservative organisation right before the election where same-sex marriage was also on the ballot in a number of States? The study that was completely discredited?
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.
