Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[Clownboat]

They could only change if there was a choice being made right?

Why is it that Monozygote twins are 5 times more likely to have the same sexual preference when compared to dizygotic twins?

I'm going to have to hit the logic button. Now, I'm not a physician, but identical twins are identical right? What would not help your cause, is if there are identical twins somewhere that are not sexually the same. The two identical twins in our neighborhood like the same things because they are identical twins.

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

You see 99%, this is actual evidence that suggests it is not a choice.

Then you have just eliminated morality, law, justice, and any other concept of right and wrong. And you have replaced it with an excuse that overrides reality. Yet, the STOP sign and society contradicts your logic.

If genetics can influence if someone is a heterosexual or not, that eliminates morality? I don't follow. Are you back to the un-evidenced claim that bank robbers are predisposed to rob banks? If so, please provide us with evidence.

First, are you saying that homosexuals are a species or subspecies of human beings?

No 99. We are all members of the great ape family.

Even baby Bonobo's have to come from normality. Evolution is not a support group for gay activism.

I didn't say it was. As can be clearly seen above, you asked me if homosexuals were a species or a subspecies of humans.

Some members of this family are Christians, some or Muslim, some are gay and some are straight. We should all be equal though IMO.

A male ape mating with a male ape is not equal to a male ape mating with a female ape. No matter how loud we hairless apes yell about equality. Nature mocks this ridiculous politics.

This is where I argue that you are wrong. We are all equal, and it is wrong to consider someone not your equal based off of sexual preference.

Because viewing them as an abomination is so much better.

Sooner or later, The Church will get back to business of ignoring groups and people that hate us and reject the Gospel. How many Christians vote against Voodoo and those that practice it? Western society is not the be-all of mankinds expression.

What does this have to do with you saying they are the same species as the rest of us, but still they are abominations? I don't get the relevance of your rant.

I am not able to make the decision to be homosexual. Could you?

Why not?

I notice you failed to answer my question. Instead, you just asked it of me. Watch, I have the integrity to answer.

Here it is. Ready?
Because it is not a choice I am able to make.

[Goat]

Why not?

I notice you failed to answer my question. Instead, you just asked it of me. Watch, I have the integrity to answer.

Here it is. Ready?
Because it is not a choice I am able to make.

I will concur on my part too. It is not a choice I am able to make. I am not attracted to the same gender. I have gay friends, and they are not attracted to the opposite gender (for the most part). I have bi friends, and they like both genders.

[99percentatheism]

Clownboat

They could only change if there was a choice being made right?

Why is it that Monozygote twins are 5 times more likely to have the same sexual preference when compared to dizygotic twins?

I'm going to have to hit the logic button. Now, I'm not a physician, but identical twins are identical right? What would not help your cause, is if there are identical twins somewhere that are not sexually the same. The two identical twins in our neighborhood like the same things because they are identical twins.

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

[/quote]

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

You see 99%, this is actual evidence that suggests it is not a choice.

Then you have just eliminated morality, law, justice, and any other concept of right and wrong. And you have replaced it with an excuse that overrides reality. Yet, the STOP sign and society contradicts your logic.

If genetics can influence if someone is a heterosexual or not, that eliminates morality? I don't follow. Are you back to the un-evidenced claim that bank robbers are predisposed to rob banks? If so, please provide us with evidence.

First, are you saying that homosexuals are a species or subspecies of human beings?

No 99. We are all members of the great ape family.

Even baby Bonobo's have to come from normality. Evolution is not a support group for gay activism.

I didn't say it was. As can be clearly seen above, you asked me if homosexuals were a species or a subspecies of humans.

Some members of this family are Christians, some or Muslim, some are gay and some are straight. We should all be equal though IMO.

A male ape mating with a male ape is not equal to a male ape mating with a female ape. No matter how loud we hairless apes yell about equality. Nature mocks this ridiculous politics.

This is where I argue that you are wrong. We are all equal, and it is wrong to consider someone not your equal based off of sexual preference.

Because viewing them as an abomination is so much better.

Sooner or later, The Church will get back to business of ignoring groups and people that hate us and reject the Gospel. How many Christians vote against Voodoo and those that practice it? Western society is not the be-all of mankinds expression.

What does this have to do with you saying they are the same species as the rest of us, but still they are abominations? I don't get the relevance of your rant.

It's not a rant. It is stated positions. If you see my positions as rants, it could be based on prejudice or bigotry.

I am not able to make the decision to be homosexual. Could you?

Why not?

I notice you failed to answer my question. Instead, you just asked it of me. Watch, I have the integrity to answer.

Here it is. Ready?

Because it is not a choice I am able to make.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life. Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube. Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose. This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

[Clownboat]

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

[/quote]

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

You forgot to answer the question.
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

To answer your strawman/dodge: Psychopaths.

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

Yes, when genetics are involved, sexual preference is 5 times as likely to be shared between twins.

This does not mean both twins will choose the same profession. I'm really not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this observation.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life.

Because I stand for equal rights?
How is my sex life even relevant?

Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

You are forgetting one key component. Desire. You see 99, I lack said desire.
Can I assume that you struggle with this desire? I assume so sense you only mention the need for opportunity and lube. This tells me that the desire is already there.

Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose.

Blame mommy and daddy for your lack of equal rights. Nice.

This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just look at the word orientation."

That's your evidence?!?! Now THAT is silly.
Try to seduce me all you want, I just don't have the desire to be with men. I am evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or that it is introduced via seduction.

[99percentatheism]

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

You forgot to answer the question.
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

To answer your strawman/dodge: Psychopaths.

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

Yes, when genetics are involved, sexual preference is 5 times as likely to be shared between twins.

This does not mean both twins will choose the same profession. I'm really not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this observation.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life.

Because I stand for equal rights?
How is my sex life even relevant?

Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

You are forgetting one key component. Desire. You see 99, I lack said desire.
Can I assume that you struggle with this desire? I assume so sense you only mention the need for opportunity and lube. This tells me that the desire is already there.

Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose.

Blame mommy and daddy for your lack of equal rights. Nice.

This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just look at the word orientation."

That's your evidence?!?! Now THAT is silly.

Try to seduce me all you want, I just don't have the desire to be with men. I am evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or that it is introduced via seduction.

I lived a secular life through the most libidinous time in my life. I have no problem with anyone that posts here throwing out the self-laothing gay guy tactic. I've been through this ubiquitous comeback from so many adversaries that I couldn't possibly count it up. It would though, continue to prove my positions utterly solid if i were into homosexuality and rejected it for a proper Christian life. I am not on the merry-go-round of the spirit of this age, and I have enough debased actions on my record anyway. One or two more regrets isn't going to change much. And nothing I've done in the degenerate category changes Christian truth at all.

Be that as it may, Christian marriage is still man and woman/husband and wife. None of the Kings Horses and none of the kings men can change that. Nor can all the secularized voices on the United States Supreme Court.

Now, if you'd like to address the OP, give it a try to prove it wrong.

I am very comfortable with truth now.

[KCKID]

While I'll check out your recent posts in more detail later, 99percent, I'll just now throw out what I see as being a pertinent question. The question is: What are the human 'benefits' of straight marriage that are not also applicable to gay marriage? And, please don't say "children".

It seems to me that your objection to gay marriage is merely Bible-based or otherwise a personal thing ...neither of which are valid reasons for denying the union of two people that love one another.

What say? And please, no red herrings and derails . . .

[10CC]

woops

[Nickman]

To those who think homosexuality is a choice; try and get aroused by looking at gay porn or at anyone of the same sex. It won't happen. Same goes for homosexuals, they cannot get aroused by the same sex. Only someone who is bisexual can get aroused by both sexes.

[KCKID]

To those who think homosexuality is a choice; try and get aroused by looking at gay porn or at anyone of the same sex. It won't happen. Same goes for homosexuals, they cannot get aroused by the same sex. Only someone who is bisexual can get aroused by both sexes.

Hmmm . . .what about Astronaut John Glenn? He would get aroused by humming loudly The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. See The Right Stuff (1983). Wonderful movie, I might add!

[10CC]

Identical is a misnomer. They really are different. How different? well that depends. Biologically, the way identical twins come about is that a early embryo splits in two. Both halves then develop into babies. They are genetically identical, but that does not mean that their bodies are identical. As embryos (and babies, children and adults) grow and develop, there are tone of environmental factors that effect the development. These factors cause drift (for lack of a better word), so the two identical twins slowly become less and less identical.
http://askdoctorscience.wordpress.com/h ... cal-twins/

Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?

I see environment as well. But where is it taught that someones thinking makes equal an action? Serial killers have to be genetically motivated too then. Who would "choose" to slaughter people?

You forgot to answer the question.
"Yet, being genetically identical causes the likelihood of sharing the same sexual preference to be 5 times greater when compared to twins that are not genetically identical. Do you see where genetics seems to have an impact on sexual preference?"

To answer your strawman/dodge: Psychopaths.

Genetically identical, does not mean they will make the same choices. Your argument is moot unless you can show otherwise.

Whoa, whoa wait a minute. It's you claiming that. Five times greater as you put it.

Yes, when genetics are involved, sexual preference is 5 times as likely to be shared between twins.

This does not mean both twins will choose the same profession. I'm really not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding this observation.

You must lead or have lead a boring sexual life.

Because I stand for equal rights?
How is my sex life even relevant?

Homosexuality just takes opportunity and some lube.

You are forgetting one key component. Desire. You see 99, I lack said desire.
Can I assume that you struggle with this desire? I assume so sense you only mention the need for opportunity and lube. This tells me that the desire is already there.

Now, my parent's raised me to know that homosexuality was wrong, so I steered clear of the opportunities when they arose.

Blame mommy and daddy for your lack of equal rights. Nice.

This whole notion that homosexuality isn't introduced via seduction is rather naive to the point of silliness. I mean the very word "orientation" points to an orientation process. Orientation is a time of being taught something. And we do have the term "turned out" well ensconced in gay culture.

"Homosexuality is a choice, just look at the word orientation."

That's your evidence?!?! Now THAT is silly.

Try to seduce me all you want, I just don't have the desire to be with men. I am evidence that homosexuality is not a choice or that it is introduced via seduction.

I lived a secular life through the most libidinous time in my life. I have no problem with anyone that posts here throwing out the self-laothing gay guy tactic. I've been through this ubiquitous comeback from so many adversaries that I couldn't possibly count it up. It would though, continue to prove my positions utterly solid if i were into homosexuality and rejected it for a proper Christian life. I am not on the merry-go-round of the spirit of this age, and I have enough debased actions on my record anyway. One or two more regrets isn't going to change much. And nothing I've done in the degenerate category changes Christian truth at all.

Be that as it may, Christian marriage is still man and woman/husband and wife. None of the Kings Horses and none of the kings men can change that. Nor can all the secularized voices on the United States Supreme Court.

Now, if you'd like to address the OP, give it a try to prove it wrong.

I am very comfortable with truth now.

And apparently you had and have homosexual urges which places you squarely in the B classification of LGBT. Would you like to talk to us about that? How you control your bisexual urges whilst pretending to be a heterosexual?