Produce "Pro gay (or LGBT)" scripture

[99percentatheism]

Very simple.:The movement to homosexualize The Church, to celebrate and encourage people to engage in homosexuality, including the redefining of marriage even, has been going on for a few decades now. With of course the expected schism by those Christians that cannot be part of that.

So, simply, for those that support homosexuality, "gay pride," and those that define themselves by the sex act or desire for it (Gays, Lesbians, and Bi-Sexuals), produce the open and unambiguous scriptural support New Testament or Old Testament . . . for "Christians" to engage in, support and promote homosexuality.

[Danmark]

OK yours is simply the finest opinion piece I have ever read on this subject. And while I am tapping away on an IPad, I simply don't have the time to answer in the manner in which this deserves. But, the matter of LGBT demands on The Church come from an outsider and foreign body of culturally unified folk that seems not to be looking to "accept Christ as Lord and Savior," but to find victory over others. Now, this just an observation, but, the Gay Pride flag represents many, many cultural beliefs and behaviors that are as incompatible with Christian life as is voodoo culture.

Take for example the husband and wife reality of marriage.

Another example: joining your "members" to a prostitute.

There are machinations of LGBT culture that cannot be fit into Christian life unless a total reinvention of Christan truth is employed. And that is not a loved based action, it is simply an attack and genocide.

But, I will endeavor to see things in some of the characterization that you have expressed and I will give you a respectful rebuttal.

99

[I understand the difficulty of typing on an IPad. I no longer attempt it at all, for anything longer than a sentence/texting type response]
One thing comes to mind that may possibly be a ground of agreement:
Do you agree that, but for the issue of homosexuality as sin, there are thousands, more likely millions of people who fully embrace "Christ as Lord and Savior," and want to be able to worship him as God both as individuals and in partnership with their 'soul mate' who happens to be of the same sex; that their faith has absolutely nothing to do with 'victory over others?' What they embrace [besides themselves] is to have 'victory over sin thru Jesus Christ?'

I realize this may seem to some a bit like the question posed to the First Lady in 1865, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

I love that old joke, but part of the reason it is funny is because it is a genuinely proper hypothetical, even if it shows the questioner has lost his sense of proportion.

Stated a slightly different way, do you concede that there are people joined in 'gay marriage' who sincerely see themselves as both married and Christians, who want to follow the commandments and are not at all interested in having 'victory over others' on this issue?

[KCKID]

Actually, while there is more than an element of ambiguity regarding the ‘thimble-full’ of so-called 'clobber texts' of the Bible, it would appear that NONE of them either condemn or, indeed, refer at all to 'gay love' as you called it.

Jesus never condemned Sharia Law. He never condemned pornography. He never condemned heroin usage. He never condemned Nuclear weapons. He never condemned wife swapping.

And on and on.

The line of reasoning that whatever Jesus never mentioned anything about can somehow make it approved by Jesus can be taken in any direction.

Hmmm . . .I said nothing about Jesus in the post that you're supposedly responding to so I don't know why you're responding in such a manner. Well, I guess I do kind of know why. You're avoiding the question. What I did say, and say yet again, is that ALL references to homosexuality in scripture refer to idolatry and shrine temple prostitution. I asked that someone come forward and refute that claim. Instead, you've made this into a "what Jesus said and what He didn't say" thing.

I happen to be in agreement with an increasing number of Bible scholars who believe (based on Bible exegesis and theological analysis of the scriptures in question) that ALL references to homosexuality refer to pagan idolatry and the worship practices associated with idolatry. This determination is not merely based on wishful thinking - what would be the point? – but rather, apparently, fact.

Many heretical movements, if not all of them, base their stands on some parts of scripture.

The FACT IS that Jesus did detail and reaffirm the detail that "marriage" is man and woman/husband and wife. And there is not one shred of support or even any indication of a future time that there would be support for homosexuality in Christian life. Or, that would be somehow made acceptable in The Church. As history describes, the "gay pride" movement is categorically of a secular nature.

Jesus never said a word about Atheism or humanism. Does that somehow make atheism and humanism now acceptable Christian doctrine?

Again, you're detracting from the question asked of either you or 'whoever'. Is this intentional? "I" and others claim that All references to homosexuality in scripture refer to idolatry practices and shrine temple prostitution. And, we are not a part of a ‘heretical movement’. We don’t need to be. We let the scriptures speak for themselves. Forget about what Jesus said or did not say right now and focus rather on my claim. If it (my claim) is incorrect (that all references to homosexuality are idolatry based) then, please, by all means, point this out to me with appropriate scripture.

I realize that I've said this before but it does warrant repeating for as long as it takes to become clear. Until relatively modern times the Bible was not used to condemn homosexuality as it is today. I guess the main reason is because the words "homosexual/homosexuality" did not exist in the original manuscripts of scripture OR the 1611 King James Bible which is all anyone had. It wasn't until 1946 that the word/s appeared in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Moreover, when the term/s DID appear in the RSV the definition of homosexual, i.e. one who is sexually attracted to another of the same gender, took on a different definition …it became equated with 'sin'! This is both a corruption of the word 'homosexual' itself as well as a corruption of the original texts of scripture which have no Hebrew or Greek equivalent for the "English" term that we now use.

The very activity of same gender sex acts were totally common to Christians in Roman times. A matter of "the world and its ways." It is abundantly clear that Paul, "the Apostles to the Gentiles . . ." had an unimaginable amount of time to "affirm" homosexuality AND those that engaged in it, as completely condoned in "The Church." History shows otherwise. That it is a behavior no different than joining ones members to a prostitute.

If such sexual acts were being performed within, and condoned by, "The Church", as you say, then this clearly demonstrates the practices of pagan idolatry that were taking place WITHIN a religious setting and performed as a religious practice to ‘the gods’. Despite whether or not homosexuality was rife within Roman times this has little or nothing to do with the scriptural references to the practice UNLESS such acts were being performed as some kind of religious rite or worship practice to pagan idols and, as you say, ‘condoned’ by “The Church�.

Where is the utter and unambiguous celebration of gay marriage in the Bible? Where is the "pro gay texts" that can even slightly resemble something that could be brought into today's vernacular? Where are there gender-neutral descriptions of a married couple?

Gay marriage would probably not have been on the radar of the authors of the Bible, 99percent. If it had been on their radar and addressed then it would either have been condoned or condemned. Then and ONLY then would we have something in that area to debate. But, we don't have anything in that area to debate and marriage is therefore a matter that is solely between those - gay or straight - 'to whom it concerns'.

Okay?

I've thrown out the challenge a number of times for those who believe that the Bible condemns 'across-the-board' homosexuality to offer biblical proof that the Bible 'clobber texts' DON'T refer to idolatry and male shrine temple prostitution. So far, no one has accepted that challenge.

Jesus literally refused to condemn the adulteress woman "caught in the very act," and never said a word about couples that approve of adultery as being inappropriate? So, does the silence in the Bible about swingers make swinging condoned because Jesus "never said a word about swinging?" Jesus never mentioned anything about many, many, many, many, many, many, behaviors that are not acceptable in Christian life !!!!

Does that give licensee to "ANYTHING GOES THAT JESUS NEVER MENTIONED?"

*sigh* Again, that has nothing to do with the question asked. The question asked is …can 'you' offer scriptural proof that all references to homosexuality in the Bible DO NOT concern themselves solely with idolatry and shrine temple prostitution?

Furthermore, just to indicate how far reaching scriptural ignorance extends, especially in regard to this subject, the term "sodomite" is used by countless Christians on a regular basis to aim at and to demean homosexuals. NONE of these people appear to know that this word, "sodomite", according to Strong's KJV Concordance, has nothing to do with homosexuality per se but is a reference to "a quasi sacred person, i.e. a male devotee by prostitution to licentious idolatry."

Jesus never mentioned joining ones "members" to a prostitute. A term Paul used to obviously mean having sex with a prostitute.

Um, okay . . .

Well, then, since Jesus never mentioned paying for and having sex with prostitutes, that somehow makes the act approved? It now makes paying fo a prostitute Christian doctrine?

Sorry, I don’t follow . . .

Another resource, the NAS Concordance, defines ‘sodomite’ as: “a male cult temple prostitute� The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines it as: “masculine temple prostitute" Literally, the term ‘qadesh’ or ‘sodomite’ refers to male prostitution in pagan religious rites. By the very Hebrew definition of the word, we see that it does not refer to a homosexual, but rather, male religious prostitution - either heterosexually and/or homosexually - since the Bible makes NO mention of either.

So, the next time 'you' (generic term) hears a Christian refer to a gay person as 'a sodomite' you are officially entitled to brand them as not only a bigot but also as an 'ignorant bigot'

The Bible makes NO MENTION of a man's husband. It makes no mention of a woman's wife. It makes no mention of acceptable same gender sexual behavior. And certainly "Jesus never said a word about any of that."

And, your point is . . .?

Why would He? Not one aspect of it is part of Christian life.

What on earth does “Christian life� actually mean . . .?

But by the logic you are asserting, anything not mentioned by Jesus can be demanded as being acceptable Christian doctrine?

Nothing at all to do with my previous post . . .

That doesn't just leads to a very ambiguous Christian truth, it leads to anything goes. And the Gospels and the rest of the writings in the New Testament show that anything absolutely does not go and that there limits and parameters to what is and what isn't acceptable "Christians actions and beliefs.

I have no idea what any of that means . . .

To say that the word "homosexual," invented in the 19th century, is not the same behavior that Nero engaged in with his male wives during the lifetime of Peter, Paul and Jude is not in keeping with reality.

The things - Nero and his lovers, no less! - that apparently keep you awake at night, 99percent . . .!

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with the question asked.

And there needs to be addressed the fact that there are NO pro same gender sexual behavior texts anywhere in scripture.

Irrelevant . . .

Same gender sexual behavior is now known as homosexuality.

Partially. One can have a same-gender attraction and not act on it. But, if they do …so what? Moreover, that doesn’t take away from the claim that all references to homosexuality in the Bible pertain to idolatry and shrine temple prostitution. Applying those particular 'clobber texts' to refer to and to condemn one's innate sexual orientation - whether it be acted upon or not - is not morally acceptable.

[Wordleymaster1]

[Replying to 99percentatheism]

There is no pro-gay scripture, at least based on your interpertation.
Aksing for it doesn't make your point any less transparent and irrelevant.

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 49 by Danmark]

I think you are missing the point, and missing the point of various passages of scripture. When Paul is talking about not bothering about various differences Christians have with each other about whot foods to eat, or what days to observe, he is in effect saying, "don't sweat the small stuff."

Gay/LGBT Pride and what is demanded by the gay agenda is incredibly big stuff. It actually invents a new Christianity. One not created by the writers of the New Testament. It demands that everyone that says they are a Christian must submit to gay authority. That is why I wrote the thread about a Gay Denomination. They should have the decency to start their own Denomination, or in all reality, a new religion. Look to the Mormons for an example.

Jesus echoed this thought when warned against straining gnats while swallowing camels. He was complaining about the Pharisees condemning the Disciples for 'threshing' grain on the Sabbath so they could eat it as they walked along. Whereas the Pharisees were using a loophole in the law to avoid caring for their parents.

Good analogy. We can see that it is The Gay position that they are blameless for their sins before God and are righteous individuals because "God, made them the way they are." That's almost exactly what the Pharisee said. (And isn't it interesting that Jesus is claiming to have heard their prayers?)

When Jesus talked about divorcing wives, he was not talking about gender roles in marriage, but answering the practice of men divorcing their wives so they did not have to financially support them any longer, or because they were no longer attractive, or for other trivial reasons. He was not making a case about same gender marriage.

That is categorically incorrect. Jesus reaffirmed the nature of the individuals in a God created marriage. He even went so far as referencing Genesis. And there is no way around that.

The central problem with your doctrine on same sex marriage is that it fails to recognize how culture and temporally bound that thinking is. Paul recognizes this when he is no longer concerned about circumcision, or the right foods, or days.

Paul goes out of his way to not only condemn common homosexuality, but details what a marriage and proper sexuality is. Your premise here is certainly not applicable.

Tho' he did not mention it, other 'laws' such as not wearing mixed fabrics, or letting different grains be sowed in the same fields make no sense today. It is the essence of the law that must be followed:

To love God and to love others as you would be loved; to be sensitive to them and their inate differences.

Promoting and encouraging and celebrating people to sin is the antithesis of love. Jesus literally said that. Millstone and all.

In Paul's day they likely did not know that 5% of the population is virtually born with a different gender appreciation than the majority. Today, most of us know better. I recognize you disagree with this, but the majority of academics who have studied the matter objectively conclude it is so.

I'm sorry, but Christian truth is not dependent on psychiatry and the mob rule of activists. Actually it was mob activists that celebrated Christians to be tormented and executed for leaving the world and its ways (Roman ways that included complete acceptance of "gays and gay life") and choosing to live another way. Nero married a man named Sprorus. That would have been a countrywide celebration. The Christians would have written about "proper homosexual relations" but there is nothing but an opposite view from the writers of scripture. No, historic voice of affirming "gay love."

Even Paul understood the principle when he wrote that it is better not to marry, but if the temptation was too great, marriage was better than 'burning.' Would God really want someone to marry someone he or she is not attracted to just so they can live the lie that would be their conventional marriage?

Christians believe that leaving a life of sin and sinning is part of the choice of being a Christian. Paul highlights that perfectly. If you think about it, you are cementing the fact that gay identity is only about sex acts.

When you misunderstand 'gay pride' as a lack of humility, you misunderstand the history you claim to know. Something like 42% of gay men were bullied as 'sissies' in their youth.

So they say. But the act of "being closeted" says otherwise. If you are referencing non athletic wimpy looking guys, the commonness of bullying is almost ubiquitous even today. One trip into any "gay community" shows a macho and manly man is the gay ideal. No wimps I can assure you.

The violent police raid on the Stonewall Tavern finally crystalized decades of resentment for ridicule and bullying into these people standing up for themselves in a society that despised them and drove them to go underground, to hide themselves.

Stonewall was a "gay bar" that catered to youth prostitution. If anything should be hassled by the police, it is youth prostitution.

The central point of Christianity should be to help those who are wrongfully persecuted and hated, not shun them and speak out against them, while claiming to be "persecuted" when people disagree with this condemnation of a minority.

There are many, many, many, many, people that are harassed and wrongfully persecuted and hated that still lead lives that are incompatible with Christian life. Are Christians to embrace "equality" with those that promote non and anti Christian beliefs, actions and worldviews that are antithetical to Christian life? Actually NO. If your premise were to be followed through, then nice Muslims, Buddhists, Voodoo practitioners et al etc., etc., etc., should be affirmed as Christians if they demand it so. When reading what Jesus said, Peter wrote, Jude wrote, John wrote, Paul wrote, we have more than enough foundation to be both NOT part of the mean world and not part of the world of promoting sin and sinning.

How is this any different than what Mormons (or the Arians) demand of "Christians?" Or any number of spinoff/heretical movements? They come to our homes and into the theological and public square and demand that we are wrong and have to accept their ways. The gay pride agenda is and always will be historically shown to come from and out of a non and anti Christian worldview. That is just history that cannot be wiped away. It does not have its foundation in a Christian movement, nor does it being there by any sense of the word "justification." It is not the same as the American slavery issue, nor is it the same as the theological movements like The Great Awakening. It is NOT returning The Church to its original calling. It is turning it into a version of the world and its ways. Which is easy to prove just by looking at your referencing psychology theories to take authority in The Church. Why not let the Humanists "change" Christian truth to fit the modern world? Why not let nice Porn producers? Nice adulterers? I have met Porn stars and adulterers. Very nice people for the most part. So, when do we allow anyone and everyone to reinvent Christian truth just because it disagrees with their sexual proclivities or their personal tastes, likes and dislikes?

"Did God really say?"

First demanded by The Adversary.

OK, let's give the Devil his due.

God DID SAY what a marriage consists of. Detailed as man and woman/husband and wife in both Genesis and the Gospels. By what right do homosexuals possess to demand an alteration of that? "Just because?"

And please don't lose sight of the reality that this is about Christians and Christianity. Not "the world." Anything goes out there. But obviously not for the Christians addressed in the New Testament.

Did God really say?

Not one word of support for that gay agenda.

What does "the world" say? (The western world?)

Now, a lot of support for the gay agenda.

"Render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

You must admit, doesn't the Gay Pride Flag better represents Caesar's lifestyle than that of a Christian's?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 51 by Danmark]

[I understand the difficulty of typing on an IPad. I no longer attempt it at all, for anything longer than a sentence/texting type response]

One thing comes to mind that may possibly be a ground of agreement:

Do you agree that, but for the issue of homosexuality as sin, there are thousands, more likely millions of people who fully embrace "Christ as Lord and Savior," and want to be able to worship him as God both as individuals and in partnership with their 'soul mate' who happens to be of the same sex; that their faith has absolutely nothing to do with 'victory over others?' What they embrace [besides themselves] is to have 'victory over sin thru Jesus Christ?'

The very nature of "being a sinner" exists at conception and also enters into reality the moment after being "washed clean" by repentance and forgiveness. I have only heard homosexuals and gay pride activists demand that they are "born this way" to be excused to sin about homosexuality.

I realize this may seem to some a bit like the question posed to the First Lady in 1865, "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

I love that old joke, but part of the reason it is funny is because it is a genuinely proper hypothetical, even if it shows the questioner has lost his sense of proportion.

Other than a mob of a movement that demands to change Christian truth into a version of Humanist/secular ideology, how's The Church of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior?

Stated a slightly different way, do you concede that there are people joined in 'gay marriage' who sincerely see themselves as both married and Christians, who want to follow the commandments and are not at all interested in having 'victory over others' on this issue?

I have never presented any other perspective since inventing the username 99percentatheism and posting positions and OP's under it. There are many people that believe their behavior and worldviews and beliefs have invented a new Christianity. But when "tested," such as the gay agenda and gay theology, it is honest and fair to assert that what is the basis of their declarations is not in agreement with what the New Testament declares. I agree that there are people following "another Gospel" that are sincerely devoted to their version of it.

I ask again:

You must admit, doesn't the Gay Pride Flag better represents Caesar's lifestyle than that of a Christian's?

[Danmark]

You must admit, doesn't the Gay Pride Flag better represents Caesar's lifestyle than that of a Christian's?

Absolutely not. I explained to you what I think it means; it is a way of standing up for themselves, of trying to overcome years of oppression and shame by the larger society around them. Even many of their parents shun and shame them. It's gotten much better the last decade. It's not about lifestyle, it's about being allowed to be who they are without shame and without the insinuations inherent in your question.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 51 by Danmark]

[I understand the difficulty of typing on an IPad. I no longer attempt it at all, for anything longer than a sentence/texting type response]

One thing comes to mind that may possibly be a ground of agreement:

Do you agree that, but for the issue of homosexuality as sin, there are thousands, more likely millions of people who fully embrace "Christ as Lord and Savior," and want to be able to worship him as God both as individuals and in partnership with their 'soul mate' who happens to be of the same sex; that their faith has absolutely nothing to do with 'victory over others?' What they embrace [besides themselves] is to have 'victory over sin thru Jesus Christ?'

The very nature of "being a sinner" exists at conception and also enters into reality the moment after being "washed clean" by repentance and forgiveness. I have only heard homosexuals and gay pride activists demand that they are "born this way" to be excused to sin about homosexuality.

Yes, they are virtually "born that way" and much of the evidence of that fact has been published on this site. In addition to scientific evidence, I must confess I never made a decision to 'be straight.' I've never had the slightest temptation for a same sex encounter. My gender role seemed set in stone for as far back as my memories go. I also have to ask myself, if it were a 'choice,' why would anyone choose to be a member of an oppressed group. Who would choose to be a 'sissy' and be bullied with the use of that term and worse? I have known to many people, including an Episcopal Vicar, who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by confessing who he 'really is.'

I compare this to the prejudice many have about people who are grossly overweight. It's easy for those of us who do not struggle much with weight gain, to believe they are fat simply because they have no will power to eat less. But the evidence is coming in that frequently they are simply constituted differently; that there are genetic issues involved. A Christian, as well as others, should be sensitive to the fact we are all unique and we should be slow to judge. There is ample reason for old adages about not judging until we have walked a mile in the other man's moccasins.

[99percentatheism]

You must admit, doesn't the Gay Pride Flag better represents Caesar's lifestyle than that of a Christian's?

Absolutely not. I explained to you what I think it means; it is a way of standing up for themselves, of trying to overcome years of oppression and shame by the larger society around them.

Remember, it is not the history of pagan life that I am trying to advocate for but contending for Christian life against an antagonism that demands its utter demise and reinvention. A trip into gay life shows that Christian morality and the very definition of what a marriage is just simply finds antithesis under the that flag.

Even many of their parents shun and shame them.

So what? Children are people too. People that can indeed do things to be shunned for and that can be shameful acts. It certainly appears that people that hold to a Biblical view of morality are to be shunned and shamed now. In fact I do know parents, many of them actually, that would and do shun and shame their children for rejecting licentiousness (60's "free love" generation) and the gay agenda.

Is the following scenario really off the mark?:

"Mom, Mom, (or Dad, Dad), I have become a Born Again Evangelical Christian!"

"Ahhhhhhhh! you hateful homophobe!!!!!"

I'm addressed like that now by common strangers. What would happen to me and my choice to follow Jesus is my "parents" were gay activists?

It's gotten much better the last decade.

That's a matter of opinion and perspective now isn't it? The embracing of licentiousness and sexual licentiousness at that, has shown horror for mankind. Historic homosexuality and the unabashed using of anyone female or young person for the sexual pleasure of adults is nothing new in world history.

Now there has to be a "law" (of course in California) that tries to restrict rape on college campuses. The Yes means Yes law.

What have we become?

It's not about lifestyle, it's about being allowed to be who they are without shame and without the insinuations inherent in your question.

Insinuations? I make it clear, and perfectly supported by Biblical and human history that there is no compatibility between homosexual life and the life described for men and women in the Bible. The more study into "gay history" shows it not to be so closeted at all.

How does a child of a same gender couple (which of course is biologically and anatomically impossible) "Honor thy Father and they Mother?" The otherness of gay theology doesn't fit Christian and Jewish theology.

Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
DENNIS PRAGER

When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible.

It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.
Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm

- http://catholiceducation.org/articles/h ... o0003.html

This is not something new to the world and its ways.

[99percentatheism]

Danmark

[Replying to post 51 by Danmark]

[I understand the difficulty of typing on an IPad. I no longer attempt it at all, for anything longer than a sentence/texting type response]

One thing comes to mind that may possibly be a ground of agreement:

Do you agree that, but for the issue of homosexuality as sin, there are thousands, more likely millions of people who fully embrace "Christ as Lord and Savior," and want to be able to worship him as God both as individuals and in partnership with their 'soul mate' who happens to be of the same sex; that their faith has absolutely nothing to do with 'victory over others?' What they embrace [besides themselves] is to have 'victory over sin thru Jesus Christ?'

The very nature of "being a sinner" exists at conception and also enters into reality the moment after being "washed clean" by repentance and forgiveness. I have only heard homosexuals and gay pride activists demand that they are "born this way" to be excused to sin about homosexuality.

Yes, they are virtually "born that way" and much of the evidence of that fact has been published on this site.

We are human beings right and not beasts of the field or jungle? Yes or no.

In addition to scientific evidence, I must confess I never made a decision to 'be straight.'

You remember how you were conditioned from zero to three? One to ten?

How do modern day hunters find hunting enjoyable?

I've never had the slightest temptation for a same sex encounter. My gender role seemed set in stone for as far back as my memories go.

There are memories one cannot recall. I have a fear of falling. Am I a heightaphobe or as a child did I trip and fall at some point in my upbringing? Scars heal but still have consequences.

I also have to ask myself, if it were a 'choice,' why would anyone choose to be a member of an oppressed group.

Tat is an incredibly silly sentiment. Why are so many of us "polar opposites" on many issues? So, then "The Gay Agenda" is not a mistaken label?

Who would choose to be a 'sissy' and be bullied with the use of that term and worse?

Being weak and wimpy is a condition many children go through. That doesn't mean that they are destined to desire homosexual interactions.

I have known to many people, including an Episcopal Vicar, who had everything to lose and nothing to gain by confessing who he 'really is.'

How many Pastors have "Come Out" as atheist? That's a weak analogy. Obviously use posses a far greater command of prose than that. You should be seeking an otherness of gay life and take a stand there.

I compare this to the prejudice many have about people who are grossly overweight. It's easy for those of us who do not struggle much with weight gain, to believe they are fat simply because they have no will power to eat less.

Prejudice? People are fat simply by caloric consumption. No matter how one comes to their obesity, it is a matter of fact how it is obtained. Malnourished children with a "thyroid condition" cannot biologically get fat unless they engage in fattening behaviors. Does it now make me a junkfoodaphobe, over a overindulgentaphobe because I insert reality into the fat-healthy weight agenda?

But the evidence is coming in that frequently they are simply constituted differently; that there are genetic issues involved.

It matters by whom the information is used. There is evidence that a porn addict can avoid porn.

A Christian, as well as others, should be sensitive to the fact we are all unique and we should be slow to judge.

And that is the message of the Cross.

Everyone can repent of their sins. ANYONE. Maybe not the beasts of the field or farmyard, living room or zoo, but we humans can.

There is ample reason for old adages about not judging until we have walked a mile in the other man's moccasins.

I have all of the body parts a man does that engages in gay sex. By the absence of compulsion or manipulation, my body is not designed by nature to engage in same gender sex acts. Even if I am wearing moccasins.

Now, if I claim that moccasins are designed for the feet, am I a shoeaphobe?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 59 by 99percentatheism]

Post 59 is a catalogue of logical fallacies and devoid of evidence.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Evidence:

'Researchers have speculated in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men may have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This may be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings at a discussion event held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Thursday. "The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation," he said. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were gay themselves, compared to around 3% of the general population.Uncles and male cousins on the mother's side had a greater than average chance of being gay, too.

The link with the mother's side of the family led Hamer to look more closely at the X chromosome. In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, suggesting key genes resided there.
....
"Genetic factors explain 30 to 40% of the variation between people's sexual orientation. However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome. "
....
Historically, the persecution and awful treatment of LGBT groups has been because politicians, religious leaders and societies have viewed sexual orientation as 'choice' or due to poor upbringing."'
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... tion-study

This is in accord with my own anecdotal experience. None of my four siblings are gay or lesbian. On my father's side, none of my counsins or nephews are gay; however, on my mother's side I have a gay cousin [and ardent GOP spokesman] and two gay nephews. All of these relatives were raised by devout evangelical Christian parents.

The writing is on the wall and is getting clearer by the day.