Homosexuality: Wrong or Right?

[BarneyFife]

Does it matter if he did or didn't? Is that going to change your answer?

I'm not taking sides in this high school debate jockeying that's going on but are the facts involving the Gabriel case going to change the determination of whether homosexuality is wrong or right?

.

 

[Naomanos]

I'm not taking sides in this high school debate jockeying that's going on but are the facts involving the Gabriel case going to change the determination of whether homosexuality is wrong or right?

.

I can't say that it will, but I have a hard time believing that an 8-year-old, who said he was gay committed evil acts. He was 8 years old and just because he said it didn't mean that he absolutely was gay and surely did not act on those feelings.

I too would like to know what he did that was evil at 8 years old?

 

[TinMan]

I can't say that it will, but I have a hard time believing that an 8-year-old, who said he was gay committed evil acts. He was 8 years old and just because he said it didn't mean that he absolutely was gay and surely did not act on those feelings.

I too would like to know what he did that was evil at 8 years old?

He didn't say he was. His parents believed he was.

 

[Naomanos]

He didn't say he was. His parents believed he was.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[TinMan]

I'm not taking sides in this high school debate jockeying that's going on but are the facts involving the Gabriel case going to change the determination of whether homosexuality is wrong or right?

.

His death is the direct result in the belief that it is wrong even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it. The particular issue here is not just the idea that homosexuals are evil and deserve to suffer but the dismissal of what happened as "extreme" so something as uncomfortable as this can be brushed away. Both these attitudes lead to abuse and so yes, it does matter.

 

[CadyandZoe]

"mutations are unable to propagate."

You are quoting me out of context. It seems you didn't understand my point.
I'll make the same point below in a different way.

Yet you make statements about how only direct line passage of genes is possible

Why do you think otherwise?

and here you are demonstrating that you really don't get the concept.

Saying so doesn't make it so.

the genetics found so far relating to homosexuality are passed on through the female.

That can't be true for the reasons I already explained.

Let me try again. I will type slower this time. Let's imagine that at some point in human biological history, a recessive gene for female-female orientation emerged. This may have been caused by gamma rays or other cosmic phenomena that caused one of her genes to become a recessive gene associated with female-female orientation. Now, let's suppose she mates with her husband, who does not possess that gene.

Based on the "Parental Genotypes" chart, it seems that only one out of four cases will exhibit the recessive trait. This occurs when each parent contributes the recessive allele, resulting in the child's body incorporating two recessive alleles. To clarify, if we refer to the dominant allele as 'D' and the recessive allele as 'd', we can have four possible combinations: DD, Dd, Dd, and dd. Only the 'dd' combination will exhibit the recessive trait. Each parent must contribute one gene necessary for a recessive trait to manifest.

Let's consider setting up a matrix that shows male and female mating combinations. This matrix would result in four possible combinations: Mm, Ff, Mf, and fM. However, only Mf and fM can combine genetic material to produce a child. When it comes to the recessive gene for the manifestation of Mm and Ff orientations, only one combination, Ff, has a pair of recessive genes to contribute, but no way to share them.

Hopefully, you can now see that biology does not determine orientation.

in females the genes make the woman more fertile. when passed to male offspring they produce a heightened chance of homosexuality, about 30% higher chance with each subsequent male child. The genes passed onto their daughters makes them more fertile and more likely to have a gay son.

Reproduction by cybernetics? I don't think so.

 

[BarneyFife]

Co

His death is the direct result in the belief that it is wrong even though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

This is rank sophistry.

Lots of folks believe homosexuality is wrong without going out and killing a homosexual, without even having to exert any conscious energy toward restraint.

His death was the result of his parents acting on the demonic fear and hatred in their unregenerate hearts.

The particular issue here is not just the idea that homosexuals are evil and deserve to suffer but the dismissal of what happened as "extreme" so something as uncomfortable as this can be brushed away.

That may be the particular issue between you and your opponent within the context of that discussion but it is wholly immaterial to the subject of the thread.

.

 

[MatthewG]

People love to pick on the homosexuals, I guess its just like school. Some people rather bully people into submission. God doesnt do that.

 

[BarneyFife]

I can't say that it will, but I have a hard time believing that an 8-year-old, who said he was gay committed evil acts. He was 8 years old and just because he said it didn't mean that he absolutely was gay and surely did not act on those feelings.

I too would like to know what he did that was evil at 8 years old?

Pragmatically speaking, except for the most extraordinary cases of early puberty, I can't see how an 8-year-old could possibly be in violation of the command for a man to abstain from lying with a man, as with a woman—even in his heart, as per the Sermon On The Mount.

Also, legally speaking, a boy wasn't a man in the ancient Hebrew economy until he was twelve (also likely tied to the onset of puberty), and since the command for men to abstain from wearing that which pertained to women was specified as pertaining to a man, an 8-year-old could hardly be considered eligible to fall under that condemnation, either.

On the other hand, the general question of evil ability in an 8-year-old has a fairly obvious, I would think, answer. 8-year-olds are, in fact, capable of evil deeds, as a quick scroll through news aggregators will clearly reveal.

Alas, none of this, mental meandering is of any consequence, since Christians are not bound to a modern theocracy so no prescription of capital punishment for sin is valid.

Whatever the boy thought, said, or did, none of it was worthy of the heart-sickening treatment he endured, and the observation that the parents were in some way provoked is worthy of even less consideration.

But all of this is just so much smoke-filled, coffee house crap in the light of what critical gender theory is doing to the Western world.

Postmodernism is a philosophy of despair and critical theory, which springs from it, produces a society where no distinction is made between men except that of the oppressor and the oppressed.

Consequently, the very definition of sin becomes oppression, so only that which supports or is predicted to lead to oppression is called sin.

And so, all forms of Biblically-defined sin are acceptable as long as they are not perceived by the oppressed (or their advocates) to oppress them.

Much is made of compassion and mercy but, for the oppressors, vengeance and (social) justice is all that can be afforded.

I too often find myself needing to apologize for my comments here on the forum. When I do so to those who value Biblical standards of conduct I'm nearly always received favorably. When I apologize to those who oppose them, I'm not even acknowledged.

I do not expect forgiveness, but I can't help having noticed this distinction.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

Contrary to the claims being made, the matter of "sexual orientation" being fixed at birth or at any other time is not a settled matter in the scientific community at large. Not even close.

The validity of the push to accept a person's view of their own sexual identity cannot be demonstrated in the proverbial test tube.

The studies involving a person's preference for gender in intimate companionship are in their infancy and the ones involving actual biological (genetic, hormonal) evidence are a source of optimism for enthusiastic activists, at best. They will likely avail nothing of consequence. Most of what's been found so far can be explained by the rapidly emerging and legitimate science of neuroplasticity.

At the present time, "sexual orientation" is seen by science as "a complex and multifaceted aspect of human identity influenced by a combination of genetic, biological, social, and environmental factors. The exact causes and mechanisms are not fully understood, and research in this area continues to evolve."

In other words, "We don't have a clue as to what is or if it even exists."

However, by the time the scientific jury is in on all of this society will be yet again addicted to another of the latest forms of sensual, health-destroying indulgence, and the evidence for divinely-designed sexual purpose will be further marginalized or cancelled by those who have developed a profitable market for worldly, "designer" vice. People are, for the most part, uninterested in wholesome, beneficial things that entail minimal risk.

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

People love to pick on the homosexuals, I guess its just like school. Some people rather bully people into submission. God doesnt do that.

Yeah, God rejects ALL who refuse to give up their sin... no matter what that sin might be

Once cannot live in sin and be right with the Lord at the same time.... they have to either choose to serve the Lord or serve their sin.

I can't see how an 8-year-old could possibly be in violation of the command for a man to abstain from lying with a man, as with a woman—even in his heart, as per the Sermon On The Mount.

God knows whether they have arrived at the place where the know right from wrong.

The Lord has written basic morality in everyone's heart (Romans 2:15) so instinctively they are going to know being gay is wrong and will have to be taught that it's not wrong by listening to the devil and other people who speak for the devil. Being gay is learned behavior.

 

[MatthewG]

Yeah, God rejects ALL who refuse to give up their sin... no matter what that sin might be

Once cannot live in sin and be right with the Lord at the same time.... they have to either choose to serve the Lord or serve their sin.



God knows whether they have arrived at the place where the know right from wrong.

The Lord has written basic morality in everyone's heart (Romans 2:15) so instinctively they are going to know being gay is wrong and will have to be taught that it's not wrong by listening to the devil and other people who speak for the devil. Being gay is learned behavior.

Im probably somewhat a little gay. But I dont really get anything by talking about the subject.

 

[MatthewG]

 

[BarneyFife]

God knows whether they have arrived at the place where the know right from wrong.

Agreed

The Lord has written basic morality in everyone's heart (Romans 2:15) so instinctively they are going to know being gay is wrong and will have to be taught that it's not wrong by listening to the devil and other people who speak for the devil. Being gay is learned behavior.

There are genetic factors that cause various propensities to evil.

The default human condition at birth is not holiness, even where the awareness of correct morality is present at a very early age.

Over-simplifying problems with proof texts doesn't solve them.

People need Jesus.

Because Jesus saves.

.

 

[CadyandZoe]

and you can thank your orientation for that

Not from my perspective and worldview. According to my worldview, acts of kindness are common to both sexes and are matters of the will and the heart.

if this were true than you and your wife would only be good friends

Why? What do you mean? In my view, my kids are indicative of my "orientation." But you seemed to miss the point again. I was exploring the concept of "attraction" because attraction is a major component in the alleged concept of "orientation."

Define orientation: "a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted . . ." (Oxford)

Since sexual attraction is the primary and essential concept associated with sexual orientation, one can not simply ask someone about their orientation. The only way to filter out all the liars is to observe which gender they choose for a mate.

and one's attraction to males or females or both is orientation

What is "attraction" if not lust, need, pleasure or lust? What is "attraction" if not an expression of preference, liking, fondness, or proclivity? All of these things are matters of the mind, spirit, and heart -- not biologically determined.

then why are trying to associate it with orientation?

We are exploring the concept of attraction. I pointed out that female-female attraction does not necessarily indicate sexual attraction.

But the definition of "orientation" as we saw above, is couched in terms of "gender" rather than sex. The definition relies on an absurd definition of gender which denotes a particular social construct rather than a biological one. In this view, the tacit assumption is that a gay man is not actually attracted to a biological man, he is attracted to a male who identifies as a "woman" as established by current social paradigm. In reality, the gay couple is participating in a LARP, wherein one of the partners mimics a female for the sake of the relationship.

 

[TinMan]

You are quoting me out of context. It seems you didn't understand my point.
I'll make the same point below in a different way.

Why do you think otherwise?

Saying so doesn't make it so.

That can't be true for the reasons I already explained.

Let me try again. I will type slower this time. Let's imagine that at some point in human biological history, a recessive gene for female-female orientation emerged. This may have been caused by gamma rays or other cosmic phenomena that caused one of her genes to become a recessive gene associated with female-female orientation. Now, let's suppose she mates with her husband, who does not possess that gene.

Based on the "Parental Genotypes" chart, it seems that only one out of four cases will exhibit the recessive trait. This occurs when each parent contributes the recessive allele, resulting in the child's body incorporating two recessive alleles. To clarify, if we refer to the dominant allele as 'D' and the recessive allele as 'd', we can have four possible combinations: DD, Dd, Dd, and dd. Only the 'dd' combination will exhibit the recessive trait. Each parent must contribute one gene necessary for a recessive trait to manifest.

Let's consider setting up a matrix that shows male and female mating combinations. This matrix would result in four possible combinations: Mm, Ff, Mf, and fM. However, only Mf and fM can combine genetic material to produce a child. When it comes to the recessive gene for the manifestation of Mm and Ff orientations, only one combination, Ff, has a pair of recessive genes to contribute, but no way to share them.

Hopefully, you can now see that biology does not determine orientation.


Reproduction by cybernetics? I don't think so.

What part of "its passed down through the mother" did you not get?

 

[TinMan]

Co


This is rank sophistry.

Lots of folks believe homosexuality is wrong without going out and killing a homosexual, without even having to exert any conscious energy toward restraint.

His death was the result of his parents acting on the demonic fear and hatred in their unregenerate hearts.

LBGT youth are 80 times more likely to be physically abused by their parents AFTER their parents find out they are LGBT.

I've managed to meet with more kids and young adult living on the street who survived their parents attempt to kill them.

Gabriel's parents didn't do anything other people haven't, they were just a bit more sadistic and a good bit less intelligent in that they didn't make his death look like an accident or a suicide.

That may be the particular issue between you and your opponent within the context of that discussion but it is wholly immaterial to the subject of the thread.

.

and yet here you are dismissing it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What part of "its passed down through the mother" did you not get?

Your language is too imprecise for this discussion. Your description isn't wrong as far as it goes, but for the sake of my point, I described the process of reproduction, i.e. genetic transmission. A woman can't make a child on her own. Recessive expression depends on the combination of genetic material from both parents, one female and one male.

A woman's ability to get pregnant is not relevant to the issue. Fertility is the predicate to the reproductive act but the exchange of genetic material and the biological mechanism associated with the process are the relevant factors here.

Assuming that orientation is the determining factor for the choice of a mate, then logically, only one orientation results in children.

The orientation gene can't reproduce itself. End of story.

 

[CadyandZoe]

LBGT youth are 80 times more likely to be physically abused by their parents AFTER their parents find out they are LGBT.

I doubt that LGBT children exist. There is no such thing as an LGBT child.

 

[TinMan]

Contrary to the claims being made, the matter of "sexual orientation" being fixed at birth or at any other time is not a settled matter in the scientific community at large. Not even close.

The validity of the push to accept a person's view of their own sexual identity cannot be demonstrated in the proverbial test tube.

The studies involving a person's preference for gender in intimate companionship are in their infancy and the ones involving actual biological (genetic, hormonal) evidence are a source of optimism for enthusiastic activists, at best. They will likely avail nothing of consequence. Most of what's been found so far can be explained by the rapidly emerging and legitimate science of neuroplasticity.

so science that produces explanations you can fit your personal bias are "legitimate" but science that shows what you don't like is unsettles fluff latched on to by "activists"

At the present time, "sexual orientation" is seen by science as "a complex and multifaceted aspect of human identity influenced by a combination of genetic, biological, social, and environmental factors. The exact causes and mechanisms are not fully understood, and research in this area continues to evolve."

In other words, "We don't have a clue as to what is or if it even exists."

However, by the time the scientific jury is in on all of this society will be yet again addicted to another of the latest forms of sensual, health-destroying indulgence, and the evidence for divinely-designed sexual purpose will be further marginalized or cancelled by those who have developed a profitable market for worldly, "designer" vice. People are, for the most part, uninterested in wholesome, beneficial things that entail minimal risk.

.

Addicted
sensual
health destroying
indulgence
marginalize
profit driven
(un) wholesome
Damaging

Your personal bias is showing