TinMan
Well-Known Member
No you declared it to be impossible and did so by purposefully ignoring basic tenants of genetics and doing so showed the last thing you were being was logical.I don't need evidence because I already argued that it was a logical impossibility. If we postulate that biologically determined orientation is an aspect of the natural order, then there are only two means by which such a thing is possible: 1) God created it that way, which is unlikely or 2) natural selection, which is impossible since there is only one orientation that results in the propagation of genetic material: male-female. Even if a gene is inherited by the mother, it still requires a father to make a baby. And only one orientation results in a baby. Orientation is not listed among the inherited traits through the mother.
Male pattern baldness is inherited though the maternal line.
Height is inherited through the paternal line
Circadian rhythms (the natural cycles of sleeping and waking) passed on through the maternal line.
Crooked teeth passed through the paternal line
and dozens of other genetic traits pass only though one parent. And orientation is one of those like it or not.
re-reading faulty thinking won't change facts.It isn't inherited at all.
The generalization is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading for the reasons I stated. Go back and read my argument.
wow, you rally don't have a clue about minorities.Even in the case of Black people. No one likes to be known according to the flesh -- even black people. If Joe is acknowledged to be the best Jazz musician in Chicago, to classify him as "the best black musician is insulting to Joe, as if he couldn't compete in a white world.
you chose your wife solely because she was a woman. Because of your orientationSexual attraction should not be classified based on gender as it overlooks the most crucial aspect of sexual attraction: the human connection between individuals. If I had chosen my wife solely based on her race, any woman of the same race would have sufficed.
You and people like you are the ones causing that divide and the pushing discrimination.However, that was not the case. I chose Zoe because of her kind, considerate, Christian, good-hearted, giving, generous, and understanding nature. I picked HER, a person, through a personal choice. Social classifications are mere generalizations that do not aid in seeking wisdom and living a good life. Classifications such as LGBT do nothing but divide and cause wrangling and disputes.
And you still limited your choices to women because of your orientation.You have overlooked the most crucial factor in attraction: personality and character. As I mentioned earlier, if we limit our selection to looks and chemistry, then the pool of candidates becomes vast, potentially numbering in the hundreds or even thousands. In my search for a partner, I made the choice to focus on finding someone with a unique personality and character, which narrowed the field down to a single choice. While there were numerous white, beautiful, kind, empathetic, and personally compatible women in my college, (according to your list,) only a few had the exceptional personality and character that my partner Zoe possesses. She is truly one of a kind, and I feel very lucky to have found her.
And you only considered women because of your orientation.When choosing a life partner, it is important to select an individual rather than a group, class, or family. I consider the attributes of the person and assess their significance and importance which helps me narrow down the choices. For me, an individual's character holds more weight than their physical attributes. I am searching for a specific person who possesses all the qualities that I value.
Arousal happens above the waistline in your mind.Let's keep this above the waistline. :)
of course it does and it is just foolish to pretend it doesn't.My point exactly. But we are discussing the concept of "orientation", which has no meaning apart from sexuality.
It is innate.What would it mean for me to say, for example, that I prefer beer with pizza rather than Coke if I never eat pizza? We understand the meaning of words within the context where they appear.
You maintain that homosexuality isn't immoral in the same way that having blue eyes isn't immoral. You argue that orientation is an innate attribute of human existence and therefore God can't hold man responsible for homosexual activity.
One more time. I will type slowly so you can better understand. The genes that determine homosexuality work in the mother to make her more fertile. Again basic genetics.If we suppose, as you suggested, that orientation is inherited through the mother. We can only surmise that an orientation other than male-female is a chronic hereditary disorder caused by a genetic defect. In that case, in order to satisfy morality, one must remain celibate.
Bob has sickle cell anemia but neither of his parents have this condition. What you are saying is that this is impossible because of your faulty grasp of genetics. The gene that causes sickle cell anemia works in Bob'[s parents as a means of protection from malaria.
Not obvious at allFor obvious reasons. Homosexual attraction is an impure desire, which is contrary to the will of God. The committed worshipper of God will set aside his own wants and desires and ask for what he desires instead.
That is your choice. don't inflict it onto others.Same reason. Many of us are faced with impure desires, such as sleeping with another man's wife, or sleeping with another wife's husband. All of the attributes of attraction are in play, including emotional connections, proximity, availability, physical attraction, etc. Just as adultery is wrong, so are other sexual practices that take place outside of God's will for marriage. Given that a man or a woman has impure thoughts and desires at times, the right choice is to deny oneself fulfillment of these desires.