Originally posted by Rajk999
All people have a sexdrive. Why are you singling out homosexuals for preferential treatment ?

That is my point, everyone has a sex drive. How cruel is it that people of a certain makeup can not act on it. I may be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe homosexuals find the notion of sex with the opposite sex a unappealing as I would find sex with the same sex as unappealing. That would pretty much leave them with a sex drive but nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
[b]In prison it's rarely consensual when a man allows himself to be
dominated sexually by another. It's more about power and control.

Thats not true. Rape does happen of course but, there is a lot of genuine relationships where they have "weddings"in the yard, wear rings,move in together ,etc . One acts masculine the other feminine. This is a ...[text shortened]... o men having intercourse is a homosexual act.plain and simple. If it is not,what is it then?[/b]

According to Human Rights Watch in a 2001 report,[1] sexual slavery [in prisons] frequently poses
as a consensual sexual relationship. Rape victims are often intimidated into feigning consent to
sexual activity, to the point of becoming "slaves" and the figurative property of their rapists. This
occurs in both male and female prisons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Again, the homosexual act is not necessarily commited from a homosexual desire, and therefore
the participants doesn't have to be homosexuals to engage in such an act. The desire is not a
choice. It is what it is: a desire.

Originally posted by Jigtie

According to Human Rights Watch in a 2001 report,[1] sexual slavery [in prisons] frequently poses
as a consensual sexual relationship. Rape victims are often intimidated into feigning consent to
sexual activity, to the point of becoming "slaves" and the figurative property of their rapists. This
occurs in both male and female prisons

h ...[text shortened]... mosexuals to engage in such an act. The desire is not a
choice. It is what it is: a desire.

I would say a biological driven desire.

Originally posted by joe beyser
That is my point, everyone has a sex drive. How cruel is it that people of a certain makeup can not act on it. I may be wrong here, but maybe, just maybe homosexuals find the notion of sex with the opposite sex a unappealing as I would find sex with the same sex as unappealing. That would pretty much leave them with a sex drive but nothing to do with it.

So you think fornication should be ok as well.

Originally posted by Rajk999
So you think fornication should be ok as well.

Marriage takes care of that. Granted people get horny before they get married but even the best of christians give in on that do you agree?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ummm, not convinced jojo, the science is sketchy at the very least, nor can one hardly describe it as natural, for the chances of the genetic code, being passed from one generation to the next through an act of homosexuality is nil!

By its nature homosexuality should fade out if homosexuals don't have kids. That is why I think it is degradation of DNA rather than family traits. We all may have the gene and it only is dominant under certain conditions. I have absolutely no data to back that up as it is just my own little theory. Look at pedophilia. Now there is a socially unacceptable behavioral disease! Those guys get out of prison just to return again over and over. They must be removed from society, but God will have to be the ultimate judge. Homosexuality is not a threat to society and with the exception of the military, and can be productive citezens. I have a hard time thinking people choose something that sidelines them in society, but then again I don't understand satan worship either. I can only say that my relative was born slightly different.

Originally posted by joe beyser
You sure showed a lot of references for that statement. 🙂

Ho ho. You've agreed this now though haven't you?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ho ho. You've agreed this now though haven't you?

I don't know Lord Shark. You win quit kicking me, I'm going to cry!

Originally posted by utherpendragon
So we have proof "it can be a choice".We all agree on that.
We have no proof it is genetic. Where does that leave us then?

There is evidence that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation, let me know if you want me to dig up some references.

My point, which has been reiterated above, is that it is incoherent to regard an orientation as a choice. Homosexuality, meaning a predisposition to be sexually attracted to members of one's own sex and not the opposite sex, is not a choice, but we can choose whether or not to act upon it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
By its nature homosexuality should fade out if homosexuals don't have kids. That is why I think it is degradation of DNA rather than family traits. We all may have the gene and it only is dominant under certain conditions. I have absolutely no data to back that up as it is just my own little theory. Look at pedophilia. Now there is a socially unacceptable understand satan worship either. I can only say that my relative was born slightly different.

I don't know Lord Shark. You win quit kicking me, I'm going to cry!
🙂

Look, it's nothing personal, it is just that you keep typing things that are extraordinary absurd unevidenced claims.

Here's the latest:
By its nature homosexuality should fade out if homosexuals don't have kids.
That isn't necessarily true. Don't you think that if you are going to make statements relating to a subject you ought to gain at least a rudimentary grasp of the basics first? Oh, wait you don't:
I have absolutely no data to back that up as it is just my own little theory.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In Matthew 19:1-12 Jesus is asked the following question:
"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"

Consider the following:
1) Jesus is asked about divorce between a man and a woman. He is asked about this specific pairing. Why would Jesus bring up "some other alternate pairing" when asked about divorce between a man and a w ...[text shortened]... is passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

To infer what you did from this passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

No. Not only in Jesus answering a question about divorce, but in answering it, he is claiming that marriage is the very purpose of man and woman -- '"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? I think this would be an extremely strange statement if Jesus was a supporter of gay-rights. Secondly, Jesus does discuss alternatives to marriage -- celibacy, those born eunuchs, those made eunuchs, and those who willingly choose to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Surely, if Jesus were allied with same-sex rights, he would have included them in this list as well?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]To infer what you did from this passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

No. Not only in Jesus answering a question about divorce, but in answering it, he is claiming that marriage is the very purpose of man and woman -- '"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female ...[text shortened]... Jesus were allied with same-sex rights, he would have included them in this list as well?[/b]

Maybe some of the authors of the bible were homophobic?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]I don't know Lord Shark. You win quit kicking me, I'm going to cry!
🙂

Look, it's nothing personal, it is just that you keep typing things that are extraordinary absurd unevidenced claims.

Here's the latest:
By its nature homosexuality should fade out if homosexuals don't have kids.
That isn't necessarily true. Don't you think that ...[text shortened]... t:
I have absolutely no data to back that up as it is just my own little theory.[/b]

Ouch!! Quit it!!🙁

Originally posted by joe beyser
Maybe some of the authors of the bible were homophobic?

Likely.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]To infer what you did from this passage makes no sense. Hopefully you'll recognize how weak an argument you have made.

No. Not only in Jesus answering a question about divorce, but in answering it, he is claiming that marriage is the very purpose of man and woman -- '"Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female Jesus were allied with same-sex rights, he would have included them in this list as well?[/b]

I think this would be an extremely strange statement if Jesus was a supporter of gay-rights.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Not necessarily. It is simply what you choose to infer. Jesus was asked about man and woman and gave an explanation about man and woman and why THEY should not divorce. Not only was he not asked about marriage and divorce for homosexuals, he was not asked about homosexuality at all. Furthermore, he does not state his position on homosexuality. Whatever you take from it about "gay-rights" is purely an inference on your part.

Secondly, Jesus does discuss alternatives to marriage -- celibacy, those born eunuchs, those made eunuchs, and those who willingly choose to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Surely, if Jesus were allied with same-sex rights, he would have included them in this list as well

Jesus discusses man and woman, i.e., heterosexuals, not marrying because it was in response to the following statement:
"If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.

He was explicitly addressing the idea of not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. So the "list" is limited to not marrying as an option for heterosexuals. Why would Jesus bring up homosexuality when asked about not marrying as an alternative for heterosexuals?

Once again, whatever you take from it about homosexuality is purely an inference on your part.