Originally posted by lucifershammerNo and no.
Because gays are born that way, didn't you know? Claiming that they'll all become gay would make as much sense as claiming they'll all become black, wouldn't it?
Abortion and contraception, on the other hand, are choices (after all, it's called the pro-choice movement) made in line with one's ideology or worldview.
Originally posted by rwingettwell, there is nothing in the bible about interracial marraige. there is, on the other hand, a few bits about homosexuality. most notably, the bits that say practising it is bad.
Which wing will win? The progressive wing, which likes their bishops gay, or the medieval wing, which does not? My money's on the progressive wing, as any sensible person can see that the pro-gay faction is the wave of the future. The whole thing mirrors the former controversy over inter-racial marriage - formerly shunned, but now almost universally accepte ...[text shortened]... aim it was the Episcopalian Church which was on the forefront of social change in this regard.
the episcopal church in scotland had roughly the same problem-the church said they were going to appoint homosexual ministers. quite a few other ministers objected, and the church hierarchy kinda said "emm. okay." and sort of pretended nothing had happened and they were never going to appoint them in the first place...
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay.
No and no.
So you didn't know that gays were born that way. That's fine -- we all keep learning (apparently).
The second 'no' makes sense only in one of the following scenarios:
(1) Gays are not, in fact, born that way.
(2) Gays are indeed born that way, but such inclination/activity can be altered.
Which is it?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI still don't know that gays are born that way. I suspect that is incorrect or at best, open to debate.
[b/]Okay.
So you didn't know that gays were born that way. That's fine -- we all keep learning (apparently).
The second 'no' makes sense only in one of the following scenarios:
(1) Gays are not, in fact, born that way.
(2) Gays are indeed born that way, but such inclination/activity can be altered.
Which is it?[/b
Originally posted by no1marauderIn which case, (to return to your post which started this line of discussion) your comparison of being gay to choosing to contracept/abort makes sense only if being gay were a choice similar to the latter.
I still don't know that gays are born that way. I suspect that is incorrect or at best, open to debate.
(There's a little bit of ambiguity here because many commentators differentiate between being a 'homosexual' or having homosexual attractions and being 'gay' or living a particular lifestyle. If this sense of 'gay' is being used then it is, indeed, a choice.)
Btw, what happened to your avatar?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI define someone as gay who perform sex acts primarily or exclusively with people of the same sex . And I believe that is a choice, though like any other choice various external factors have some bearing on the likelihood of the individual making the choice.
In which case, (to return to your post which started this line of discussion) your comparison of being gay to choosing to contracept/abort makes sense only if being gay were a choice similar to the latter.
(There's a little bit of ambiguity here because many commentators differentiate between being a 'homosexual' or having homosexual attractions an 'gay' is being used then it is, indeed, a choice.)
Btw, what happened to your avatar?
Non-subscribers don't get avatars and I stopped being a subscriber about 4 months ago.
Originally posted by no1marauderDoes that mean that each gay person had to become gay?
I define someone as gay who perform sex acts primarily or exclusively with people of the same sex . And I believe that is a choice, though like any other choice various external factors have some bearing on the likelihood of the individual making the choice.
Non-subscribers don't get avatars and I stopped being a subscriber about 4 months ago.