-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oh I think the logic is flawed. It is, if you will, the non-Christian's reason to be against gay marriage. A convenient position to embrace if you like being licentious without being homosexual.
To be fair you are right in that they wouldn't be "incapable." In theory though, their acceptance of their genetic predisposition to being homosexual would nullify any sort of capability barring the use of force to make them procreate.
Either way, it would be considered a generally harmful genetic anomaly.
To be fair you are right in that they wouldn't be "incapable." In theory though, their acceptance of their genetic predisposition to being homosexual would nullify any sort of capability barring the use of force to make them procreate.
Either way, it would be considered a generally harmful genetic anomaly.
Shiloah, I do not mean to start a heated debate by this question as it appears you are more scientifically literate than I am. I do see a possible hole in this though.
Could genes that do not contribute to procreation be repressed to assure procreation? How about recessive traits? Would phenotype be taken into consideration?
Could genes that do not contribute to procreation be repressed to assure procreation? How about recessive traits? Would phenotype be taken into consideration?
1. Depends, procreation or adoption. There is a different argument for each.
A. Procreation: They were delinquent in their roles as parents one way or another. Not to mention the fact they sinned through sexual experimentation to arrive at the conclusion they were gay (a point you have yet to consider it seems)(a naturalist wouldn't care about the whole sin thing really).
Either way, they played with the fire that is life and caused some burning. Their children will not grow up in an optimum environment.
B. Adoption. Well I rest my case. In the naturalist sense these children were never really the children of the homosexual to begin with.
2. No procreation means no next generation. Being hesitant to procreate but doing so under force or social convention would bring the trait to the next generation thereby continuing the inhibition.
Note: This is fun, but tiring. As much as I love arguing views that are not my own, I'm done with the naturalist kick. That said, I still think the naturalist argument is stronger than yours and will entertain it for one more post. Choose your questions well and don't make me rehash the same points.
A. Procreation: They were delinquent in their roles as parents one way or another. Not to mention the fact they sinned through sexual experimentation to arrive at the conclusion they were gay (a point you have yet to consider it seems)(a naturalist wouldn't care about the whole sin thing really).
Either way, they played with the fire that is life and caused some burning. Their children will not grow up in an optimum environment.
B. Adoption. Well I rest my case. In the naturalist sense these children were never really the children of the homosexual to begin with.
2. No procreation means no next generation. Being hesitant to procreate but doing so under force or social convention would bring the trait to the next generation thereby continuing the inhibition.
Note: This is fun, but tiring. As much as I love arguing views that are not my own, I'm done with the naturalist kick. That said, I still think the naturalist argument is stronger than yours and will entertain it for one more post. Choose your questions well and don't make me rehash the same points.
Experimentation?
Did you have to “experiment”to know you liked girls? I sure didn’t
Study after study keeps showing that children of gays/lesbiansdo just fine. I know there is a massivestudy from Australia due out soon confirming just that.
Do these “naturalists” have issues with heterosexuals adopting?
Strange that the next generation keeps coming around
how big of you
Did you have to “experiment”to know you liked girls? I sure didn’t
Study after study keeps showing that children of gays/lesbiansdo just fine. I know there is a massivestudy from Australia due out soon confirming just that.
Do these “naturalists” have issues with heterosexuals adopting?
Strange that the next generation keeps coming around
how big of you
No, but it isn't uncommon for homosexuals to address their "confusion" through this route. Not all of them do, of course. Which is a fact. Not a naturalist one. If you would like to argue that, I'm open to it. Not naturalist.
That and I suspect a good deal of those who call themselves homosexuals simply love sex.
I was going to plead ignorance here, but I seem to remember a state-run program that encouraged people to adopt and teach them naturalist values.
Really the whole venture was a disgusting piece of social engineering.
Oh it is, but the force of life always finds a way if it can according to the naturalist. Many people who procreate pass on genes that make the next generation less fit for survival.
Take me for example. I need to wear glasses. My family has a history of diabetes. This does not aid the next generation in their survival in the least. But do I intend to bring that about? Yes.
A "family history" if you will of homosexuality would be considered a greater detriment though.
Like I said, this isn't the Christian worldview, but the exact opposite. It absolutizes genetic determinism and calls for moral decisions based on the principle of survival of the fittest.
It is, in short, quite evil. Hence why I don't like going too far in arguing for it. I get dry heaves.
You're right, how big of me. I demand a golden tribute that my tribe may feast.
That and I suspect a good deal of those who call themselves homosexuals simply love sex.
I was going to plead ignorance here, but I seem to remember a state-run program that encouraged people to adopt and teach them naturalist values.
Really the whole venture was a disgusting piece of social engineering.
Oh it is, but the force of life always finds a way if it can according to the naturalist. Many people who procreate pass on genes that make the next generation less fit for survival.
Take me for example. I need to wear glasses. My family has a history of diabetes. This does not aid the next generation in their survival in the least. But do I intend to bring that about? Yes.
A "family history" if you will of homosexuality would be considered a greater detriment though.
Like I said, this isn't the Christian worldview, but the exact opposite. It absolutizes genetic determinism and calls for moral decisions based on the principle of survival of the fittest.
It is, in short, quite evil. Hence why I don't like going too far in arguing for it. I get dry heaves.
You're right, how big of me. I demand a golden tribute that my tribe may feast.
S
Your attempting to define homosexuality in some other way than scriptures define it means nothing to me. God defined it to me as an abomination, a corruption of nature. That's that. Since God created the human race, I figure He knows how humans are made and why corruption comes about. Again, any argument outside of God's word means nothing to me as my beliefs are based on God's word.
S
What I'll never understand is why people that reject the God that Christians worship try so hard to get Christians to agree with their sinful lifestyles. If you don't agree with our beliefs, why are you here? Christians are here because they believe. So are you here because you actually think you can sway Christians enough to give up their believe in God and His word to us? I don't think so. I think you seek to have others agree with you because that makes you feel more right about your position.
so when you posted: "No thank you. I've already read that and compared it against all the countering results of research that say that's ridiculous." I guess what you meant to say was that you know that there is no legitimately published research providing evidence that sexual orientation is a choice or the result of how one was raised, or the familial relations, or the relationship with either parent...even if you have claimed otherwise