 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Actually, simply acknowledging that something is beauiful would not be a sin, however, thinking, "...wow, what a bod, I just gotta have it..." is just as bad as actually "getting it". (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Matthew 5:21- here Jesus speaks about "thought sins", whereby a person dwells upon a sin, knowing it's nature, with the intent of "pretending" to to act it out. Specifically the example of adultery, whereby even looking upon a woman lustfully (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(don't mind me, I'm just a teenager who doesn't really know alot) I've been reading through this whole debate with interest, I know a girl who is gay and she says she knew ever since puberty (However she still hasn't told her parents [which makes me (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) The part that says sin can be overcome and must be repented of for acceptance into the kingdom, unfortunately some in the gay community want Christianity, but not the rules. (...) Having a genetic behavior suggests that the behavior cannot be (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Dang, I can't believe I did that, it's supposed to be Leviticus 20:13, I must've looked ahead on my list (It seemed appropriate to make a list). (...) I'm not sure this is really an issue, just an additional verse that shows God's view of how (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
in article Gntz4y.IMp@lugnet.com, David Eaton at deaton@intdata.com wrote on 12/4/01 11:55 AM: (...) Sorry; I didn't read your too well, and I shouldn't have shot me mouth off. I suspect the attraction is largely chemical/hormonal, and that is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
in article Gnty9D.Fty@lugnet.com, David Eaton at deaton@intdata.com wrote on 12/4/01 11:36 AM: (...) Which is what Catholicism DOES in fact say. Rob (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm not sure where to go with this part of the debate without actually veering into a no-holds-barred religious debate. The idea of sin is based on faith, that immorality is a wrong against a god. As such, sin could never be proven or (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I follow you -- why couldn't a gay-gene be maintained in a heterozygote sub-population, like many other recessive traits? (...) Well give it a go!! But given the lack of extant ancestor species, apes seem like the best bet for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) True. That would not fit the requirements of a default setting for the gay-gene though. (...) I do know of the cases. I'm looking for a different pattern, not sure how to fit it into words. (...) Did humans evolve in an environment that would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
