Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2001 16:07:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
340 times
|
| |
|
|
"Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> writes:
> I am finding that making so many individual replies is somewhat
> taxing. I seem to be saying too much in some posts, and not enough
> in others. Here, I should have distinctly referred to
> Christianity, rather than religion in general. Other religions
> have little or no bearing on my part of the discussion as I do not
> know enough about them.
>
> As for the age of Christianity, it must be noted that homosexuality
> is considered a sin within both the Old and the New Testament.
> Since the Old Testament is the basis for the Jewish religion as
> well, I would assume that the Jewish religion would also have
> issues with a gay gene. However, I do not know enough about the
> Jewish religion to actually argue that point.
I don't see how this relates to my post. You said that all of 4000
years of religious doctrine was correct (except possibly the gay
genes). I argued that with the diversity of the various doctrines, it
couldn't _all_ be correct.
Fredrik
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| I am finding that making so many individual replies is somewhat taxing. I seem to be saying too much in some posts, and not enough in others. Here, I should have distinctly referred to Christianity, rather than religion in general. Other religions (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
