Define Christianity as Hate - The New Homosexual Agenda

Originally posted by Rightone777
GOD dose NOT have any problem with love, intimacy, friendship between same-sex... But there is a major problem with what SEX acts they do with each other that are perverted according to His principle that HE set in His LAW for procreation and PLEASURE for a MAN and WOMEN under a covenant MARRIAGE !!!!!

Why are you so concerned with what goes on in other people's private sex lives?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Predicated on the belief assumption that the only justification for sexuality and relationships is procreation. We have already given justification that sexuality (even hetero) and relationships (even hetero) is more than just procreation. How dull ones love life must be to believe procreation is the only justification.

Well, it is procreation. The thing is, the human child has a very long development time, and to entice the father and mother to stay together during that time, for the benefit of the young child, the design has built in "rewards" using sexuality again to encourage the parents to continue to bond. This is why sex doesn't always produce children, and why it is "possible" to just have sex to satisfy lust.

What homosexuals are doing effectively, is using that part of sexuality that is designed to keep parents together for the benefit of the young, and using this "reward" system, without exposing themselves to the "obligations" that design intended.

This is why the Church is against contraception for heterosexual couples, also.

Rights without obligations. Humans try to get this in all sorts of conditions.

reply to post by sensible1


There is no such thing as a homosexual agenda. It is an invention of delusional Christians who are hell bent on creating laws based on bible scripture and prophecies.

Unfortunately for Christianity, it is not a religion of tolerance or love (at least, not what history has recorded).

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Predicated on the belief assumption that the only justification for sexuality and relationships is procreation. We have already given justification that sexuality (even hetero) and relationships (even hetero) is more than just procreation. How dull ones love life must be to believe procreation is the only justification.

Well, it is procreation. The thing is, the human child has a very long development time, and to entice the father and mother to stay together during that time, for the benefit of the young child, the design has built in "rewards" using sexuality again to encourage the parents to continue to bond. This is why sex doesn't always produce children, and why it is "possible" to just have sex to satisfy lust.

What homosexuals are doing effectively, is using that part of sexuality that is designed to keep parents together for the benefit of the young, and using this "reward" system, without exposing themselves to the "obligations" that design intended.

This is why the Church is against contraception for heterosexual couples, also.

Rights without obligations. Humans try to get this in all sorts of conditions.

I'm sorry, but this is hogwash. The fact that sex is pleasurable, therefore motivating us to propagate the species, is simply evolution. Those that weren't motivated to have sex just died out. This has nothing to do with motivating couples to stay together, as they could have sex with anyone to satisfy the lust, not just their partner. The bond between human couples who decide to stay together is much more emotional than physical. Being intelligent, self-aware creatures, we are much more swayed by our emotions than other creatures in nature.

Homosexuals are as emotional as heterosexuals, and are completely capable of forming emotional bonds with their partners. For homosexuals who form lasting relationships, it is much more than just the sex. And, many homosexual couples desire families, and have children by adopting, using sperm banks/sperm donors, and surrogates. I linked an article in another thread that states homosexuals are more likely to adopt children with special needs because they are so desperate to have children. These are children that most people aren't interested in adopting. So, don't say that no homosexual is willing to take on the obligations of raising children, as that is simply FALSE.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Those that weren't motivated to have sex just died out.

Then if homosexual urges is not just a misdirected choice, and there is some biological basis for it in DNA, then homosexuals should have died out long ago, since they don't produce offspring to carry their genes.

That's just proof, that there is no biological basis for being gay. It's either a disease, which may one day find a cure, or it's just deviant behavior from confused individuals.

Homosexuals are as emotional as heterosexuals, and are completely capable of forming emotional bonds

People form emotional bonds with their pets too. Humans are capable of bonding to all sorts of animate and inanimate things. But, yet, homosexuals won't support people marrying their pets.

So, don't say that no homosexual is willing to take on the obligations of raising children, as that is simply FALSE.

There are exceptions in all situations of life.

Besides, social pressure is heavy on heterosexuals to have kids. It's part of the practice of social interaction. People constantly ask straight couples when they are going to have kids, and when they plan on getting their next kid. So, straight couples who have no kids feel "left out" of the social activity, and the desire to "fit in" makes them try all sorts of things, even artificial ensimination, to get some kids, and meet the expectations of others.

Gay couples are just people too, they want what heterosexuals want, they too want to be accepted by the social scene, so once people accept them as a couple, then next thing is to pressure them to adopt kids. Especially if gay couples have straight couple friends with kids, that pressure will be intense. To continue to "fit in" to the social scene many will adopt so that they can say to others that they are "parents" too.

Social pressure. Everybody gets it.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


No. It's the bond. As a product of just such a situation, I can tell you...gay people enjoy the emotional bond of raising a child and watching him/her fly just as much as anyone else.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

Then if homosexual urges is not just a misdirected choice, and there is some biological basis for it in DNA, then homosexuals should have died out long ago, since they don't produce offspring to carry their genes.

That's just proof, that there is no biological basis for being gay. It's either a disease, which may one day find a cure, or it's just deviant behavior from confused individuals.

I was talking about a whole species dying out. Within a species, a small percentage of homosexuality may be nature's way of curbing population overgrowth, thus may have an important biological basis. This might explain why there continues to be animals within a species who exist as homosexuals.

People form emotional bonds with their pets too. Humans are capable of bonding to all sorts of animate and inanimate things. But, yet, homosexuals won't support people marrying their pets.

Marriage is a human ritual for consenting adults.

Besides, social pressure is heavy on heterosexuals to have kids. It's part of the practice of social interaction. People constantly ask straight couples when they are going to have kids, and when they plan on getting their next kid. So, straight couples who have no kids feel "left out" of the social activity, and the desire to "fit in" makes them try all sorts of things, even artificial ensimination, to get some kids, and meet the expectations of others.

Gay couples are just people too, they want what heterosexuals want, they too want to be accepted by the social scene, so once people accept them as a couple, then next thing is to pressure them to adopt kids. Especially if gay couples have straight couple friends with kids, that pressure will be intense. To continue to "fit in" to the social scene many will adopt so that they can say to others that they are "parents" too.

Social pressure. Everybody gets it.

More hogwash, I'm afraid. No one would go to the expense of artificial insemination just to "fit in". Some people just really want kids.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by sensible1

 

There is no such thing as a homosexual agenda. It is an invention of delusional Christians who are hell bent on creating laws based on bible scripture and prophecies.

Unfortunately for Christianity, it is not a religion of tolerance or love (at least, not what history has recorded).

God is love.

God gave even Cain a choice - choose evil and death or good and life.

Satan has defined that love as "tolerance and acceptance". Once man accepts that definition, he has no 'right' to stand up for absolute morality, even if it brings only good and life.

Satan has defined that love as "hedonism and whatever feels good", so man therefore relabels good as evil and evil as good.

Man then begins to fight for laws and practices that only lead to death, as if they were "good".
Abortion.
Drugs.
Prostitution.
Child pedophilia.
Euthanasia.
War.
Eugenics.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Creator of Heaven and Earth - is love. But His love is not the current definition of love that man has been indoctrinated to believe in. His love is a sacrificial love and an obedient love. His love leads to none of the above, because His love, shown through His laws and by His Son, only lead to life. Once a person has their beliefs formed by the beast, that person will fight for evil and reject anything to do with the True Creator, the whole time never understanding that they have rejected good and life having made their choice to love evil and death more.

Today, anyone choosing to reject and shun the above evils as 'acceptable' or 'good' are being labeled haters. If you cannot see the true reality of how Israel is being led astray, yet again, through the love of sin, then all I can encourage is to humble the heart and pray for the sight to see the Truth and pray for the hearing to hear the Truth. That list is of evil, not good. I, myself, am full of repentance that I once supported many of them, and I know that I was completely blind whilst doing so. My eyes started to open because I sought My God for the Truth. Jesus still heals the blind. He still heals the deaf. He still heals the lame.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I was talking about a whole species dying out. Within a species, a small percentage of homosexuality may be nature's way of curbing population overgrowth, thus may have an important biological basis. This might explain why there continues to be animals within a species who exist as homosexuals.

It is an interesting thesis. The world population is currently 6 billion. We're not sure how much more the earth can support. So, maybe then, homosexual urge emerges out of heterosexuals as a check on population growth. That could possibly explain the explosive growth of the gay movement. That would suggest that the homosexual tendency is dormant within the genes of the heterosexuals, and hence why homosexuals never died out. The only problem with the thesis is that there are other ways to limit populations. People also become infertile, and there are wars that decimate large populations. For example, the indigenous population of North America is shrinking, greater deaths than births every year, and its only immigration that is supporting population growth there. So, there isn't really a biological need for homosexual activity at all.

Marriage is a human ritual for consenting adults.

Well, marriage is a human ritual for consenting "heterosexual" adults.

That is what is under attack. The whole definition of marriage is being challenged by the gay and lesbian movement.

Once we're challenging the traditional idea of marriage, and moving the boundaries to accommodate other peoples lifestyles, why stop at any particular place? All sorts of unions could benefit from being "married".

More hogwash, I'm afraid. No one would go to the expense of artificial insemination just to "fit in". Some people just really want kids.

People do things for all sorts of reasons. You realize, of course, that most people in the world marry for reasons other than love? Love is a Hollywood dream, and a Romantic Novelist's theme, and a very Western and modern idea of the motivation for marrying. Most people marry for "duty", and "financial security", and the "social pressure" in their environment that tells them they must pair off and have kids.

Originally posted by Agoyahtah

It is an interesting thesis. The world population is currently 6 billion. We're not sure how much more the earth can support. So, maybe then, homosexual urge emerges out of heterosexuals as a check on population growth. That could possibly explain the explosive growth of the gay movement. That would suggest that the homosexual tendency is dormant within the genes of the heterosexuals, and hence why homosexuals never died out. The only problem with the thesis is that there are other ways to limit populations. People also become infertile, and there are wars that decimate large populations. For example, the indigenous population of North America is shrinking, greater deaths than births every year, and its only immigration that is supporting population growth there. So, there isn't really a biological need for homosexual activity at all.

I love how you twist my words around. Heterosexual animals don't make a conscious choice to become homosexual, nor do heterosexual humans make a conscious choice to become homosexual. A certain percentage of animals in certain species are born homosexual, and it's evident the first time they engage in sex. A certain percentage of humans are born homosexual, evident when they hit puberty. There are researchers who claim that the percentage of homosexual animals in any given species is around the same as the percentage of homosexual humans. This implies that being born homosexual is just a naturally occurring event a certain percentage of the time. There are not more gays at this time - cultural changes in our society have just allowed and encouraged gays to come out of the closet and fight for equality.

Well, marriage is a human ritual for consenting "heterosexual" adults.

That is what is under attack. The whole definition of marriage is being challenged by the gay and lesbian movement.

Once we're challenging the traditional idea of marriage, and moving the boundaries to accommodate other peoples lifestyles, why stop at any particular place? All sorts of unions could benefit from being "married".

No, all we need to agree on is consenting adults with no victims. Animals, dead people, and inanimate objects are not consenting adults.

People do things for all sorts of reasons. You realize, of course, that most people in the world marry for reasons other than love? Love is a Hollywood dream, and a Romantic Novelist's theme, and a very Western and modern idea of the motivation for marrying. Most people marry for "duty", and "financial security", and the "social pressure" in their environment that tells them they must pair off and have kids.

Yes, people marry for all sorts of reasons. Some are not very noble reasons - certainly some are not for biblical reasons. And yet, as long as they are heterosexual, we allow them to get married. Why is that? Because it's none of our business why people get married, as long as it's consenting adults, and there are no victims.

No offense Agoyahtah, but why do all religious people suddenly think they're biology experts with a direct line to the creator? You seem to be a smart person and keen at debate ... just perhaps heavily under read in this area?

Originally posted by Agoyahtah
This is why sex doesn't always produce children, and why it is "possible" to just have sex to satisfy lust.

What homosexuals are doing effectively, is using that part of sexuality that is designed to keep parents together for the benefit of the young, and using this "reward" system, without exposing themselves to the "obligations" that design intended.

Problem here is your argument may fall in on itself. On one hand you want to claim we're not animals, we're special, and on the other we have designs which keep us procreating and in check that are perfectly designed? I think you have to face the reality that we probably are animals and you're perhaps not a biologist? (Nor am I but I'm well aware of how much I suck and don't need to be told)

This is why the Church is against contraception for heterosexual couples, also.

Africa called they're not happy.

Then if homosexual urges is not just a misdirected choice, and there is some biological basis for it in DNA, then homosexuals should have died out long ago, since they don't produce offspring to carry their genes.

That's just proof, that there is no biological basis for being gay. It's either a disease, which may one day find a cure, or it's just deviant behavior from confused individuals.

I appreciate that you're mostly respectful about your points but ... homosexuality is a disease based on what exactly? And disease doesn't have a biological cause? The hand print on my face right now is probably permanent, and I will have to seek medical help.

One of the best uses of genetic research has been to predict diseases or issues a person may face. Genes aren't there to function for your benefit, they're there to multiply. That's what they do. They do not care about you. They do not have feelings. Richard Dawkins goes as far as trying to redefine genes as "an inheritable unit" and his book 'The Selfish Gene' is very good and not too in depth to understand as a theory. His definition would not be ill suited to this discussion rather than a section of a DNA sequence. (Let me know if you have some other definition)

As stated earlier, genes create protein not preferences. Genes do not manifest their possibilities 100% of the time (except when Christians are discussing gay sex). You can have genes which produce aspects that may be inherited by off spring but that doesn't sign the off spring into that 100% in all cases. What you have posted isn't even remotely proof ... its your heavily creation story inspired opinion on what you think is going on. Science does not back you on this at all.

Regarding your theory that all traits are useful ...

Ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide (dominant)
Ability to smell (bitter almond-like) hydrogen cyanide (recessive)
Albinism (recessive)
Brachydactyly (shortness of fingers and toes)
Wet (dominant) or dry (recessive) earwax
immunity to poison ivy (dominant)
Hitchhiker's thumb (recessive)

Source

The above are pretty random and useless. I can come up with quite a few benefits to homosexuality within apes for examples:

- They reduce competition with violent alpha males
- They increase bonding within tribes and can act as conflict resolution (bonobos)
- Homosexuality has also been known to be transient in some creatures to maintain population

All seem better than having a bendy thumb and being pasty white and sun burnt.

So, there isn't really a biological need for homosexual activity at all.

So your comment here based on the indigenous population of North America seems fairly irrelevant. There are many more factors effecting Native American populations than two men making out behind a tee-pee. (They did some dramatic damage to their food sources in the first place and white people gave them a few nice diseases)

Bringing back on topic though ... I hope you can perhaps see why people might see your argument as somewhat driven by hate or dislike or at very least your biased opinion. Whilst I'll frankly say I dunno what causes people to be gay, and science mostly has theories in a hotly contested and political area ... you and religion have worked this out?

Remember the whole 'earth is flat' thing? >.<

I just suspect you have a very human understand of whatever created us. One thing we can say is whatever it was likely wasn't using human 1+1=2 logic.

PS Can you throw me Yahweh's number? I have some pretty serious questions to ask this person about clicking noises in my jaw and why pink hair color can't occur naturally.

reply to post by kimar


the only reason it does bother the Christians is because it's not aligned with the natural order of life. Think of it from a naturalistic point of view. Don't even bring God into it. Two dudes, or two women, will never procreate life. Now you're probably thinking, our science labs can do it now. Well that's going against the natural order of things.

Ironically, the Bible throughout talks about things which are abominable to God. That includes mixing species and going after strange flesh. The bottom line is that it goes against nature, and for the theist, or Christian, it goes against the natural order created by God.

For me personally as a follower and believer of Yeshua (Jesus) I am going to express love to everyone. I may not agree with their practices, but that doesn't mean you can't extend your love to them. The problem is that we're all human and we're all exclusivists. We all want to belong, and exclude to make ourselves feel better. In reality, that's not how things should be.

This whole mess about gay marriage is also a conversation taking place that crosses political, religious, and spiritual boundaries. If we can speak into these things with the correct context, I think we can gain some ground. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon.

Originally posted by FaceLikeTheSun
The bottom line is that it goes against nature...

Oh does it now? Try telling that to the 450+ species of animals other than humans that exhibit homosexual tendencies.

Here's just a few of the known mammals that have homosexual individuals in it:

African Buffalo[21]
African Elephant[22]
Agile Wallaby[23]
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
American Bison[21][24]
Antelope[25]
Asian Elephant[22]
Asiatic Lion[26]
Asiatic Mouflon[27]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
Australian Sea Lion[28]
Barasingha[29]
Barbary Sheep[30]
Beluga[19]
Bharal[31]
Bighorn Sheep[30]
Black Bear[32]
Blackbuck[33]
Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
Black-tailed Deer[29]
Bonnet Macaque[14]
Bonobo[34][35][36]
Bottlenose Dolphin[19][37]
Bowhead Whale[19]
Brazilian Guinea Pig[38]
Bridled Dolphin[19]
Brown Bear[32]
Brown Capuchin[39]
Brown Long-eared Bat[40]
Brown Rat[41]
Buffalo[30]
Caribou[42]
Cat (domestic)[43]
Cattle (domestic)[44]
Cheetah[26]
Collared Peccary[45]
Commerson's Dolphin[19]
Common Brushtail Possum[46]
Common Chimpanzee[47]
Common Dolphin[19]
Common Marmoset[39]
Common Pipistrelle[48]
Common Raccoon[49]
Common Tree Shrew[50]
Cotton-top Tamarin[51]
Crab-eating Macaque[14]
Crested Black Macaque[14]
Dall's Sheep[30]
Daubenton's Bat[40]
Dog (domestic)[52]
Donkey
Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
Dugong[53]
Dwarf Cavy[38]
Dwarf Mongoose[54]
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[41]
Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
Elk[29]
Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
European Bison[21]
Fallow Deer[29]
False Killer Whale[19]
Fat-tailed Dunnart[55]
Fin Whale[19]
Fox[56]
Gazelle[25]
Gelada Baboon[57]
Giraffe[25][4][58]
Goat (Domestic)[30]
Golden Monkey[59]
Gorilla[60]

Source

And here's a link for you to check out that includes not only mammals, but other animal species as well. Here

I suggest you do some research first before stating something is against nature.

reply to post by WhoKnows100


Please, I do not wish to be lectured. I hope you are not blind as to believe everything that you read in the "Bible".

If your God is love, then please stop harping on about some silly "homosexual agenda" and get over yourself.

Think about it.

reply to post by Agoyahtah


What are you thoughts/feelings on heterosexuals that decide never to have children?

reply to post by Believer101


okay...the point was...procreation.

Do those species that have homosexual tendencies pro-create from the homosexual acts?

and can two men procreate? Can two women? No help from the science lab. Just in nature?

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


In addition to "the lab"...

How about adoption? Many children need homes. I grew up in a care home. Trust me there are many many kids needing homes.

Is it more important telling homosexuals they are not natural, or to find these children loving homes?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


No. See you're doing exactly what I said is the problem with this conversation. What you bring up is a different issue from homosexuality itself. I never claimed that orphans can't benefit from a home with homosexual parents, nor did I say homosexual partners are not fit to be parents. Nor did I imply anything of the sort.

My point was strictly that in the known process of pro-creation in human beings, two men, or two women, cannot bring about the formation of new life. That's it.

reply to post by FaceLikeTheSun


In all fairness I posed questions to you not accusations

Sorry if I missed the entirety of your position from other posts.

Personally I don't see the relevance of procreation in these types of discussions at all. Homosexuals can procreate albeit "unnaturally". Many kids need adoption. The population has zero threat of going extinct due to homosexuals. I am just speaking generally here this isn't a response to you specifically. I just don't see any concern towards the procreation aspect outside of religious belief.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

You might have something there with the article about how fruit flies can be manipulated biologically. I do believe our biological, mental, and emotional makeup can be manipulated by certain environmental factors, including those which are put upon us by a not-so-nice NWO group of arch-deceivers.

Every human's "soup" has its own unique ingredients and gets its own unique stir.

I do read and follow this subject - - as you well know. Current recent studies indicate sexual orientation (not speaking of gender) begins early in fetus development. Both genetic and the health of the mother's body play a part in early fetus development. This would apply to all fetuses - - not just those with non-hetero sexual orientation.

While there are known indicators that point to certain aspects of genetic involvement - - - sexuality is so complex - - - it most likely is a combination of several factors.

What ever the influence is on the developing fetus - - - they are BORN THAT WAY.