Same-Sex Couples Could Create Children

Originally posted by Threadfall
Damn, homosexuality is a hot topic.
171 posts already. Even at the enlightened ATS, where the citizens here are above the mainstream, all you gotta do is mention f@gs and the fish start biting, lmao.

Eh: Everyone is mainstream to an extent... But Im not sure what fish and british smokes have to do with anything

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


Well considering they want the Laws to reflect exactly their Christian beliefs, and thus merge Church and State. Then I would say yes. They espouse the more radical and extreme flavor of Christianity, hence they are called "Dominion Theological".

That doesn't merge Church and state guy, Just because we Christians believe Rape should be illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be thereby affirming compliance with Church and state. The fact is many of the laws already on the books we Christians approve of and we should have the same rights as anyone else to change or make new ones. It is those who work in government for US that have to buy into that crap

So you got it a little askew in your understanding
.

For instance, always quoting Bible scripture when politics and laws come up, such as gay marriage. They want the State to reflect exactly what their Church thinks, above anything else.

The Church is not a living entity that has any say in one regard, in the interest and benefit of having the same understanding, the "Church" is reffered to the Bride or the people that make up the collective believers in agreement with Biblical standards for morality.

and yes they have every right to be part of that process.

- Con

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology

Here's a good summary of Dominion Theology;
Here

To believe that WE will sort out the world and perfect it taking on the role of ancient Israel and destroying bodily our enemies, then handing the kingdom to Jeshua at his return.
Google joel's army for a real eye-opener.

Originally posted by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
Why in the hell do this when there are MILLIONS of kids that need adoption. Sex is something you do. not the way you live. Can we not use science for something better? There are too many people out there as it is...All we need is another breed

I agree dude. But I also think the same thing with heterosexual couples that take fertility drugs. Truth is, so do you. Gay or not, there is a biological NEED for humans (and all species) to pass on their DNA. As for gays morally some people may not approve of it; biologically, however, most should understand it.

Why is god so against gay people, is it E colie or does it lead to beistality? i dont know ,will a Christain answer this please and then a Gay answers please.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy


I'd love to respond to your ugly words Con, but I really don't want to battle with you in the same way we are in the Kerns thread.

Perhaps I will create a new thread and invite you for some "fruitfull" Bible throwing discussion? As I am well-equiped to the task

This isn't the thread for Bible talk, nor you're extremely disturbing hatefull evangelica decree.



[edit on 113030p://16u50 by Lucid Lunacy]

Interesting, you painted yourself in a corner and I just pointed out.

You abdicate and resort to ridicule and name calling.

As usual when you get put in checkmate, you didn't answer ( I don't blame you.) Then you use the same tact you always do when you can't win. You start quantifying your oppositions posts as ugly or hatelful.

You bring up the debate confidently and I responded in kind but in no way did I make any personal assault on you or use ugly words and expletives.

So rather then just be honest and admit your premise for the argument is seriously flawed,, no,, no make that, down right, drop dead, wrong.

When you get some more experience in these debates

let me know

- Con

Originally posted by nofnak
Why is god so against gay people, is it E colie or does it lead to beistality? i dont know ,will a Christain answer this please and then a Gay answers please.

Gay answer: My belief is most the items in the bible are due to lack of understanding on food storage (re: pork and trichinosis) and also being desert nomads it was important to keep the tribe numbers up.

They had all sorts of traditions bent to this, such as impregnating a deceased brothers wife if they were childless etc..

The whole Sodom and Gamorrah scene is ludicrous IMO. The interpretation is the crowd wanted to rape the angels... The whole concept is mind-boggling to me. I prefer the interpretation of "Hospitality" as discussed in:

S&G

I don't think "God" is against anyone. I think his followers just need people to hate and feel good about doing so.
*Edit: Last paragraph added

[edit on 17-4-2008 by lordtyp0]

reply to post by nofnak


Because our Heavenly Father created male and female from the beginning.
Everything has a NATURAL order and satan and our first predescesors altered it through sin.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


Everything will be fixed and at it's highest capacity, soon.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
in the interest and benefit of having the same understanding, the "Church" is reffered to the Bride or the people that make up the collective believers in agreement with Biblical standards for morality.

Interesting that you use the word "collective" when there has been many Christians in this thread (and the Kerns thread) that completely disagree with your interpretation of the "Biblical standards of morality"

Blah blah blah God this God that. When somebody proves that the Bible's account of creation is right, I'll buy into all this "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" crap. Until then, I don't care, and science doesn't care, what your dusty 2,000 year old book of mythology has to say about the matter.

I get so tired of the religious people out there throwing a fit every time we have a new scientific discovery. It's like they're getting mad because each one of those discoveries is just another thing showing them that there is a scientific reason for everything, and there doesn't need to be a god out there creating it all.

As for the "natural" order of things, I have something to say about that also. If a bird makes a nest, is that not natural? If a beaver builds a dam, is that not natural? I can't imagine anyone would say that's not the case. Well we are capable of building much more than our own shelters. If we are capable of building our own genes and creating new people from scientific methods, then that's just as natural as a colony of bees building a hive. Why? Because in any case, it's animals creating whatever it is that they're predisposed to create.

If anything is against the "natural order of things," it's people arguing that some magic genie guy in outer space doesn't want our species to advance technologically so that it can evolve.

good lord first there allowed ot get married and now the eggheads are trying to give em kids?!?! thats just wrong and IMO a bit on an insult to god.

reply to post by Yosimitie Sam

Are one of those militant atheists or something?

The ones slaughtering priests and burning down churches, you mean? The ones laying Jezebeline honey-traps for God-fearing men and forcing Christian women to have abortions? The ones bombing prenatal clinics and eating born-again babies with ketchup?

'Militant atheists' do not exist except in the imagination of the religious.

Yes, I think religion is wicked, corrupt, prurient and altogether evil. And yes, I am well convinced that the world would be a better place without it. And I will do what I can, legally and decently, to discourage it and hasten its passing. If that is all it takes to be a militant atheist, sign me up.

And if you were to ask me for evidence of what I say about religion, I couldn't do much better than ask you to read the present thread from start to finish. Whence come the hatred, the bigotry, the blind adherence to a meaningless form of words, the sexual repression and the yearning, self-loathing lust? From the atheists, the scientific humanists and the political secularists? No, these things come almost exclusively from the ostentatiously religious members. I do not believe this is any kind of coincidence.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by scorpionxx


Is it also an insult to Zeus, Ra, Anu, Jupiter, Ometecuhtli, Apu-Punchau, or maybe Odin? Would they all be insulted by this as well?

Maybe all those gods should be more insulted by the fact that they aren't real, they're all just a bunch of things people made up to try and explain a world around them that they couldn't otherwise.

Maybe they should be insulted by the fact that as mankind learned the real explanations for things, they stopped believing in those silly old myths and were able to accomplish real, tangible progress in the advancement of mankind.

And maybe today's gods should be just absolutely offended that the same thing seems to be happening to them these days, and their days being considered real are numbered.

I say "Gay clone babies for the win!" If not because there's no reason gay people can't raise children, then simply because it would be a real stick in the butt of a bunch of people who seem utterly terrified of the idea of sticks being in people's butts.

I would like to remind everyone again that the discussion is not about Religion or whatever you feel like. Go back to the very first post and consider that post for the basis of what you want to post.

Any further off-topic posts will be removed.

Thank you.


[edit on 17-4-2008 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by scorpionxx
good lord first there allowed ot get married and now the eggheads are trying to give em kids?!?! thats just wrong and IMO a bit on an insult to god.

reply to post by scorpionxx


An insult? I think the Big Cheese can take it. I don't think this is something that is going to be done en masse, it's just that it might be scientifically possible. As in, it might be possible for dear aunt Mavis down the road to get breast implants, but that doesn't mean she will.

Besides, the technique involved is fairly risky. There's plenty of ways for couples, not necessarily homosexual couples, to have children. There's adoption and surrogacy, for instance.

I think God would be more aghast about something like nuclear weapons, things that destroy life, rather than people taking the steps to nurture life, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Society is past, for better or for worse, the woman at home toiling away while the husband is the lone bread winner. If both parents are off working anyway, as many are, what influence are they missing out on, besides not having much parental contact?

Then you have to take into account single parents. I was reared by a single mother and turned out rather normal. My father never paid any child support, and there was nothing but emotional torment when he was actually around. But then, I technically had both a mother and a father, just as God intended, but things didn't go so well. So then what?

And my case isn't anything special at all. It's just that I find this constant rambling that a child needs a father and a mother with strict identity roles does not work in all cases.

Another factor, homosexual couples actually wanting children. How many supposedly wholesome normal man+woman marriages are of the 'shotgun' variety? It seems that the homosexual couples that want children might've planned the whole thing out first.

For the record, I don't think homosexual couples should automatically be able to make their own children through unproven and risky scientific means brought up here, but there is a degree of some forethought there at least.

Is homosexuality 'wrong'? I don't know. But I don't think it warrants the type of vitriol that's been sprayed around here.

I have yet to hear of one single homosexual couple to have a child through these methods, so the talk of fire and brimstone are a bit premature.

reply to post by ka0s69

granting these couples children is not the way the universe intended

The universe, as far as we know, does not intend anything. If you're talking about 'Spinoza's God' -- the universe seen as deterministically inevitable and permeated by divinity -- then you also have to accept that this kind of divine universe has no morality in the human sense. It cares nothing about humanity. It makes no distinction between right and wrong; it cannot, because it contains everything. And since it is deterministic, it cannot have intention either.

If you aren't just NewAgeifying the personal god of the monotheists as so many do, it might be an idea to think a little harder about the implications of what you believe.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by Astyanax]

I completely agree with the people on here that say that we shouldn't let technology change the "natural order". When people have a heart attack they should die, when people have cancer they should die, when you get the flu you shouldn't take medicine to get better you should let it progress into pneumonia and die, when somebody breaks an arm it shouldn't be fixed, there should be no life support, there should be no transplants, they should just shut down the hospital because its what nature wanted.

We should also get off the computer because it's man made and not natural. If God didn't give us the technology, than we shouldn't have it.

All of us good church people should go run over all the fags and lesbians and then lets go to church and learn about our loving and compassionate god...but of course, he's only loving and compassionate to us and nobody else. Then lets go around and tell everybody we can find that they are wrong and we are right about everything and lets hate anybody different because thats what God wants. He wants us to make everybody who doesn't look like us, dress like us, or think like us feel so badly about themselves that they want to change and be normal. Thats what he really wants for us. If you want to discuss this I will be at the Stepford Country Club.

reply to post by blahblah123




I love the attempt but I don't think that approach gets through to them either!

You hold up a mirror to them but they don't see anything in it, no reflection for introspection!... dead inside they are, but they walk around pretending otherwise, religiously chanting dark hymns day after night, as if they are tortured souls from some Greek tragedy.

[edit on 033030p://17u49 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
religiously chanting dark hymns day after night, as if they are tortured souls from some Greek tragedy.

So true! A Greek tragedy indeed, since it (Christianity) is the result a combination of Greek and Roman influence over the template of a historical Jew interpreting the Torah while he lived. You can thank Paul for that one.

But, this thread isn't about Christianity... it's about using science to create life and the immoral/moral aspects arising from the practice.

I dislike the idea of square tomatoes and designer kids on a gut level but have no intelligent reason for it. Perhaps it's the Luddism that permeates the thinking of anyone over 30 that doesn't stand to make cash out of the process. IMO, Monsanto and these 'doctors' are two peas in a pod.

Originally posted by masqua
IMO, Monsanto and these 'doctors' are two peas in a pod.

Hmm, well at least the docs have some alleged good intent? Whereas Monsanto modifies purely for profit no?

Perhaps it's the Luddism that permeates the thinking of anyone over 30

So does this mean I am allowed to bring up this point from now on? Since you old farts say it about yourselves anyways! Of course I should probably run this by Paul as well!!

[edit on 043030p://17u40 by Lucid Lunacy]