Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[enoob57]

OES, are we playing the noun v's verb semantic game? I'm talking about the homosexual noun, not verb. I can see why you think the homosexual (verb) is much worse of a sin, but how is it worse than, say, filling your house with pornography? I hate the ranking of sins.

I agree Candice! Ranking gives the thought of more or less acceptable... James 2:10 is God perspective! Love, Steven

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OES, are we playing the noun v's verb semantic game? I'm talking about the homosexual noun, not verb. I can see why you think the homosexual (verb) is much worse of a sin, but how is it worse than, say, filling your house with pornography? I hate the ranking of sins.

Ya, I'm not ranking, I'm just talking about effect. It's just practical, I think, to recognize that we can get ourselves into situations that can be more difficult from which to escape than others. Some of my sins had comparitively little practical, earthly reprecussions and others moreso. Sometimes escaping from the tempation can be more difficult depending on the nature of our choices.

I don't believe that homosexuals are any further from God (you're either washed by the blood or not), but I just ache for the situations in which people might place themselves, for the difficulty it might present in escaping.

I'd say the same thing for other lifestyle choices. The hard-core drug addict may be vastly closer to accepting grace than the upright, downright, forthright suit and tie, but I don't envy the struggle against temptation they've elected. It just seems tragically tough, so I feel for them. The road back home can feel like a long one sometimes, you know?

[~candice~]

OES, are we playing the noun v's verb semantic game? I'm talking about the homosexual noun, not verb. I can see why you think the homosexual (verb) is much worse of a sin, but how is it worse than, say, filling your house with pornography? I hate the ranking of sins.

Ya, I'm not ranking, I'm just talking about effect. It's just practical, I think, to recognize that we can get ourselves into situations that can be more difficult from which to escape than others. Some of my sins had comparitively little practical, earthly reprecussions and others moreso. Sometimes escaping from the tempation can be more difficult depending on the nature of our choices.

I don't believe that homosexuals are any further from God (you're either washed by the blood or not), but I just ache for the situations in which people might place themselves, for the difficulty it might present in escaping.

I'd say the same thing for other lifestyle choices. The hard-core drug addict may be vastly closer to accepting grace than the upright, downright, forthright suit and tie, but I don't envy the struggle against temptation they've elected. It just seems tragically tough, so I feel for them. The road back home can feel like a long one sometimes, you know?

OES I hear ya. I've walked that road (read my testimony ).

[~candice~]

Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it.

Umm... correct me if I am wrong, but evolution is supposedly a mindless directionless process, it is not guided by someone purposefully deselecting anything. Hoe do you "deselect" homosexuality? Perhaps you mean something else?

You make it appear as something you will intentionally do to our current population.

Bewildered,

C

[Cajunluvie]

Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it.

Umm... correct me if I am wrong, but evolution is supposedly a mindless directionless process, it is not guided by someone purposefully deselecting anything. Hoe do you "deselect" homosexuality? Perhaps you mean something else?

You make it appear as something you will intentionally do to our current population.

Bewildered,

C

Seems she means "deselect" as in "dismiss or reject". I looked it up on Merriam-Webster dictionary. In other words, if I understand her premise- she sees no reason within evolution to reject it.

I don't think many people actually use that term anyway. (deselect)

Btw- you, Old Shep, and Cobalt are doing great, IMO. I'm just reading along but thought I'd comment on the vocabulary.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Cajunluvie

[lemminglord]

OES, are we playing the noun v's verb semantic game? I'm talking about the homosexual noun, not verb. I can see why you think the homosexual (verb) is much worse of a sin, but how is it worse than, say, filling your house with pornography? I hate the ranking of sins.

Ya, I'm not ranking, I'm just talking about effect. It's just practical, I think, to recognize that we can get ourselves into situations that can be more difficult from which to escape than others. Some of my sins had comparitively little practical, earthly reprecussions and others moreso. Sometimes escaping from the tempation can be more difficult depending on the nature of our choices.

I don't believe that homosexuals are any further from God (you're either washed by the blood or not), but I just ache for the situations in which people might place themselves, for the difficulty it might present in escaping.

I'd say the same thing for other lifestyle choices. The hard-core drug addict may be vastly closer to accepting grace than the upright, downright, forthright suit and tie, but I don't envy the struggle against temptation they've elected. It just seems tragically tough, so I feel for them. The road back home can feel like a long one sometimes, you know?

From a practical stand point, a monogamous homosexual life style is far better for society than a non-monogamous one... but to your point, I can see how society providing positive healthier alternatives for practicing homosexuals to engage in would, in affect, give practicing homosexuals an extra reason not to come to Christ. From an advancement of the gospel perspective (at least the gospel perspective many Christians believe today) any time society institutionalizes the celebration of sin, it encourages sin and discourages people from actively turning away from sin.

Let's look at the micro level.

Person has sexual feelings for the same sex. Person comes to Christ. Person still has sexual feelings for the same sex but chooses not to engage in them because they are saved by Jesus who died for their sins and practicing Christians are supposed to turn away from sin.

Person has sexual feelings for the same sex. Person finds partner. Person and partner get married as a same sex couple. Now is the person more or less likely to come to Christ? I'm guessing that the perspective that is anti-same-sex marriage is thinking that they will be LESS likely to come to Christ.. and that's a bad thing... from a Christian eternal perspective.

However... it is a terrible thing from a society perspective...

What are the number of practicing homosexuals who are going to turn to Christ in any case. Very few. So society can either deal with non-monogamous practicing homosexuals or with some monogamy practicing homosexuals and some non-monogamous practicing homosexuals.. society is going to do better by having more monogamous practicing homosexuals than by the miniscule number of practicing homosexuals who are going to turn to God and become celibates..

[~candice~]

OK viole I get you now - it was just an "error in translation"

[Cajunluvie]

Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it.

Umm... correct me if I am wrong, but evolution is supposedly a mindless directionless process, it is not guided by someone purposefully deselecting anything. Hoe do you "deselect" homosexuality? Perhaps you mean something else?

You make it appear as something you will intentionally do to our current population.

Bewildered,

C

Seems she means "deselect" as in "dismiss or reject". I looked it up on Merriam-Webster dictionary. In other words, if I understand her premise- she sees no reason within evolution to reject it. I don't think many people actually use that term anyway. (deselect)

Btw- you, Old Shep, and Cobalt are doing great, IMO. I'm just reading along but thought I'd comment on the vocabulary.

Yes and no: I meant natural de-selection, when a certain genetical or biological characteristic is not part of the gene pool anymore. Maybe "extinction" would be more appropriate... sorry for my English.

There is no intentionality in extinction (de-selection) as there is no intentionality in success (selection). For instance, according to evolution theory, our far ancestors had a tail which has been almost totally eradicated from our genes pool since no more useful. I say "almost" because sometimes babies can be born with a tail, still.

Ciao

- viole

Well, I am an English major. Maybe you meant that, however, the way you wrote your sentence does have an inherent logic based on supporting or not supporting a premise. That's why I looked up the word and the meaning of that word.

Since this subject isn't geared to evolution so I won't go there.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Cajunluvie

[Cajunluvie]

Seems she means "deselect" as in "dismiss or reject". I looked it up on Merriam-Webster dictionary. In other words, if I understand her premise- she sees no reason within evolution to reject it.

I don't think many people actually use that term anyway. (deselect)

Btw- you, Old Shep, and Cobalt are doing great, IMO. I'm just reading along but thought I'd comment on the vocabulary.

BTW, welcome to the board. It is great to have you here!

Lol, Cobalt. Nice to see someone I already know!

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Since the percentage is not threatening for us as a species, I do not see any evolutionary reason to deselect it.

Umm... correct me if I am wrong, but evolution is supposedly a mindless directionless process, it is not guided by someone purposefully deselecting anything. Hoe do you "deselect" homosexuality? Perhaps you mean something else?

You make it appear as something you will intentionally do to our current population.

Bewildered,

C

Seems she means "deselect" as in "dismiss or reject". I looked it up on Merriam-Webster dictionary. In other words, if I understand her premise- she sees no reason within evolution to reject it. I don't think many people actually use that term anyway. (deselect)

Btw- you, Old Shep, and Cobalt are doing great, IMO. I'm just reading along but thought I'd comment on the vocabulary.

Yes and no: I meant natural de-selection, when a certain genetical or biological characteristic is not part of the gene pool anymore. Maybe "extinction" would be more appropriate... sorry for my English.

There is no intentionality in extinction (de-selection) as there is no intentionality in success (selection). For instance, according to evolution theory, our far ancestors had a tail which has been almost totally eradicated from our genes pool since no more useful. I say "almost" because sometimes babies can be born with a tail, still.

Ciao

- viole

Since you brought it up viole, I'm not sure how you don't recognize that you've entirely defeated your own point here.

If homosexuality were simply a genetic condition, within one single generation it would be selected out.

If everyone carrying the homosexual sequencing in their dna were free to engage in homosexual relationships, by necessity they would not reproduce any more of that gene. Homosexuality, from a genetic standpoint, would necessarily run its course in exactly one generation and then cease to exist.

It simply must select itself out of the gene pool, since it fundamentally cannot reproduce and perpetuate.