Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[~candice~]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of..

It is condemned because it is outside of His will and His design for sexual expression.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of..

It is condemned because it is outside of His will and His design for sexual expression.

But why does it exist also in the animal world? How can an animal consciously decide to reject His will? OK, you will say we are not animals, but we share a lot of things with them, eating, mating, caring for kids, looking for foods, etc.

Isn't that more likely that homosexuality is just part of nature? Some have it and most don't. A bit like using the left hand to write.

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals. Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues. There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

How does a "Gay" gene get passed down if a "gay" person does not have any offspring? You seem to refuse to answer this question, or you have simply blocked me.

[~candice~]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of..

It is condemned because it is outside of His will and His design for sexual expression.

But why does it exist also in the animal world? How can an animal consciously decide to reject His will? OK, you will say we are not animals, but we share a lot of things with them, eating, mating, caring for kids, looking for foods, etc.

Isn't that more likely that homosexuality is just part of nature? Some have it and most don't. A bit like using the left hand to write.

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals. Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues. There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

Well, it's part of the post-fall nature, which is also affected by the fall of man. Animals and our earth is not behaving as it was designed to any more.

[nebula]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of...I dunno, or it must be condemned because it poses health risks.

How about this, Viole -

What is the evolutionary advantage to same-sex sexual relations?

[nebula]

But why does it exist also in the animal world?

Did you not read Shiloh's post on this?

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals.

And some animals are polygamists. Do you support polygamy because the animals do it?

Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues.

Would it improve your relationship with your husband if he started having sex with a man?

There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

OK, I'm reading about the studies on bonobos, and genital rubbing is used as a form of creating hierarchies. It has nothing to do with partnering.

Do you really want to model what is best for humans off of the bonobos? We'd have to scrub the whole family unit to live as they do.

[Guest shiloh357]

But why does it exist also in the animal world? How can an animal consciously decide to reject His will?

It doesn't exist in the animal world. What you are talking about is junk science. Zoologists explain that it is not "sexual" at all. It is how the animal world sorts out who the alpha male in the pack will be.

OK, you will say we are not animals, but we share a lot of things with them, eating, mating, caring for kids, looking for foods, etc.

Should we eat our children because we can find animals that do that??? Can you not see how irrational and absurd your logic is???

Isn't that more likely that homosexuality is just part of nature?

Actually and observably, no. Nature does not support a homosexual worldview. Animals act on instinct.

Some have it and most don't. A bit like using the left hand to write.

Not it is not like that at all. Do you just make this stuff up?

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals. Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues. There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

Again, that is junk science.

[~candice~]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of..

It is condemned because it is outside of His will and His design for sexual expression.

But why does it exist also in the animal world? How can an animal consciously decide to reject His will? OK, you will say we are not animals, but we share a lot of things with them, eating, mating, caring for kids, looking for foods, etc.

Isn't that more likely that homosexuality is just part of nature? Some have it and most don't. A bit like using the left hand to write.

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals. Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues. There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

How does a "Gay" gene get passed down if a "gay" person does not have any offspring? You seem to refuse to answer this question, or you have simply blocked me.

Very simple, most gays had also heterosexual relationships. But I am not sure there is something like a gene. It could also be that anybody has the potential to become gay without having gays in their lineage and I suspect this happens during embryonic development and could depend on a surplus of hormones of the wrong type in the mother's womb. For instance, everybody could be born sterile without the need to invoke a sterility gene and ask the question: "How does a sterility gene get passed down if a sterile person does not have offspring?".

Wow you are so confused. What part of 'gay' implies heterosexual relationships? That seems so bizarre to me. So many different hypothetical reasons to explain homosexual orientation, why not accept what the bible says, that this is part of our sin nature?

[nebula]

But why does it exist also in the animal world?

Did you not read Shiloh's post on this?

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals.

And some animals are polygamists. Do you support polygamy because the animals do it?

Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues.

Would it improve your relationship with your husband if he started having sex with a man?

There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

OK, I'm reading about the studies on bonobos, and genital rubbing is used as a form of creating hierarchies. It has nothing to do with partnering.

Do you really want to model what is best for humans off of the bonobos? We'd have to scrub the whole family unit to live as they do.

[Guest shiloh357]

Either is homosexuality to be condemned because of..

It is condemned because it is outside of His will and His design for sexual expression.

But why does it exist also in the animal world? How can an animal consciously decide to reject His will? OK, you will say we are not animals, but we share a lot of things with them, eating, mating, caring for kids, looking for foods, etc.

Isn't that more likely that homosexuality is just part of nature? Some have it and most don't. A bit like using the left hand to write.

If you study the Bonobos, for instance, you will notice that they are all bisexuals. Bisexuality evolved as a social attribute that improved mutual relationship and it is used to resolve emotional issues. There is interesting research addressing the evolutionary value of bisexuality/homosexuality in social animals.

How does a "Gay" gene get passed down if a "gay" person does not have any offspring? You seem to refuse to answer this question, or you have simply blocked me.

Very simple, most gays had also heterosexual relationships. But I am not sure there is something like a gene. It could also be that anybody has the potential to become gay without having gays in their lineage and I suspect this happens during embryonic development and could depend on a surplus of hormones of the wrong type in the mother's womb. For instance, everybody could be born sterile without the need to invoke a sterility gene and ask the question: "How does a sterility gene get passed down if a sterile person does not have offspring?".

Wow you are so confused. What part of 'gay' implies heterosexual relationships? That seems so bizarre to me. So many different hypothetical reasons to explain homosexual orientation, why not accept what the bible says, that this is part of our sin nature?

Because I simply do not believe that the Bible has any divine origin. And, I think the intentions of the OP was to ask what secular people think about gay marriage.

The fact that the Bible is so univerally offensive to human nature particularly in the way it handles issues like homosexuallity demsontrates that is not of human origin. Human nature, given what it is could not and would not have created the Bible. The Bible contradicts many social and political norms and in doing so demonstrates that there is reason to believe that is is the product of some oither intelligence outside of humanity.

[Guest shiloh357]

quote name='shiloh357' timestamp='1306618821' post='1680839'

The fact that the Bible is so univerally offensive to human nature particularly in the way it handles issues like homosexuallity demsontrates that is not of human origin. Human nature, given what it is could not and would not have created the Bible. The Bible contradicts many social and political norms and in doing so demonstrates that there is reason to believe that is is the product of some oither intelligence outside of humanity.

I am afraid, it requires much more evidence than that.

I did not offer it as the sole piece of evidence that makes our case. Our case is made on a proponderance of evidence of several different types.

I can easily write a book that repels and is offensive to human nature and is completely at odds with current culture and social system; believe me, it is not difficult. Would then my book be considered divine? Of course not.

No you couldn't, at least not in the way the Bible does. You might be able to write a book that is offensive to some, but not has universally offensive as the Bible. The Bible is universally offensive because:

It strikes at the heart of human pride. The Bible is unvarnished in how it depicts humanity as a hopeless, lost, rebellious, miserble tribe. According to Scripture, in and of yourself, you are a miserable, filthy wretch. You deserve to be destroyed, but God mercifully allows you one more breath, one more heartbeat. Your good deeds according to Scripture are comparable in God's eyes to a filthy menstrual rag. You are an empty, twisted, rebellious, poor, naked, hopeless and sinful worm. That is how we all stand before God clothed in our sinful flesh. We have no defense, we have nothing to say to Him, and nothing to offer.

Furthermore, the Bible is exclusive. According to the Scripture all other religions and idealogies are false and of the devil. Christ is the only way of salvation. Jesus demands exclusive loyalty to the exclusion of all else. He demands the first place in our lives. We come to God through Christ or not at all. Jesus contradicts the new age views of looking to self and within self for the answers to life's questions and the solution to our problems, but individuall and corporately. The Bible teaches that the problem comes from us. Therefore, the answer cannot come from us. It must come from somewhere outside of us. It stands squarely against humanism, social justice, homosexuality, and the overall world's system.

The Bible contradicts the moral views of the world. The world finds the Bible's poistion on homosexuality and extramarital sex offensive.

Other examples of books who look completely at odds with current reality and beliefs are the book of Mormons and the books of Scientology.

Not really. Most people generally respect the Mormons and Scientology even if they disagree with them. You don't see TV documentaries trying to discredit anything but the Bible.

Are they divinely inspired, too? Of course not; being at odd with current culture or being offensive to human nature does not prove any divine origin, that would be too easy.

I did not say it proved it, but the fact that human nature could not produce the Bible, is part of the evidence for why we do not believe it is human in origin. It simply reflects a worldview and perspective that is so at odds with the ancient near eastern paradigm AND so universally offensive to human nature, that to say man wrote it doesn't wash.