|
Post by mixedup on Dec 13, 2006 14:58:32 GMT -5
"do not allow the thoughts of such to influence our minds"
Your mind is already influenced if you are thinking about it. Your statement is an oxymoron. It doesn't make sense.
A thought has to enter your mind so you can make a cognitive evaluation and process a decision as to follow-thru with it or not.
Jesus was tempted. The Bible says so. Jesus evaluated the temptation. He was a human being. He evaluated and made a decision based on his mental evaluation. Jesus did not fall into the actions of the temptation because he chose not to.
"Lead us not into temption" requires action. LEAD is verb requiring action. Thinking about something is not the same as physically doing something. Thinking and doing are not one and the same.
For example: thinking about killing someone is not the same as completing the action of killing someone.
We all are tempted to think bad thoughts. Just watch the filth on the tube. There is a lot of tempting influence there. But, just because I am tempted, say, by someone who wants to have an affair with me, if I chose to not partake in it, does it make me guilty of committing sin because I thought about it?
As a human with cognitive function, I have to process the information and the outcome of the action to make a decision as to whether or not I want to do it. If I see the outcome resulting in distance between myself and God, I will choose to not do it. I want to stay close to God and He requires obedience from me.
Thinking about a temptation to process it does not make me guilty of a sin.
|
|
|
Post by to really disagree on Dec 13, 2006 15:59:36 GMT -5
First off, everyone is born straight. People are not born gay. God did not design His creation to be anything but in the likeness of His image. The babies he creates are not born and designed by Him to be sexually steered to the same sex (regardless of what Freud says). Children are influenced in the homosexual direction, usually by an adult, another child or by images they are exposed to. Almost all are related to a molestation experience that distorts their cognitive conscience when they are exploring their sexuality. I know this, as I have worked professionally with children and people caught in these sexual traps. Over and over again they are found, in psychological evaluation, to be influenced negatively by their environments. As a proffesional, you are aware that this is true in very few cases and in fact people are born gay! No real proffesional would ever state otherwise. And Freud? Where did you receive your proffesional education?
|
|
|
Post by golly gee on Dec 13, 2006 16:19:36 GMT -5
First off, everyone is born straight. People are not born gay. God did not design His creation to be anything but in the likeness of His image. The babies he creates are not born and designed by Him to be sexually steered to the same sex (regardless of what Freud says). Children are influenced in the homosexual direction, usually by an adult, another child or by images they are exposed to. Almost all are related to a molestation experience that distorts their cognitive conscience when they are exploring their sexuality. I know this, as I have worked professionally with children and people caught in these sexual traps. Over and over again they are found, in psychological evaluation, to be influenced negatively by their environments. As a proffesional, you are aware that this is true in very few cases and in fact people are born gay! No real proffesional would ever state otherwise. And Freud? Where did you receive your proffesional education? c'mon man.......if you're going to knock someone's "proffesional education" you'd best look up the spelling of the word "proffesional" so you don't end up looking silly. Mark.....I think you're out to lunch on this one. You're just not making sense. Like others have pointed out, to resist something is to consider it (think about it) and make a decision. Our enemy is crafty. He knows our weaknesses and knows what to throw in front of us to tempt us with. He knew what to tempt Jesus with. If Jesus didn't even think about the temptations (they wouldn't have been true temptations then) I doubt he would have answered the Devil or paid him any attention.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 13, 2006 16:38:13 GMT -5
Choose how you will, Gene. . . Thanks for giving me that liberty. I greatly value close friends who know me, I sometimes think, better than I know myself. In this case, however, I would have to say you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by QNQRLBJ on Dec 13, 2006 16:41:28 GMT -5
I greatly value close friends who know me, I sometimes think, better than I know myself. In this case, however, I would have to say you are mistaken. what i like about gene's stance is it allows me to pretty much disregard anything written in the bible. i just have to convince myself that i am being led by the spirit and its ok. its a free way to live actually. the best way to be a christian. on my terms ;D
|
|
|
Post by gene gene gene on Dec 13, 2006 16:47:51 GMT -5
You have every right to think that, as God grants you the liberty to do so. But, your will, will not change God's perspective or His authority, regardless of how you are mentally manipulated to think it will.
(man, the enemy has a hold on you)
If God made you to be sexually compatible with a man, you would have the proper parts that would naturallyfit with a man.
You don't.
That is evidence enough that you are the one mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by duh on Dec 13, 2006 17:00:21 GMT -5
c'mon man.......if you're going to knock someone's "proffesional education" you'd best look up the spelling of the word "proffesional" so you don't end up looking silly. Mark.....I think you're out to lunch on this one. You're just not making sense. Like others have pointed out, to resist something is to consider it (think about it) and make a decision. Our enemy is crafty. He knows our weaknesses and knows what to throw in front of us to tempt us with. He knew what to tempt Jesus with. If Jesus didn't even think about the temptations (they wouldn't have been true temptations then) I doubt he would have answered the Devil or paid him any attention. Thanks, glad you 're able to focus on the issue. And crafty enemies ..........hmm. What else, boogie men under the bed? Who's Mark?
|
|
|
Post by golly gee on Dec 13, 2006 17:03:39 GMT -5
c'mon man.......if you're going to knock someone's "proffesional education" you'd best look up the spelling of the word "proffesional" so you don't end up looking silly. Mark.....I think you're out to lunch on this one. You're just not making sense. Like others have pointed out, to resist something is to consider it (think about it) and make a decision. Our enemy is crafty. He knows our weaknesses and knows what to throw in front of us to tempt us with. He knew what to tempt Jesus with. If Jesus didn't even think about the temptations (they wouldn't have been true temptations then) I doubt he would have answered the Devil or paid him any attention. Thanks, glad you 're able to focus on the issue. And crafty enemies ..........hmm. What else, boogie men under the bed? Who's Mark? Read the other pages and find out who Mark is.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 13, 2006 18:37:11 GMT -5
If God made you to be sexually compatible with a man, you would have the proper parts that would naturally fit with a man. You don't. That is evidence enough that you are the one mistaken. Just asking this in idle curiosity - how do you know the parts don't fit. If you think about it - a male has both - they can be the penetrator or the penetratee.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 13, 2006 19:56:38 GMT -5
Someone mentioned the parts on a man don't fit on another man. It is more correct to say the parts "weren't" designed to fit.
A woman has vaginal muscles which are designed to relax and receive a male penetrating her, making copulation easier and more likely to be enjoyable.
The anus, on both sexes, is not designed for this purpose. The muscles are designed in the opposite manner, in other words to force matter out (i.e, excrement). They anus was not designed for penetration, in fact the very opposite - the expulsion of matter.
It is an attested fact that even in so called fidelous homosexual partnerships, after a period of time it is commonplace for men to develop warts and other growths, both on their penises and in their anal passages and surroundings as a direct result of regular intercourse. One of the main reasons is because the human body was not designed for this type of practice and these growths are a direct result of this.
Many doctors can testify to this type of problem amongst practising homosexual males along with other problems.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Dec 13, 2006 20:03:55 GMT -5
If that is truly the case, we (and perhaps especially, lesbians) can all be thankful that committed life partnerships aren't contingent upon anal sex.
|
|
|
Post by Steeped in self on Dec 13, 2006 20:36:49 GMT -5
I greatly value close friends who know me, I sometimes think, better than I know myself. In this case, however, I would have to say you are mistaken. what i like about gene's stance is it allows me to pretty much disregard anything written in the bible. i just have to convince myself that i am being led by the spirit and its ok. its a free way to live actually. the best way to be a christian. on my terms ;D Excellent post. Thank you. Steeped
|
|
|
Post by Steeped in self on Dec 13, 2006 20:48:16 GMT -5
"what i like about gene's stance is it allows me to pretty much disregard anything written in the bible. i just have to convince myself that i am being led by the spirit and its ok.
its a free way to live actually. the best way to be a christian. on my terms" BTW, if this thinking ie that we can decide for ourselves what is good and what is not; what is acceptable and what is not; sounds familiar, it should...it was the first lie recorded in the Bible: Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Regards' Steeped
|
|
|
Post by justamom on Dec 13, 2006 21:43:52 GMT -5
If that is truly the case, we (and perhaps especially, lesbians) can all be thankful that committed life partnerships aren't contingent upon anal sex. You got that right!!!!
|
|
|
Post by to really disagree on Dec 13, 2006 23:56:42 GMT -5
Really disagree...... apperently you do not believe what the bible writes about perfect human beings being born into the world? NOT! Sorry. Your verbage comes from that which you do not know. Sorry. Just need to set the record staight with you.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 14, 2006 1:38:59 GMT -5
what i like about gene's stance is it allows me to pretty much disregard anything written in the bible. i just have to convince myself that i am being led by the spirit and its ok. its a free way to live actually. the best way to be a christian. on my terms ;D It is a bit disconcerting, I know, to consider that the bible is not absolute truth, and I know it appears that I advocate a license to do anything one wishes as long as one convinces one's self that the Spirit is leading. That's not really the case though - it's really just an effort to understand why something is supposedly wrong or right, and then live by the moral and ethical law itself, rather than by the (sometimes) arbitrary rule. As b&r, I grew up with a very strong respect for authority and when the answer to my question "but why?" was "because I (or the workers, or the govt, or the bible) said so," I learned to blindly accept it. But through a variety of experiences I learned that such an answer is not really an answer, and that the question is valid. Why should women have long hair? No valid reason - go ahead and cut it. How is it that "nature itself teaches that men should have short hair?" It doesn't - let it grow. Is there a valid reason today to not eat pork or shrimp? No - go ahead and eat it. Are there really WMD in Iraq? Yes, the U.S. sold them to Iraq years ago (thankyou, Fred Johnson) . And the list goes on....
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 14, 2006 8:50:18 GMT -5
It is an attested fact that even in so called fidelous homosexual partnerships, after a period of time it is commonplace for men to develop warts and other growths, both on their male organes and in their anal passages and surroundings as a direct result of regular intercourse. One of the main reasons is because the human body was not designed for this type of practice and these growths are a direct result of this. You might need to rethink this. It seems you are suggesting that these warts are caused by anal intercourse. I didn't think anyone believed this since the whole idea of spontanious generation was laid to rest by Francesco Redi in the latter half of the 17th century. Warts are caused by viruses, not anal intercourse. Next you will be telling us that people catch colds because they go out with their hair wet and no coat! A reality check: - Genital warts is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV).
- Genital warts can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva , or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum.
- Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own. In other words they do not know they are infected.
- About 20 million people are infected with HPV.
- 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives.
- By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have genital HPV infection.
- About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.
Let's try to stay with 21st century thinking in these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 14, 2006 11:17:59 GMT -5
Thank you observer for your excellent critique on part of my post. I am glad to say for the sake of other readers that you are not throwing out my statement.
I am glad you mentioned that genital warts is a STD. Quite ! You forgot to mention that the incidence of this amongst active homosexuals is extremely high. Did they catch this when reading the newspaper, or during their sexual activities ?
Since you seem to be much better versed in these matters than I, perhaps you would care to share your views on some of the remaining statements in my post.
1) The v----al muscles on a woman are designed to receive penetration by a male member.
2) The muscles in the anus was designed to expel excrement and not to receive penetration by the male member.
This main point of my post was to show that the p---s and v----a were designed by our Creator for one another (in a fidelous union) and that there was no such design for the anus to receive a p---s !
Also you may like to inject what you know about what "force" is required for an anus to receive a p---s when it first becomes used for homosexual activities. "Brute force" perhaps ?
|
|
|
Post by not the point on Dec 14, 2006 12:17:29 GMT -5
Gene,
These are all not essential points of salvation. You know cutting your hair, eating pork and Iraqy-issues are not going to keep people from receiving the kingdom and living eternal life with God.
Please refer to God's Word:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither [glow=red,2,300]fornicators[/glow], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
These things are all bad. Homosexuality is considered to be bad because it is a form of fornication. In fact, any sexual relationship outside of the bounds of marriage is considered fornication. (regardless of whether hetero or homosexual, ok?)
God's word also says this:
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Here, God instructs man to WRITE God's perspective in Leviticus. It cannot be any clearer. Man + man = no.
Is homosexuality any worse a sin than a heterosexual couple having sex outside of marriage? No. They are all *sin* to God.
That is why all sinners are called to repentance. We are all called live righteously and serve God in obedience. If we are not, we have some changes to make and His forgiveness to seek. Where He says we shouldn't, we shouldn't. If we screw up and recognize the mistake, we are to stop that sinful activity and ask for forgiveness. If we blatantly continue, knowing we are against His instructions, we will be disciplined by Him.
God is our Father. Dont' forget this. He is our Father. I think He knows you want a relationship with Him, and to some degree you probably do. But, a Father will discipline their children and you will be, as we all will when we are in the wrong. That's called LOVE. It is the same as stopping a child from sipping poison. If you let them continue, eventually they will die. But, if you lock the cabinet, they will stop.
You are sipping poison, my friend.
I was at one point, too.
I had friend, who loved God and followed His word. She knew what was going on with me and brought it out in the open. The accountibility she gave me was hard - really hard, to hear. But, I was greatly convicted. I began to talk to God and asked for His help, because I felt trapped and unable to fix the problem myself. I was truly sorry before the Lord and He knew it. He helped me end the bad situation and gave me spiritual renewal. It was one of the most freeing moments of my life.
Please note, I am no one special. I am just someone who knew my ways were wrong and knew I was out of God's will. It was killing me, spiritually. I wanted to be back in a proper relationship with God, without a continual guilty conscious. He lovingly helped me get get there again.
God loves you and He is a merciful God. He wants you to live as He made you to live in righteousness and in purity. He does not want you in a homosexual relationship.
|
|
|
Post by webster on Dec 14, 2006 13:07:16 GMT -5
I think we can talk about homosexuality 'til the cows come home and still be talking about it the next day, and the next and the next.... The dialogue is always interesting.
I cannot remember who created a TV documentary about homosexuality I watched this year. It focused on identical twins, one of which was straight, the other gay/lesbian. There were differences even in the womb between the two babies and their differences became obvious in their behaviors once they were birthed and, of course, continued on throughout their life. All the twins interviewed WERE RAISED EXACTLY THE SAME yet one (male set) was attracted to dolls @ as a toddler and one to cars and trucks. By elementary age, one had his room decorated with camoflague, the other with butterflies and princesses.
One poster mentioned he/she cannot accept the fact that homosexuality may be genetic b/c that gene would eventually die out as homosexuals cannot breed. How 'bout genes that lie dormant? Perhaps we are born with the propensity for homosexuality in our DNA but it only manifests itself when conditions are just right (the combination of your DNA & mate's DNA). Much like giving birth to a child with a dreadful disease yet your other child/children do not contract it. I'm certainly not a geneticist so am only speculating!
At any rate, it is not my role in life to judge another. I am to love and be loved. And that includes loving gays and lesbians.
|
|
|
Post by juliette on Dec 14, 2006 13:30:40 GMT -5
Well said, Webster! Someone in a previous post said that homosexuality can't be genetic or else it would be have extinguished by evolution (gay people don't reproduce). This logic goes no where. There are many gay people who marry and have children, some eventually come out. There are also gay women who have children (Dick Cheney's daughter), and gay men who give their sperm to produce children. I personally know at least 5 gay people who have genetic offspring.
To add on to Webster's point about the complexity of genetics, we are learning more every day about how genes work. I may have a genetic marker for a certain type of cancer, but may never get cancer. I made a point earlier about hormones in-utero. This alone could play a big role in turning off or on a homosexual gene or sets of genes.
Lastly, I would like to echo this sentiment "At any rate, it is not my role in life to judge another. I am to love and be loved."
|
|
|
Post by hrl on Dec 14, 2006 13:34:24 GMT -5
Interesting how we stereotype gay people..........ie............'gay men do girly things' and 'straight men do manly things', etc. It might be true for some, but certainly not all. Another one is that gay men are artistic and that men ballet dancers are gay. This just makes me want to laugh, almost.
In reality, you cannot tell a gay person by how manly or girly they seem. I know some men that seem sort of gay acting, or feminine, but they are not gay.. And vice versa. I know some very manly men who are also very very gay or bisexual. And I know some very manly straight men who do womanly things.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 14, 2006 15:51:24 GMT -5
Gene, These are all not essential points of salvation. You know cutting your hair, eating pork and Iraqy-issues are not going to keep people from receiving the kingdom and living eternal life with God. Please refer to God's Word: 1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither [glow=red,2,300]fornicators[/glow], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
So let's focus on something that is (apparently) an essential point of salvation: effeminacy. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 14, 2006 17:31:03 GMT -5
Someone in a previous post said that homosexuality can't be genetic or else it would be have extinguished by evolution (gay people don't reproduce). This logic goes no where. Actually, the logic goes a lot further than you might think But you will need to step back to appreciate my picture. The constraints of society that force, if you will, gay people to marry those of the opposite sex, is something that has been in place for a very very brief time. Genetic changes take place, for the most part, over very long periods of time. For the sake of argument (and who doesn't like a good argument)let's assume that some society had concerns about homosexual people and put some pressure on them to marry (in whatever form there was at the time)heterosexuals. Biblical time starts at about 6,000 years ago. I am lazy so let's say for 10,000 years there has been pressure for gays to couple with the opposite sex and produce children. It was your contention that this was the reason this non-productive genetic trait survived. Let's think about a clock. The earliest humans were thought to be around about 4.5 million years ago. Again, because I am lazy, let's consider humans with that trait to be in the mid-range - say 2.4 million years ago. On a clock (12 hour standard clock) that would be 12:00 noon. Each hour from then until midnight (we are currently at midnight) therefore represents 200,000 years. So the impact of social pressure would have been keeping that genetic trait alive for about 3 minutes or since about 11:57. Considerations: Homosexual individuals, without the constraints of society, could well reproduce. Females, for example, would have been treated just as any other animal would be - when they were estrus a male will impregnate them. Males and females, homosexual or not, are all driven by the biological imperative, the urge to reproduce. Bottom line (no pun) is that the trait could very well have been carried forward. Some males like the company of other males. Some females like other females. I'm guess in that the writers of the bible did not have a good handle on homosexuality. Now think about this. Close your eyes and . . oh wait - how will you read. Never mind. Think about animals. Some male dogs hang out with males. Some female cats hang with females. Do you call them homosexuals? If you watch cows in a field you will see them mounting other cows. Do you call this homosexual behavior? Perhaps this whole homosexual thing is not driven by biology at all but is just a thorn in society's side. It has been labeled as wrong when it is as natural as anything else. In many species, opposite sexed animals only hang out together to reproduce. Only about 3 percent of the 4,000 mammal species are monogamous. Beavers, otters, bats, wolves, some foxes, a few hoofed animals, and some primates live together in social pairs but dally sexually. In other words, humans are just not that different than the rest of the animals with whom they share the earth. Strip off that thin veneer of civilization and you have an animal just like the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by webster on Dec 14, 2006 18:08:15 GMT -5
Observing:
I had an acquaintence who was gay and become 'convicted' of his sin. He desperately sought God's help/guidance and, on the surface, became straight over time.
However, he admitted that it was for show for he continued to be gay, inwardly, in spite of his desperate appeal for God's help in his life.
He eventually committed suicide b/c of his torment.
I don't know all the details and obviously won't b/c he is dead. I do know he was desperately honest before God and willing for ANYTHING.
Situations such as his provide proof that homosexuality may not be a choice. We can't change who we are.
And I don't know that God wants us/expects to either.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 14, 2006 18:50:40 GMT -5
Thank you observer for your excellent critique on part of my post. I am glad to say for the sake of other readers that you are not throwing out my statement. I am throwing out your statement that anal intercourse causes human papillomavirus. A disease caused by a virus, not the position one assumes when having sex. You are wrong again. I didn't forget to mention it. I refrained from mentioning it because it is not true. The fact I think you are trying to articulate is that there is a high incidence of human papillomavirus among immunosuppressed individuals, including those who had HIV. The virus does not infect people because they are homosexuals. I suspect they caught it, as did the heterosexuals who have genital warts, through some sexual activity but that does not rule out the possibility that they were reading the newspaper while they were having sex. The point you are trying to make here, I believe, is that homosexuals will be infected more with genital warts than heterosexuals and this is just not true. It is not the people you have sex with but the number of different people you have sex with. There is a glimmer of truth in saying that male homosexuals who engage in anal intercourse will have a more warts in the anal region than a woman who engages in vag inal sex but the incidence of infection will remain the same in both individuals. Just to be very clear - it is a virus that is spread primarily by sexual contact. Remember, many (if not most) people do not know they carry the disease. Whether you have oral sex with a man or a woman you could end up with oral human papillomavirus. The vag inal muscles were designed to expel a fetus from the birth canal. Without the muscles - no delivery. Without the muscles the vag ina could still be penetrated and the woman could still be impregnated. You really need to spend some time with a good anatomy and physiology text. There is an internal anal sphincter and an external anal sphincter and they have the function controlling the opening. When they contract the opening closes. When they relax the opening opens. They do not expel anything. That is accomplished by the peristalsis of the rectum. This is, of course, your belief and I will not challenge that. Some would question the purpose for all of the nerve endings in the prostate gland that are stimulated during anal intercourse. But you are 100% correct in stating that for reproduction the purpose of the pen is is to penetrate the vagi na so the semen, and the sperm, will be deposited as closely to the cervix as possible. However, this does not mean that various body parts cannot be used to bring people pleasure. The male organ does fit into the anus, male or female. Some may like that feeling. That depends on a lot of factors. The size of the pen is, the ability to relax the anal sphincters, the lubrication used, etc. All in all, I am guessing that it would be little different than a virgin having intercourse. Perhaps even less force. Just to follow up on your idea that because the anus was not designed for intercourse it is somehow wrong. Breasts were designed to provide nourishment for a newborn. I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And, from other reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were designed for. Some women like to ... Well you get the point. BTW - Most mammals are not monogamous. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is better if the strongest males mate with the females. It tends to improve the gene pool. Also - fidelous - do you mean the Latin term fidelis?
|
|
|
Post by h8bg463 on Dec 14, 2006 19:18:09 GMT -5
Observing: I had an acquaintence who was gay and become 'convicted' of his sin. He desperately sought God's help/guidance and, on the surface, became straight over time. However, he admitted that it was for show for he continued to be gay, inwardly, in spite of his desperate appeal for God's help in his life. He eventually committed suicide b/c of his torment. I don't know all the details and obviously won't b/c he is dead. I do know he was desperately honest before God and willing for ANYTHING. Situations such as his provide proof that homosexuality may not be a choice. We can't change who we are. And I don't know that God wants us/expects to either. whoo hooo one less f@g in the world.
|
|
clear statements please
Guest
|
Post by clear statements please on Dec 14, 2006 22:44:32 GMT -5
Gene,
Come on. Anytime you get a sperm with an egg, invitro, petri-dish, whatever method, reproduction still requires an EGG and a SPERM. One comes from a WOMAN, one comes from a MAN.
A man having intercourse with a man will not produce a child. A woman having intercourse with a woman will not produce a child.
Point: Homosexual relationships do not produce life.
Why then, am I no better than a dolphin or a monkey?
God designed human beings in His likeness - animals are not human beings. Good grief, I wonder how long it is going to be before people start defending beastiality as a "genetic occurance" in a human being. Soon, pedophilia will be acceptable to this sick society.
Draw the line, folks.
God says what He says.
Homosexuality is NOT acceptable to God. It never will be.
|
|