Granted the gay-left hand thing wasn't really on topic, but in the same vein, how was bringing up the dinosaurs? Sheri brought up left-handness to support her theory as you did dinosaurs w/ yours. You can't get annoyed w/ her when you did the same thing.

Unless you didn't reply to Sheri; I can't really tell anymore. If you didn't, ignore that last bit.

My main point I was trying to get across is that maybe homosexuals don't have a choice in the matter. I find all of the correlations interesting, as it helps to prove that it is genetics that causes sexual orientation and that it is not "sin." So, I ultimately was trying to show that there is an actual scientific difference between straight and gay people.

Exactly. I mean, if he's allowed to bring in other stuff, then you're allowed to bring in that. ^_^

You are obviously completely missing my point. It is not about being "defective" or getting a chance to do "bad things" because you are programmed for it. My point is that if it is NOT a choice, and they had no control over being gay, how can that be a sin?

If you were attracted to the same sex since you were young, and never knew anything different how is that a sin? That is why I made the point of handedness and sexual orientation, and he facts about depression, as you seem to believe that it is a choice that someone would made. One day wake up and say 'Oh, I'm over liking the opposite sex as it is so much easier for me to be gay!!' I also forgot to point out the correlation between twins (who share genetic make-up) and sexual orientation.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual


Isn't it odd that identical twins who share much of their genetic make up have a higher chance of homosexuality if the other is homosexual? It's almost like... they are programmed to be that way! Odd.

And, how many times do I have to tell you that sin is subjective, and can't be used as a defense if the other person does not believe? I appreciate your faith, but don't share the same faith, so it does nothing for me.

Last Chance to be reasonable here. Just answer this one question for me without any other answers than the obvious truth and then we can go from there. It isn't that I don't understand your point I just don't share your opinion. Let us just say for one moment that you don't believe in the law of the United States and you went out one day and robbed a bank, you were arrested and brought before the judge to be tried for what they have called a crime against the state. Does the fact that you do not believe in the law or the power of the judge effect the reality of whether or not you committed a crime and whether or not you will be punished?

This is a serous question I hope that you give me the respect to answer it honestly and not turn the question around to make it say what you want or to continue in the circular conversation we have been involved in here.

Of course I will answer your question, and I hope you understand that I never meant to disrespect you. That was never my intention.

The problem with your analogy is that law governs all citizens. Laws are put in place so others can not be hurt. That we can not damage any one other person's well being. So that we can live our lives happy and not worry about how someone else is going to change our lives for the worse. There is a difference between someone robbing a bank and stealing or potentially hurting someone, and what two people do in the bedroom. All gay people want to do is live their lives like everyone else. They don't want to steal anything away from anyone else or cause any harm to anyone.

We have the right to choose our religion, and many people believe in different things. That is the difference between law and religion. That is why they need to be separate. Your religion rules your life, and that is perfectly fine. I'm glad you have religion in your life. I have my own religion and beliefs, and they work perfectly for me. That doesn't make it any better or worse than yours. It is mine, and mine alone. But the difference is, we both have to live by the law or suffer the consequences. The consequences of yourreligion doesn't change my life, because it is a different set of rules I don't subscribe to. No different than my religion not changing your life.

This response is directed at KJVBIBLEMAN and from a purely Christian perspective and not intended for those who are not Christian nor intended to start an argument with those who do not believe homosexuality is a sin.

It's not being attracted to the same sex that is the sin. It's the ACTIONS that being attracted to the same sex cause that is the sin. THEREFORE, someone could very well be genetically predispositioned to homosexuality, which is NOT a sin, but once they ACT upon those feelings/attractions they have sinned.

Despite God's design for people, you and I both know that Satan has corrupted and has had thousands of years to do so, has he not? God's design for people also did not include genetic disorders such as Down's syndrome, or autism, but because of sin we now have such things. Why is it not possible that because of sin, people may now be genetically predispositioned to homosexuality?

Once again, it is not the predisposition that is the sin (consider: ALL humans are predispositioned for sin), it is the actions of that predisposition that make it a sin. The genes of the homosexual made them attracted to the same sex. The genes of the homosexual did not make them ACT on their attraction to the same sex, and THAT is what the sin. The sin is in DOING, not in BEING.

I would agree with almost everything you have said here and I believe that my comment was based not on the temptation but the outward act of the sin which is really no different than a person who has been born with a natural disposition towards having temper issues. It is not the feeling or temptation to lose your temper it is only sin when you act out. The part I don't agree with however is this concept of a genetic disorder, a mistake or however we want to phrase it. Even if that were true, that doesn't excuse or justify sin. However I believe that the Bible teaches us that are "genetic disorder" is a sinful nature. A desire to sin, a desire to rebel against God and his ways and seeking our own rather than Gods perfect will.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalms 51:5 KJV)

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (John 3:19-20 KJV)

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 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. (Galatians 5:19-21 KJV)

I could go on but sin is a part of our life because by birth we are made slaves to sin through our sinful nature, we practice and hide sin in our hearts and act out of the abundance of that heart which the Prophet Jeremiah said that the human heart is deceitfully wicked, and who can know it. It is only through the power of Christ and the finished work of the Cross can man be made slaves unto righteousness and no longer slaves to our sin and the nature of sin and the power of the Devil.

As I said, it is in DOING, not in BEING that we have sinned. Being born with the homosexual tendencies does not automatically say they are sinning. You do not sin by BEING homosexual. The sin is in doing the homosexual acts.

I never said it justified anything. Just because you are born with a predisposition to do something doesn't mean you HAVE to do it. There is no justification in committing a sin. But that is the action of DOING the sin, not in BEING the sinner.

Once again, sin is subjective. How many times do I have to say it? SIN IS SUBJECTIVE!

Care to explain the instance in homosexuality in other species? If we are predispositioned to it due to "sin" then what about animals? Are animals capable of sin also? I'm not sure on that one?

God's design for people also did not include genetic disorders such as Down's syndrome, or autism, but because of sin we now have such things.

Now this confuses me. So, God didn't intend for us to be broken? Because we are wretched creatures it slipped through the cracks? Cause that is how it is worded. So, innocent people are stricken with these diseases because some people choose to like it up the ass?

I don't understand the "logic" some people use to group homosexuality in with other, actual vile things. Homosexuality in couples is between two consenting adults. They decide to be in that situation as it makes them happy. It isn't rape, it isn't pedophilia, it isn't anything that hurts anyone.

The behavior in the animal kingdom is linked to dominance.

Also, I was speaking to KJVBibleMan from a CHRISTIAN perspective on sin and what sin is and what constitutes sin. In case you missed the "This response is directed at KJVBIBLEMAN and from a purely Christian perspective and not intended for those who are not Christian nor intended to start an argument with those who do not believe homosexuality is a sin",/i> part, which you obviously did.

Sin may be "subjective" to you, but when given a Christian set of beliefs, it is not subjective. THAT is the direction I was speaking to KJV Man about, not from YOUR set of beliefs, but from our own.

Perhaps you should have messaged him privately if you didn't wish anyone to join your discussion. This is an open forum and I have every right to chime in when I would like. I didn't miss your "warning," I just chose to not heed it.

And while it is possible that homosexuality ins animals in some instances it is linked to dominance, it is not the only reason. Consider for a moment those male penguins that tried to hatch a rock as it were an egg. And then upon being given an egg, they raised it together. Where is the dominance there? Take a moment to read up on it.

Perhaps I should have, but I thought other people would be intelligent enough to see that I was disputing his apparent disbelief in a genetic predisposition for homosexuality. Obviously I was wrong.

Did those male penguins have sex? Or did they just try to raise an egg together? Because there is a BIG difference.

If two men want to raise a child together without having sex together, I see no sin in that. It's when they have sex together that I consider it a sin.

The problem with this logic is that states are creating legislation that will not allow homosexual couples to adopt children! Because people use scare tactics to demonize homosexual people and made them be scared of them!

And, I have sex with my boyfriend and we are not married. We live together, and sleep in the same bed. That is a sin, isn't it? What level is that? Code yellow or code orange?

"So, innocent people are stricken with these diseases because some people choose to like it up the ass? "

You are COMPLETELY reading into it something that was not there. I did NOT say those things have occurred because of homosexuality. Learn to read the lines, not between the lines. I said as a result of SIN in general, not any specific sin.

I read the lines. You said, and I quote

God's design for people also did not include genetic disorders such as Down's syndrome, or autism, but because of sin we now have such things.

What line did I read between?

YOU said, and I quote, "So, innocent people are stricken with these diseases because some people choose to like it up the ass?"and that is NOT what I said. NOT EVEN CLOSE. I said we have those things because of sin IN GENERAL, but YOU chose to turn it around and make it sound like I said we have those things because "some people choose to like it up the ass". YOUR words, NO WHERE NEAR MY words.

But, by your thinking...

homosexuality = sin
sin = genetic diseases
therefore, homosexuality = genetic disease.

I'm going by YOUR thought process here. I believe that genetic diseases is a science, one that we can research and find answers for. I don't believe that sin causes anything.

That is YOUR beliefs. MY beliefs is that those things exist because of sin, that if sin didn't exist, we wouldn't have genetic disorders.

Do I think genetic disorders are sins? No. They are a RESULT of sin. Do you understand the difference?

I perfectly understand the difference. I also understand science. And I don't appreciate your jabs indicating that I am not intelligent. It's debate time, not recess. And if you are going to do that, this debate is over. I'm all for a heated debate, but I don't stand for you belittling me.

Ok, so it's okay for you to do the belittling in a subtle manner, but when someone does it to you in a more obvious manner it is wrong?

Great. I get it now. I'm done talking to you. So don't even bother responding, because I'll ignore it.

Wow.

I could say a lot of things at this point but well... I'm an adult.

And one more thing, since I know you're going to jump on it.....

Do I believe homosexual acts are sin? Yes, I do. But, as I have said above, I do not believe that being born with the predisposition for homosexuality automatically makes one a sinner. I believe it is ACTING UPON THOSE BEHAVIORS that makes them a sinner.