why did god create cancer?

JimiTime

I think IUsueVi is giving the basic Jist of the failings of your proposal Wicknight. From the beginning, its been Man and Woman, Adam and Eve. Jesus described marriage as a Man and a Woman becoming one. All homosexuality is descibed negatively. There is no way you could ever convince me that the bible is actually just misunderstood when it comes to homosexuality. Its clear its a perversion of Gods original creation. I'm sure you could sell your position to those wishing for it to be the case, but some sell racism by skewing bible text also. I don't need a bible to view homosexuality as abnormal though. Unlike yourself, I view heterosexuality as the normal, natural sexuality. The original creation. Biology shows us that much.

As i said earlier, The world moves in the direction which man pushes it. If the law is saying homosexual legal union can occur, then thats what it says. I'm not going to make a song and dance about it. But I will inform my children of Gods view.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

OK, so it's a battle balance between the fact that the bible is the eternal, infallible word of God, and the changing Zeitgeist.

Well no not really, it is a balance between what the Bible literally says and the context in which it is said, and being careful not to backwards imprint modern understanding of context and words backwards to the original text.

For example, the word "homosexual" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Homosexual is a modern word, originating the late 19th century, and it has context within modern times.

It is also uses as a translation word for the original languages of the Bible, but that doesn't that what we understand today as "homosexual" was what the original authors exactly meant by their words.

My understanding is that the a lot of the Old Testament usages literally mean "man lie with another man"

One has to look at what that actually means (it obviously isn't totally literal, "to lie with" means to engage in sex) in the context of the time that it was written.

This is why most Christians on this forum say there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a homosexual, ie having a homosexual sexual orientation. They can say this because homosexual orientation is never once mentioned in the Bible as being bad, or even mentioned at all. What is described as wrong is the act of sexual intercourse with another man.

Does that mean that the original authors understood about homosexual orientation but considered it ok, while considering the act itself as bad? Doubtful.

The authors probably didn't have a clue about sexual orientation, heterosexual or otherwise. It is not described as a sin not because the authors didn't believe it was a sin, but simply because they didn't know it existed in the first place.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Unlike yourself, I view heterosexuality as the normal, natural sexuality. The original creation. Biology shows us that much.

Not so sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Both homosexual and bisexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom. This includes all the "unnatural" behaviour involving genitalia that some people protest against.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I will inform my children of Gods view.

Will you be telling your kids that this is your view of god's view, or will you be telling them that this is god's view directly?

ie, will you be standing in for god?

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

This is why most Christians on this forum say there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a homosexual, ie having a homosexual sexual orientation. They can say this because homosexual orientation is never once mentioned in the Bible as being bad, or even mentioned at all. What is described as wrong is the act of sexual intercourse with another man.

Do they really? I haven't got that impression. But even if this is the case, I don't think it is indicative of the common position held by Christians. Even, JimiTime, who seems more open-minded than many, stands by the bible and declares homosexuality to be wrong and sinful. Not sure if he is talking about sexual acts or lustful thoughts, etc., but I imagine it doesn't make a whole load of difference.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does that mean that the original authors understood about homosexual orientation but considered it ok, while considering the act itself as bad? Doubtful.

The authors probably didn't have a clue about sexual orientation, heterosexual or otherwise. It is not described as a sin not because the authors didn't believe it was a sin, but simply because they didn't know it existed in the first place.

Do you really think that there is a large amount of difference between being homosexually orientated and performing homosexual acts, as far as Christian belief is concerned? After all Jesus does say that even lustful thoughts are sin.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I think IUsueVi is giving the basic Jist of the failings of your proposal Wicknight. From the beginning, its been Man and Woman, Adam and Eve. Jesus described marriage as a Man and a Woman becoming one.

Well he didn't actually. He gave descriptions of the joy of marriage using a man and a women as examples, as most people would today. He didn't define a "marriage"

JimiTime wrote: »

All homosexuality is descibed negatively.

As I said to iUseVi "homosexuality" is never described in the Bible at all, the word didn't exist in its modern usage 200 years ago. What is describe is certain acts that we would classify as homosexual acts today, even if carried out by heterosexuals (for example in male rape in jails).

JimiTime wrote: »

There is no way you could ever convince me that the bible is actually just misunderstood when it comes to homosexuality. Its clear its a perversion of Gods original creation.

Is it though?

That is my original question. What is the actual justification for stance?

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't need a bible to view homosexuality as abnormal though. Unlike yourself, I view heterosexuality as the normal, natural sexuality. The original creation. Biology shows us that much.

If that is where your opinion on this issue originates from that is fine.

My issue with that though would be whether you are retroactively applying that to how you interpret the Bible.

Is heterosexuality the only correct form of Christian marriage because the Bible reveals as much, or is it because you believe it is the only natural union and interpret the Bible within that context.

Does the Bible actual say, or imply, that a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) who love and care for each other and who want to demonstrate this love to God in the form of a life long commitment, cannot or should not get married in the Christian context?

Mark Hamill

Just a thought: the bible seems to be mostly against the act of homosexual sex, as opposed to homosexuals themselves so does this mean that two homosexual men could get a Christian marriage if they didn't have sex? Also it seems like the bible is only against men having sex with men, what about lesbians? Does the bible have anything to say on lesbian sex or lesbians getting married?

iUseVi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just a thought: the bible seems to be mostly against the act of homosexual sex, as opposed to homosexuals themselves so does this mean that two homosexual men could get a Christian marriage if they didn't have sex? Also it seems like the bible is only against men having sex with men, what about lesbians? Does the bible have anything to say on lesbian sex or lesbians getting married?

Everyone knows lesbians don't exist.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Even, JimiTime, who seems more open-minded than many, stands by the bible and declares homosexuality to be wrong and sinful. Not sure if he is talking about sexual acts or lustful thoughts, etc., but I imagine it doesn't make a whole load of difference.

Well I'm not sure about Jimi's position on homosexuality in general, his last post raised a few questions.

Other Christian posters here have been more clear, again I think it was PDN who said he has no issue with homosexuality at all beyond the common interpretation that the teaching of the Bible views carrying out homosexual acts as incompatible with Christian life. I think he said (again PDN apologies if I'm misquoting you) that if the Bible didn't say that he would have no problem with homosexual acts. They don't trouble him beyond the teaching of the Bible as a guide to Christian behaviour.

Other posters seem to have problems with it irrespective of the Bible. For example I think BC said that his experience of meeting homosexual men leads him to believe that homosexual acts lead to a damaged person and life.

iUseVi wrote: »

Do you really think that there is a large amount of difference between being homosexually orientated and performing homosexual acts, as far as Christian belief is concerned? After all Jesus does say that even lustful thoughts are sin.

I think those who wrote the Bible were discussing what we would term homosexual acts purely in the context of extra marital fornication simply for lust.

I think they genuinely believed that homosexual acts were disgusting, but equally I don't think they ever considered homosexuality the way we do in the modern world. The idea of a loving homosexual relationship, on par with a loving heterosexual relationship, was simply an unknown concept at the time. They didn't think of a proper homosexual love as right or wrong, because they didn't think of it at all. A lot of people today don't believe that such a thing actually exists, they still view homosexuality in the context of lust and sex, rather than love.

Therefore one cannot really apply the teaching of one to the other, since they are really different things at heart, and not discussing the same thing.

This is the same way that one cannot apply the Christian teaching on extra-marital sex (lustful, sinful) within the context of martial sex (loving, joyful)

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

Everyone knows lesbians don't exist.

"unless they scissor or something ..."

(obscure South Park reference)

RealEstateKing

above mentioned homophobic positions fail to realise, is that homesexuality is not a choice that a person makes, its something that they are.

They ARE a homosexual, and there's nothing they can do about it, any more than you could 'choose' to be a heterosexual.

As a result of this , it's not something you can have a value judgement about, any more than you could say you approve or dissaprove of red hair or green eyes.

Granted some verses of the Bible seem to indicate it would be considered a sin, but the Bible, as you well know, says a lot of things that no modern ethical person could agree with (Im sure you know which bits I mean), plus we cant grant that prejudice is OK if it's sanctioned by religious tradition. I could easily find a religious justifaction for racism in the Bible (as many already do), if I so desired.

If you preach that Homosexuality is a sin according to Christian teaching, as a strictly theological point, that is allowable. If you teach your own children that it is wrong, it is regretable, but not illegal. However, if you teach children in a professional capacity, such bigotry should not be allowed.

As to the gay marriage thing, I simply fail to see any reason why gay marriage effects straight marriage. You often hear people say that legalising gay marriage somehow infects the whole "institution of marriage." Nobody has ever given a satisfactory reason why.

edanto

iUseVi wrote: »

After all Jesus does say that even lustful thoughts are sin.

He never!! Where did he say that? So a good Christian should actually be able to stop lustful thoughts from arising, as opposed to the good agnostic that engages with the lustful thoughts and then makes the moral choice to act on them or not. I'm really in trouble if we get afterlife penalty points for bad thoughts.

And as for the the original topic of the thead, this has all been debated as "unde malum" for centuries and even the cleverest of the Christian scholars could only come up with a logical joke to explain evil.

However, I would recommend you not to think too much about this topic, as you run the risk of getting so wrapped up in the whole thing that you put up a website like this http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/nature_of_evil_3.html

It's scary. And if they haven't figured out the whole 'where does bad stuff come from' question after doing that much research then I think we're just gonna go round in circles until someone spots an interesting tangent.

iUseVi

edanto wrote: »

He never!! Where did he say that? So a good Christian should actually be able to stop lustful thoughts from arising, as opposed to the good agnostic that engages with the lustful thoughts and then makes the moral choice to act on them or not. I'm really in trouble if we get afterlife penalty points for bad thoughts.

Matthew 5:27
27(AU) "You have heard that it was said,(AV) 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28But I say to you that(AW) everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Christians are taught to "take thoughts into captivity":

2 Corinthians 10:5 (New International Version)
5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Of course this is an impossible task, and causes many people unnecessary daily suffering.

robindch

RealEstateKing wrote: »

You often hear people say that legalising gay marriage somehow infects the whole "institution of marriage." Nobody has ever given a satisfactory reason why.

The reason seems to be that an important component of the marriages of certain types of people involves a public, very visible, statement to society that their marriage is a declaration of their own ritual purity within the terms of the moral consensus that prevailed at the time of the marriage.

A subsequent redefinition of the ritual of marriage will therefore, in the eyes of such people, reduce the standing that they've gained through their investment in the ritual.

In simpler terms, one possible instances of this (there are many) might be the situation where, in a homophobic society, certain people may be more likely marry so that their heterosexuality will not be questioned. If gay marriage is permitted, heterosexuality no longer remains a precondition of marriage and the heterosexuality of the participants can no longer be assumed, much to their consternation.

Evidence which suggests this interpretation includes the simple observation that that people who get upset at gay marriage do not talk about the love that marriage is said to embody, and which is as much a part of gay marriage as it is in hetero marriage, but rather the external political meaning that can be assumed by the surrounding society. Hence, marriage is seen at least partly as a message to society, and not only as a message from each participant to the other.

JimiTime

RealEstateKing wrote: »

above mentioned homophobic positions fail to realise,

And this is what is troubling from Wolfsbanes earlier point. People incapable of understanding that one can believe homosexuality to be sinful and 'not' be 'afraid' of homosexuality. Homophobia is a propaganda word. Its every bit as ignorant as a gay hating yob calling for homosexuals to be beaten. I have no fear of Homosexuality, I think its sinful! I have no fear of fornication, I think its sinful! I have no fear of eating babies, but its sinful! Homophobia is a lazy mans word!

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Will you be telling your kids that this is your view of god's view, or will you be telling them that this is god's view directly?

ie, will you be standing in for god?

If the question arises, I'll be standing in for no-one. As I said, I'll be showing them Gods view.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

Not so sure about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Both homosexual and bisexual behaviour is common in the animal kingdom. This includes all the "unnatural" behaviour involving genitalia that some people protest against.

As a Christian, I don't look at the animal kingdom to mold my my views of morality. The fact is, sex has a very definate purpose, the pleasure aspect is merely a perk. Once we say there is no normal sexuality, then 'all' sexuality is normal. Be it with a cucumber, a doll, an object, or a child. Man can desire after many things, society then accepts certain desires, and not others for whatever reasons. However, God has standards which Christians follow. If society moves to approve of something that God has revealed as sinful, then the Christian will go with Gods standard and not society's.

edanto

iUseVi - Thanks for the reference. I guess, I was really surprised when you said that "Jesus does say that even lustful thoughts are sin", as opposed to "It says somewhere in the Bible..."

I guess I'm being a bit of a pedant (and leaving myself open to the same criticism that I'm levelling) in giving a bit more weight to the bits of the Bible that actually start "and Jesus said..." as opposed to the other bits which I always suspect have been written in over the ages by rogues in robes eager to tell us how to behave and unable to come up with a convincing arguement other than 'IT SAYS SO IN THE <insert religious textbook here>!!'

So, there aren't any reports of Jesus himself telling us that we aren't to think bad thoughts?

I'm all with him on the do unto others thing, and a firm believer in the judging people by their actions - including the church.

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

There is a world of difference between teaching a religious belief, or indeed an ethical belief, and stating a racist falsehood.

In this case, there is not - that is precisely the point. Teaching that homosexuality is an abomination is no less objectionable and wrong than teaching that non-white races are inferior. That the former believe is derived from religion makes absolutely no difference. In a secular state, religious beliefs are not given special exemption to be propounded and promulgated to the denigration and injury of a minority.

Religious beliefs are not special, and though not exactly racist, homophobic opinions are dangerous falsehoods in the eyes of the law and the state.

PDN wrote: »

Let's take another example of what Christians believe about sin (since I believe it as actually you, Sapien, who want to plead that you are a special case). As a Christian I believe that the worship of idols is sinful. Therefore idol worshipping is sin, incompatible with Christianity, but I think Hindus and other idolators have a legal right to bow down to whatever statues they prefer. I also think it would be entirely proper, if I were an adoptive parent, to teach adopted children that idolatry is wrong.

There is, sadly, a part of the homosexual lobby that is demanding much more than tolerance. They want us to clap our hands and declare homosexuality to be a wonderful idea, and if we don't provide them with such a Pavlovian response then they will attempt to demonise us.

Homosexuality is not an idea, PDN - it's a fact of life and a part of humanity. It is not to be agreed with or disagreed with. And, without delving into semantic discussions of register and connotation, homosexual lobbies demand nothing more than tolerance and equality. Declaring homosexuality an abomination is falling hugely short of tolerance.

As to your analogy with the Hindu idolators - there is, to use your words, a world of difference, between maintaining the truism of the mutual exclusiveness of religions, and preaching the moral inferiority of a vulnerable minority to children, some of whom will inevitably become part of that minority.

To resort to the exhausted but no less valid device - if a religion contained the pronouncement that coloured people were inferior, should its adherents be allowed to teach that systematically to their children? Mormons, for instance, choose not to emphasise that aspect of their faith these days - but they could remember it at any moment. Should they be allowed to promulgate racism to younger generations, simply because it is derived form scripture?

PDN wrote: »

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, or to like my faith, but I have a right to practice it.

That depends, PDN, on what the practise of your faith involves. If it is found that, in practising your faith, you damage people and society, you will not have the right to practise it. Religion is no more special than any other philosophy, political outlook, or hobby. It bestows no magical allowances to do things that society determines to be wrong.

PDN wrote: »

What I can't cope with is your rank hypocrisy in denying me the same rights when it comes to my declining to endorse your chosen lifestyle.

Whatever about what I do in bed, my homosexuality is a lot less "chosen" than your religion. You are responsible for the beliefs you profess, I am not responsible for my sexual orientation. The children in your community will one day turn out to be gay or straight regardless of what they want or what you teach them - whether or not they turn out to be Christian is entirely up to them. The state has a resposnibility to ensure that I am not disadvantaged by my sexuality - it has no responsibility to accomodate your opinions.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

And this is what is troubling from Wolfsbanes earlier point. People incapable of understanding that one can believe homosexuality to be sinful and 'not' be 'afraid' of homosexuality. Homophobia is a propaganda word. Its every bit as ignorant as a gay hating yob calling for homosexuals to be beaten. I have no fear of Homosexuality, I think its sinful! I have no fear of fornication, I think its sinful! I have no fear of eating babies, but its sinful! Homophobia is a lazy mans word!

Agreed, it is egregious to use the word homophobic in a wide-sweeping manner on all Christians.

However, to the outside observer, there is not a whole lot of difference between someone who says something is wrong and sinful, and someone who actually hates that thing. In many ways these two people would act in the same way.

In other words, someone who actually is homophobic, but not a violent person, would probably just say that homosexuality is wrong. Might this person be indistinguishable from someone who is not homophobic, but who thinks homosexuality to be wrong?

You are motivated by your religion, a homophobic person is motivated by their disgust. Same result, different motivation. Which is where people may get confused, IMO.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

As a Christian, I don't look at the animal kingdom to mold my my views of morality. The fact is, sex has a very definate purpose, the pleasure aspect is merely a perk. Once we say there is no normal sexuality, then 'all' sexuality is normal. Be it with a cucumber, a doll, an object, or a child. Man can desire after many things, society then accepts certain desires, and not others for whatever reasons. However, God has standards which Christians follow. If society moves to approve of something that God has revealed as sinful, then the Christian will go with Gods standard and not society's.

That's what I expected. Now I don't know about cucumbers and such things, but I was countering your point that homosexuality is not a normal biological phenomenon. It clearly is, being common among all the great apes just for starters. Now whether that means it is moral or not is an entirely separate topic. I expect we have different definitions of moral to begin with, so that's probably a separate thread.

edanto wrote: »

iUseVi - Thanks for the reference. I guess, I was really surprised when you said that "Jesus does say that even lustful thoughts are sin", as opposed to "It says somewhere in the Bible..."

I guess I'm being a bit of a pedant (and leaving myself open to the same criticism that I'm levelling) in giving a bit more weight to the bits of the Bible that actually start "and Jesus said..." as opposed to the other bits which I always suspect have been written in over the ages by rogues in robes eager to tell us how to behave and unable to come up with a convincing arguement other than 'IT SAYS SO IN THE <insert religious textbook here>!!'

So, there aren't any reports of Jesus himself telling us that we aren't to think bad thoughts?

I'm all with him on the do unto others thing, and a firm believer in the judging people by their actions - including the church.

That was Jesus speaking in Matthew 5:27.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

Agreed, it is egregious to use the word homophobic in a wide-sweeping manner on all Christians.

However, to the outside observer, there is not a whole lot of difference between someone who says something is wrong and sinful, and someone who actually hates that thing. In many ways these two people would act in the same way.

In other words, someone who actually is homophobic, but not a violent person, would probably just say that homosexuality is wrong. Might this person be indistinguishable from someone who is not homophobic, but who thinks homosexuality to be wrong?

You are motivated by your religion, a homophobic person is motivated by their disgust. Same result, different motivation. Which is where people may get confused, IMO.

Is it a 'phobia', to be disgusted by homosexuality? I am disgusted by many things that I'm not afraid of. I have a particular disgust for phlegm (sorry), but I'm not afraid of it. Personally, I think the word 'homophobia' is a convenient word for anyone who wants to play the victim. What a homosexual man does in his bed is his business, he's not raping anyone, or forcing me to watch. I just happen to have a view of such behaviour as contrary to what God wants.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

That's what I expected. Now I don't know about cucumbers and such things, but I was countering your point that homosexuality is not a normal biological phenomenon. It clearly is, being common among all the great apes just for starters. Now whether that means it is moral or not is an entirely separate topic. I expect we have different definitions of moral to begin with, so that's probably a separate thread.

.

Sorry, when I said 'biologically', I meant that only a man and a woman can reproduce together naturally. Morality and God aside, this fact is probably the biggest indication of a normal/natural sexuality.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

If the question arises, I'll be standing in for no-one. As I said, I'll be showing them Gods view.

God can deliver god's view, or you can deliver your interpretation of god's view, but you can't deliver god's view directly, since you are not god.

It's a small distinction, but quite an important one, I think.

Sapien

JimiTime wrote: »

And this is what is troubling from Wolfsbanes earlier point. People incapable of understanding that one can believe homosexuality to be sinful and 'not' be 'afraid' of homosexuality. Homophobia is a propaganda word. Its every bit as ignorant as a gay hating yob calling for homosexuals to be beaten.

Oh, for gods' sakes...

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is a term used to describe irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals.

From Wikipedia. "Or discrimination against homosexuals".

unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

From Dictionary dot com. "Or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality".

Et cetera.

If you think for a moment that the fact that phóbos is Greek for "fear" is esoteric knowledge beyond the ken of anyone who uses "homophobia" to mean things other than "fear of homosexuals" - then read the following very, very carefully. Homophobia encompasses all forms of prejudices against homosexual people and homosexuality. Its meaning is not defined by its philology. Philologically it doesn't even make sense - "fear of the same", "fear of sameness", "fear of the self"? It was a hastily hashed together term that has come to be widely used and understood - you gain nothing nor justify any of your beliefs by quibbling endlessly over the significance of Greek roots.

So you're not afraid of homosexuals. Congratulations. Whether or not you are homophobic is not a function of your manly bravery, but of the unreasoning, intolerant nature of your opinions. That you derive those opinions from your religion, and express it in religious terms, is completely irrelevant.

JimiTime

Sapien wrote: »

In this case, there is not - that is precisely the point. Teaching that homosexuality is an abomination is no less objectionable and wrong than teaching that non-white races are inferior. That the former believe is derived from religion makes absolutely no difference. In a secular state, religious beliefs are not given special exemption to be propounded and promulgated to the denigration and injury of a minority.

It is the act of homosexuality which is sinful. To be born a certain race is not a decision or an action. You want to remove a Christians right to believe its a sinful act? To dilute their morality if asked by their children under the threat of legal action? Would that be your view? If it is, would there be many homosexuals with this similar view?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, when I said 'biologically', I meant that only a man and a woman can reproduce together naturally. Morality and God aside, this fact is probably the biggest indication of a normal/natural sexuality.

Two things -- (a) as others have pointed out, homosexual behaviour has been observed in many species in the animal kingdom; (b) it's also normal to die.

Arguing that something must be desirable because it's "normal" is unwise.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Is it a 'phobia', to be disgusted by homosexuality? I am disgusted by many things that I'm not afraid of. I have a particular disgust for phlegm (sorry), but I'm not afraid of it. Personally, I think the word 'homophobia' is a convenient word for anyone who wants to play the victim. What a homosexual man does in his bed is his business, he's not raping anyone, or forcing me to watch. I just happen to have a view of such behaviour as contrary to what God wants.

I suppose being disgusted is not a phobia in the strict sense of the word. But I didn't accuse you of being homophobic.

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry, when I said 'biologically', I meant that only a man and a woman can reproduce together naturally. Morality and God aside, this fact is probably the biggest indication of a normal/natural sexuality.

Reproduction between a man and a woman is necessary for reproduction in mammalian, yes. But if we look at other animals such as amphibians, such distinct gender differences are not always involved. For example, some frogs can change their gender during the course of their life, if the population of frogs in the ecosystem has become too one sided towards a certain gender.

But this probably means nothing to you, as I imagine you think humans are not just an animal, but also have a soul? So our discussion of normal interactions in the animal kingdom is probably kind of pointless.

Sapien

JimiTime wrote: »

It is the act of homosexuality which is sinful. To be born a certain race is not a decision or an action. You want to remove a Christians right to believe its a sinful act? To dilute their morality if asked by their children under the threat of legal action? Would that be your view? If it is, would there be many homosexuals with this similar view?

To be born homosexual is not a decision or an action. The only difference is that a homosexual can minimise his inferiority by abstaining from sex - be to be born incapable of unsinful sex is in itself a kind of inferiority. Please don't bore us with sin versus sinner sophistry.

I would never remove anyone's right to believe anything. I'm not even sure how it would be done. I might, however, want to remove the right to instill certain beliefs in children. As would any sensible person.

auerillo

iUseVi wrote: »

The bible clearly states that homosexuals should be put to death.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;%2020:13;%201%20Cor%206:9&version=49

EDIT: btw, several passages in that link there.

Lol, that really made me laugh when I see the intolerance of some people and how their intolerance leads them to tell us that the bible advocates killing human beings for many things (in this case homosexuality, but generally you could substitute whatever your personal pet peeve is).

If there is one message in the bible, it is to love everyone, and to forgive.

The bible also teaches an eye for an eye and that it is a sin to eat pork, along with so many other things which are , in the main, contradicted by another piece of the bible elsewhere.

If you want to take a piece of the bible out of context and if you believe that god wants you to kill homosexuals, why don't you begin your own personal crusade and see where that gets you?