Pray for our enemies

[SBAP74]

It’s always been bizarre to me when people argue the point that urges and feelings are justification for reoccurring sin….since a man is sexually attracted to another man then the argument becomes centered around how that’s natural and therefore should be ok.

The urge isn’t the sin….Acting on the urge over and over is. Why not pray to control urges? Self control urges?

To me it’s simply a sexual deviance that has been shoved into the main stream for acceptance and that’s where the problem lies

Changing scripture to fit the narrative could also be considered sinful.

 

[SBAP74]

The difference in our opinions is that I think being gay, for most, is neither a choice nor a sin. But then again, I don't believe in god. I believe there could be a higher being out there but it assuredly it isn't one all-knowing, benevolent being that judges our time on earth and punishes us for not being who it wants us to be.

Doesn’t believe in god…that sums it up.

 

[greengeezer]

Just my two cents worth. Some people believe that if you codify bizarre behavior into law, it makes the behavior normal. Don’t believe so.

 

[ThunderCat98]

The difference in our opinions is that I think being gay, for most, is neither a choice nor a sin. But then again, I don't believe in god. I believe there could be a higher being out there but it assuredly it isn't one all-knowing, benevolent being that judges our time on earth and punishes us for not being who it wants us to be.

Homosexuality makes no sense from a biological/natural perspective either, but no one is willing to entertain that notion because it is even more difficult to argue against than religion.

Males in every species are predisposed to spread their seed and perpetuate their own genetic lines. Likewise, females are predisposed to find an ideal partner to have children with to perpetuate their own line.

Homosexuality cuts against the science of these innate genetic drives. It is impossible for same sex couples to produce offspring that contains the genetic codes of both partners. Sure, humans can use artifical insemination and other means to obtain children, but they will not, and cannot, be a child of a homosexuality pairing.

In this regard, homosexuality is aberrant behavior in the animal kingdom. It has to be. If it weren't, all species would eventually cease to exist as there would be no offspring.

 

[KyMUfan]

The difference in our opinions is that I think being gay, for most, is neither a choice nor a sin. But then again, I don't believe in god. I believe there could be a higher being out there but it assuredly it isn't one all-knowing, benevolent being that judges our time on earth and punishes us for not being who it wants us to be.

But you've conveniently glossed over the biological and physiological aspects that I first mentioned. You are the one that brought God into the discussion, not me. But I'm just repeating myself now.

 

[herdftblfan]

Just my two cents worth. Some people believe that if you codify bizarre behavior into law, it makes the behavior normal. Don’t believe so.

It's not necessarily about what's normal and what isn't. Being gay isn't normal but that doesn't make it wrong. That can be said for many things related to being human. The beauty of being a human is we are all different but no matter how different we are, we are equal.

 

[herdftblfan]

But you've conveniently glossed over the biological and physiological aspects that I first mentioned. You are the one that brought God into the discussion, not me. But I'm just repeating myself now.

I'm not glossing it over. It's just not relevant. Of course two gay people can't have a child but that doesn't mean they should be viewed as lesser in the eyes of our government or by society in general for that matter.

 

[herdftblfan]

Homosexuality makes no sense from a biological/natural perspective either, but no one is willing to entertain that notion because it is even more difficult to argue against than religion.

Males in every species are predisposed to spread their seed and perpetuate their own genetic lines. Likewise, females are predisposed to find an ideal partner to have children with to perpetuate their own line.

Homosexuality cuts against the science of these innate genetic drives. It is impossible for same sex couples to produce offspring that contains the genetic codes of both partners. Sure, humans can use artifical insemination and other means to obtain children, but they will not, and cannot, be a child of a homosexuality pairing.

In this regard, homosexuality is aberrant behavior in the animal kingdom. It has to be. If it weren't, all species would eventually cease to exist as there would be no offspring.

So what? Does that mean gay people should be forced to hide in the closet or be treated differently?

 

[greengeezer]

Being gay isn't normal but that doesn't make it wrong.

Never said it was wrong, I said I found it bizarre. Would you say that from a human reproductive perspective it makes sense?

 

[herdftblfan]

Never said it was wrong, I said I found it bizarre. Would you say that from a human reproductive perspective it makes sense?

Of course it doesn't but that wasn't the gist of this conversation. The implication was that gays should be treated differently in the eyes of the government. I don't agree with that.

Marriage is a good example. I believe churches should have the right to choose whether they want to marry gay couples or not but I don't believe the government should have any oversight over civil unions (aka marriage in the eyes of the government).

 

[greengeezer]

Of course it doesn't but that wasn't the gist of this conversation. The implication was that gays should be treated differently in the eyes of the government.

I basically have no problem with who a person wants to marry. It is a tough world out there and you find happiness where you can. I also believe the government should stay out of it. Saying this, LGBTQ organizations can’t turn around and use government courts to force me to use dozens of unnecessary pronouns and accept dozens of genders.

 

[herdftblfan]

I basically have no problem with who a person wants to marry. It is a tough world out there and you find happiness where you can. I also believe the government should stay out of it. Saying this, LGBTQ organizations can’t turn around and use government courts to force me to use dozens of unnecessary pronouns and accept dozens of genders.

No disagreement on that at all. Not to mention that “they” is plural so it’s poor grammar in my view to refer to a singular person as “they.” On the other hand, if a man chooses to transition to a woman and wants me refer to her as “her,” I have no issue with that.

 

[ThunderCat98]

So what? Does that mean gay people should be forced to hide in the closet or be treated differently?

ffs, where did i say that?

 

[ThunderCat98]

The implication was that gays should be treated differently in the eyes of the government.

Who is advocating this? What law or policy does this? Be specific.

 

[herdftblfan]

ffs, where did i say that?

I’m referring to the entire thread. Read the progression and full conversation.

 

[30CAT]

The difference in our opinions is that I think being gay, for most, is neither a choice nor a sin

Then you have to believe adults wanting to have sex with children is neither a choice nor a sin. I mean, if one could choose, a man wouldn't choose to have anal sex with a little boy.

And then it's endless on what isn't a choice. Rape, sex with animals, pedophilia...etc. Where do you draw the line? You'd be a hypocrite to say, well one is okay and not a choice, but not the rest.

We have sexual organs and they are for reproduction. Explain how anything else is natural? You can't.

 

[herdftblfan]

Then you have to believe adults wanting to have sex with children is neither a choice nor a sin. I mean, if one could choose, a man wouldn't choose to have anal sex with a little boy.

And then it's endless on what isn't a choice. Rape, sex with animals, pedophilia...etc. Where do you draw the line? You'd be a hypocrite to say, well one is okay and not a choice, but not the rest.

We have sexual organs and they are for reproduction. Explain how anything else is natural? You can't.

Because one involves two consenting adults, the others do not.

 

[SBAP74]

What a warped world we live in.

 

[greengeezer]

What a warped world we live in.

And getting worse. I recently read an article about kids identifying as animals. They wear masks and even have surgical procedures to look more like animals.

 

[KyMUfan]

So what? Does that mean gay people should be forced to hide in the closet or be treated differently?

But again you're using outdated arguments. Gay people have been out of the closet for the better part of 40 years or so.

Does this look like they are being forced to hide in the closet?

 

[KyMUfan]

Because one involves two consenting adults, the others do not.

Isn't that a judgment call? Who are you to impose your values on others?

 

[KyMUfan]

No disagreement on that at all. Not to mention that “they” is plural so it’s poor grammar in my view to refer to a singular person as “they.” On the other hand, if a man chooses to transition to a woman and wants me refer to her as “her,” I have no issue with that.

Again isn't this imposing your values by not respecting and adhering to someone's choice?

 

[KyMUfan]

Marriage is a good example. I believe churches should have the right to choose whether they want to marry gay couples or not but I don't believe the government should have any oversight over civil unions (aka marriage in the eyes of the government).

So here's another problem with your positions. We're no longer just talking about gays. It's a political bloc or coalition that now includes the following:

L - Lesbian
G - Gay
B - Bisexual
T - Transgender
Q - Queer or Questioning
+ - Intersex, Asexual, etc.

So how can you discriminate against one of these groups by not using their preferred pronouns? Should the Boy Scouts be forced by the government to accept members that aren't boys?

That's basically what happened?

LGBTQ advocates applaud Boy Scouts for lifting transgender ban

Just over one year after lifting its ban on gay employees, the Boy Scouts of America announced it would accept transgender scouts.

www.nbcnews.com

The Scout safety rules include the buddy system. Who is the buddy if there is only one transgender in a troop?

Likewise aren't the Boy Scouts practicing age discrimination by having age limits? What if I'm a 50 year old man, or female or transgender, that identifies as a 13 year old boy that wants to join the Scouts? Shouldn't they be allowed to join using your basic premises?

Should taxpayers bear the cost of sex change surgeries?

Inmate who strangled 11-month-old will get taxpayer-funded gender surgery, judge rules

The inmate previously sued to reverse an Indiana law denying transgender people certain medical procedures while incarcerated.

thenationaldesk.com

And did you not see this coming?

Man posing as transgender woman raped female prisoner at Rikers, lawsuit says

A former prisoner in the women’s jail on Rikers Island is suing New York City, alleging jail staff ignored her warnings in 2022 that a transgender woman housed among females was actually a man pretending to be a woman in order to prey on the opposite sex behind bars

www.nbcnewyork.com

Common sense is a rare commodity in today's world...

 

[30CAT]

Because one involves two consenting adults, the others do not.

Then you have to at least say it's natural for an adult to have the desire to have butt-sex with a little boy.

And....What's an adult and whose to say a child can't consent? I mean, they're performing mutilation on children in an attempt to change their sex, so what do you mean?

If a child can decide to attempt to change his or her sex, though it has a 100% failure rate, then why can they not consent to sex?

All of this perversion is not natural, regardless of how you try to justify it.

You can't say some is okay and the rest is not. It's either all okay or none of it us okay. You can't cherry pick.

 

[big_country90]

Heroic Woman Proves Once And For All Why Only Men Should Be Pastors

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The debate over whether women should be allowed as pastors has been settled once and for all, thanks to the heroic efforts of the National Cathedral's lady Bishop Mariann Budde.

babylonbee.com

 

[mlblack16.]

Transgenderism, whether their advocates realize it or not, is hurting the gay community. Instead of being a gay man and being attracted to other men, for instance, their argument is that you’re actually a woman so you need to just transition. If transgenders had their way, nobody would be gay.

 

[mlblack16.]

It isn’t natural for a person to have sex with farm animals, but it happens.

I thought we all made an agreement to not drag GREED into conversations anymore?

 

[extragreen]

Thicket of Idiots Cult members^^^^

 

[mufan08]

Shocked, just be competent at your job



Bessent is now fifth in line to the presidency, which means he is the highest-ranking openly LGBT official in U.S. history