Taking this to the actual end of the discussion and answering Charnock’s question…
1. I am against the government using the term “Marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations to define what it means when its members choose to marry.
2. I am for the government allowing any 2 people to form a Civil Union. Said union is a contract with monetary implications. It has nothing to do with sex. Most married people would want to form a civil union. But two sisters who live together might also want to form a civil union. It would allow for protections not afforded such people.
3. I would never perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. I would not likely perform such a ceremony between a man and a woman who did not fully accept the covenant relationship with God that I personally believe marriage to entail (in other words, if you are Baptist or neo-pennycostal go find someone else to hitch you)
I'm 100% in agreement with this post.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Coadie.... what if you're proven wrong? I mean, what if tomorrow research proves beyond a doubt that there is a biological component in at least some cases?
Why is it that many of us can spot people with this leaning quite often just as they are entering their teens, sometimes before they even know what's going on with themselves? Sometimes it's in the eyes. Sometimes it's in the way they stand or talk. There's just something "different" about them in their early years. And Coadie... some of them are preacher's kids from very loving homes with wonderful gender roles established.
In Piaget he covers
neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is ...(not biological evolution)
Then he writes about cognitive development. Youngsters mimic behaviors,. They are shaped and learned behaviors. reinforced and developed.
The twin studies tell us the biological is a very distant chance. nearly zero.
Sure we see it in pastors homes. When we see them in extensive sessions of psychoanalisys we see sources or causation of patterns that mould behavior.
Many psychologists argue that religion is a psychosis. LOL
Coadie... it's just psychology. lol Various schools of psychology have theories. At the end of the day none of them know anything for certain. If they did... they'd have fixed the world by now. The answer for all fallen human conditions is Jesus.
Holy Rollers have OCD. Obsessive Compuslive disorders. We can't sit down in church when the spirit moves.
In Piaget he covers
neuroscience and evolutionary psychology is ...(not biological evolution)
Then he writes about cognitive development. Youngsters mimic behaviors,. They are shaped and learned behaviors. reinforced and developed.
The twin studies tell us the biological is a very distant chance. nearly zero.
Sure we see it in pastors homes. When we see them in extensive sessions of psychoanalisys we see sources or causation of patterns that mould behavior.
Coadie... while I'm certain this is true in many situations, we can't be so foolish as to think that this is the case in EVERY situation. Sometimes it's just a "kink" and a "choice". Sometimes it's a disposition they've had from their earliest years, even in loving and godly homes. Sometimes it comes from abuse or neglect. You can't go around blaming good and loving parents for this. Imagine the guilt and shame you've now shifted onto decent loving parents who believe their child is in sin.
This is more complicated than you're realizing.
Coadie... this isn't right. I don't like the spirit I feel in it.
Coadie... what if tomorrow they find a biological connection in at least some cases? Instead of screaming, "That's impossible!", what will you do if what you thought was impossible is proven to be a fact?
Coadie for all the letters you have strung together in this thread, there isn’t a single cogent secular argument for all the mumbo-jumbo you are saying.
and the general rule of etiquette is to post links to statistical data and/or links to scientific papers.
if links are not available, the etiquette is to post the information needed to get the information from a library.
Studies should always be provided by name and author.
Not doing so negates the argument and leaves you with empty rhetoric.
I doubt there is a person here who will disagree with the notion that spiritually speaking homosexual sex is a sin. It is damning. it is against our common Christian code.
that however is not the question being asked.
Make a valid argument or vacate the field my friend.
Peace to you.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Coadie... what if tomorrow they find a biological connection in at least some cases? Instead of screaming, "That's impossible!", what will you do if what you thought was impossible is proven to be a fact?
I mean... what if the world really is round? lol
I dont know what is so hard about this. the sins of the father visited to the third generation....
sin messes up DNA.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
