RE: Gay Marriage/Homosexuality

From: Don Perrett <donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org>
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 01:44:20 EDT

Replies below:

Moorad wrote, in part:
" If following to homosexual path is not a choice, then what is it?"

Burgy:
This much I know. I am personally acquainted with a number of gay/lesbian
persons. All of them, to the best of my knowledge, affirm that their
sexual orientation was not their choice.

This much I think I know. Having read a lot on this subject, on both
sides, there is almost unanimous agreement (on both sides) that, at least
in most cases, a person is gay or lesbian not based on choice. Whether
the reason be nature or nurture, or some combination thereof, is still in
debate.

I happen to think nature is the likely source, as I have eight children,
three adopted, one of which is a lesbian. I don't recall treating her
differently than the other eight during her childhood. She was the oldest
girl child, and had a lot of care person chores for her younger siblings
while growing up. She was also precocious -- became a Christian at age 3
or 4 and knew why.

Don P:
Even if you are right Burgy, again does this mean that all persons with a
genetic, nature, nurture, predisposition are right. They say that those
with parents who are alcoholics will most likely become such, but does that
mean that one must be so? If one's parents are psychotic does that mean you
must be also? And if so then do you have to be the same? That kinda goes
against the liberal idea doesn't it? Gays claim that they can raise and
have children that are not necessarily gay. I believe that. But oddly, if
that is so, then it must not genetic/nature. Otherwise they would. So it
must not be genetic. Many liberals, believe that birth is an excuse.
Perhaps, but if so then every abomination/diseased/genetically deficient
person is ok. What about those who choose to have children with their
sister, or mother, etc? If they have problems then it most certainly is not
because of the parents sin, but nonetheless they may be deficient. While I
most certainly would not condemn the child, I would condemn the parents.
Why? Because of choice. You believe that homosexuals do not have a choice.
None of us have a choice in that sense. We are given that which God gave
us. We are given that which God gave us. We must choose then what to do
with it. Some choose to be basketball players, even if we do not have the
height. Just because the body is willing, does not mean that the spirit
must be. You say they are born that way, nature. Show me where it says
that they must follow their bodies and not their soul. Now if you can show
to me that their SOUL was placed in a body that is of the opposite sex, then
I might listen. Each is placed according to GOD's WILL. I am a man because
GOD wants it that way. What ever happened to God's will. Do you think him
so inept? He doesn't know the difference? Perhaps he placed them there
just as he has placed us all here, for a TEST. Will YOU pass? You say that
love is all that counts, but emotions are not to be followed according to
scripture. We each have a spirit to follow. Let the gays become part of
our offering and may GOD bring them to the truth.

Moorad continues: " Why can‚EUR(tm)t a criminal use the same argument?"

He can, of course. But that would not be an excuse, of course, for here
we have a clearly defined "sin." You keep missing the point, Moorad. The
debate is whether (or not) same-gender sexual intimacy, when performed as
part of a loving domestic relationship between two adults, is a sin. We
usually think of different-gender sexual intimacy as being OK when part
of a loving domestic relationship, but not otherwise. Why the difference?

Don P:
I can have a loving domestic relationship with anything or anyone, but that
does not make it right. One creates others who would, or can worship God,
the other does not.

Moorad again: "You know very well than one day our knowledge of the
scientific description of a human will be so advanced that we can
indicate the actions that are most likely in any individual. Does that
invalidate the notion of sin and free will?"

Burgy:
Of course not. But your premise is that since all gay/lesbian sex is
"sin," an individual ought to be willing to abstain. If I bought your
premise, I'd agree with your conclusion. But I don't agree with your
premise, so your conclusion is moot.

Don P:
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. You must first
separate the spiritual from the physical. Spiritually, we must love one
another, I love my mother, sister, daughter, emotionally and spiritually,
but I do not love them physically. I also love my wife, but I DO LOVE her
physically as well. If you are unable to understand the difference, I am
more than happy to explain the difference. We should love ALL spiritually,
we should love those close to us, EMOTIONALLY, we should love the one we
will have offspring with PHYSICALLY.

The problem today is that we see, as in the past, ourselves as animals,
fulfilling our animal instincts, i.e. sex, etc. We must rise above and find
that the higher purpose is to praise God. We must love and cherish HIM and
only HIM. That is our purpose. If one thinks we are here to do otherwise
is futile and one will never find the answer.

Moorad again: "I think knowing people that do not share our views and
choices will make us love each other more not eliminate the notion of
what sin is."

OK. I'll agree.

Moorad: " Let us not forget that we are all sinners. The sins of the
flesh are not the worst. Pride is the apex of all sins."

Yeah, yeah and maybe. Certainly pride is a "bad" thing. I don't know that
it is the "apex."

I immediately thought of an early scientist, Cleopatra. Cleo was keenly
interested in the reproductive process. Her experiments involved the
killing and dissection of her female slaves to see how the fetus
developed. Of course, to do so was her "right," as she was the state. I
have difficulty seeing her actions as less sinful than pride.

Don P:
Pride is WHAT got us started. We believed that we knew better. Not for
Knowledge of Good and Evil, but because we wanted to do that which GOD had
commanded us not to do. We rebelled. And while we have the choice to do
against his will, we also have the choice to do only HIS will. If so then
we make no decisions. We will succumb to his purpose and will. We will
only do that which he commands. Not Levitical, or Rabbinic, but that which
is truly his. We only need listen to that which is within. Not the flesh
but the spirit, it will guide you.

Moorad: "Therefore, some of us are more offensive in the eyes of God than
homosexuals are."

Again, you affirm the consequent, assuming your position is the "right"
one. I find that offensive.

But not you, yourself. "I hate your sin, but I love you." <G>

Peace

Burgy

This week's quip: I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not so sure.
                                                                         
                                                 www.burgy.50megs.com

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Received on Fri Jun 11 02:12:03 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 11 2004 - 02:12:03 EDT