Haggard thread #2

I agree with your sentiments. The maltreatment of homosexuals is simply unacceptable from a Christian standpoint. Many Christians have singled out homosexuality with ferocity and has either intentionally or inadvertently deemed it as a "worse sin" than others have. When dealing with God’s Law, this just isn’t so. Homosexuality is no worse, or better, than any sexual immorality. ALL sin is alike to God. From a Christian point of view, while never placating or condoning homosexual behavior, it is important not to harbor a spirit of condemnation. I think the problem does not believe themselves to be violating any law of God or nature, while the Christian views the homosexual to be just like any one else trapped in a certain kind of sin. The response to them with the same amount of love and compassion as anyone else struggling in a sin would obviously be optimal. I think the greater point is that Ted Haggard, alone, is to blame. You can start by not condemning everyone by virtue of association.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I don't believe homosexuality is natural. I believe it is an aberration, and I make no apology for that belief. However, treating homosexuals poorly is completely unproductive and counter intuitive. Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin. That's what I was speaking out against.I realize that you believe otherwise and I don't doubt your sincerity. You are certainly entitled to those beliefs. I want to you to have all the happiness in the world. I just believe that trying to find love down this avenue is misguided and ultimately speaks more loudly of a love that most homosexuals long for. I want all the happiness for you. I just don't believe that you will find it on your current path. That's not true. Homosexuality is just one facet of sexual immorality. You are no more a sinner than I am. There may be one central difference. I can admit my sins. I don't know if you even believe in the concept of sins, so I can't say for sure whether you admit yours or not. Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement? I believe we all struggle with sin. Naming the particular sin is irrespective of that. I don't believe there is really something as a gay teenager. I see a confused teenager, which is common among those of that age bracket. Yes, I understand that. I'm not. I'm simply telling you that I don't believe homosexuality is natural and that I believe it to be a sin. If you're a murderer, isn't that all the information I need to know that you're a murderer? I do grant with basic human decencies. If you want human indecencies, that's on you. The irony is that you call me a bigot, all the while espousing your own bigotry against my beliefs. Why don't you go on believing your beliefs and I'll go about believing in mine? This is the intolerant face of 'tolerance' Berb. So if you want me to remove the speck of sawdust out of my eye, take the plank out off yours first so that you can see clearly.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

quote:

---

Why don't you go on believing your beliefs and I'll go about believing in mine? This is the intolerant face of 'tolerance' Berb. So if you want me to remove the speck of sawdust out of my eye, take the plank out off yours first so that you can see clearly.

---

Can you identify who "you people" incorporate? Who exactly is "you people," and what exactly makes me one of these people? As well, how am not leaving anyone alone simply by voicing my personal opinion? Is that some more of that tolerance in action? Gasby, the more realize about the homosexual movement, you'll come to realize that marriage isn't the central issue. I want to conduct a little test. Feel free to follow up for corroboration.I went to Ask.com search engine and typed the word, "gay." These are the first 3 entries.1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (as you can see from the articles, the focus is almost entirely sexually driven).2. http://www.thegaymalebody.com/ (as you can see from the articles and the photos, the site is almost entirely sexually driven).3. Lover Mart - Adult Toys And Lingerie - Lover Mart (as you can see from the articles, the site is entirely sexually driven).Now lets go to Google and type in "gay." What are the first three entries?1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (Gay.com again)2. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (hmmmmm? Completely sexually driven).3. Gay - Wikipedia (Wiki article)Now lets go to Dogpile.com1. Page Not Found - Los Angeles LGBT Center (Oh dear, not again!)2. Gay - Wikipedia (Wiki article again)3. 89ZQ Game Online Olahraga (here's one about the Gay games and people who have no self-identity without using the word 'Gay.'As you can see, homosexuality is all about sexuality which we should expect and almost about nothing else, completely different from their heterosexual counterparts. Many homosexuals identity is literally wrapped in considering themselves to be gay, and this self-identity seems to supersede anything else. I find that odd, especially if its supposed to be 'normal.' I also don't understand gay pride parades, because if you were born a certina way, then none of that was of your own volition. Why, then, would that instill a sense of pride? I don't get it. Actually, I do get it. I just don't think too many others do.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I would expect this. Or thinking of himself first and foremost as a father. What I wouldn't expect is someone to define themselves by their sexuality. If the subject comes up, I will share that with people. I don't offer that unsolicited unless something specific directs toward that topic. No, I'm not wrapped up in being straight. Because my husbandry has to do with my family, not with my sexuality. The last thing that would pop into my head about mentioning my kids is to "prove that I had sex with a woman." Let me explain what I mean. I'm going to direct to some websites and tell me if what I'm saying makes sense.1. Leading Gay Realtor, LGBTQ Real Estate Agent Directory, GayRealEstate.comOkay, "gay" real estate???? As opposed to what? Straight real estate? What purpose does it serve to have the word "gay" in the title when most people would disassociate real estate from their sexuality.2. ForbiddenGay Mart???? I first saw this while living in San Diego. Okay, now what purpose does it serve to have "gay" in your title?3. Package Travel Deals & Last Minute Vacations | OrbitzGay travel? As opposed to what? Straight travel? What does traveling have anything to do with ones sexual preference?4. http://www.gaysports.com/Gay sports? Now, these are just four instances of what I'm talking about. Why is the self-identity wrapped up in something that supposedly is completely natural? If you'll also notice, it usually takes about two seconds before something sexual in nature comes up, like a sweaty, half-naked body. What purpose does it serve?

quote:

---

I also don't understand gay pride parades, because if you were born a certina way, then none of that was of your own volition. Why, then, would that instill a sense of pride?

---

Yeah, I'm just not so sure about that. Feel the prideI'm not really seeing the adversityYes... Yes, I do.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

You can. There is nothing stopping from doing everything the same. I;m going to go out on a limb and assume you are referring to marriage, in which case, is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman.Marriage Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comIf you want something along those lines, try a civil union. I have no ojections to that. Absolutely.

quote:

---

Its also unfair to stigmatize homosexuality as being worse than any other type of sin.

---

You're doing no favors for your cause by demonizing Christians. You can do whatever you want. If you're interested in hearing why I think homosexuality is not in your best interests, I'd be happy to share that with you. If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel that homosexuality is wrong. And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle. I think you'd prefer that I hate you in order to feel sufficiently martyred, but I don't Berb. How am I 'forcing' you to do anything? And what actual insult have I hurled at you? I've done neither. [quote]Children? No. Are you a child? What did you mean by that statement?[/qs]Why wouldn't that concern me? Of course that concerns me. You know, the whole thing that gay kids kill themselves more often than their counterparts because of pressure is closing up. Everyday, homosexuality is more and more accepted, especially by the younger generation. Actually, you're now considered weird if you merely don't support homosexuality. Now, if you simply disagree with homosexuality, you're leveled by the sweeping allegation of being a 'homophobe.' Again, this is the intolerant face tolerance. No, you aren't hopeless. Look, Berberry, you are easily insulted if what I've said insulted you. I don't have to believe that homosexuality is a-okay. I'm afforded that right. I don't have to be politically correct just in case I might hurt your delicate feelings. I think I've been more than fair in my assessment and I've been nothing but kind to you. If you want to have a normal conversation and find out why I believe as I do, then let me know. As of now, its been YOU that is slinging the ad hom, not me. So, when your pity party is ends, let me know, and we can start over and have a nice conversation, even if we disagree.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Well, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that most homosexuals feel as though their homosexual urges are completely biological. They feel that it is something they cannot change and have used that belief to achieve parity with the womens' sufferage movement and the racial equality movements. I am of the belief that no man, woman, or child can choose their race or their gender. I feel differnetly about their sexual preference.Apparently, there are homosexuals who view their lifestyle as a choice and not some innate sexual preference that dictates the outcome. Here's an interesting website hosted by homosexuals on the matter.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

I think that 'outlawing' homosexual unions would be horribly counter productive. I think that anyone should be allowed to make that choice for themselves from a legal point of view, however, I don't feel that we should erase thousands of years marriage by trying to redefine what marriage means. Marriage is a special union between a man and a woman. I think that should be protected by law, because if not, it will open the door to anything. If you redefine what a marriage is to accomodate homosexuality, then another group is going to lobby for the same rights. After awhile the whole institution of marriage will be turned into a mockery, as if it needed any help.The sanctity of the institution of marriage is already being regarded flippantly by many people. Hollywood is certainly culpable in that. It does not need anything else to exacerbate the problem.I am, however, in favor of homosexuals living together and perhaps even a civil union. It doesn't mean that I agree with homosexuality, however, it does mean that I will respect them to make their own decisions. I only ask that they not try to redefine marriage. Anything less than what it currently means would be sanctimonious. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound? See, this is very difficult for me to understand. I hear of the disproportionate levels of violence against homsexuals, or that Christians single them out with fervor. While I certainly believe that violence has occured against them, and I know that certain "Xtian groups" do single them out with more ferocity than other groups, I don't know a single one. I have been taught that while not condoning the act of homosexuality from a moral viewpoint, we should always extend our support to them out of love. Anything less would just further stigmatize both homosexuals and moralists. But more than anything else, its just the right thing to do.As far as the military is concerned, I think its reasonable. I think everyone seems to forget that we're dealing thousands of years of being weirded out by homosexuality. Everyone wants to all of a sudden accept it like they began to do in Greece or Rome. But its not that simple. Think of why there are separate public bathrooms for male and female. Why do they do that? We're all people right? So, why do they separate them? Isn't because of its sexual connotation? Okay, so if you wouldn't expect to subject a woman to taking showers in front of men, why would should we subject both men and women to take uncomfortable showers with members of the same sex?What are you going to say in defense of that? Just get over it? If I just get over it, then we should allow men and women in boot camp to shower together by the same premise. Do you understand? Nobody cares about the feelings of straight people in the matter who feel violated because they're hyperfocused on how the homosexual feels.Well, you know what? I've been approached by many, many aggressive homosexual men over the years who, even after knowing that I was straight, still push the issue. Do you think that would fly in the heterosexual world? No. The unambiguous and gratuitous use of sex. No one seems to make the connection. It seems odd to me to wrap an entire persona in a sexual manner, especially if its so 'natural.' Alright, let me elucidate my objection. There is the factor in homosexuals that they not be treated differently and not segregated by society. But they are the ones who segregate themselves by making a big deal about their sexual preference. If one's sexual preference really is no big deal and you don't want to be treated differently, then why would you make it a big deal? Isn't that counter intuitive? Look at television sitcoms. I know you're from Holland, so I don't know what Dutch sitcoms consist of. But in America, the homosexual role is typecasted as the quintessential male homosexual who is extremely effeminate and flamboyant. They portray him as a sillyheart who is carefree and exuding love. But most important, they seem to focus on his sexuality as the central piece of the jokes. My question, then, is if homosexaulity is really not any different than heterosexuality, why such an extreme focus on that? Likewise, why a gay 'pride' parade? Why all this fanfare over something you allege is completely normal? When somebody throws a white 'pride' parade, its immediately met with hostility. If somebody throws a black 'pride' parade, its immediately met with resistance. I think homosexuals have a dominant role in their OWN segregation that bespeaks of the larger issue, which is, it is normal, its just about pride and nothing else. Right. Gay culture or queer culture is what we're dealing with here. The word "homosexual" is just the scientific/sociological name. Ah, but here's the difference that I'm trying to bring into the light. For a heterosexual, their sexuality is the one of the least important aspects of their life as far as self descriptions go.Do you readily here of a heterosexual man referring to his sexuality as being a determinant in who he is as a person? No. He will likely mention his job or his fatherhood, or his marital status, or his interests as defining who he is. Its different for homosexuals. You aren't a sportsman-- you're a 'gay' sportsman. You aren't a lawyer-- you're a 'gay' lawyer. You aren't a racecare driver-- you're a 'gay' racecar driver. Ever heard of heterosexual basketball player? I haven't. I've just heard of a basketball player. Because, really, his sexual preference is inconsequential. So, if homosexuals don't want their sexual prefernece as being the focus of their self-identity, maybe they should not make their sexuality the focus of the attention. Does that make sense? No, they do have other facets of their life. But like I said earlier, their value and self-identity is wrapped up in their sexual preference. That is the pinnacle of who they are, which to me, is absolutely absurd, especially when you're out trying to prove just how normal the whole thing is.As for homosexuals not being 'happier' than their heterosexual counterparts, I think that's obvious. Maybe you can name one set of parents or even prospective gay parents who actually 'want' their child to be gay. I think we all know that having a 'normal' life is optimal here. And by 'normal' I mean it exactly by the word the means. By normal, I am actually referring to the 'norm.' That isn't me saying the opposite of normal = freaks, because it doesn't. Something like that is difficult to quantify, but one statistic that Berberry mentioned is that an exorbitant amount of suicide by homosexuals is prevalent. Per capita it is extremely disproportionate. I think that speaks highly about the issue. Okay, St. Patrick's day is an excuse for the government to generate revenue, for its adherents its an excuse to drink copious amounts of alcohol. Heck, St. Patrick wasn't even Irish, he was Welch. As for the 4th of July, this seems worthy of a little praise. All nations that gained their independence have an independence day celebration, once a year. Gay pride parades seem to an excuse to meet other gay people while prancing around your underwear. Afterall, what purpose does it serve to pat yourself on the back for something that you had no control over? Makes about as much sense as a Straight pride parade. Well, I've been to San Francisco and Key West. Nobody is shy with public displays of affection. That doesn't stop them from having a parade. Why should it be 'celebrated' Holmes? I mean, think about it real hard here. If you are born with something, what sense does it make to exalt that? Let's have a 'blue-eyed' parade so that anyone not blue-eyed can feel excluded. You don't need to 'celebrate' sexuality. That's absurd. Lets celebrate breathing while we're at it. I can't wait for the 2007 Pulmonary parade. I'll give you a for-instance of what I view gay pride parades to be akin to. There is something in Miami called the "Columbus-day regatta." That's where the privaleged folks who own yachts and boats go out to a place called Elliot Key in Biscayne Bay and mass together. Now, one would think that they are celebrating Columbus' discovery of America. But, alas, his name is mentioned nowhere on the lips of the members. Instead, the participants moor their boats together and get naked. Its an excuse to get naked and have sex. Religion is a choice. Homosexuals claim that Yeah, Andrew Cunanan probably wasn't gay. Or John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

That's okay. Believe me when I say that I understand your position very, very well. The atheistic position is not unfounded. And I can see how you could formulate your opinions about Christianity, overall. My only concern is, can you truly understand where I am coming from? Are you able to see things from where I am standing? Can you see life from my vantage point? Afterall, I spent most of my life as a pagan. I used to be very gay-friendly in the past. And by and large, I still have homosexual friends. I just don't agree with their lifestyle, nor do I believe they are destined to be gay. I just don't have much commonality with them other than some meaningless chit-chat. I don't think things such as that really hurt my feelings in a traditional sense of the meaning. It takes alot to offend me. What really irks me is intentional disrespect just to try and hurt my feelings. That's childish and it does anger me. I just try hard not to let it get the better of me. The second I forget this, I lose face.For instance, I am not trying to offend Berberry. I'm actually trying to tread lightly without completely undermining my own point of view. At some point, I can't get around offending him/her in some capacity. But I am not offering that in order to be divisive and disrespectful. I'm just trying to offer my point of view for the sake of a good conversation, which, lets face it, is very unpopular in here. But what am I supposed to do? Pretend that I don't feel that way? I mean, the homosexual movement would never have achieved what it has if they just sat there with their mouth shut. In some respects, I have to tip my hat for the perserverance, even in spite of me personally believing that its not righteous. A certainly appreciate the candor. I'm not offended. Again, we're not always going to see eye to eye. At some point somebody is always going to be a tleast a bit offended. But I believe there is a difference between simply stating why you feel a certain way, and its far removed from outright disrespect.If I said, "Ha-ha, you fagz r soooo stupid! OMGZ!!! LOL! LMAO! You're so queer!" Then I would say I need to be booted from this site for such counter productive disrespect.But because you won me over with your kind approach, I will refrain from engaging in this conversation any longer for the sake of Berberry. I can't promise that the subject will never come up again, but for now, I think I've said my piece.Aside from which, the thread is technically about Haggard and not so much homosexuality. I guess we were technically OT anyway.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Thanks for reminding about my Great Debate thread, however, I already shared with another member that I'm going to leave this thread alone for the sake of being inoffensive. I won't be responding to any more posts on this thread.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Alright, I'm coming out of retirement and re-engaging in the thread. I can't exactly identify the moment of attraction for members of the opposite sex. It was a slow progression. I was pretty young though. I believe that homosexuals have a predilection for heterosexuality as well. Having desire for members of the same sex is the same as having a sexual desire for members of the opposite sex. Finding somebody attractive doesn't mean that having sex with them at the moment is right just because of a feeling that comes from baser instinct. I mean, we have predilections to attack when we feel threatened, but going through the action doesn't make us right. I do believe the sincerity of most homosexuals. It doesn't make them right though, just as being attracted to another man's wife may be viewed in natural terms doesn't make you having sex with her, right. Do you understand? Only if it was with you..... tiger

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Because 'broadening' the definition in this case would be changing it. The definition specifically entails a union between a man and a women. That's the very criteria. If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it? I guess one could make that argument that since marriage is inherently a religious institution, that the government is infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. At the same time, marriage has synthesized into sort of a catch-all. I think the government stepped in for reasons of legal indemnity and identity.As for legal, civil unions, that isn't my place to decide. If the government recognized a homosexual union as a legal and binding argreement, then let it be. In the meantime, I am afforded the right to protect marriage if I can. If the laws are overturned, then let it be so. In my minds eye, it doesn't really matter what man thinks of it. I'm judged by God, and so is everyone else. What really matters is what God thinks about it. And we already know the answer to that, provided the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh, has anything to do with it. Yeah, I think wearing daisy-duke's and an "Ass Master's" t-shirt tends to exacerbate the stereotype. Well, you won't get the ACLU knocking down their door for that... Only when its the other way around. But, yes, that's not really cool. Of course. Not all homosexuals convey the typical, effeminate/butch persona. This is a case-by-case scenario. Like I said, gay lawyers, gay doctors, gay this, gay that... I think for a group that wants so badly to achieve parity with everyone else and wants to not be treated differently should probably take their own advice and stop segregating themselves or highlighting their sexuality. I don't think they realize they are doing it. Then how do explain homosexuals inventing their own websites? Gay Realty? What the hell does sexual preference have to do with realty? Nobody made it that way. They did that all on their own. I do. I don't go to rallies or picket gay bars. In fact, I've done nothing that might be considered as proactive other than having conversations like I am now. That's about the extent of my activism. And if I was asked to vote for or against a measure, I would do that too. I don't think there are too many people that can slip underneath the 'gaydar' as far as I'm concerned. Its usually pretty obvious. But most people would. I don't think even most gay people would want their own children, albeit adopted or through natural conception. Its different from saying, "If they were gay, I wouldn't stop loving them." Well, of course not! We're not even discussing that. I'm saying, I think if somebody could prefer for their children to have a 'normal' life, they would. Again, before I get flamed, my use of the word 'normal' means exactly what it means. I'm referring to the norm. I don't think anyone would disagree that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is abnormal.Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons? No, I've never been. But, yes, Mardi Gras is another excuse. The point being, gay pride parades seem to be nothing more than a meat market. It may have been invented for altruistic purposes, as did Mardi Gras, but it doesn't seem serve any function other than strutting. No, but homosexuals do. That's my point. Even many homosexuals have conceded that they do it because they like it. Queer by Choice dot com That's another thing I find disturbing about the whole thing. Its a political platform, and we already know that I don't go to the Left very often. Yup, you got me pegged. There's something very sensual about a 200 pound, hairy man in chaps that just does it for me. Uhhhhhh.... What? I've read this over three times and I'm still not understanding what you are saying clearly... Then it seems you have to distinguish between what zealots feel the call to kill and which don't.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Okay, couldn't NAMbLA, NAWgLA, NAMgLA, or NAWbLA make the same argument? Are we taking their human rights away from them by not allowing them to molest little kids? They make the same plea. Its all about 'love.'Even on NAMbLA's website, he makes the argument that:"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -David ThorstadWould agree with their lifestyle? Yeah, I get to be the Right's whipping boy right now. I understand his reaction. But he's got foot-in-mouth disease if he thinks he's going to get his point across constructively. He doesn't like my beliefs. That's fine. I understand that. But he should probably try to get it across more constructively. He was practically foaming at the mouth but I don't think I said anything that warranted such a vehement response. Well, I don't like Neo-Nazi's or Black Panthers either, but I wouldn't call them names in order to get my point across. I'd simply beat them by forcing them to refute their own ideology. I'd find ways to pit their arguments against itself. I've tried to be reasonable in my approach without emasculating my own argument. There are alot of arguments I could use that are rather inflammatory, but I choose not to use them because all it will do is further stigmatize his beliefs concerning mine. I think it would be easier for him to deal with me if I just called him names and said that I think his life is shit. That way, it would be so much easier for him to hate me. But I want to kill Berberry through kindness and show him that though I am adament in my position, I at least am flexible enough to hear him out. If he wants to be cool with me, I'd love to finish the conversation. I realize that this is a very unpopular subject. I realize that it is going to get a little heated. But we can speak assertively without heaping outright disrespect. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This is all taking into consideration that she's all about it too. Just because both parties are consenting, I think we'd all agree that its wrong. Whether we are gay or straight or bisexual or whatever, even if we are married or in a serious relationship, at some point, we are going to find somebody else attractive. However, acting upon those feelings while in a committed relationship is often considered as wrong, even though those are natural, biological urges. Yeah, but this argument is being made in relation to biology/morality view. Just because something may be biological doesn't automatically make it right. I could make the same argument about homosexuality. You could view anything as not being right or wrong by attaching relativistic methods. I can only extend my argument to mean that homosexuality is against a moral standard and counter intuitive from an evolutionary outlook. Aside from that, there really isn't anything more I could say against it. But it would be the same for any other type of sexual immoral act. Bestiality, adultery, fornication, or pedophilia-- the argument would look the same in each case.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

Alright then. For the sake of the argument, suppose they aren't married. Suppose a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is disrupted when the boyfriend decides to cheat on his girlfriend with one of her friends. There is nothing illegal about that, but we might be all in agreement that its messed up to cheat on your significant other with one of her friends.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

But some would argue that homosexuality is just wrong. You are saying, and I agree, that pedophilia is illegal, therefore, its wrong. But homosexuality is illegal in quite a few nations. The issue then has to be viewed not only in a mechanistic view of the law, but the deeper message in moral terms.NAMbLA makes the argument that they are just loving the children and feel that sexuality is just an expression of love. I think that's a crock, but hey, that's really the extent of the homosexual argument if you think about it. But why not? Children, technically can consent to having sex. The law steps in because it recognizes, and rightly so, that children simply don't have an understanding of the matter. You might be able to get a child to consenting to jumping of a bridge because they are typically more naive than seasoned adults. The law has to make a line of demarcation. For instance, is there a vast difference in the mental capacity of a 17 year old who is one day away from their 18th birthday, as opposed to an 18 year old who just turned 18? Obviously not, but there has to be some kind of demarcation for legal purposes. I don't think that. You don't agree with pedophilia, right? That doesn't mean you are expected to be a pedophilia because you don't agree with the lifestyle. I believe homosexuality is wrong for moral reasons in the same way you might object to pedophilia for moral reasons. In my youth I thought it would be really cool to proactively seek racist groups and physically fight them. And so, I endeavored to find one such group. I thought I was doing a great service to the world by doing that. I no longer agree with that mindset. I realized that I was just like them, only at the opposite and extreme end of the spectrum. Yes, I'm still opposed to racism, but I think that kind of mindset just exacerbates the issue, not help it. You're right, I am not a 115 pound east Indian man.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers