Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Well as an Independent Baptist I believe that homosexuality is
a choice and a sin. God hates sin and will judge sinners whether
they be homosexuals or heterosexuals. There is not a movement
within Independent Baptist circles to pretend homosexuality isn't
a sin either. You would first have to diminish the authority of the
scriptures.

Elton John can wish what he wants. It won't change what is. As
far as the United Church goes here is an interesting article about the history of the United church which is quite accurate:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52905

Ted Byfield wrote it who I believe is Catholic.

You do know that scientists have begun to link sexual orientation to genetics. Please explain to me how one would choose the make up of their own DNA.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

You do know that scientists have begun to link sexual orientation to genetics. Please explain to me how one would choose the make up of their own DNA.

Ya....what he said!

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Come on man. There have to be plenty of examples of mainstream churches flying their homophobe flag. You don't have to pick the fringe wackos to make your point. I'm sure of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111001485.html

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh please no...not this again.

BTW..Dion...one church doesn't give you the right to paint ALL of organized religion as bigots.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111001485.html

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It is not a gay persons choice to feel attracted to the same sex...just as it is not a hetro's choice that they feel attracted to the opposite sex. Right?? Right.

Would you also agree that it's not a man's choice if he is attracted to children or to animals? Would you agree it's not a man's choice if his sexual desire is so strong that he rapes a woman, child or dog? All of these are natural right? I mean you know it occurs with animals as well as with humans so it must be natural.

Just how inclusive are you?

My point is that desire doesn't make an action right or good. Also, my beliefs are based on my understanding of scriptures. The scriptures are
inclusive in that it finds all men guilty of sin and requires repentance and a recieving of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Would you also agree that it's not a man's choice if he is attracted to children or to animals? Would you agree it's not a man's choice if his sexual desire is so strong that he rapes a woman, child or dog? All of these are natural right? I mean you know it occurs with animals as well as with humans so it must be natural.

Just how inclusive are you?

My point is that desire doesn't make an action right or good. Also, my beliefs are based on my understanding of scriptures. The scriptures are
inclusive in that it finds all men guilty of sin and requires repentance and a recieving of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.

Apples and oragnes. When a man is attracted to children, its a one way street. The attaction is not mutual. The adult in this case and take advantage of an innocent child by simply overpowering that child. The same can be said about men who rape. Their desire runs only one way.

However, when you have two men who desire each other and want to have sex with one other, its a far cry from comparing it with child molestation and rape.

In fact, shame on you for even suggesting as much.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

You do know that scientists have begun to link sexual orientation to genetics. Please explain to me how one would choose the make up of their own DNA.

That is the same quality of science who found no link between smoking and cancer. They were looking for certain results and were paid to find certain results and succeeded in finding those desired results.

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is the same quality of science who found no link between smoking and cancer. They were looking for certain results and were paid to find certain results and succeeded in finding those desired results.

Care to back that claim up?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes I will agree with you on that...but there is a big diffence between two consenting adults and someone who forces themselve on others including men, women and children. You cannot compare the two. Once someone elses rights have been violated...then all bets are off.

I am as inclusive as one can be until they violate others rights. As for screwing animals.....unless the person is recieving...it is not consentual, there for wrong and abusive.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is the same quality of science who found no link between smoking and cancer. They were looking for certain results and were paid to find certain results and succeeded in finding those desired results.

What congressman would find funding for a study to see if genetics were the cause of homosexual tendancies? Mark Foley?

Anyhow, as anyone who watches the Colbert Report knows, arguing facts, science and logic with a extremist fundamentalist Christian is an exercise in futility.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Game. Set. Match.

Those trying to prove that Christians can be tolerant and caring to other people will have to deal with the likes of above. Good luck.

Really? Are you talking about tolerance or are you talking about embracing your views. Because I don't believe I'm demonstrating intolerance at all. If that is what I need to do to be acceptable then I think I will pass.

[Crazy Flamer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology...97/Newman.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Scientists ALL over the world have at leaast a general consensus that homosexuality is somehow connected to genes. These scientists aren't getting paid off by tobacco companies either, they have no motivation to skew their findings.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I am as inclusive as one can be until they violate others rights. As for screwing animals.....unless the person is recieving...it is not consentual, there for wrong and abusive.

You missed my point. What I was getting across was that just because one has a natural desire doesn't make it good, right, or morale. Also, I never said that we should outlaw sodomy. What I said was it is a choice and a sin.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That is the same quality of science who found no link between smoking and cancer. They were looking for certain results and were paid to find certain results and succeeded in finding those desired results.

Give me a break. Are you honestly that naive? Were those the same scientists that proved evolution as fact as well?

You never anwsered my question. I will asume you are hetrosexual from your comments, so how do you know if certain people are attracted to the same sex and expierence no attraction to the opposite sex? You said yourself it is a choice...tell me how you know?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You missed my point. What I was getting across was that just because one has a natural desire doesn't make it good, right, or morale. Also, I never said that we should outlaw sodomy. What I said was it is a choice and a sin.

The scriptures were written thousands of years ago right? Before science had any say in this argument right? Have you ever thought maybe the authors of those scriptures would have changed their tune if they had been privy to scientific fact at the time?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology...97/Newman.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Scientists ALL over the world have at least a general consensus that homosexuality is somehow connected to genes. These scientists aren't getting paid off by tobacco companies either, they have no motivation to skew their findings.

Really who funds them? I mean judging by the response I get around here
to my politically incorrect views I'm willing to bet the governments who fund their research wouldn't be too keen on them finding no correlation

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really who funds them? I mean judging by the response I get around here
to my politically incorrect views I'm willing to bet the governments who fund their research wouldn't be too keen on them finding no correlation

Which government is that? The anti-homosexual Canadian Conservatives or the anti-homosexual American Republicans?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Which government is that? The anti-homosexual Canadian Conservatives or the anti-homosexual American Republicans?

Are you insinuating that Conservatives or Republicans are anti-homosexual?

[Crazy Flamer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really who funds them? I mean judging by the response I get around here
to my politically incorrect views I'm willing to bet the governments who fund their research wouldn't be too keen on them finding no correlation

Why would governments care one way or the other? They don't stand to earn billions of dollars based on the results of these studies.

In fact, if you take right wing governments like the US, don't you think they would have funded studies to show that homosexuality is NOT connected to genetics? Maybe they haven't done it because they knwo it can't be done.

And you have yet to back up your claim that these studies are junk science.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are you insinuating that Conservatives or Republicans are anti-homosexual?

Naw...that came out wrong, but they certainly wouldnt be paying scientists to skew their results in favour of homosexuality being genetic if that wasnt acctually the case.