Homosexual Discussion ForumGod and gaysAh, a mistake on my part. The "quotes" meant that I thought it was what you wrote was the word "Irrelevant." I see now your word was "Relevant." I misread your statement, though I stand by my words. However, I did not mean to indicate that Jesus' words were irrelevant; they are clearly regarded as relevant by reading the rest of my post. You are completely correct regarding the errancy of prooftexting. However, realize that I posted a passage, not claiming "prooftext," you responded by prooftexting, and I responded by disowning your prooftext...in this interaction, the only person prooftexting is not myself. In fact, I'm refuting prooftexts. God presented a choice to Man, and Man made the choice. There is no coercion to God's position; there is no "design" to God's presentation (unless you honestly think God just paraded the Animals in front of Man just to waste his time...remember this is before sin); there is no "Will" for mankind to choose a woman (unless you think God "willed" that man would choose an animal...which is not very nice to Man *or* God). God did not ordain that Man choose Woman, but rather Man chose Woman; thus, Man makes the choice: it is not ordained or decreed by God, according to the Creation account. I apologize if this point is repeated again, but I'm not claiming anything about percentages of homosexuals increasing or decreasing. That is an impossible position to take. What I am claiming, from reading the article, is that if the gay gene has any amount of causation, its maximum influence is 21%. Not that there are 21% of gays in the world, but that if a person has the gene, then there is a 21% chance that it can impact their sexuality. See the distinction, as I am discussing individuals not numbers of individuals? Does this mean I buy it? No; but if it is true, then that is 21% of possible born-with homosexual tendencies more than there were 10 years ago, when there was no research into homosexuality and genetics. I am talking tendencies not "number of homosexuals" as you seem to be claiming my position is. Again, this is an incorrect reading of the study. It stated that a combined optimal percentage of an individual being gay could be attributed to the "gay gene" and other genetic factors. That means that, if true, of the 4 million gay men, then all of them that had this gene have a 21% chance of being gay. The percentages are based on the individual not on the number of homosexuals in society. Please correct me if you are still unable to see the statistics in the way I do. Of course not; I claimed that no such link exists about 10 posts ago. Please understand I'm a bit taken aback by the misrepresentation of my points, and I would request a closer reading of what percentages mean in scientific studies, and of what points I'm specifically trying to make, as it seems they keep on getting lumped into other points that I'm not trying to make. For a recap, the points I'm refuting are: (1) That "homosexuality" is the same as "thieves, rapists, etc" because those are identities dictated by action whereas homosexuality does not require an action. (2) That there is undeniable evident that people are not born gay, because the jury is still out, and (3) That homosexuals across the board have a choice, because some do, and some don't. That last point I'm pretty sure about, but have no empirical data. That is a great policy. I am glad that everyone is held to the same level of respect, as it really helps in constructive conversation. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame