<I>There is a big difference between being born gay and choosing to engage in homosexual activities. You may not have chosen to be gay, but you can choose to avoid the gay lifestyle. Just as I can choose to avoid giving in to my sexual temptations.</I>
Yes, but you can hope to eventually fall in love and marry, thus fulfilling your sexual desires, as well as your desire for love and partnership. "Avoiding the gay lifestyle" means giving up any hope of that sort of fulfillment. It makes falling in love the <I>worst</I> thing that could happen to you, instead of the best.
I <I>could</I> make that choice. But I won't.
<I>Oh, contrare. There's a difference between "can't" and "won't." You don't want to change what you are, but there are some who not only want to leave their homosexuality behind, but succeed. Aineo can attest to that fact.</I>
Maybe he can. But I've met a lot of ex-"ex-gays," too. From all the evidence I've seen, the majority of people <I>cannot</I> change their orientation - even when they are highly motivated to do so. The most they can change is their <I>behaviour</I> -- they just "avoid the gay lifestyle," as you put it, and call that "success."
<I>Maybe not directly, but you are hurting me. Have you ever heard of Sodom? That city had become so corrupt, and was buried so deep in sin, that God destroyed it. Only a handful of people made it out alive, because they had chosen not to partake in the sinful lifestyle of those around them. I don't want our country - our world, in fact - to suffer the same fate.</I>
Allow me a hypothetical: Say a robber walks into a bank, draws a gun, yells "Nobody move!" Say someone freaks out, tries to run. Say this bank-robber's a little crazier than most, and shoots the runner and couple other people too, for good measure. Who is responsible for the resulting deaths, in this scenario - the person who ran after "nobody move," or <I>the person doing the shooting?</I>
I hope you see my point.
<I>There's a big difference between who you are and what you are. You are, first and foremost, a human being. And I accept and love you because you are my sister/brother. However, I refuse to accept your lifestyle, because by saying that "gay is okay," I would be damning myself. I don't want to spend my afterlife separated from the love of God. I don't want to subject myself to that torture.</I>
In case you <I>didn't</I> see my point: I think the God you believe in is a monster. No one deserves eternal torment - not you, not me, not Matthew Shepard, not Fred Phelps, <I>no one.</I> But I guess if I were you, I'd be afraid to do anything or say anything or even <I>think</I> anything I thought God didn't want me to, too.
But I love you as my fellow human being... despite your belief and worship of a God who would condemn me to eternal suffering for choosing the wrong "lifestyle."
<I>"Why is homosexuality a sin?"
The following Scriptures will answer this question nicely.
Quote:
1 CORINTHIANS 6:13 - The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:18, 19, 20 - Flee from sexual immorality, All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.</I>
No, it doesn't answer the question at all. You're assuming your conclusion - you're assuming that homosexuality is, in fact, sexual immorality. If it isn't, then these verses have no bearing on the question. But even if you can prove that the Bible <I>says</I> that homosexuality is a sin, you've yet to even try to address why it <I>is</I> a sin. <I>Why</I> does God forbid it? Is it arbitrary? Is sin whatever God says it is, is that all there is to it?
<I>And of course, the obvious: men were not meant to have sex with other men. Just as women were not meant to have sex with women. Take a look at our anatomies.
To be blunt, why on earth would Man #1 want to suffer from the uncomfortable sensation that is caused when Man #2 jams his whoo-hoo up Man #1's butt?</I>
Heh. Heheheh.
Seriously, now... d'you really think Man #1 would be having sex with Man #2 if he were "suffering" from the sensations involved? As for anatomy, have you ever heard of the prostate? I've heard gay men speak quite highly of the effects its stimulation... stimulation which, curiously enough, is best achieved by anal sex.
And then there's the oh-so-convenient location of the clitoris -- which often <I>isn't</I> sufficiently stimulated during intercourse, but which responds quite well to more gender-neutral sorts of interaction. Really, we're <I>remarkably</I> well-designed for homosexuality. Which leads to the question: If men weren't meant to have sex with men, nor women with women... then why does it work so well?
Well, so I've been told. Still need to get myself a significant other, before I get to put theory into practice.