Bake the God Damned Cake!!!
- Thread starter ecouch
- Start date
She has the choice to work for Trump. You don't have a choice to be gay.
Her Dad certainly is showing his true colors these days too.
[QUOTE You don't have a choice to be gay.
/QUOTE]
So there is a gay/lesbian gene? Why has it not bred itself out of existance? Look i dont care anyones sexual preference but to say isn't a choice is bs. I know personally and am friends with 4 people who have openly stated being gay. Two have children/biologically, one of the other two is still in his early 20's. So they choose to be gay at times and not gay at others. Choice.
/QUOTE]
So there is a gay/lesbian gene? Why has it not bred itself out of existance? Look i dont care anyones sexual preference but to say isn't a choice is bs. I know personally and am friends with 4 people who have openly stated being gay. Two have children/biologically, one of the other two is still in his early 20's. So they choose to be gay at times and not gay at others. Choice.
So.....I’m gay. And let me tell you bud, it’s not a choice. And your statement is just pure ignorance.
No one would ever choose to subject themselves to statements such as yours over and over and over...,,and worse.
And your friends don’t wake up in the morning and say “oh today I’m gonna be gay”. Doesn’t work that way bub.
I’m not trying to be an ahole about this as I don’t expect you to understand but please refrain from making statements like this in the future.
Last edited:
Read this post in a Wolverine tone, bub. Lovin' it.
*if you aren't a comic fan Wolverine calls folks bub*
**also agree**
Last edited:
Read this post in a Wolverine tone, bub. Lovin' it.
*if you aren't a comic fan Wolverine calls folks bub*
**also agree**
Lol yes! I totally missed that association but now I’m cracking up thinking about that.
Look I don't care if you are gay or not. Like I said I have gay friends and relatives. But if it isn't choice than what is it? Genetic?
By definition the gene would breed itself extinct. It's not a physical handicap. Gay people seem quite mentally balanced. They just like the same sex better. So what!
Just admit it and feel comfortable with your choice.
You may not have a "choice" to be gay, but by GOD you have the choice not to flaunt it. You know....like most heterosexual couples.
I’m not even sure why I’m bothering with you but...it’s not a choice.
Let me explain it a different way. You choose to be ignorant. I didn’t choose to be gay.
It’s not about respect at all. I couldn’t give two flying figs about your respect.
You’ve already shown who you are. Own your shittiness.
Well there you go. Sorry I offended you so much by having an opinion that our lives are a reflection of our choices.
You seem to be a very negative person. Maybe yo have made some bad choices in life. Or at least choices you are not happy with.
This is one of the more ignorant posts I've seen on here in my years of posting. And I've seen (and probably posted) a whole lot of ignorance, so that's saying something.
Here's a simple exercise for you. If sexual orientation is a conscious choice, then you should be able to remember when you consciously chose to be straight. Can you?
You quoted no science. You cited anecdotal evidence and then inferred a universal principle from your own limited experience. That's bad logic and not scientific at all.
And I call absolute BS on your first answer. Sexuality is set before conscious choice sets in (you can check the science on that). What you are suggesting is that, prior to the first time you went to church, it was plausible that you might opt to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender or the same gender, and you said to yourself, "Hey, I think I'll choose the opposite gender." Nonsense. You may think that you chose then, but there's no way.
Now, nurture has a lot to do with sexuality, and I do not doubt that there are people out there who, for whatever reason, "choose" to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual for a time - but those people are few in number and certainly do not comprise the majority of gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals.
So Pastor, as a Christian I believe I was created by God with His selection of whom my parents would be. I also as a Christian, believe what the Bible says about sexuality and it being between a man and a woman. You, on the other hand as a minister...I believe a youth pastor if I'm correct...appear to not believe the same way. If, as I believe that there is a God...a Creator....why would that God cause grief for some of His creations by having them come out of the womb gay directly in contradiction to his own words?
A counterpoint to your statement: why would god cause grief for some of his creations by having them come out of the womb as assholes who want to inflict harm on others?
Hopefully, Pastor Joe will agree with this statement. God doesn’t cause grief for his creation - sin and Satan do. After the Original Sin, God have mankind free will - the ability to choose to do good or to do evil. But along with free will came the wages of sin - death. There was no sin in the world prior to the Original Sin. If people choose to sin and do evil, there are repercussions for those choices. (As there should be.) Only 1 human lived a sinless life - Jesus. He atoned for mankind’s sins by His life, death, and resurrection. He gives forgiveness and salvation to all believers - to all who receive Him. Still, mankind is inherently sinful, as we see everyday in this world. Sin will not be expunged from the world until Jesus returns - the end of days.
You started us down to this path with “why would god cause grief.....”, did you not?
I answered you with the response that God did not cause grief and some explanation why?
Either you didn’t understand what I stated or you don’t believe what I stated, which is your prerogative.
I sincerely wasn’t sure what you meant. And FYI, twindegrees made the comment first, not me.
So much here. I'll try to be brief. I'll mention in passing that, when you use phrases like "as a Christian," it sends a signal that you are more interested in labeling me for disagreeing than having a constructive conversation. Assuming that you're interested, though, here goes.
Your post delves into an area that has long caused discussions, arguments, and even separations among Christians: how we understand the idea that the Bible is "God's Word." Some - and it seems that you might be in this group - understand that to mean that God dictated every word as it is. Others - myself and the denominations that I have been privileged to serve - understand that to mean that God guided the human authors but that they remained human.
The problem with the first view is two-fold. First, even if God did dictate every word, God did not do so in English, and as soon as you introduce translation you introduce interpretation. Second, no one actually holds to that view consistently. Most of the time I hear that view, it is in reference to the passages (only a few verses) that speak against homosexuality. Conveniently, those people ignore the clearly written commands in the same book of the Bible against eating shrimp or pork, against wearing clothing woven from two kinds of fabric, against mistreating foreigners and refugees.
Faced with the latter, people tend to say things like, "Well that's the Old Testament, and those laws aren't in force anymore." Great. If that's the case, the law against homosexuality is also not in force. See the issue? It's complicated.
When it comes to my own faith, I place highest precedence on the words and actions of Jesus. Jesus never speaks one word in favor of or against homosexuality, even though it would have been a known practice at the time and even though he did address other sexual issues. That's important.
I could go on, but it's getting long. I'll jump to where I am on Scripture and homosexuality. Having spent time studying the relevant texts, praying about it, looking at my own experience and the experience of others, I am convinced that Scripture is ultimately inconclusive on the issue. I do not believe that Scripture "blesses" homosexuality, but I do believe that there are enough problems with the relevant condemnatory texts to leave the issue uncertain. And in the face of uncertainty, I try to err on the side of grace. I opt for a "big tent" approach.
I could well be wrong in my desire to include the LGBTQ community fully in the life of the church. Heck, I could be wrong about a lot of things. When I face God some day, all I can do is rely on the fact that I have done my best to extend love to as many people as possible, and if I have been too generous with grace, then I will throw myself on God's limitless mercy and love.
If you want to dialogue further about this without keeping to a long thread, feel free to email me - joe.boggs [at] garrett [dot] edu.
You make a lot of good points in here, pastor. The second to last paragraph is what causes all the issues though. We always hear how Jesus loves everyone. But many religions don’t practice that at all and many times purposely exclude folks solely on how the Bible has been interpreted.
It’s hypocrisy at its finest and is one of many reasons I am no longer a practicing Catholic.
I will never understand why and how anyone can claim to be Christian when those same people are the most un-Christian people on the planet. I guess it’s easy to hide behind something like the Bible to justify judging others. It seems to be the really “in” thing to do these days.
Of what? Everyone sins. So with that, the church should struggle with accepting everyone. Just say it: religion discriminates.
I absolutely hate to get into this because I really don't think any of us have the relevant knowledge to truly discern facts. Relative to the bible...there is no mention of the trinity and yet that is understood...well for many. Also, once the interpretation...and in most cases it becomes an individual thing the understandings without the language AND culture at the time can open up interpretations to many misunderstandings and lead to the 60,000 denominations that all say they are bible based and yet almost all never actually cover the "entire" bible either...no matter how long they are preaching. Typically, those passages that the minister thinks are important in his or her view as well as the comfortable factor play into those choices for soooooo many. Look at the misinterpretations of the word "brethern" where many are led down the path of brother instead of understanding that word in context at that time could mean cousin and then obviously a whole different understanding. Bottom line there are many good christian people...whether ministers or not that may not have the fullness of truth and yet are fine Christians. Anyway, not trying to get theological discussion, but only willing to address that we have thousands of denominations that agree on many things, but different enough to have thousands of denominations most likely due to errors in understanding.
Purduefan1 says he has no choice and I believe he or she is sincere in his or her belief. However, I can point to nothing scientific to support that. Some will say, "Why would anyone choose that?" and yet I don't understand why anyone chooses to gage their ears and/or nose either. Trying to understand human behavior is spotty at best on many facets and if coaches could ever pinpoint it with accuracy they would be way ahead of other coaches. All that said, there is no science that says it is all choice either and so being agnostic at this time relatively to the subject is understandable as well. We essentially know nothing about the brain although some suggest that brain activity is an indicator of learning and yet if that hypothesis could be shown to be true, we certainly don't know how to stimulate it best. No matter what we should always treat people as we wish to be treated
You could have just written the last sentence and that’s all you would have needed to say. Unfortunately that’s where people fail miserably.
Well, the minister mentioned things not mentioned...and why the comment on trinity and such...which transitioned into many different stances from groups that all claim to use the bible as their source of direction.
Sorry, I should have clarified....I was referring to the second paragraph. My bad that I didn’t say that the first time!
No. Without people/adherents there are no religions. People discriminate. God does not want people to discriminate, but human nature generally cannot allow that. On here I’ve seen comments about “evil white men”, comments about Muslims, illegals, MS-13, Christians, etc., etc. Everyone has their own biases for and against demographics.
From an evolutionary and scientific perspective, I have always believed it to be a choice. I haven't come across a good argument to the contrary. I respect that my few gay friends all say, "I had no choice, I was born this way," but it doesn't make scientific sense. I can't think of a species that has evolved such that some portion of its population simply has no interest in procreation. There are dozens of species where individuals display some kind of bi-sexual behavior. Perhaps humans are no different, but our societal pressures make it such that we simply choose one or the other.
I think most humans are attracted at various times to members of either sex. I know I can look at a man and know if he is attractive, and I'm sure most can. I think most of our reactions to members of either sex are somewhat learned. Look at how what is considered attractive varies across the world and throughout history. There are societal factors in play there. For the most part, I think hetero-, homo-, and bi-sexual humans simply decide which urges they want to act on, and often that decision is made early in life. Whether we acknowledge it or not, I think most of us make a choice at some point, similar to how we make other choices that might go against genetic programming - going vegetarian, for example, when our evolution clearly equipped us to be omnivores. People choose to fast, or hold their breath, or do other things against our biology all the time, but in most of those cases, as you make decisions against evolution, you die.
Thus, I don't think the genetic argument makes much sense since it would mean that a significant portion of our population has evolved (or been created or whatever) to not continue procreation of the species. I think a difference in brain chemistry is far more likely, which, unfortunately, also means someone will figure out a way to "treat" it.
All that said, I personally have no issues whatsoever with homosexuality or bisexuality, even if it is, indeed a choice, and of course certainly not if it is someday proven to be genetic, etc. I know that PF1 will likely be offended or at least put off by those statements and for that I apologize; no harm is intended and I mean no disrespect.
Last edited:
Similar threads
