Evidence for God from Science

Do you think that child molestors want to have the urges they have

I'm sorry to say this but you have gone away from the topic by a long mile. Child molestors have a PATHOLOGICAL problem. Gay people are normal and do not have any pathological urges what so ever. Being gay is not pathological.

homosexual behavior is a risky lifestyle

There is no such thing as homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior... Let me give you a few examples so you do understand.
Gay people smoke, Heterosexual people smoke
Gay people dance, Heterosexual dance
Gay people have sex, Heterosexual people have sex
Gay people have chidlren, Heterosexual people have children

I don't understand where you got the idea with homosexual behavior... The only difference between homosexual and heterosexual is their sexuality which doesn't relate to a risky lifestyle. A risky lifestyle is a choice made by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Your words just prove that you do not understand gay people at all. They are normal human beings just like you. You are talking about gay people like they are aliens or something.

It is harmful and there are plenty of stats

Well sorry to contradict you again, but it just happens that I did study psychology and had long discussions in college about gay people.
I don't know what stats you are talking about, but Dutch psychologists have already completed a lot of studies over long period of time such as 10 years or more and let me tell you one of the most surprising findings: gay people are better parents than heterosexuals, at least in Holland anyways. Needless to say that that homosexuality is harmful if you choose to do harmful things.

If Gay people want to be in unions, I don't agree, but I also don't beleive in forcing my view on them. Marriage however, dating through the history of our country, has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman. As a married person, I hold the institution of marriage in high regard. As I am sure many married people do. If gay marriage is legalized then it undermines the institution for myself and millions of others. So, what you suggest is to trample all over my rights to appease homosexuals. Maybe homosexuals should 'tolerate' the institution of marriage. And stop discriminating against people like myself.

So what if history has always been like that? You have a problem with change just because it doesn't suit your vision of how marriage should be? I'm sorry to hear that, but it ain't my fault.
I don't understand how it undermines your marriage... Your marriage won't disappear into thin air...
What rights are you talking about? Your rights would continue to be the same... I don't understand your point here.
How are gay people discriminating against you? Just because they want to be treated equally? Maybe you make a travel through time when Christians were persecuted and killed because all they wanted was to be considered equal.


PS: And you avoided the most important aspect of the discussion: God created people and some of them turned gay. So I think that gay people should be treated equally and given the same rights as others.

I'm sorry to say this but you have gone away from the topic by a long mile. Child molestors have a PATHOLOGICAL problem. Gay people are normal and do not have any pathological urges what so ever. Being gay is not pathological.

Based on what? I'll tell you what. YOUR standard of right and wrong. You have no problem condemning child molestors, because that crosses your threshhold. (As it should) I have no doubt in your mind homosexual behavior is normal. But who are you to force your standard on me? Just speaking factually, gay intercourse is not normal. There is nothing normal about acting out this way. I am not saying their desires are not a 'choice.' you won't hear that argument from me. However, behavior is always a choice. I'll go even further. People should not act, even on all NORMAL desires. Should people act on every desire they have? Do you?
Being born with an inclination is not validiation of acting upon that inclination. You don't have to teach children to lie, steal, or act out violently. They will do it 100% naturally. Should we train children to resist and deny these urges, yes or no?
What about heterosexual behavior. Should all teenage boys act on every natural heterosexual implulse they have, yes or no? If they did, would any of those actions be wrong? Yes or no.
Listen closely. The inclination is not what I am arguing. I understand that there a number of people who for unknown reasons are inclined towards certain behaviors. That does not in itself justify any of those behaviors. Yet, for some reason you and others think H-S should get special protections under the law. At the expense of the majority none-the-less.
Have you ever had the impulse to punch someone or harm them physically? Is that a natural behavior? Based on your reasoning, people should act on their normal/natural impulses and desires. I dare you to take your line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusions.

If we want to go even further, then who is to say that an aversion to homosexuality is not a innate, normal behavior? Maybe some of us are just genetically predisposed to be against homosexual behavior. We demand equal protection under the law. Sounds silly now, doesn't it.

Gay people have chidlren, Heterosexual people have children

???? Find me a gay couple that have ever produced their own offspring through natural methods. For a homosexual to have children, they will have to comply to natural/normal methods in some form or fashion. Cheat, if you will.

So what if history has always been like that? You have a problem with change just because it doesn't suit your vision of how marriage should be? I'm sorry to hear that, but it ain't my fault.

No sir, it is not the age of the tradition, but the fact that marriage is definable. The tradition is rooted on the basis that marriage constitutes the union of a man and woman in matrimony. No, my rights wouldn't be the same. That is an outright failure to understand the law on your part. Because no longer would my marriage be a marriage in the sense of how it is rightly defined today. It would completely distort and destroy the instituion. There would be no difference in the eyes of the law between a traditional family and a homosexual union. This may be no problem for you, but for the majority of Americans, married and otherwise, it is. Bottom line is that your agenda is more important to you than the actual definable truth, and you care nothing of erasing the truth to support your opinion.

This is not an issue if being treated equally. Gays want special considerations above and beyond. I agree, they should be treated equally. You my friend, have also perverted the meaning of equal.
Gay people are discriminating by saying that traditional marriage is not a sacred institution. That the union of a man and woman in matrimony is arbitrary.

Gay marriage is a myth. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's like saying men should be able to play in the WNBA. It is contradictory.

Well sorry to contradict you again, but it just happens that I did study psychology and had long discussions in college about gay people.
I don't know what stats you are talking about, but Dutch psychologists have already completed a lot of studies over long period of time such as 10 years or more and let me tell you one of the most surprising findings: gay people are better parents than heterosexuals, at least in Holland anyways. Needless to say that that homosexuality is harmful if you choose to do harmful things.

I am a college grad, and took several upper level psych classes. Not impressed. Citations? Sources?

I am a college grad, and took several upper level psych classes. Not impressed. Citations? Sources?

I don't know what psychology classes you took, but it's obvious that you still have a lot to learn about psychology. Do you think that I registered on this forum to lie to you? What is my interest in that?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 80,00.html

Based on what? I'll tell you what. YOUR standard of right and wrong. You have no problem condemning child molestors, because that crosses your threshhold. (As it should) I have no doubt in your mind homosexual behavior is normal. But who are you to force your standard on me? Just speaking factually, gay intercourse is not normal. There is nothing normal about acting out this way. I am not saying their desires are not a 'choice.' you won't hear that argument from me. However, behavior is always a choice. I'll go even further. People should not act, even on all NORMAL desires. Should people act on every desire they have? Do you?

Based on what?
Homosexuality has been revised by doctors and psychologists and has been removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders a long time ago and by a long time ago I mean 1986. Now you do the math: that was 25 years ago.

There is nothing normal about acting out this way
Actually as I said psychological studies do not agree with you. That is your sole opinion and please visit the American Psychology Association website and convince yourself. They have lots of resources there that free to read.

Just speaking factually, gay intercourse is not normal
Says who? Just because they are a minority, what they do isn't normal? You will probably say it's against nature. Sorry, wrong again. Homosexuality happens in the animal kingdom as well. If you want sources for that, the Discovery Channel is where you might want to start first.
YOUR standard of right and wrong. You have no problem condemning child molestors, because that crosses your threshhold
Let me put this way: If I was to be the judge for child molestors, all of them would get the death penalty no questions asked
You can't compare apples and donkeys, if you know what I mean.
But who are you to force your standard on me?
In this case you are the standard, because you say that only a woman and a man can get married.
I say to you that you are forcing this standard on me. You do not want to accept a union between homosexual couples.
So come again... who is forcing who? And please don't tell me it's written law. Laws can be changed and have been changed in order to accommodate present times.

No sir, it is not the age of the tradition, but the fact that marriage is definable. The tradition is rooted on the basis that marriage constitutes the union of a man and woman in matrimony. No, my rights wouldn't be the same. That is an outright failure to understand the law on your part. Because no longer would my marriage be a marriage in the sense of how it is rightly defined today. It would completely distort and destroy the instituion.

Since you were so hasty on asking proof, please provide proof of your statement here. How would marriage between homosexual couples destroy an institution like marriage? Now I'm really curious about this one. There are a few countries (even some of the US states) in the world who have already legalized such marriage and I didn't see anything change. Did you? Last time I checked people were still ok, same moral values, same religion, child molestors still go to jail. What do you know? People adapted to this new way of life. But anyways, I'm still waiting for scientific proof from you that marriage between homosexual couple will destroy the institution of marriage.

There would be no difference in the eyes of the law between a traditional family and a homosexual union. This may be no problem for you, but for the majority of Americans, married and otherwise, it is.

I don't know what you are talking about. Since you asked for proof of my statements please have the courtesy and do the same. Americans are a conglomerate of cultures and beliefs so let me have my doubts. But of course if you provide the statistics behind your statement, a recent one, I will be happy to acknowledge my mistake for this specific statement. And why should there be a difference in the first place anyways? Last time I checked, the American Constitution clearly says that we are all born equal. Maybe you want to clarify that for me.

Bottom line is that your agenda is more important to you than the actual definable truth, and you care nothing of erasing the truth to support your opinion.

I do not have an agenda, but it bothers me to see people being discriminated. The definable truth? What is that? As you might have observed throughout the history truth has changed from one form to another.

Gay marriage is a myth. Marriage is the union of a man and woman. It's like saying men should be able to play in the WNBA. It is contradictory.
Again you are mixing apples and donkeys. If you compare marriage with the WNBA you have a serious problem. Marriage is not a sport my friend. Marriage is not a competition. Marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to share their lives together.

Again you have avoided the most important part of the discussion as you have did SECOND TIME now
GOD created people and some of those people are GAY. They deserve the same rights you have and nothing less. We are all equal in the front of GOD.

Will reply more tomorrow.. based on ur comment. God also created axe murderers. So does that justify their behavior?

Will reply more tomorrow.. based on ur comment. God also created axe murderers. So does that justify their behavior?

When you do reply please stop with stupid examples. Gay people are not criminals in any way.

All I'm pointing out is that expressing your sexuality is a RIGHT and they don't have that. You also said that you took psychology classes. By now you should know that expressing your sexuality is one of the major factors that shapes our personality. I'm just saying that gay people are denied a basic human right.

Now things you might not want to mix together is civil rights and religious laws.

Those are TWO different things. Expressing your religious beliefs is a CIVIL RIGHT and so is expressing your SEXUALITY and SEXUAL PREFERENCES.

So when I say that GOD created gay people as well, I'm saying that gay people are normal people like me and you, but they do not have the same rights as me and you. You have a problem with understanding that GAY PEOPLE are NORMAL. You simply can't accept that.

Now since this is a Christian forum and it has a clear purpose which I have read, please also note that not even the Bible says anything that forbids gay practices. Keep that in mind. God and Jesus never condemned gay people.

This rule about gay marriage not being normal was instituted by MAN therefore it should be changed by MAN.

BryanH wrote:

Will reply more tomorrow.. based on ur comment. God also created axe murderers. So does that justify their behavior?

When you do reply please stop with stupid examples. Gay people are not criminals in any way.

All I'm pointing out is that expressing your sexuality is a RIGHT and they don't have that. You also said that you took psychology classes. By now you should know that expressing your sexuality is one of the major factors that shapes our personality. I'm just saying that gay people are denied a basic human right.

Now things you might not want to mix together is civil rights and religious laws.

Those are TWO different things. Expressing your religious beliefs is a CIVIL RIGHT and so is expressing your SEXUALITY and SEXUAL PREFERENCES.

So when I say that GOD created gay people as well, I'm saying that gay people are normal people like me and you, but they do not have the same rights as me and you. You have a problem with understanding that GAY PEOPLE are NORMAL. You simply can't accept that.

Now since this is a Christian forum and it has a clear purpose which I have read, please also note that not even the Bible says anything that forbids gay practices. Keep that in mind. God and Jesus never condemned gay people.

This rule about gay marriage not being normal was instituted by MAN therefore it should be changed by MAN.

It would be nice if you could provide some evidence that:

1. Anyone equated homosexuals with criminals (they are equated with sinners just like you and me so yes, they are normal just like you and me. Well, maybe you, the jury's still out on me)
2. Expressing one's sexuality is a RIGHT
3. Who decides what is RIGHT and what is WRONG
4. Expressing one's sexuality is a CIVIL RIGHT (in other words define sexuality in civil terms)

Let's start with those for now.

As for God and Jesus never condemning homosexuality, are you certain about that? Have you even read the Bible? If not, start with Leviticus. And if you had meant in the NT only, try these: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7.

When you do reply please stop with stupid examples. Gay people are not criminals in any way.

Neither are adulterers. So is their behavior justified? Adultery is not criminal. It involves a person acting on 'normal' desires.
My point is not the criminal aspect but the inclination. The topic is "Are people born Gay?" I'm dealing with the inclination. You are saying that since all are God's creation, that this somehow justifies their incliniation. I've already demonstrated (although you refuse to answer the examples) that inclination is not justification. I've even shown that not all 'normal' inclinations should be justified under the law.

The proposition from the pro-gay side is that since homosexual desires are innate, natural, etc., then they are normal and justified. I've given some examples that natural inclinations are not justification for acting on it. And you react with ad-hominems. If you think calling people's examples stupid is an answer to the example, then we might as well hang up the discussion and go get a milkshake.

The facts are that you have skipped over about 90% of the questions I've asked you. I'll ask again. Does the inclination towards a behavior justify the behavior? Yes or no.

By what are you establishing that expressing one's sexuality is a right?
Do I have the right to speak out against homosexual activity?

So when I say that GOD created gay people as well, I'm saying that gay people are normal people like me and you, but they do not have the same rights as me and you. You have a problem with understanding that GAY PEOPLE are NORMAL. You simply can't accept that.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming up with the notion that anyone here is trying to deny any peoples personhood? Gay people are part of this creation just as anyone else. I'm offended that you would accuse me and others here of this.
Gay people absolutely have the same rights. I have a right to get married. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in matrimony. Please show me any law that says that a person is prohibited from marriage. What you want is to redefine marriage. You want to trample on the instituion that millions of people respect to create extra rights above and beyond. When you redefine marriage to include gay marriages you are violating the rights of heterosexuals. Perhaps you don't understand the implications of the courts and law. People have equal protection under the law. That doesn't mean that a 16 year old can vote. They are still equally protected. I think you have a very distorted version of just what equality means under the law. Another example is the impact on Catholica charities. They ran excellent adoption programs. They were targeted and told to allow adoptions to gays. This was against their religious views. A freedom that is actually protected under the law. And so they shut down this valuable service all because the gay movement wanted to impose its will on the public. This was in direct violation of a constitutional right. The facts are that the pro-gay movement is not interested in 'equality.' They will sacrifice the protections of the law at the expense of their movement, and this is demonstrated many times in their activities.

This rule about gay marriage not being normal was instituted by MAN therefore it should be changed by MAN.

This is fallacious. the term 'gay marriage' is contradictory. Marriage is between a man and woman. Marriage is an instituion for good reasons. Saying it should be changed/redefined does not prove that it SHOULD be. This position says that marriage as we know it is just arbirtrary. That the word/institution itself means nothing and we can assign whatever definition we want, whenever we want. Why shouldn't polygamy, or incestual unions also be included in the definition?

As I mentioned, I studied psych, and other social sciences at the University of Tennessee. I'd love to start a thread about the problems within this field of academia, but its not really in the scope of the forum.

This is becoming quite annoying now jlay. You avoid certain aspects that you can't provide arguments for and you forget to provide proof for your statements, at least for the ones that you should provide proof for.

I already said that the Bible has no problem with gay people what so ever and I did some research on that. The Bible actually doesn't mention being gay as a problem.
I also said that gay people were declared normal people by psychologists and doctors 25 years ago so being gay is not an inclination as adultery. You mix apple and donkeys again.
Heterosexual people can be adultery, gay people can be adultery as well. Your example is flawed...
And you haven't provide statistical proof on any of your statements. It's easy to say that millions of people would be destroyed just because gay marriage is legalized... As I said before, there are already states where that happened and things are as normal as they have always been.

So the Bible says being gay is ok, psychologists say its ok, doctors say it ok. You and other millions of people say it's not ok...
Let me trust the Bible, the doctors and the psychologists this time.

Bryan,
Now it's time for YOU to provide proof for your statements.

So the Bible says being gay is ok, psychologists say its ok, doctors say it ok. You and other millions of people say it's not ok...
Let me trust the Bible, the doctors and the psychologists this time.

Please provide the bible verse that says it's "ok" to be "gay".

As for God and Jesus never condemning homosexuality, are you certain about that? Have you even read the Bible? If not, start with Leviticus. And if you had meant in the NT only, try these: Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7.

Jude 7
Can be interpreted in many ways. It does not refer to homosexuals. Strange flesh (fur, feathers) could mean sex practiced with animals. Ugly though...

Timothy and Corinthians
This another sick joke of history. You offered me some quotes from the bible that uses the word "homosexual". This word is documented to have appeared first in English in 1892. You can research that yourself. The world homosexual has never been used in any original text of the bible. When I say that some people translated the bible to suit their own agenda, people have a hard time believing that. This is a good proof of that. Now imagine how many other words have been "translated" and how facts can be twisted with a simple translation.

Romans

and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of adeath, they not only do the same, but also bgive hearty approval to those who practice them.

So if you are gay and practice that, you are worthy of death... Hmz... Excuse me for having my doubts about this being the true words of God... In the old times gay people would have been stoned to death and that is mirrored in this passage you have provided... Sorry to say but those were barbaric times and when people had little understanding of the human body and psychological facts. Today we have grown into a more evolved society where gay people shouldn't be treated like that.

Please provide the bible verse that says it's "ok" to be "gay"

Please provide the verse where it says it ain't ok. You might want to exclude the ones above and the ones that use the word homosexual in their translation. As I said to jlay: the bible you have today is just a distorted translation and besides that it was written in a different historical era. Times have changed and same rules do not apply anymore. You can't stone people to death just because they are guilty of adultery or being gay. The fact that God ever "recommended" this should raise a lot of questions. There were people that were stoned to death because the scriptures said so in the old times. Only the human mind could have come up with such an idea and not God.

If you are saying that God came up with this, well, then I sincerely question your mental sanity and your moral values.

One of the 10 commandments of God says something about not killing people if I remember well.

So no matter how you analyze the scriptures, something is fishy.

God said don't kill, but people were stoned to death based on God's scriptures. (This is the Old Testament, but never the less, people were killed based on that)

Awaiting some feedback please. I'm quite puzzled about this. Didn't want to divert the discussion to this point, but ideas connected with one another.

Bryan, are you then saying that if there is a God He should comply to your positions?

You are saying that your position is 'better." But, I'm curious, by what standard do you make such a claim. I'm also curious if you are ever going to answer the questions presented to you.

One of the 10 commandments of God says something about not killing people if I remember well.
So no matter how you analyze the scriptures, something is fishy.
God said don't kill, but people were stoned to death based on God's scriptures. (This is the Old Testament, but never the less, people were killed based on that)
Awaiting some feedback please. I'm quite puzzled about this. Didn't want to divert the discussion to this point, but ideas connected with one another.

Obviously you are interested in what the 'original' text says. The original word would best be translated 'murder.' Just as in our culture, one can kill and not be accused of murder. We don't arrest our soldiers when they return from war. We do not treat accidental killings the same as 1st degree murder. Do you think the ancients should have done the same?
The reality of the 10 commands is that each of them had the penalty of death. The 10 are not looked at as individual laws, but a collective. I agree that God had a very different standard regarding violation of these laws than you or I do. But the fact that God held such a high penalty for violation does not prove the penalty was unjust, barbaric, or outdated. It only shows that Israel lived under an very rigid structure with very stiff penalty. We should point out that no one here is suggesting that homosexuals be stoned. NO where in the Bible will you find homosexuality singled out. Obviously you've read somewhere that the bible doesn't specify homosexuality. But although there wasn't an ancient word that translates

So, is the penalty of death, the same as what is condemned under the 6th commandment? I would say that burden
Let's say a criminal kidnaps a person and locks them in a cell. They are captured, and for their crime, they are locked in a cell. Would you then make this same argument? It's pretty obvious that these are totally different. One is a crime. The other is a judgment on a crime. In fact we have the death penalty in this country.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

If you are saying that God came up with this, well, then I sincerely question your mental sanity and your moral values.

Let's please keep from those types of fallacious attacks.

Bryan, you said:

So the Bible says being gay is ok,

Then, I asked you to tell me where the bible says this, as you stated as a fact, to make your argument:

Please provide the bible verse that says it's "ok" to be "gay".

Then you said this:

Please provide the verse where it says it ain't ok.

No, Bryan. You made a statement:

So the Bible says being gay is ok,

I never made any statements of fact, as you did. It's one thing to quote things from the bible completely out of context as you're doing, but it's extremely dishonest and misleading for you to say, as a fact, that the bible says something, when it doesn't.

You misinterpret the bible to fit your argument. You're doing the very thing that you claim here:

When I say that some people translated the bible to suit their own agenda

Bryan, you are interpreting the bible to fit your argument.

Also, you might want to read the bible in context, to see why God commanded people to be stoned for certain things. This wasn't a law for everyone. it was a specific law for God's people. The nation of Israel. It was never a law for gentiles outside the one specific nation, that God set apart from the rest of the world. So, with that context, stoning for homosexual behavior, is not what God wanted modern America to do.

BryanH wrote:This is becoming quite annoying now jlay. You avoid certain aspects that you can't provide arguments for and you forget to provide proof for your statements, at least for the ones that you should provide proof for.

I already said that the Bible has no problem with gay people what so ever and I did some research on that. The Bible actually doesn't mention being gay as a problem.
I also said that gay people were declared normal people by psychologists and doctors 25 years ago so being gay is not an inclination as adultery. You mix apple and donkeys again.
Heterosexual people can be adultery, gay people can be adultery as well. Your example is flawed...
And you haven't provide statistical proof on any of your statements. It's easy to say that millions of people would be destroyed just because gay marriage is legalized... As I said before, there are already states where that happened and things are as normal as they have always been.

So the Bible says being gay is ok, psychologists say its ok, doctors say it ok. You and other millions of people say it's not ok...
Let me trust the Bible, the doctors and the psychologists this time.

Bryan, I've asked you a genuine question. I'm not trying to annoy you. It's my spiritual gift. My assumption is you don't want to answer because you know where it will lead. I could be wrong, but that's my candid assesment. So Let me ask you something else. What if psychologists, doctors, etc. said that adultery is OK? Would that make it so? You see what you are presenting is dangerous. Because it is based on opinion. I'm quite certain that not all doctors and psychologist agree. But if truth is determined this way, then we are in big trouble. The reality is that there are ample reasons to support traditional marriage that do not invoke the Bible. I think it is a huge error of right wing Christians to single out homosexuality. That doesn't mean we should cave on our ethics.

What would you like proof for? Be specific.

I think the big problem here is the massive gap between these two worldviews.

The first issue is taking into consideration what exactly is sin. To people with more secular or liberal beliefs, a sin is anything that harms or disturbs the progress of society in a potentially negative way, this including murder, rape, theft etc. Obviously, homosexuality is not a problem for this worldview because, in essence, there is little moral difference between sexual impulses between one person and another. In fact, to say that one person is allowed to fulfill their desire and another is not seems morally wrong because it disturbs the equality and morality of society.

On the other hand, for people with a more conservative religious worldview, sin is defined by a religious code that tells what is morally right and wrong. In this case, particularly surrounding certain interpretations of Christianity, sexual activity on a whole is a sin against God, which is only justified through marital union. This being said, for many Christians marriage is a specific religious institution established in a fixed setting (I.E. between man and woman) with the definite purpose of sanctifying sexual activity. Any sexual activity outside marriage is considered wrong, even if there is no malicious intent or even "true love".

Does this seem to make sense? The worldviews are so fundamentally different that, while on the surface they can agree in many areas, the foundations are rooted in vastly unique places.

Another huge issue here is the definition of marriage itself... and, unfortunately, this is something the the founding fathers could not foresee! According to US law, which is secular in nature, marriage is a legal contract between two people's lives and assets; it is a bond that can be acceptably broken. In this sense, legally, it seems to be a deprivation of rights to limit the aspect of the bond according to the sexes of the parties involved. But according to many Christians specifically, marriage is, as stated above, a religious contract meant to sanctify a union that otherwise would be unclean. This is fixed to a man and a woman according to the Bible, and it is wrong to break it.

So which position is "correct"? I'll leave some of the fighting up to the rest of you, but I think that the real issue is in the word "marriage". In the US, marriage is only a legal contract with no religious value. It is up to the individual to assign religious weight to it. Unfortunately, though, because this country regulates this contract under the name "marriage", all of these problems result. This is where the founding fathers, and most governments before them in my opinion, went wrong. If the bond is called "marriage", then religious implications are automatically applied. To a Christian, a homosexual "marriage" may seem like an outlet for a non-sanctified sexual bond. To another, it may seem like the rightful union of to people who are "in love". To the government, it is neither; it is only a contract. See the dilemma!

If legal marriage is changed and called only civil union (leaving religious marriage up to the individuals), then there would be an outcry from many people because of their marital rights; it would seem less morally and lovingly significant even though this is not its legal purpose. Keep it the same and we have religious implications that conflict. Is there a solution? I don't know. You can discuss.

I never made any statements of fact, as you did. It's one thing to quote things from the bible completely out of context as you're doing, but it's extremely dishonest and misleading for you to say, as a fact, that the bible says something, when it doesn't.

I apologize for my mistake. When I said the Bible says its ok, I meant that it doesn't actually mention anything against that. Again I apologize for being unclear on my statement. I have no interest in being extremely dishonest and misleading.

Obviously you are interested in what the 'original' text says. The original word would best be translated 'murder.' Just as in our culture, one can kill and not be accused of murder. We don't arrest our soldiers when they return from war. We do not treat accidental killings the same as 1st degree murder. Do you think the ancients should have done the same?
The reality of the 10 commands is that each of them had the penalty of death. The 10 are not looked at as individual laws, but a collective. I agree that God had a very different standard regarding violation of these laws than you or I do. But the fact that God held such a high penalty for violation does not prove the penalty was unjust, barbaric, or outdated. It only shows that Israel lived under an very rigid structure with very stiff penalty. We should point out that no one here is suggesting that homosexuals be stoned. NO where in the Bible will you find homosexuality singled out. Obviously you've read somewhere that the bible doesn't specify homosexuality. But although there wasn't an ancient word that translates

Let me point out an aspect that bothers me the most to be honest. Christianity is mainly focused on living a moral life by doing good and helping your "brothers" by following God's word, right? So how come that God wants to teach being moral by death penalty? Those may have been other times and Israel may have had a stiff rigid law, but the question is the same: why would God give a law that teaches and promotes moral values by death penalty?

Now this is my personal opinion and nothing more: a GOD that teaches its followers moral values through fear and death penalty, well, seems more like a man than a GOD. A GOD who is said to have infinite love and mercy and knowledge found a very simple solution: let's kill those who break my rules. That God which has roots in Judaism is the same God in Christianity. So pardon me if I say that the bible was written by man and man alone without any revelation from GOD.

Also, you might want to read the bible in context, to see why God commanded people to be stoned for certain things. This wasn't a law for everyone. it was a specific law for God's people. The nation of Israel. It was never a law for gentiles outside the one specific nation, that God set apart from the rest of the world. So, with that context, stoning for homosexual behavior, is not what God wanted modern America to do.

It doesn't matter who the law was intended for. It's the moral aspect behind it.
Last time I checked we are all equal in front of God and I said this many times by now and I actually believe that although I do not believe in a God as described by the Bible.
So God's people had "special laws" designed for their NATION. Now you are telling me that God has preferences as well. Good to know that. I prefer a GOD that does not have such "interesting" preferences. But he did change his mind over time so we have to give some credit for that. Again and again, this GOD we are talking about exhibits human personality traits.

Let's please keep from those types of fallacious attacks.

I'm sorry if I have offended anyone in anyway. Just trying to make a point. There was no attack intended.

Now coming back to the gay people

So which position is "correct"? I'll leave some of the fighting up to the rest of you, but I think that the real issue is in the word "marriage". In the US, marriage is only a legal contract with no religious value. It is up to the individual to assign religious weight to it. Unfortunately, though, because this country regulates this contract under the name "marriage", all of these problems result. This is where the founding fathers, and most governments before them in my opinion, went wrong. If the bond is called "marriage", then religious implications are automatically applied. To a Christian, a homosexual "marriage" may seem like an outlet for a non-sanctified sexual bond. To another, it may seem like the rightful union of to people who are "in love". To the government, it is neither; it is only a contract. See the dilemma!

You are right and thank you for your comment. You have made some very good points. I just quoted this paragraph to help me with my ideas, but I have read all your points.

Christian people speak about marriage as being something holy and sanctified. That may be true, but this has happened recently, once Christianity was born. Marriage at its origins has been a contract. I researched Judaism old tradition because Christianity has its roots there. The marriage was conducted like a purchase. A daughter was given after a certain amount of "money" and gifts were received. The marriage was not a contract between two individuals, but between 2 families. Needless to say that in those times polygamy was not an issue.

So Christianity changed the institution of marriage and now when someone wants to do the same they have a problem with that. Sorry guys, but as Heraclitus said: "Panta Rhei". Change is a part of our lives. Every change has advantages and disadvantages.

I'm not saying that this issue doesn't raise moral issues, but there are far more pressing moral issues in the world right besides gay people getting married. And since we are all equal, they do deserve the same rights as any other person.