Jedidiah
New member
http://nypost.com/2015/04/19/rubio-people-are-born-gay-but-dont-have-right-to-marry
So Rubio evidently believes homosexuality is not a sin and the Word of God is in error.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/19/rubio-people-are-born-gay-but-dont-have-right-to-marry
So Rubio evidently believes homosexuality is not a sin and the Word of God is in error.
If you're straight then that attraction simply wouldn't come about. This apparent argument that promiscuous behaviour etc can alter a person's orientation is weak at the very best and bordering on the ludicrous even then. You may very well be able to choose to sleep around and indulge in sexual temptation - in much the same way as you may choose to steal, lie, gossip etc, but your temptation is with the opposite sex. If you can entertain the notion of sexual congress or intimacy with your own gender then you simply ain't straight.
All sins are chosen behavior. One doesn't have to have sex. They will not die.
...For obvious reasons it's somewhat impossible to choose to become gay if straight.
You might simply be unloved.
So tell that to the boy who was called a faggot by his dad from the time he could walk. Tell that to all the unloved youngsters who are accosted by homosexuals when at their most vulnerable.
If you're heterosexual then homosexual temptation doesn't enter into the equation, and can't be chosen either, nor does it somehow come about through acting on heterosexual lusts and temptations...
If you're heterosexual then homosexual temptation doesn't enter into the equation, and can't be chosen either, nor does it somehow come about through acting on heterosexual lusts and temptations...
That's not even true, but I'm curious what you're calling "obvious" reasons why you think it is.
"Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."
1 Corinthians 10:12 (KJV) (for Patrick).
How is it not true? If you're exclusively attracted to the opposite sex then the very notion of having anything intimate with your own is abhorrent. It really should be obvious as to why already...
Show how one's appreciation of beauty, and to where one wills their matrimonial desire, are one and the same thing, and not separate (and separable) things please ?
Abhorrent. Isn't this why AC has that huge blog going about this topic ?
Um, one can appreciate a beautiful woman without desiring to marry her...
...This strikes me as a bit of an odd question to be honest...
It's an inflated ego trip is about all it is...
We all have sins we are tempted by, we do not have to give in to them.
You keep missing that just because you don't have that desire, they must be born that way.
If one is born that way, then one is born with a desire to be a thief, an adulterer, a pedophile, a murderer, etc..
We don't have to act on the desires we have.
It's a 'sin' I can't be tempted by because I'm heterosexual and there's no possibility of it coming about. What you seem to continually miss is that orientation is not the same as an act and anything possible therein.
I'm surprised you used that word "abhorrent," is all.
Well, because to me the very idea of having same sex relations is just that on a personal level, I couldn't entertain it whatsoever, but I don't find homosexuals abhorrent simply for being wired differently to me to clarify.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/19/rubio-people-are-born-gay-but-dont-have-right-to-marry
So Rubio evidently believes homosexuality is not a sin and the Word of God is in error.
And i am not tempted to be a murderer or a thief. There is no possibility of it coming about.
As to the last part, then you are ok with pedophilia, since you believe that something you cannot possibly be tempted by, is inborn from birth?
You insist that sexual preference, is only inborn.
Lets say it is, should it be ok to practice it?
I like cheeseburgers. If someone said that raw octopus tasted like a cheeseburger then I would try it, but otherwise, yucky.