Besides, it takes a hardcore homophobe to give up their gayass homo-invented computers up.
Turing was teh ghey
His ghey oozed ghey germs into the intertubes.

They said so on Fox.

Hard to reconcile your belief that homosexuality is genetic with your belief that it is immoral. It can't be both. Morality presupposes choice. No choice, no issue of morality.

Ahh, that's where you're wrong.  I'm a Calvinist, I believe that man is predisposed to sin anyway.  It doesn't make sin okay.  You might have homosexual tendencies, but it is certainly not okay to act on those feelings according to a Christian worldview.  I have a disposition towards attractive women... but that doesn't make it okay for me to go have sex with them if we're not married.  Two men cannot be married according to Christian and many other worldviews.  There are those who have a predisposition towards acting violently, having a short temper, etc.  It doesn't make them allowed to do those things.  Those with alcoholism (a genetic condition) should not partake in alcohol because of the problems it causes them--as according to a Christian perspective, habitual alcoholism is sinful (because it's obviously harmful to self and those around).  According to my belief, sin is a genetic problem so to speak.  Humans are wont to sin and will sin... it's in our blood.  But that doesn't make sinning okay.  And we also can't forget that sin is thought, word, and deed.  So it's utterly pervasive in humankind.  Homosexuality might seem like it's a real special case, but in reality it's not.  It just happens to be the issue of this generation in many regards... so a lot of different things are said about it and disagreed upon.

Calvinist! Whoa! I thought they disappeared with the dinosaurs! Just kidding, but all non-Calvinists have learned the futility of trying to talk sense with Calvinists. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Haha!  Sure thing, meesterskunk.  The Calvinist worldview makes sense though.  It allows for whatever to be for a reason.  It doesn't struggle with the "gay is a choice" problem that other Christians might.  I had a Baptist try and tell me how being gay was a choice... she didn't know anything about it at all beyond that that was her opinion.  Having a friend in high school who was gay/bisexual and didn't want to be, I generally get that you have the feelings that you have.

.Ignore my last comment, because I've seen this one now.

.I've heard your argument before--many times, believe me--but that connection doesn't really work. It's not the same thing as alcoholism, temper or even lust. And it's not an issue of this generation. Same-sex attraction has taken place for all of recorded history, it just wasn't until the 19th century that the word "homosexual" was conceived.

.Christianity and homosexuality don't conflict for several reasons. You've probably heard them, but maybe not... so I'll say them. First of all, Leviticus talks about laws of Jewish tradition, not morality. Protestant Christians--even Calvanists--believe the laws of Leviticus were put aside with the death of Christ. You can't say the rule of homosexuality is still in effect while the others are not. You can't pick and choose with the bible. In the new testament, Sodom and Gomorrah are discussed for a second time. Men lying with men and women with women is mentioned. This is an issue of translation and context. The Sodom and Gomorrah issue actually is believed to go back to the locals defying Jewish tradition--mostly the tradition of hospitality. Those are the two big verses that come up a lot. The few other verses are mostly considered mistranslation. For instance, I believe Paul says no homosexuals will enter into Heaven; however, as I stated earlier, the word "homosexual" didn't exist until the 19th century. Basically, biblical scholars aren't sure what it was originally since there was no word for homosexuals. Probably pederasts. Don't quote me, because this is coming from memory. If you want a better, more sound argument, watch For the Bible Tells Me So. It's genuinely a really good documentary, even if you're not interested in the subject.

Sorry, but only some Levitical laws are not followed in the Christian tradition, some have fallen out of the Christian tradition over time... some still exist but are forgotten entirely.  The word "homosexual" is not used, but the term "effeminate" has a fairly clear meaning.  Levitical laws were not simply laws of Jewish tradition, but were considered to have a moral weight.  Also, many of the laws existed to expound more clearly what is forbidden by the Ten Commandments. 

I know that Sodom and 'Ammorah was more about inhospitality than anything else, but the homosexuality didn't help their case in the least bit.  (You won't typically see me citing that narrative when speaking about homosexuality.)  Also, there was no "Jewish tradition" during the time of Sodom and 'Ammorah, the Ten Commandments had not even been issued and Abraham had not even been given Isaac yet. 

As for your problem with my comparison to alcoholism, etc.  I don't see why it is invalid.  All humans are predisposed to certain sins.  I might have a stealing problem, but someone else has a violence issue.  The violent person might not have a stealing problem at all though.  I might be a legitimate cleptomaniac, but that doesn't excuse my actions.  People's lives aren't equally easy or hard.  Some people's lives are harder than others' to live, especially when speaking of following a moral code.  Someone born with homosexual tendencies is going to have a much harder time following Christian teachings than a heterosexual might... because a heterosexual can presumably marry and thus not have a problem fornicating, presuming he or she is not committing adultery.  Some Christians' crosses are bigger than others, and some are made of lead and not wood.

.See, like I was saying, you can't just pick certain Levitical laws to carry over. That makes no sense. It doesn't say that in the new testament. It doesn't say, "Take a couple of laws that make sense to you from Leviticus. You don't need all of them." If you want to go by Leviticus at all, you have to burn everything menstruating women sit upon, keep crops separate, and wear clothing made of one fiber only. The list goes on. But you know that.

.Do you know what effeminate means? Because it doesn't mean "homosexual." Not really even in that context. I've heard that before.

.I think you should see that documentary.

You say it makes no sense, but you give no reason for it... (there has long been the idea of ceremonial versus moral laws).  But either way, forbidding homosexuality is not simply a Levitical law.  It's not a law having to do with Jewish tradition only.  When it's called an abomination to God and nature, it's surely not all of a sudden going to be an "okay" practice.

I know what "effeminate" means... it's a bit different in our world because we have the word "homosexual" too.  Contextually it's long been understood to mean men that slept with other men.  Jesus and Paul are pretty clear that homosexuals will not have a share in the kingdom of God.  Unless you want to argue it's talking about eunichs.

I'm sorry, but the Old and New testaments are clear, homosexuality is wrong and is an abomination to God, and those who practice homosexuality will not be able to share in God's kingdom. 

I think it is because of our day and age why this is made a big deal, and homosexuals seem to be singled out instead of just murderers, thieves, adulterers, etc.  I think it's because people all-too-often argue that since homosexuality may be genetic or predetermined in the womb, that it's okay to practice it.  Christians find themselves battling this falsehood so often that they end up sometimes making themselves a crusader against that misleading doctrine and it sometimes drives them over the edge to weird thoughts and ideas and tempts them to worse actions--like violence.  Just as it would any other person fighting for or against a cause.  I don't think one can read Scripture with understanding and come out thinking that God allows for homosexual practice, or murder, or adultery, or selfish stealing, etc.  There is of course room for redemption, for homosexuals included.  But you cannot be "redeemed" and go on doing that same sin... that's not repentance.  And without that repentance, you cannot be a Christian.

.I thought it was understood why it makes no sense. Men choosing which of God's teachings are worthwhile? How are you to know what was a law of morality and which was a law of tradition? You can't, because we are a totally different society in a totally different time period with a totally different background. You can't judge them based on your own understanding.

.And no, like I said earlier, effeminate was not understood as men who have sex with men. It means, by definition, men who have female-like characteristics. And the word effeminate didn't even exist at the time--this is yet another translation. "Understood"? Who has "understood" that? Early homophobic theologians? Also, the bible never calls it an abomination against God or nature. It simply calls it an abomination. This word is translated from a Hebrew word that essentially means "against tradition."

.I realize that being a Calvanist allows for you to believe that this is something God wanted the person to overcome. Is it not possible that the true challenge is to overcome the false understandings and false interpretations of many Christians?

I'm sorry, but while human arrogance is a problem that many if not all of us have to overcome, that is not the message being sent by the Scriptures concerning homosexual relationships.  And also, I actually read some Hebrew, if you're going to say what a Hebrew word "essentially means" please supply the word... or at least the root.  I wouldn't call early theologians homophobes because they were against the practice.  The Scriptures are clear, and their interpretations were largely correct especially on the grounds that homosexuality is immoral.  You're trying to justify your beliefs by reinterpreting Scripture far beyond the bounds it was ever intended for.  I would say that those theologians (whichever ones you were referring to) had a much greater understanding of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, etc. than you do.  Not to mention being much more intimately acquainted with the culture and historical contexts of the various times Scripture had been written.

As far as which practices are to be practiced by Christians varies.  The New Testament shows Jewish Christians following these Levitical practices whereas Gentile Christians were not expected to do so.  All were expected to be moral, but Gentiles were not expected to become Jews first and then Christians.  Hence, why I may wear a wool-cotton blend, but not fornicate with my fiancee.  Whether or not Levitical laws apply, there is to be no sexual immorality among Christians.  Male lying with male is sexually immoral--at very least it's fornication as a man may not marry a man... but homosexuality was known then and it's long been forbidden by Jews and Christians.  You have no proof historically or linguistically that they messed up the homosexuality bits in the Bible...

.You're right, I'm a silly, silly person for having these thoughts. I know nothing about things like the fact that "effeminate" in the new testament was translated from the Greek word "malthakos" meaning soft, effeminate, or as one person put it, "Soft to the touch." At the time, the word was used as a derogatory term for boys kept by pederasts. Not homosexuals.

.The homophobic theologians to who I would be referring would be those working under King James, from which many and most modern translations have sprung. The King James version is notorious for twisting things in the way of sexism. A lot of their translation had to do with power.

.Is your religion based in the traditions of Men, what you believe God has told you, or your own personal belief? It sounds to me like it has a lot to do with what all of the other Christians before you were doing. Just because they chose to pick and choose--they chose to make it a tradition--does not mean they're right.

.Also, without those laws, it wouldn't be sexually immoral for two married men to have sexual relations. There are no--none at all--verses denying marriage between two men, I'd say your argument has a huge hole. You see, you can very loosely interpret one or two verses to suggest marriage is a male/female practice only, but it sounds to me like you don't like interpreting the bible. It's already clear enough for you.

.I'm still confused as to why God would predestine someone to be only attracted to the same sex and no one else if he were denying them the ability to seek their love? Love, companionship, and sexual fulfillment are not the same things as alcoholism, violent tendencies, and so on. I have no problem with predestination. I actually believe in it to a certain extent. But how is knowing you will live your life lonely and without the love of another person an obstacle to overcome? Don't you understand?

Not everyone is destined to live a life fulfilled by human love in a capacity that includes sexual relations.  Paul actually encourages abstaining from marriage so as to keep a relationship with God closer.  There is no precedent that two men should be allowed to marry.  It goes against everything that the cultures around that time stood for... including the ones that were okay with homosexuality.  Marriage was meant to have a family.  You cannot procreate with two of the same sex.  Two men cannot marry, and they were not meant to marry, and they were not meant to have sexual relations.  The Bible needn't explicitely say, "Two men shall not marry."  It's clear enough that two men cannot have sex, "lie together."  That's what marriage implies.  So yes, it is sexually immoral for two men to have sex... that is spelled out plainly in the Scriptures.  If you can't have sex without it being a sin, how can you marry?  It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.  You're grasping for straws. 

You want to seperate homosexuality from alcoholism, violent tendencies, etc. because you want to dub it "sexual fulfillment" and "companionship."  But if you want to live a Christian lifestyle you cannot have that sexual fulfillment with someone the same sex as you.  There is to be no sexual relations out of wedlock.  There is to be no sexual immorality.  The idea that two men could marry (in a Biblical worldview) is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding of Scriptures.  It's reinterpreting for what is deemed acceptable by the world.  The world is increasingly saying that homosexuality is okay and acceptable, so you want to say that the Bible has been saying the same thing all along.  It's simply wrong.

Yes, I understand that it is an unfortunate case for someone who would be Christian but struggles with his or her sexual desires.  All face that problem to some degree.  A homosexual who would be Christian may never partake in homosexual sex without committing great sin.  It is indeed unfortunate.  But there are certain things that those who are Believers may simply not do.  

.I now see that you hold a greater weight in tradition than the faith of Christianity. Re-read everything you've said, and you'll see what I mean.

.I'm not grasping for any straws. If you are a Christian, Levitical laws are the past--meaning they are no more. In other words, Christian literature does not say homosexuality is immoral. With that in mind, there are also no verses that speak against two men marrying. Therefore, one can logically assume there is no Christian cause to believe it is immoral or wrong.

.You speak of precedent. Well, maybe you were unaware, but same-sex unions did take place in the early beginnings of the Church. Scholars are unaware of the quality of these unions and their purpose, simply that they did occur. If you have so much weight in what Christians did before us, there you go.

.I've grown tired of this debate. You are... how can I put this?... "predestined" to obstinance.

.I'm sorry I've wasted your time trying to get you to see the light.

Tradition is a part of Christian faith.  Without tradition Christians have nothing, no Bible, no Gospel accounts, no knowledge of the Blessed Hope, no Church period.

Honestly, I think that you lack understanding of Christian history and culture.  Homosexuality is a moral sexual sin, same as fornication, adultery, and beastiality.  There is no list of Ten Commandments in the New Testament.  Does that mean that Christians can do whatever they desire that is not explicitely forbidden by New Testaments text?  No, I'm sorry it does not.  You're advocating something like antinomianism.  It's really ridiculous to be honest... This doesn't derive from some homophobic agenda either.  I think the Biblical text is absolutely clear.  The motives are clear, the morality is clear.  Homosexuality doesn't jive with a Christian worldview.  Honestly, I think it's a rather weird biological trait too.  Whether or not it's "hardwired" during gestation or not, it's certainly not natural or a beneficial biological trait.

 

Any bytheway, we're both obstinent about it.  Let's not pretend that I'm the only one with the set opinions about the matter.  Just because my ideas are more conservative or traditional, doesn't mean I haven't considered the points and similar arguments.  It simply means that I've got a different opinion.

.Let's be honest here... antinomianism is just a wee bit too extreme an interpretation of what I've said. And I never called you homophobic, did I?

.The funny thing is, I thought the same way for a very long time. I was conservative for much of my life. Believed the bible to be literal and all that jazz. But I've thought a lot the past few years, prayed about it, and this is what I've been led to believe. This that you call ridiculous is what I've been pulled toward. Sins and morality behind them are largely about logic, not some deep, spiritual evil. Or that's my understanding, and I think it makes a heck of a lot more sense. But it's fine to mock. I have a sense of humor, unlike many people in the world.

.I honestly don't care what you believe as long as your beliefs don't get in the way of my life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. I won't touch yours.

You're not quite antinomian, but those sentiments are similar enough to draw the parallel.  I think I may have been pulling the "homophobic" thing from another conversation... sometimes I get aliases jumbled... especially when I haven't talked to a person very long.

You see, I think we differ in our concepts of sin and morality.  I don't think it's all about logic.  I truly believe that there is a spiritual rightness and then there's the absence of that rightness (IE: wrongness, sin, etc.)  I don't think it's all relative in that regard.  There is gray area, and the older you get (presuming you get wiser) the more gray things appear... but there is still black and white.

I suppose not agreeing on this basic concept is kind of skewing our perceptions of each other's argument.  So sure, if I believed like you on account of "good" and "evil," then I might be more inclined to agree with you.  But as it is, I do not and cannot.

.And it's bestiality. It's a common mistake, but it's a pet-peeve of mine. Sort of like pronouncing the "l" in "salmon."

Hmm... sorry... I hardly ever use the word, so it looked right enough.  Do you rag on people for spelling "definitely" as "definately?"

.I don't rag. That's an obnoxious term. And it is spelled "definitely," so why should I not correct them as to save them from further embarrassment?

lol... I figured you would, just thought I'd ask for my own amusement.  And "rag" isn't obnoxious.  You just want to make it that way. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

Interesting.  I agree, it's probably predetermined. 

.So... you believe that people are born that way, and yet... it's still immoral? I mean, hey, that's your opinion, I'm just confused. As a Christian, I'm confused.

Hot damn! You sound just like me! Because I believe many of the same things you do. Although, I didn't know you were a Calvinist. Interesting.

Happy Birthday, by the way.

Happy Birthday! =D