CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If you deem a person unworthy of the same civil and constitutional rights as yourself, you are indeed judging them. You are not only saying "your acts are sinful", but you are saying that they as a person are not worthy of equality.
On top of that, you are also determining which sinful acts are worthy of extra punishment, which is another form of judgement.
I have not determined what is sinful, this was determined by God and is related in the Bible. I am then not keeping equality from others, but not allowing a sin to be given the same weight as something ordained by God.
No, but you have determined which sins are and are not worthy of punishment, which is a judgement. Unless, of course, you want to make gluttony illegal, or try to outlaw divorce, etc.
Additionally, your religion has no legal standing in this country, as per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Untied States Constitution. If you want to follow your religion, that is of course fine and your right, but to try to force those who do not follow your religion to abide by your religious code is, in my opinion, immoral.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
The Greek word, ἀρσενοκοίτης, that was translated as homosexual in that verse is a masculine noun and means "a male who lies with males." More info here and here
I'm aware. Most of the biblical laws only mentions "man". Women are not exempt from law simply because the pretext only says man. It's like saying "all men are created equal" and only truly mean the men are. The phrase applies to both genders.
The word "men" has multiple definitions, such as "a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex." No definitions of the word ἀρσενοκοίτης have anything to do with women. If you're looking for a verse to support the Biblical condemnation of lesbians you should use Romans 1:26 instead.
Even if most Biblical text is in a male context, that doesn't mean you can just assume everywhere in the Bible that it says something about men that it applies to women as well. Unless there is something in the context that favors one interpretation over the other, the logical thing to do would be to assume the author meant it the way he said it.
The verse still applies to man and woman. Lesbians are not exempt.
You have no way of knowing for sure if that verse was meant for both because it doesn't say. If you said, "the author may have meant the verse to apply to men and women" that would be fine, but you're stating it like it's a fact that he meant it to apply to both.
It's really not worth arguing over since there are other verses, like the one I mentioned, that are clear and not ambiguous like the verse from 1 Chronicles.
Even if most Biblical text is in a male context, that doesn't mean you can just assume everywhere in the Bible that it says something about men that it applies to women as well.
Yes, this is true.
Unless there is something in the context that favors one interpretation over the other, the logical thing to do would be to assume the author meant it the way he said it.
Yes, I agree with this also. I think our disagreement is what we think the author truly meant. I suppose the logical conclusion was that the author only has men in mind.
You have no way of knowing for sure if that verse was meant for both because it doesn't say. If you said, "the author may have meant the verse to apply to men and women" that would be fine, but you're stating it like it's a fact that he meant it to apply to both.
True, I am basing my assumption on the comparative nature of this verse and Romans 1:26 and how homosexuality, in both genders, was punished. So I believe that both sexes will be condemned for homosexuality.
It's really not worth arguing over since there are other verses, like the one I mentioned, that are clear and not ambiguous like the verse from 1 Chronicles.
None of those people except homosexuals are stripped of their equality. Why do homosexuals get the special treatment? It has nothing to do with inheriting the kingdom of God.
Why do homosexuals get special treatment? I wouldn't be able to answer that. I wasn't the creator of this law. If it was deemed as a sin then it's a sin. That's about all i can say.
In some ways even to answer the question being arrogantly judgmental. Who am I to judge the sexual orientation of anyone? Gay men and woman were born with this deviant 'condition' and should enjoy exactly the same rights as every other citizen of their respective countries. There are other groups whose sexual alignment diverges from what is natural and the accepted norm. These sexual variants include those with little or no sex drive one way or the other and bi-sexual's'. These groups of people should have equal rights regardless of the backward scriptures of a bronze age book which was written in good faith by clever, well meaning, but nevertheless, mere mortals.
The teachings contained in the Bible reflect the values of the culture in which the authors lived. Cultures evolve over time. Morals embodied in religious doctrine tend to evolve much more slowly than cultural based morals. The inevitable result is a widening moral divide. Apparently, ignorance of this process can lead to rants and name calling from the uninformed masses.
That is totally your opinion. Christians believe the entire Bible is inspired by God because that is what it tells us. It is not written by authors with their own cultural beliefs of the times.
No this is what our faith tells us. It would be an opinion if it were our personal views vs the Bible. We believe that the Bible is written by God. Now if we disagreed with what the Bible says, it would be our opinion coming from our own thoughts.
You can say you believe the Bible is written by men and that is fine, but for Christians it is our faith that says the Bible is inspired by God, not an opinion. When a person takes someone's faith and tries to turn it into a bunch of opinions, it is their way of twisting someone's faith to your own beliefs. It's fine to say you don't believe it and it was written by men. It is something else to tell other's their faith is not inspired by God and therefore the verses are not relevant to today's culture. Those verses are very much relevant to us.
I have a problem with other's trying to tell someone how to believe and telling them that their faith is nothing more than words written by men. Quit trying to tell people their faith is worthless. Your faith is evolution and you think you have the right to indoctrinate our captive children in school with your so called scientific religion. It is very arrogant to do so.
I won't tell you that you are an idiot to not believe in God, so give us the same respect.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Try not playing the ludicrous devil's advocate once in your life and admit the intent of the argument. This is why I try to ignore most of your posts.
...Wait, what? I was not playing devil's advocate, I was pointing out a key different in what the previous poster said that was relevant to the conversation. If someone was arguing that the authors of the bible had an effect on the bible, then recognizing that there were indeed authors is part of the intent of the argument.
The Bible condones slavery in multiple passages, so the same argument can be made for slavery. The text is out of date on the cultural side. This doesn't mean you have to throw it all out! That would be a reactive thing to do. For example, I disagree with Freud on a number of issues but I would never throw his books out. Some is valuable theology, and some is not so valuable. You can see Jesus following this logic in his rejection of specific laws in the Old Testament. Jesus rejected the sabbath and even told his followers to disobey it. He also rejected "eye for an eye", and openly altering the law into "turn the other cheek." He wanted to write the law in hearts instead of on stone, which is a more moldable attitude.
Jesus rejected the sabbath and even told his followers to disobey it. He also rejected "eye for an eye", and openly altering the law into "turn the other cheek." He wanted to write the law in hearts instead of on stone, which is a more moldable attitude.
One key passage that shows his attitude clearly is in John's gospel. When he committed blasphemy, and when they went to stone him he made clear that human beings are equal to God, not just himself….
John 10:33
The Jews answered, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods'? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled.
There are passages in the Bible that do not condone homosexual acts between men. I have not seen anything specific to women. However, the Bible instructs us not to judge as it is not our job. In fact, it states that being judgmental will only cause more trouble in the end.
Gay rights are a facet of human rights. Human rights are of the utmost importance. The Bible instructs us to love our neighbor. It instructs us to honor others above ourselves. Any true Christian who follows the Bible is not judgmental, does not harm others, does not oppress others, and helps others, regardless of who they are or what they believe in.
So to all the fake Christians out there... Start getting real. You have no right to judge, but if you choose to, you will be judged harshly. Also, if you choose to judge and do it intentionally, stop claiming that you are a Christian. Do I believe in homosexuality? No, that is why I am straight. Do I believe that people are allowed to have sexual relations with whoever they choose? That is up to them, not me.
They should have rights, they're also humans in case you forgot. They should be allowed to do what they want as long they don't hurt other people or break laws. The Bible didn't mention that being gay is prohibited. Who are we to judge? We're not God. One day we're all gonna die, whether you're straight or not we will all get judged by God.
We are all humans whether we gave a penis or a fucking vagina it doesn't matter if somone is attracted to another person sexualy who gives a damn not everyone is gay so the population will be fine anyway the world is already overpopulated gay marrige would even help that. Why is it anyone's buisness what somone does in there own home especially if it hurts no one. Stop labeling people as bad because of who they like.
Yes homosexuals may live a lifestyle that not all people are comfortable with, myself including, but homosexuals are still people. The bible can't change that. They deserve to have rights just as much as heterosexuals. Someone's sexuality should not define anything about them other than that- their sexuality. It's absolutely ridiculous that a homosexual should be denied rights because of their sexuality. They aren't doing any harm and already have faced so many struggles with being targeted and such for no acceptable reason. They deserve rights, end of story. If you say they don't, that's the same as saying as a people, we don't deserve rights either.
Evolution will have weeded out homosexuality, should it have ever been a gene etc., as it does not give those with it a higher chance of surviving or producing offspring. Either this is a new phenomena for humans and so cannot be extended to the rights of the long-standing tradition of the marriage of two genders, or it is a process entirely of the mind and so falls under the category of several other mental illnesses and should be treated accordingly, and should not be given the ability to flourish as we do not allow severe sociopaths to murder or those with severe depression commit suicide.
1. "Either this is a new phenomena for humans and so cannot be extended to the rights of the long-standing tradition of the marriage of two genders," What? Something being a new phenomena does not in any way indicate it cannot be covered under equal rights. Otherwise, women would not be protected by the majority of the Constitution, seeing as how female equality was a "new phenomena" within human social standing in the Western world.
2. "or it is a process entirely of the mind and so falls under the category of several other mental illnesses and should be treated accordingly, and should not be given the ability to flourish as we do not allow severe sociopaths to murder or those with severe depression commit suicide." Seeing as how homosexuality does not harm anyone, any comparison to "sociopaths" who murder is illogical. Even if it were a mental "illness", we do not deny those with mental conditions equality under the law.
Do you have any legal arguments against legal and civil equality for homosexuals?
Evolution will have weeded out homosexuality, should it have ever been a gene etc., as it does not give those with it a higher chance of surviving or producing offspring.
Evolution is not about passing your own genes, but anyone passing your genes. It is possible that the homosexual gene can be spread through evolution. If raising children becomes difficult it might be more helpful to have extra "parents" to raise the children. If your sibling is gay they won't be out trying to find a mate and can help you raise your children. So, the gay genes can be passed through your children while your gay sibling doesn't have children. So, it is possible to pass gay genes.
While I usually like to politely disagree, in this instance I feel compelled to say that you, sir, have nary an idea of what you're saying.
Evolution does not occur socially, not unless you're talking about the evolution of culture or languages. Physical evolution, that is, the passing of genes to future generations, involves the transfer of one's own genome, which is made up from deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), to offspring (plus the combining of one's own genome with that of your mate). DNA is a physical substance, and the transferring of it to the next generation is the result of the combination of the sperm and egg cells to form a zygote.
In other words, if there is a gay gene, it cannot be passed down through having extra "parents", which would be a social factor, not a biological one.
You should have just politely disagreed, because you are 100% wrong.
Evolution does not occur socially
I didn't say it did. I said a gay sibling helping pass along some of their own genes. The genes that siblings share since all siblings should share some genes.
In other words, if there is a gay gene, it cannot be passed down through having extra "parents", which would be a social factor, not a biological one.
What if there are multiple gay genes? Most of our genetics are a combination of genes. If the straight sibling has some of the gay genes their children can be carriers for gay genes and the homosexual uncle or aunt can help raise the child to spread their genes.
i would like to contest one of your point here sir:
for my situation i am not particularly religious or atheist, but the use of your sentence grinded my gears. The Bible book is not accurately evil, i mean as an example, when you are cooking yourself a delicious meal and at the time you use knife and cut yourself, it is ridiculous to say that the knife is evil and intended to harm you. The bible is a book, a tool for spiritual need which as been rewritten several times during our history
As current lack of scientific research is present to the cause of homosexuality, I currently am against homosexual rights. I believe the platform that homosexuality rights is being advocated on is purely a sympathetic humanitarian ideology which is illogical when the behavior is not even scientifically understood. Homosexuality is clearly unnatural in the sense, that within the human specie, there are only two genders naturally created and are created with parts that when combined have a sexual purpose. Thus, the only remaining purpose for homosexuality then, would be a neurological purpose... The need, satisfaction, or mental security felt when loved but, even that purpose is fulfilled between opposite genders! That leaves the unanswered questions of what happens in the human brain that causes one gender to be attracted to the same? What chemical processes occur when this behavior feels natural to a homosexual? As homosexuals claim that the way they think and feel is a result form how they were born, then common sense would dictate that something different happens during the maturing stages to the brain of an embryo to a born baby that causes this. With that being said, why hasn't any medical institute, university, or official raised the question like bipolarity, or any other neurological disorders, could homosexuality be caused by a chemical imbalance or by a neurological deformity during the stages of creation from conception to birth and is it something that can be corrected through a medical procedure or medicine? As for what the bible might entail, I could care less because the bible itself was written by men, not God himself.
Look at the hands of gay males and you will see scientific evidence of the cause of homosexuality. They have feminine hands. Males are naturally both male and female. A man has a sketched feminine side of his body with nipples and breasts. A women also has a sketch masculine side with the clitoris. Freud theorized that the natural state was bisexual and that we learned to be attracted to whichever sex when we were growing up. Most all the scientific evidence points to genetics.
world renowned evolutionary biologist explains the gay gene's survival
Without watching the video, I can already discredit any of it's said evidence because evolution is nothing but a theory! I'm looking for hard evidence with scientific models demonstrating the process, not some old hypothetical theorist.
That it follows corruption doesn't mean anything in terms of whether or not it is true or false. For specific individuals it may follow corruption, like a Hitler for example. But there are also great evolutionists who talk about Mutual Aid as a factor in evolution. It's not all survival of the fittest.
If you accept that as an argument against evolution you would have to concede that the same is true with the Bible. The Bible has been interpreted in terrible ways also.
Scientific theory and literary theory are two different things. Evolution is a scientific theory with tons of evidence from many branches of science. There is even DNA evidence for evolution. Gravitation is also a scientific theory, comparable. Check to see if you can find a world renown scientist alive today who rejects evolution. There are none alive today who would dare do so. The greatest scientist alive today who calls himself Christian is Francis Collins, and of course he is an evolutionist.
1. Homosexuality is clearly natural, as it occurs within nature. That is, after all, the definition of natural.
2. There is much about human behavior that we do not understand, but how is that a justification for denying individuals who partake in said behavior equal rights? None of your post explained any sort of basis for opposing giving homosexuals the same civil rights as the rest of us.
Can you point to where I said something is "fine" because it is natural?
Because it seems pretty clear to me that I simply questioned how something that is, factually speaking, natural, can be referred to as unnatural. It makes little sense to change the subject and make it seem like that is an endorsement of any particular behavior.
Are you not using its classification as "natural" to be an argument for gay rights, and by fine I meant natural as it is natural for a human to be moral and avoid such things that are results of the rash lusts of animals.
No, I am using the classification of "natural" as a counter to the claim of it being "unnatural", and that's all. A person claimed it was unnatural, I brought up the fact that it occurs in nature and thus is natural, and that was it.
My arguments in favor of equal civil rights for homosexuals are completely separate from that, as the idea that "unnatural = bad" is pretty absurd, especially when it is being argued on a computer over the internet.
They are not harming anyone by being together and deserve the same civil and constitution rights as anyone else. Them being married does not harm you or me, so what right does anyone have to stop them?
Haha, because it's not just about you!!! It has to do with how it publicly affects society as a whole.. That's what civil rights are all about! For example, if everyone just excepts the narrative (and again, that's all it is "a narrative" not a scientific fact) that homosexuality is natural, then the potential of corruption is at stake... Suddenly people start making the choice to be gay rather then being gay from a birthright! That's the whole problem!!! That's what it all boils down to!
First, can you show me any evidence of homosexuality having a negative effect upon society?
Second, one does not make the choice to be gay. Sexual orientations are not conscious choices. You and I do not walk down the street and "choose" not to find members of the same-sex attractive, just like how homosexuals do not walk down the street and "choose" not to find members of the opposite sex attractive. One can not suddenly decide to be of a different sexual orientation, which means there is no risk of "corruption" as you put it.
OMG!!! You are so wrong and out of touch! People make the switch all the time these days! Some purely because they've just had enough "drama" with the opposite sex... Oh man!!! Not to mention what parents have to go through trying to except their children whom choose to be gay because they got brainwashed into thinking it's okay or "fine."
Can you provide evidence of this? And I don't mean evidence that bisexuality exists, because it does, and bisexuals will prefer one sex over another depending on a situation.
And can you provide evidence that children get "brainwashed" into "choosing to be gay"?
That is true, I do think it is fine. I don't think that pointing out that it is natural is evidence that it is fine, I think those are separate issues. But I see no reason to take issue with homosexuality.
You're definition of natural is skewered... There is a different nature within every species of animals and there is no universal naturalism. Also, you're not clear in what kind of rights you're accusing me to be against... You mention equal rights and civil rights which are two different things. The publisher did not mention any specific rights to argue for or against so you can't just assume I'm against all or one or the other but, to clarify, I'm not against equal human rights between hetero and homosexuals. It's civil rights that I'm against as civil rights pertain more to the civilization of a community and it's laws which are supposed to be created for the safety and peace of a community.
My definition of natural is "occurring or existing within nature". That is THE definition of natural. If it occurs in other species, where is your evidence that it does not occur naturally within humanity?
Where is the evidence that it is natural within humanity? You can't just point out to some other specie (which you have specifically failed to do) and say, "See it's perfectly natural." Some species produce offspring without even mating... If a virgin human became pregnant would you say that is natural? Naturalism by the way is dictated based on how a specie behaves by the majority within itself.
"natural within humanity" How about the fact that it exists? If it exists in other species in nature, that makes it objectively natural. Then if you also point out the existence of it in humanity, that would indicate it is indeed natural within humanity.
And "naturalism" is a philosophical school of thought pertaining to empiricism, and a literary trend. Not sure what word you are trying to refer to with a definition on statistical normality.
Yes, it exists but that doesn't make it natural. If it was natural then there wouldn't be an argument. It would just be subconsciously accepted .. The fact that it's rejected makes it an unnatural behavior.
Rape is rejected in society, as is murder, yet both are natural.
Again, if something exists within nature, it is natural. It really can't be argued that homosexuality itself, devoid of any association with a particular species, is natural. As for arguing that it is not natural in humans, that is difficult, since "natural" refers to outside human influence. If you want to claim that homosexuality is unnatural in humans, you would need to present some evidence or an argument for that. But saying that because a behavior is rejected, it is therefore unnatural, is contradicted by countless examples.
Rape and murder also have laws against them... I agree that it's difficult to argue weather or not it's natural but, when stacking the position of "it exists so it's natural" vs. the position "that it is not common or typical and not subconsciously accepted so it's unnatural." I believe logic swings in favor of it not being natural.
Going with the secondary definition because the primary definition proves my point, eh? :P
Still, homosexuality is in agreement with the character or make up of a homosexual. It is not statistically normal for humanity, but it still remains natural.
No, I went for the secondary definition because it supports my argument. You're excluding part of that definition to support your argument... I couldn't find a definition that fits your argument.
Go ahead and go on and on... The reality however, is there is no such thing as primary and secondary definition to a word... It all depends on the context in which you're using the word in and to repeat myself for the millionth time, there is no evidence that homosexuality is caused by nature!!! The fact that it exists, does not mean it is natural and as long as there is a lack of scientific evidence that it is caused naturally, under assumption, it would be more correct to think it is caused by people which clearly refutes the definition of natural which you just supplied.
But the context we are using it in is if it exists in nature, which it most certainly does. If it exists in nature, then it is still natural within your definition. If it exists in nature, and thus is natural by both the primary and secondary definitions referenced, then what evidence do we have that the same does not apply to humanity?
You are saying there is no evidence that homosexuality is caused by nature, yet the fact that it EXISTS in nature is in fact evidence of it! Unless you are claiming that non-human species choose to be homosexual?
And there is no scientific evidence that people choose to be homosexual either, so how can you assume that is true when you refuse to recognize another claim as true due to the lack of evidence?
No that's the context you're trying to use it in and it doesn't apply to human nature. You're context is a broad view where my is narrowed... I can't explain why there is "so-called" same gender sexual activity within nature on this earth but, the fact that it's a conflict within human nature makes it unnatural because once again, if it were natural to our nature, we wouldn't even be conscious of it... It would be a subconscious accepted behavior.
But you have not proven how it conflicts with human nature! The fact that we take part in it on a fairly consistent amount is evidence that it is natural within your context as well. Additionally, the fact that it is subconscious behavior is part of the reason why it is increasingly accepted. You also have not proven how homosexuality, or any sexual orientation, is a conscious decision (again, bisexuality exists and is an important factor in this discussion).
Daver, I'm aware of the internet but, I'm not aware of any valid scientific information. There are theories and laws and at this point in history, any scientific information on homosexuality in based on a theory, thanks.
Any information can be put online, be it true or false, and science can often be wrong. There was once science for a geocentric universe and the existence of only four elements.
Are your opinions based only on information that you have gathered via personal experience, or have you taken ANYTHING in the way of information from any other source.
Gay rights is a vague statement. We all have certain rights just for being living human beings. I believe Gays deserve every bit as much rights to live life as any person. This does not mean they have rights to change our marriage laws, etc. They have become the poster child for special treatment only because their unnatural lifestyles are spoken of in the Bible. This is why Gays get all the attention and media coverage to their plight in life. No other minority groups get anywhere near the same mention and special rights as Gays. Do men who want 20 wives get any coverage in the news or our marriage laws?
The problem being that anti Christian Bigots on the Left must spend their lives demonizing the Bible and what it stands for. It is no secret why Abortion, Feminism and Homosexuality has been at the fore front of our politics and culture for decades. The so called Progressive movement has been doing all in it's power to twist and ridicule the Bible. Homosexuality is their current tool to do so. If the Left indoctrinates people to believe that up is down or that Homosexuality is normal, they can then water down the truths of the Bible. This is their goal and explains why a couple percent of the people get CONSTANT MENTION in our media.
Your statements about the goals of liberal progressives are 100% correct, almost. Their tactic is to discredit all religion, as part of changing American society into their socialist utopia. :-)
Come on Daver, you aren't that ignorant! Most liberals are religious, liberalism does not inherently dislike religion, and if one is liberal they do not want to turn anything into socialism.
Remember Daver, Genericname did not call you an ignorant person.... he just said you aren't that ignorant are you? LOL, these hypocrites are something amazing.
Remember Daver, Genericname did not call you an ignorant person.... he just said you aren't that ignorant are you? LOL, these hypocrites are something amazing.
Except via Due Process and Equal Protections, they do have the right to change our marriage laws, that way they get equal treatment.
They do not have a lifestyle, they have a sexual orientation.
Many people have given you evidence that homosexuality exists in nature.
People working for civil equality for gays are not bent on demonizing Christians.
Most progressives are Christian (most people of any political stripe in this country are).
The left is not indoctrinating people to think it is normal, they simply have opinions that differ from yours. Their goal has nothing to do with the bible, it has to do with civil equality for others.
The Bible is clear on Homosexuality being a sin and a perversion. The Bible does not speak to anyone's special rights. No group gets special mention like Gays get in our Liberal media.
I am not saying the bible is bad because that would clearly be an offensive remark towards somone besides which I'm most cases i belive is wrong however it is no ones matter whether you like somone the same or different as you. Imagine a world where everyone was gay and you were different. How would you feel if you were called a sinner because of how you were born or forced to marry somone who you are not at all attracted to
I don't believe in homosexuality. These people that say they were born gay, weren't. What happened is that they were either molested as a child or when they were infants their parents would let anyone hold them and those who held the new infant may have passed on a spirit to the child, as Satan does pray on young ones. So, Lesbians, Gays, Homosexuals, Transies, you were not born that way, you just have a homosexual spirit on you, the Sucubus and Incubus. There is a reason why women and man were created and there is also a reason why a woman and a man can produce a child during sexual intercourse. Those who teach homosexuality is okay and The Most High loves you, are lying to you because G-d hates sinners (Psalm 11:5, Psalm 5:5-6), he hates homosexuality and it's an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), which is worse than sin.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
{Even though this is talking about adultery, it is clearly saying that a man should have his own wife and woman should have her own husband. It does not say to avoid fornication let a man have his own husband or wife, and let every woman have her own husband or wife.}
The teachings contained in the Bible reflect the values of the culture in which the authors lived. Cultures evolve over time. Morals embodied in religious doctrine tend to evolve much more slowly than cultural based morals. The inevitable result is a widening moral divide. Apparently, ignorance of this process can lead to rants and name calling from the uninformed masses.
That's the problem. People change Scriptural doctrine to match up with modern day. That can't be done because it's adding and taking away from the The Most High's Word. Those who teach homosexuality is okay are false prophets. If you are a believer in The Most High and you believe homosexuality is okay, your living a lie. Every word of The Most High is true. Those who see what Scripture says, and knows what it says, and chose to ignore it, are wicked.
Normal definition of theory: "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained."
Definition of a scientific theory: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
You were using the word theory within its colloquial usage, but when it comes to scientific topics, theory has a different (and much stronger) definition that gives said theories more weight and legitimacy.
