CSGuy: No offense, but almost every law we have could be related to a religious belief. Where do you stop? Whether a particular "rule" is beneficial to society is up to the people, and the people are religious more often than not; at least casually, anyway.

At what point do you say "Nope, that law is based on religion, no way" when many/most of the ones we have now already are?

"How many men fantasize about a threesome Saturday night and then rail against homosexuality on Sunday morning at church? We each have to examine our hearts and do what we believe is right. "

Should anyone here that has told a lie have the right to take issue with Bush when they perceive him to have "lied"?

Doesn't that put us in a place that no one could "preach" anything? Ministers are fallible, like anyone else, and I don't think their own purity has anything more to do with their service to God than it does for anyone else. Again, I think it comes down to how you react to your own sins. A minister with weaknesses that he recognizes and repents of isn't the same as a minister who preaches against a sin and then wantonly commits it with impunity.

I would much prefer a contrite religious leader that confesses his weaknesses and realizes the difficulties of life is better than some guy they wrap in bubblewrap and roll into clean storage between every service. 90% of everything that is wrong with religion comes from the fact that we feel that religious statement is somehow a declaration of personal purity.

Christianilty is grounded in the idea that we are not perfect creatures. There is a difference, though, between condemning people and condemning sin. I don't think homosexuals should be condemned as people, but I think it is the height of hypocracy for folks, especially here on JU, to say that you can't condemn people's behavior. A LOT of material here is based upon the condemnation of political figures and others for their behavior.

How many men fantasize about a threesome Saturday night and then rail against homosexuality on Sunday morning at church?

Wahine, I'll be very impressed if you can quote a Bible verse that mentions menages a trois as being sinful.

Haha, I skimmed that guy's page; and I don't think that I'll donating any money to his cause by purchasing his book.

Skimming the webpage isn't the same as reading the book. If you don't want to pay for it, get it from the library. It's not a "cause", It's his personal story that he wants to share with others in the hopes that it helps them.

Let's say that it was reversed and as it turns out homosexuality was the way to go. Do you think you could be convince, and have "courage" enough to bump and grind with your neighbor Phil? I don't believe any amount of words would convince me to take a trip down that path. So, why do you think it's different for people who actually DO dig people of the same sex, for WHATEVER reasons?

It's not a matter of just "which way" is accepted as the right way. It's a matter of nature and evolution. It's quite obvious, even to monkeys, donkeys, salamanders, penguins, and any other sexual organism, that one way is right and the other way is wrong.

Again, I believe its possible because its been done.

Men have a natural urge to procreate with as many women as humanly possible, but the Church is not wrong for not approving of such behavior, even if it isn't based on a choice, but a natural tendency.

Fair enough, so then the Church should disagree with gay couples having sex outside of marriage... of wait they can't get married, how convenient.

Besides, it's not that the Church disagree with gay couple having sex outside of marriage, it's that the Church (and I use the term to describe fundamentalist, fire and brimstone Christianity, which I personally assosciate with some American Protestant religions even more than Catholicism) condemns all homosexuals as an abomination.

Anyway, I'm glad there are many people here, Christian or not, who see how this can be an unfair condemnation, whether or not they like homosexuality itself. I myself am heterosexual, but like dharma said, I certainly can't recall a time when I decided "Hmm, I think I should be attracted to women now." And I can't imagine a homosexual making a similar decision. And why would he/she want to, considering the way American society looks at homosexuality: "Gee I think I'll start being attracted to men today, and then, if I go to certain areas of the country, I'll be brutally murdered! Fundamentalists will tell me I'll burn in hell! I won't be legally allowed the same rights to be with the person I love as everyone else! Yay!"

But what the voters have said is that the citizens do not want to provide incentives and benefits for others to enter into same-sex unions.

So what you are saying is the voters sanctioned discrimation based on a religious conviction. Good on ya, you should be proud of yourself! (note the sarcasm). Simply because you do not agree with the way someone lives their life, you do not have the right, morally or otherwise, to discrimate. It should be all or nothing--everyone has incentives and benefits for marriage or no one does.

The point I was trying to make though, was that if this wasn't the case, could you change your sexual preference? It seems that most people agree that homosexuals don't just decide to be gay one day. It's what they're attracted to. So, according to your views, they should change what they like... what they're attracted to. My question was: Could you do the same if you had to TURN to homosexually to fit in?

And the point I was trying to make is it is easier to switch one way than it is to switch the other. It's like swimming upstream versus down.