No, I’m not familiar with that, but thanks for making me aware.
I’m still shaking my head over His4ever’s mutilation of logic. It goes something like this: God detests homosexuality; therefore, He made no one as a homosexual. That would mean, of course, that He didn’t make any anyone at all, including her, since He detests sin.
I think I see a way to a common set of beleifs, uniting hardcore atheists and hardcore fundamentalists…
:eek:
::: runs screaming out of the thread :::
Now, Poly, I didn’t do this OP. 
His4ever, how do you reconcile your belief that God doesn’t make homosexuals with the 35+ years of clinical research that indicates sexual orientation is not a choice, not to mention the countless personal experiences of gay men and lesbians that also indicate it’s not a choice?
And I’m with others who have said that it wouldn’t matter if it was anyway - God bless America and her freedoms. If some can choose to be Christian, I don’t see a problem with choosing who to love. 
Esprix
Did God make the hermorphidite? Well if he can make one of those he can make a homosexual. 0887
Esprix, I won’t presume to answer for His, since she is doing her best to grasp others’ POVs and respond these days, but it’s been my experience with a lot of strong “doctrinalist” Christians (inventing a term to cover a fairly large gamut of people, many of whom are not literalist or fundamentalist) that their apparent understanding is that where evidence from the natural world appears to contradict the Bible, then either Satan must have tampered with the evidence (this is seriously believed by a few) or, more likely, the evidence is being misinterpreted by fallible humans, as opposed to the Bible as Word of God, on the words of which reliance can be more fully put.
Hence the testimony of every gay person and the psychological and sociological investigations into the causes of gayness, are as nothing beside Holy Writ.
I have huge respect for the Bible as evidence of God working in and among man and as the strongest single source of what His will actually is – but that attitude frustrates me greatly (as I’m sure my tone shows).
Joe and Jersey, if you’re reviewing this thread, could you address a bit more dispassionately than I can how you understand the right way to perform the data-resolution I described in the first paragraph, and perhaps essay a faith-based answer to Esprix’s question? I’m not prepared to put words in the mouths of conservative “Bible-believing” Christians beyond what I’ve already said is my impression, and I would very much like to see what your understanding of the answer to Esprix’s question might be.
As I believe I’ve said, orientation may or may not be a choice, but whether to act upon it is a choice. People like Joe, Jersey, and I, are always going to trust what the Bible says over psychiatrist clinical research or whatever. They are fallable men, the Bible is God’s word.
Joe and Jersey, I don’t presume to speak for you, but I’ve read enough of your posts that I assume this is your postion. Correct me if I’m wrong.
So the purpose of Ex-Gay ministries is not to ‘convert’ or ‘heal’ people, but to induce them to abstain from the normal consequences of (what they truly feel to be) their immutable nature?
There’s something wrong with that. Not to mention that it’s a terribly glib statement to say ‘yes, but it’s a choice and all I expect is for them to choose not to do it’ - after all, hunger is a real and natural state; eating, on the other hand, is a choice - how would you feel/react if the Breatharians decided it was OK for you to be hungry, as long as you didn’t fall into the vile sin of actually eating something?
His4ever wrote:
Let them eat cake, is that it? You are the Queen of Heavy Burdens. Aren’t you lucky that you weren’t cursed with the wrong orientation?
Another stroke of fortune for you! You are not fallible men who might misinterpret your third-hand translations of the what you call “God’s word”.
Eating is necessary to live, sex in any form is not. Also, gay ministries I assume most certainly do share the gospel with gays or anyone else who may not know Christ, I would hope.
Let’s all stop having sex, His and we’ll see how long everyone lives.
Personally, I give us 100 years, tops and then the roaches can have their way with this rock.
Not according to the Breatharians
**Easy for you to say; try explaining that to a desperate, lonely, suicidal 40 year old virgin.
Besides, what difference does it make whether something is necessary for survival?
I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who has the ability to evaluate their myriad of condemnations from another’s POV. I doubt I will meet one today. We’ll see.
It is rather easy for her to say, since she’s cited the “better to marry than to burn in lust” quote from Paul more than once to justify her adultery in remarrying (for the third time). I’ve laid off of His4Ever for a few months now because her sob story about her abusive first husband gave me pause, but she’s refused to listen to reason or to grow in understanding of me and mine, so I’ve determined that compassion isn’t a useful tool here.
His4Ever, if lust is so strong a force that you can’t resist it and have remarried (twice now) rather than spend the rest of your life celibate, then why is it apparently so easy for gay folk to choose not to engage in sex? Yes, I know this question has been asked of you before, and you’ve dismissed it before (with “oh, poor abused me!”) arguments, but it’s still relevant. And substantively unanswered.
Not neccesarily. I don’t agree with the ex-gay ministries, and I don’t think there’s anything immoral about homosexuality, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying, “You have certain feelings and desires but it’s wrong for you to act on those desires”. I mean, jealousy is a natural emotion, but it might be wrong to punch out the man talking to my wife. Lust might be natural, but it might be wrong to attempt to have sex with someone just because you desire them.
As for your rice and bananas example, I just wouldn’t join their group. I think the underlying question, that’s causing you two to have this debate is, “Is having homosexual sex a morally neutral act, like eating, or is it a morally bad act, like punching somebody in the face?” While I believe it’s a morally neutral act, what a person thinks is moral or immoral is, I’ve found, intensely personal, and not easily changed.
It’s never wrong to show compassion, jayjay. Don’t take that as a critique of your post, just as a gentle reminder that the same rules apply to both sides in this fight.
That said, I suspect that His4Ever will explain that sex is acceptable within marriage, and that two gay men cannot get married, and feel like she has proved something to you by saying that. But I could be wrong too.
His4ever wrote:
“Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever” — Jesus (John 6:58)
Poly, may I then rephrase that as "while still feeling compassion for H4E, I also feel great frustration at her lack of empathy and much uncertainty as to whether her inconsistent position is a deliberate diversion or unintentional confusion?
And I admit that I find it difficult to return empathy when the other person appears to have none…
Hey, take the perspective that she believes in a God who has major issues with what you do with your body parts, and out of caring about you, she’s trying to warn you that “if you don’t behave yourself, Daddy’s coming with the belt.”
I don’t care much for that concept of God, to be sure, but as a fairly disinterested third party I can see in her a sense of decency and caring. (Though with that God as her Creator, I wonder where she might have got it from…)