If you want to say it’s biologically based, let’s talk biology. The purpose of sex biologically is procreation. The only “normal” method for that is a man and woman. Therefore, any other kind of activity…such as homosexual activity…is abnormal in the pure biological sense. (Now, I know this is where most proponents of homosexual sex bring up the “sterile man or woman” straw man argument but it doesn’t explain away that if all the parts are working for two men or two women they still cannot reproduce.)

So if it’s not the normal brain activity, then is it any different from any other mental issue? If you’re speaking purely biologically then it’s not. It’s intellectually dishonest to call it “normal” behavior.

That’s doesn’t mean they should face discrimination because of it. However, proponents of homosexual activity aren’t going to be satisfied with that…they want to force people to call it “normal” behavior when there isn’t valid scientific proof to back that up because two men and two women can’t reproduce on their own.

If you want to talk on religious grounds, then you can look at a wide variety of behaviors that are not acceptable behaviors. You may want to focus on homosexual activity but in terms of the Christian religion it’s no worse than gluttony or stealing or any other sin. Christians are called to avoid all of them even if they have the temptation to do it.

Your comment about “Gee, I want this one group of people to be celibate and lonely” is a little too narrowly defined to really look at the whole issue. All Christians who are not married are called to abstain from sex of all kinds. So if someone doesn’t get married they are in the exact same situation. You’re trying to narrowly define things to try and make it look like the temptation to someone regarding homosexual activity is so different than any other sexual temptation. It’s not.

In a purely Christian sense, everyone has something they’re tempted by and have to resist in their daily lives. Why should someone tempted by homosexual activity be given a free pass for their sin and told it’s not sinful when no one else gets the same thing?

We’re not talking about those who are on the Fred Phelps fringe and clearly hate. Fred’s intolerance is shocking and clearly not in line with Biblical teachings. He takes the sin and defines the person by it when that’s not what is supposed to happen according to God’s word.

You can find many times in the Bible where someone had a mental or physical deformity and God did not heal it but rather said His grace was sufficient for them. None of us know the plans He has for us let alone the plans for other people and all of us have something in our lives sinful that tempts us. It’s not a huge leap to think that while you’re not tempted to sin in the area of sex that someone else could be open to that temptation.

By the way, did you get the e-mails I sent you? You’ve posted here but haven’t answered those so I wanted to make sure they got through to you.

If the argument is made for religious reasons by a person who is also a creationist (and I’m not saying you are; I don’t know you well enough to know), it is patently absurd. Like God was sitting around going, “Gee, I want this one group of people to be celibate and lonely so I’m going to create them like this.” I just don’t buy it.

Was going to add that if you are talking about a biological quality of a human being and labeling it as a “behavior” so that you can feel alright about making laws against a group of people, that’s wrong.

So true, Jack. For some reason people who would say that making laws against people due to skin color are alright, while making laws against people due to sexual orientation is ok. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

You forgot to mention that intolerance also comes in the form of making laws against those persons just because you disagree with them.

Otherwise I agree. Like Jim, I too would like to check out the site myself. Extremists make all us moderates look bad. Send me the website too, if you please.