Kevin, have you ever thought about asking Jesus to come in to your heart and your life?

But a semantic discussion of the definition is only going to take us through a never ending loop.

You were only referring to HIV, fair enough. But I was not, I was stating the fact that the risk of STD AND HIV is significantly higher within homosexual intercourse – and that is true.

Here’s what I don’t understand – you do believe in God, but you don’t believe in following the guidelines God set forth in the Bible?

The Bible is not guidelines set forth in our lifetime, it was set forth thousands of years ago, and supernaturally preserved to our time.

Have you read the Bible, Kevin?

Exactly what God do you believe in?

By saying you believe in God, but refusing to obey the guidelines God set forth, aren’t you creating your own version of God?

Isn’t that idolatry?

Yes, God is real, and God is love, and God goes beyond our human comprehension of love into the very fabric of existence. Realize that there is Progress, quite literally the power of God, in our universe. We are not confined to the limits established in our lifetime.

*
The problem with your unnatural is that it is in fact natural, and that your natural is in fact unnatural. Let’s take your example of the monkey-rabbit hybrid, is it unnatural because it is strange? How about a two headed turtle produced by nature? or the common banana? are those all unnatural?
*
It seems to me that your standard of what is natural is what your mind has already established an natural, or possibly what some supposed supernatural deity has classified as natural. In which case the standards of your possible deity are unnatural, as they are not of this universe.
*
Nature is in a constant flux, and as beings of intelligence we must choose which changes are right, as you already have through acceptance of technology. To reject change is to reject nature.
*
Nature is not a set standard, not an ethical code in by which things are judged. The winds don’t guide my direction. Disaster does not differentiate between the ethical and non ethical. Nor does surrounding peace dictate the feelings and desires of the soul.
*
It seems that my discussion with Colin has come to a close. I would gladly be willing to continue this conversation with anyone who feels something was left out.

I don’t know where you came up with that??

Lesbians show similar patterns of high venereal disease incidence relative to the general population. They are 19 times more likely to have had syphilis, twice as likely to have had genital warts, four times as likely to have had scabies, seven times more likely to have had infection from vaginal contact, 29 times more likely to have had oral infection from vaginal contact and 12 times more likely to have had an oral infection from penile contact (”Medical Aspects of Homosexuality,” Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1985, Jaffe and Keewhan, et al.; quoted in “Homosexuality and Civil Rights,” Tony Marco, 1992).

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what we call “natural”, a test-tube baby conceived in a lab is no more natural (in my view) than a mutant monkey-rabbit hybrid created by a genetic engineer. Monkey-rabbits do not exist in nature, they are man-made. A Ford Mustang is man-made, not natural.

Oscar also makes a very good point about infertile women not having a choice.

By choosing to be with someone of the same sex, one willingly eliminates all possibility of natural conception.

Natural: in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature; “a very natural development” (such as a duck laying eggs); “our natural environment”; “natural science”; “natural resources”; “natural cliffs”; “natural phenomena”

(as with the joining and union of a sperm and egg – natural principles).

un natural: not based on natural principles.

(as with a scientist manipulating genes to create a baby in a test tube).

So, as I mentioned, we may just have to agree to disagree on our perceptions of “natural”. I too hope that you are not soured in any way.

I would accept and love you as a person, Kevin; I would just reject any choices you would make to engage in same-sex intercourse. I love the person, I hate the act.

I would like to tell you something, Kevin – God is real. And God loves you.

Boy would I love to tell you more about His love for you, but for now I’ll leave it at that.

As previously stated, from a scientific standpoint and a religious standpoint, homosexuality is not the way to go, it doesn’t make sense. Society is decadent enough as it is already, and we shouldn’t move too far from the norms. Colin is correct in that it is succumbing to pure carnal pleasure, with no chance to procreate. Wether you are a Bill Gates or a tire changer at DIscount Tire, the reason we are here IS to procreate and assure the perpetuation of the human species.

Kevin, you touch the subject that when we encounter barriers, we must move beyond them:

“It is simply a byproduct of choosing someone in which there are boundaries in the ways you can procreate. In the same way a man chooses to marry an infertile wife, or vise-versa. The next step is to overcome those boundaries.”

Infertile women typically come about due to a natural condition or disease. They don’t have a choice, whereas homosexuals have a choice, and the choice they make is going towards the boundary. Choice is our most precious gift. Some people don’t have a choice. If we go against what nature intended, then where would we end up? Is artificial everything the way to go?

Personally, in my opinion (and this is just an opinion), the world cannot afford becoming gay. But, all I can say to you is to live life in the way it makes you happy, and don’t sour yourself in any way if people don’t agree with your perception. Good day.