does Natural selection prove you are not born gay and christians are right it's a

K

kjv_gods_word

New member
Dec 12, 2008
7
0
1
That is actually one of the foundational differences between natural selection (which is barbaric and impersonal) and Christianity (which claims divine creation by an act of love).

God said it was not good that man should be alone and THAT instituted the foundation of human relations. Natural selection does not require nurturing romantic love to propogate a species, yet this phenomenon exists in the Human species. The need for companionship and love transcends a concept of natural selection, therefore a spectrum of love may be found there.

Whether or not natural selection would weed out homosexuality, the Bible on the other hand supports homosexual identity, because the stated purpose for why God brought a mate to Adam wasn't to procreate, but because he was LONELY. And Adam himself specifically stated the ONLY reason why Eve qualified as a mate for him - not because she was of a different gender - but ONLY because "this is now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones". She qualified as a mate because she was also HUMAN. Now, marriage can produce children, just as a piece of art can produce millions of dollars; but the PURPOSE for marriage is UNION, just as the PURPOSE for art is BEAUTY. Therefore the purpose of marriage is not the creation of offspring but rather - as God Himself stated - for the purpose of companionship. And homosexual marriage can produce companionship just as equally as heterosexual marriage does.


Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
www.GayChristianSurvivors.com
 
choice? please read before you answer thanks.

if you agree with Natural selection then how could gays be "born gay"?
Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.
wouldn't have the "gay" gene be extinct by now?
reproducing: gay sex can not reproduce
If people are born gay for millions of years by now they would be extinct, remember only in biblical times would being gay be a sin punisable by death.
Thats about 6000 years ago so for billions of years before gays would have not been persecuted for being gay why did they who had freedom of gay sex not through lack of reproduction go extinct?

By Darwin's theory of Natural selection shouldn't by now they be extinct.

Thanks
Sin 'jari [Infidelosaurus...how so please elaborate, thanks
KBelleC...people who can't have children are smaller groups and if there for instance red heads could not reproduce then eventually there would be no more redheads in society they would die off.
"gay sex" can not reproduce some form of hetrosexual is needed
Boo...."have sex with women because of social or other pressures"

remember were talking before bible times 6000 years ago before it was known as sin billions of years ago when they had no social or other pressures
 
That is actually one of the foundational differences between natural selection (which is barbaric and impersonal) and Christianity (which claims divine creation by an act of love).

God said it was not good that man should be alone and THAT instituted the foundation of human relations. Natural selection does not require nurturing romantic love to propogate a species, yet this phenomenon exists in the Human species. The need for companionship and love transcends a concept of natural selection, therefore a spectrum of love may be found there.

Whether or not natural selection would weed out homosexuality, the Bible on the other hand supports homosexual identity, because the stated purpose for why God brought a mate to Adam wasn't to procreate, but because he was LONELY. And Adam himself specifically stated the ONLY reason why Eve qualified as a mate for him - not because she was of a different gender - but ONLY because "this is now flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones". She qualified as a mate because she was also HUMAN. Now, marriage can produce children, just as a piece of art can produce millions of dollars; but the PURPOSE for marriage is UNION, just as the PURPOSE for art is BEAUTY. Therefore the purpose of marriage is not the creation of offspring but rather - as God Himself stated - for the purpose of companionship. And homosexual marriage can produce companionship just as equally as heterosexual marriage does.


Rev. Jim Cunningham
King James Bible Ministries
www.GayChristianSurvivors.com
 
No it doesn't. In fact there is evidence that it's a built in population control mechanism.
 
It's a choice; it may not be a fully conscious choice but it is none-the-less. If it weren't then i wouldn't have friends who were gay for the first 20 years of their lives and repented of it.
 
Being gay has nothing to do with the desire to raise children. Some people are born sterile or born with conditions that make them sterile. What purpose do they serve? Temperament (from psychology) is biological, but not genetic, as can be argued about sexual orientation
 
Homosexuality does not go against natural selection because the gay population is so small that their not reproducing isn't going to hurt the species.
 
Being born gay does not necessarily mean that it is inherited. It is believed that certain conditions in the mother's womb can make
effect a baby's sexual orientation.
 
Some become gay by choice, some were born with a tendency to become gay which they inherited from one of their ancestor which were born gay because of sins of their parents.

Natural selection is nonsense.
 
Being born gay does not necessarily mean that it is inherited. It is believed that certain conditions in the mother's womb can make
effect a baby's sexual orientation.
 
How could a gay gene be passed on?
Easy.
It could simply cause a high level of interest in having sex with men, resulting in women who carry it having many offspring. Some of the offspring would be females, who would inherit the gene and go on to have lots of sex with men, resulting in more offspring yet. Some of the offspring would be males, who would inherit a high level of interest in having sex with men. Some of them would only have sex with men, in which case they would not pass along the gene, but so what? Their sisters would pass it on, so it would continue to exist in the population. Some of those men, however, would have sex with women because of social or other pressures (since the gene would not preclude an ability to have sex with women) and they would pass the gene on to their children.
It's not that difficult to figure out how it could work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
A first-ever study to train cats and their people for better health
Replies
0
Views
457
Geek
G
A
Chicago radio host implies Russell Wilson might be gay: 'You don't have to live a lie
Replies
0
Views
51
admin
A
G
Salt’s secret success in ancient Chaco Canyon
Replies
0
Views
290
Geek
G
G
Some of our genes are foreign, and not from our ancestors
Replies
0
Views
55
Geek
G
G
A new understanding of Alzheimer’s
Replies
0
Views
113
Geek
G
Back
Top