patsfan13

Interracial marriage is of course biologically consistent with the nuclear family. The problem there was one of social mores not biological constraints.

Beliefs can bwe changed our biological reality that has evolved over millions are not susceptable to social manipulation. You are talking apples and oranges here Patters.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

Okay, I see your point, so a better example would be the various medical means we use to help childless couples have children. I assume you don't object to that, so at that level you would not object to two men (and a surrogate) or two women having a child if a medical procedure was available. So, what you object to is changing the social contract (that has evolved over millions of years) to evolve to include gays. You're okay with it evolving to include interracial marriage, because that marriage preserves the traditional nuclear family. But, we certainly have non nuclear families in the world -- single moms and dads, grandparents raising kids, families with adopted kids, with stepparents and siblings, and so on. So, for you, I suspect you're only against people of the same sex forming non traditional marriages. But why? What do you think will happen?

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law .... He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Matthew 10:35

Fogbuster

So, given the way the penis and vagina fit perfectly together, and are totally complementary to each other, and in the process of their uniting together the species reproduces and lives on for perhaps billions of years, all of this is a "perverse" way of looking at sex?? I don't think so.

Sex between a man and woman may not always lead to procreation, but no one gets born without the unique elements the man and woman each produce. Every single person ever born, and who will ever be born, has elements from both the man (sperm) and the woman (egg). If you are saying this is somehow "perverse", then you are saying life itself is perverse, and I disagree. Nobody is "perverse"; we all come into existence from the love of God, who is the origin of all life.

As I said earlier, the first humans made a mistake in their love and reproductive acts -- they started their conjugal relations while they were still immature -- but that does not mean it needs to continue forever that way. It IS destined to be cleaned up. That's what the Messiah is to do, acting as the "new Adam."


//

patsfan13

Again if the medical procedure is consistent with the biology of the race and the social structures then great if however the medical advances as being manipulated to satisfy a new set of socail norms that aren't consistent with our nature as defined through our evolution then I think it isn't a good idea.

Remember the old commercial (for margarine IIRC), You can't fool Mother Nature.

I think a lot of the stuff you talk about will happen, I don't think it will benefit society anymore that the soaring divorce rate has. JMO

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

Patters

I don't think that's what relationships are about. There's certainly a biological interest in propagating the species, but that's hardly an issue, is it? Are you worried about the race dying out? In the link above, it says according to the US census 34% of lesbian households and 22% of gay households have at least one child under 18. So, any fear of us dying out is unfounded. The perversity is that you see the way the male and female organs compliment each other as so important to God. They're important to procreation, but again that's not a problem and not an issue.

No, I'm saying your picture of God's obsession with the holies of holies, as you called it, is perverse. Certainly, if there is a God, He wants procreation, but it doesn't mean he has anything against childless couples, gay couples, gay couples with kids, nonnuclear families and so on.

And that's where we're not gong to find much in common, fogbuster. If the Messiah shows up and challenges your interpretation of the Bible, how will you know it's the Messiah and not the Devil?

Fogbuster

How, why, and for what purpose the male and female sexual organs were created are important to God because it is the way He intends us to multiply, and to keep the lineage of life alive forever, as He intended it to be.

The male and female organs are naturally occurring. They are given to us from birth, as much as our eyes, nose, and mouth. We all naturally know what to do with these organs (eyes, nose, and mouth), so why should there be any confusion about the sexual organs?? All creatures in the animal and plant worlds know exactly what the sexual organs are for: to procreate.

There is absolutely nothing "perverse" about procreation as God originally intended for humans. God even gave Adam and Eve clear instructions: "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil". That tree is not a literal tree, but a symbol for immature and ill-prepared young Adam and Eve. Like any good parent, God told Adam and Eve to wait and protect themselves because if they did not, they would "die".

Because we know that Adam and Eve did not die physically immediately after they fell, it (Bible) means they died spiritually. Spiritual death is to become spiritually blind and ignorant of our eternal life.

People usually fear death because they are ignorant of what happens when we die. This is a result of the fall of our first ancestors, Adam and Eve. If they had not fallen they would be keenly aware of their eternal lives even while living their lives on the earth. In fact, they would be constantly relating with both the spiritual world and the earthly world simultaneously.

Because of the misuse of their love, Adam and Eve lost their innocence, lost their close natural relationship with God, and all sense of who they were. History has been a long, slow recovery of our relationship with God. Jesus showed us how to be close to God, even to the point of being God's son or daughter. That is what Adam and Eve were, and they knew it.

But when they disobeyed God's commandment, they lost everything. No greater tragedy has ever occurred, which is why it has been preserved for these past 5000 years in one text.

And both the Old and New Testaments bear witness to God's efforts to bring us the Messiah, to show us clearly how to return to the bosom of God's love eternally, where we should all be from our birth until our death.

But Jesus could not finish everything he wanted because he was rejected and killed. So, he said he would return. For what purpose does he return: it is to complete the task of educating us as to our rightful position before God and the creation, and how to recover that position as God's sons and daughters.