Rooster7

Littlebillie, anti-gay faction I am curious as to how you define "anti-gay". I suspect that you're including a whole lot more than what most of us are willing to accept. If believing the behavior is immoral or sinful, then I am "anti-gay". If you are implying hatred for individuals, then you're way off base. There is a social need and a biological function to be served by gay Americans, and I think it's time for us all to realize that. Social need? Please explain. Biological function? Now that should be an interesting explanation. This truly befuddles me. What biological function does the homosexual serve? Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar... Do you regularly read the Bible or is this a quote that you like to reference because it serves your purposes? I ask, because if you do regularly read the Bible, you would know that no matter what "Caesar" asks, we are not to relinquish our allegiance to God or His Word. God tells us to be bold in our faith. We are to renounce sin whenever we see it. prejudice that finds its root in a supposed Word of God had better be darn sure of what God actually said. (Say, was it REALLY an apple in Eden?) "Prejudice"? As I suspected, you're not listening to the arguments being presented. Regardless, those who claim that God's Word does not say something, better be darn sure it doesn't say it.

It is inborn instinct. Why their brain developed this way is the mystery that many scientists are still trying to crack. You say it is inborn. However, I have to ask - when does one become aware of their sexuality? Is it in the womb or at birth? Or is it at four, eight, 12, 16, or some other magical age? From my experiences, while I was always aware of girls, I did not truly appreciate them until I was around 13 (when, as you say, the raging hormones kicked in). This appears to be true for most of the boys that I knew at that time. I mention this, because it is my belief that homosexuals develop their inclination via one of three avenues or a combination of the same - 1) they're raised to be effeminate [i.e., brought up and spoiled by mommy], 2) they are molested at an early age whereas they become confused as to what is truly natural, and 3) they experiment with sex without restraint or conscience. In short, with exception to the third scenario, through negative social and sexual experiences as adolescents, they develop a psyche, which makes homosexuality appealing to them. I am not suggesting that every boy who was ever "mothered" or molested has homosexual tendencies. I am suggesting that these circumstances serve as catalysts. Couple these catalysts with other influences, such as today's moral attitudes and/or other traumatic events in one's life, and it's easy to see how a confused boy might become seduced by homosexuality and by those that offer a sympathetic shoulder. Why do people ignore the fact that many homosexuals are victims of pedophiles? Are folks suggesting that it when a 25 or 35 year-old man seduces a 14 or 15 year-old boy that it is not pedophilia? From the studies I've seen, a majority of homosexuals are "seduced" by much older partners in their early teens or even at a younger age. Why do people ignore the fact that many homosexuals come from family backgrounds whereas the father is either not around or the household is dominated by an over-protective mother? Why is it that when children are brought into some perversity (i.e., kiddy-porn, etc.) that they struggle with it as adults? If, what is "natural" is supposed to overrule all other inclinations (even if it means going against society), how come many victims of homosexual molestation struggle with homosexuality and cannot establish normal heterosexual relations? In other words, why don't these victims just return to their natural inclination of heterosexuality without a struggle? I realize that someone will suggest that these boys were always homosexuals and that a molestation by an older man was just incidental. To me, that's like saying the hemophiliac was destined to bleed to death, the fact that someone stabbed him was inconsequential. Given the increasing influence that homosexuals have on society, I see a downward spiral that will grow steeper as more and more people believe the lie. It's sad that so many will suffer because so few are willing to stand up and say its wrong.

if it ain't natural, why are there animals that exhibit the behavior? My last two sentences in my previous post partially answers that question. Nevertheless, another quick and obvious answer follows - we are not animals. We have a moral conscience; they don't. If the "animals do it" argument holds water, then I guess gang rape is natural because scientists have observed porpoises engaging in this behavior. Or, eating one's vomit must be natural, because dogs commonly do it. The praying mantis bites off the head of her mate after sex. If that was natural, I'm sure Mrs. Bobbit would have incorporated it in her defense. No, I'm afraid the "animals do it" argument does not apply to human beings. It won't work in a court of law. And it certainly won't work standing before God.

kwc57, My mistake...for some reason, when I read paddlesack's post and saw "religious group", I interpreted it as "Christian". Byproduct of reading a post too fast, I guess...Sorry about the confusion. Regarding your supposition that homosexuality is perhaps as natural as your diabetes or your wife's depression, I believe it is founded on a false pretence. There is a great distinction to be drawn between sin and physical illness. When your sugar levels are low, you are prone to fainting. This is beyond your control. You do not choose to faint. Likewise, your wife does not embrace a sense of gloom and hopelessness. You both suffer because your bodies are not functioning properly. Conversely, there is no physical dysfunction that drives a man to have sex with another man. He chooses do so. His behavior is driven by lust, a perverted desire that he has chosen to embrace. He knows that it is contrary to nature. Just as a pedophile knows it is wrong to have sex with a child. There is nothing unique or unusual about men who have perverted or unnatural desires. I venture to say that most of us has probably experienced an unnatural thought. Yet, how long does one entertain that thought? What does one do with it? It seems to me that we are all capable of sinful behavior; submittal is a matter of faith and/or discipline. I also propose that those that stand on discipline alone are fighting a losing battle. That's not to say that one cannot live a lifetime without overtly committing a particular sin. I believe some folks can. Nevertheless, without God, one can only hope to win a series of never-ending battles. With God, one can win the war. God is the only one who can truly cleanse us of our sins, and deliver us from our sinful desires. We need to present ourselves before God as His repentant and humble children. As to why so many of us suffer physical illness, I don't claim to have a complete and accurate answer. I have a theory or two. I believe they have merit. God gave the Hebrews many laws, of which, there are many that we are no longer bound to follow. Specifically, I am addressing those laws that established the Messianic Priesthood and instructed the Hebrews on how to make themselves holy before God (i.e., make sacrifices for their sins). He was and is, Holy and Righteous. The Hebrews were given very strict instructions so to ensure that they maintained the proper respect, not only out of reverence, but also for their own protection. Christ's sacrifice made us holy before God - not just for a limited time, but for all time. Furthermore, Christ enabled us to have a more intimate relationship with God the Father, by eliminating the "middle man", the Messianic Priesthood. In addition to these "ritualistic" laws, God also presented moralistic laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments and other laws dealing with our behavior towards God and others). We are still bound to follow them. However, for those that embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, when we fail to comply, we are forgiven and can still stand before God the Father as His holy people. Forgive me for babbling, but I needed to present this information before I can explain one of my theories. I believe there is a third group of laws that do not quite fit into either of the aforementioned categories. There appears to be many laws in the Old Testament, which deal primarily with health and sanitation issues more than anything else. I believe that modern man has drifted so far away from these instructions that we may have inadvertently introduced some illnesses into our society. For example, isn't interesting that pork happens to be one of the unhealthiest meats that one can eat. Or, did you know that there are instructions in the OT that deal with cleaning molds from one's household. There are hundreds of other examples. Many of which, no one seems to understand there purpose. While I know that we are no longer bound by these instructions because they do not concern our relationship with God and others (i.e., they do not concern matters of right or wrong), they seemed to be for our own benefit as physical beings. I feel it is very possible that our lack of compliance with these regulations in the past and in the present may have resulted in many of the illnesses we see today. Secondly, God has punished and disciplined various peoples, including His own, by inflicting them with various diseases. Whether or not this still happens today, I do not know. Certainly, according to His Word, He has used illnesses to convey a message of consequence for rebellion. Lastly, while God is a spiritual force that no one can challenge, until the Day of Judgment arrives, He has allowed Satan to influence this world. The fact that diseases exist could simply be a matter of Him exercising restraint until that day arrives.

...we will have the first extensive group of genetically identical persons for tests of all sorts of hypotheses. The results will be interesting. No offense, but the tests - by nature - will always be detestable. A 1940's Nazi "scientist" could have fashioned the above statement for his journal. And the results - as long as humans are involved (whether that be the tester or the subject) - will always be debatable. As to the aforementioned self-proclaimed "Christian" group that promotes human cloning, I doubt their claim as people who take God's word seriously. Finally, while I continually argue against those who claim homosexuality is natural (or worse, created by God), I doubt if I will sway those folks or that they will sway me. I argue in an effort to help prevent those "on the fence" from being dragged into darkness.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

kwc57, If we allow a group of judges to decide which clubs and organization are acceptable (for judges to have membership), and which ones are not, they will create a judiciary with a very particular mindset. This is extremely dangerous. They will generate the opposite affect of what they claim. Policies such as this one will produce a very prejudicial and bias bench. Alas, although subtle and indirect, I see their intent as being purposeful and dubious by nature. After a little time, it will be a California bench, which has no tolerance for conservative values and/or people of faith. The current procedure, while it may slow the courts, ensures a fair judiciary. Judges are people. While we want them to be robots completely devoid of biases, that is an impossibility. Our best opportunity for justice is to allow a cross-section of qualified judges to be represented in the courts and to request recusal when there appears to be a conflict. Otherwise, if California has their way, we will have Godless ideologues ruling over the population. Laugh if you will, but I see that day as a distinct possibility. If we continue along this path, "Eagle Scout" will become a defamatory charge.

Pfann has hit the nail on the head again. If we allow the courts to disqualify folks because of what private organization(s) they belong to, there will be no logical end. If I belong to a fan club for the Washington Redskins, it does not mean that I hate Cowboy fans. It simply means I like hanging around like-minded folks. On the other hand, if I joined the We Hate Dallas club, a Cowboy fan could have a pretty good argument against me. To the point, if someone has a fair and reasonable argument to request a judge's recusal for a particular case, then the request should be made. It's unreasonable and prejudicial of the California courts to say all judges belonging to particular organization must resign or resign from their judgeship. What about avowed homosexuals? Should they be forced to resign from the bench because they might be partial against self-proclaimed fundamentalists? As pfann noted, who are to judge rape cases - women or men? Should judges who belong to feminists organizations be forced to pick and chose? Judges are still private citizens. As such, they are entitled to a social life. Should they be forced to resign all organizations? After all, every organization stands for something. What about party affiliation? Do we remove all judges who proclaim a belief in God because they could be prejudicial against atheists? Where does it stop? The current procedure is appropriate and reasonable. If a judge is a member of an organization whereas a good argument can be made that he may be prejudicial, then the appropriate party (prosecution or defense) should ask for recusal. For the courts to single out membership to a particular organization like the BSA is flat out wrong. Its a blatant attack against judges with conservative values.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Thanks for the correction... You're right...I should have reread the post. Either way, I'm still against these kinds of restrictions.

So, basically, the California Supreme Court is saying - if you are a member of the BSA, then you are prejudice against homosexuals and unfit for judgeship. If my reasoning is correct, then in a few years, I imagine they will ban evangelical Christians from the bench using the same pretence. "Political Correctness" or "Political B*llsh*t"...California is always ahead of the game. Frankly, I think the government has no business setting criteria like this for judges. This is simply a way for the California legislative branch to constrain the executive branch. They might as well hang a sign Conservatives need not apply! These legislators are imposing their collective will on future generations in an effort to manipulate the system so to maintain the status quo. It's wrong and it usurps our form of government. Our elected representatives should appoint judges. If folks don't like those appointments, then they should participate in the next election and seek to displace those in power. This kind of legislation removes the power from the people. If were not vigilantif we allow this kind of non-sense, it could become a permanent arrangement. By the way, if California wont allow its judges to be members of the BSA, does that mean being an Eagle Scout is also reason for being blackballed? Does it mean, in California, Eagle Scouts should hide their status as such? What a sick world we live in (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Littlebillie, There is a group promoting "responsible" or moderate drinking for alcoholics. Haven't seen them in any parades yet, but they're organized. Do we need a stated, written policy about this? Do alcoholics go unnoticed in BSA? Do they receive tacit approval by non-alcoholic sympathizers? Not in my troop. Has this pro-drinking group targeted BSA? Do they indicate their displeasure with BSA as being alcoholic-phobic? If so, then BSA should create a written policy. Otherwise, its unnecessary. And regardless of who gets admitted and who doesn't, when does the membership get to vote on it? the volunteers? the kids? just a question on the nature of ad hoc unilateral position statements issued without referenda. Their charter and/or the leadership of the same run private organizations. They are not democracies. Nor should they necessary be so. Its not un-American. If it were, they wouldnt be protected by the Constitution. As you know, BSA is a private organization and is free to define itself, and by whatever means they chose as they see fit. If you dont like the rules of a private organization, you are free to leave. Or, you can attempt to make your way into its infrastructure and let your voice be heard. Regardless, BSA is under no legal or moral obligation to submit itself to a member vote. Even so, my bet is most members like the organization as it is. TwoCubDad, Rooster, you are exactly right. Homosexuals were targeted for exclusion en bloc because they are a highly visibly and easily distinguishable group. In other words, as I noted in my first post, it was a political decision. Yes, by the homosexual activists who decided that BSA did not have a right to define itself. Homosexuals came after BSA, not the other way around. Look at it this way, if you were going to write a policy which would ensure that Scout leaders are of high moral character (or at least providing guidance to local units), wouldn't you include more in that policy than just a ban on homosexuals? I would include only as much as is necessary. Have you ever written policy statements? If so, you would realize, the more you write the more you will need to write some more. In other words, people use written policy statements to find legal loopholes. The more you put on paper, the more people will try to use that document to achieve their own selfish goals vice the goals of the organization. Apparently, BSA hired some lawyers who were smart enough to know that. So, until some other immoral group starts to target BSA, it is probably prudent for them to write as little as necessary. Fortunately, most folks seem to understand the Scout Oath and Scout Law and how they should be applied within the framework of a troop. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

TwoCubDad, While there is no explicit policy, I'm fairly confident that the adulterer is just as unwelcome. As I tried to say before - there's a reason why there is no written policy. There is no national movement for adulterers. They don't have a lobby working for them attempting to justify and normalize their immoral behavior. The same cannot be said of homosexuals. Consequently, BSA has a written policy to prevent sympathizers from opening their doors on a local level. BSA does not need such a policy for adulterers because it is highly unlikely that folks will perceive their behavior as anything but immoral. When they get their own lobby - When they start having their own parades, then perhaps BSA will create a policy against them as well.

TwoCubDad, My objection is that BSA is shopping its sins. Being homosexual has become the third rail of Scouting. Save child abuse or a conviction for violent crime, we can forgive just about anything else. I dont think youre being fair to BSA and their policy makers. Heres why Homosexuals do not recognize their behavior as being wrong. That is why there is an explicit policy. Look at other immoral behavior (for which there is no policy). Take lying for example. What if a pathological liar presented himself to your troop leadership, stating Yes, I lie. Theres nothing wrong with it. If you cant accept me, then its your problem. - OR, an adulterer imagine these statements, Yes, I like sleeping around on my wife. What business is it of yours? I can be just as good of a role model as the next guy, so take your prejudices and leave me alone. As I said, the short of this debate for BSA (I believe) is that homosexuals refuse to acknowledge their behavior as immoral and will not turn from it. It is not that their sins are worse than everybody elses. However, for those who believe that God see all sin exactly the same, I point them to their Bible (Old and New Testaments). While all sin separates us from Him, God condemns homosexuality in the harshest language. Littlebillie, If homosexuality is natural and acceptable because one can find it in nature, then pedophilia and bestiality is natural well. For that matter, so is murder and lust. Just because its in the world that does not mean God wanted it to be that way. pfann, I agree.

Perhaps you just view "belief in God" as a religion, which helps one become a better person. So it seems, because inevitably, Merlyn and others point out that they have good morals despite not having such a belief. I venture to say that BSA and most others believe in God because he is real and deserves our reverence. We don't believe in Him so that we may obtain good character (although, He certainly could help us in this area). We believe in Him, because He deserves to be honored and worshiped. Those who refuse to honor Him do not understand the value, nor should they be members of BSA. As for first amendment rights, I suggest you read the whole Constitution. It is BSA who is being victimized by those who do not understand or believe in its principles.

While we may condemn both, we tend to blame raging hormones in the teenagers case and we tend to discuss abominations in the case of the gay. While both are wrong, we see one as "normal" and the other as "abnormal" and attach a degree of sinfulness to it from a human perspective. God sees both as sin period. In the teenagers case, the sin is due to the fact that the couple is not bound by marriage. In the homosexuals case, there are actually two sins being committed first, as was true for the teenagers, they are not bound by marriage, at least not one that would be recognized by God. Second, their sexual behavior is a perversity of nature and God goes so far as to declare their acts as an abomination through His Word, in both the new and old testaments. In the end, I agree sin is sin. All sin separates us from God. I also agree it is highly probable that we all sin everyday, despite our best efforts. However, if we repent and accept Jesus into our hearts, if we accept His sacrifice on the cross - to atone for our sins, we are forgiven. Yet, if homosexuals proclaim their sexuality as natural (I was born this way) and refute any notion that their behavior is sinful, how can they be repentant? I would not want to encourage them in this line of thinking I was born this way. My urges are every bit as natural as any heterosexuals. The bible clearly rejects that claim.

Your son may like steak and potatoes and you think it would be better for him to eat broccoli and cauliflower even though it makes him gag. Both will nourish him, but one he will enjoy and eat every meal. The other he will avoid and pick at. What is wrong with letting him pick the steak and potatoes if you know he will eat it and enjoy it and stick with it. To use your analogy - Because Steak and potatoes will eventually kill him. High cholesterol will be his fate. As the parent, it is my responsibility to train my son to eat right. He needs to understand that while the occasional steak is okay, a steady diet of it will rapidly cause ones health to deteriorate. A troop with very little structure and a carefree attitude may seem very appealing to an 11 or 12 year-old. Conversely, a troop with lots of older boys who are always looking over the younger boys shoulders may seem too restrained. As the parent, I know that the latter is a much better situation. It would be an excellent environment for learning. Furthermore, it does not preclude the fun that my son would be expecting. My son may or may not be wise enough to come to the same conclusion. A parent should have input about the troop choice, but a boy should decide. I prefer the flip-flop of that statement. A boy should have input about the troop choice, but a parent should decide.

kwc57, Okay...Perhaps we agree more than we disagree. However, while I understand your point that the sex drive is very strong (whether it is perverted or not), it should not be lost that heterosexuality (in and of itself) is not sinful. In short, it would be ridiculous for a married man to abstain from sex with his wife for a lifetime just to prove a point. As for my own sexual behavior (before my marriage), I am not as innocent as I would like to claim. Regardless, this does not nullify the wrongness of it. When I was ten or eleven years old, I use to tell a few lies too. Even so, I feel fully qualified and justified to speak out against its malevolence. God calls us to speak out against evil (sin) when we see it. He did not demand moral perfection as a perquisite. But, he does demand that we repent of own sins. In the final analysis, this is what I am suggesting - that homosexuals reject their behavior and seek a righteous life. For some reason, you seem to think I am asking too much. Yet, I am merely the messenger. Does your bible tell you to do differently or to refrain from delivering the message?

NJ, Not to burst your bubble, but I wasn't trying to imply agreement with your position. I was simply shaking my head at the futility of the attempted gesture. As to how sincere eisely was or is, judging by his previous posts, I have to think he was inspired by goodwill, not mean-spiritedness. And if it was the latter, his prayer could hardly pack much sting, particularly when you consider Merlyns disdain for religion. I think its safe to say if it had any effect, it was for the positive. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

kwc57, There is no easy answer to the problem of homosexuality. All I can come up with is....walk a mile in someone else's shoes before you criticize them. Hence, my suggestion that for all of those people who think abstinence is the answer......give it a try yourself (for the rest of your life) before you so boldly tell someone else that it is the only answer for them. So, from these comments, am I to presume that you believe that there are no single people who believe and/or are capable of remaining celibate until marriage, or until death if marriage is not in their future? Are overpowering urges an excuse or justification for behavior? You know, while I realize that rape is a crime of violence, some rapists actually rape to satisfy an overpowering urge to quench a sexual desire (i.e., date rape). Does this mean we should not criticize them for their lack of restraint? What about a pedophile? Do we ask too much of them to remain abstinent? NJ, Rooster, when you respond, I wouldn't bother referring to the Bible. Since I have shown that your hypothesis (gays are born gay) means that God doesn't have a problem with them being gay, then the Word of God can't possibly declare that homosexuality is a sin. God wouldn't declare his own work to be a sin, right? As ScoutParent has already pointed out, your logic is very flawed. In fact, lets carry it all the way through, just to illustrate how flawed it truly is. So, if what you say is true for sexual orientation, it must be true for all human desires and behaviors right? It wouldnt make sense to say God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals, but he doesnt have a hand in the makeup of others. Consequently, we must also assume that God creates pedophiles. But why limit this premise to sexuality? God also created every person who ever raped, murdered, or stole. Why do we judge and point an accusing finger at these individuals? How can we call these things sins? After all, God created them. He must have known that they were going to have a propensity to do those behaviors. Are you proposing that we close all prisons? Are you suggesting that society should point its collective finger at God? Where does this nonsense end?

kwc57, I'm not sure what you meant by your last comment - "Scouters keep telling us Webelos that the decision of which troop to join belongs to the boy." Are these Scouters implying that the parents desires are extraneous? If so, they are placing way too much emphasis on the 'boy-run' philosophy. My house is not boy-run. Any Scouter who thinks I should acquiesce to my son because it is more inline with BSAs ideals about a boy-run troop is not in tune with reality. NJ, In regard to your comment - Gee Rooster, that is a great argument for local option No, I beg to differ. I was speaking to areas of the program where the troop has latitude. My comments were not meant to imply that BSAs values were up for grabs. Their principles should not be compromisedthey are not optional. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Yes, but I would be staking my opinion on what I believed to be were the values and policies of my sons' troop. So, in the end, if the troop supported the adult who's values opposed mine, I would recognize that fact and seek a different troop. I seriously doubt if I will run into that problem with my sons' current troop, and most others for that matter. Nevertheless, whether I become involved a similar situation is irrelevant. Troops do have some leeway in some of these matters. Parents should seek a troop that most reflects their attitudes. If they cannot find such a troop, perhaps they should examine their own values or consider other options for their sons.

ScoutParent, Amen. You've hit the nail on the head. People continue to speak of homosexuality as if it is something other than behavior. I have news for those folks. I'm a heterosexual with four kids and a wife. If I wanted to, I could have abstained from sex... I could have chosen to be a single man with no kids and no wife. While that might be a lonely existence (although, I know God provides for us in all circumstances), it is a choice that we can make. Likewise, the homosexual is not driven by God or anyone else to engage in perverse behavior. He can chose to abstain. Do you think every person with a perverse urge must carry it out - to be true to himself? If so, we're in a lot of trouble. Wait a minute, may be we're already there. I pray we reverse the trend that this world seems to have set for itself. I doubt that it's possible, but as God fearing people we certainly should not embrace it.

Oh brother!

I'm pretty confident that the trail I was looking for, is the Virginia Creeper. However, I still have a problem. It turns out that this trail is 8.5 hours away from my town. Although I am interested in doing this trip one day, I know my troop will not want to take a 8.5 hour drive (one way), just to do a 2 to 3 hour bike ride. Sooooooooooo... Does anyone know of a bike trail that is primarily downhill and flat for 15 miles or more, near D.C. (less than 4 hours away)? Thanks in advance for the help.

kwc57, I'm not standing in judgment of the individual, just the sin. No matter how strong one's urges are, they do not excuse the sin. Can I empathize with the sinner...Yes, because as you know, we are all are guilty. Is this hypercritical? If so, we are all hypocrites. Still, does that justify sin? So, how does the homosexual differentiate himself from other sinners.? You talk as if they are somehow different.

kwc57, There are one or two boys in my son's den that I'd bet cold hard cash on that they will grow up to be gay. I know profiling is not very PC, but there are too many stereotypical indicators in these boys for me to think otherwise. Much of that is based on what I observed in kids I grew up with who turned out to be gay. Can you say, self-fulfilling prophesy? I know of a few boys that fit your description, but I do not presume that they will continue to display the same characteristics as men. As mentors, we have a responsibility to help these boys develop into men. While each man is different, there are certain qualities that we all should embrace. For some it comes naturally, for others it takes some training. If you do not have a strong vision as to what it means to be a man, then a boy under your mentorship will follow your queue. To me, whether or not someone can be born homosexual or has genes that can make him predisposed to the behavior is irrelevant. The behavior is immoral. Say tomorrow, scientists provide evidence that backs this claim one is born homosexual. What does it prove? What should we think of bestiality and other perversities if the same kind of evidence is presented for these behaviors? The real question is, does everyone have the capacity to determine whether or not ones behavior is immoral? I submit the answer is yes. You asked Ed Mori to imagine how these men came to be homosexual. Let me ask you a question how do you suppose these men justified embracing homosexuality when the vast majority of society was decrying it as perverse and evil? Hmmm, it feels so right, society must be wrong. God wants me to have sex with other men, just as if they were women. I know we wont have children, but this is obviously a gift from God. I will do this, even though my family and friends will reject me. I will do this because its the only way I can be satisfied and happy. This sounds pretty self-centered and perverse to me. In fact, I hesitate to write some of it for fear of offending my God. Perhaps you can imagine some other kind of self-talk that the homosexual goes through. But I doubt that it will come off as sincere or convincing. These men caved in to sexual cravings that they know are contradictory to nature, society, and God. In short, it felt good to them, so they did it. (This message has been edited by Rooster7)