Jpurdue, We are in agreement on that point, yet we find the behavior reprehensible. Why is that behavior reprehensible and homosexuality not? Morality. Not biology. The biology is irrelevant when it comes to humans. We ALWAYS have a choice in our behavior (with some exceptions).

Different stories. Samaritan woman at the well and woman caught in adultery are different people. Carry on.

Need to shake your hand and hug your neck sometime.

And yet there's a whole lot more in the bible about Judge not lest ye be judged. Love thy neighbor. Forgive those who trespass against you. Love one another. But let there be one obscure line from Leviticus and boy howdy are we on top of that!

Nothing says good Christian family values better than disowning blood.

How judgemental of you.

The Samaritan woman had been "married" 5 times and was at the time living with someone whom she was not married to. True, Jesus didn't mention adultery but just what is aduletry? Many Christian theologies consider multiple marriages as adulterous.

Agree with your point. I'll argue as other have argued though. Put the shoe on the other foot. If the morality of the matter were reversed, and being gay was the "moral" orientation, could you force yourself to be gay? Most I think would find that difficult or impossible. I'm not suggesting morality is fluid, as I believe it also has a basis in biology, I'm simply presenting this as a thought experiment.

Most poignant thing I've read here and what many folks hide behind. How in the world can one seek to live a clean and holy lifestyle without discerning what is actually wrong (sinful). So when someone calls it out for what they say it is they are not being judgeful ... that requires you condemning them for whatever act they are doing. Like saying "You're going to He11 for _______________ "! God is the one and only one to judge sin.as guilty or not.

There are fundamental differences between urges/preferences, tendencies, and actions. The vast majority of conversations on this topic do not draw distinctions between these three things.

1. Urges/Preferences: Regardless of religious or political beliefs, I just don't understand how one can come to the conclusion that homosexual urges/preferences are a choice. If heterosexual urges/preferences are not a choice, than logic would indicate the inverse to be true as well.

2. Tendencies: Of the 3, tendencies are the most debatable. I believe people have varying control of their tendencies based on the strength of their urges/preferences.

3. Actions: Just like I cannot see how people can dispute #1 as fact, I do not see how people can dispute that actions are choices. Humans have free will to choose how they act.

To answer the OP questions, I would not love or treat my children any differently. Their urges/preferences are beyond their control, they have little control over their tendencies, and I would not ask them to suppress their actions based on their physiological makeup.

RayBob,
Sorry, I was not clear. I wasn't making any statement as to the content of this side discussion, only pointing out the woman at the well story (who had been married multiple times and now living with a man who was not her husband) and the woman caught in adultery that was about to be stoned were different stories. Just clarification, nothing more.

Sodom and Gomorrah

Sure thing, Kattelyn!

Let's hope no one judges us for commiting adultery against our spouses!