OK, so you're an atheist, or (more likely, given your responses in post #220) a homosexual.
WTF are you doing on FR? Especially with a 1998 sign-up date?
To quote Jim Robinson:
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.
Key word there being "LICENSE". Again, a man-made law....while I'm trumping your argument with "Natural Law". What LAW OF NATURE forbids heterosexuals from having sex whenever or with whosoever they desire? Please tell me.
It's not a trump card. You're changing the subject, having had your favorite weapon "wiring inside the womb" knocked out of your hand.
The point about the "irrelevant to a Christian" was that even heterosexual impulses are in the main restrained in the interests of morality; so the mere presence of wiring in the brain causing a prediliction or predisposition to certain attractions is not enough to render acting on those attractions morally permissible.
As far as "LICENSE" -- take it in one of two ways. A figure of speech meaning "moral permission or sanction" (which would be covered above); or in the context of the current controversy over Prop 8 in CA and "gay marriage", license offered by the state. In which case your "man-made" charge goes away, since it applies to the queer judge's ruling.
The LAW OF NATURE forbids homosexuality on pain of extinction.
Homosexuals cannot even maintain their OWN population without poaching on the offspring of "breeders" : which is why they want so many "sexuality" and "tolerance" classes going down to kindergarten, in order to prepare the field for future recruits.
Again....Christian law does NOT trump Natural Law.
"Natural law" as you call it, is a man-made construct.
As are all models of neural wiring, hormones, and the like. Many homosexuals have "recovered" after having been recruited into the lifestyle, and many are recruited: I therefore conclude that there is more than one mechanism operating, despite your attempted ex cathedra claims.
Sure, homosexuals can live as heterosexuals, in order to appease societal norms, but.....they cannot change what God made them.
That's not true of all homosexuals: not all are hard-wired as such.
Those that are, are still compelled by morality to abstain, just as many other hard-wired impulses must be resisted.
And certainly, arguing for the "right" for a state sanction for what remains a perversion, is dead wrong.
I’m neither an athiest, nor homosexual. Not that it’s any of your business.
Just making the observation that fiscal Conservatives are FULL members in the Conservative wing.
And FreeRepublic has been my homepage since August, 1998. And probably hit this site 10X more than you do on any given day.
Get lost, you freak.