NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are SO many people so inflamed over homosexuality? I have tried to debate here in OTHER threa why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality for modern Christians, and have accepted the fact that most conservative Christians just cover their ears and won't be swayed. So can I ask you, as a Christian, why you are focusing on homosexuality?

What about:
Fornification

Condemned much more than homosexuality in the Bible, fornification is much more widespread than homosexuality. The majority of young Christian teenagers are taught against homosexuality, but in my area at least I see young Christian teenagers committing fornification left and right and thinking it is ok. If you are going to predjudice against gay people, what about fornicators? If you are going to bring up the "gays this, gays that" Why not "fornicators this, fornicators that"? Is it maybe because fornification is more "common", and since so many Christians do it that makes it ok? Since homosexuality is more rare, its not ok, is that the logic?
I guaruantee there are fornicators in political office, and everywhere. But if a person who has been a homosexual in the past ever tries to enter office or anything, they won't get it. The Bible EQUALLY condemns homosexuality with fornification. Sex outside of marriage is just as wrong.

Are you being a true Christian to your belief when you focus on the act of homosexuality, and ignore these other acts in your discussions with friends and such? If your friend was a fornicator, are you going to bring that up to them equally as you would if they would gay?

Are you going to badger your friends about fornification because it is a sin equally condemned in the Bible as much as you would a gay friend about their homosexuality?

Do you see my point here?

Good question. Personally, I find that the idea of divorce being ignored to be the biggest wonder to me.

Good question. Personally, I find that the idea of divorce being ignored to be the biggest wonder to me.
I agree
"we can't disturb the sanctity of marriage!!"
too late...it seems...

There are something like 600 admonishments to heterosexuals, and like 5 or so homosexuals, go figure.

I think it's because "god hates fags." But according to the same part of the bible where homosexuality is explicitly denied, God also forbids eating shellfish and birds that go upon four legs. Ergo I think also "God hates crab eating fags," and "not actually a real animal eating fags"

And do you know what i think GOD IS GAY

..... Ergo I think also "God hates crab eating fags," and "not actually a real animal eating fags"

*chokes on coke*

Man, laughing while drinking = bad :p

*chokes on coke*

Man, laughing while drinking = bad :p


glad i could improve your evening but i'll probably get warned lol :cool:

I mean really though, seriously, this is ridiculous. It is turning into a witch burning. Well not so violent, but metaphorically.

I'd say it's because it's easy to shout "Gays are bad! <insert bible quote>!"

It's harder to shout "Shellfish are evil! <insert bible quote>!" or "Let's force people who aren't in love to stay married! Never mind spousal abuse! <insert bible quote>!"

Plus the fact that maybe *two* out of the dozens of anti-gay Christians I've seen here have actually got any idea about homosexuality.

I mean, cheez, most of them still think it can be 'cured' by psyciatric help (hello? They go into denial. That's, what we call in the business, *not healthy*).

God especially hates those fucking shellfish (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)



....Heeeeeeeeeeeehehehehehe xD

christianity has traditionally had a patriarchal power structure (women aren't allowed to speak in church...and are supposed to go about their life "in all subjugation"...see 1 timothy)...and homosexuality is a challenge to the gender roles, and thus a threat to the power of "christian" leaders, and thus condemed.

I think you'll find god created a man's penis to be inserted into a woman's vagina not another man's rectum

I think you'll find god created a man's penis to be inserted into a woman's vagina not another man's rectum

Possible-I mean, lets be honest here folks, it's a hole filled with human feces


Oral is another story altogether :p

I think you'll find god created a man's penis to be inserted into a woman's vagina not another man's rectum

Then what is with the anal g-spot? And why does it fit so well?

"Hmm...What will be one of the worse sins two people can do together? Well homosexuality. What should I do to stop that I wonder? Ooh! I know! I'll make some two men attracted to each other and put a big ol' clitoris in their bums! That'll put a stop to it!"


And what of lesbians? They are homosexuals too (homo meaning same not man).

Then what is with the anal g-spot? And why does it fit so well? And what of lesbians? They are homosexuals too (homo meaning same not man).


I dunno crap about the anal g-spot. But lesbians?

Toys and tongues :p

I think you'll find god created a man's penis to be inserted into a woman's vagina not another man's rectum

Can you explain why a higher percentage of straight guys bum girls than gay guys bum guys?

I dunno crap about the anal g-spot. But lesbians?

Toys and tongues :p

The anal g-spot, for some men, is the prostate. Have you ever seen the movie "Road Trip"?

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see. As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus. Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see. As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus. Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

If you go into the "should gay marriage be a political issue" thread, you will find links that explain the prevalence of gay animals. Yes, they do exist.

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see. As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus. Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

LOL! You gotta be doing a parody right? Nope ok then:

1) Some men are attracted to other men some to other women. It really is that simple. Why else would they do it dummie?
2) There ARE homosexual monkies. Quite a few in fact. Also there are lots of gay girraffes and various other animals.
3)There IS an anal clitoris. Why else would men shove it up there? Also the pleasure is natural. Have you recieved bum sex? No? Then how the fuck would you know?
4) What is against nature is repressing your feelings because some dumb fuck religious leader says so.

Even if they do exist it still doesn't make it right, its still un-natural.

Even if they do exist it still doesn't make it right, its still un-natural.
Classic. :D

Nature is un-natural.

Even if they do exist it still doesn't make it right, its still un-natural.

Was it put in by a robot then or something? Look, people feel attracted to each other and when they have sex they enjoy it. There is NOTHING unnatural there.

Even if they do exist it still doesn't make it right, its still un-natural.

Natural = what occurs in nature. If it occurs in nature, it is therefore natural.

It is unnatural because if people all start turning gay we're going to stop existing.
In order to keep existing we need to breed, which involves a man and a woman.
Attraction helps to encourage this breeding as i said before. There would be no nature with out life, so why would homosexuality be natural if it does not involve breeding?

It is unnatural because if people all start turning gay we're going to stop existing.
In order to keep existing we need to breed, which involves a man and a woman.
Attraction helps to encourage this breeding as i said before. There would be no nature with out life, so why would homosexuality be natural if it does not involve breeding?

Well, first of all in this day and age heterosexual sex isn't required for breeding. Ever hear of artificial ensemination? Secondly, no one ever said that there was a need to be exclusively homosexual. Some animals within the species are homosexual, some aren't. Simply because the species thrives says very little about the percentage of animals within that species that aren't homosexual.

Well since the protection of marriage is what this seems to be about (according to the homophobes) I'm still waiting for the constitutional amendment out-lawing divorce.. lets see how well that goes over..lol

It is unnatural because if people all start turning gay we're going to stop existing.
In order to keep existing we need to breed, which involves a man and a woman.
Attraction helps to encourage this breeding as i said before. There would be no nature with out life, so why would homosexuality be natural if it does not involve breeding?
*poof*

Dammit, I've just become homosexual.

*bang*

The rest of the world has.

<We all suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke>


Homosexuality is not a plague, nor is it contagious. The whole world will not turn gay. There is evidence to suggest that homosexuals a beneficial to the health of our species as a whole, because there are nearly too many of us. There is no need for every member of the human race to procreate and it would be disaterous if it were the case.

Homosexuality is natural because it occurs in nature. And as pointed out already, what occurs in nature is natural.

Just because homosexuality does not create babies (naturaly at least) does not make it unnatural. Mother Nature is often quite a bitch, she makes plagues to kill off animals which are perfectly natural and keep down the numbers. It would be rational to think that homosexuality is the same. A natural form of birth control to keep down the numbers with no death required.

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see. As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus. Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

I always thought they did it because chicks are hot.

I always thought they did it because chicks are hot.

NO! IT IS SATAN!!!!!!!!! PRAY FOR MERCYT!

Why are SO many people so inflamed over homosexuality? What about:
Fornification

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Alot of the anti-gay stuff on here is not "Christian" nor do i think it is written by Christians as it smacks of bigotry and hate. Any sex outside marriage in the bible is a no no, and there are alot more straight unmarried couples than gay folks!

There is so much self-rightousness in alot of our discussions, which is not just a Christian flaw ;) ! Jesus condemned self rightousness, as it hammered the people who needed compassion and love. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I must confess that I tend to like people for the kind of person they are - religion and sexuality does little to colour my impression of them. These are labels - it is much more revealing to see the actual person.

Anyway, I am amazed that this subject keeps cropping up!

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Alot of the anti-gay religion and sexuality does little to colour my impression of them. These are labels - it is much more revealing to see the actual person.

!


You know actualy I think you are right. If I described myself as a bisexual atheist vegetarian socialist I end up sounding really weird. This is not the case but the labels say so.

LOL! You gotta be doing a parody right? Nope ok then:

1) Some men are attracted to other men some to other women. It really is that simple. Why else would they do it dummie?
2) There ARE homosexual monkies. Quite a few in fact. Also there are lots of gay girraffes and various other animals.
3)There IS an anal clitoris. Why else would men shove it up there? Also the pleasure is natural. Have you recieved bum sex? No? Then how the fuck would you know?
4) What is against nature is repressing your feelings because some dumb fuck religious leader says so.

Ok, i know men and women are attracted to other men and women "dummie". That is exactly what i'm saying is un natural.

I said already that because some animals are homosexual doesn't make it right, why don't you start cleaning your balls with your tongue like a dog if thats what you believe.

It's true i have never recieved bum sex and i never plan to. It's filthy and wrong to shove ur penis where fecies comes out. You may as well scoop out what is in your toilet and rub it all over your wang.

I don't really care what religous leaders say... most of what they say is shit anyway... u shouldn't do it because it is just plain un natural

Ok, i know men and women are attracted to other men and women "dummie". That is exactly what i'm saying is un natural.

I said already that because some animals are homosexual doesn't make it right, why don't you start cleaning your balls with your tongue like a dog if thats what you believe.

Because it is considerably easier not to and to use soap and water.


I don't really care what religous leaders say... most of what they say is shit anyway... u shouldn't do it because it is just plain un natural
I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that it is unnatural.

Working on a computer could also be contrued as 'unnatural,' should that be allowed?

Ok, i know men and women are attracted to other men and women "dummie". That is exactly what i'm saying is un natural.

I said already that because some animals are homosexual doesn't make it right, why don't you start cleaning your balls with your tongue like a dog if thats what you believe.

It's true i have never recieved bum sex and i never plan to. It's filthy and wrong to shove ur penis where fecies comes out. You may as well scoop out what is in your toilet and rub it all over your wang.

I don't really care what religous leaders say... most of what they say is shit anyway... u shouldn't do it because it is just plain un natural

Why don't you go to the Is homosexuality natural thread, this thread is not for discussing if it is natural or not. This is about Christians criticizing homosexuality while not criticizing equally other sins condemned equally.

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature, so there you can see how its connected to nature, whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature, so there you can see how its connected to nature, whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.

What about computers? Are they natural? Or art: no other animal makes visual representations of other things. Is that unnatural?

Admittedly there is no evolutionary advantage to the individual in having anal sex, but -- so what? If other people want to do it, why the bloody hell should you care? Why are you so fascinated by all this? It does seem to be weighing on your mind more than a little.

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature, so there you can see how its connected to nature, whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.

Actually you were the one who stated that women were tools for breeding, as you said something to the effect of "the reason we're attracted to women is to breed." Not to mention that the people who ARE attracted to women would be having sex with them. People aren't going to have homosexual sex if the idea doesn't appeal to them.

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature, so there you can see how its connected to nature, whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.
lol...what?!

Ok, i know men and women are attracted to other men and women "dummie". That is exactly what i'm saying is un natural.

No it is not. People have those feelings from birth they are not added in or anything.

[QUOTE=The Brinks]I said already that because some animals are homosexual doesn't make it right, why don't you start cleaning your balls with your tongue like a dog if thats what you believe.

Well it does not make it right but it makes it natural.

It's true i have never recieved bum sex and i never plan to. It's filthy and wrong to shove ur penis where fecies comes out. You may as well scoop out what is in your toilet and rub it all over your wang..

1)Not really, the arse tends to be washed and hence not filled with poo.
2)If you have never recieved it then shut the hell up what would you know? Have you studied the subject?

Animals dont need to use computer which run business's which provide services to their community which helps them live.
I did say that but not becasue we use them as tools. If a man is attracted to a woman he is hardly using her as a tool. However if 2 men are attracted to one another and wish to have a child they no doubt need a woman....using her as a tool to have a child which they should not have.

And any way:
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” - Romans 3:23

"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men: but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven."- Matthew 12:31


So should any one be condemning any one?

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural.

Because it is.

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature, so there you can see how its connected to nature, whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.

Well nature obviously dose see a reason. Our huge overpopulation perhaps? To keep out numbers down? Because it is NATURAL HUMAN NATURE to do things that you enjoy?

Animals dont need to use computer which run business's which provide services to their community which helps them live.
I did say that but not becasue we use them as tools. If a man is attracted to a woman he is hardly using her as a tool. However if 2 men are attracted to one another and wish to have a child they no doubt need a woman....using her as a tool to have a child which they should not have.

Not at all, they could adopt.

Animals dont need to use computer which run business's which provide services to their community which helps them live.
I did say that but not becasue we use them as tools. If a man is attracted to a woman he is hardly using her as a tool. However if 2 men are attracted to one another and wish to have a child they no doubt need a woman....using her as a tool to have a child which they should not have.

Yes? Well she can only be used as a tool if she wants to be unless the rape her and even then she can still have an abortion.

i'm aware soap and water is easier, thats not the point, the point is that people seem to think if animals do it it's natural

Well it is isn't it?

Care to enlighten us on what is natural then?

As for being natural, if homosexuality is natural then it is sending everyone a strong message that women are tools for breeding, and that our attraction to them means very little. People work on computers to help run a business, which provides services to people, which allows them to live, without life there is no nature

Sophistry. You have not explained why we should tolerate those un-natural office workers.

, so there you can see how its connected to nature,

Doesn't make it natural. All you have done is provide. You may as well say that a dolphine is a fish because it lives in the water.

whereas the insertion of ones penis into anothers rectum, that i still fail to see as natural.

What, in your eyes, is natural.

Since you do not seem to see things that animals do as natural.

Also if you believe homosexuality is unnatural you are obviously not bi or a homo(unless you are locked in the closet that is). I feel attracted to both men and women. Can I choose this? Nope, not at all. I am attracted to a strait guy at school, if homosexuality was just something I could turn on and off like a lightbulb would I turn it off? Yep. Of course.

I don't really care what religous leaders say... most of what they say is shit anyway... u shouldn't do it because it is just plain un natural

I'm sure that we are all relieved that you know what is natural and what is not. What is the source of this knowledege? It's pretty selfish for you to keep it to yourself.

Animals dont need to use computer which run business's which provide services to their community which helps them live.

a) Is it therefore un-natural.
b) If so, why should it be tolerated?

I did say that but not becasue we use them as tools. If a man is attracted to a woman he is hardly using her as a tool. However if 2 men are attracted to one another and wish to have a child they no doubt need a woman....using her as a tool to have a child which they should not have.
Yes we should force the poor girl to keep the baby.

Also I note you mention that if homosexuality is natural this will send out the wrong message. Well guess what: facts are facts no matter what message they send out. Whether homosexuality is or is not natural is not determined by what message it sends.

Religion = poison

enough said :)

Also Brinks lemme pop you a question to which I hope the awnser will be no: if you ever get into a position of power in your country would you ban homosexual sex?

using her as a tool to have a child which they should not have.

Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot.

*Should* not have? Who are you to tell people what they *should* and *should* not do? God? The Pope? Please enlighten us, since you seem to be speaking from some amazing peak of knowledge - not only knowing what people *should* do, but also the 'true' definition of 'natural' (ie, not actually what occurs in nature).

And before you say "kids need a mum and a dad"... that's bullshit. Kids can be raised by homosexuals with no adverse effects (as long as their parents don't do any of the non-sexuality-based things like abuse). Gays should be allowed to adopt kids - and if they can find someone willing to bear their child, *I* fail to see why there's any reason anyone should be able to tell them not to.

I don't hate queers for religous reasons. I hate it because its wrong and not natural. When queers kiss it makes me want to throw up.

I don't hate queers for religous reasons. I hate it because its wrong and not natural. When queers kiss it makes me want to throw up.

Sounds like the problem is on your end, not theirs.

I bet it makes them sick seeing straight people kiss, but I don't hear *them* complaining.

Again, what is your definition of 'natural'? Obviously not "occuring in nature", since homosexuality does. Maybe "natural" to you means "something I'd do"?

Sounds about right from this side of the internet.

I don't hate queers for religous reasons. I hate it because its wrong and not natural. When queers kiss it makes me want to throw up.

<forwards pictures of gay men and lesbians kissing to Enodscopia's mailbox.>

I don't hate queers for religous reasons. I hate it because its wrong and not natural. When queers kiss it makes me want to throw up.
:confused:

Lesbians make you want to throw up?

:confusion:

Lesbians make you want to throw up?

Not as much as men kissing but they still make me mad.

:confusion:

Lesbians make you want to throw up?

:D I was going to comment on that too... seriously, most conversations I've had with people who don't oppose it for religious reasons are all like
Moron: "Gays make me sick"
Me: "Really? Even lesbians?"
Moron: "NO! Lesbians are hot!"

Ummmmm..... the clue-metre is reading zero here....

(and this obviously wasn't directed at anyone here... so far, anyway....)

Not as much as men kissing but they still make me mad.
I think that is un-natural.

It all narrows down to education. If people had a great education they would be smarter and would choose their husbands/wives more carefully, therefore rendering the problem of divorce OBSELITE.

It all narrows down to education. If people had a great education they would be smarter and would choose their husbands/wives more carefully, therefore rendering the problem of divorce OBSELITE.

Well, I can't tell if you're on the anti-gays side, but if you are, I have some bad news: studies have shown that higher levels of education also lead to more people openly accepting their own alternate sexualities.

Ie, more education = more people willing to accept they're gay.

If you want to do it, do it. Damn any one who says its unnatural. (this dosent include Murder, rape etc) Sex is good. Anal sex is good. Oral sex is good. Gay sex is good. Lesbian sex is good. Its all good as long as both (or more ;) ) parties consent.

Surrogate mothers are very genorous people. They want to have a kid for people who cant. Brinks if you couldnt have kids would you think it would be alright if some one allowed you the gift of child?

:sniper: Im hunting homophobes.

Sin is sin is sin...

The question is, are you condemning all Christians based on the fact that we're not all perfect? No, we're not perfect, just forgiven. Homosexuals, fornicators, etc., cannot be right in God's eyes until they give up their sin. That simple.

Of course, keep in mind that you're listening to a devout Christian, one who is convinced that God's way is the one and only way to live your life. My life isn't problem-free, just a bunch simpler since I accepted the fact that I'm not the one in charge of it. My husband and I try to live according to God's instruction book for life--the Bible. It was a little bit of a struggle, but our first time was our wedding night.

I'm not condemning anyone for their sins. I *know* I have my own sins to be concerned with. I do try to set an example for others, though, and I will happily tell anyone who cares to listen what changes God has made in my life and the changes He can make in theirs.

I used to be a neo-liberal hippie wannabe type. My last serious boyfriend before my husband was an Athiest bisexual. Of course, that all ended when I found my way back to God. His choice. He couldn't take my change in values, didn't even want to try to understand.

I think that's the problem between Christians and non-Christians. Neither side wants to understand the other. Non-Christians condemn Christians for their beliefs, and sometimes, Christians forget the mess they were in before they were saved and condemn right back. Goodness knows, I'm dealing with my family condemning me for my life's choices, and it is REALLY difficult for me to not do the same with them. I'm trying not to, trying really hard sometimes and reminding myself constantly of where I used to be. LOL, it helps to remind myself of my lack of perfection! As I already said, it's only God's grace that is allowing me the hope of Christianity.

It all narrows down to education. If people had a great education they would be smarter and would choose their husbands/wives more carefully, therefore rendering the problem of divorce OBSELITE.

Firstly, I believe you meant "obsolete".
Secondly, the Divorce rate among the rich and well educated is a little higher than the national average.

No religion, no government, no law, NOBODY has the right to interfere with what consenting adults do in private.

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."
-Robert A. Heinlein

The fact gays make people sick is simply because of anal sex. It is disgusting, sure men can do it to woman but thats no better. Your penis does not belong in there its as simple as that.
Being openly gay is not a good thing as it will make people assume it is ok for anyone to be gay. If a man began to hit on me i would not hesitate in smacking him one in the jaw. Also it sends a bad message to our children, if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight. I wish to have grand children with MY blood flowing in them, thus continuing my families name. I do not wish to have some random persons blood in a child who claims to be my grandson who is being raised by 2 fathers. That is just not right.

I can't see how two people being in love with each other could be considered disgusting. I happen to be straight. I like the look and feel of a woman's body (though their minds can be somewhat infuriating, j/k...or am I?) But that doesn't mean that someone that has urges and wants that don't synch up with mine is evil or bad or sick, they're just wired differently. As long as no one gets hurt, what the hell do I care?

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that a religion should be forced to embrace it. That's the whole seperation of church and state thing working FOR the religion too. But any laws that are in effect have to be fairly and evenly applied so that anyone can visit a loved one in the hospital and inherit money without having to jump through hoops, among other things.

It may be trite to say so, but the world needs MORE love, not more intolerance. The more families we can have looking out for each other, the better. Too many kids go unadopted, or are bounced from one home to the next. A child without a family is way more un-natural than anything that occurs between two people who love each other!

Also it sends a bad message to our children, if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight..

The 'bad message' being "Love is a good emotion. Wait... what? He has the same genitals as you?!? I CONDEMN YOU TO THE ARMY, SPAWN OF SATAN!"

:rolleyes:

I agree with whoever said that the world needs *more* love, not *limits* on who you can love.

Oh, and if you plan on dictating your children's lives to fill your wishes, maybe you should invest in pets instead. Parents who live vicariously through their children are a heck of a lot worse than homosexuals as a group will ever be.

The fact gays make people sick is simply because of anal sex. It is disgusting, sure men can do it to woman but thats no better. Your penis does not belong in there its as simple as that.
Being openly gay is not a good thing as it will make people assume it is ok for anyone to be gay.

It is, isn't it?

If a man began to hit on me i would not hesitate in smacking him one in the jaw.

Why don't you just your not gay. Or are you hiding something?

Also it sends a bad message to our children,

Being Gay = Bad.
Using Violence To sort out differences = Good.

if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight.

"Son, now because you gay I am sending you to a place where you will live very very close with other men"

great stratagy, you may as well make him play American Football.

Also, you cannot make somebody straight.

I wish to have grand children with MY blood flowing in them, thus continuing my families name. I do not wish to have some random persons blood in a child who claims to be my grandson who is being raised by 2 fathers. That is just not right.
Ahh, my heart bleeds for you. Poor little homophobe who doesn't have any blood grandchildren.

i fail to see how showing your love for someone is the same as shoving your genitals into their rectum

The fact gays make people sick is simply because of anal sex. It is disgusting, sure men can do it to woman but thats no better. Your penis does not belong in there its as simple as that.
Being openly gay is not a good thing as it will make people assume it is ok for anyone to be gay. If a man began to hit on me i would not hesitate in smacking him one in the jaw. Also it sends a bad message to our children, if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight. I wish to have grand children with MY blood flowing in them, thus continuing my families name. I do not wish to have some random persons blood in a child who claims to be my grandson who is being raised by 2 fathers. That is just not right.

It's been pretty well established that you can't "cure" someone of being gay. I'm straight. I will never engage in gay sex, no matter what the peer pressure or circumstances. I have kissed a guy, I didn't much care for it, it won't be happening again. I can no more be "cured" of my straightness than a gay person can be "cured." The sex you are attracted to is pretty much set from puberty on. If you force your theoretical son into a life he isn't biologically set up to follow, you inflict a lifetime of psychological pain that will most likely rip your family asunder.

As for disgusting...well, that's just a point of view, isn't it? Some people find mushrooms gross, and so don't eat them. Some people hate to dance. Some people dislike TV with a passion. Do we condemn the mushroom eating, TV watching, dancing fools just because we disagree with them?

i fail to see how showing your love for someone is the same as shoving your genitals into their rectum
What do you want them to do? Not that it is any of your business what they do.

And no one said it was. Are you saying the only reason you love your partner is because she is a good shag. Homosexuals are the same way. Love is not just about sex.

Religion should be based on something other than hate.
Everyone, no matter what religion always speak of love but react only with hate. Those of us in the minority who have no organized religion can only sit back and marvel at the inconsistencys of it all. Who cares what a person does in their own bedroom as long as they keep it there. :fluffle:

I honestly cant decide if some of you are talking to be talking, or if your incoherent babble is actually teetering on some points...

yes being gay is a sin, weighed against murder, or petty theft.....

ooo they are all the same, so, pretty much it comes down to literal translation of the Bible.

One: everyone sins and is forgivin if acceptance of the truth is there (god fogives)

Two: as such, God doesnt hate fags, just like he doesnt hate murderers, or someone who thinks about the ladies all the time in a not so clean manner, (YEAH BABY! i do it too, but hey im a guy!)

Three: also take into account that alot of the boundaries set are in Leviticus, which is in the old text. so things like eating shellfish and pork and birds is ok now...

Four: in the grand scheme of things it doesnt matter what is 'PC' in life, because when your dead the politicians dont open the pearly gates, Pete does!

FIVE AND FINAL: all sins are seen equally and no one is 'weighed' upon entering heaven, the only thing you cant do is Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, end of story... wait no that is Revelations

i fail to see how showing your love for someone is the same as shoving your genitals into their rectum

Well, if you both enjoy it, if you both get sexual satisfaction from doing it, then I imagine it's a perfectly acceptable way of showing your love for someone. If you don't like it, don't do it. Jesus.

So how is homosexuality a sin? If the Levitican laws don't apply anymore?

What do you want them to do? Not that it is any of your business what they do.

And no one said it was. Are you saying the only reason you love your partner is because she is a good shag. Homosexuals are the same way. Love is not just about sex.

thats what i'm saying, people tell me gays do this to show their love for one another, why do they have to when there are planty of other ways to do it, in particular, clean ways.

Christians target homosexuality, because it is the only thing that they have left to target. The church has lost the respect of vast amounts of people (too vast to comprehend) over the last century or so- people then blame the decrease in the numbers of church-going christians, on the rise in vices, such as pornography.

When rich, "Christian" men in the 19th Century grew bored, they wouldn't log on to the net and surf some lesbian action, they would find a mistress. So they in fact indulged their vices, but in a more private way (also, the church encourages female oppression (read 1timothy), and so women were told that it was a man's right to a mistress). Therefore, there is no link between a lack in faith, and a rise in immorality.

Christians tried to target people who had abortions, but hey!, most people favour abortion, and so they had to let that one go. Christians targetted Divorcees, but hey! Most people understand divorce. So now "Christians" (read the golden rule of agape, think of homosexuals- any negative thoughts about them disqualifies you as a christian!) target homesexuals- but HEY! HOMOSEXUALITY ISNT BAD! PEOPLE CANT HELP HOW THEY ARE BORN! GET A LIFE, AND MOVE WITH THE TIMES. BURN IN HELL YOU INTOLERANT "CHRISTIAN" SCUM!!!!!

God hates anything that is wrong/sin...Gay people go totally against His plan, and bad things result from homosexuality such as Aids, etc, it just wasn't meant to be...

thats what i'm saying, people tell me gays do this to show their love for one another, why do they have to when there are planty of other ways to do it, in particular, clean ways.

Well, some people who aren't religious *like* sex, you know. I know that if I were an adult, and in a steady (straight, since I am) relationship, I'd get pissed at people butting in and telling *me* not to have sex.

If you're only complaint is about them having sex, what about all the gays that *haven't* had sex, and are abstaining? Are they exempt from your judgment? Would you go so far as to even *gasp* admit that they're just people, like any straight person in the world?

thats what i'm saying, people tell me gays do this to show their love for one another, why do they have to when there are planty of other ways to do it, in particular, clean ways.
Like what?

thats what i'm saying, people tell me gays do this to show their love for one another, why do they have to when there are planty of other ways to do it, in particular, clean ways.

Maybe because they like this one better?

Are you saying that you are against homosexuality, or against anal sex? Because the two are not synonymous. What about lesbian clingfilm fetishists? Can't get much cleaner than that.

Ultimately, though, why do you get so worked up about what other people do? What is this fascination you have with other people and their sexual preferences?

God hates anything that is wrong/sin...Gay people go totally against His plan, and bad things result from homosexuality such as Aids, etc, it just wasn't meant to be...
Some children are born with AIDs. Does that mean God doesn't like childbirth.

Homosexuality isn't responsible for AIDs. Anyway, it is spreading faster in the heterosexual population.

Oh, and Mantid, all sins aren't equal..the Bible specifically talks about God hating things more than others, that would also be shown by the consequences..i believe the thing (which is in the Bible somewhere) which God hates the most is an hauty spirit..orrrr pride..

as for Leviticus and the meats they couldn't eat.that's old testament, that was to keep them away from disease..

Wow, you gents need to brush up on your Bible.

First, yes, the Old Testiment Laws have, for the most part mind, been eliminated by the death and resurrection of Christ, saving us from the Law that brought sin on our heads, as long as we had faith in Him.

Next, both Old and New Testiments explicitly forbid homosexual relationships. Paul was the main supporter of that as a means to seperate Christians from the rest of non-saved society.

Further, Christians are expected to be as law abiding as possible to show their seperation from the rest of mankind, so that they may be a visible example of the joy of being in Christ. I am not where I should be in that faith, and it will take me a long time before I can even be on steady footing.

I personally say that we can tell homosexuals that Biblically, their relationships are sinful, and bring them away from a relationship with God (as far as we know). I do not believe in actively persecuting them or taking away their rights as people because of it. They are still persons that are equal to you and I and should be respected because of it. If I want to spread the Word of God on the subject, I will not go to Mass. and start burning churches that have gay marriages, I will talk to the gay persons here about their lives and their relationship with Christ.

You respect my beliefs, I'll respect yours. I like to discuss my beliefs, I think you like to discuss yours too.

I offer no reason why so many Christians are getting ticked off. We need to be tolerant people, and respectful. Mouthy, yes, but not mean.

-R. S. of UC

The fact gays make people sick is simply because of anal sex. It is disgusting, sure men can do it to woman but thats no better. Your penis does not belong in there its as simple as that.
Being openly gay is not a good thing as it will make people assume it is ok for anyone to be gay. If a man began to hit on me i would not hesitate in smacking him one in the jaw. Also it sends a bad message to our children, if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight. I wish to have grand children with MY blood flowing in them, thus continuing my families name. I do not wish to have some random persons blood in a child who claims to be my grandson who is being raised by 2 fathers. That is just not right.I dont understand how people can condem others for being gay - and try to "straighten" them out by sending them to the army or whore houses and such. If they are gay ... they are GAY! There is nothing they can do about it, except for deny it so that the people around them dont stone them to death for something they cant help. Being gay is like having a different skin colour. People born with white skin cant help the fact, its just the way the cookie crumbled ... they have to deal with it, and so does everyone else around them.

If your son came home and said he was gay, he would be hoping to hell for your acception just because he is your son - and no matter what team he bats for - he loves you. If you sent him away, he would just supress his sexual orientation for you/society. Wouldnt make him any less gay, just bottled up and miserable. If I sent you away from your wife and said "you cant come back until you dont like her anymore" I cant see you being too happy with it.

**NOTE BEFORE** I am not trying to tell people what they should or shouldnt do to/with their children/family members/friends ... just giving you my take on their point of view in that situation. Dont make this the pinpoint of a counter argument, its not where my intent was.

Oh, and also, God loves everyone equally through Jesus Christ. Come on guys, didn't you know at least that one?

-R. S. of UC

Used this picture in another thread, but it applies here too.
http://www.deviantart.com/print/8460/

But anyway, I've got to agree with most of you ( the sane ones that is), the christian aversion to homosexuality is taking precedence over other more important things that are facing the world today. Like war for example, what ever happened to beat your swords into plowshares man? And most certianly divorce, that seems to be more of a plague than anything else. What ever happened to the "god loves all of us" crap that always seems to be professed, eh? Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent, is god all of these things, or is he capable of the levels of hate that his followers are too?

Wow, you gents need to brush up on your Bible.

First, yes, the Old Testiment Laws have, for the most part mind, been eliminated by the death and resurrection of Christ, saving us from the Law that brought sin on our heads, as long as we had faith in Him.

Next, both Old and New Testiments explicitly forbid homosexual relationships. Paul was the main supporter of that as a means to seperate Christians from the rest of non-saved society.

Further, Christians are expected to be as law abiding as possible to show their seperation from the rest of mankind, so that they may be a visible example of the joy of being in Christ. I am not where I should be in that faith, and it will take me a long time before I can even be on steady footing.

I personally say that we can tell homosexuals that Biblically, their relationships are sinful, and bring them away from a relationship with God (as far as we know). I do not believe in actively persecuting them or taking away their rights as people because of it. They are still persons that are equal to you and I and should be respected because of it. If I want to spread the Word of God on the subject, I will not go to Mass. and start burning churches that have gay marriages, I will talk to the gay persons here about their lives and their relationship with Christ.

You respect my beliefs, I'll respect yours. I like to discuss my beliefs, I think you like to discuss yours too.

I offer no reason why so many Christians are getting ticked off. We need to be tolerant people, and respectful. Mouthy, yes, but not mean.

-R. S. of UCI respect that you have a forwardly Christian point of view without "damning" gay people outright in each word passed. I'm not religious and I am pro-gay-marriage, but I have full respect for people like you who pass their religious views into these discussions without passing along with it open damnation and sheer hate.

I respect that you have a forwardly Christian point of view without "damning" gay people outright in each word passed. I'm not religious and I am pro-gay-marriage, but I have full respect for people like you who pass their religious views into these discussions without passing along with it open damnation and sheer hate.

Seconded.

God hates anything that is wrong/sin...Gay people go totally against His plan, and bad things result from homosexuality such as Aids, etc, it just wasn't meant to be...

Oh really?

1 John 4
16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

1 John 4
8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.


“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” - Romans 3:23


You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be the sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on teh righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:43-48, NIV

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, [b]because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked[\b].
Luke 6:35, NIV

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Ephesians 5:1-2, NIV

Jesus healed the sick, and those who had lepresy. Lepers were accused of having a spiritual disease in those days, people stayed away from them, and Jesus still went near them and healed them. You think AIDs is somehow part of God's plan?

I'm a Christian, and to be honest although yes, homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes, I have very little aversion to people practising it. It would be incredibly hypocritical of me to say "you're gay! burn in hell!" when, even though I'm not a lesbian, I sin in other ways. Everyone does, so why on earth do we judge? "Before trying to take the speck of dust out of your brother's eye, first take the chunk of wood out of your own eye."

If one of my Christian friends were to tell me they had become a homosexual, that may be when I would remind them of God's view on the subject, and give them whatever help they needed. If they wanted help. But really, I can't judge it because it's such a personal thing. I can hate and abhor murder and rape, which harms other people, which it is clear about in both the Old and New Testaments, and everyone knows that these things are wrong. Yet homosexuality hurts no-one- in fact, it's love, and makes the other person happy. There is also much discussion as to whether it is still classed as "wrong." So although I wouldn't practise it myself because of my religion, and because of the fact I just don't swing that way, I would never presume to discriminate about someone else who did. Not only would that be hypocritical for the reasons I've already described, but also, because it didn't hurt anyone, I just wouldn't find it a problem.

My two cents :)

Wow, you gents need to brush up on your Bible.

First, yes, the Old Testiment Laws have, for the most part mind, been eliminated by the death and resurrection of Christ, saving us from the Law that brought sin on our heads, as long as we had faith in Him.

Next, both Old and New Testiments explicitly forbid homosexual relationships. Paul was the main supporter of that as a means to seperate Christians from the rest of non-saved society.

Further, Christians are expected to be as law abiding as possible to show their seperation from the rest of mankind, so that they may be a visible example of the joy of being in Christ. I am not where I should be in that faith, and it will take me a long time before I can even be on steady footing.

I personally say that we can tell homosexuals that Biblically, their relationships are sinful, and bring them away from a relationship with God (as far as we know). I do not believe in actively persecuting them or taking away their rights as people because of it. They are still persons that are equal to you and I and should be respected because of it. If I want to spread the Word of God on the subject, I will not go to Mass. and start burning churches that have gay marriages, I will talk to the gay persons here about their lives and their relationship with Christ.

You respect my beliefs, I'll respect yours. I like to discuss my beliefs, I think you like to discuss yours too.

I offer no reason why so many Christians are getting ticked off. We need to be tolerant people, and respectful. Mouthy, yes, but not mean.

-R. S. of UC

Actually the Word of God does not condemn homosexuals, and Paul was writing about temple prostitution in Rome most likely or pedophiliac practices. The Greek words he used did NOT mean homosexual, and were not used at the time to even refer to homosexuals. Elsewhere the Greek words that have been translated as homosexual or effeminate in his verses were translated into something different as I explained in my threads and threads I posted in

In the Bible and Homosexuality

In my thread "Why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality"
Specifically on Paul on page 9

I have brushed up on my Bible on this subject, have /you/?

*sighs* Sometimes, I really wonder about people on these boards.

Alright, let's try to get this straight: I'm going to expand on what UC said (which is very good, kudos to your biblical knowledge).

To answer your question: Most 'Christians' (I use quotes because of the iffyness of some of their claims) target homosexuality because it has the biggest national coverage. Therefore, they get to rail against sin on CNN etc. Now, the collary to that is: isn't homosexuality only mentioned in one place in the Bible? Nope sorry, it ain't.

BS, you say? Nope, sorry, it is mentioned several times in the Bible. Where? look up sexual immorality. If you bother to read through the New Testament gospels and some of Paul's Epistles, you'll see that one component of ancient jewish law that has not changed is sexual immorality. If you go back to Leviticus, you find all terms and descriptions of pretty much all your sexual sins.

Oh, and Connersonia, while your account of 19th century Christian gentlemen is true on some occasions, there are many Christians in that period who did nothing of the sort, and infact did much to further the cause of anti-slavery, women's rights, and various other things. On abortion, well, I'm not totally sure on the latest stats, but that may or may not be true. While I am technically pro-choice, abortions are incredibly brutal and the details of them are sickening. There are several state court cases that were going on several months ago (I'm not sure if they still are, but I'm not sure, I'll get back to you later) that detailed exactly how they kill the babies. Something about 'crushing the undeveloped skull with a pair of forceps' or something of the like. I'll pull a google a see if there are any articles online about it.

While I don't see what any problem with divorce is, I think it is far too common today for our own good. A big contribution to that is that people marry now for money and sex, and lots of them marry someone they are infatuated with, instead of in love with. Alot of this and people unwilling to sacrifice to stay together is the key cause of the rising divorce rate. And, did you also know that God sanctions divorce? Yes, he actually does. Unfortunately for some though, it is only one ONE condition: sexual immorality commited by one or both parties.

And, well, I'm sorry for your misplaced rage. I for one, try to be as accepting a person as possible without comprimising my faith. "Love the sinner, hate the sin' doctrine. Though I do agree, there are many bigotal and hypocritcal Christians out there who don't exactly have a grasp on their faith. To be honest, I don't believe people are born that way, but that's another debate for another time.

If you have more questions, go ahead and ask away. I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Actually, sorry, as explained in the other threads Leviticus does not apply to Modern Day Christians so you cannot reference it. And Paul has been mistranslated.

Oh and uh, btw aids is a disease that crossed over from monkeys in africa, it didn't just come from gay people, disease doesn't just come from out of nowhere and magically appear.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin'

Just wanted to say I love that quote... thanks for sharing! *prints and sticks on wall*

Of course, if we didn't "love the sinner," we'd be hating ourselves and all of humanity...

Also it sends a bad message to our children, if my son came home to tell me he was gay i would send him to the army and not let him return untill he was straight.

What makes you think that sending him to the army would cure him of homosexuality? What makes you think there even is a cure?

And why the heck are you so homophobic? Were you brought up that way?

i am a christian and i know just because stuff about homosexuality is more publicized does not mean christians arent against fornification and all that other crap we are just as much against fornification or divorce as homosexuality its just they talk about everyday

Christians target homosexuality, because it is the only thing that they have left to target. The church has lost the respect of vast amounts of people (too vast to comprehend) over the last century or so- people then blame the decrease in the numbers of church-going christians, on the rise in vices, such as pornography.

When rich, "Christian" men in the 19th Century grew bored, they wouldn't log on to the net and surf some lesbian action, they would find a mistress. So they in fact indulged their vices, but in a more private way (also, the church encourages female oppression (read 1timothy), and so women were told that it was a man's right to a mistress). Therefore, there is no link between a lack in faith, and a rise in immorality.

Christians tried to target people who had abortions, but hey!, most people favour abortion, and so they had to let that one go. Christians targetted Divorcees, but hey! Most people understand divorce. So now "Christians" (read the golden rule of agape, think of homosexuals- any negative thoughts about them disqualifies you as a christian!) target homesexuals- but HEY! HOMOSEXUALITY ISNT BAD! PEOPLE CANT HELP HOW THEY ARE BORN! GET A LIFE, AND MOVE WITH THE TIMES. BURN IN HELL YOU INTOLERANT "CHRISTIAN" SCUM!!!!!

I'm intolerant because I'm Christian? Hmmm... interesting that you should make that statement. I think that being a Christian makes me more tolerant. I find myself thinking condemning thoughts and then pulling myself back from them when I consider my imperfections alongside them. The last time a perfect person walked the face of the Earth was about 2000 years ago.

I still am opposed to abortion. I wasn't always, but I prayed for God to show me why it was a sin, and He was faithful enough to do that and answer my questions about it. It all boils down to selfishness and the person having the abortion playing God. I am opposed to divorce. I don't understand it, except that the underlying root of divorce is selfishness. Actually, the roots of most sin lie in selfishness.

Telling a Christian to "move with the times" is ludicrous (i.e. absurd). Christianity doesn't move with the times. What if murder (like, oh, say ABORTION) became trendy? It's still a sin, no matter what PC spin you put on it. That's what's happened with homosexuality. It's become trendy and I know a bunch of people who are experimenting with it for just that reason.

BTW, the rule of thumb is to hate the sin, not the sinner. I hate homosexuality, loathe abortion, detest divorce. But I still love divorced, gay people who have had abortions. I believe that people aren't BORN homosexual any more than they are born murderers. At some point along the way, they made a conscious choice to become homosexual, just as you make the decision to have an abortion or get a divorce. People aren't born divorced, they choose it. I believe that people also choose homosexuality.

Yes, there are other sins besides homosexuality, and I have no problem discussing them. Here's a list of sins, where shall we start?

greed, murder, theft, rape, slander, fornication, abortion, bestiality, pedophilia, artificial contraception, etc. etc. Feel free to bring up something not on the list.

I believe that people also choose homosexuality.
Well you are wrong

I'm intolerant because I'm Christian? Hmmm... interesting that you should make that statement. I think that being a Christian makes me more tolerant. I find myself thinking condemning thoughts and then pulling myself back from them when I consider my imperfections alongside them. The last time a perfect person walked the face of the Earth was about 2000 years ago.

I still am opposed to abortion. I wasn't always, but I prayed for God to show me why it was a sin, and He was faithful enough to do that and answer my questions about it. It all boils down to selfishness and the person having the abortion playing God. I am opposed to divorce. I don't understand it, except that the underlying root of divorce is selfishness. Actually, the roots of most sin lie in selfishness.

Telling a Christian to "move with the times" is ludicrous (i.e. absurd). Christianity doesn't move with the times. What if murder (like, oh, say ABORTION) became trendy? It's still a sin, no matter what PC spin you put on it. That's what's happened with homosexuality. It's become trendy and I know a bunch of people who are experimenting with it for just that reason.

BTW, the rule of thumb is to hate the sin, not the sinner. I hate homosexuality, loathe abortion, detest divorce. But I still love divorced, gay people who have had abortions. I believe that people aren't BORN homosexual any more than they are born murderers. At some point along the way, they made a conscious choice to become homosexual, just as you make the decision to have an abortion or get a divorce. People aren't born divorced, they choose it. I believe that people also choose homosexuality.

Oh yeah, people choose to be gay. Now why oh why would anyone choose to be hated by so so many people, it's as absurd as saying people choose their race.

At some point along the way, they made a conscious choice to become homosexual, just as you make the decision to have an abortion or get a divorce. People aren't born divorced, they choose it. I believe that people also choose homosexuality.

Whoa... talk about erroneous simplism. While we can all have our beliefs, facts remain as such. The problems really occur when proselytizing those beliefs. In other words, save it for church.

I am posting my argument here because it seems a lot of people are reading it, and this is my ENTIRE argument summed up...though I think some details I included in other threads may not all be here...

Quoted From a Website

Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.


First, Leviticus or anything in the OT is not applicable because:

Well the Bible says in numerous passages that the Old Laws, of which Leviticus is part of, the Mosaic Code is no longer followed. According to what the BIble says, Jesus came, and "fulfilled" the Law. The People of Israel were under the Mosaic Code (Leviticus and other Old Testament Books) and had to serve God by those laws. But when Jesus came, he died for their sins, and therefore Christians are instructed in the Bible that they are now saved by faith and grace, not by the Law.

Ephesians 2:14-18: "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father."

Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 5:2-4: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Galatians 3:24-25
Galatians 324 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And also Paul wrote
I Corinthians 9:19-22: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."


So clearly Christians are not under the old Law (Mosaic Code) contained in the Old Testament, and cannot expect any one else to be under those same laws.


And any verse in the NT is not applicable because:
EXPLANATION OF PAUL (quoted from religioustolerance.org)

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5


Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.



Romans
Paul was referring, obviously, by the words used to temple prostituion which was a form of idolatory. This has been stated several times, the actual Greek words used in the original verse were referring to men who do such.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Their sin was inhospitality, and greed which is made clear in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because it was full of gays or lesbians. The main theme of the story was that Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy, etc.

Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals.

Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals.

Yeah, but he spent loads of time condemning greedy rich people and religious hypocrites. Perhaps many christians today could learn a thing or two about prioritizing from Jesus.

Why are SO many people so inflamed over homosexuality? I have tried to debate here in OTHER threa why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality for modern Christians, and have accepted the fact that most conservative Christians just cover their ears and won't be swayed. So can I ask you, as a Christian, why you are focusing on homosexuality?

What about:
Fornification

Condemned much more than homosexuality in the Bible, fornification is much more widespread than homosexuality. The majority of young Christian teenagers are taught against homosexuality, but in my area at least I see young Christian teenagers committing fornification left and right and thinking it is ok. If you are going to predjudice against gay people, what about fornicators? If you are going to bring up the "gays this, gays that" Why not "fornicators this, fornicators that"? Is it maybe because fornification is more "common", and since so many Christians do it that makes it ok? Since homosexuality is more rare, its not ok, is that the logic?
I guaruantee there are fornicators in political office, and everywhere. But if a person who has been a homosexual in the past ever tries to enter office or anything, they won't get it. The Bible EQUALLY condemns homosexuality with fornification. Sex outside of marriage is just as wrong.

Are you being a true Christian to your belief when you focus on the act of homosexuality, and ignore these other acts in your discussions with friends and such? If your friend was a fornicator, are you going to bring that up to them equally as you would if they would gay?

Are you going to badger your friends about fornification because it is a sin equally condemned in the Bible as much as you would a gay friend about their homosexuality?

Do you see my point here?


Great question. I'm a Christian, and I regularly wonder the same thing (but see my reservation below). I suspect a number of people will want to "use" this question to conclude, illegitimately IMO, that 'therefore Christians shouldn't challenge homosexuality either.' I consider that faulty logic. It's time for Christians to be equally careful to challenge all sin: "a sin is a sin no matter what shape it's in, but some make a better story" as someone once said. So I'll say you didn't go far enough by just naming fornication. Let's include such things as: malice, unforgiveness, adultery, lying, racial hatred, gossip, judgmentalism, twisting evidence (or "intelligence") to manipulate people or public opinion, bad temper, hatred or disdain for people of other religions (or none) or of other national origins, laziness, and wishing for vengeance on our enemies.

And then let's get serious, and include our selfishness and acquisitiveness. In particular, we who call ourselves Christians should challenge the kind of ungodly hard-heartedness that doesn't actively want to help the starving homeless people in our streets, the even more ungodly hard-heartedness that actually that all poor people are to blame for their poverty, as an excuse to do nothing. And worst of all, how about the ungodly hard-heartedness that sits back while deciding what to watch on one of 3 TVs, and "has to" keep channel-flicking to escape the news item about the tens of thousands of dying people whose lives could be saved by a single day of our salary, or even the monetary equivalent of what we throw out in a day?

While we who say we believe turn a blind eye to our favourite sins and condemn the ones we don't like, people aren't going to take us seriously. Many people will tell themselves that the Christian message has no value, and use Christians as their "evidence".

So, yes, Aerion, there' a problem when Christians are selective about condemning some sins and not others, but you didn't take it far enough.

Now for my "reservation". Your question makes it sound as though most, or even all, Christians are guilty of this. I think there are problems with this impression. First, using just your example of fornication, I know there are a lot of Christians who do challenge all forms of sex outside marriage. They actively encourage people, even teenagers, to remain chaste and to refuse fornication. Trouble is, they get criticized for doing this, sometimes by the same people who then criticize other Christians for "only" challenging homosexuality. See the problem? If you just want to say "Christians" you have to include the ones who are doing exactly what you say they don't do. And your criticism is muted.

And although I have extended the criticism of unChristian morality to the whole range of sins, even there you will find, if you look past the first impressions, that there are Christians --- a lot of them --- who are challenging these sins. The thing is, two of the other requirements by the Lord on all who want to turn away from sin is that [a] they clean up their own lives before they go around telling everyone else what to do, and [b] they don't make a public show of themselves. There are millions of Christians privately, even secretly, fighting against all the sins we've named and all the others too, but they're at work in their own lives, and they aren't making a public display of their "holiness". And because non-Christians don't tend to see them, they easily assume that the empty bags of wind they hear making all the noise are the only Christians to look at.

One more thing: regarding what I said about the poor, there are many Christian organizations, some over 100 years old, as well as Christian individuals, who are busy taking care of the poor, the sick, the helpless, all over the world. You hardly look at them, but they're there. They're visible only because it's impossible to hide themselves altogether, yet still they try to maintain a low profile and focus on the work of relieving suffering. They aren't part of the high-profile "condemn the homosexuals and let everyone else off easy" brigade, either. They're part of the group that remembers that Jesus said, "In that you have done it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you have done it for me." And they keep on.

That rather large reservation aside, I appreciate your original point.

PT

I am posting my argument here because it seems a lot of people are reading it, and this is my ENTIRE argument summed up...though I think some details I included in other threads may not all be here...

Quoted From a Website

Romans 1:26 and 27 has St. Paul criticizing sexual activity which is against a person's nature or disposition. This passage has been variously interpreted to refer to all homosexual behavior, to orgiastic activity, to temple prostitution, or to heterosexuals who were engaging in same-sex exchanges. The meaning is unclear.
I Corinthians 6:9 contains a lists of activities that will prevent people from inheriting the Kingdom of God. One was translated as referring to masturbation, and is now sometimes translated as "homosexual". The true meaning is lost.
1 Tim 1:9 is similar to I Corinthians.
Jude 7 refers to the people of Sodom as "giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh". The latter has been variously translated as women engaging in sexual intercourse with angels and as homosexuality. The exact meaning is lost.


First, Leviticus or anything in the OT is not applicable because:

Well the Bible says in numerous passages that the Old Laws, of which Leviticus is part of, the Mosaic Code is no longer followed. According to what the BIble says, Jesus came, and "fulfilled" the Law. The People of Israel were under the Mosaic Code (Leviticus and other Old Testament Books) and had to serve God by those laws. But when Jesus came, he died for their sins, and therefore Christians are instructed in the Bible that they are now saved by faith and grace, not by the Law.

Ephesians 2:14-18: "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father."

Galatians 2
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 5:2-4: "Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

Galatians 3:24-25
Galatians 324 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

And also Paul wrote
I Corinthians 9:19-22: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some."


So clearly Christians are not under the old Law (Mosaic Code) contained in the Old Testament, and cannot expect any one else to be under those same laws.


And any verse in the NT is not applicable because:
EXPLANATION OF PAUL (quoted from religioustolerance.org)

The NIV contains the phrase: "homosexual offenders." Suppose for the moment that Paul had written "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality; only of those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn homosexuals. Rather it condemns homosexuals who engage in sexual offences.

The original Greek text describes the two behaviors as "malakoi" (some sources quote "malakee,") and "arsenokoitai." Although these is often translated by modern Bibles as "homosexual," we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the Greek word "paiderasste." That was the standard term at the time for male homosexuals. We can conclude that he probably meant something different from persons who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

"Malakoi" is translated in both Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 as "soft" (KJV) or as "fine" (NIV) in references to clothing. It could also mean "loose" or "pliable," as in the phrase "loose morals," implying "unethical behavior." In the early Christian church, the words were interpreted by some as referring to persons who are pliable, easily influenced, without courage or stability. Non-Biblical writings of the era used the world to refer to lazy men, men who cannot handle hard work, and cowards. [John] Wesley's Bible Notes defines "Malakoi" as those "Who live in an easy, indolent way; taking up no cross, enduring no hardship." 6 One knowledgeable but anonymous reviewer of our web site said that the word translated here as "effeminate" really "means men not working or advancing ideas so as to concern themselves with love only. Not working for the good of the whole....Our present culture has all sorts of connotations associated with the word 'effeminate' that simply don't apply" to Paul's era. It would seem that the word "effeminate" can only be regarded as a mistranslation.


"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai." They were referring to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 4 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word "arsenokoitai:" (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai." 5


Still others thought that it meant "masturbators." At the time of Martin Luther, the latter meaning was universally used. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

Many would consider catamites, (a boy or young male who engaged in sexual activities with men) to be a likely valid translation for the first behavior. Such boys were often slaves, kept by rich men as sex partners. The second term might then refer to the men who engaged in sex with the catamites. That is, they are abusive pedophiles. The New American Bible 3 contains a footnote which reads:
"The Greek word translated as 'boy prostitutes' [in 1 Cor. 6:9] designated catamites, i.e. boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world....The term translated 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys."

Harper's Bible Commentary (1998) comments that the passage refers to "both the effeminate male prostitute and his partner who hires him to satisfy sexual needs. The two terms used here for homosexuality... specify a special form of pederasty that was generally disapproved of in Greco-Roman and Jewish Literature."

Many religious liberals might agree that the center portion of 6:9 might be accurately translated as: "male child abusers and the boys that they sexually abuse." i.e. the two behaviors probably relate to that portion of pedophiles who are child rapists, and the male children that they victimize. The verse would then refer to the crime of child sexual abuse and has no relation to homosexuality in the normal sense of the term: i.e. consensual sexual relations between adults of the same gender.

It is worthwhile to check the words attributed to Jesus by the author of the Gospel of Matthew. He also had a list of sins that could bring doom on a person: Matt 15:18-20: "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man..." It is worth noting that homosexual behavior is not one of the behaviors that is mentioned in this passage. One might conclude that Jesus did not consider it important.



Romans
Paul was referring, obviously, by the words used to temple prostituion which was a form of idolatory. This has been stated several times, the actual Greek words used in the original verse were referring to men who do such.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Their sin was inhospitality, and greed which is made clear in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because it was full of gays or lesbians. The main theme of the story was that Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy, etc.

Jesus Christ NEVER spoke of homosexuality, or condemned homosexuals.


GREAT post man. Pity the Religious Right is full of closeted bigots that will just ignore this.
Oh and as for choosing to be gay well I am bi and I have not chosen to be so. In fact it can get annoying as I am now attracted to a strait boy in my class at school.

Religion really *is* poision, wow...
The world of today would be better off without these stupid religions(wich were thought up by men who probably had no life)

Religion really *is* poision, wow...
The world of today would be better off without these stupid religions(wich were thought up by men who probably had no life)

In some cases I think yes. But also religions can do great good to society and people can be alot nicer if they think they will go to hell for being nasty. Also I think the oppressive dickheads of the Religious Right would still be oppressive dickheads and be anti-homosexuality even if they knocked off the religious bit but perhaps gays are only pariahs of society (sometimes) because of religion. Then again perhaps it is the other way around. Who knows?

Religion really *is* poision, wow...
The world of today would be better off without these stupid religions(wich were thought up by men who probably had no life)

I said it before and I'll say it again, man only made religion so he could further worship himself.

Telling a Christian to "move with the times" is ludicrous (i.e. absurd). Christianity doesn't move with the times. What if murder (like, oh, say ABORTION) became trendy? It's still a sin, no matter what PC spin you put on it. That's what's happened with homosexuality. It's become trendy and I know a bunch of people who are experimenting with it for just that reason.

BTW, the rule of thumb is to hate the sin, not the sinner. I hate homosexuality, loathe abortion, detest divorce. But I still love divorced, gay people who have had abortions. I believe that people aren't BORN homosexual any more than they are born murderers. At some point along the way, they made a conscious choice to become homosexual, just as you make the decision to have an abortion or get a divorce. People aren't born divorced, they choose it. I believe that people also choose homosexuality.OKay, just a few questions on those statements.

If you are in a violent situation, your husband bashes you, your kids, etc ... would you consent to divorce then? Or would you stay there and wait until he beat you to death? If you left and didnt divorce, would you live the rest of your life without another partner just because you were unlucky enough to get married to a person who suddently became violent?

If you were 14 and had been raped and became pregnant to that person, would you consent to abortion then? Or would you give birth to the child at that age of 14, to an unknown person, knowing full well that you couldnt support it, and live the rest of your life (no doubt working at McDonalds) carrying the scars and consequences of that horrible act forever?

Would you consciously choose to be part of a group of people who are routinly bashed, spat upon, bad mouthed, downgraded, threatened and denied basic human respect just to be trendy?

I am bisexual. Its just the way it is. I dont try and make other people bisexual nor do I hate those people who are explicitly straight. When I was single I wasnt looking for a gender ... I was looking for a person, the person, whatever gender they may be. The person I ended up with happened to be the opposite sex. I'm not any less bisexual now just because I'm in a heterosexual relationship. If I had found his personality in a female body, then that is who I would be with. I just dont understand how, if when you are looking for a person of certain ideals (personality traits) that you must "advance search" it and define their sex too. If you are lucky enough to find the one, dont turn them away just because they dont fit into societies specifications of relationship matches ... you may never find them again anywhere else.

I said it before and I'll say it again, man only made religion so he could further worship himself.

And not feel so narcissistic at the same time?

And not feel so narcissistic at the same time?
Well, yeah, I thought that that went without saying tho.

I am bisexual. Its just the way it is. I dont try and make other people bisexual nor do I hate those people who are explicitly straight. When I was single I wasnt looking for a gender ... I was looking for a person, the person, whatever gender they may be. The person I ended up with happened to be the opposite sex. I'm not any less bisexual now just because I'm in a heterosexual relationship. If I had found his personality in a female body, then that is who I would be with. I just dont understand how, if when you are looking for a person of certain ideals (personality traits) that you must "advance search" it and define their sex too. If you are lucky enough to find the one, dont turn them away just because they dont fit into societies specifications of relationship matches ... you may never find them again anywhere else.

Right on... To me bisexuality is something that just happened, being unattracted to either gender almost seems kinda prudish to me...

To guy who said he would send his gay son (or lesbian daughter? Funny how the RR always use gays huh?) off to the army: Good luck dumbarse, if he did not want to go he could just say "I am gay" and they would boot him out. If he did want to go he would be around alot of other men ALL THE TIME. Yep even in the showers and bedrooms.

Natural = what occurs in nature. If it occurs in nature, it is therefore natural.


Please, what has "natural" got to do with "right"? This isn't a safe ground for argument.

It is "natural" for at least some people to attempt to kill someone who thwarts them: takes the parking space they wanted, or cuts them in traffic, or wins a bet, or gets the guy/girl they wanted. It's "natural" for some people to desire to own something so strongly that they'll steal it. It's "natural" for some people to have in their personalities something that has been termed "the will to power" so strongly that they will do anything to exercise power over others: tell a lie, wield a weapon, campaign dishonestly, or manufacture "evidence" that they should be allowed to do as they please.

Let's talk about sex in particular. It's "natural" for others to want sex with another person so badly they'll force that person to have sex --- they'll rape them. We're even expected to believe that it's "natural" for some people to want sex with young children.

Does "natural" really make any of those things "right"?

And shouldn't we be more careful about attempting to compare human behaviour with that of the animal world? Some animals regularly eat members of their own species. Hands up, everyone who says we should let cannibals out of prison, and allow them to carry on as before.

Among many animals, when a male replaces the previous alpha male (becomes the "step-father" of the pride, or pack, or whatever), the new male kills the offspring of the male he replaced. Hands up, everyone who wants child-murder by step-fathers made legal.

Among a number of animal species, individuals that are deemed as "deviant" from the pack norms are destroyed.

I could continue --- I haven't even touched a whole range of other enchanting behaviours in the animal world, but the point is the same. Do we really want to see animal behaviour carried into human behaviour? I think we should aim a little higher.

PT

Well then what are we to deed wrong? Something that hurts someone else(excepting S&M)? Not homosexuality then. Unless we are using some other, more stupid code of morality which says that people are not allowed to do what they want with their own bodies with someone else who is consenting (and thus over the Age of Consent).

And shouldn't we be more careful about attempting to compare human behaviour with that of the animal world? Some animals regularly eat members of their own species. Hands up, everyone who says we should let cannibals out of prison, and allow them to carry on as before.

Among many animals, when a male replaces the previous alpha male (becomes the "step-father" of the pride, or pack, or whatever), the new male kills the offspring of the male he replaced. Hands up, everyone who wants child-murder by step-fathers made legal. Erm, sure ... anything that isn’t a consenting act is quite rightly not something I would consider a correct worldly practice. If 2 people consent/want to have sex with each other, good on em - go rabbit wild! If one person wants to eat/kill a non-consenting other, Houston, we have a problem.

Whoa, deep Convo....

But I'd like to say something to those who say that religon is a bunch of b.s. I am a Catholic, born and raised. Currently I go to a Catholic high school, i go to church every sunday, and I try to obey the teachings of a man called Jesusof Galilee. Why? 1. Because thats the way I've always lived and 2. It makes me feel good.

Yes like anything, Religon can be misused and perverted into something like the 9-11 attacks. But it can, and for the most part does, give people hope. It lets them know that someone cares. Sure, it isnt always easy, the Catholic Church forbids sex before marriage, and as a sophmore at an all guy's school, sex with women seems EXTREMLY inviting. I'm not going to say that Catholics are holier-than-thou, because we arent. I know quite a few fellow Catholics that engage in sexual activites, do drugs etc. Having religon doesnt make us better than those who dont, its too bad that not enough people think like that.

We consider abortion, premartial sex, birth control, and divorce among other things wrong. Focusing on premarital sex, we find that wrong because we believe that sex is the ultimate togetherness. My cousin is now pregnant because she had sex with some guy that she met. She is 16 years old. No 16 year old girl needs to go through with that. It's already figured that there will be no abortion, as my extended family is a Catholic one as well. She will carry the child for 9 months, going through morning sickness, cramps, until she goes through from what I understand to be the most terrible pain a woman goes through. Then she'll probably see that child go away, possibly never seeing him/her again. Her body will have changed considerably, and she may never find another boyfriend.

All of this could have been avodied if she had merely kept her pants on. After its been drilled into our heads that free love is normal and OK by televison, music and movies, it becomes difficult to abstain and wait.

Let me put it this way. In the United States, Britain etc. Christians have long been a powerful political force, as well as the dominant religion of the people, and please understand that when I say "Christians," I'm referring to the ultra-conservatives who are displaying the kind of behavior that caused this thread.

I'm a Jew.

Every Yom Kippur I sit in temple and listen to the rabbi read the book of Leviticus (Va Y'ikra). And when he or she gets to 18:22, no one bats an eyelash when he or she says: "Ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkve ishah toevah hiv." And why is that? Maybe because we know the original context of the line - and we have a literary history that testifies to this. So, needless to say, it makes my skin crawl when I see these people (whose religion began as a cult of my own) standing up and trying to tell the general public that this is what the Torah says. 99.99999% of these people don't know Hebrew from their asses yet they still feel they're doing right because they think it's what G-d wants them to do. And I laugh at how pathetic they are because they sit there in Nylon/Polyester suits and shirts. Because they wear gold rings, because their hair is cut at the temples, and it's left uncovered. The list goes on and on. I'm not going to explain Hebrew symantics because it's not going to accomplish anything. But I will say that Va Y'ikra 18:22 has been continuously mistranslated, when one looks at it - it basically says "Do not lie in the bed of a menstruating woman because the bed is unclean." Now, male/male sex is admonished in other places but, again, this great literary history we Jews have to explain our Torah: (The talmud, The Mishneh etc.)

* There was/is no word for a committed male/male relationship in ancient Hebrew. The concept was completely foreign to a group of people whose main thrust was to survive as a people - which would make emphasis on heterosexual relations logical.

* Male/Male sex was only seen practiced during that time by Caananite temple prostitutes where men and women would sleep with men and boys at the various temples to "commune" with the god. To a people whose ideas of monotheism were unique, caanaanite sexual activity would have been completely unnacceptable.

* We recognize, as Jews, that homosexuality is something like left handedness now. And with the exception of the Orthadox, Chasidim etc. it is considered natural and the argument is not with whether they are born that way, but how are they to exercise themselves. In my branch of Judaism, we have gay rabbis and cantors and we marry gay people. The president of my congregation is a lesbian.

In short, I wish the hypocritical Christians would shut their damn mouths. I'm not interested in hearing that verbal diarrhea, I'm not interested in the laughable way they approach me ever-so-sincerely and ask if "I've been saved." Is it not telling that even the most conservative Jews are not out on the front lines of the white house calling for the re-institution of homosexuality as an illness? Does it have something to do that we are from a people whose religion was never brought to anyone with a sword?

Shalom, Chaverim.

Sorry, I forgot to say that ultimately what they are reacting to is a cultural fear of something they think they have to revile. They are hiding behind the Torah to justify a cultural fear...and the above is why.

Erm, sure ... anything that isn’t a consenting act is quite rightly not something I would consider a correct worldly practice. If 2 people consent/want to have sex with each other, good on em - go rabbit wild! If one person wants to eat/kill a non-consenting other, Houston, we have a problem.

...and if one person wants to eat/kill a consenting other? Do we even want to get into that?

Oh, but wait, we were discussing "natural" weren't we? I almost allowed myself to be lured into being diverted from the real point.

So let's go back to your comment,
... If one person wants to eat/kill a non-consenting other, Houston, we have a problem.

WHY? What problem? 'It's what happens in nature, therefore it's "natural"' --- right? Do you really think that all those animal victims of cannibalism just lie back and say, "You mean you just want to kill and devour me? Oh, that's alright then!" and quit fighting for their lives? What's your problem with non-consenting cannibalism? That's the "natural" kind, you know.

Another thought occurs to me: how do we establish "consent" after the fact? When someone is raped, the victim can have a chance to contradict the wease - I mean, rapist's - claim that the victim consented. But how do we ask the victim of cannibalism anything? Of course we can require the cannibal to videotape the consent, but we are fast approaching the time --- perhaps have reached it --- when such a tape can be faked digitally.

So, how would we know for certain that the people in the cannibal's freezer wanted to be eaten in the sense of the rare --- sorry, unusual :p --- person who really wants to be eaten, and not in the sense of the rape victim who is usually described by the rapist as "asking/begging/gagging for it"?

Sorry, it still comes back to the issue of what appears to be an inappropriate use of the word "natural".

[QUOTE=Mikatopia]
All of this could have been avodied if she had merely kept her pants on. QUOTE]

Or been a lesbian ;)

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see.
Quite a few, actually.

There are 47 species of animal with homosexual members.

Now come out of the closet and admit that you are gay and the only reason you dislike gays is because you haven't come out of the closet yet and you hate yourself for it.

IOW: keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. What consenting adults do is none of your fucking business. Period.

Hetrosexuality is utterly vile and un natural. Hetros should be shot. See how weird it sounds to be on the recieving end?

Quite a few, actually.

There are 47 species of animal with homosexual members.

Now come out of the closet and admit that you are gay and the only reason you dislike gays is because you haven't come out of the closet yet and you hate yourself for it.

IOW: keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. What consenting adults do is none of your fucking business. Period.


BAAWA is my home...person.

First, Leviticus or anything in the OT is not applicable because:

Well the Bible says in numerous passages that the Old Laws, of which Leviticus is part of, the Mosaic Code is no longer followed. According to what the BIble says, Jesus came, and "fulfilled" the Law. The People of Israel were under the Mosaic Code (Leviticus and other Old Testament Books) and had to serve God by those laws. But when Jesus came, he died for their sins, and therefore Christians are instructed in the Bible that they are now saved by faith and grace, not by the Law.

Actually, jesus said he came not to abolish the law and the prophets, and fulfilling means to have the final interpretation. The Mosaic covenant is still in effect.

But it is true that jesus never spoke one word about homosexuals.

Possible-I mean, lets be honest here folks, it's a hole filled with human feces

Okie ... I've read this thread ... the whole thread so far ... and it's made me angry, made me worry, made me sick, and made me laugh here and there ..

All I wanted to respond to, though, was the above quote thusly:

If you have a hole in your body filled with human feces, maybe you should wash. The colon is a self-cleaning device.

That is all.

Okie ... I've read this thread ... the whole thread so far ... and it's made me angry, made me worry, made me sick, and made me laugh here and there ..

All I wanted to respond to, though, was the above quote thusly:

If you have a hole in your body filled with human feces, maybe you should wash. The colon is a self-cleaning device.

That is all.

Or use a condom?

Or use a condom?


Well, yeah, there is that ... and I encourage all people to use condoms unless they are in relationships where all parties involved are exclusive to one another unquestioningly.

However, even with a condom, nobody likes a dirty pullout! So wash!

Well, yeah, there is that ... and I encourage all people to use condoms unless they are in relationships where all parties involved are exclusive to one another unquestioningly.

However, even with a condom, nobody likes a dirty pullout! So wash!

Yeah...Kinda gross. Agree with you on the condom use thing,

are you crying yet Aerion? or maybe just banging your head against the wall?

out of 134 posts only a handful have actually addressed your topic
the rest have gone off on a "homosexuality is natural/unnatural/sinful/notsinful/gross/fun" tangent

what is so hard about the question? are you afraid to ask it of yourself? why should anyone care what affections someone else has? if it makes them happy to be with a member of the same gender how does it hurt YOU?

if you think gay sex is a sin, DON'T DO IT. there is nothing that gay people do that straight people dont do too. NOTHING. there is nothing that gay people do that your own PARENTS haven't done a time or 2. get over it.

look to you OWN sin first then worry about someone else's. as good christian boys you should follow the teachings of jesus. remember? why worry about the mote in your neighbors eye when there is a beam in your own??

i think the obsession about homosexuality stems from a few causes

1) the need to distract people from other more serious sins, like greed, warmongering, having an affair with the church secretary....

2) the desire to control everyone's sexuality. its the "easy to condemn" part of sex outside of marriage. (sad that they deny gays the right to a committed relationship then condemn them for havng illicit sex)

3) the preponderance of teen boys on the NS forums. it takes a while before you are secure enough in your own sexual identity to allow others their own choices. other possibilities can be very scary.

It is fundamentalist Christians affecting my RL relationships that bother me, when it affects me personally on a number of levels. When they are trying to use it to legislate against us, etc. So I have to explain why the Bible, the prime holy text of Christianity, does not even condemn it. Though I am finding ignorance, and an unwillingess to study the Bible or even original translations so I am almost through with it.

It is fundamentalist Christians affecting my RL relationships that bother me, when it affects me personally on a number of levels. When they are trying to use it to legislate against us, etc. So I have to explain why the Bible, the prime holy text of Christianity, does not even condemn it. Though I am finding ignorance, and an unwillingess to study the Bible or even original translations so I am almost through with it.

Many christians in the world today aren't really christians at all, they're worshippers of their own misdirected opinions and hate, the Bible and Jesus and stuff are just their shield that they hide behind when the fire gets lit under their asses.

Well, since people seem content to keep talking about homosexuality instead of one of the alternatives that I listed earlier, I'll throw in my two cents again.

To understand why homosexuality is wrong, you have to understand the theology of marriage. John Paul II wrote a fantastic essay entitled "Theology of the Body" that describes God's plan for human sexuality and marriage in detail. To find a synopsis, you can go to http://www.ccli.org/marriage/west.shtml to find the first of three essays describing the pope's document in lay terms. The second and third parts are linked at the bottom of the page. Here is an excerpt from part 2:

"While medieval philosophers developed a relational notion of the Persons in the Trinity, they didn't translate this to their understanding of human persons. John Paul does. For him, since God is a life-giving Communion of Persons, "man became the 'image and likeness of God' not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning" (General Audience 11/14/79).

"Communion of persons" (communio personarum in Latin) is a key concept for John Paul. The marital embrace is not merely a union of bodies, but a communion of persons brought about through the body. And this communion of persons in "one flesh" is an icon of the inner-life of the Trinity!*

This is a beautiful and profound truth, but we need to be careful not to misunderstand what is being said. The fact that the male/female communion reveals something of the mystery of the Trinity's Communion does not mean that God is sexual. God is not made in man's image as male and female, but man is made in God's."

The communion of persons is an icon of the Trinity because it involves three people - the man, the woman, and the child that naturally results from the communion of the man and the woman. During the sexual act, these three people are inseparable, much like the Trinity is One and inseperable. This does not mean that sex not resulting in pregnancy is sinful, but it does mean that the sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. Masturbation is wrong because it is not open to procreation and there is no communion of persons. Homosexuality is wrong because procreation is not possible in the homosexual communion. Artificial contraception is wrong because it almost completely restricts the possibility of procreation. It doesn't matter if homosexuality, masturbation, and artificial contraception are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, because they are inherently contrary to the creation and purpose of man given in Genesis.

Well, since people seem content to keep talking about homosexuality instead of one of the alternatives that I listed earlier, I'll throw in my two cents again.

To understand why homosexuality is wrong, you have to understand the theology of marriage. John Paul II wrote a fantastic essay entitled "Theology of the Body" that describes God's plan for human sexuality and marriage in detail. To find a synopsis, you can go to http://www.ccli.org/marriage/west.shtml to find the first of three essays describing the pope's document in lay terms. The second and third parts are linked at the bottom of the page. Here is an excerpt from part 2:

"While medieval philosophers developed a relational notion of the Persons in the Trinity, they didn't translate this to their understanding of human persons. John Paul does. For him, since God is a life-giving Communion of Persons, "man became the 'image and likeness of God' not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning" (General Audience 11/14/79).

"Communion of persons" (communio personarum in Latin) is a key concept for John Paul. The marital embrace is not merely a union of bodies, but a communion of persons brought about through the body. And this communion of persons in "one flesh" is an icon of the inner-life of the Trinity!*

This is a beautiful and profound truth, but we need to be careful not to misunderstand what is being said. The fact that the male/female communion reveals something of the mystery of the Trinity's Communion does not mean that God is sexual. God is not made in man's image as male and female, but man is made in God's."

The communion of persons is an icon of the Trinity because it involves three people - the man, the woman, and the child that naturally results from the communion of the man and the woman. During the sexual act, these three people are inseparable, much like the Trinity is One and inseperable. This does not mean that sex not resulting in pregnancy is sinful, but it does mean that the sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. Masturbation is wrong because it is not open to procreation and there is no communion of persons. Homosexuality is wrong because procreation is not possible in the homosexual communion. Artificial contraception is wrong because it almost completely restricts the possibility of procreation. It doesn't matter if homosexuality, masturbation, and artificial contraception are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, because they are inherently contrary to the creation and purpose of man given in Genesis.


Fine fine according to your religion but if you were in power would you force this upon other people? I mean just try enforcing an anti-wanking law! My own parents can not find out so what chance does a copper have?

Fine fine according to your religion but if you were in power would you force this upon other people? I mean just try enforcing an anti-wanking law! My own parents can not find out so what chance does a copper have?

No, I would not enforce an 'anti-wanking' law, just as I do not support laws banning gay sex.

Well, since people seem content to keep talking about homosexuality instead of one of the alternatives that I listed earlier, I'll throw in my two cents again.

To understand why homosexuality is wrong, you have to understand the theology of marriage. John Paul II wrote a fantastic essay entitled "Theology of the Body" that describes God's plan for human sexuality and marriage in detail. To find a synopsis, you can go to http://www.ccli.org/marriage/west.shtml to find the first of three essays describing the pope's document in lay terms. The second and third parts are linked at the bottom of the page. Here is an excerpt from part 2:

"While medieval philosophers developed a relational notion of the Persons in the Trinity, they didn't translate this to their understanding of human persons. John Paul does. For him, since God is a life-giving Communion of Persons, "man became the 'image and likeness of God' not only through his own humanity, but also through the communion of persons which man and woman form right from the beginning" (General Audience 11/14/79).

"Communion of persons" (communio personarum in Latin) is a key concept for John Paul. The marital embrace is not merely a union of bodies, but a communion of persons brought about through the body. And this communion of persons in "one flesh" is an icon of the inner-life of the Trinity!*

This is a beautiful and profound truth, but we need to be careful not to misunderstand what is being said. The fact that the male/female communion reveals something of the mystery of the Trinity's Communion does not mean that God is sexual. God is not made in man's image as male and female, but man is made in God's."

The communion of persons is an icon of the Trinity because it involves three people - the man, the woman, and the child that naturally results from the communion of the man and the woman. During the sexual act, these three people are inseparable, much like the Trinity is One and inseperable. This does not mean that sex not resulting in pregnancy is sinful, but it does mean that the sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation. Masturbation is wrong because it is not open to procreation and there is no communion of persons. Homosexuality is wrong because procreation is not possible in the homosexual communion. Artificial contraception is wrong because it almost completely restricts the possibility of procreation. It doesn't matter if homosexuality, masturbation, and artificial contraception are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, because they are inherently contrary to the creation and purpose of man given in Genesis.

pft. if you study human sexuality, it has nothing to do with reproduction (it is geared towards a more specific goal). yes children result, but only 15% of fertilizations result in live births (not counting clinical abortions) and only about 10% of sexual intercourse encounters (not counting those with contraceptive measures) result in fertilization. human sexuality is geared towards the specific purpose of differentiating a specific pair from the rest of the herd and building a bond between the two. so you're partly right. but. homosexuality is well documented in nature and the bible only declares pederasty (the abusive relations between an older person and a younger person of the same gender... see greece) as immoral.

if the family unit were as sacred as you claim, the old testament wouldn't give instructions on how to sell one's children and paul wouldn't discourage marriage because "women are evil and should be avoided at all costs".

and when you say that artificial contraception is wrong, you nullify an omnipotent god... mighty fine of you to do. you are worshiping dogma and holding 'sacred texts' and human institutions as idols above god. besides. this is NOT a christian nation. rights in this counrty are for all. not just those you deem acceptable.

and why do christians concentrate on homosexuality? the same reason bush is concentrating on the "evil empire" and not on domestic problems. it is easier to fix one's eyes on a "them" than to fix the problems within one's own house... like incest which is perpetrated on almost 1/4 of all women in american by their male relatives. it is easier to make up some big evil outside so that they don't have to worry about "the log in [their] own eye[s]". see how well the religious reicht follows the scripture?

pft. if you study human sexuality, it has nothing to do with reproduction (it is geared towards a more specific goal). yes children result, but only 15% of fertilizations result in live births (not counting clinical abortions) and only about 10% of sexual intercourse encounters (not counting those with contraceptive measures) result in fertilization. human sexuality is geared towards the specific purpose of differentiating a specific pair from the rest of the herd and building a bond between the two. so you're partly right. but. homosexuality is well documented in nature and the bible only declares pederasty (the abusive relations between an older person and a younger person of the same gender... see greece) as immoral.

if the family unit were as sacred as you claim, the old testament wouldn't give instructions on how to sell one's children and paul wouldn't discourage marriage because "women are evil and should be avoided at all costs".

and when you say that artificial contraception is wrong, you nullify an omnipotent god... mighty fine of you to do. you are worshiping dogma and holding 'sacred texts' and human institutions as idols above god. besides. this is NOT a christian nation. rights in this counrty are for all. not just those you deem acceptable.

and why do christians concentrate on homosexuality? the same reason bush is concentrating on the "evil empire" and not on domestic problems. it is easier to fix one's eyes on a "them" than to fix the problems within one's own house... like incest which is perpetrated on almost 1/4 of all women in american by their male relatives. it is easier to make up some big evil outside so that they don't have to worry about "the log in [their] own eye[s]". see how well the religious reicht follows the scripture?

Wonderfully stated. This JEW wholeheartedly agrees.

I'm not homophobic i just don't like their ways..

No, I would not enforce an 'anti-wanking' law, just as I do not support laws banning gay sex.

Cool, secular that is good.

"like incest which is perpetrated on almost 1/4 of all women in american by their male relatives."

I agree with you TOTALLY on all your other stuff but I think you need to know that that statistic is utter crap. It was invented by extreme feministists.

I'm not homophobic i just don't like their ways..

Same difference.

I'm not homophobic i just don't like their ways..

I don't hate you, I just want you to die ;)

(j/k, I don't want you to die, I want you to see what, in essence, you just wrote)

...and if one person wants to eat/kill a consenting other? Do we even want to get into that?

Oh, but wait, we were discussing "natural" weren't we? I almost allowed myself to be lured into being diverted from the real point.

So let's go back to your comment,


WHY? What problem? 'It's what happens in nature, therefore it's "natural"' --- right? Do you really think that all those animal victims of cannibalism just lie back and say, "You mean you just want to kill and devour me? Oh, that's alright then!" and quit fighting for their lives? What's your problem with non-consenting cannibalism? That's the "natural" kind, you know.

Another thought occurs to me: how do we establish "consent" after the fact? When someone is raped, the victim can have a chance to contradict the wease - I mean, rapist's - claim that the victim consented. But how do we ask the victim of cannibalism anything? Of course we can require the cannibal to videotape the consent, but we are fast approaching the time --- perhaps have reached it --- when such a tape can be faked digitally.

So, how would we know for certain that the people in the cannibal's freezer wanted to be eaten in the sense of the rare --- sorry, unusual :p --- person who really wants to be eaten, and not in the sense of the rape victim who is usually described by the rapist as "asking/begging/gagging for it"?

Sorry, it still comes back to the issue of what appears to be an inappropriate use of the word "natural".Can you say "ripped from context"? You know full well what I meant by the statement.

Do you work for a media station? If you dont, you should.

....
To understand why homosexuality is wrong, you have to understand the theology of marriage. John Paul II wrote a fantastic essay entitled "Theology of the Body" that describes God's plan for human sexuality and marriage in detail. ...... It doesn't matter if homosexuality, masturbation, and artificial contraception are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, because they are inherently contrary to the creation and purpose of man given in Genesis.

I cannot but be amazed that a single and celibate man is regarded as an expert on human sexuality and marriage.

One can only ask "How would HE know?"

I cannot but be amazed that a single and celibate man is regarded as an expert on human sexuality and marriage.

One can only ask "How would HE know?"
I think he's regarded as an expert on what God teaches about sexuality and marriage...

I cannot but be amazed that a single and celibate man is regarded as an expert on human sexuality and marriage.

One can only ask "How would HE know?"*Claps whole heartedly* ... one wonders ;).

*Claps whole heartedly* ... one wonders ;).
One does wonder how my posts manage to go completely ignored...

Common sense is worth ignoring sometimes I guess...

I think he's regarded as an expert on what God teaches about sexuality and marriage...

Heh, just ask some protestants about that...

I think the bigger question, is why do you live your lives by a book of fairy tales?

I think you'll find god created a man's penis to be inserted into a woman's vagina not another man's rectum

I think you'll find that God didn't create anything if you actually use some logic.

It is unnatural because if people all start turning gay we're going to stop existing.
In order to keep existing we need to breed, which involves a man and a woman.
Attraction helps to encourage this breeding as i said before. There would be no nature with out life, so why would homosexuality be natural if it does not involve breeding?

Let's outlaw contraception then and all breed likfuck so we can wreck the world (that's the NATURAL world) even faster. But we won't stop existing.

Let's outlaw contraception then and all breed likfuck so we can wreck the world (that's the NATURAL world) even faster. But we won't stop existing.

Yes sure we won't. Without water or food humans never die :rolleyes: .

BTW the Pope is getting more liberal but he is still anti-pill, abortion and lesbianity (despite and utter lack of anti-lesbian, pill or abortion text in the Bible).

God hates anything that is wrong/sin...Gay people go totally against His plan, and bad things result from homosexuality such as Aids, etc, it just wasn't meant to be...

Not much of a plan if so many people go against it.

It is unnatural because if people all start turning gay we're going to stop existing.
In order to keep existing we need to breed, which involves a man and a woman.
Attraction helps to encourage this breeding as i said before. There would be no nature with out life, so why would homosexuality be natural if it does not involve breeding?

:rolleyes:

1. People don't 'turn gay'.
2. There is such a thing as artificial insemination
3. Attraction is, as someone said before, about BUILDING BONDS between couples (which, admitedly, has to do with *raising* offspring, but you were still making a totally different and erroneous point)
4. Homosexuality helps keep down over population. You know? All the people? The many many people that are putting a strain on resources on the planet? *Those* people. We really don't need any more.
5. It's natural BECAUSE IT OCCURS IN NATURE. You really can't use the 'it's unnatural' argument here, unless you care to totally redefine the meaning of 'natural'

It's true, it is a form of extremely advanced surrogacy. The genetic make-up of the egg is changed to be that of one of the males. Then a sperm cell from the other male is entered into the egg which the fertilises it and the egg is put into a suggagate mother who is not geneticaly attachted to the child but must give birth to it. Usualy the mother must be paid and the process of altering the genetic code of the egg is very expenisive and scientists that can do it are rare so adoption is a better option but their are children in the world who are the genetic children of two men.

One does wonder how my posts manage to go completely ignored...

Common sense is worth ignoring sometimes I guess...I read your post. I just found this one amusing. My apologies for trying to have some fun in this rather 'hate' filled thread.

Its repeated from another thread ... but I need to say it here too ...

"The ultimate purpose of sex is to reproduce" ... the next time I hear this I am going to scream! I AM NOT A BABY MAKER DAMMIT! I AM A PERSON! I whole heartedly object to having someone tell me that my whole purpose in life is to be an INCUBATOR! If you honestly believe sex is just to reproduce, I'll line up the hundreds of thousands of infertile men and women out there in the world (and throw in those people who make the decision not to have children just for good measure) and you can tell them they have no purpose in life and that they can never, ever have sex ... and why not tell them that they are unnatural too while your at it. Lets see how they feel about your point of view.

This argument has been used, and used, and used ... and today I pronounce it dead. No more with the "sex is just to reproduce" crap! I am a woman, a person, a free damn spirit - all of this before anything else, including being a "baby maker". I dont care what you or anyone else thinks my purpose is, I have a few views on that of my own.

Let's outlaw contraception then and all breed likfuck so we can wreck the world (that's the NATURAL world) even faster. But we won't stop existing.

We can also forbid people from being celibate. Think of it as a massive fuck-you to priests, monks and Sci-Fi nerds.

(... Or maybe a "you're welcome"?)

We can also forbid people from being celibate. Think of it as a massive fuck-you to priests, monks and Sci-Fi nerds.

(... Or maybe a "you're welcome"?)

Wait. How do you plan on doing that? 'Cause there are ways that Sci-Fi nerds will greatly appriciate :p

Alot of people are starting to say homosexuality keeps the population down.... so does murdering and suicide, are they ok too. They aren't according to god.

Alot of people are starting to say homosexuality keeps the population down.... so does murdering and suicide, are they ok too. They aren't according to god.

Murder and suicide hurt people and (except S&M) homosexuality does not. Stop compaing those two horrible things with the love of one person to another, they are no where near the same.

Let me put it this way.... Does it have something to do that we are from a people whose religion was never brought to anyone with a sword?

Shalom, Chaverim.

Sorry to chop the post, totally agree with almost everything you said, and thought you made a very eloquent case...

Not sure how much of it is scripturally supported, even in this day and age, since I was told that C'naan was cursed because of his fathers' homosexuality...

Also, never brought to anyone with the sword... (Yehoshua 7:19-22) there are those that might argue that the Canaanites suffered from the "religion brought to" them "with a sword".

I'd say it's because it's easy to shout "Gays are bad! <insert bible quote>!"

It's harder to shout "Shellfish are evil! <insert bible quote>!" or "Let's force people who aren't in love to stay married! Never mind spousal abuse! <insert bible quote>!"

Plus the fact that maybe *two* out of the dozens of anti-gay Christians I've seen here have actually got any idea about homosexuality.

I mean, cheez, most of them still think it can be 'cured' by psyciatric help (hello? They go into denial. That's, what we call in the business, *not healthy*).
How true ,however i know plenty with ammo in thier holy shotguns for other sinners as well.
did not christ say he who is without sin cast the first stone?/
wonderful how the worst bigots /pick and chose which sin is important
like snacks on a buffet yet call themselves devout christians?
and of course note how often they point out everyone but them is going to hell ,whatever happened to judge not?
well that's my 2 cents worth (waits for the stones to fly)

How true ,however i know plenty with ammo in thier holy shotguns for other sinners as well.
did not christ say he who is without sin cast the first stone?/
wonderful how the worst bigots /pick and chose which sin is important
like snacks on a buffet yet call themselves devout christians?
and of course note how often they point out everyone but them is going to hell ,whatever happened to judge not?
well that's my 2 cents worth (waits for the stones to fly)

Bravo!

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see.

lots. homosexual behaviour has been observed in every animal that sexual behaviour of any sort has been observed in. ever hear of the bonobos? our closest relative, 98% of their population is bisexual.

As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus.

the big "O" aka orgasm. apparantly a better one than can be experienced from the average male orgasm. not having a penis or a prostate gland, i wouldn't know.

Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

i get more pleasure from receiving oral sex than intercourse and that's not making any babies.

and as mentioned earlier, gay animals are everywhere, it's natural.

I know. Why is it that we never see Christian Fundamentalists bashing masochists?

I know. Why is it that we never see Christian Fundamentalists bashing masochists?

generally masochists either harm themselves or get someone else to harm them.

i think you mean sadists.


who, with a masochistic partner, would have a lot of fun.

Sorry to chop the post, totally agree with almost everything you said, and thought you made a very eloquent case...

Not sure how much of it is scripturally supported, even in this day and age, since I was told that C'naan was cursed because of his fathers' homosexuality...

Not exactly. The exact question of exactly what Ham did continues to be debated to this very day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Canaan

Ham discovered Noah "undressed naked" while Noah was sleeping off some wine (Genesis 9:22). To "undress" a sibling's or parent's or grandparent's "nakedness" is a biblical term for committing a sexual act with a sibling's spouse, or with a parent's spouse/children/grandchildren, or with a parent's sibling or their spouse respectively (see Leviticus 18). It was Noah's youngest "son" (grandchildren being included under this title in Biblical Hebrew) Canaan who was directly connected to this event, since as a result it was he and not Ham who was cursed to go into servitude even to his Hamite brethren as well as his Shemite & Japhethic cousins by his grandfather Noah (Genesis 9:25).

If Ham in fact, committed a sexual with Noah (or Noah's spouse or one of his children), the actual sin (i.e., transgression) could be any number of things. It could be that he comitted incest. It could be that he forced himself upon Noah (or Noah's spouse/child, etc.), which would constitute rape. It could be a combination of all three- incest, rape, and homosexual activity. But it's certainly a gross oversimplification to assume that Canaan is specifically punished for Ham having comitted a homosexual act.

Can you say "ripped from context"? You know full well what I meant by the statement.

Do you work for a media station? If you dont, you should.

If you really want to talk about being out of context, perhaps you'd like to note that the topic of my post was a response to others' rather loose description of "natural" in which they talked about what happens in nature. Various people chose to limit their understanding of the word to instances of homosexuality in other animals, while ignoring the rest of "natural" behaviour to be observed in the animal kingdom. So, I wrote about some other kinds of things that also "happen in nature".

That's when you responded by talking exclusively about "consent". You ignored the topic of my post to change its terms of reference from "natural" to "consent". That's why I answered as I did, to return to and expand further on my original topic while dismissing your diversion of talking about consent.

To put it another way, you are the one that tried to do the ripping, by answering me with your non sequitur. I replied to make plain that your comments about consent failed to address mine. At the same time I returned to the point I had first raised, the sloppy and over-selective use of the word "nature".

Under these circumstances you aren't in a position to talk about context-ripping.

PT

the big "O" aka orgasm. Apparently a better one than can be experienced from the average male orgasm.



I confirm your affirmation.

God is dead. Seriously either God is dead or God was never existent to die in the first place.

pft. if you study human sexuality, it has nothing to do with reproduction (it is geared towards a more specific goal). yes children result, but only 15% of fertilizations result in live births (not counting clinical abortions) and only about 10% of sexual intercourse encounters (not counting those with contraceptive measures) result in fertilization. human sexuality is geared towards the specific purpose of differentiating a specific pair from the rest of the herd and building a bond between the two. so you're partly right. but. homosexuality is well documented in nature and the bible only declares pederasty (the abusive relations between an older person and a younger person of the same gender... see greece) as immoral.?

Did I say that sex was a sin if a child does not result? No. What is a sin is trying to prevent a child from being conceived during a sexual act. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is an integral part and should not be removed.

if the family unit were as sacred as you claim, the old testament wouldn't give instructions on how to sell one's children and paul wouldn't discourage marriage because "women are evil and should be avoided at all costs".?

That's brilliant, you're taking what Paul said and changing the words to fit your notion of Christianity's anti-feminism. A dirty tactic at best.

and when you say that artificial contraception is wrong, you nullify an omnipotent god... mighty fine of you to do. you are worshiping dogma and holding 'sacred texts' and human institutions as idols above god. besides. this is NOT a christian nation. rights in this counrty are for all. not just those you deem acceptable.?

What do you base your claim of me worshipping dogmas and such on? Because I adhere to them? That is hardly worshipping. I also believe in the law of gravity, does that mean I worship it?

and why do christians concentrate on homosexuality? the same reason bush is concentrating on the "evil empire" and not on domestic problems. it is easier to fix one's eyes on a "them" than to fix the problems within one's own house... like incest which is perpetrated on almost 1/4 of all women in american by their male relatives. it is easier to make up some big evil outside so that they don't have to worry about "the log in [their] own eye[s]". see how well the religious reicht follows the scripture?

Well, earlier in the thread I listed some options of other sins to discuss, but everybody seems to keep coming back to homosexuality. Maybe you should talk to them about it.

Cool, secular that is good.

"like incest which is perpetrated on almost 1/4 of all women in american by their male relatives."

I agree with you TOTALLY on all your other stuff but I think you need to know that that statistic is utter crap. It was invented by extreme feministists.


Well, it's nice to know that somebody doesn't think I'm a complete and utter lunatic. I can't take credit for that statistic, though, somebody else quoted it.

Murder and suicide hurt people and (except S&M) homosexuality does not. Stop compaing those two horrible things with the love of one person to another, they are no where near the same.

so what about euthanasia (if u dont know assisted suicide), alot of the time thats showing your love to someone by ending their suffering, killing them, is that ok too?

so what about euthanasia (if u dont know assisted suicide), alot of the time thats showing your love to someone by ending their suffering, killing them, is that ok too?

Sure, why not? If they're in a lot of physical pain and WON'T get beter, then seriously, why not?

so what about euthanasia (if u dont know assisted suicide), alot of the time thats showing your love to someone by ending their suffering, killing them, is that ok too?

Well yes if they agree totaly and numerous doctors can agree that there is np chance of a cure (or the chance is so infintesimal that the relative does not want to bother taking it). It is perfectly ok. Also in those cases euthanasia does not hurt at all and is in fact an end to the pain. If someone wants to carry on and not die (until the disease gets them) then it is murder not euthanasia.
I was simply pointing out that the "Natural is not good" brigade were missing the point which is that murder, rape and incest all hurt people (the mutated baby in the latter case) wheras homosexuality does not and in fact is highly enjoyable for all concerned.

Homophobe: HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T NATURAL!
Sane people: it occurs in nature, you dope
Homophobe: JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURAL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!




Idiots. The issue of morality has nothing to do with nature... I haven't seen anyone arguing that it is. The comments about it occuring in animals is simply a rebuttal to all the people unable to grasp that it IS natural.

Now everyone watch. Before this conversation progresses another two pages, some fool will wander in shouting "FAGS GO AGAINST NATURE"

Gah, I have no problem with people disagreeing - I just wish they'd actually try and be informed. I would go around claiming "THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN ON TOILET PAPER" with no evidence, why do these people spout equally dumb comments? I wish I could just avoid all the idiot posts and read the intelligent parts of the debate (note how I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees is dumb?)

Homophobe: HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T NATURAL!
Sane people: it occurs in nature, you dope
Homophobe: JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENS IN NATURAL DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!




Idiots. The issue of morality has nothing to do with nature... I haven't seen anyone arguing that it is. The comments about it occuring in animals is simply a rebuttal to all the people unable to grasp that it IS natural.

Now everyone watch. Before this conversation progresses another two pages, some fool will wander in shouting "FAGS GO AGAINST NATURE"

Gah, I have no problem with people disagreeing - I just wish they'd actually try and be informed. I would go around claiming "THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN ON TOILET PAPER" with no evidence, why do these people spout equally dumb comments? I wish I could just avoid all the idiot posts and read the intelligent parts of the debate (note how I'm not saying that everyone who disagrees is dumb?)


You know for a while I thought that the fact so many posts (not just on this forums but anywhere) written so stupidly about topics the poster knows little to nothing about proved that right wing people were more stupid that left wingers. Then I realised that it was the homophobes and racists that are part of the right wing that are the cause of this.
There are intelligent and smart right wingers out there of course but there seems to be a large famine of them here...I agree there should be something of an idiot filter on the forums to censor out all those saying "FAGS ARE DISGUSTING AND SHOULD BE HGUN!!111" and such.

I don't belive gays themselves are disgusting, they're generally friendly, caring people who like to have a good time. It's more what they do that many people find disgusting. When a gay couple says they are going to have sex, really, they are not having true sex. True sex is a beautiful thing, let me define the meaning of sex from websters dictionary:

sexual intercourse - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur

Gays therefor cannot have true sex.

I don't belive gays themselves are disgusting, they're generally friendly, caring people who like to have a good time. It's more what they do that many people find disgusting. When a gay couple says they are going to have sex, really, they are not having true sex. True sex is a beautiful thing, let me define the meaning of sex from websters dictionary:

sexual intercourse - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur

Gays therefor cannot have true sex.


That is NOT the current definition. That's the definition from before gay sex was widely acknowledged.

The up-to-date definition is:

sexual intercourse
n.
Coitus between humans.
Sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.

(source: www.dictionary.com)

Plus, you are forgetting (or unaware) that dictionaries are DE-scriptive, not PRO-scriptive. As gay sex became more wide-spread and acceptable, the dictionary changed to reflect that.

If you really want to talk about being out of context, perhaps you'd like to note that the topic of my post was a response to others' rather loose description of "natural" in which they talked about what happens in nature. Various people chose to limit their understanding of the word to instances of homosexuality in other animals, while ignoring the rest of "natural" behaviour to be observed in the animal kingdom. So, I wrote about some other kinds of things that also "happen in nature".

That's when you responded by talking exclusively about "consent". You ignored the topic of my post to change its terms of reference from "natural" to "consent". That's why I answered as I did, to return to and expand further on my original topic while dismissing your diversion of talking about consent.

To put it another way, you are the one that tried to do the ripping, by answering me with your non sequitur. I replied to make plain that your comments about consent failed to address mine. At the same time I returned to the point I had first raised, the sloppy and over-selective use of the word "nature".

Under these circumstances you aren't in a position to talk about context-ripping.

PTIf thats the case, you may have noticed I tend to take 'points' from peoples posts and use them, instead of the whole thing. I've rather forgotten what it was that I was pulling points from and cant be bothered going back and trying to find it again. I do this often ... I was referring, in terms of context, to the ideas you formed around my formulation of consent with my "ripped from context" post. In the post before that, I was probably not even reffering to anything about your view of misuse of the word "natural" in this thread.

As this post doesnt add to the arguement further, I will leave it there.

In short - its very rare that I take the exact point someone was trying to make in my post returns, just parts of/arguments (something that stirs a emotional want to reply) within the overall post ... therefore, it is highly probable that I wasnt even looking at your overall message at all.

Hope that clears it up, if not, let me know.

so what about euthanasia (if u dont know assisted suicide), alot of the time thats showing your love to someone by ending their suffering, killing them, is that ok too?Have you ever hurt so much that you wanted someone to give you that help? If you havent, I dont think you can say anything about it being "okay" before asking one of the people who plead for euthanasia why it is they want it and about the pain they feel each day.

Sometimes, I think it is immoral not to do so (though, there are levels and circumstances governing that).

Dont pull cards like this ... this is no way comparable to homosexual acts.

Ok. First let me state this:

I'm a girl. I'm of French descent, but I'm American. I'm bisexual. I'm pagan. I don't like to suntan.

Am I setting off your evil meter yet? Yes? Then you're stupid.

Second, lemme get to my rant.

It's not just Christians that are homophobes. Yes, Christians do make up the largest portion of them, but I know Aethiests and Jews and, hell, even an ODINIST who're homophobes.

And...all the "Natural/Un-natural" arguments? Agree to freaking dis-agree. You're NOT going to convince each other otherwise. There's no need to argue about it.

My advice to EVERYONE on this issue consists of three simple words: "Dude. Shove it."

If you're a gay-basher, shove it because you're likely wrong about gays, and you're sure as sugar not going to get anyone that's gay to "turn" with your opinions.

If you're a gay-rights activist, shove it because the gay-bashers AREN'T going to listen to you. Most of them are afraid. Only the Lady knows why, but they are. And they WON'T LISTEN. So stop wasting your breath.

If you're gay, shove it because all this public display of sissyness and butch-ness is what makes people think it's a disease, ok? Go on about your quiet little lives and DON'T grab your SO's butt in public or kiss them except in the privacy of your own home. Don't give them anything to talk about.

If you're straight, shove it because all of YOUR PDA's make the gays want to do PDA's, too. Go on about your quiet little lives and DON'T grab your SO's butt in public or kiss them except in the privacy of your own home. Don't give them anything to envy.

If you're none of the above, shove it, because you're reading this topic and probably arguing about it, which is STUPID.

*goes to shove it herself*

Your Friendly Girly Froggy Bisexual Pagan American That Hates Tanning,
Miraia

Ok. First let me state this:

I'm a girl. I'm of French descent, but I'm American. I'm bisexual. I'm pagan. I don't like to suntan.

Am I setting off your evil meter yet? Yes? Then you're stupid.

Second, lemme get to my rant.

It's not just Christians that are homophobes. Yes, Christians do make up the largest portion of them, but I know Aethiests and Jews and, hell, even an ODINIST who're homophobes.

And...all the "Natural/Un-natural" arguments? Agree to freaking dis-agree. You're NOT going to convince each other otherwise. There's no need to argue about it.

My advice to EVERYONE on this issue consists of three simple words: "Dude. Shove it."

If you're a gay-basher, shove it because you're likely wrong about gays, and you're sure as sugar not going to get anyone that's gay to "turn" with your opinions.

If you're a gay-rights activist, shove it because the gay-bashers AREN'T going to listen to you. Most of them are afraid. Only the Lady knows why, but they are. And they WON'T LISTEN. So stop wasting your breath.

If you're gay, shove it because all this public display of sissyness and butch-ness is what makes people think it's a disease, ok? Go on about your quiet little lives and DON'T grab your SO's butt in public or kiss them except in the privacy of your own home. Don't give them anything to talk about.

If you're straight, shove it because all of YOUR PDA's make the gays want to do PDA's, too. Go on about your quiet little lives and DON'T grab your SO's butt in public or kiss them except in the privacy of your own home. Don't give them anything to envy.

If you're none of the above, shove it, because you're reading this topic and probably arguing about it, which is STUPID.

*goes to shove it herself*

Your Friendly Girly Froggy Bisexual Pagan American That Hates Tanning,
Miraia

Bah, I would have left if the RR were not so stupid...I can not stand idiocy and I always try to do something about it. Often I fail but better to try and fail than not try at all.

Bah, I would have left if the RR were not so stupid...I can not stand idiocy and I always try to do something about it. Often I fail but better to try and fail than not try at all.

Well, you know what they say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Doesn't QUITE apply, here...But I wanted to say it. ^_~

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is...Sure, go ahead and try. But when you see that it's futile, don't waste your time, hon. It really is not worth it.

People will always and forever have their own opinions. Some can be influenced, some can't. Simple as pie. Mmmmm, pie...Which...really isn't all that simple. Gah, I'm belaboring my point here.

Anyway...Do what you will. I just give advice.

Your Miss-Quoting (cute, huh?) Advice Girl,
Miraia

For the purpose of this reply, I use the word "Christian" to denote the type of Christian alluded to at the beginning of this thread.

There is a very simple explanation why Christians target homosexuality over and above other sins. A vast majority of these Christians either do/may possibly at some time/can easily imagine themselves committing these other sins- divorce , instances of greed, charging interest for money loaned (how investments typically work even if it is not called this), eating shellfish or pork (for those who spout the OT), etc. Targeting these sins would affect their lives in ways that many of these Christians are not willing to accept, and thus these sins are largely overlooked, or considered more forgivable somehow. Not surprisingly, these types of Christians are far less likely to consider themselves as being "sinful" than those Christians with more tolerant attidues. But because God hates sin (but not their sins surely since they are His saved and chosen ones) then there must be something out there to work against, to be "the truly bad sin" that some people commit on a daily basis, that is an integral part of their everyday lives (thus ruling out things like murder, rape, theft, etc) just as things like the state of sin cause by remarriage after divorce or greed are an everyday part of these Christians lives. Thus homosexuality becomes a target. Because of the minority of people who experience homosexual attraction, this is a sin the vast, overwhelming majority of these Christians never have to worry about committing. And because it is a "consensual" type sin, like the types of sins these Christians commit, it becomes the scape-goat sin, the sin which bears the weight of all the sins that they can't admit to commiting (or at least admit to being truly bad) and still feel all good and self-rightous as Christians.

For the purpose of this reply, I use the word "Christian" to denote the type of Christian alluded to at the beginning of this thread.

There is a very simple explanation why Christians target homosexuality over and above other sins. A vast majority of these Christians either do/may possibly at some time/can easily imagine themselves committing these other sins- divorce , instances of greed, charging interest for money loaned (how investments typically work even if it is not called this), eating shellfish or pork (for those who spout the OT), etc. Targeting these sins would affect their lives in ways that many of these Christians are not willing to accept, and thus these sins are largely overlooked, or considered more forgivable somehow. Not surprisingly, these types of Christians are far less likely to consider themselves as being "sinful" than those Christians with more tolerant attidues. But because God hates sin (but not their sins surely since they are His saved and chosen ones) then there must be something out there to work against, to be "the truly bad sin" that some people commit on a daily basis, that is an integral part of their everyday lives (thus ruling out things like murder, rape, theft, etc) just as things like the state of sin cause by remarriage after divorce or greed are an everyday part of these Christians lives. Thus homosexuality becomes a target. Because of the minority of people who experience homosexual attraction, this is a sin the vast, overwhelming majority of these Christians never have to worry about committing. And because it is a "consensual" type sin, like the types of sins these Christians commit, it becomes the scape-goat sin, the sin which bears the weight of all the sins that they can't admit to commiting (or at least admit to being truly bad) and still feel all good and self-rightous as Christians.


I think you have pretty much summed it all up in one sweet and crunchy post. They feel insecure. The reason they need to shout down any arguments is because they feel if they hear it they may have holes punched of their faith.

Leave Christians Alone And It Does Say In The Bible Homosexuality Is Wrong So There!

Leave Christians Alone And It Does Say In The Bible Homosexuality Is Wrong So There!

Please state where it says so and put in a refute for one of the posts that has put into question this part of the text earlier in the post. I which Christians would leave homosexuals alone...

This whole argument applies to any and all religions. Anyone who is going to use a book of myths (yes that's right, religous stories are myths, look up the definition of myth) to guide their life has problems.
Before I go any further let me put this straight before I get flamed for it. I have nothing against most of the morals which religons try to teach, eg. Be nice and live well.
The problem I do have is when someone says:
"You shouldn't do that because [insert prophet] says in [insert holy book] that it's wrong!"
I do know a lot of the bible purely from getting into debates with christians, and anyone who's read it and paid attention will know how many contradictions there are in that thing, I know some other holy texts and it's not just christians who are deluded.

Leave Christians Alone And It Does Say In The Bible Homosexuality Is Wrong So There!In any of the applicable bits? You going by old versions that are supposed not to be used anymore or the new version?

If you are talking about the sections I think you are (it has been done to death) but before you start ... do you masterbate? Eat shellfish? Eat red meat on Fridays (I dont think this one is in that section, but it applies in context)? Etc, etc and all the other rather ridiculous rid and roll in that segment? If you do, you need a new argument.

If you do, you need a new argument.

Alas, but so often what people need is not what they want. This fella would obviously have more time posting alot of words begining in capitals* than make a proper argument.

*=I do for some reason find this FAR less annoying than people who POST WITH CAPS LOCK ON LIKE THIS. or those who use no capitals at all even when using names like sweden or something and never use any punctuation no idea why though

christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.. they are fine by me.
i go against gods law, im a satanist, i rebel against my parents, i do a lot of sinning.
i dont believe in god and if god does exist i dont believe it has the right to tell me that my feelings are wrong. therefor christains can say 'because god says so' as much as they wish, in the end it means and changes nothing.
what however i do mind are narrow minded fools who believe they are better than me and think they can tell me how to live my life. god and all you strange sheep (followers) can think what you like, they there is ne need to shove your thoughts and your biblical nonsence into my face and try to use it to tell me what i am is wrong.. love knows no gender, your 'god' says u should love, therefor i dont understand the argument.

Ok... Satanists believe in god, you can't rebel against something you don't believe in...
Which is what really makes me laugh about Christians who don't believe in satan... how can you have good without evil? Surely in a world without evil there is only average...

as a minor satanist i rebel against the so called 'words of god' and those people who believe it to the point where they believe everyone else should.
im not religious, as a minor satanist i believe more in rebelion against 'god' than in all powerfull beings.. the satan in my mind controls me, which i supose means i believe in me and what i think.

christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.. they are fine by me.
i go against gods law, im a satanist, i rebel against my parents, i do a lot of sinning.
i dont believe in god and if god does exist i dont believe it has the right to tell me that my feelings are wrong. therefor christains can say 'because god says so' as much as they wish, in the end it means and changes nothing.
what however i do mind are narrow minded fools who believe they are better than me and think they can tell me how to live my life. god and all you strange sheep (followers) can think what you like, they there is ne need to shove your thoughts and your biblical nonsence into my face and try to use it to tell me what i am is wrong.. love knows no gender, your 'god' says u should love, therefor i dont understand the argument.


I will not get onto my opinion on satanists who do not believe in God but I agree that God's opinions have little place in discussions such as this.

i dont believe in satan or god.. but i believe that the thought of satans rebelion against god is a good thing, as so i use this and rebel agaisnt gods words, or at least what people think are gots words. im not a satanist like i used to be..

i dont believe in satan or god.. but i believe that the thought of satans rebelion against god is a good thing, as so i use this and rebel agaisnt gods words, or at least what people think are gots words. im not a satanist like i used to be..

I see what you mean. But James Dean was a rebel, why do you not call yourself a Jamesdeanian?

it doesnt really have the same effect.
no, i havnt really thought about the fact im not much of a Satanist anymore due to trying to figure out my sexuality and why my friends dont want everyone to know. i supose i shouldnt really call myself a Satanist anymore, how confusing. i'll just call myself a freak and be done with it. either way im a lesbian and christians, and anyone else for that matter, have no right to tell me, my friends, and all the other homosexuals in the world how they should be feeling and who they should be loveing

it doesnt really have the same effect.
no, i havnt really thought about the fact im not much of a Satanist anymore due to trying to figure out my sexuality and why my friends dont want everyone to know. i supose i shouldnt really call myself a Satanist anymore, how confusing. i'll just call myself a freak and be done with it. either way im a lesbian and christians, and anyone else for that matter, have no right to tell me, my friends, and all the other homosexuals in the world how they should be feeling and who they should be loveing

Jamesdeanians is a lot funnier though...I think you are absoloutly right though. End oppression!

So what you actually mean is that you're Atheist;
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Satanism is a mirrored version of Christianity, with the same basic belief structure;
eg. There is a god, there is a devil, there is a messiah etc..

Every religion has it's struggle of good vs evil, the interesting about Christianity/Satanism (which are really just factions of Jewdaism) is that they've chosen a side. All the older religions I can think off would appease both sides, and rarely even had that clear distinction.

I see what you mean. But James Dean was a rebel, why do you not call yourself a Jamesdeanian?

I chuckled when I read this. I think that I am going to start calling people Jamesdeanians. Let's see... He was the "Rebel Without A Cause" so people who do things wihout reason would be Jamesdeanians, right? It's not really an insult, just kind of a label, like "liberal" or "cat".

:D

So what you actually mean is that you're Atheist;
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Satanism is a mirrored version of Christianity, with the same basic belief structure;
eg. There is a god, there is a devil, there is a messiah etc..

Every religion has it's struggle of good vs evil, the interesting about Christianity/Satanism (which are really just factions of Jewdaism) is that they've chosen a side. All the older religions I can think off would appease both sides, and rarely even had that clear distinction.

True, most religions actualy make up their chosen foe from somebody who actualy already exists. Some choose no foe at all but these mostly die off or have certain passages ignored (like Christianity). A notable execption is Buddhism.

I chuckled when I read this. I think that I am going to start calling people Jamesdeanians. Let's see... He was the "Rebel Without A Cause" so people who do things wihout reason would be Jamesdeanians, right? It's not really an insult, just kind of a label, like "liberal" or "cat".

:D

Well people who are into Flash Mobbing would be Jamesdeanians...

So what you actually mean is that you're Atheist;
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Satanism is a mirrored version of Christianity, with the same basic belief structure;
eg. There is a god, there is a devil, there is a messiah etc..

Every religion has it's struggle of good vs evil, the interesting about Christianity/Satanism (which are really just factions of Jewdaism) is that they've chosen a side. All the older religions I can think off would appease both sides, and rarely even had that clear distinction.

i dont deny the existance of anything, im a scientific and logical person, who also has an imagination and is very confused.

Satanism something many people take differently.

but i supose, considering people have no proof of a god, and the beliefe of on is what they think in their minds, i can believe in the Satan who lives in my head. no?

i dont deny the existance of anything, im a scientific and logical person, who also has an imagination and is very confused.

Satanism something many people take differently.

but i supose, considering people have no proof of a god, and the beliefe of on is what they think in their minds, i can believe in the Satan who lives in my head. no?

Methinks we wander and amble off topic here...

One of my co-workers just gave me a document, then realized he wasn't done with it, and took it back.

I told him that was "so Jamesdeanian."


He just kinda looked at me funny and walked away. :D

Methinks we wander and amble off topic here...
very ture, and very sorry.

Indeed, my apologies.

Indeed, my apologies.

No problem at all, I should make a seperate Jamesdeanian thread to spread the good work. This one is for discussing religious bigotry after all...

i can believe in the Satan who lives in my head. no?
That's called schizophrenia

But back on topic; No book of fairy tales should be able to tell you who you are.

That's called schizophrenia

But back on topic; No book of fairy tales should be able to tell you who you are.

*beats with the off topic stick*

That's called schizophrenia

But back on topic; No book of fairy tales should be able to tell you who you are.

no, i think its closer to insanity. which is something i have been driven to.

anyway, christains target homosexuals because they believe we are people who they are better than and because we arnt crazy murderers they can talk (well.. shout and argue) with us more easily. i think..

no, i think its closer to insanity. which is something i have been driven to.

anyway, christains target homosexuals because they believe we are people who they are better than and because we arnt crazy murderers they can talk (well.. shout and argue) with us more easily. i think..

And because they are unsure with their own sexuality.

God gave humanity free will, to do as we please and only God can comprehend why we do what we do including being a homosexual. We cannot see in the hearts of others only God can, I put my faith in God. I let God judge humanity.
As for myself it is none of my business what people do in their personal lives. If homosexuals want to get married then let them...they go to a different church than you anyway. Since some churches are the only ones that define marriage and we have a separation between church and state then marriage should be legal to every type of coupling...(well, except to children and animals). Besides 'marriage' in a church is different than 'marriage' by law (it's for tax purposes).

God gave humanity free will, to do as we please and only God can comprehend why we do what we do including being a homosexual. We cannot see in the hearts of others only God can, I put my faith in God. I let God judge humanity.
As for myself it is none of my business what people do in their personal lives. If homosexuals want to get married then let them...they go to a different church than you anyway. Since some churches are the only ones that define marriage and we have a separation between church and state then marriage should be legal to every type of coupling...(well, except to children and animals). Besides 'marriage' in a church is different than 'marriage' by law (it's for tax purposes).

Another sensible Christian, hurrah!

Surely Christianity has no reason to target homosexuals until we start throwing bricks wrapped in rainbow flags through their poncy stained-glass windows?

Oh bollocks, I'm getting ideas now...

Don't you think that one of the big reasons why Christians seem to be targeting homosexuality so much at the moment is the fact that it's got such a large place in the news? With all the issues of gay bishops and those arguments, it's taken a much greater public footing, whereas fornication and divorce don't, so much.

I'm not saying targeting homosexuality is right, because even though I'm a Christian, as I said in my last post, it would be hypocritical of me to judge when I sin myself - not by being a lesbian, but in other ways, as everyone does. When I hear another Christian saying "gays should burn in hell," I just feel like saying to them, you've done a lot of things that, without your faith in Jesus, you would "burn in hell" for too. They don't think it's wrong. If they're Christian, they may have decided it was alright, they're still so many arguments going on about it, or they may really be struggling against it. You threatening fire and brimstone upon them isn't going to help.

What I am saying is, the debates about gay bishops and gay marriage have thrown homosexuality into a far brighter public spotlight than before, and because of that, it's sparking a lot more controversy. I'm not sure, but I guess a lot of Christians are targeting homosexuality now because it's easier to get their voices heard.

I think I know why christians target homosexuals.
The church has condoned all the other sins at some point or another throughout history. If not on an individual level then on a national. There are plenty of examples of it.
so maybe thats it

I think I know why christians target homosexuals.
The church has condoned all the other sins at some point or another throughout history. If not on an individual level then on a national. There are plenty of examples of it.
so maybe thats it

Well the Catholic Church on a few occasions permitted same sex marriages...

Surely Christianity has no reason to target homosexuals until we start throwing bricks wrapped in rainbow flags through their poncy stained-glass windows?

Oh bollocks, I'm getting ideas now...

lol, but surely even that wouldnt give them reason to target all homosexuals. just the ones that throw bricks.. which would mean they should target vandles.. which leaves me wondering why they dont.

lol, but surely even that wouldnt give them reason to target all homosexuals. just the ones that throw bricks.. which would mean they should target vandles.. which leaves me wondering why they dont.

Is throwing bricks a sin? I mean Jesus was apparently against stoning sinners but what about bricking them?

I think this is going to be my first post here..but Im not sure.

First off, Im a Christian.

I am opposed to homosexuality, and here's the reason:

The Bible says its wrong in many places. The first is in the Old testament (it mentioned it like 2-3 times). Now I know what argument you're going to come up with:
"The Bible says that you need to sacrifice animals to God." And other such arguments. Problem is, if you started reading the Bible, from page 1, then you would know that that is in the Old Testament, and we read it, to remember it. We want to remember it, because if we don't we'll do the stuff they did with the same concequences (sp?).

Next argument is:
"But the 'homosexuality is wrong' is in the Old Testament too!" Well guess what Bud? Its in the New Testament as well as the Old. Since the Old is for remembering, the New is for doing. The New basicely restates the Old, but with one new factor. Jesus Christ was born.

Hope I could clear out some stuff.

And btw, did you notice that Christianity is the most picked on? Muslims, Jews, etc dont get picked on as we do. Why? The Jews were in the Old Testament! Actually, they practicely started the whole Bible with Israel. So why us? Its like Christianity is wrong. Give me 3 reasons why?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: It IS my first post :D
EDIT 2: As on wise guy said: "If there is no God, then there would be no Atheists"

Give me 3 reasons why?

Fundamentalist Christians tend to befar more vocal (at least in the western world).
FC's tend to be listened to more (in the Western World).
There are more FC's (in the Western World) compared to Fundamentalist Muslims. Most people will know at least one FC, but no Muslim Fundies.

I think this is going to be my first post here..but Im not sure.

Next argument is:
"But the 'homosexuality is wrong' is in the Old Testament too!" Well guess what Bud? Its in the New Testament as well as the Old. Since the Old is for remembering, the New is for doing. The New basicely restates the Old, but with one new factor. Jesus Christ was born.

Hope I could clear out some stuff.

And btw, did you notice that Christianity is the most picked on? Muslims, Jews, etc dont get picked on as we do. Why? The Jews were in the Old Testament! Actually, they practicely started the whole Bible with Israel. So why us? Its like Christianity is wrong. Give me 3 reasons why?



Where says the New Testament that homosexuality is wrong? I allways thought Jesus kissed other men, had his favorite (John) and was betrayed by a kiss of another man.
A lot of kissing for straight guys :p

And I'm not against Christianity, I'm against all religions, as they use something unproven to get their wills done and they all preach love and understanding while discriminating other people.

The only thing we can say is: 'We don't know if there is a God or something like that.' Anyone claiming more is just a liar. Starting from this point, we can make human moral rules that allow all people freedom, except when they would hurt others, nature, ...

-------------------------------------------------------
All thinking men are atheists.
- Ernest Hemingway

Men and woman are attracted to each other in order to encourage breeding... like most animals. How many homosexual monkies do you see. As for anal G spot.. thats just wrong, what are you achieving by shoving your penis into another mans anus. Maybe a filthy wang but thats about it. At least you can make babies with straight sex and get natural pleasure. Lesbians along with gays are wrong because they go against nature.

:fluffle: I don't know about monkeys, but since we are apes This might be of interest: I went to a Jane Goodall lecture a few years ago and a friend asked about homosexuality. She said she had never observed it in the wild chimps she studies. However, she said it does occur in captivity.

First off, since this is like the eigth topic I've seen about this in the past few days I'd like to start off by saying "Real Christians don't hate homosexuals". Because a few loud mouthed zealots wanna go around preaching hate doesn't mean that everyone feels that way. Stop assuming. Every last one of these posts has had a stupid title like "Why do Christians hate homosexuals" or "What is your problem? Let homosexuals live their lives" or whatnot. Drop it.
Second, the bible does NOT say anywhere that homosexuality became ok. I don't know where you got that from. Jesus preached love for homosexuals because they were still just as human as the rest of us, but like the prostitute, he never said it was ok.
Third, I didn't hear any of your previous arguments, but if they're anything like the last two threads I went to, the anti-homosexual wing (for lack of a better term) isn't ignoring your side. Your side just hasn't made any valid points. What business is it of ours and it's going to happen anyway are the two most widely used and both are ridiculous. Plus, it's hard to get people to liste when even the title of the thread is an attack on them.
Finally, as for Christians condemning nothing else....do you watch TV, or come out of your house? Extremist Christians (Catholics as they are called) condemn everything. Normal Christians speak out against homosexuality, pedophilia, racial issues, then the extremists pick up. Theyre on the news ALL THE TIME about abortion, stem cell reasearch, etc etc etc. And if you go to church as a catholic, just live your life in sin. You're going to hell. Even breathing wrong is a sin. The reason homosexuality is so big right now is that a lot of states are bringing gay marriage up on a vote and the president is trying to pass a gay marriage ban amendment. So it's a hot issue right now. But by no means is it the ONLY THING christians focus on. So you really don't know what you're talking about. If you had been paying attention you'd notice that there are a HELL OF A LOT more christians protesting the war then there are gay marriage.

Extremist Christians (Catholics as they are called) condemn everything. Normal Christians speak out against homosexuality, pedophilia, racial issues, then the extremists pick up. ... And if you go to church as a catholic, just live your life in sin. You're going to hell. Even breathing wrong is a sin.


I always find it funny when people are complaining about other people being ignorant and not knowing what they're talking about, then say something completely stupid and well, ignorant. Extremists Christians are called fundementalists, or fundies. My mom is catholic, and so is my brother, and many other people I know. Are any of them extremist? No. Far from it. My mom is quite possibly the most tolerant person I know, almost to a fault. I think this is my first post here....and I didn't even plan on posting until I saw that ridiculous statement.

lol, but surely even that wouldnt give them reason to target all homosexuals. just the ones that throw bricks.. which would mean they should target vandles.. which leaves me wondering why they dont.

Are you joking? They'd never do that.

They cry, gays are promiscous! Well, target promiscuis people then.
They cry, gays are unnatural! Well, target unnatural things then.
They cry, gays do not make babies! Well, target people who don't make babies then.
They cry, gays abuse children! Well, target child-abusers then.

First off, Im a Christian.


I am so sorry. I think you can check into a special clinic now... they use electroshock therapy, or something...

I am opposed to homosexuality, and here's the reason:


You already stated the 'reason'... you are a 'christian'... therefore you do as you are told by someone who died twenty centuries ago, and 'reason' has nothing to do with it.

Sit down - take a deep breath - now come up with an actual 'reason'.

Its like Christianity is wrong....

Well said.

If thats the case, you may have noticed I tend to take 'points' from peoples posts and use them, instead of the whole thing. I've rather forgotten what it was that I was pulling points from and cant be bothered going back and trying to find it again. I do this often ... I was referring, in terms of context, to the ideas you formed around my formulation of consent with my "ripped from context" post. In the post before that, I was probably not even reffering to anything about your view of misuse of the word "natural" in this thread.

As this post doesnt add to the arguement further, I will leave it there.

In short - its very rare that I take the exact point someone was trying to make in my post returns, just parts of/arguments (something that stirs a emotional want to reply) within the overall post ... therefore, it is highly probable that I wasnt even looking at your overall message at all.

Hope that clears it up, if not, let me know.

I get it, I think: you are trying to engage in rational discussion without necessarily engaging in ratiocination.

Long live the non sequitur, eh? :p

PT

:fluffle: I don't know about monkeys, but since we are apes This might be of interest: I went to a Jane Goodall lecture a few years ago and a friend asked about homosexuality. She said she had never observed it in the wild chimps she studies. However, she said it does occur in captivity.

My two rabbits who were my pets (and thus captives you could say, one of them escaped never to be seen again and the other was bitten by a box and died of fright) were both male and humped each other all around the house.

Why are Christians targeting homosexuality? What about /other/ sins?

To draw attention away from other sins which they themselves commit?

My two rabbits who were my pets (and thus captives you could say, one of them escaped never to be seen again and the other was bitten by a box and died of fright) were both male and humped each other all around the house.

A friend of mine has two male dogs, and they seem to constantly be humping each other. Those flaming homos. ;)

The Oppressed Peoples of The Digipigeon Islands does not endorse homosexuality, and any homosexuals found on the Islands will be shot by our secret Digital Sparrow Snipers :) :sniper:

The Oppressed Peoples of The Digipigeon Islands does not endorse homosexuality, and any homosexuals found on the Islands will be shot by our secret Digital Sparrow Snipers :) :sniper:

Do your own OOC thoughts apply to this as well?

How many homosexual monkies do you see
Actually Bonobo monkeys will have sex with any member of their species, male or female.

Also, whoever it was insulting the Catholic Church,remember:It's just an excuse for grown men to wear dresses and then bum an altar boy.

Actually Bonobo monkeys will have sex with any member of their species, male or female.

Also, whoever it was insulting the Catholic Church,remember:It's just an excuse for grown men to wear dresses and then bum an altar boy.

I know about the Bonobo monkeys but what dfo you expect from an animal with the word nob in it's name. They are OBVIOUSLY satanic.

Oh and the Catholic Chruch is also an excuse for idiots to try and run the world.

My grandfather came over the other day. He's a minister. And he said the most disgusting thing he could think of was two men kissing....

And I said, 'then you don't have much of an imagination, do you?'

Perhaps it's one of those things. You know, like racism. If your raised with prejudice, you'll pass it on. Or whatever. My parents told me that I could put my mind to anything and achieve it.

If a person loves another person, does race matter?
If a person loves another person, does religion matter?
If a person loves another person, does sex matter?

Why are SO many people so inflamed over homosexuality? I have tried to debate here in OTHER threa why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality for modern Christians, and have accepted the fact that most conservative Christians just cover their ears and won't be swayed. So can I ask you, as a Christian, why you are focusing on homosexuality?

What about:
Fornification

Condemned much more than homosexuality in the Bible, fornification is much more widespread than homosexuality. The majority of young Christian teenagers are taught against homosexuality, but in my area at least I see young Christian teenagers committing fornification left and right and thinking it is ok. If you are going to predjudice against gay people, what about fornicators? If you are going to bring up the "gays this, gays that" Why not "fornicators this, fornicators that"? Is it maybe because fornification is more "common", and since so many Christians do it that makes it ok? Since homosexuality is more rare, its not ok, is that the logic?
I guaruantee there are fornicators in political office, and everywhere. But if a person who has been a homosexual in the past ever tries to enter office or anything, they won't get it. The Bible EQUALLY condemns homosexuality with fornification. Sex outside of marriage is just as wrong.

Are you being a true Christian to your belief when you focus on the act of homosexuality, and ignore these other acts in your discussions with friends and such? If your friend was a fornicator, are you going to bring that up to them equally as you would if they would gay?

Are you going to badger your friends about fornification because it is a sin equally condemned in the Bible as much as you would a gay friend about their homosexuality?

Do you see my point here?

Duh... Because it's icky!