NationStates Jolt Archive

And. You may not understand slavery at this time. All it meant was not giving them any money, they worked in reasonable conditions and the master fed and clothed them. He didnt beat them or anything like that. God was not a socialist, he had little to say on economic matters.

You're right. They were never supposed to beat their slaves. That's why there's a law that specifically says if they beat a slave to death and he survives a whole night, it's not murder - since the person was *their property*. Reasonable conditions, food, and clothing are shit if you are *owned by another person*.

You're right. They were never supposed to beat their slaves. That's why there's a law that specifically says if they beat a slave to death and he survives a whole night, it's not murder - since the person was *their property*. Reasonable conditions, food, and clothing are shit if you are *owned by another person*.

please ignore neo cannen.if i have read his opinions correctly, he's a religous fundamentalist. please all non-cristians, he does not speak for our whole religon, nor do i. just don't get ticked at christianity in general plz.

Origionally posted by Dakini.

It was actually the founders of "Exodus International" of which I am also a failed graduate.

It means Jesus. Hence the point of John writing the Gospel in the first place. That's a forehead slapper.

As for Cain's wife: yeah, it was his sister. It wasn't against the will of God. I don't understand that argument.

No it doesn't. Jesus is "The Holy Ghost".

And No. It was not his sister. It was a woman from Nod. Or don't you even read your god?

Origionally posted by Dakini.

It was actually the founders of "Exodus International" of which I am also a failed graduate.

how can you fail a school to learn to be gay/ or am i misunderstanding you?

No it doesn't. Jesus is "The Holy Ghost".

And No. It was not his sister. It was a woman from Nod. Or don't you even read your god?

you can read god? score! how? or do you mean the bible? that's not neccesarily the will of god either. didja know it was edited by guess what jesus, no, god, no, the holy ghost, no, a group of normal humans huzzah!!!!!! :mp5: death to all who oppose the horde!

And. You may not understand slavery at this time. All it meant was not giving them any money, they worked in reasonable conditions and the master fed and clothed them. He didnt beat them or anything like that. God was not a socialist, he had little to say on economic matters.
then why the rules on what happens if you beat one of your slaves to death.

if they survive a day, it's alright, they were the master's property anyways.

God (see John chapter 1)
even if it did, if i write a book that says that it was written by god, that doesn't make it right.

It means Jesus. Hence the point of John writing the Gospel in the first place. That's a forehead slapper.

As for Cain's wife: yeah, it was his sister. It wasn't against the will of God. I don't understand that argument.
if cain's wife was his mother's daughter, then explain why there is more than one set of mitochondrial dna floating around.

hell, if all men were descended from adam, then explain why there's more than one y chromosome in modern humans.

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Marriage was around thousands of years before Someone dreamed up christianity.
Marriage was NOT invented by Xtians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't think it's wrong. people have their differentthoughts in things and so it is not a sin. it is not about if you ae christian or not or other things. It depends on who you really love. so if there are same sex marriages and such, it's okay. people in the opposite sex may not catch your eye, so i believe that if they like the same sex, so be it. some poeple cannot control who they love or do not love. the hormones are given to all of the descendants of one parent. If there are 7 brothers, the youngest is most likely to turn gay, and it is not their fault. actually, the parents should be blamed for doing it oo many times without using safety procautions. Is is not in our hands to judge someone by their sex, as we are all different in characteristics, so why can we not be different with our thoughts?

if cain's wife was his mother's daughter, then explain why there is more than one set of mitochondrial dna floating around.

hell, if all men were descended from adam, then explain why there's more than one y chromosome in modern humans.

How could Cain be worried about being killed by someone is my question. How many people were there at this point?

MORAL LAW is that which Jesus re empheisised in the new testement. And before you go to me saying "Ah but Jesus said nothing about homosexuality" he did say to stop sinning.Wha? "stop sinning" hardly reemphasizes same-sex sex as a sin.
And I have already pointed several times to Hebrews chapter 10 verses 5 to 18 as the proof of removal of ritualitsic law. Go read it again, I'm tired of putting it in here for those who cant readHebrews 10:5-18 don't anywhere define ritualistic law. Where is that defined? What is your biblical basis for saying that Leviticus 18:22 is moral law and, say, Leviticus 19:19 is ritualistic law? Leviticus doesn't answer the question: Leviticus 19:19 is right next to 19:18, a moral law if ever I saw one, and Jesus-approved. Neither does Hebrews chapter 10. It strikes out Leviticus 1-5, 6:6-30, 7, 16:1-28, 17:1-9, 19:5-8, 19:21-22, (arguably) 21-24. Some of the rest is history rather than laws, but there are many laws left that Christians don't follow. So for those laws that Jesus simply doesn't make any mention of, how do you determine which are ritualistic laws, and which are moral laws?

No it doesn't. Jesus is "The Holy Ghost".

And No. It was not his sister. It was a woman from Nod. Or don't you even read your god?
Jesus isn't the Holy Ghost. They're different persons in one God. Basic teaching of the Trinity. Look at all of the passages about Pentecost and also Jesus' baptism. It talks about Jesus, and it talks about the Father, and it talks about the Holy Spirit. Three in one God.

As for Cain's wife, the woman from Nod, where do you think she came from? She'd either be Cain's sister, or neice. If they were close in age, I'm thinking sister.

So, Jesus is his own father? That's just sick, and wrong on so many levels.

And no, it never states that the woman is related to him. She is from Nod, she was born in Nod, and she was not related to him, because it would have stated that.

And I want you to answer me that question: where did she come from?

We can surmise several things:

God didn't make her - he only made Adam and Eve. Noone else.

She wasn't related to him - it would have said that. Besides, his only relatives were Adanm, Eve, Abel, and (after he found his wife) Seth. Never is a daughter mentioned being born, and that would have been a major event if there was a dughter, but there isn't.

So, where did she come from?

What gives author of post 640 the right to put down the gay lifestyle. It's not hurting him or anybody else; it's not imposing on anybody. It's their life and they should be able to live it how they want without interference. There are much worse things that you can worry about rather than how my friends and I live our lives. SO DROP THE F**KING HATE AND GET A GOD DAMN LIFE.


:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Again with the mixing moral law and ceremonial law. Who was it who keeps bringing up that passage in Hebrews? Neo Cannen I think? Why is it that I understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law, Jesus understands the difference, Paul understands the difference, Neo Cannen understands the difference, but no one else does?Because, unless I am mistaken, none of you have explained how to reliably distinguish the two.
((I was mistaken: Davistania had given an explanation later in the thread, but before this post. Perhaps it's not a completely reliable method, but it looks workable.))

It does give proof on Homosexuality. In Leviticus, it lays down the moral laws. And one of those laws says, "If one lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have done what is detestable." Don't play semantic games with me: that's a pretty clear indictment of homosexuality.No, I insist. That's a pretty clear indictment of same-sex sex. Which is not the same thing as homosexuality.

The people at Sod. and Gom., which is what I believe you were referencing, were completely wicked people. All of them.Uh, the angels called off their search early. Which was understandable given the circumstances, but nonetheless they did not verify that all the people at Sod. and Gom. were completely wicked.

They were not hospitable, they had no decency, they were evil, evil people. One of the things they were known for was homosexuality. Which would fit in with their wicked ways. If a man is convicted for murder and theft, but is only sentenced for the murder, is he not still guilty of theft?If a man murders and wears a red sweater, is wearing a red sweater a crime?

It's a sin. Again, read the Bible, but this time don't try to push YOUR point of view. Let scripture interpret scripture.I'm inclined to read the Bible with the contexts in which it was written in mind (as much as I know them). And despite what Neo Cannen thinks, it is entirely possible that the writers did not have a concept of homosexuality. The ancient Hebrews were quite sexist, and it is entirely possible that they did not equate male-male sex with female-female sex as we do. In Romans 1 however, Paul does seem to equate the two.

Sin is rebelling against God.Woah. Ok, that makes things a lot more clear. That's not how I understood the word (sin=moral wrong). One clarification please: it is possible to unintentionally and unknowingly sin right?

What does people being homosexual actually change in YOUR day to day life?
Does it hurt you? Does it take anything away from you? It takes things away from God.
What things?

And also, the Gospels were written within the time period of the lifetime of those who had seen Jesus (not just the disciples, citizens too)Oh? How do we know this?
and when it was published, people didnt say "No that didnt happen" when they saw itAgain, how do we know this?

We've got a pretty good estiamte that the universe is gigantic. Extremely so. As we show it is larger and larger, the chances that evolution happen once get better and better.Ewww. I don't disagree exactly, the anthropomorphic principle smells like a cop-out to me.

And a further update of my little experiment. My new and improved program had a bug in it. I'm now getting Hamlet (sort of):

Generation 99999 (81270 mismatches):
1604



Z
THE TRAGE<Y !F HAMLFY, PRINCE OF DENMARZ

H


BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Y





DRAMATXS PEHSONAF

2
.CLA:DIUS, KI<G OF DENMAR].

MARCEL2US, OFFICHR.

HAMLEZ, SOF TO T3E FORMEY,FAND N-PHEW TOXTHE PRESENT KING.

POLONOUS, LORD CHAMBERLAIN.

HORATSO, FRIEND TO HAMLET;

LAERTES, ]ON TO POLONIUS.
C VOLTEMAND, COUSTIER.

COINELIRS, COURTIER.
K( ROSE;CR4NTZ, COURTIER.

GUNZDEN&TERN,4C.URTIER.

OSRIC, COURTIE3.

A GENTLEMAN,)CO(RTIER.

A PRIEST.
" "MARCELLUSC O?FICER.

BE;NARDO, OFFICE4.

FRANCISCO, A SOLDIEN

BEYNALDO, ZERWANB TO POLONIUS.

PTAYERS?

K TWO CLOW!S,'GRAGEDIGGER9.

FORTBNBRAS, PRINCE OF NORW'Y."
2 > NORWEGIAN CAP6AIN.

BENGLISH AMBASSADOZS.



GETRUDE, QUEEN OF DENMARK
KOTHER TO HAMLET.

T OPHELIA, DAUGHTER TO PCLONIUS.



GHOST OF HMMLXB'SNF[THER.
&S
LORDS, LAD]ES,QLFFICER4, SOLCIERS, SAILORST MESSEXGERS,

ATTENDAYTS.



H
?


,<THIS ELECTRONIC VEFSION )F THE COMPDETE WORKS OF WILLIAM

.HAKES>EARE IS NOPYRIG T M990-1993 BY WORLD

Not a thing of beauty perhaps, but definitely Hamlet. Evolution through unnatural selection works.

And for reference, the code:

#!/usr/bin/python

# Copyright 2004 Andrew Wade
# Licensed under the Open Software License version 2.1

import sys
from random import choice, random, randint

daughtercount = int(sys.argv[1])
mutationcount = int(sys.argv[2])
generations = int(sys.argv[3])

if len(sys.argv) != 4:
sys.stderr.write("usage: " + sys.argv[0] +
" <offspring> <mutations> <generations> < text\n")
sys.exit(1)

target = [ord(x) for x in sys.stdin.read().upper()]

charset = [x for x in xrange(1,127) if x in target]
sys.stderr.write("(%d characters in character set)\n" % len(charset))


def mismatchdelta(text, target, mutations):
delta = 0
for mutation in mutations:
if mutation[1] == target[mutation[0]]:
delta -= 1
if text[mutation[0]] == target[mutation[0]]:
delta += 1
return delta


def mutations(text, mutationcount):
return [(randint(0, len(text) - 1), choice(charset)) for i in
xrange (mutationcount)]


# initialize text to a random string of the right length:
text = [choice(charset) for i in xrange(len(target))]
mismatches = 0
for i in xrange(len(text)):
if text[i] != target[i]:
mismatches += 1


for generation in xrange(1, generations):
daughtermutations = [mutations(text,mutationcount)
for i in xrange(daughtercount)]
delta, mutation = min([(mismatchdelta(text, target, m),m) for m in
daughtermutations])

# apply mutation
for i, char in mutation:
text[i] = char
mismatches += delta

sys.stderr.write("Generation %d (%d mismatches):\n%s\n" % (generation,
mismatches, "".join([chr(x) for x in text[:1000]])))
sys.stderr.flush()


sys.stdout.write("".join([chr(x) for x in text]))

Jesus did not refer specificly to homosexuality as far as we know. He did however also not refer to rape specificly. They both are sins, and he said to stop sinning.How do you know they are both sins?

obiviously you are wrong, we are discussing whether or not it's a sin, not why fyi:cough: Look in the title bar of your browser.

Human emotion is a MAJOR design flaw.
Which is the perfect reason why we should correct it.By no means, emotion is a functional mechanism to manage our interpersonal relationships, make appropriate priorities, and probably lots of other things. Yes I am making this up as I go along.

As I should've said earlier. The law of biogenesis says that all life comes from previous life EXCEPT for the first life. Pasteur realized that it had to happen once.Let's simplify and drop the exception. (I don't know the actual definition). Then the law isn't completely true. But it would be in good company: plenty of laws have slight exceptions.

Again, homosexuality is placed in with the moral laws of Leviticus. It says it is 'detestable'. There are no qualifiers, and it doesn't seem to me to mean that it only applies to Israel. It applies to everyone. That's why it's condemned at Sodom and Gommorrah. That's why it's condemned in the New Testament, again in that passage in Jude, and also in Romans specifically.So we can judge whether a law in Leviticus is a moral law by whether it seems that it doesn't apply only to Israel (preferably with biblical examples)? That's what I was interested in learning. Thank you.

<snip more examples of how to interpret laws in the bible. interesting stuff>

Yes, but who says the bible is correct?Not me. But I was interested in why certain Christians think homosexuality is a sin, not why they think the bible is correct.

please ignore neo cannen.if i have read his opinions correctly, he's a religous fundamentalist. please all non-cristians, he does not speak for our whole religon, nor do i. just don't get ticked at christianity in general plz.No worries here; I'm quite aware of the diversity of Christian belief, though not knowledgeable of the details. And I won't be responding to Neo Cannen for a while, but that's merely because I'm off to bed.

God created Adam and Eve, naked, so wearing clothes is sinning against God's plan, because He did not make clothes.
And since He made only Adam and Eve, having children is sinning too, because if He had wanted there to be children, He would have made them.

Marriage was around thousands of years before Someone dreamed up christianity.
Marriage was NOT invented by Xtians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very good point might I add

You know, while I was reading your post I could only think about the loser red-neck in post number 640. Because you know the entire incest thing they do down there. You know the old red-neck saying, "Incest Is BEST!" And let's not forget the standard dating practice; going to the family reunion to pick up dates.

So, yeah... To all y'all haters up in here: Moth** fu**er you can't be serious. Give that shit to foxy. Next bitch! No, I said next bitch moth** fu**er - oh uh uh... I kno you ditn't... Bitch don't make me go Oprah on yo ass!

:fluffle: @---->----------- :fluffle: And then one of these dudes that'll crawl up haters' asses... }:-<>--- (I'm trying

c'mon, fucking a guy up the ass is no more 'evil' than fucking a girl up the ass. It's the same thing!!!!!!

God didn't invent the concept of sin, humans did.

Origionally posted by Bobslovakia.

It is a school ( or more aptly put, a "program" based on religious principles ) that is supposed to make gay people "straight". They have afiliates all over the world with names such as "Straight Ahead", "Eleutheros", etc...
Although well intentioned, it has done unfathomable damage to the psychie of innumerable men and women who are struggling to come to terms with Christianity and homosexuality.
I was involved with this program for nearly ten years. I simply woke one morning and admitted to myself that I was still gay and I have never looked back. ;)

Origionally posted by Bobslovakia.

It is a school ( or more aptly put, a "program" based on religious principles ) that is supposed to make gay people "straight". They have afiliates all over the world with names such as "Straight Ahead", "Eleutheros", etc...
Although well intentioned, it has done unfathomable damage to the psychie of innumerable men and women who are struggling to come to terms with Christianity and homosexuality.
I was involved with this program for nearly ten years. I simply woke one morning and admitted to myself that I was still gay and I have never looked back. ;)

You've actually been part of those groups? I've heard of them from an american friend, and what I've heard isn't very heartwarming. Basically, what they do is try to use conditionning to repress homosexual behavior, while reinforcing heterosexual behavior, right?

If you don't mind sharing, I'm interested in how(as in, what methods were used) they could possibly do that. Just a little bit of masochist curiosity on my part ;)

Ahhh...but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. A good father does not sentence his children to eternal punishment when they screw up.

The idea here is that we have plenty of chances on this earth to realize that we screwed up BEFORE we die.
Imagine your little boy being tortured and killed so that a bunch of jerks can be with you forever, because even though most people out there are evil, you can see beneath all that and love them anyway. Then imagine if they knew that your boy had given his life for them and all he asked was that they turn from their sins and follow him, but they used his name as a curse and spit on his image.
I'd be a bit upset too.
God knows we're not perfect. He just wants us to try our best, because once you believe in Him and choose to follow His son, He will help you.

NeoCannen re your post at 7:02 (didn't feel like quoting it all): you are absolutely right, or I should say, that I totally agree with you. Once you are a christian, you are supposed to turn from your sins and follow God. We'll keep screwing up but we are not supposed to just keep living our old life, or else what is the point? If you do that, I figure you don't really believe and you just use the term "christian" because your parents are, or whatever.

Marriage was around thousands of years before Someone dreamed up christianity.
Marriage was NOT invented by Xtians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God gave humans marriage in Eden. He created humans and marriage.

And I won't argue with you that life must come from life. But the flaw in your arguement is the origins of God. Where did s/he/it come from? If life could not randomly happen, I find it even more unbelievable that an omniscent/omnipotent being outside of our true understanding (who if s/he/it is there is probably laughing their ass off right now) could just happen.


Well, duh. Of course we can't understand or comprehend God or where He came from or anything like that. If God was small enough to understand, He wouldn't be big enough for our problems. He created us, not the other way around. How can the creation understand the Creator? We only know what we see, we are not capable of any more than that, so we must base all our interpretations on this earth. God is way bigger than that.

God gave humans marriage in Eden. He created humans and marriage.

Satan created homosexuals and civil unions!

First off no matter what you say, homosexuality is wrong. A man wasn't made to bang another guy in his arse. No other way around it. A man and a woman is how it should be. But, I don't really care what you do with your life. It's absolutely none of my damn buisness. But trying to say that it is right is just rediculous. But you do have rights and I will not do anything to mess with them.

You know, while I was reading your post I could only think about the loser red-neck in post number 640. Because you know the entire incest thing they do down there. You know the old red-neck saying, "Incest Is BEST!" And let's not forget the standard dating practice; going to the family reunion to pick up dates.

So, yeah... To all y'all haters up in here: Moth** fu**er you can't be serious. Give that shit to foxy. Next bitch! No, I said next bitch moth** fu**er - oh uh uh... I kno you ditn't... Bitch don't make me go Oprah on yo ass!

:fluffle: @---->----------- :fluffle: And then one of these dudes that'll crawl up haters' asses... }:-<>--- (I'm trying

This is an excellent way to get people to listen to you.

The idea here is that we have plenty of chances on this earth to realize that we screwed up BEFORE we die.
Imagine your little boy being tortured and killed so that a bunch of jerks can be with you forever, because even though most people out there are evil, you can see beneath all that and love them anyway. Then imagine if they knew that your boy had given his life for them and all he asked was that they turn from their sins and follow him, but they used his name as a curse and spit on his image.
I'd be a bit upset too.
God knows we're not perfect. He just wants us to try our best, because once you believe in Him and choose to follow His son, He will help you.

NeoCannen re your post at 7:02 (didn't feel like quoting it all): you are absolutely right, or I should say, that I totally agree with you. Once you are a christian, you are supposed to turn from your sins and follow God. We'll keep screwing up but we are not supposed to just keep living our old life, or else what is the point? If you do that, I figure you don't really believe and you just use the term "christian" because your parents are, or whatever.

Actually, He wants quite a bit more than our best. Believe me, I've tried as hard as I could to believe in the things the Bible teaches, but I just can't. So, even though I've been a generally good person all my life, and tried to fix, or at least learn from, all of my mistakes, I'll still go to Hell, if what the Bible says is true. I really don't want any part of that.

Actually, He wants quite a bit more than our best. Believe me, I've tried as hard as I could to believe in the things the Bible teaches, but I just can't. So, even though I've been a generally good person all my life, and tried to fix, or at least learn from, all of my mistakes, I'll still go to Hell, if what the Bible says is true. I really don't want any part of that.

Let me just put this idea across. A lot of people have said to me before "What kind of God sends good people to hell". I will explain. What God did for us on the Cross was increadable, Amazing, indescribable (hence a lack of good adjectives but I will continue) etc. It was God sending his Son to a certain death for all humans throught all time. Now a lot of people say that sentance and so it has kind of lost its meaning. But let me get the idea across better. You hear all about your Sarah Payne's, your Holly Wells's and Jessica Chatman's, your Milly Dowlers etc etc (all spelt badly). These are all the children of parents who have been indescribabley sad because someone has stolen their child or their child has gone missing or something like that. Any parent is sad when they lose a child, it is an immense sadness and something they may never get over completely. That kind of sadness is what God felt when Jesus was dying and God knew it had to be done. But what was worse was that God had to do it. He had to send his son to Earth to do that. HE was the one who had to turn his back on his son, and inflict a vilont and grizzley death on him. Now God did all that to allow us to no longer spirtiualy die, but to live with him in Hevan for ever. If people are going to say to that "Thats very nice but I dont need that, I can get on fine by myself" how do you think God feels. His son was beaten, whiped, floged, had nails driven through his wrists, sufficated and died in possibley the cruelist way devised by man to save humans from hell and all its horrors, and people will ignore what he has done and will just "Be good" acording to their own morals. Ignoring God like that and what he did is an insult rearly to what God did, and Jesus's love for us that he was willing to die to save sinners. Good people dont go to hell because they havnt been good enough to get to hevan. No one can ever be 'Good enough' to get to hevan. You cant work your way into God's kingdom. All you can do is accept you are flawed, tell God sincerely that you are sorry for what you have done, and ask for him to accept you into his family. This he will do of course without hesitation.

Satan created homosexuals and civil unions!

Satan didn't "Create" homosexuals or homsexuality, he tempts people into it by pushing thoughts into their minds. As for civil unions, that is him pusshing the idea of political correctness to far. People think its a simple jump from equal gender rights to equal race rights to equal sexual orientation rights well it isnt (and I'm only talking about marriage, I dont want to imprison and kill gays if thats what people think of when i say rights)

Let me just put this idea across. A lot of people have said to me before "What kind of God sends good people to hell". I will explain. What God did for us on the Cross was increadable, Amazing, indescribable (hence a lack of good adjectives but I will continue) etc. It was God sending his Son to a certain death for all humans throught all time. Now a lot of people say that sentance and so it has kind of lost its meaning. But let me get the idea across better. You hear all about your Sarah Payne's, your Holly Wells's and Jessica Chatman's, your Milly Dowlers etc etc (all spelt badly). These are all the children of parents who have been indescribabley sad because someone has stolen their child or their child has gone missing or something like that. Any parent is sad when they lose a child, it is an immense sadness and something they may never get over completely. That kind of sadness is what God felt when Jesus was dying and God knew it had to be done. But what was worse was that God had to do it. He had to send his son to Earth to do that. HE was the one who had to turn his back on his son, and inflict a vilont and grizzley death on him. Now God did all that to allow us to no longer spirtiualy die, but to live with him in Hevan for ever. If people are going to say to that "Thats very nice but I dont need that, I can get on fine by myself" how do you think God feels. His son was beaten, whiped, floged, had nails driven through his wrists, sufficated and died in possibley the cruelist way devised by man to save humans from hell and all its horrors, and people will ignore what he has done and will just "Be good" acording to their own morals. Ignoring God like that and what he did is an insult rearly to what God did, and Jesus's love for us that he was willing to die to save sinners. Good people dont go to hell because they havnt been good enough to get to hevan. No one can ever be 'Good enough' to get to hevan. You cant work your way into God's kingdom. All you can do is accept you are flawed, tell God sincerely that you are sorry for what you have done, and ask for him to accept you into his family. This he will do of course without hesitation.

As I've stated before, God didn't HAVE to do anything. If he really did send his son to die, it was because HE wanted to. Besides, I really don't think Jesus's death was that much of a loss for God, seeing as how he only had to endure a few hours of earthly pain before going up to heaven to spend an ETERNITY with his father.

Satan didn't "Create" homosexuals or homsexuality, he tempts people into it by pushing thoughts into their minds. As for civil unions, that is him pusshing the idea of political correctness to far.

ooookayyyy...


People think its a simple jump from equal gender rights to equal race rights to equal sexual orientation rights well it isnt (and I'm only talking about marriage, I dont want to imprison and kill gays if thats what people think of when i say rights)

Actually race, religion, etc. hasn't much to do with it, it boils down to individual civil rights. Secondly a growing body of law sees these as equivalents and that is because a substantial body of scientific evidence puts sexual orientation on the level of race, physical difference, etc., and not determined or influenced by supernatural entities (aka demons). :rolleyes:

It does say at some point in all the Gospels (cant remember where exactly) that Jesus spoke to God and asked if there was any other way of doing what he had to do, and if there was, please could he do that instead. But God told Jesus that he had to go to the cross (this is the "take this cup from me" moment) and that he did have to do it. And God wouldnt have done it if he hadn't had to do it, would you put your son through that if you didnt have to?

It does say at some point in all the Gospels (cant remember where exactly) that Jesus spoke to God and asked if there was any other way of doing what he had to do, and if there was, please could he do that instead. But God told Jesus that he had to go to the cross (this is the "take this cup from me" moment) and that he did have to do it. And God wouldnt have done it if he hadn't had to do it, would you put your son through that if you didnt have to?

That's my point though. God could have chosen to see the good in us from the very beginning, being all-powerful and everything, but he instead CHOSE to send his son to his death, which, as I explained in my last post, wasn't that big of a deal.

Secondly a growing body of law sees these as equivalents and that is because a substantial body of scientific evidence puts sexual orientation on the level of race, physical difference, etc., and not determined or influenced by supernatural entities (aka demons). :rolleyes:

There is also plenty of evidence to support the fact that being gay is not biological. The main one being that humans are not designed for gay sex. It can damage internal organs and gives an increased likelyhood of cancer and STD's are more transmitted by homosexual sex than by hetrosexual sex (for the simple reason, more fluids are exchanged). And no matter how much you try, you cant quantify the devil and what he does.

That's my point though. God could have chosen to see the good in us from the very beginning, being all-powerful and everything, but he instead CHOSE to send his son to his death, which, as I explained in my last post, wasn't that big of a deal.

WASNT A BIG DEAL! Fine, you go have a child, raise him till he/she is about thrity five and then go and kill him/her on a cross with nails though their wrists having first flogged him/her, beaten her/him to a pulp and then tell me that its not a big deal. And just because Jesus accended to be with God later, doesnt mean that it wasnt traumatic and horrible for God to have to do. It was a giving up of a child to death, for every other human in the world, thought all history that had past, and was to pass. And he always saw good in us. But we had sinned, gone against God and while we were like that it was not possible for us to join God in hevan. As for what is and isnt possible for God, we dont know the details. We know that he is powerfull enough to part oceans (the red sea), send fireballs to Earth (Elijiah's fire), burn bushes without damaging them (moses's encouter), turn water into wine, heal the blind with a touch and to shake down cities but select a single tower to stay intact. If we knew all about God then we would be God. We cant understand him completely as others on this thread have pointed out.

a Very Crucial And Vital To The Future Of Our States Societies Has Been Posted On The Un Board And Has To Be Read Through By Every Single State That Cares For Making Thriving Changes To The World. Its Posted Under The Name "anti-smoking Measures".
Most Of You Might Claim That Smoking Has Nothing To Do With Homosexuality. Well, I Am Afraid That I Will Have To Disagree; It's Definitely A Matter Of Freedom Of Personal Choice Of Being Gay Or Not. In The Same Way You Yourself Choose To Be The Only One To Decide For Your Sexual Identity, In The Same Way Everybody Should Feel Free To Determine Himself/herself His/her Quality Of Life By Choosing Whether He/she Would Like To Smoke Or Be [/b] Exposed To Smoke And Harmful Substances.
Therefore, It Is Our Governments' Duty To Preserve The Values And Practical Meaning Of Human Rights And Social Justice. Please Do Try And Spend 2 Minutes Of Your Time To Endorse The "anti-smoking Measures" Resolution.

a Very Crucial And Vital To The Future Of Our States Societies Has Been Posted On The Un Board And Has To Be Read Through By Every Single State That Cares For Making Thriving Changes To The World. Its Posted Under The Name "anti-smoking Measures".
Most Of You Might Claim That Smoking Has Nothing To Do With Homosexuality. Well, I Am Afraid That I Will Have To Disagree; It's Definitely A Matter Of Freedom Of Personal Choice Of Being Gay Or Not. In The Same Way You Yourself Choose To Be The Only One To Decide For Your Sexual Identity, In The Same Way Everybody Should Feel Free To Determine Himself/herself His/her Quality Of Life By Choosing Whether He/she Would Like To Smoke Or Be [/b] Exposed To Smoke And Harmful Substances.
Therefore, It Is Our Governments' Duty To Preserve The Values And Practical Meaning Of Human Rights And Social Justice. Please Do Try And Spend 2 Minutes Of Your Time To Endorse The "anti-smoking Measures" Resolution.

Homosexuality. Hmm...no one can say that it's a sin really. They can oppose gay marriages by saying that it takes away from the definition of marriage (I don't believe that by the way), but a sin? No. Only God, if I can use the term, can define it, and as far as I'm concerned it's a form of dogmatism to say that it's a sin, when in reality, no-one nows what God is thinking.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Chirstianity or any other religion for that matter. This has to do with the perception of Christianity and other religions. In Christianity itself, we find that there are several different groups within (Anglican, Pentacostal, Catholic, Protestants...). Each has a similar belief but each say that they are different. What does this mean? Quite simply, only that people like to believe what they want to, or what they are comfortable with.

I personally think that God wouldn't have made you gay, or for that matter, allowed others to influence you and making you choose to be gay, and then have condemned you for it. That to me, does not make sense.

A self-proclaimed Christian who does not follow every word of the bible, can't admonish anyone who is homosexual. *cough* hypocrisy! *cough*

But hey, I'm no expert on religion or homosexuality. These are just my thoughts on it...hope I helped!

Assuming (for the moment) that homosexuality itself, on its own is not a sin, it is a form of adultery.

God's marriage = One man and one women
God's view on sex = Within marige only
Therefore Gay's cannont marry acording to God, hence if they do have sex, then they are commiting a sin in having sex outside marrigae.

However, that is assuming that homosexuality isn't a sin in itself, which it is as it is not what God wanted for Humans. God always tries to protect us from the worst and provide us with the best. If something is a sin, then there must be a good reason.

Depends. If you are Christian than it is a sin.

If you are not Christian, then it's all good! :p


Please! It's not quite so simple as that. If people could learn to realize that all religions are simply a method to reach whatever it is you want to, then it would be 'all good.'

WASNT A BIG DEAL! Fine, you go have a child, raise him till he/she is about thrity five and then go and kill him/her on a cross with nails though their wrists having first flogged him/her, beaten her/him to a pulp and then tell me that its not a big deal. And just because Jesus accended to be with God later, doesnt mean that it wasnt traumatic and horrible for God to have to do. It was a giving up of a child to death, for every other human in the world, thought all history that had past, and was to pass. And he always saw good in us. But we had sinned, gone against God and while we were like that it was not possible for us to join God in hevan. As for what is and isnt possible for God, we dont know the details. We know that he is powerfull enough to part oceans (the red sea), send fireballs to Earth (Elijiah's fire), burn bushes without damaging them (moses's encouter), turn water into wine, heal the blind with a touch and to shake down cities but select a single tower to stay intact. If we knew all about God then we would be God. We cant understand him completely as others on this thread have pointed out.

Then why do you think you know so much about him? Why would you attempt to ascribe human emotions, like love for a son to God? Again, he didn't have to send his son to die, he CHOSE to. Also, we know (or assume) that God created the universe, right? So why shouldn't He be able to control anything within that universe.

Then why do you think you know so much about him? Why would you attempt to ascribe human emotions, like love for a son to God? Again, he didn't have to send his son to die, he CHOSE to. Also, we know (or assume) that God created the universe, right? So why shouldn't He be able to control anything within that universe.

Do you want to know what I know about God, and about his sadness for when Jesus died. I will tell you then of a personal experiance of mine which helped me understand the emotion that God felt as he saw Jesus die. A few months ago now (I'm not sure exactly) I had got home after my bible study on Sunday. I had been reminded that evening of just what it was that God did on the cross through Jesus. I was praying, thanking him for what he had done and then was silent for a long while. I felt a great sadness and emptyness inside me. As if I was almost eternally sad for something. I didnt understand for a moment and then I understood for the first time that what I was experianceing was a fraction of what God must have experianced when Jesus died. Thats how I know what God felt like. And yes you are right. He CHOSE to die for us. He could have left us all to rot and die in hell but instead he came to Earth and died because a sacrfice was needed to bridge the gap between man and God that was created by sin. If you want more tangiable arguemnets why I ascribe emotions to God, well Jesus always described himself as God's son, always (bar once at the cross) called him father, and at one stage, as Jesus was being baptised God appered as a dove to them and said "This is my Son, in whom I am pleased". Now if you look at all this you will see a father-son relationship. Jesus even pleads with God that he doesnt want to do what God has told him to (again the cup incident) but God orders and Jesus obey's. If they have a father son relationship it is only logical to conclude that that relationship included mutual love, which is an emotion.

There is also plenty of evidence to support the fact that being gay is not biological. The main one being that humans are not designed for gay sex. It can damage internal organs and gives an increased likelyhood of cancer and STD's are more transmitted by homosexual sex than by hetrosexual sex (for the simple reason, more fluids are exchanged). And no matter how much you try, you cant quantify the devil and what he does.

How are humans not designed for gay sex?

That's like saying humans arn't designed for handjobs, oral, or any kinkiness.

That must be one bummer of a sex life.

How are humans not designed for gay sex?

That's like saying humans arn't designed for handjobs, oral, or any kinkiness.

That must be one bummer of a sex life.

Humans are biologicaly designed for sex between a man and a women. Man to man sex is not what the human body is designed for. This is an extract from a site explaining this (note it is in biological detail so dont read if you are squimish)

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#07

The URL of the full site: see extract below

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners. And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.

End of exert

Need I go on?

Do you want to know what I know about God, and about his sadness for when Jesus died. I will tell you then of a personal experiance of mine which helped me understand the emotion that God felt as he saw Jesus die. A few months ago now (I'm not sure exactly) I had got home after my bible study on Sunday. I had been reminded that evening of just what it was that God did on the cross through Jesus. I was praying, thanking him for what he had done and then was silent for a long while. I felt a great sadness and emptyness inside me. As if I was almost eternally sad for something. I didnt understand for a moment and then I understood for the first time that what I was experianceing was a fraction of what God must have experianced when Jesus died. Thats how I know what God felt like. And yes you are right. He CHOSE to die for us. He could have left us all to rot and die in hell but instead he came to Earth and died because a sacrfice was needed to bridge the gap between man and God that was created by sin. If you want more tangiable arguemnets why I ascribe emotions to God, well Jesus always described himself as God's son, always (bar once at the cross) called him father, and at one stage, as Jesus was being baptised God appered as a dove to them and said "This is my Son, in whom I am pleased". Now if you look at all this you will see a father-son relationship. Jesus even pleads with God that he doesnt want to do what God has told him to (again the cup incident) but God orders and Jesus obey's. If they have a father son relationship it is only logical to conclude that that relationship included mutual love, which is an emotion.

Hey, SHUT UP for a second. You totally missed the question, and you're trying to use emotion to appeal to people into not realizing it.

Why did Jesus have to die? If God is all powerful, he could've snapped his fingers and give the same affect.

So here's your choices: Jesus had to die, God isn't all powerful. Jesus didn't need to die, God is all powerful.

Here are the bottom lines:

Homosexuality is only a sin if you practice christianity.

Homosexuality IS wrong.

Homosexuals deserve rights just as heterosexuals do. The government has no right to say who gets married to who except the church.

If homosexuals have a problem they can start a new church for themselves.


Close this thread.


P.S. Forgive my BB code.

Humans are biologicaly designed for sex between a man and a women. Man to man sex is not what the human body is designed for. This is an extract from a site explaining this (note it is in biological detail so dont read if you are squimish)

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#07

The URL of the full site: see extract below

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners. And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies.

End of exert

Need I go on?

So...wear a condom and use lube. All problems are gone.

Here are the bottom lines:

Homosexuality is only a sin if you practice christianity.[quote]
Agreed

[quote]Homosexuality IS wrong.
According to some

Homosexuals deserve rights just as heterosexuals do. The government has no right to say who gets married to who except the church.
Incorrect, the church can deny anyone marrige if they want, but the government can NOT.

If homosexuals have a problem they can start a new church for themselves.
The only person talking about churches being forced to we homosexuals are...well, the churches. I have yet to hear of a single gay couple that demands a church to wed them together.

Well then I guess there's a formal marriage(church) and an informal marriage(gov't). Either way you still get gov't benefits.


Goed - Homosexuality is wrong. How is it right? Explain that and I will shutup. That's like saying the earth isn't round. You are wrong, but you have your opinion.

Goed, Omnipitence (all powerfulness) is something, that despite everyone's best efforts is something we cant understand. In this universe, omnipitence cannot exist because of the omnipitence paradox

If there is an omnipiotent being then could he create a task which even he could not do. If he could, then he makes himself no longer omnipitent and if he cant, then he's not omipotent as there is something he could not do.

God is all powerful, but Jesus still had to die. God could save us all, but there was only one method, Jesus's death. God couldn't just go *snap* and save us all because we had chosen to go against him, and he would not tamper with free will. God may not be 'all powerful' in the way you are describing. He may well have been able to save us all by clicking but that would be no good for us. We would be living meaningless lives if our lives on Earth had no spirtual concequence and we all ended up in hevan in the end. That would be stupid.

So...wear a condom and use lube. All problems are gone.

Thats like saying "If I stab myself non-fataly its ok" .Your missing the point. Peinile penetration itself is not good. Read the extract again. The body is not designed for gay sex, and just using protection will not change that.

Goed, Omnipitence (all powerfulness) is something, that despite everyone's best efforts is something we cant understand. In this universe, omnipitence cannot exist because of the omnipitence paradox

If there is an omnipiotent being then could he create a task which even he could not do. If he could, then he makes himself no longer omnipitent and if he cant, then he's not omipotent as there is something he could not do.

God is all powerful, but Jesus still had to die. God could save us all, but there was only one method, Jesus's death. God couldn't just go *snap* and save us all because we had chosen to go against him, and he would not tamper with free will. God may not be 'all powerful' in the way you are describing. He may well have been able to save us all by clicking but that would be no good for us. We would be living meaningless lives if our lives on Earth had no spirtual concequence and we all ended up in hevan in the end. That would be stupid.

So explain why Jesus had to die. If you can't I have no reason to believe it, and frankly, neither do you.

Well then I guess there's a formal marriage(church) and an informal marriage(gov't). Either way you still get gov't benefits.


Goed - Homosexuality is wrong. How is it right? Explain that and I will shutup. That's like saying the earth isn't round. You are wrong, but you have your opinion.
Innocent until proven guilty, prove homosexuality is wrong.

But hey, I'll answer your question anyways. Homosexuality is love between two consenting same-sex adults. That's why it's right.

Thats like saying "If I stab myself non-fataly its ok" .Your missing the point. Peinile penetration itself is not good. Read the extract again. The body is not designed for gay sex, and just using protection will not change that.

You can also get STDs from vaginal sex.

I run the risk of being hit by a car every time I cross the street.

The human body is not designed to fly, but through scientific advancement we can. It's called "adaptation." Get used to it.

That's rediculous. Anal sex as the guy above said comes with increased diseases and physical disorders. Emotions just confuse. Common sense is better suited for this topic. As for woman being sexual with each other, I'm not sure. But definitely not gay men.

So explain why Jesus had to die. If you can't I have no reason to believe it, and frankly, neither do you.


Ok, I will. Its a simple thing when you break it down. The wages of sin are death. Thats physical and spirtiual death. Nothing can change the physical death part of that, however the spirtual death part can be resolved. It's simpley a matter of breaking the formula. Everyone who sins dies. Ok so we cant make someone who has sinned live forever, but we can send someone who has never sinned to die. And not just never sinned but breaks the original sin cycle (Virgin birth). And then, not only does someone who has never sinned dies, but if he then returns from the dead and goes to hevan then that proves that the cycle is breakable. The cycle (sin = death) had to be stoped and Jesus did that. Jesus had to die to break the cycle and allow people into hevan. Before their sin stod in the way, but because Jesus broke the sin = death cycle, our sinns can now be ignored by God and we can enter heven. Thanks to Jesus.

That's rediculous. Anal sex as the guy above said comes with increased diseases and physical disorders. Emotions just confuse. Common sense is better suited for this topic. As for woman being sexual with each other, I'm not sure. But definitely not gay men.

Living is a risk.

Anal sex is more dangerous then vaginal sex, but guess what? They're both dangerous. Driving a car is more dangerous then walking, but I don't walk around talking about how "OMG driving is teh EVIL!ONEONE!"

You can also get STDs from vaginal sex.


And its far more dangerous through homosexual sex. And dont you think the rectum would be better designed to recieve the penis if homosexual sex was intended. You read that exert and it shows why it isnt



The human body is not designed to fly, but through scientific advancement we can. It's called "adaptation." Get used to it.

We didnt 'adapt' to fly. We developed something else to fly which we could fit into.

Living is a risk.


You dont understand. I'm not saying "Homosexual sex is more dangerous and therefore we shouldnt do it as it's too big a risk" I'm saying "Homosexual sex is not what the body is designed to do"

Sex is used to make babies. Pleasure from it just comes from the package. Can two males make a baby? No, they cannot.

And its far more dangerous through homosexual sex. And dont you think the rectum would be better designed to recieve the penis if homosexual sex was intended. You read that exert and it shows why it isnt

You dont understand. I'm not saying "Homosexual sex is more dangerous and therefore we shouldnt do it as it's too big a risk" I'm saying "Homosexual sex is not what the body is designed to do"

And the human body was not designed to fly. It was not designed to go under water to great depths. It is not designed to swim across oceans. TO keep with sex, oral sex isn't what the human body is designed for. Nor are handjobs. Or any kinkiness at all. In fact, the human body wasn't designed for foreplay. However:


We didnt 'adapt' to fly. We developed something else to fly which we could fit into.

We adapted by finding a different means of flying. It's more dangerous to do anal? With lube and condoms that's eliminated. The human body isn't designed to do a lot of things-and yet we still manage to do them.

Sex is used to make babies. Pleasure from it just comes from the package. Can two males make a baby? No, they cannot.
You must have a very bitter and lonely sex life.

Insults now? I think I won this debate just now when I told you what sex was about.

Now that I think about it. If two men or two women are "interacting" is it truely sex?

Sex is used to make babies. Pleasure from it just comes from the package. Can two males make a baby? No, they cannot.

so what about sex where they are trying not to have a baby? is using a plastic wrong too?

All of these anti-homosexual remarks are based on passages of the scripture in the Old Testament. If I may remind you, Christians primarily base their faith on the New Testament, whereas the Jewish base their faith only on the Old Testament.

If you Christians believed and followed everything the Old Testament said, you couldn't eat shellfish or work on Saturday/Sunday. If you are a girl, you'd have to leave town every time you had a period.

Although the history and spirituality and wisdom of the Old Testament should be followed, the religion changed into another religion once Christ came. So, stop being hypocrites and saying "the Scriptures say so" when you ignore so many other things they say--I'm not saying you shouldn't eat shrimp or work on Sunday, just don't be a damn hypocrite about it if you do.

I dont neccessarily feel that homosexuality is a sin but i do belive that it is wrong.
I belive that it is wrong because if the lord wanted us to be gay then he would have made adam and adam or eve and eve. I just dont understand what can a man get from another man that he cant get from a woman? If you really look at the idea of it and how gay men act to each other, you will notice that one is very feminin and the other is just as manly as the straight guy beside him. that does not make any sense to me. you might as well be with a girl if you are going to be with a man that acts like a girl. Its the same thing with the girls. Some girls are just as manly as their brother or father but yet they want to be with another manly girl.

If you are not trying to create a child and are having sex then that means your doing it to serve and addiction and not for it's purpose.

If you are not trying to create a child and are having sex then that means your doing it to serve and addiction and not for it's purpose.

so that should be wrong as well. however, i hear no one yelling about banning condoms or birth control devices your argument is self defeating. an please dont invoke the bible.

If you are not trying to create a child and are having sex then that means your doing it to serve and addiction and not for it's purpose.
Have you ever jerked it? You know, whacked off? Pet the penguin? Choke the chicken? Beat the meat? Polish the paddle? Stroke the stork? Rub off? Fap? Wank? Masturbate?

I guess you believe condoms are sinful too.

If sex didn't have it's great pleasures how often would you do it? Probably, only if you wanted a child. Therefore my argument is not defeated.

Edit: Haha, yes I have. Though it is a great rush that doesn't make it right. If we're gonna ban abortion we might as well ban beatin the meat. And no we shouldn't ban condoms.

I I just dont understand what can a man get from another man that he cant get from a woman? If you really look at the idea of it and how gay men act to each other, you will notice that one is very feminin and the other is just as manly as the straight guy beside him.

1. A man can be just as pleasurable as a woman. Even better. I would know.

2. Not all gay relationships contain one masculine and one feminine man. MY partner and I are both quite masculine. Sometimes you just want to be next to someone that is more like yourself.

3. Love is love, who cares who its directed to!

Peace out!

before i say this, i'm not gay, i just can't stand you quote-unquote "heterosexuals" making such pathetic arguements.

First lame arguement: The human body is not designed for gay sex.

The human body was not designed for oral sex, or sex with breasts, or the use of dildos, or hand jobs, or any other crazy things of which at least a few God-fearing Christians practice.

Second lame arguement: The human body's sex organs were designed for penile/vaginal intercourse to produce a baby.

This is true. However, just because you have sex without the possibility of having a baby (unless you're Irish Catholic and have 30 siblings) doesn't mean it's a sin. Oral sex, protected sex, etc. are not meant to have a child. That does not make them a sin nowadays.

Third lame arguement: Marriage is religiously supposed to be between a man and wife.

No duh. Most religions say men must only marry women, and vice versa. If you don't like it, change religions. However, via the separation of church and state, the government cannot define the many religions of this country. Since marriage affects our taxes, they cannot prohibit people of certain otherwise legal religions and inclinations to recieve a possible economically benefecial status in our country just because a WASP president disagrees with their personal decisions.

All in all, the debate is ridiculous. Christians are of that religion because of their faith in Jesus, not because they logically rationalized his presence in a debate or classroom. If you believe homosexuality is a sin because you have faith in God, fine. Just keep in mind that faiths and opinions are not valid arguments, because they are subjective and change person to person, whereas truth, facts, knowledge, and logic stay the same everywhere.

If sex didn't have it's great pleasures how often would you do it? Probably, only if you wanted a child. Therefore my argument is not defeated.
Huh? How often have you gotten laid thinking "oh yes, I want children!" I dunno, maybe you're a nun or something and wouldn't know.

Edit: Haha, yes I have. Though it is a great rush that doesn't make it right. If we're gonna ban abortion we might as well ban beatin the meat. And no we shouldn't ban condoms.
Well, condoms prevent children from being born...thus your seed is wasted. It's as bad as masturbation, except it's two people being sinful, not just one!

Your just proving to me that homosexuality is wrong. Keep going.

ok, Saint Westley, tell me. You've never masturbated. You've never had sex except with a wife and no protection. You've never recieved or performed oral sex.

I tell you, you're either a liar, a hypocrite, or a pathetic virgin who's jealous of all our fun...either that or you're still in the closet. Wake up, man, and smell the sex!!!

Goed, Omnipitence (all powerfulness) is something, that despite everyone's best efforts is something we cant understand. In this universe, omnipitence cannot exist because of the omnipitence paradox

If there is an omnipiotent being then could he create a task which even he could not do. If he could, then he makes himself no longer omnipitent and if he cant, then he's not omipotent as there is something he could not do.

God is all powerful, but Jesus still had to die. God could save us all, but there was only one method, Jesus's death. God couldn't just go *snap* and save us all because we had chosen to go against him, and he would not tamper with free will. God may not be 'all powerful' in the way you are describing. He may well have been able to save us all by clicking but that would be no good for us. We would be living meaningless lives if our lives on Earth had no spirtual concequence and we all ended up in hevan in the end. That would be stupid.

Yeah, it sure would be stupid for everyone to have eternal happiness.

Your just proving to me that homosexuality is wrong. Keep going.

I think there must be a breakdown in the communication process here.

If you look further up in the debate you will see that I said that I had masturbated. I have also had sex if you would like to know that as well. I am no nun nor priest.

EDIT: When people start insulting me over this debate I consider that I am winning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley-
If you are not trying to create a child and are having sex then that means your doing it to serve and addiction and not for it's purpose.

You're right, many people have sex not for its purpose. Just like people eat when they're not hungry, and we breathe when we're not about to asphyxiate, and we drive polluting cars when we could walk an hour to work. Does that make it wrong, or sinful?

good for you, you've had sex. so are you saying it's wrong or a sin what you did, not using sex for its biological purpose?

Why is Homosexuality a sin?

Why is ANYTHING that is considered a sin, actually a sin?

WHy is Incest a sin? WHen you think about it, it is encouraged in the bible (if you follow the bible).
How could Adam and Eve have populated the planet without either mating with their children, or their children mating with each other?
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of answers that people create to cover that one...
But then everyone forgets that the inhabitants of the Earth were wiped out by this big FLOOD, that Noah, his kids, their mates, and the animals survived. Which means that Noah and his direct relations had to repopulate the Earth. And that would have had to involve some incest as well... since EVERYONE would have been related.

Yet Incest is a Sin. So.. Why is Homosexuality a Sin? Because it was convienent to declare it so, at the time.

I have had sex w/o using it's biological purpose. That does not mean it's right. Homosexual "sex" is only a sin if you are a christian because they are the ones who have labeled it. I myself just consider it a wrongful act. It's none of my buisness what you do in your life, but being a homosexual is wrong.

homosexuality was declared a sin in the old testament because God wanted his people to multiply and conquer other sinful lands. Just as circumsicion was necessary in order to prevent penile infection i.e. sterility, homosexuality was prohibited so that the Jews could reproduce and rule over God's land. There were many instances of the Bible where God mandated that a certain couple must produce a child,(Sarah and Abraham, Mary and Joseph--sort of, each of Noah's animals--homosexuality for them meant extinction...whatever). mostly though, i remember a story (it's in the Bible) about a man who died before he could impregnate his wife. God told his brother to impregnate his dead brother's wife. He had sex with her, but withdrew as he came, so God killed him (apparently God didn't know that the withdrawal method didn't work, or maybe he changed it so it didn't work after that). Luckily, there was a third brother who happily impregnated the girl and took her property.

Anyway, God liked people to have children. That's probably why Irish Catholics will eventually conquer the earth, as they will overpopulate the rest of us and be the only ones willing to eat their own kind (remember Jonathan Swift's a Modest Proposal?)

I'm rambling. Basically, i'm saying since population is growing too fast, most would say, homosexuality no longer a sin, because humans live all over the earth where they feel like it. I'm not saying that he'll make heterosexuality a sin soon (we'll probably nuke ourselves first, anyway), but you have to...whatever, screw you all, i'm gonna go watch a movie

I suggest we close this thread. It all deals with opinions. It won't matter what we all type if we are so fixated on our beliefs. Happy trails, guys 'n girls.

The whole thing just makes me so sad... so much ignorance...

EDIT: When people start insulting me over this debate I consider that I am winning.
That's all you have since you're clearly not winning by any measure of logic or evidence.

I suggest we close this thread. It all deals with opinions. It won't matter what we all type if we are so fixated on our beliefs. Happy trails, guys 'n girls.

yay he is finally gone. like neo cannen (i've been on this one since like page 5) he is so certain of his belief, that there is nothing you can convince him of. it is literally impossible. if you insult him he is winning, if he is a damn hypocrite, well then he is still right etc.

You've actually been part of those groups? I've heard of them from an american friend, and what I've heard isn't very heartwarming. Basically, what they do is try to use conditionning to repress homosexual behavior, while reinforcing heterosexual behavior, right?

If you don't mind sharing, I'm interested in how(as in, what methods were used) they could possibly do that. Just a little bit of masochist curiosity on my part ;)

It's basically set up like a twelve step program along with one to one counceling and a great deal of reading and social meetings. They also encourage the members to date the oposite sex. You can just imagine the dysfunctional marriages that come of this. (They were the ones that eventually wound up getting arrested for having sex in public bathrooms and parks!)
They are well meaning, if misguided in their efforts. Still, it forced me to come to terms with my own spiritual and sexual crises so at least some good came of it. :)

This is probably my last post on this thread regarding our debate. My logic is the most basic for this topic. Sex is between a man and a woman just as a christian marriage is. Being a homosexual goes against what you were made for. You weren't made to be banged in the arse by another male. That is just using your sexual organs for pleasure; same goes for females.

As for evidence... for my above post I said this was all about opinions. If you wish to be willfully ignorant then have at it. I shall not stop you. My way of thinking is on my beliefs be them religous or not.

Throughout this debate I have only recieved your emotional stance on the subject. I believe when it comes down to these things it should be purely scientifical and then common sense and dignity should be added afterward.

Good luck in your lives wether your hetero or homo,


EDIT: Bobslovakia - Are you that blind? You are describing yourself as well.

West

There is also plenty of evidence to support the fact that being gay is not biological. The main one being that humans are not designed for gay sex. It can damage internal organs and gives an increased likelyhood of cancer and STD's are more transmitted by homosexual sex than by hetrosexual sex (for the simple reason, more fluids are exchanged). And no matter how much you try, you cant quantify the devil and what he does.

I'd like to see this evidence and if it is some study done by some Christian pro-family/faith based psychiatrists group I'll have to pass because they are reknowned for what is known as intellectual dishonesty and myself as a layperson could easily defeat them on their own respective fields of expertise.

Secondly, humans "aren't designed" to walk upright perfectly nor are human females well adapted or "designed" for childbirth. Vaginal intercourse is a risk factor for cervical cancer, unwanted/complicated pregnancy, STD's, etc. That said I see no particular relevance in citing claims of increased health risk as evidence of the 'synthetic' POV on homosexuality.

Finally, while discussing health issues, be aware that the more extrinsic your religious beliefs, the more likely one is to have what is known as a schizo-effective disorder. While some of you zero in on politically inflated obscure contextual segments of the Bible as a basis to wildly swing the morality stick and talk about demons and devils, there are educated rational people who consider you slightly nutty.

The main one being that humans are not designed for gay sex. It can damage internal organs and gives an increased likelyhood of cancer and STD's are more transmitted by homosexual sex than by hetrosexual sex (for the simple reason, more fluids are exchanged)
You are aware that a GREAT number of heterosexual people engage in what you conveniently call "gay sex". Blow jobs, buttramming, eating pussy, rim jobs, etc: these are all engaged in by heterosexuals. So, throw your preconceived notions of "gay" and "straight" sex out the window.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#07Lies.

Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.The abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3292221&dopt=Abstract) to "Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1988 Aug;6(3):439-66. Sexually related trauma. Geist RF." states in part "Many men and women practice a broad range of voluntary sexual activities, most of which are harmless. The only erotic activities that have an unacceptable risk for injury are vaginal insufflation during pregnancy, and fist fornication. ... Following anal sex, minor rectal bleeding from anal fissures or small mucosal tears is neither uncommon nor serious." I was completely unable (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7278382#post7278382) to find a scientific article that said anything like you just said.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood.In the villi of the small intestine, not the colon. C'mon this is high-school anatomy! In my high school anyway.

Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina.This might even be true. Use condoms.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies."associated with". Nice weasel words. I've heard of the first three. But there is no way that anal intercourse can lead to retained foreign bodies, penii are not detachable!

Need I go on?Yes. You need to find a credible source.

What's all this stuff about anal sex doing here? You do realise that there are other ways for gays to have sex. And although anal sex is common in pornography I doubt it's done by most gays.

What's all this stuff about anal sex doing here? You do realise that there are other ways for gays to have sex. And although anal sex is common in pornography I doubt it's done by most gays.

It's just the example the anti-gays keep coming up with. The point is homosexuals are guilty of doing the exact same things heterosexuals do. Homophobes think anal sex is "icky" where oral isn't quite as bad.

What's all this stuff about anal sex doing here? You do realise that there are other ways for gays to have sex. And although anal sex is common in pornography I doubt it's done by most gays.

Lesbians almost NEVER engage in anal sex. :D

i haven't read the entire thread, but would just like to point out/reiterate that the purpose of sexual relationships is to procreate the human race. I am, for the record, a devout atheist.

Thus, while not a sin (sins being religious and therefore inherently biased) it is a sexual perversion. However, as it legally occurs between consenting adults there is no reason to ban it or outlaw it. marriages, well. I am against adoption merely for the sake of the child in question; the constant torment s/he would suffer from their peers if they ever found out.

If you take God and religion out of the picture where do our morals come from? Morals probably wouldn't exist; but that means that religion is necessary even though its dying out in some countries and most of the great conflicts of our world are based on religion. Does this mean that we're heading towards some utopia/hell where we have no morals?

The whole thing just makes me so sad... so much ignorance...

Ignorence of what?

What's all this stuff about anal sex doing here? You do realise that there are other ways for gays to have sex. And although anal sex is common in pornography I doubt it's done by most gays.


I can assure you hand on heart that the enormous majority of gay men either get or give anal sex, or indeed both, regularly and with great pleasure.

EDIT: and i forgot anal penetration with finger, fist, dildo, beercan, hamster, etc, etc

i haven't read the entire thread, but would just like to point out/reiterate that the purpose of sexual relationships is to procreate the human race. I am, for the record, a devout atheist.
A devout atheist? Would that mean devoting a large portion of your resources to actively not believing in a god? Because in that case, your devotion to your goal would be seen by some as... well.. worship. Your god, atheism!! :D

I love that argument.

i haven't read the entire thread, but would just like to point out/reiterate that the purpose of sexual relationships is to procreate the human race.
odd, that's not the point of my sexual relationship. what with me being on birth control and never wanting to have children and all. believe it or not, it is possible to have a strong, loving, passionate, and yes, SEXUAL relationship without ever having children.

the human hand was not made to play the piano, yet we do not consider it wrong or inappropriate to use it to do so. why is it that people cannot hold an equally sane and rational perspective on the possible uses for our genitals?

the human hand was not made to play the piano, yet we do not consider it wrong or inappropriate to use it to do so. why is it that people cannot hold an equally sane and rational perspective on the possible uses for our genitals?
I believe that this perspective has been considered by at least one person. Unfortunately, having received more shocked silence than applause, he was arrested promptly after leaving the concert stage.

I believe that this perspective has been considered by at least one person. Unfortunately, having received more shocked silence than applause, he was arrested promptly after leaving the concert stage.
why must they always oppress the artists among us?!

:)

why must they always oppress the artists among us?!

:)
They even kicked the brass band out for inappropriate playing methods. Damned conservatives.

the human hand was not made to play the piano, yet we do not consider it wrong or inappropriate to use it to do so. why is it that people cannot hold an equally sane and rational perspective on the possible uses for our genitals?

There is a big diffrence between playing the piano and Homosexual sex. For a start in this analogy, your talking about technology which humans develop independently of themselves. Homosexual sex on the other hand is a misuse of biology. It is not how the human body was designed to be used, in the same way we frown on drug abuse so we should frown on homosexuality. When we play the piano we dont alter our bodies to do so. Homosexuality is a misuse of human reproductive organs.

Should we also frown on life-saving surgery, cosmetic surgery, immunisation programmes, body-building, tatooing, piercing, amputation, sex changes, medical drug use and every other human interference with the body that you don't consider "natural"?

I'm all for being natural, but if someone chooses to be gay then so be it! I would never consider such radical arguments against it. God, i fear (for all Christians) is playing a smaller role in society than he used to and thus people are going to try new things. Just because it has been dictated in the bible does not mean it is a sin. It remains an opinion, albeit an opinion that less and less people are sharing, as it was written 2000 years ago.

There is a big diffrence between playing the piano and Homosexual sex. For a start in this analogy, your talking about technology which humans develop independently of themselves. Homosexual sex on the other hand is a misuse of biology. It is not how the human body was designed to be used, in the same way we frown on drug abuse so we should frown on homosexuality. When we play the piano we dont alter our bodies to do so. Homosexuality is a misuse of human reproductive organs.

So is playing baseball. How many pitchers eventually throw out their arm? Baseball is unnatural and sinful.

If you take God and religion out of the picture where do our morals come from? Morals probably wouldn't exist; but that means that religion is necessary even though its dying out in some countries and most of the great conflicts of our world are based on religion. Does this mean that we're heading towards some utopia/hell where we have no morals?

Only a religious person could think that way :rolleyes:

Some of us tend to believe that humankin arn't naturally pure evil.

Thus, while not a sin (sins being religious and therefore inherently biased) it is a sexual perversion. However, as it legally occurs between consenting adults there is no reason to ban it or outlaw it. marriages, well. I am against adoption merely for the sake of the child in question; the constant torment s/he would suffer from their peers if they ever found out.
Then parents arn't allowed to be: overweight, UNDERweight, white, black, asian, hispanic, old, young, short, tall, they must not be boring, and they most not have any hobbies whatsoever.

Then kids won't be teased.

Mostly because God freaking nuked an entire city to kill all the homosexual people in it.

'fraid not. Read your bible again.

The two cities were destroyed because of the wickedness of the inhabitants. The only mention they make of homosexuality in that particular story is when the two angels head into town to pull Lot out. The townspeople see that there are new people in town, and want to "know" them.

Doesn't say anywhere that that's the reason for the brimstone, and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. It's that kind of thinking that says the story of Onan shows that masturbation is a sin.

Not to be a dick, but perhaps you should read the stories yourself rather than relying on others to tell you what they mean.

One last thing, if you're a Christian (of any flavour), then you can pretty much chuck out anything in the old testament. That's the angry petty god, not the warm fluffy bunny one from the new testament. And the new testament's rules get summed up thusly: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Something is considered a sin for only one reason. God said so.

If you don't believe in God you basically don't believe in sin or anything else that goes along with God. You may believe something is wrong or immoral but you counldn't consider a sin because a sin deals with God.

Somewhere in the Bible, the Old Testament I think, it states that man should not lay down with man as he would with woman. Basically, God is saying that two men should not have sexual relations. This is why homosexuality is a sin.

On an asside, the fact that God mentions nothing about two women having sex just proves that He is male. :p

I didn't realize this thread was so long when I replied to something on the first page. My bad. :P

So then without reading the preceding 70 pages of what I'm sure is stimulating (!) well thought out dialogue, let me just say that if you happen to believe that there's a God that cares about the minutiae of what you do with certain (but not all) parts of your body, then you're backing a lame horse.

And for those that are saying that (not religiously) homosexuality is a perversion... try this: from a biological point of view, things that feel good tend have been reinforced over generations so that you do just that. The mechanism breaks down sometimes of course. Drugs will screw up your chemistry so you're not responding "naturally", and there is the occasional oddity like the pain/pleasure signals getting a bit mixed up... but whether you're with a man, woman, or puddle of mud, if it feels good and (here's where the sentient part kicks in) isn't hurting anybody else, go for it.

See where a little arrogance and a keyboard get you? You can waltz in and solve this entire discussion. ;)

I fully agree and would like to add, if "God" didn't want a Man to be screwed anally, he wouldn' have put 26/27 G-Spots up there, would he now?

Go Figure.

I'm not saying that I'm for, or against, homosexualality. Sure I think its wrong, but I've had homosexual friends who wouldnt know that beucase I figure people will do what they want, and who am I to judge them? My position on Gay marriage is that homosexual couples should be allowed to enjoy the same tax, health etc. benefits that heterosexual couples have simply because politics shouldnt impose on other peoples morals. Thats what religion is for.

Homosexuality is a misuse of human reproductive organs.
By that logic, so is protected sex (using condoms).

What the heck is all this talk of the human body not being 'designed' for anal sex? The human body wasn't 'designed' for vaginal sex either; it wasn't 'designed' at all.

Anybody who has studied at least high school level Human Biology knows that vaginal sex for the purposes of producing offspring is actually quite inefficient. The inside of a woman's body (cervix etc.) is a hostile environment for sperm (quite acidic) and without the protective semen (quite alkaline) that was adapted in the male human, reproduction with this method would be all but impossible. Even so, most sperm are dead before they even reach the uterus for possible fertilization. There are often size mismatches in the size of the male's penis and size of the woman's vagina that make vaginal sex problematic for reproduction (or pleasure for that matter).

Would anybody 'design' a system this inefficient? Basically, the system works just barely well enough to create offspring. Of course, humans have so MUCH sex that propogation of the species isn't a problem, but surely if the human body was 'designed', a more efficient method for reproduction would have been implemented rather than just relying on humans to be extraordinarily horny all the time to 'beat the odds.' Honestly, if some deity 'designed' humans, then we were designed to be a joke for all the other deities to laugh at.

So please, don't try to tell us what the human body was and was not 'designed' to do.

Thus, while not a sin (sins being religious and therefore inherently biased) it is a sexual perversion. However, as it legally occurs between consenting adults there is no reason to ban it or outlaw it. marriages, well. I am against adoption merely for the sake of the child in question; the constant torment s/he would suffer from their peers if they ever found out.
That constant torment comes from bigoted assholes. I would know, in a different way.

My parents are of different races.

Growing up in Hawaii, no one cares, it's a liberal paradise of tolerance.

Then I moved to South Carolina.

Bit of an eye-opening experience (though I will say, the vast majority of the people I met there were decent respectable people, and I do miss the place...it's just the few assholes that kind of put a dark spot in my memories).

So if you want to talk about children getting tormented, be part of the solution. Spread tolerance and condemn the jerks for what they are: outdated homophobic bigots.

No one presumed to tell my parents they couldn't have children because their kids would be "tormented".

On an asside, the fact that God mentions nothing about two women having sex just proves that He is male. :p

here is something that has always got me why is it when people talk (or in some cases flame) they always going straight (if you parden the poor pun) to gay men never women i've never read a post that says:
"I think that gay women together is sick and the best thing for them is they should be shot"

i've never seen it... has anyone else???

That constant torment comes from bigoted assholes. I would know, in a different way.

My parents are of different races.

Growing up in Hawaii, no one cares, it's a liberal paradise of tolerance.

Then I moved to South Carolina.

Bit of an eye-opening experience (though I will say, the vast majority of the people I met there were decent respectable people, and I do miss the place...it's just the few assholes that kind of put a dark spot in my memories).

So if you want to talk about children getting tormented, be part of the solution. Spread tolerance and condemn the jerks for what they are: outdated homophobic bigots.

No one presumed to tell my parents they couldn't have children because their kids would be "tormented".

For a second, I thought you said "south California"

I was thinking "Whoh, where the hell are you then?" :p

here is something that has always got me why is it when people talk (or in some cases flame) they always going straight (if you parden the poor pun) to gay men never women i've never read a post that says:
"I think that gay women together is sick and the best thing for them is they should be shot"

i've never seen it... has anyone else???
Actually, I used to go to a VERY conservative christian school, and one guy there said it best.

"Of course people are gonna go for gay men first. Some people are disgusted by it. You can't tell someone homosexuality is wrong if they keep getting turned on"

here is something that has always got me why is it when people talk (or in some cases flame) they always going straight (if you parden the poor pun) to gay men never women i've never read a post that says:
"I think that gay women together is sick and the best thing for them is they should be shot"

i've never seen it... has anyone else???
Homophobes still can't resist jerking off to lesbo porn.

So please, don't try to tell us what the human body was and was not 'designed' to do.

Your forgeting one thing. Homosexual sex has no purpose. None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. Arego although hetrosexual sex is inefficent at least it works for a puropse.

here is something that has always got me why is it when people talk (or in some cases flame) they always going straight (if you parden the poor pun) to gay men never women i've never read a post that says:
"I think that gay women together is sick and the best thing for them is they should be shot"


Yes, you are right. I have never seen anyone immidately jump to lesbians when it comes to homosexuality, but I still think it is a sin and a nasty idea. I honsestly dont understand guys who get turned on by lesbian pornography, I havnt ever seen any but I would imagine its still disgusting.

Your forgeting one thing. Homosexual sex has no purpose. None. Nada. Zip. Ziltch. Arego although hetrosexual sex is inefficent at least it works for a puropse.

Pleasure.

Pleasure.
here here

I didn't realize this thread was so long when I replied to something on the first page. My bad. :P

So then without reading the preceding 70 pages of what I'm sure is stimulating (!) well thought out dialogue, let me just say that if you happen to believe that there's a God that cares about the minutiae of what you do with certain (but not all) parts of your body, then you're backing a lame horse.

And for those that are saying that (not religiously) homosexuality is a perversion... try this: from a biological point of view, things that feel good tend have been reinforced over generations so that you do just that. The mechanism breaks down sometimes of course. Drugs will screw up your chemistry so you're not responding "naturally", and there is the occasional oddity like the pain/pleasure signals getting a bit mixed up... but whether you're with a man, woman, or puddle of mud, if it feels good and (here's where the sentient part kicks in) isn't hurting anybody else, go for it.

See where a little arrogance and a keyboard get you? You can waltz in and solve this entire discussion. ;)

Nice try but this has already been brought up several times before. I will rebut as I have before.

1) If it feals good and it hurts no one - do it
No good in homosexuality arguement because homosexual sex does hurt someone. Both the participents. In homosexual sex you are several times more likely to get an STD than hetrosexual sex because there are more fluids passed than in hetrosexual sex. Add to that the dangerously high possibiliy of getting anal cancer and many other physical disorders. Here is an extract from a site explaining this

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners. And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

A 1988 CDC survey identified percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies

so feal good - do it? No. Doesnt work.

2) God DOES care very much about all of what we do. He doesnt want us to sin but will leave us to free will so we have the ablity to do whatever we want. Homosexuality is a sin because it is not what God had planned for humans. I'm using the fact that its dangerous to our health as proof, but that isnt the be all and end all. As far as sex goes God wanted humans to be in a loving one man one woman relationships, marriage. It states that repeadedly thorght the bible. I have explained this point again and again, but no one seems to care, but I will do it again so this time perhaps someone will listen.

Marriage acording to God = Loving, monogmous relationship between one man and one women.
God's law regardign the place of sex in any relationship = Within marriage only, sex outside marriage is a sin
Therefore = Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes
Therefore = Any sex that Gay's have will be outside marriage and therefore sinful

By that logic, so is protected sex (using condoms).

No because that can be using sex for pleasure. And before you go saying "Homosexual sex is used for pleasure" yes, but not pleasure God intended. You can get pleasure from using drug's but God does not want you to do that.

No because that can be using sex for pleasure. And before you go saying "Homosexual sex is used for pleasure" yes, but not pleasure God intended. You can get pleasure from using drug's but God does not want you to do that.
Hold on. You were saying the only reason for sex is to make babies. Now you agree that using hetero sex purely for pleasure with no intention to procreate is just fine?

And if you're going on about drugs...Jesus turned water into wine. And don't tell me booze isn't a drug. ;)

On another note, does God have a problem with married straight couples sucking each other off from time to time?

No good in homosexuality arguement because homosexual sex does hurt someone. Both the participents. In homosexual sex you are several times more likely to get an STD than hetrosexual sex because there are more fluids passed than in hetrosexual sex. Add to that the dangerously high possibiliy of getting anal cancer and many other physical disorders. Here is an extract from a site explaining this...

(Long bullshit made up "facts" from a Christian website)
Use fucking condoms if you're worried about STDs and infection. As for the rest of the article, it is, quite simply, BULLSHIT. You find me ANY website not affiliated with Christianity that even suggests that buttsex (with condoms) leads to cancer. Sure, if you're going at it too hard, you can hurt him or her a little, but same goes for vaginal sex.

I didn't realize this thread was so long when I replied to something on the first page. My bad. :PNo worries. Your comment is just as topical at this end of the thread. :P

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. ...This information was wrong the first time you posted it, posting it again isn't going to make it right.

Rather than post my response again, (which you have yet to address), I'll just link to my previous post (on this very thread):

Some lies in the article Neo Cannon cut & pasted (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7353879&postcount=1094).

((added))

As for the rest of the article, it is, quite simply, BULLSHIT.Yup. Neo Cannon seems inclined to simply ignore that fact. And the doctor who wrote it has no excuse, he should have known better. Nice "Christian" ethics there. Somehow I don't think Jesus would approve of lying about your fellow man, even if he was engaging in buttsex (the fellow man that is, not Jesus).

You find me ANY website not affiliated with Christianity that even suggests that buttsex (with condoms) leads to cancer.Don't make that dare. There are plenty of posts by random net 'phobes on web-accessible boards that claim all manner of psychadellic things about homosexuals. Ask him to find something on the nih.gov site, or a jama article or something of that nature. (Hint: site:nih.gov will tell google to only search nih.gov).

No because that can be using sex for pleasure. And before you go saying "Homosexual sex is used for pleasure" yes, but not pleasure God intended. You can get pleasure from using drug's but God does not want you to do that.

what do you have a perfect physic link with god or something? don't bring up the bible less u wear only single unblended fabrics, and eat no shellfish.

QUOTE=IITTAALLIIAA]Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?[/QUOTE]
a man after my own heart... wait how does that line actually go? anyways, you are very very correct my dear. The government are to 'blame' here though, they ruled the world, pumping christianity into evryone's veins. Times have changed... people are less naive, and the government is too conservative.

Marriage is a holy act between a man and a woman. This should not, however, sway people away from committing to those they love. Committment ceremonies or even humble recognition of love between the couple are still real, and should be noted as such.

Gays should have the smae rights, as a person's sexuality does not affect their ability to think, and in some cases drive a motor vehicle -confused at that one-. But the point here is that being gay is a sin...

Sin, like marriage, is a term used by christians to describe acts against their laws. Cristians can say that a person is in sin, because to them you are, but in your own right, are you? You do not believe that it is unnatural to have sex with a man, then why would you worry about its sin count?

And, the love described in the first post is irrelevant to your question my dear homo... you may love, but when the love you feel is haunted my sexual overtones, it is considered a sin. So in answer to your main question, homosexuality is a sin because god created woman for man. Their parts fit together, their personalities compliment each other's, and for us to go against such perfect creation, is wrong... unnatural... incorrect, call it what you will, but it is a sin.

Nice try but this has already been brought up several times before. I will rebut as I have before.

1) If it feals good and it hurts no one - do it
No good in homosexuality arguement because homosexual sex does hurt someone. Both the participents. In homosexual sex you are several times more likely to get an STD than hetrosexual sex because there are more fluids passed than in hetrosexual sex. Add to that the dangerously high possibiliy of getting anal cancer and many other physical disorders. Here is an extract from a site explaining this

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners. And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

A 1988 CDC survey identified percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies

so feal good - do it? No. Doesnt work.

2) God DOES care very much about all of what we do. He doesnt want us to sin but will leave us to free will so we have the ablity to do whatever we want. Homosexuality is a sin because it is not what God had planned for humans. I'm using the fact that its dangerous to our health as proof, but that isnt the be all and end all. As far as sex goes God wanted humans to be in a loving one man one woman relationships, marriage. It states that repeadedly thorght the bible. I have explained this point again and again, but no one seems to care, but I will do it again so this time perhaps someone will listen.

Marriage acording to God = Loving, monogmous relationship between one man and one women.
God's law regardign the place of sex in any relationship = Within marriage only, sex outside marriage is a sin
Therefore = Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes
Therefore = Any sex that Gay's have will be outside marriage and therefore sinful
You are a beautiful soul, and i praise you. You have stolen everythought i ahve had and verbalised them again. I praise you... call me ;)

a man after my own heart... wait how does that line actually go? anyways, you are very very correct my dear. The government are to 'blame' here though, they ruled the world, pumping christianity into evryone's veins. Times have changed... people are less naive, and the government is too conservative.

Marriage is a holy act between a man and a woman. This should not, however, sway people away from committing to those they love. Committment ceremonies or even humble recognition of love between the couple are still real, and should be noted as such.

Gays should have the smae rights, as a person's sexuality does not affect their ability to think, and in some cases drive a motor vehicle -confused at that one-. But the point here is that being gay is a sin...

Sin, like marriage, is a term used by christians to describe acts against their laws. Cristians can say that a person is in sin, because to them you are, but in your own right, are you? You do not believe that it is unnatural to have sex with a man, then why would you worry about its sin count?

And, the love described in the first post is irrelevant to your question my dear homo... you may love, but when the love you feel is haunted my sexual overtones, it is considered a sin. So in answer to your main question, homosexuality is a sin because god created woman for man. Their parts fit together, their personalities compliment each other's, and for us to go against such perfect creation, is wrong... unnatural... incorrect, call it what you will, but it is a sin.


...Ow.

I'll respond when your post doesn't make my eyes melt.

You are a beautiful soul, and i praise you. You have stolen everythought i ahve had and verbalised them again. I praise you... call me ;)

Whoops, idolotry. I'll be seeing you in hell alongside the rest of us.

Whoops, idolotry. I'll be seeing you in hell alongside the rest of us.
NOICE! my mistake... i am sure you can understand the use of a term of a different connotation. using that term via slang is not something i would be damned for. and why will i be seeing you there anyways?Post Script: yes, that does say 'noice' not a missing tin notice or an added o in nice....it is noice...

You are a beautiful soul, and i praise you. You have stolen everythought i ahve had and verbalised them again. I praise you... call me ;)
Too bad that entire article is bullshit, and is hosted on a Christian website (but I repeat myself...) ;)

No because that can be using sex for pleasure. And before you go saying "Homosexual sex is used for pleasure" yes, but not pleasure God intended. You can get pleasure from using drug's but God does not want you to do that.

If He doesn't want us to use them, why are most drugs plant-based?

Well, if anyone here cares what the Bible says, The People of Sodom and Gamora were homosexuals and God destroyed the city :sniper: , so it's pretty clear God has a pretty strong veiw about it

NOICE! my mistake... i am sure you can understand the use of a term of a different connotation. using that term via slang is not something i would be damned for. and why will i be seeing you there anyways?Post Script: yes, that does say 'noice' not a missing tin notice or an added o in nice....it is noice...

Uh, was a joke :p



I think we've actually answered the question after all those pages. Some religions say it is a sin, some don't. Those who say it is, say it because their guy in the sky said so.

Well, if anyone here cares what the Bible says, The People of Sodom and Gamora were homosexuals and God destroyed the city :sniper: , so it's pretty clear God has a pretty strong veiw about it

Two things

1) read the thread

2) fuck you

If He doesn't want us to use them, why are most drugs plant-based?
I cannot blame you for trying, but what is your IQ and level of concentration? this forum is about homosexuality, but unlike you i have the mantal capacity to answer you, blowing you off with the next cyclone.

Did god have the intention of us smoking plants when he put us here? And drug is a term invented by human for a substance that alters our state of mind/ body normalities. There is also the chance that these plants have evolved from less complicated bushes... just like the rest of the world has (no i have no quams over evolution...the proof is there, but it does not counter the presence of God). Thin about it. God created many things. He does not make you pick the buds. He does make you find sharp impliments to chop them with. He does not pack you cones. He does not light them. He does not force you to draw in... He does not force you remove your finger from the shotty. He merely gives you the oppertunity...

This is like many things in life, you are supposed to make a good decision... a way of weeding (no pun intended) out the bad ones and putting them where they belong.

In colnclusion.. i dont believe my answer was great..but feel free to become more specific on anything to do with the topic 'why is homosexuality a sin"
God-byes

Two things

1) read the thread

2) fuck you
Oh come on dear.... you are stronger than that... oh"fuck you for having a valid opinion and being able to provide evidense for all you say". you gimp... you bloody fool..... the person who wrote that statement... very nice. you are very correct. v nice again!

1) If it feals good and it hurts no one - do it
No good in homosexuality arguement because homosexual sex does hurt someone. Both the participents. In homosexual sex you are several times more likely to get an STD than hetrosexual sex because there are more fluids passed than in hetrosexual sex. Add to that the dangerously high possibiliy of getting anal cancer and many other physical disorders.

Note that if neither partner has an STD to begin with (which is ideal between any partners, not just same sex ones) you don't find that they spontaneously generate some sort of illness.

Note also that there's no such thing as "homosexual sex" either. Anybody can have anal sex. Homosexuals don't have a lock on that department. There is a wide range of sexual activites that people can do together, and very few of them are predicated on the gender of those involved.

And I don't see anywhere in any religious text where The Big Cheese rates how much harm is too much in a given activity. I must have missed the part of scripture where it says that "Well, it's okay to do that unless the diseases transmission rate reaches X%, then you have to cut it out."

Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men. Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

I'm sure that if you've already said this in this thread, someone's set you straight, but just in case...

You don't just stuff the biggest thing you can find into the nearest ass - it's something you accustomize yourself to. You make cleanliness (next to Godliness, remember :)) important. You make consideration for your partner important. You need to be relaxed, you start slowly and possibly with a finger. Your own body will guide you to what it feels is beyond its limit. That's what all those delicate nerve tissues help to do - they'll let you know when you're straining yourself.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

Wow, you must be pretty big. I thought we were talking about the rectum, not the intestine. Sure, the intestine's walls are ideal for transfer to/from blood, but that rapidly tapers off as you get towards the rectum, and in the rectum not at all. It's the rectum which is the major focus of anal sex, unless you're into some sort of colonic irrigation, which goes beyond the scope of what I'm replying to. ;)

Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female. Rectal insemination of rabbits has shown that sperm impaired the immune defenses of the recipient. Semen may have a similar impact on humans.

May? This makes me wonder if this is like the tests they did back in the seventies of a certain artificial sweetener on rats. They practically had to drown the rats before any died, but die they did and that's the part that was widely reported. Poor science.

Was it rabbit ejaculate they were using, or human? How much? What was the mood and disposition of the rabbit at the time?

Because humans can use condoms and other barriers, they can use sperm destroying foams and gels, they can use a vibrator or dildo or beads.

They can even go without any protection - of the various people than I personally know that are currently (well, not right this second) engaging in anal sex, and have been for quite some time, I've noticed no increased susceptibility to getting sick. Sure, that's anecdotal but less so than the vague comment on rabbits.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis

But if the anal intercourse between man and woman, the disease list differs? You seem to have anal sex permanently linked with homosexuality, and that's just ridiculous. It seems to me that most of your list can be transmitted via vaginal intercourse as well, with the exceptions of anal cancer (and God doesn't want you to use a cell phone because it gives you brain cancer), and the two sporidia candidates. Except that cryptosporidium is infectious after it leaves a host, which tends to be in fecal matter. But so much so, that if someone with crypto craps near a reservoir, that's enough to contaminate even a large-ish lake for anybody who drinks it.

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity. Syphilis, for example is found among heterosexual and homosexual practitioners. But in 1999, King County, Washington (Seattle), reported that 85 percent of syphilis cases were among self-identified homosexual practitioners. And as noted above, syphilis among homosexual men is now at epidemic levels in San Francisco.

Doesn't have much to do with homosexual sex, the transmission rates there have more to do with the lifestyle practices of the subjects in question. i.e. multiple partners, lack of regard for safety factors, ect.

A 1988 CDC survey identified percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted.28 Since homosexuals comprise such a small percent of the population (only 1-3 percent), they have a significantly higher rate of infection than heterosexuals.

And a fair chunk of soldiers who fought in Korea (including one of my uncles) got Hep B from the water. Would you like to draw out a conclusion about how drinking water is against God's will because of that?

I think that if you're going to use survey data to bolster your argument you might want to use something a little more recent, as it was much more of a scandal to be gay at that time and thus the lifestyles that many of the more public participants would lead to the infection rates, not the activities themselves.

Anal intercourse also puts men at significant risk for anal cancer. Anal cancer is the result of infection with some subtypes of human papilloma virus (HPV), which are known viral carcinogens. Data as of 1989 showed the rates of anal cancer in male homosexual practitioners to be 10 times that of heterosexual males, and growing. Thus, the prevalence of anal cancer among gay men is of great concern. For those with AIDS, the rates are doubled.

Why is all of your data from the eighties?

Your example requires unprotected sex between partners where one of the partners already has the virus - that's a bad thing regardless of the kind of sex you're having, and with whom.

Other physical problems associated with anal intercourse are:

hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies

Then judging by the sales of Preparation H, there must be a whole lot of people engaging in anal sex. Including a surprising number of elderly folk.

As for the second and third one, you can get either of those if you strain while constipated.

so feal good - do it? No. Doesnt work.

Now lets bring out the warehouses of material of what happens with heteosexual intercourse, shall we? All the disease and trauma cases?

2) God DOES care very much about all of what we do. He doesnt want us to sin but will leave us to free will so we have the ablity to do whatever we want.

I've always loved it when people say this. So He (who is all knowing in many people's minds) sets up situations (since He created everything and set things in motion) where it's good and healthy and advantageous and even necessary to do things, but against an unpublished master list of "sins" those people have now done something wrong?

That's not caring about us, that's playing the Sims. And that makes God a jerk and an unworthy creator.

Homosexuality is a sin because it is not what God had planned for humans.

Beware anybody who would claim to know the mind of God.

I'm using the fact that its dangerous to our health as proof, but that isnt the be all and end all.

Damn right, as having any kind of sex can be a death sentence. But isn't it funny (on a side note) that all of these scandals involving church officials involve homosexual molestation? You know, the people that are supposed to be more in tune with what God wants?

As far as sex goes God wanted humans to be in a loving one man one woman relationships, marriage. It states that repeadedly thorght the bible. I have explained this point again and again, but no one seems to care, but I will do it again so this time perhaps someone will listen.

Well, it's true that it never mentions that the disciples hooked up with each other while they were barnstorming around Galilee, and that "marriage" is only referenced by way of man and woman, but I can't remember any place in bible where it says that God wants people to pair off man-woman style and no other way. Perhaps you could quote something, and we could look at the surrounding text and put the quote into some sort of context?

Marriage acording to God = Loving, monogmous relationship between one man and one women.

No, I believe that would be marriage according to the traditions of any culture that wanted to add mysticism to mating.

God's law regardign the place of sex in any relationship = Within marriage only, sex outside marriage is a sin

Again, where is this written? Some of God's golden boys in the bible had numerous concubines, and they weren't all there just for decoration, and God didn't say anything about it to these people he was otherwise being very chatty with.

Therefore = Gay's cannot marry in God's eyes

Even if that's true, that's fine. When God starts performing marriages, He can pick and choose who He marries. But that's your opinion you're stating, not holy writ.

Therefore = Any sex that Gay's have will be outside marriage and therefore sinful

Quite a stretch. :) I'm glad to know that man-woman anal sex is therefore considered blessed within the bounds of marriage and if it's done with love.

ahhh... i am sorry to point this out... but the whole argument is about the sinful nature of homosexuality. We are not trying to desuade people out of it... just to answer a non-christian's question of 'why?'.

I realise i thanked the starter of that comment because they brought up some very important points. it is an unnatural act and the creation of the human body was not designed for anal penetration. Yes, of course, you can train your body to do alot of things, but with in reason of course. if people do it enough... they can dislocate their shoulder on demand... but for a normal person, it is a difficult, and very unnatural task.

I can understand your reasoning. the fact is that God did not design is to be gay, but it is a choice he has allowed us to make. I am not sure why people enjoy being prodded up the arse, but i mean, i dont understand government either. It is your, their, choice to have anal sex, and in a christian's eyes it is a sin.

It is a sin because it goes against god's plan for us.

All that i have said is blaintantly obvious... and has been said before, i am sure. So switch on and use your mind...

I cannot blame you for trying, but what is your IQ and level of concentration? this forum is about homosexuality, but unlike you i have the mantal capacity to answer you, blowing you off with the next cyclone.

Did god have the intention of us smoking plants when he put us here? And drug is a term invented by human for a substance that alters our state of mind/ body normalities. There is also the chance that these plants have evolved from less complicated bushes... just like the rest of the world has (no i have no quams over evolution...the proof is there, but it does not counter the presence of God). Thin about it. God created many things. He does not make you pick the buds. He does make you find sharp impliments to chop them with. He does not pack you cones. He does not light them. He does not force you to draw in... He does not force you remove your finger from the shotty. He merely gives you the oppertunity...

This is like many things in life, you are supposed to make a good decision... a way of weeding (no pun intended) out the bad ones and putting them where they belong.

In colnclusion.. i dont believe my answer was great..but feel free to become more specific on anything to do with the topic 'why is homosexuality a sin"
God-byes

Perhaps if you had actually read the thread, you would have noticed I have spent a great deal of time debating intelligently with others. Though it was not always on the overall topic of the thread, my posts have always been relevant to the discussion at hand. You'll also notice that I have not needed to resort to insulting anyone in the course of my debates, though you apparently felt the need to do just this in your first reply to me. But fine, you want my blunt, on-topic opinion. I believe the starter of this thread was only using the word sin in his topic title because that is the word opponents of homosexuality use most often to disparage the homosexual lifestyle. I interpret the topic title as asking why Christians feel the need to condemn homosexuality. As such, being a supporter of homosexuality and not being a Christian, I am not qualified to answer this question, but I do believe I am qualified to question others' responses when I see logical flaws contained within them, which is essentially what I've been doing for my entire stay on this thread. And, for the record, the post of mine that you quoted was a joke, I've never touched drugs, and never plan to.

*drools* i shold have known to come to one of these 'forums' earlier... you meet some very colourful people... people with views that are well expressed and clearly arguemed.

I am sincerely apologetic if i offended you in my first post, i was almost overwhelmed by the stupidity uttered in yuor response- take note :am not trying to offend, am trying to tell you that anyquestion like that deserves severe mock. I think ofr the person who could have written that, attempting to waste my time, and get instant enjoyment about the mental angst that will follow their reading.

I realise it is off the topic, but if you intend to reply to MY replies to other peoples stuff, please dont. If you feel the need to argue...reply to my posts...not praises of other people's work.

Good day... i'd love to continue this convo but i gots to run...tar tar! :rolleyes:

It seems to me that most of your list can be transmitted via vaginal intercourse as well, with the exceptions of anal cancer... Where the causative agent causes cervical cancer instead. And unfortunately, that particular beastie (HPV) can be transmitted even when a condom is used. (However, recent research suggests using a condom drastically reduces the transmission rate).

ahhh... i am sorry to point this out... but the BUTTSEX whole argument is about the sinful nature of homosexuality. We are not trying to desuade people out of it... just to BUTTSEX answer a non-christian's question of 'why?'.

I realise i thanked the starter of BUTTSEX that comment because they brought up some very important points. it is an unnatural act and the creation of the human body was not designed for anal penetration. Yes, of course, you can BUTTSEX train your body to do alot of things, but BUTTSEX with in reason of course. if people do it enough... they can dislocate their shoulder on demand... but for a BUTTSEX normal person, it is a difficult, and very unnatural task.

I can understand BUTTSEX your reasoning. the fact is that God did not design is to be gay, but it is a choice he has allowed us to make. I am not sure BUTTSEX why people enjoy being prodded up the arse, but i mean, i dont understand government either. It is your, their, choice to have anal sex, and in a christian's BUTTSEX eyes it is a sin.

It is a sin because it goes against BUTTSEX god's plan for us.

All that i have said is blaintantly obvious... and has been BUTTSEX said before, i am sure. So switch on and use your BUTTSEX mind...
It must be so. :p

Listen ScoMo it's no sin,it's never been a sin at all.All people should be free to pursue their sexual fantasies or orientations in an open,honest,healthy way.Being gay is certainly not a sin,no matter what those bile-thumpin` freaks might do or say.Your body is yours.As long as you Love & respect your partner and yourself then everything is just duckie isn't it? Love & re-spect Eric :)

... Where the causative agent causes cervical cancer instead. And unfortunately, that particular beastie (HPV) can be transmitted even when a condom is used. (However, recent research suggests using a condom drastically reduces the transmission rate).

Very true, I was just trying to uncouple his cause locomotive from his effect boxcar, since the conclusions seemed at best to be... unsupported. :P

The Scriptures can't be taken absolutly serious. Christianity has been altered over the centuries by meglomainiacs, especially during the last centuries of the Roman empire. Following the scriptures word for word are following the political agendas of long dead meglomaniacs. The ideas of tolerance and forgiveness are what should be taken from Christianity's teachings. Not to hate someone for something they can't help.

Oh come on dear.... you are stronger than that... oh"fuck you for having a valid opinion and being able to provide evidense for all you say". you gimp... you bloody fool..... the person who wrote that statement... very nice. you are very correct. v nice again!

The fact is, the stupid story of those two stupid cities has been blasted and debated, what, TEN TIMES on this thread?

To not know that is just plain laziness, and there's no excuse for that.

I realise i thanked the starter of that comment because they brought up some very important points. it is an unnatural act and the creation of the human body was not designed for anal penetration. Yes, of course, you can train your body to do alot of things, but with in reason of course. if people do it enough... they can dislocate their shoulder on demand... but for a normal person, it is a difficult, and very unnatural task.
The fact that g-spots exist there begs to differ. If it can be done, then obviously it is at least somewhat natural. Furthermore, what about lesbians? Is the human body not designed for lesbian oral? Fingering? Sex toys? Are all those horrific and unnatural?

I can understand your reasoning. the fact is that God did not design is to be gay, but it is a choice he has allowed us to make. I am not sure why people enjoy being prodded up the arse, but i mean, i dont understand government either. It is your, their, choice to have anal sex, and in a christian's eyes it is a sin.
Ah, but which god? Christianity isn't the only religion around, you know. Plus, homosexuality =/= gay sex. Lots of straight people do it, lots of gay people don't.

It is a sin because it goes against god's plan for us.
According to christians, and not even all of them

The fact is, the stupid story of those two stupid cities has been blasted and debated, what, TEN TIMES on this thread?

To not know that is just plain laziness, and there's no excuse for that.

Sounds like Sloth to me, which is a sin, right?

Oh dear...

My opinion is this... we can condem the actions we choose to condem. you can condone the actions you wish to condone. the true Judgment is between you and God. If you feel Homosexuality is pure and noble and ok, then when you face God, then he will tell you if you're right or wrong... the
same for those who think Homosexuality is immoral and a first class ticket to Hell.

My suggestion is to read the Bible and look in your Heart and Soul for your answer.

My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is a sin. And while I applaud those who admit to being Homosexual, realize I am against the sin, not the person. so please don't be offended if I offer prayers for you (if you are offended, let me know and I will stop offering prayers for you and accept my aplogies.) and please respect me enough to accept my choice as I accept yours.

My opinion is this... we can condem the actions we choose to condem. you can condone the actions you wish to condone. the true Judgment is between you and God. If you feel Homosexuality is pure and noble and ok, then when you face God, then he will tell you if you're right or wrong... the
same for those who think Homosexuality is immoral and a first class ticket to Hell.

My suggestion is to read the Bible and look in your Heart and Soul for your answer.

My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is a sin. And while I applaud those who admit to being Homosexual, realize I am against the sin, not the person. so please don't be offended if I offer prayers for you (if you are offended, let me know and I will stop offering prayers for you and accept my aplogies.) and please respect me enough to accept my choice as I accept yours.

If only everyone were like you.
Well, not *literally*, we'd be some kind of Borg Collective, but you know what I mean.

Is homosexuality a sin?

Only if you believe it is.

Should homosexuals have equal rights is another - and seperate - question.

This is my mentally subnormal response because most people are not able to read whole paragraphs.

My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is a sin. And while I applaud those who admit to being Homosexual, realize I am against the sin, not the person. so please don't be offended if I offer prayers for you (if you are offended, let me know and I will stop offering prayers for you and accept my aplogies.) and please respect me enough to accept my choice as I accept yours.

(I'll assume that you also think bisexuality is a sin)

I'm not offended by your prayers, but I would prefer that you not make them for me. Thank you.

(I'll assume that you also think bisexuality is a sin)


Not for a woman. Though adultery is. So there.

Yes Igwanarno, but as I said, it's the act, not the person. Also Beastality for those minds who would ask.

and I will respect your reqest Igwanarno.

(I'll assume that you also think bisexuality is a sin)

I'm not offended by your prayers, but I would prefer that you not make them for me. Thank you.

I'll second that, thank you very much. The act of prayer in this case is an admission of guilt vounteered by a third party. It's difficult to find that to be not slightly offensive.

Speaking for the Judeo-Christian perspective... (however, I will state outright, that I in no way consider it the responsibility of the Christian to "force" this concept on those who are not.... but merely under the extrapolated discource of the concept). Its status as a sin is illuded to. However, the principle exists under the concept of "created order".... IE Gods principle and original created order. Sexual intercourse is designed for the purpose and plan of procreation... This is the general perspective of the Judeo-Christian traditionalist... which follows more than into mere homosexuality, but the use of sexuality outside of the purpose of procreation. Basically, anything that is done outside of Gods created order is sin, being against His will...

On a side note, I would also like to add, that within context... Within the operations of God, sin exists by his will... and the plan and operation of how his word is spread is listed, which also exists and is to be operated as such, within his own will, plan and stated purpose... And for the right-wingers to want to legislate that purpose into law, and an enforcement of judeo-christian morality in general by secular law, is not the purpose... but rather through teaching and preaching, and to let the others go their own course should they not listen. I generally find the concept of the secular enforcement of such views, mostly prevalent amongst what is known as "the religious right" to be a cop out by the self-same group... and also note that since their operation as such is contrary to the order in which they have been commanded within the scope of God's will to operate, they also, in doing so by their way, rather than God's are guilty of commiting a sin.... and that therefore, their refusal to follow his will for the sake of their own will, brings questionable status to their profession as such in the first place...

And yes... I am saying, anyone who seeks to legislate Christianity, rather than be witness of it in preaching, is not a Christian, by the very foundation of Christianity's own witness.

Could be, New Fuglies, but that's assuming the prayers are for Forgiveness. Forgiveness is between you and God (and to be fair, to whomever you hold your belief in... even if it's no one.) My prayers are that lives and friendships are not made casualties due to the differences of opinions on a topic such as this. I've seen many a thread devolve into insults and flame warss due to the differences of opinions on sensitive topics.

As long as this thread is civil, and cooler heads prevail, then I know my prayers (at least) are answered.

Your post, Tekania, reminds me of the quote that states look at how many laws our government needs to pass to duplicate the 10 commandments.

Could be, New Fuglies, but that's assuming the prayers are for Forgiveness. Forgiveness is between you and God (and to be fair, to whomever you hold your belief in... even if it's no one.) My prayers are that lives and friendships are not made casualties due to the differences of opinions on a topic such as this. I've seen many a thread devolve into insults and flame warss due to the differences of opinions on sensitive topics.

As long as this thread is civil, and cooler heads prevail, then I know my prayers (at least) are answered.

Yeah I realized I made an assumption after making the post and thanks for pointing out my error.

No prob.

hmmm. this makes me think of another topic that i've been questioning for a long time...

I've always loved it when people say this. So He (who is all knowing in many people's minds) sets up situations (since He created everything and set things in motion) where it's good and healthy and advantageous and even necessary to do things, but against an unpublished master list of "sins" those people have now done something wrong?


Give me a legitamate example where it is either good/healthy or somehow right to sin. Who are you (Or anyone for that matter besides God) to say what is and isn't right. God is the only one who can make that judgement. Its arrogent to say that you somehow know better than him.

Give me a legitamate example where it is either good/healthy or somehow right to sin. Who are you (Or anyone for that matter besides God) to say what is and isn't right. God is the only one who can make that judgement. Its arrogent to say that you somehow know better than him.

A man is starving to death and is surrounded by shellfish.

According to christians, and not even all of them


Look I have said this over and over again and yet still no one seems to listen

This thread is for CHRISTIANS to explain the reasons behind their beliefs

Its not for non Christians to go "Arghhh look at the evil homophobes. Let us drench them in our postmodern weaponsfire to make them see sense"

A man is starving to death and is surrounded by shellfish.

Since when did anyone say eating shellfish was sinful. Jesus told people that its not about what you eat that makes you clean or not. Its what you do.

it was explained... the phrase "read the Bible" was repeated over and over again. I also said that after reading the bible, you need to look into your heart and soul for the truth. After all, the sin is between you and God.

Some don't like to see others sin and actively preach to them, others offer support and teach by example, others still will wait till the person wants to free themselves from the burden and then will help. Me, I'll offer advice and a "shoulder to cry on" but the choice to change, for good or ill, must be made by the person/people involved.

Besides, I kinda wish to know how other religions feel about Homosexuality. :confused:

Any Buddists, Hindu, Muslims, or others out there?

Ok, Rearly Wild Stuff here is a URL explaining the Biblical teaching on sex before marriage. Read it before you get back to me

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ203.HTM

And before you all start going "Arghh, it says stoned to death, thats barbaric. Check the new testement out to see the revisial of these punishments. And before you go to me on your "Pologyomy existed in the bible" rant, again go check the new testement, pologyomoy did not happen then. And besides, read Genesis 2: 24

Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh

My opinion is this... we can condem the actions we choose to condem. you can condone the actions you wish to condone. the true Judgment is between you and God. If you feel Homosexuality is pure and noble and ok, then when you face God, then he will tell you if you're right or wrong... the
same for those who think Homosexuality is immoral and a first class ticket to Hell.

My suggestion is to read the Bible and look in your Heart and Soul for your answer.

My personal opinion is that Homosexuality is a sin. And while I applaud those who admit to being Homosexual, realize I am against the sin, not the person. so please don't be offended if I offer prayers for you (if you are offended, let me know and I will stop offering prayers for you and accept my aplogies.) and please respect me enough to accept my choice as I accept yours.
A good person... i am christian... i do not however attend church -personal preferance. you are a good person. Very good. I like what you have to say, and you are completely correct. I have no problems with gays... i have many bi friends... but as you have said have quams with the sin.
I am sure you can all understand that this is about why homosexuality is a sin... sin = word used by christians to describe an act against the will of god. It is simple. God condemns homosexuality... it is therefore a sin. His reasons are His own, and we can only guess why he disagrees with it.

JuNii, I was raised Hindu, and now I'd say I'm agnostic. I was never taught that homosexuality was wrong, nor do i know any hindus who oppose it on religious grounds. But then, we invented the kama sutra didn't we. ;)

Give me a legitamate example where it is either good/healthy or somehow right to sin. Who are you (Or anyone for that matter besides God) to say what is and isn't right. God is the only one who can make that judgement. Its arrogent to say that you somehow know better than him.

I know better than Him in absentia. If He wants to come down and correct me, let Him.

A legitimate example of where it is either good/healthy or somehow right to sin? That's easy, and we'll use a classic one:

You're starving to death and you steal a loaf of bread.

That's not even one of those "kinda sorta" sins, that's one of the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not steal".

Life overrules "sinning" everytime. If you disagree, feel free to die for your beliefs. I'd rather live for mine.

Who are you (Or anyone for that matter besides God) to say what is and isn't right. God is the only one who can make that judgement. Its arrogent to say that you somehow know better than him.

I'm going to requote the above to you from now on every time you attempt to tell people what's a sin and what isn't. After all only God can say what is and isn't right, right? <bats eyelashes>

Since when did anyone say eating shellfish was sinful. Jesus told people that its not about what you eat that makes you clean or not. Its what you do.

The prohibition against eating shellfish is in the long list of allowable and unallowable behavior for God's chosen people in before they made it to the land of milk and honey, around the same time (if I remember correctly) that the ark of the covenant was built.

Ok, Rearly Wild Stuff here is a URL explaining the Biblical teaching on sex before marriage. Read it before you get back to me

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ203.HTM

And before you all start going "Arghh, it says stoned to death, thats barbaric. Check the new testement out to see the revisial of these punishments. And before you go to me on your "Pologyomy existed in the bible" rant, again go check the new testement, pologyomoy did not happen then. And besides, read Genesis 2: 24

Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh

Read your article, it sucks. Here's why:

It writes the text of certain passages in full to support remarks that the author of the article is saying, but all (except for one) of those are taken out of the context in which they were written. And I mean the full context. Some proof.

As for the ones that the author apparently couldn't spin, he just quotes the chapter and verse but doesn't give the body of the quote. So I read them myself. Did you?

A little tip for you, if you are in fact a Christian: forget about the old testament entirely. Because it's in the old testament that the rules for wearing clothes of more than one material (are you wearing a cotton/polyester blend shirt? You're to be killed) and how many slaves you're allowed, nay, expected to own.

Have some perspective, would you?

And I was raised with God and church. I'm with neither currently, but I did do my share of comparative theology classes in university. So these sorts of articles that start with a bias and write slantedly to "prove" it aren't going to get you anywhere with me. Nor, I suspect, with anybody who can read for themselves.

And again, if you want to talk about what it says in the bible, you'd better examine your own life and see that you're in line with the "rules" and free from sin before casting stones in judgement.

And again, if you want to talk about what it says in the bible, you'd better examine your own life and see that you're in line with the "rules" and free from sin before casting stones in judgement.

Lets not make this personal shall we. I am only pointing out what the bible says. I judge no one.

I'm going to requote the above to you from now on every time you attempt to tell people what's a sin and what isn't. After all only God can say what is and isn't right, right?

I am doing my best to understand what the bible says. I understand it in one way, others understand it in another. I'm simpley quoting from the word of God. Since the Bible is all we have regarding what God said, I treet it with a great deal of reverance. And you still havent dealt with Genesis 2: 24

Well, actually, yes you are! You are judging people for being gay and enjoying themselves. Can you HONESTLY say you've never done anything wrong? No. So, if you wish to avoid confrontation with people who have better arguments than "Well it says so in the bible," please do not reply.

Well, actually, yes you are! You are judging people for being gay and enjoying themselves. Can you HONESTLY say you've never done anything wrong? No. So, if you wish to avoid confrontation with people who have better arguments than "Well it says so in the bible," please do not reply.

Its not my judgement. As far as I can see its God's. Ignoring the bible puts this thread into irellevence. The thread's title is "Why is homosexuality a sin" and ever since I came on here, I have explained to people why. If your going to ignore the Bible in a debate regarding Christian ethics then you are being fairly stupid.

So what if I think homosexuality is a sin. I treet them no diffrently if I meet them. I sin all the time. I know that.

*deep sigh* Ok...... You are trying to reinforce "Gods" ideals and trying to impose your ideas which happen to be the same as "Gods." Ergo, you are passing a judgement.

*deep sigh* Ok...... You are trying to reinforce "Gods" ideals and trying to impose your ideas which happen to be the same as "Gods." Ergo, you are passing a judgement.

I dont just happen to agree with God. I follow God. I try my best to seek out his will and opinion on things in the bible. Passing a judgement would imply that I somehow act upon it. I dont. Thats God's job not mine. If you think I am acting on it by posting on this board, you can if you want. The title is "Why is homosexuality a sin" and I am doing my best to explain. Nothing wrong with that.

No. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. What i personally have a problem with is your stubborness. You are failing to see others points of view. This is a debate. In a debate it's best to take a very objective view at it. See the Pros and Cons. You are failing to see that these people were born Homosexual and no amount of relying on the bible is going to change that. The passage at the start of this thread is trying to persuade Christians to see their point of view. If you fail to see that then i see absolutely no reason for you to be still clinging onto this thread. Go and hassle someone else.

I dont just happen to agree with God. I follow God. I try my best to seek out his will and opinion on things in the bible. Passing a judgement would imply that I somehow act upon it. I dont. Thats God's job not mine. If you think I am acting on it by posting on this board, you can if you want. The title is "Why is homosexuality a sin" and I am doing my best to explain. Nothing wrong with that.
So since you've explained that it's a sin because it says so in the bible, can you please answer the rest of the thread beginning post aswell?


If your answer is based on passages in the bible, how is it that you can condemn homosexuals (me) on such a basis and it not be sinful to not follow every passage in the bible?


Thanks!

I must humbly submit to my friend Chodolo that he (or she) is mistaken about the nature of sin, Christianity, and morality, based on his previous comment, in which he declared that homosexuality is a sin only if one is Christian, and if not, then it is "all good."
Truth (whatever it may be) never changes - its basic nature is to alter things around it, and conform things to its own nature; I am a serious believer in universal moral principles, and although I am not, strictly speaking, a Christian, I do recognize and respect the Christian doctrine - I have chosen to discard the pseudo-scientific theory of evolution, and accept actual scientific discoveries (many of which support familiar stories from the Bible; bare in mind that 93 to 94% per cent of all locations mentioned in the Old Testament have been verified as having actually existed).
After hopefully convincing you of the historical correctness of the Bible (or at elast of my belief in it, since it is an accurate historical record), I will move on the the topic of morality, from a Christian perspective. To be a Christian means to be Christ-like. Even though it is not possible for someone to be exactly like Christ, according to the doctrine, we must all try, sinc ethat is thye ultimate ideal - perfection. We must aim (even though we can never reach) for Christ-like perfection, in all that we do, even in small things and our everyday lives.
Let me hereby submit, therefor, that there is no such thing as "personal truth" meaning that it is not "okay" to say, for example: "Well, if you don't believe in it, then it's not okay for you; you on the other hand do believe in it, so it's morally acceptable for you." This is an illogical statement. Morality, if it exists, cannot be divided, but must be universal - it's either right or wrong, period.
I do not believe in same-sex marriage for moral, political, and economic reasons, and it is quite sickening and disgusting in my mind to think that our nation has lowered itself to such a horrible level as to even question whether such should be accepted in our land; I assure you, the Founding Fathers never considered this matter.
By the way, as a last note, I am no scientist, but the president of the American Psychological Society says "Homosexuality is not inherent."

Lets not make this personal shall we. I am only pointing out what the bible says. I judge no one.

Not so - you say that homosexuality is a sin. If this is in the bible, please quote chapter and verse. If it doesn't say it and you're inferring, then you're also judging.

And there's no heat coming from me. I'm just responding in a debate-like manner. :)

By the way, as a last note, I am no scientist, but the president of the American Psychological Society says "Homosexuality is not inherent."

How can it it be , homosexuals can't reproduce!!!

I could accuse everyone else of the same thing. No one is looking at my perspective, they are just clining onto their postmodern value system (That sounds like an oxy-moron to me). I'm explaining my point of view. I may be stubbon here but I do rebut every point given to me. Defending my position, if you want to call that stubboness, go ahead.

I am doing my best to understand what the bible says. I understand it in one way, others understand it in another. I'm simpley quoting from the word of God. Since the Bible is all we have regarding what God said, I treet it with a great deal of reverance. And you still havent dealt with Genesis 2: 24

Well, you're quoting in the sense that you've giving quotes. I'm not certain how much they apply to the issue at hand however...

As for Genesis 2: 24, this says in the King James (english) version: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This comes immediately after Eve was created from Adam, and it refers to how men come of age and take a mate.

I don't see how it applies to homosexuality being a sin, however. Is it because there's no mention of man cleaving to man?

Because the bible also omits mention of computers and furniture, and my butt is cleaved to this chair and my right hand is cleaved to the mouse. ;)

What is it specifically about this quote that you're wanting me to see?

Not so - you say that homosexuality is a sin. If this is in the bible, please quote chapter and verse. If it doesn't say it and you're inferring, then you're also judging.

And there's no heat coming from me. I'm just responding in a debate-like manner. :)

You were accusing me of being a hypocrite and saying I should look into my life. I call that heat.

I have quoted the passage several times

Leviticus 18: 22

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable

And again

Romans 1: 18 - 27

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And before you start saying "It says here God caused them to be homosexual", then I say no it doesnt. It says that Homosexuality is one result of them not leading godly lives. God doesnt cause it, they do.

And again

1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And if you think that the first verse is irrelevent because it is Old testement then here is the proof that parts of the old testement are gone and parts remain

Hebrews 10: 5 - 18

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Well, you're quoting in the sense that you've giving quotes. I'm not certain how much they apply to the issue at hand however...

As for Genesis 2: 24, this says in the King James (english) version: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This comes immediately after Eve was created from Adam, and it refers to how men come of age and take a mate.

I don't see how it applies to homosexuality being a sin, however. Is it because there's no mention of man cleaving to man?



Well its quite simpile. Genesis 2: 24 explains God's defition of marriage. One man one woman. That is God's only place for sex, within marriage. Therefore Gay's cannot be married in God's eyes as marrige is only for one man and one woman. Therefore any sex Gay's have outside marriage is adultery and a sin.

Truth (whatever it may be) never changes - its basic nature is to alter things around it, and conform things to its own nature;

Give Nietzsche's "Truth and Falsity in an Ultramoral Sense" to see a cogent argument against this concept of "absolute truth". I'm not saying that it's necessarily right, I'm just saying that truth is absolute in only the most simple though experiments, and not in a universe where you and I can watch the same thing and come away with totally different perspectives on it.

I am a serious believer in universal moral principles, and although I am not, strictly speaking, a Christian, I do recognize and respect the Christian doctrine - I have chosen to discard the pseudo-scientific theory of evolution, and accept actual scientific discoveries (many of which support familiar stories from the Bible; bare in mind that 93 to 94% per cent of all locations mentioned in the Old Testament have been verified as having actually existed).

That's because the bulk of the book takes place during recorded history - and many of the places still exist today. However, the route of the forty year trek through the desert, the tower of Babel, the location of the garden of Eden, "Nod"... these haven't been found, because they never existed as anything other than concepts.

As for saying that the bible has validity because many of the locations in it have been found... most modern works of fiction (not that I'm calling the bible fiction, I'm just contrasting the reasoning here) are in contemporary settings. Just because a book about alien invaders mentions Prague and New Hampshire doesn't mean it's a true book. Know what I mean?

As for evolution being "pseudo-scientific", it's not. It's observable. The one-line description of evolution is "species change over time on a generational scale". Not "your daddy was a monkey".

It's observable in bacteria, which we can cultivate multiple generations of in a short period of time. You can see it in fast-lived creatures like mayflies. The brightly coloured moths of Britain that shifted to a more sooty colour as the industrial revolution darkened the surfaces where the moths would rest are another example.

Longer term? The fossil record for most species appears to broken, but not for horses during the time we've been domesticating them (up to twelve or fourteen thousand years). That sucker is complete. Look it up and view the changes over time for yourself.

If there are parts of the bible that are confirmed by science, that's great. It simply shows that people back then could observe and record things.

After hopefully convincing you of the historical correctness of the Bible (or at elast of my belief in it, since it is an accurate historical record), I will move on the the topic of morality, from a Christian perspective. To be a Christian means to be Christ-like. Even though it is not possible for someone to be exactly like Christ, according to the doctrine, we must all try, sinc ethat is thye ultimate ideal - perfection. We must aim (even though we can never reach) for Christ-like perfection, in all that we do, even in small things and our everyday lives.

I'm afraid you haven't convinced me of the historical correctness of the bible as a whole, but that's okay. :)

To be Christian isn't to be Christ-like. To be Christian (at the start, anyway) meant to follow the teachings and philosophy of Christ as he preached them. Not as a set of instructions that you can put checks next to, but as more of a guiding credo.

After a while, it got institutionalized and words and ceremonies that were never part of the original got introduced, and you ultimately get to where we are now: Christianity is hopelessly schizmed and people follow the rituals and not the teachings.

Communion for instance. That was something Christ did with his followers once. It was symbolic reinforcement of what he was teaching them. It doesn't mean it's meant to be aped by everyone who follows, although there's nothing wrong with doing that. :)

Let me hereby submit, therefor, that there is no such thing as "personal truth" meaning that it is not "okay" to say, for example: "Well, if you don't believe in it, then it's not okay for you; you on the other hand do believe in it, so it's morally acceptable for you." This is an illogical statement. Morality, if it exists, cannot be divided, but must be universal - it's either right or wrong, period.

God cannot be moral, because if it's by God's standards that morality exists he's never been put to the test. If God has set down some rules (and I've yet to see the one(s) against homosexuality that aren't in the same list as the ones about beating your wife with a rod no thicker than your thumb, and the type of tents you should sit under) then disobeying them isn't immoral, it's simply breaking the rules/laws/whatever.

So where then does morality come from, if it's not a personal standard of what's right and wrong, or the standard of the community you reside in?

I do not believe in same-sex marriage for moral, political, and economic reasons, and it is quite sickening and disgusting in my mind to think that our nation has lowered itself to such a horrible level as to even question whether such should be accepted in our land; I assure you, the Founding Fathers never considered this matter.

Well, I'm not in the US so I'm not overly concerned what some folks from a few centuries ago would have considered. If they were around now and in a similar capacity, they'd have to consider it, wouldn't they?

You want sickening and disgusting? The divorce rate of marriages is better than 50%. Two thirds of that amount in the first five years of marriage, and that cuts across marriages in a religious institution or civil ceremonies.

Also, to your country's government a marriage is a contract, nothing more. It basically entitles some tax benefits and a few other perks. I submit to you that if any two people are legally fit and responsible to enter a contract, they ought to be able to be married, at least in a civil sense. You and I, me and my brother, two men, two women, whatever.

That doesn't exclude various churches from picking and choosing who they perform marriages for, as they're a private entity.

By the way, as a last note, I am no scientist, but the president of the American Psychological Society says "Homosexuality is not inherent."

Wonderful for him. Now quote a biologist.

That's because the bulk of the book takes place during recorded history - and many of the places still exist today. However, the route of the forty year trek through the desert, the tower of Babel, the location of the garden of Eden, "Nod"... these haven't been found, because they never existed as anything other than concepts.


"They never existed". Thats a little arrogent without proof. And proof doesnt just lie in there absence. You need to prove that they either
A) Couldn't have existed
B) Did not exist in the form that is discribed
You could say "They do not exist" but you cannot say "They never existed"


As for saying that the bible has validity because many of the locations in it have been found... most modern works of fiction (not that I'm calling the bible fiction, I'm just contrasting the reasoning here) are in contemporary settings. Just because a book about alien invaders mentions Prague and New Hampshire doesn't mean it's a true book. Know what I mean?


Ok, so if it is not fiction but has large ammounts of proven fact in it then what is it?


As for evolution being "pseudo-scientific", it's not. It's observable. The one-line description of evolution is "species change over time on a generational scale". Not "your daddy was a monkey".

It's observable in bacteria, which we can cultivate multiple generations of in a short period of time. You can see it in fast-lived creatures like mayflies. The brightly coloured moths of Britain that shifted to a more sooty colour as the industrial revolution darkened the surfaces where the moths would rest are another example.

Longer term? The fossil record for most species appears to broken, but not for horses during the time we've been domesticating them (up to twelve or fourteen thousand years). That sucker is complete. Look it up and view the changes over time for yourself.


Fossils? Oh, big evolutional no no. You want to know why?

1) Evolution is, by its own arguement, a gradual process. Therefore in the fossils you would expect to see gradual development. BUT you dont. Below the Cambrian strata are no indisputeable fossils. Then in the Cambrian strata what do you find. Complex animals, jellyfish, worms, trilobites etc. All at the same level. What do you conclude? That they all *appered* at simmilar if not the same time.

2) Evolution says that plants came along before animals, but what do we find in the Cambrian strata along with the animals. Pollen and spores, and nowt below that.

3) Evolution says that man and dinosaur lived thousands, if not millions of years appart. Yet in the Paluxy River basin in Texas, there are fossilised prints of both a man's footprints, and a dinosaur's at the same level.

4) There are many examples of Polystrate fossils in the fossil record. These are where fossils are in a vertical position and not a horizontal one. These fossils can span seveal layers sometimes. How does evolution explain these trees remaining upright as the levels were deposited? If it took millions of years, then the tree must have been dead, but if that is true then why is it still upright?

Homosexuality cannot be inherrint. It is self killing. If a homosexuality gene is passed down and someone does become homosexual it will never be passed down again. Ergo you would expect to see (If it was inherint) a large body of homosexual's from the begining of human history dwindling to almost nothing, if not nothing at all, now. The only reason it may continue is that people would "realise" they are homosexual after they had had a child. Someone explain how homosexuality could possibly be inheritable or genetic?

Catholicism vs Protestantism is irrelevent most Religeons(i would say all but Kids today huh!) would say the love between a man and a woman is the best.
Men can love men in a brotherly way but not the same way as a woman.

In the end your meant to go forth and multiply Gay's cant do that naturally.

Some say its choice some say its genetics, abnormal or what in nature gay frogs wittle down the gene poll and so expelling potentially inferior genes from the cycle.

And that brings me to Hormonal Contraception the chemicals are retarding nature.

Homosexuality cannot be inherrint. It is self killing. If a homosexuality gene is passed down and someone does become homosexual it will never be passed down again. Ergo you would expect to see (If it was inherint) a large body of homosexual's from the begining of human history dwindling to almost nothing, if not nothing at all, now. The only reason it may continue is that people would "realise" they are homosexual after they had had a child. Someone explain how homosexuality could possibly be inheritable or genetic?

Oh cool youve explained a bit already no surprise though as thread is in the thousands

people the problem is that you are taking transcipts straight outta the bible
our laws are flexible and change with the needs of that time
the laws of god, jesus explained also change but still remain with his ultimate plan

The Tower of Babel did exist it just got talked up by Horoditus?...and Renaisance paintings not to say it wasnt impressive.

Oh cool youve explained a bit already no surprise though as thread is in the thousands

Doesnt make it any less valid. It PROVES that people do have a choice to be homosexual or not, and since an expert psycologist has been quoted saying that homosexuality is not psycological disorder, that means people have a choice, lending credence to the arguement that it is a sin.

Their have been many bibles from different "Sects"
Each with own views.
When your told what to do and do it then youll be sweet

Doesnt make it any less valid. It PROVES that people do have a choice to be homosexual or not, and since an expert psycologist has been quoted saying that homosexuality is not psycological disorder, that means people have a choice, lending credence to the arguement that it is a sin.

Oh no no no not meant as a hit out at your comment just you had already expressed my feelings.

That's the usual propaganda. I guess that's why it brought so much money in and i guess that's also why greece was a ROMAN province in the end...

Greece only became a Roman providence because one, the Greeks were a bunch of liberal city dwellers who had been softened by Macedonian conquest. (Entirely unrelated to Rome and just a bit of bad luck!) and two, because the only real innovation that those emptyheaded early Romans ever made was on the battlefield! :sniper: Also, as the Romans didn't have their own cultlure (aside from gladiators, we grecophiles blame THAT entirely on you, it is really a question of: Who really absorbed whom in the end?

Homosexuality cannot be inherrint. It is self killing. If a homosexuality gene is passed down and someone does become homosexual it will never be passed down again. Ergo you would expect to see (If it was inherint) a large body of homosexual's from the begining of human history dwindling to almost nothing, if not nothing at all, now. The only reason it may continue is that people would "realise" they are homosexual after they had had a child. Someone explain how homosexuality could possibly be inheritable or genetic?


Uhh I thought this thread was for Christians to discuss the sinful nature of homosexuality rather than bumble biology? To shed a bit of light on your question, consider the example that sex selection in alligators is determined by nest temperature but you wouldn't consider something so basic not to be a genetic trait. Study a bit of embryology, particularly the chapters dealing with neural development while at it, study modern genetics theory and a bit about social behavior for to even ask the question above would require an understanding of these fields if you're at all interested in an answer. ;)

biology is the one class i failed so i have no idea what was just said

biology is the one class i failed so i have no idea what was just said


no matter, little is known about heterosexual orientation in terms of "genetics" so why expect someone to have found the singular 'gay gene'. It doesn't exist but you betcha it's an organic rather than a Mendelian trait.

*drools* i shold have known to come to one of these 'forums' earlier... you meet some very colourful people... people with views that are well expressed and clearly arguemed.

I am sincerely apologetic if i offended you in my first post

Well, I thank you for this apology.

i was almost overwhelmed by the stupidity uttered in yuor response- take note :am not trying to offend, am trying to tell you that anyquestion like that deserves severe mock. I think ofr the person who could have written that, attempting to waste my time, and get instant enjoyment about the mental angst that will follow their reading.

I am aware of the stupidity of the comment I made. That was the point of the joke.

I realise it is off the topic, but if you intend to reply to MY replies to other peoples stuff, please dont. If you feel the need to argue...reply to my posts...not praises of other people's work.

I did no such thing.

Good day... i'd love to continue this convo but i gots to run...tar tar! :rolleyes:

Uhh I thought this thread was for Christians to discuss the sinful nature of homosexuality rather than bumble biology?

My point is that many people say "How can God call something a sin (homosexuality) when they are born this way. Since I have proved that they are not born this way, it means that homosexuality is a choice and since sinning is a choice (do or do not sin, not always an easy choice but a choice still) then this fact (that homosexuality is not genetic) lends credence to the arguement that homosexuality is a sin.

I know for a fact that in most churches of the UCC, Gay Marriage is NOT a sin!

My point is that many people say "How can God call something a sin (homosexuality) when they are born this way. Since I have proved that they are not born this way, it means that homosexuality is a choice and since sinning is a choice (do or do not sin, not always an easy choice but a choice still) then this fact (that homosexuality is not genetic) lends credence to the arguement that homosexuality is a sin.

ROTFL, now where did you prove it's not innate? I'd like to see it coz I think you should be nominated for a Nobel prize or something. :rolleyes:

I know for a fact that in most churches of the UCC, Gay Marriage is NOT a sin!

Well the idea of Gay marriage may not be a sin in itself, but homosexuaity is (see the rest of the thread, I cant be bothered to reiterate it all now) and as for Gay marriage, Genesis 2: 24 says that it is not marriage in God's eyes.

ROTFL, now where did you prove it's not innate? I'd like to see it coz I think you should be nominated for a Nobel prize or something. :rolleyes:

Oh can we all be on the ball please


Homosexuality cannot be inherrint. It is self killing. If a homosexuality gene is passed down and someone does become homosexual it will never be passed down again. Ergo you would expect to see (If it was inherint) a large body of homosexual's from the begining of human history dwindling to almost nothing, if not nothing at all, now. The only reason it may continue is that people would "realise" they are homosexual after they had had a child. Someone explain how homosexuality could possibly be inheritable or genetic?

Homosexuality cannot be inherrint. It is self killing. If a homosexuality gene is passed down and someone does become homosexual it will never be passed down again. Ergo you would expect to see (If it was inherint) a large body of homosexual's from the begining of human history dwindling to almost nothing, if not nothing at all, now. The only reason it may continue is that people would "realise" they are homosexual after they had had a child. Someone explain how homosexuality could possibly be inheritable or genetic?

And this is proof of what?

*laughs*

And this is proof of what?


That people are not born destined to be homosexuals, and so it is a choice. If it is a choice then it is more likely to be a sin. People were using the arguement "No it cant be a sin because people are born homosexuals and how can something be a sin if you are born like it". I am proving that you are not born with it and that therefore it is more likely that it is a sin.

That people are not born destined to be homosexuals, and so it is a choice. If it is a choice then it is more likely to be a sin. People were using the arguement "No it cant be a sin because people are born homosexuals and how can something be a sin if you are born like it". I am proving that you are not born with it and that therefore it is more likely that it is a sin.

Quite frankly, you haven't proved either. Sexual orientation is not a choice and while you believe otherwise I find it hard to take anyone who beleives it is a choice seriously. I personally do not care what Christian scripture says on this issue while it admonishes numerous other things far more clearly and is yet ignored. Seems to be a bit of politics there. Secondly, for you to prove it's an innate trait or not would seem to require much more education than is possessed by someone who clearly does not understand the matters at hand and has purported it as proof concluding with, of all things, a question.

Quite frankly, you haven't proved either. Sexual orientation is not a choice and while you believe otherwise I find it hard to take anyone who beleives it is a choice seriously. I personally do not care what Christian scripture says on this issue while it admonishes numerous other things far more clearly and is yet ignored. Seems to be a bit of politics there. Secondly, for you to prove it's an innate trait or not would seem to require much more education than is possessed by someone who clearly does not understand the matters at hand and has purported it as proof concluding with, of all things, a question.

Can you or can you not disprove my idea that it cannot be an inherited trate simpley because it is self killing. If you cannot then my arguement stands. I dont see how it can be if by inheriting it you then remove all chance of it being inherited again. And you cant say "Its not a choice" without proof. I have proved that its not biological and therefore it is a choice. No one has yet disproved it so my arguement stands. And as for your point saying that Christians are selective regarding doctrine, if something is mentioned in both the old and new testements as being a sin, then chances are it is a sin.

Can you or can you not disprove my idea that it cannot be an inherited trate simpley because it is self killing. If you cannot then my arguement stands. I dont see how it can be if by inheriting it you then remove all chance of it being inherited again. And you cant say "Its not a choice" without proof. I have proved that its not biological and therefore it is a choice. No one has yet disproved it so my arguement stands.

gootta go to work but I'll be back :D

Give me a legitamate example where it is either good/healthy or somehow right to sin.Masturbation. Frequent ejaculations help keep the prostrate healthy. Or was that a ritual law?
Who are you (Or anyone for that matter besides God) to say what is and isn't right.I'm a sentient being.
God is the only one who can make that judgement. Its arrogent to say that you somehow know better than him.I'll not abdicate my responsibility to judge the morality of my actions. :shrug:


Its not for non Christians to go "Arghhh look at the evil homophobes. Let us drench them in our postmodern weaponsfire to make them see sense"Is logic and intellectualism still allowed?

Can you or can you not disprove my idea that it cannot be an inherited trate simpley because it is self killing. If you cannot then my arguement stands. I dont see how it can be if by inheriting it you then remove all chance of it being inherited again. And you cant say "Its not a choice" without proof. I have proved that its not biological and therefore it is a choice. No one has yet disproved it so my arguement stands.

homosexuality is both biological and environmental, just like heterosexuality. why is that so hard for you to grasp? look into the studies done with identical twins; they conclusively prove that there IS a genetic component to homosexuality, but also that this genetic component is not the final word (the environment plays a major role as well).

furthermore, as i have shown countless times, homosexuality is not "self-killing" at all. in fact, homosexuality is often more evolutionarily stable than heterosexuality. this is because the definition of reproductive success is NOT merely based upon the ability to produce young, but rather on the ability to rear young to adulthood. also, the young do not have to be your own; for instance, rearing a sibling is as evolutionarily beneficial as rearing your own child, since you share 50% genetic relationship with your siblings just as you do with your children.

can we move on now? your claims are refuted.

How can you rear young to adulthood if you don't have sex with a women? If they are not your young then it is still a choice that you become a homosexual. Either you follow the path of your parent (or not parent, if I understand you right) or you dont. God never tempts us beyond our means. People can stop being homosexual, it is not forced onto them.

How can you rear young to adulthood if you don't have sex with a women?
well, i'm a girl and i've never had sex with a woman. does that mean i'll never be able to rear young to adulthood?

you're too hung up on sex. that's not what life is all about you know. there's a lot more to it than reproduction and pleasure and bonding experiences that come with sex.

Ok you know what I meant, you cant have a child if you dont have sex with someone of the oppisite sex. And we are talking about homosexuality as a sin here. My point is that since homosexuality cannot be inherited (as it is a self killing gene if it is) then it is more likely that it is a sin as a common point about sin is that people have the ability not to do it.

How can you rear young to adulthood if you don't have sex with a women? If they are not your young then it is still a choice that you become a homosexual. Either you follow the path of your parent (or not parent, if I understand you right) or you dont. God never tempts us beyond our means. People can stop being homosexual, it is not forced onto them.

i dunno, perhaps adopt? don't be a dumb ass

Ok you know what I meant, you cant have a child if you dont have sex with someone of the oppisite sex.

adoption?

sperm banks?

surrogates?

you can have a child without having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

And we are talking about homosexuality as a sin here. My point is that since homosexuality cannot be inherited (as it is a self killing gene if it is) then it is more likely that it is a sin as a common point about sin is that people have the ability not to do it.
it's qhite likely that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. if someone has a gay uncle, they're more likely to be gay. if someone has an identical twin who's gay, there's a good chance they'll be gay et c. while it's not entirely genetic (some of it's envirnonmental) it's not a choice. and you are still referring to homosexuality as the act of engaging in sex with a member of the same sex. homosexuality is about being attracted to members of the same sex.

is a virgin girl who is attracted to men not heterosexual? i mean, she hasn't had sex yet. she's only attracted to men though.

similarly, a vigrin boy who is only attracted to men is still homosexual.

I will explain why homosexuality cannot be genetic

Homosexuality creates a state whereby someone will no longer reproduce. Therefore anyone recieveing it will no longer be able to reproduce. Therefore the gene kills any chance it has of passing itself on. And while you say "Sperm donner, adoption etc" these have only existed recently. If homosexuality is genetic, then the gene would have died out by now as fewer and fewer people would pass it on.

Wow, there was alot of feed back on this. The New Testament says you're either with God OR you're against him. You (we/me) can't do both. YOU will have to take that with God.

CHRISTIANS: We simply believe we have found the truth that will help us live in harmony with what God intended from the beginning.

There is also plenty of evidence to support the fact that being gay is not biological. The main one being that humans are not designed for gay sex. It can damage internal organs and gives an increased likelyhood of cancer and STD's are more transmitted by homosexual sex than by hetrosexual sex (for the simple reason, more fluids are exchanged).

if you use a condom, then no fluids are exchanged.

the reason gay men are more suseptible to hiv is that the absorption places for the virus are the foreskin, the rectum and the vagina.

and also, straight women are the most suseptible to hiv anymore.
so uh, yeah...

I will explain why homosexuality cannot be genetic

Homosexuality creates a state whereby someone will no longer reproduce. Therefore anyone recieveing it will no longer be able to reproduce. Therefore the gene kills any chance it has of passing itself on. And while you say "Sperm donner, adoption etc" these have only existed recently. If homosexuality is genetic, then the gene would have died out by now as fewer and fewer people would pass it on.

i really don't think you get it. and i don't think it's even worth it to try anymore because hell, you've managed to preserve your ignorance after talking to bottle, who knows more about this shit than me.

furthermore, as i have shown countless times, homosexuality is not "self-killing" at all.


Can you explain this in more detail. I dont understand what you mean yet? How can a gene which causes a situation where it prevents itself from being passed on be passed on? And if homosexuality is enviromental then that means you can still chose to be hetrosexual, you just have to be removed from the envriomnet. It may be a difficult transformation, but not an impossible one.

if you use a condom, then no fluids are exchanged.


So, that doesnt remove the damage caused by penetration alone, which as I have already explained is significent


the reason gay men are more suseptible to hiv is that the absorption places for the virus are the foreskin, the rectum and the vagina.

and also, straight women are the most suseptible to hiv anymore.
so uh, yeah...

As I said, Im not just talking about the risks of STD's its the act alone which can be damaging. The rectum is very much unlike the Vagina in terms of being designed to be penetrated.

Masturbation. Frequent ejaculations help keep the prostrate healthy. Or was that a ritual law?


I dont know about that one, I'll look it up for you if you want


I'm a sentient being.


Created by God, the one who designed everything on this world. If you are going to debate with him then I suggest you reconsider the size of your ego. He gave you your sense of morality and concience and so he obviously knows more about it than you.


I'll not abdicate my responsibility to judge the morality of my actions. :shrug:


I'm not abdicating my resoposeability to make moral actions. I'm simply setting my morals acording to God's who would know much more about them than me. He says something is wrong, its wrong. I dont need to know why. In some cases it will be obvious but not all


Is logic and intellectualism still allowed?


Of course, provided it is that, not just postmodern wrangling

Then if you're NOT a christian, why would you use the institution of marriage? Hypocracy?

Since when is marriage only a religious ceremony celebrated by christians? Only those closed-mined, ignorant, uneducated would view marriage only as a religious ceremony. If anyone were to pay attention to the argument for gay marriage he/she would be able to recognize that those individuals are only fighting for the same health benefits that are given to a man and woman in marriage in any state. The homosexual marriage argument is one meant for government, not the church. :headbang:

Marriage was first a religious idea, then turned into a governmental institution. I feel that those who are not religous should not get married in the church. Thats kind of an insult "We dont hold any of your beliefs but we are quite happy to use your building".

I will explain why homosexuality cannot be genetic

Homosexuality creates a state whereby someone will no longer reproduce. Therefore anyone recieveing it will no longer be able to reproduce. Therefore the gene kills any chance it has of passing itself on. And while you say "Sperm donner, adoption etc" these have only existed recently. If homosexuality is genetic, then the gene would have died out by now as fewer and fewer people would pass it on.

ahh, but some species have genes which do not enable them to live, it's called survival of the fittest (in our case the country with the most guns :mp5: :sniper: ;) ) also known as evoloution. that is why we don't have eyes on our spinal cords, (not particularly effecient) so if humans were all gay and would not have children we would die out. Our place would then be taken by a more effecient species this is how life works.

the end
(knowing your ultra Cristian brain, you will use the bible to disprove this but what the hell.)

Marriage was first a religious idea, then turned into a governmental institution. I feel that those who are not religous should not get married in the church. Thats kind of an insult "We dont hold any of your beliefs but we are quite happy to use your building".

hatte to admit it, but i think he's right :(

I'm not abdicating my resoposeability to make moral actions. I'm simply setting my morals acording to God's who would know much more about them than me. He says something is wrong, its wrong. I dont need to know why. In some cases it will be obvious but not all

You remember me something about Sun rotating around the earth...

About Gay marriages, Christians (well Christian Fundamentalists, dangerous as Every other religion fundamentalists) refuses it after the "sodom and gomorra fact" while supposedly God punished an entire city...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibg.htm

funny tales, but i'll stick to The lord of the Rings or some other fantasy book, still fiction, but more funny.

Cheers

Dude, who cares what a bunch of closet christians think haha. Honestly, if your not in their religion who gives a rats. The only thing they'll do is go "OH DEAR GOD! I"LL PRAY FOR YOUR SINS" you say "Righto, and I'll eat a taco for yours"

Marriage was first a religious idea, then turned into a governmental institution. I feel that those who are not religous should not get married in the church. Thats kind of an insult "We dont hold any of your beliefs but we are quite happy to use your building".

sometimes only one of the two is an atheist, or, even if both are, the marrying couple's families could have great expectations on a marrying into a church, especially in regions/nations/cities/whatever where this is still seen as an important tradition.

Sometimes u have to fake not being what you are to make some other people happy...

Cheers

sometimes only one of the two is an atheist, or, even if both are, the marrying couple's families could have great expectations on a marrying into a church, especially in regions/nations/cities/whatever where this is still seen as an important tradition.

Sometimes u have to fake not being what you are to make some other people happy...

Cheers

Hoorah for self denial...

Hoorah for self denial...

1) marrying in a church will not make me any harm, one place is the same as the other
2) marrying in a church could have a great Emotive impact in your family, or in the family of your wife/husband
3)if i am atheist i could think: oh well, god doesn't exist so i'll not go to hell cause i am marrying into a church AND if i am wrong, well... i'll go to hell for other reasons, so one more, one less... but at least i'll make someone else happy.

Show me where i am self denying me :)

Cheers

1) marrying in a church will not make me any harm, one place is the same as the other
2) marrying in a church could have a great Emotive impact in your family, or in the family of your wife/husband
3)if i am atheist i could think: oh well, god doesn't exist so i'll not go to hell cause i am marrying into a church AND if i am wrong, well... i'll go to hell for other reasons, so one more, one less... but at least i'll make someone else happy.

Show me where i am self denying me :)

Cheers

so it's kind of a might be dammed if i do, but what the hell if i'm gonna be dammed this aint gonna push it over the line, dammed if i don't sort of thing then huh? my juju curses on neo cannen the religious fundamentalist bang! (shit i believe in karma, this will come back to haunt me forever aiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) sorry got carried away there

so it's kind of a might be dammed if i do, but what the hell if i'm gonna be dammed this aint gonna push it over the line, dammed if i don't sort of thing then huh? my juju curses on neo cannen the religious fundamentalist bang! (shit i believe in karma, this will come back to haunt me forever aiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!) sorry got carried away there

actually just kidding about the part with the curse and beyond, i'm actually a Mark Twain Cristian.(very skeptical, e.g. if many people don't even like 1 hour of church a week, why in blue blazes is our paradise like 24/7 church, rather than a bar where you never get drunk no matter how much free never flat beer you chug?)

1) marrying in a church will not make me any harm, one place is the same as the other
2) marrying in a church could have a great Emotive impact in your family, or in the family of your wife/husband
3)if i am atheist i could think: oh well, god doesn't exist so i'll not go to hell cause i am marrying into a church AND if i am wrong, well... i'll go to hell for other reasons, so one more, one less... but at least i'll make someone else happy.

Show me where i am self denying me :)

Cheers

Eh, fine. I feel that if your Athiest it would go against your beleifs to geet married in a church. Either way, you shouldn't live for just pleasing others if you have the energy to say your Athiest.

Eh, fine. I feel that if your Athiest it would go against your beleifs to geet married in a church. Either way, you shouldn't live for just pleasing others if you have the energy to say your Athiest.

wait.

why my beliefs have to be: "don't marry in a church! you are atheist!" ?
where's written?

and where's written that i shouldn't lie to please who i wish?

U know, a lot of things are fakes in anybodys life. How many times have you watched "Titanic" with your wife even if you hate that film?

For me marrying in a church is the same thing, let them have what they want, who cares after all?

not me, for sure. And that's the only important thing.


Cheers

btw, we are blatantly offtopic :)

cheers

(very skeptical, e.g. if many people don't even like 1 hour of church a week, why in blue blazes is our paradise like 24/7 church, rather than a bar where you never get drunk no matter how much free never flat beer you chug?)

i could guess that my hell will be filled by integralists of every religion... :D

cheers

Marriage was first a religious idea, then turned into a governmental institution. I feel that those who are not religous should not get married in the church. Thats kind of an insult "We dont hold any of your beliefs but we are quite happy to use your building".

Actually, as other people on the thread have mentioned, marriage was not originally a religious institution, or at least not a Christian one, but that's beside the point. I doubt many homosexual couples care where they get married, as long as their marriage is recognized in the eyes of the law.

wait.

why my beliefs have to be: "don't marry in a church! you are atheist!" ?
where's written?

and where's written that i shouldn't lie to please who i wish?

U know, a lot of things are fakes in anybodys life. How many times have you watched "Titanic" with your wife even if you hate that film?

For me marrying in a church is the same thing, let them have what they want, who cares after all?

not me, for sure. And that's the only important thing.


Cheers

Well it's written you shouldn't lie at all darlin. Well I'm gay so I haven't lol, and if i did watch it I'd go "By god what an awful movie". Self denial is very unhealthy. I don't like supporting liars.

I find it interesting that the title of the thread is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN and when people try to explain that it's in the Bible, people say "I don't wanna hear it" or "that's not good enough" the Author wanted to know why, and we said why. If you think that the bible states that it's a sin is not good enough, or you believe that Homosexuality is no longer a sin, then to you, it's not a sin and any misconception is between you and God. Just the same if those who cry that Homosexuality is a sin are wrong, then that's between us and God.

We, or at least I am, are answering the question. not trying to convert anyone, and the topic is not about marrage or rasing children. (There are threads for those topics elsewhere.)

Perhaps the topic title should be DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITY GOES AGAINST NATURE. Then you can include genetics, God, and personal feelings.

Now, exscuse me... but I've always wanted to try this smiley :sniper: it has nothing to do with my posts... I just think it looks neat :D

Well it's written you shouldn't lie at all darlin. Well I'm gay so I haven't lol, and if i did watch it I'd go "By god what an awful movie". Self denial is very unhealthy. I don't like supporting liars.

i just don't consider a lie that harms noone as a lie, we got different moral codes.

But just to be more specific, when i say that i would lie marrying in a church i don't mean that i'll not tell to the future wife/to the family "hey, i am atheist you know, i'll marry in a church, but u know thats got no sense to me if you think i am marrying under the eyes of god"

and trust me, the answer will be: "but you will marry in the church as me and your father, right?"

mora than a lie to the specific wife/mother/father/family is a lie to the "standardized set of customs" especially in a country, like italy, where the customs got more meaning than the act itself.

Cheers

I find it interesting that the title of the thread is WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN and when people try to explain that it's in the Bible, people say "I don't wanna hear it" or "that's not good enough" the Author wanted to know why, and we said why. If you think that the bible states that it's a sin is not good enough, or you believe that Homosexuality is no longer a sin, then to you, it's not a sin and any misconception is between you and God. Just the same if those who cry that Homosexuality is a sin are wrong, then that's between us and God.

We, or at least I am, are answering the question. not trying to convert anyone, and the topic is not about marrage or rasing children. (There are threads for those topics elsewhere.)

Perhaps the topic title should be DO YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITY GOES AGAINST NATURE. Then you can include genetics, God, and personal feelings.

Agreed. If religious people think it's a sin (Sin being a religious contextualised word) than it is. I have no sins, as I have no religion.