NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a commone misconception. Under no circumstance is homosexuality a sin. however anal or oral sex is always a sin for anyone.

Yes, now have a cookie.

What about vaginal sex with a dead prepubescent distant relative, like maybe a chimpanzee? Is that OK? Pweeze? :D

What about vaginal sex with a dead prepubescent distant relative, like maybe a chimpanzee? Is that OK? Pweeze? :D

Could you, like, tape that? I'm in the market for hot rotting monkey porn.

chimpanzees are not monkeys so it's perfectly ok :)

chimpanzees are not monkeys so it's perfectly ok :)

Eh, it's all pr0n to me.

chimpanzees are not monkeys so it's perfectly ok :)Sooo, you're taping it then??? can I have a DVD copy? :fluffle:

Could you, like, tape that? I'm in the market for hot rotting monkey porn.


*sporfle* Thanks for that; I was starting to think everybody on this forum took stuff way too seriously.

I'm confused on the "sin" thing, though. I thought there was a Bible verse somewhere that said it was "forbidden to lie with a man as with a woman," or something like that-- Leviticus, right? I mean, along with all the other "forbiddens" in that book, of course.

Of course, if the Biblical definition of accepted sex is strictly vanilla missionary, there really is no way to lie with a man "as with a woman," unless the man in question is a hermaphrodite, so one has to assume the verse refers to anal sex. I'm confused.

Okay. So basically, are you saying that in Catholocism it's all right to have the desire, just as long as you don't act on it? (Very Miltonian, that, though I'm sure he'd hate the association with Catholocism.) 'Cause, I mean, the only thing left really in that case is hands, and I'm pretty sure you're supposed to go blind if you use <i>them</i>.

I... didn't really say a whole lot in this post. Oh, well. I'm not really on one side or the other, I'm just curious-- as an areligious bisexual, I'm not real worried about what any given Church says is okay, but it's interesting anyway.

*sporfle* Thanks for that; I was starting to think everybody on this forum took stuff way too seriously.

Hell no, infact, if the threads get you down, head over to Paradise club!

I'm confused on the "sin" thing, though. I thought there was a Bible verse somewhere that said it was "forbidden to lie with a man as with a woman," or something like that-- Leviticus, right? I mean, along with all the other "forbiddens" in that book, of course.

and there are example of other things god considers wrong everwhere in the bible.

Of course, if the Biblical definition of accepted sex is strictly vanilla missionary, there really is no way to lie with a man "as with a woman," unless the man in question is a hermaphrodite, so one has to assume the verse refers to anal sex. I'm confused.

Actually, it is possible. Just raise his legs higher and .... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: Get image outta my head before it digs in... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

uhh... what was I talking about?

Okay. So basically, are you saying that in Catholocism it's all right to have the desire, just as long as you don't act on it? (Very Miltonian, that, though I'm sure he'd hate the association with Catholocism.) 'Cause, I mean, the only thing left really in that case is hands, and I'm pretty sure you're supposed to go blind if you use <i>them</i>.

I... didn't really say a whole lot in this post. Oh, well. I'm not really on one side or the other, I'm just curious-- as an areligious bisexual, I'm not real worried about what any given Church says is okay, but it's interesting anyway.

I think Catholics feel that even the desire is sinful... might be wrong since I'm Baptist.

Actually, it is possible. Just raise his legs higher and .... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: Get image outta my head before it digs in... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:



OOOO!!! But that's teh best way!!! :P

Bah, I couldn't care less about arguing whether or not someone's religion dictates what is wrong or not.

Although I can say from my point of view that it seems religious people lost whatever was worthwhile about religion (the parts about not judging and preaching love, not hate) and locked onto the whole intolerance part.

If someone says their religion tells them homosexuality is a sin, fine, they're entitled to their opinions, just don't try to force it on me or society in general.

Bah, I couldn't care less about arguing whether or not someone's religion dictates what is wrong or not.

Although I can say from my point of view that it seems religious people lost whatever was worthwhile about religion (the parts about not judging and preaching love, not hate) and locked onto the whole intolerance part.

If someone says their religion tells them homosexuality is a sin, fine, they're entitled to their opinions, just don't try to force it on me or society in general.but the real reason you're here is for New Fuglies's video. right? ;)

but the real reason you're here is for New Fuglies's video. right? ;)
Yes, that is true. :p

eh? whats this about monkey porn?

eh? whats this about monkey porn?start from reply number 3.

*sporfle* Thanks for that; I was starting to think everybody on this forum took stuff way too seriously.

I'm confused on the "sin" thing, though. I thought there was a Bible verse somewhere that said it was "forbidden to lie with a man as with a woman," or something like that-- Leviticus, right? I mean, along with all the other "forbiddens" in that book, of course.

Of course, if the Biblical definition of accepted sex is strictly vanilla missionary, there really is no way to lie with a man "as with a woman," unless the man in question is a hermaphrodite, so one has to assume the verse refers to anal sex. I'm confused.

Okay. So basically, are you saying that in Catholocism it's all right to have the desire, just as long as you don't act on it? (Very Miltonian, that, though I'm sure he'd hate the association with Catholocism.) 'Cause, I mean, the only thing left really in that case is hands, and I'm pretty sure you're supposed to go blind if you use <i>them</i>.

I... didn't really say a whole lot in this post. Oh, well. I'm not really on one side or the other, I'm just curious-- as an areligious bisexual, I'm not real worried about what any given Church says is okay, but it's interesting anyway.

The desire would be lust, and masturbating to gratify that lust is a sin. It is the belief of many that homosexuality, as we know it today as an (orientation), is not a sin. In the Bible, "Discreet" acts of homosexuality were condemned due to their lustful nature, not the loving, forgiving, and graceful relationships held by same-sex couples today. Homosexuality as we know it today is and was not mention in the Bible.

I do believe it is Proverbs 10:12 that says, "Hatred stirreth up strife; but love covereth all sins." So, if that is the truth, then the loving relationships that are held by committed same-sex couples are most definately not sins. Of course, some will say that Prov. 10:12 is referring to God's love, but it does not specifically say "Hatred stirreth up strife; but God's love covereth all sins.", now does it?

The desire would be lust, and masturbating to gratify that lust is a sin. It is the belief of many that homosexuality, as we know it today as an (orientation), is not a sin. In the Bible, "Discreet" acts of homosexuality were condemned due to their lustful nature, not the loving, forgiving, and graceful relationships held by same-sex couples today. Homosexuality as we know it today is and was not mention in the Bible.

I do believe it is Proverbs 10:12 that says, "Hatred stirreth up strife; but love covereth all sins." So, if that is the truth, then the loving relationships that are held by committed same-sex couples are most definately not sins. Of course, some will say that Prov. 10:12 is referring to God's love, but it does not specifically say "Hatred stirreth up strife; but God's love covereth all sins.", now does it?Nice prose. well explained... very good ... here have a video.

Nice prose. well explained... very good ... here have a video.

I don't do monkeys, only apes. And for some of you who are mistaken, apes are not monkeys - apes are no more monkeys than we (humans) are.