Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on March 27, 2016, 10:15:34 AM
-
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
-
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
Only a sick bigot believes there is anything wrong with homosexuality, as I have said many times before. If god exists and is such an evil bigot ALL humanity should be condemning it, not using the Bible as an excuse for their own bigotry. >:(
-
Only a sick bigot believes there is anything wrong with homosexuality, as I have said many times before. If god exists and is such an evil bigot ALL humanity should be condemning it, not using the Bible as an excuse for their own bigotry.
We are NOT DISCUSSING THE RIGHT OR WRONG OF HOMOSEXUALITY.
If you cannot stick to the discussion regarding just the question then don't post.
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
It is clear that this is about the BIBLE and God. Not a platform for people with their own agenda like yourself Floo.
Either discuss the matter concerning the bible and God alone or don't post. I am reporting your post because I specifically asked people not to do what you did.
-
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
Would you please reply and give us your understanding on this matter without prejudice please. Thanks.
I really and sincerely want to know what people believe about this matter. I feel that we should be able to discuss the matter as adults and see the thread for what it really is. Asking the questions that need to be asked to understand where it all came from and if it changed, how and when.
-
Either discuss the matter concerning the bible and God alone or don't post. I am reporting your post because I specifically asked people not to do what you did.
Moderator:
If you wanted to limit this thread to theological points, Sass, then it should have been posted in the Faith Sharing Area. As it stands, in this Board, you aren't free to prescribe how members must respond where they do engage with or challenge your OP.
-
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin.
Dunno, do you think Numbers 5:11-31 is still a good way to test for infidelity...?
-
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
Can I just check some things first please?
What do you mean by;
1. Homosexuality
2. a man to lie with another man as he would a woman
3. practising homosexual
-
Dunno, do you think Numbers 5:11-31 is still a good way to test for infidelity...?
Is this related to the subject we are discussing?
Do they still do this today?
This was the covenant of the Israelites. However does infidelity apply today? It does, you can be divorced today as you were then for adultery. But that way was for those people of that covenant. It really is todays covenant with Christ we are discussing.
On par the sin adultery still exists but the punishment there and the punishment of homosexuality therein does not apply here today.
So Stranger what is your view on sins like homosexuality is it stilled condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?
We know adultery is still condemned. So can we have your view on this subject, please.
-
Can I just check some things first please?
What do you mean by;
1. Homosexuality
2. a man to lie with another man as he would a woman
3. practising homosexual
Well, I can answer best this way.
Is theft a sin until you actually steal?
So what do you regard as 'homosexuality'? Is the act of a man lying with a man as a woman an homosexual act?
If two men live together but have no sexual relationship are they practicing homosexuals?
The reason for the thread is to discuss what what is happening today. We have people who are practicing homosexuals and call themselves Christians and believe they are saved in the covenant of Christ.
-
Moderator:
If you wanted to limit this thread to theological points, Sass, then it should have been posted in the Faith Sharing Area. As it stands, in this Board, you aren't free to prescribe how members must respond where they do engage with or challenge your OP.
Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom").
Can you please explain Gordon why that is... WHY we are not free to ask member to engage only in what is asked in the thread? If you believe another section would prevent posts like Floo made, then please change it to that section.
But make sure you do not allow anyone else to do the same on this section in the future. You would not want to look bias, would you?
-
I'd like definitions of God and Heaven too.
-
Well, I can answer best this way.
Is theft a sin until you actually steal?
So what do you regard as 'homosexuality'? Is the act of a man lying with a man as a woman an homosexual act?
If two men live together but have no sexual relationship are they practicing homosexuals?
The reason for the thread is to discuss what what is happening today. We have people who are practicing homosexuals and call themselves Christians and believe they are saved in the covenant of Christ.
I'm confused!
I asked
What do you mean by;
1. Homosexuality
and you reply
So what do you regard as 'homosexuality'?
So my reply therefore is,
Then what do you regard as 'homosexuality'?
-
Moderator:
Can you please explain Gordon why that is... WHY we are not free to ask member to engage only in what is asked in the thread?
Because others may quite reasonably respond to your OP raising relevant points even if these aren't what you envisaged or would prefer: it is called debate. We created the FSA to provide a place to discuss faith issues from a faith perspective, but you didn't post this there.
If you believe another section would prevent posts like Floo made, then please change it to that section.
No - by all means re-post your OP there, but I can't move this because the legitimate replies here don't fit the ethos of the FSA and I'm not prepared to simply bin the valid points made by other members (which I'd have to do if I moved this thread to FSA).
But make sure you do not allow anyone else to do the same on this section in the future. You would not want to look bias, would you?
Should I feel I require modding lessons from you, Sass, I'll be sure to ask!
-
I don't suppose there's any chance of changing the first word of the title to 'Are' is there?! The thing is, Sassy, that the only way I know what the topic title is is by listening to it, and 'Is sins..' does cause a wince every time Synthetic Dave reads it!!! :)
-
Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and could even have been gay himself. Goodness knows what Sass is on about, even if it was a reasonable question, which I don't believe it is.
-
Dear Sass,
Because you personally asked.
Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 7
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Gonnagle.
-
Moderator:
If you wanted to limit this thread to theological points, Sass, then it should have been posted in the Faith Sharing Area. As it stands, in this Board, you aren't free to prescribe how members must respond where they do engage with or challenge your OP.
As a moderator the fact my opening post contained this statement.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter.
You should have moved the thread there automatically and said that it had been moved to ensure this could be done.
Why haven't you moved it, like you have moved other posters threads to enable them to keep in line with their requests?
It is your job when I request you to move it, that you do it.
Or am I not to be given equal treatment to other members?
-
As a moderator the fact my opening post contained this statement.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter.
You should have moved the thread there automatically and said that it had been moved to ensure this could be done.
Why haven't you moved it, like you have moved other posters threads to enable them to keep in line with their requests?
It is your job when I request you to move it, that you do it.
Or am I not to be given equal treatment to other members?
Isn't this a bit off topic.......
I'll get my coat
-
As a moderator the fact my opening post contained this statement.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter.
You should have moved the thread there automatically and said that it had been moved to ensure this could be done.
Why haven't you moved it, like you have moved other posters threads to enable them to keep in line with their requests?
It is your job when I request you to move it, that you do it.
Or am I not to be given equal treatment to other members?
Ooooh! Big red letters again! Sassy's cross! ;D ;D ;D
-
Dear Sass,
Because you personally asked.
Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 7
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Gonnagle.
Does the misuse of Scripture to misjudge and swerve the question make what the answer should be any less true?
Do you still go to hell for stealing or homosexuality?
No Gonnagle, you used this for your own escape. Will God not know your heart on judgement day?
When Jesus Christ said " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he was without sin and by law could cast that stone.
There is a difference between the 'right' to cast a stone and be in a right standing with God. Than to be in a wrong standing with God and cast the first stone.
The question is not about judgement as you full well know. It is about whether Adultery is still a sin whether you cast a stone or not. So is homosexuality still a sin in the covenant of Christ. Can you really obey the covenant of those two commandments and be a Christian?
Well I know you are a people pleaser. I also know you think that you can make up some excuse on judgement day to God, "Like I was trying to LOVE my neighbour" But are you loving your neighbour if you avoid the truth and they go to hell?
Well it is your choice Gonnagle. God and Truth don't change. Would Christ have been a sinner if homosexual and in a homosexual relationship?
Now go lick your wounds because not even you and your contempt for the truth of God can save you from this one.
I love my neighbour and I love all whether gay or straight. So to me that means telling them truth and loving each other whatever we believe about our sexuality and faith.
I do not hurt or harm anyone because of faith or sexuality. But I do love them enough to be honest before God and with them.
Because may be I will be hated for telling the truth. But they know I did it because I love them in the sense or wanting no harm to come to them. If you knew someone was about to fall into a trap would you think it love not to warn them?
I am trying to understand the world today about faith, homosexuality and people who face these difficult times.
The truth is you do no one a service but yourself with your answer.
God is not fooled and you should not act as if he can be.
-
Isn't this a bit off topic.......
I'll get my coat
Aren't you a whole continent off topic... just as floos post was.... ;D
-
People are not going to change their minds on this issue, it seems pointless to start up this thread - I already told Sass that was my opinion.
Having known Sassy for several years I do know very well that she has no personal prejudice, what she believes is Biblical by her interpretation. She does not believe homosexuals are Hell bound any more than anyone else and has no dislike of anyone on grounds of their sexuality. In the past I have seen really horrible posts from so called Christians, calling gays ''degenerate'' and goodness knows what else, displaying personal distaste. Sass is not in that category.
I don't agree with Sassy at all about this, which she knows. Jesus certainly never mentined the subject and the Old Testament teachings are, in my view, contextual and indicative of the culture at that time. Had God not wanted there to be homosexuals he would not have created them.
Everyone knows what I think about it all so I won't say any more. However if someone has genuine religious objections to gay couples we can't do anything about it and accusing them of bigotry doesn't help. We end up being equally bigoted. We can ignore them. Time will take care of all that, after we have left this life no-one will care about it any more. Society, secular and religious, is moving that way thank goodness.
On this wet and windy Easter day it does not seem appropriate to me to bring up what is always a contentious subject. Can't we think about something other than people's sex lives? We could think about our own or lack of :D.
-
Ooooh! Big red letters again! Sassy's cross! ;D ;D ;D
Not cross Leonard, Just sick of the same old, same old bang wagon jumpers who want it to make it their own personal orange box stage bit, trying to make themselves look good.
I personally have no hang ups towards anyone who is homosexual in anyway.
My reason for this thread is because I care about those homosexuals who are members of a Church and that they do understand the truth of what the covenant of Christ really is.
I feel sometimes people are deceiving themselves and others just to stop rocking the boat.
I know most people here are not hung up as Christians or homosexuals on such things as the Church and homosexuality.
But you probably more than others that it is not a personal interested in that I have no prejudice.
But I do believe we cannot allow people to go to hell because someone ignores the truth.
I wanted this to be a sensible discussion not about homosexuality itself and right or wrong.
But about Christ, homosexuality and Christianity from biblical point of view.
You could be really helpful to this thread.
Do you believe you can have a true faith and be homosexual in Christ?
Your comments would be helpful on how you see homosexuality and the New Covenant of Christ.
Cheers
-
Does the misuse of Scripture to misjudge and swerve the question make what the answer should be any less true?
Do you still go to hell for stealing or homosexuality?
No Gonnagle, you used this for your own escape. Will God not know your heart on judgement day?
When Jesus Christ said " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he was without sin and by law could cast that stone.
There is a difference between the 'right' to cast a stone and be in a right standing with God. Than to be in a wrong standing with God and cast the first stone.
The question is not about judgement as you full well know. It is about whether Adultery is still a sin whether you cast a stone or not. So is homosexuality still a sin in the covenant of Christ. Can you really obey the covenant of those two commandments and be a Christian?
Well I know you are a people pleaser. I also know you think that you can make up some excuse on judgement day to God, "Like I was trying to LOVE my neighbour" But are you loving your neighbour if you avoid the truth and they go to hell?
Well it is your choice Gonnagle. God and Truth don't change. Would Christ have been a sinner if homosexual and in a homosexual relationship?
Now go lick your wounds because not even you and your contempt for the truth of God can save you from this one.
I love my neighbour and I love all whether gay or straight. So to me that means telling them truth and loving each other whatever we believe about our sexuality and faith.
I do not hurt or harm anyone because of faith or sexuality. But I do love them enough to be honest before God and with them.
Because may be I will be hated for telling the truth. But they know I did it because I love them in the sense or wanting no harm to come to them. If you knew someone was about to fall into a trap would you think it love not to warn them?
I am trying to understand the world today about faith, homosexuality and people who face these difficult times.
The truth is you do no one a service but yourself with your answer.
God is not fooled and you should not act as if he can be.
Good grief, Sass, you get deeper and deeper into the mire! And what is worse, you don't seem to be aware of how pompous and dictatorial you sound.
Wake up girl, and try to accept our differences instead of condemning us for them.
-
Do you believe you can have a true faith and be homosexual in Christ?
Your comments would be helpful on how you see homosexuality and the New Covenant of Christ.
Cheers
Many, many Christians are homosexual and their faith is as true as yours.
The encapsulation of the law by Jesus into two great commandments says it all.
-
Many, many Christians are homosexual and their faith is as true as yours.
The encapsulation of the law by Jesus into two great commandments says it all.
Now can you explain to me how the covenant of Christ is different to the old covenant of the actual law?
Not trying to trick you Leonard. Just want answers. Thinking mans answers.
-
Dear Leonard,
The encapsulation of the law by Jesus into two great commandments says it all.
Amen Brother Leonard, Amen.
Oh! and Sass, I like this forum, it is full of weird and wonderful minds and just for the record, homosexuality is not, I repeat not a sin.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Amen Brother Leonard, Amen.
Oh! and Sass, I like this forum, it is full of weird and wonderful minds and just for the record, homosexuality is not, I repeat not a sin.
Gonnagle.
As per Christianity it must be one of the few things that isn't, then, Gonners ;)
-
Now can you explain to me how the covenant of Christ is different to the old covenant of the actual law?
Not trying to trick you Leonard. Just want answers. Thinking mans answers.
If by "the old covenant of the actual law" you are referring to the ten commandments, I believe that Jesus could see that loving God and your neighbour covered them all much more simply.
-
Dear Shaker,
My Brother in Christ has spoken.
The encapsulation of the law by Jesus into two great commandments says it all.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker,
My Brother in Christ has spoken.
Gonnagle.
I'd quite happily dispense with the first - God wouldn't seem to need loving on the traditional reading of a God; that would be like sending Bill Gates a birthday card and putting a tenner inside, i.e. not exactly needed.
In the meantime, my neighbour does need it.
-
Dear Shaker,
Exactly!! and the second is like it, Our Lord Jesus is telling us how to worship the Father.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't suppose there's any chance of changing the first word of the title to 'Are' is there?! The thing is, Sassy, that the only way I know what the topic title is is by listening to it, and 'Is sins..' does cause a wince every time Synthetic Dave reads it!!! :)
Susan, I thought exactly the same :D and felt like pointing it out discreetly to Sassy but didn't. I hope she isn't offended, daresay she thinks we are nitpicking but some of us are a bit 'like that' when it comes to English. Sassy, as far as I recall and she will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, worked in a scientific environment and was therefore science biased in education. That's one of the reasons I don't say much about her writing (I'm sure she had enough of that at school). Who is Synthetic Dave?
Shaker, there aren't many Christians around today who believe homosexuality is a sin, certainly not the practice of homosexuality. How could they, in light of what we now know which was not known in years gone by? Extremists still exist, especially on forums, and some are quite dreadful. Sass believes the Bible literally, 'as it was then and is today, world everlasting'. It presents a dilemma especially when faced with friends and family who may be of a different sexual orientation to ourselves.
One way of thinking, which I believe is quite valid and has some Biblical back up, is that we cannot apply the same values to non-believers as we would to believers. Certainly not when it comes to things that are not antisocial.
-
Dear Shaker,
My Brother in Christ has spoken.
Gonnagle.
But Hope said to me that the loving thing to do is to point out people's sinfulness to them.
-
But Hope said to me that the loving thing to do is to point out people's sinfulness to them.
... which amounts to three quarters of two thirds of five eighths of sod all if you don't accept the basis of this 'sin' business in the first instance.
-
But Hope said to me that the loving thing to do is to point out people's sinfulness to them.
Nothing wrong with that as long as you KNOW what is a sin and what isn't.
-
One way of thinking, which I believe is quite valid and has some Biblical back up, is that we cannot apply the same values to non-believers as we would to believers. Certainly not when it comes to things that are not antisocial.
That would be fine save for the fact that there's Biblical back-up for the opposite point of view (I've just read a book which mentioned in passing that an Episcopalian bishop in the USA offered anybody a dollar to find Biblical support for absolutely any point of view of any kind at all whatever), and that religions have a habit (even in this country; as secular as it is, it still has an established church) of claiming that their view should apply to non-believers as well believers - those outside the club as well as those in it. The C of E's opposition to secular, civil marriage between two people of the same sex being a prime and recent example.
-
... which amounts to three quarters of two thirds of five eighths of sod all if you don't accept the basis of this 'sin' business in the first instance.
Not so good for Christian homosexuals though.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
But Hope said to me that the loving thing to do is to point out people's sinfulness to them.
Which is why I like to quote Matthew 7, and why I think the trouble with Christianity is Christians.
Out of all the noise this morning regarding Christians celebrating Easter Sunday, the Hymns, the sermons, the incense burning, Cameron with his plastic Christian message only one man's thoughts stood out for me, an artist on radio Scotland who said, when I paint that is when I find that spark of God.
Gonnagle.
-
Brownie
Synthetic Dave is the screen reader in my softweare SuperNova 15.02.
-
Brownie
Synthetic Dave is the screen reader in my softweare SuperNova 15.02.
Moderator:
OK Susan - I'll sort the topic subject text so as to avoid any further problems with synthetic Dave.
I'll have to lock the thread briefly while I dig out the magic wand: it will then disappear for a few seconds but will return.
Update: done, hope Dave is happier now.
-
Thank you Gordon. Much appreciated!
-
Many, many Christians are homosexual and their faith is as true as yours.
The encapsulation of the law by Jesus into two great commandments says it all.
I agree.
-
When Jesus Christ said " Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" . . .
. . . a damn great boulder flew through the air from the back of the crowd and squashed the woman flatter than a pancake.
Jesus looked up ar yelled "Mother, there are times when you really piss me off!"
-
Brownie
Synthetic Dave is the screen reader in my softweare SuperNova 15.02.
Sounds very upmarket to me Susan!
Gonnagle, I really love what you said about the artist in Scotland. I understand that better than church services.
-
. . . a damn great boulder flew through the air from the back of the crowd and squashed the woman flatter than a pancake.
Jesus looked up ar yelled "Mother, there are times when you really piss me off!"
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for the laugh Owlie.
-
Only a sick bigot believes there is anything wrong with homosexuality, as I have said many times before. If god exists and is such an evil bigot ALL humanity should be condemning it, not using the Bible as an excuse for their own bigotry. >:(
The problem, as I see it, Floo, is that there is no solid evidence to suggest that this is any less damaging to society than many other perfectly well accepted 'sins'.
-
The problem, as I see it, Floo, is that there is no solid evidence to suggest that this is any less damaging to society than many other perfectly well accepted 'sins'.
In what way is homosexuality "damaging" to society alongside what?
-
Can I just check some things first please?
What do you mean by;
1. Homosexuality
2. a man to lie with another man as he would a woman
3. practising homosexual
Seb, homosexuality is an orientation (A person’s basic attitude, beliefs, or feelings in relation to a particular subject or issue:) [Oxford Dictionary] or tendency - and it would appear that many people have such 'orientations' - some sexual, many other things.
2)a man to lie with another man as he would a woman - I would understand this as referring to any form of sexual purpose - be it relational or ritualistic.
2) A practising homosexual/heterosexual/whatever, is someone who puts their sexual orientation/tendency into practice. You could say 'acts' on that orientation.
-
The problem, as I see it, Floo, is that there is no solid evidence to suggest that this is any less damaging to society than many other perfectly well accepted 'sins'.
In what specific way is homosexuality 'damaging to society' and what on earth are these 'other perfectly well accepted comparative 'sins': presuming you envisage some kind of sin paradigm where does homosexuality sit? For example, can you say if it is more or less 'sinful' than shoplifting?
-
In what way is homosexuality "damaging" to society alongside what?
Shkaes, bear in mind that the context of the original question was theological and it is pretty clear from Scripture that there are forms of behaviour which damage our relationship with God: that relationship is both individual and communal, so anything that damages an individual relationship impacts on the communal relationship as well. I have yet to be convinced that there is any theological argument for accepting homosexual realtionships - in the same way that I have yet to be convinced that there is any theological argument for racism, or for refusing to treat women as equally important as men.
-
Jesus never condemned homosexuality, and could even have been gay himself. Goodness knows what Sass is on about, even if it was a reasonable question, which I don't believe it is.
Floo, the difficulty with this argument is that Jesus always challenged issues that he felt were being misrepresented - hence his toughening up of rules about adultery/divorce/etc. If he had wanted us to believe that homosexuality was or wasn't a sin, I think he would have said something about it. Instead, if anything, he reinforced the idea that the one-man/one woman pattern was the only valid one.
As for the idea that he was gay, there is absolutely no evidence for this. If anything, historical claims would have him in the other camp!! I realise that you like to use the phrase ' the disciple who he loved' as support for your suggestion, but the Greek word used in this context has no sexual connotation at all.
-
. . . a damn great boulder flew through the air from the back of the crowd and squashed the woman flatter than a pancake.
Jesus looked up ar yelled "Mother, there are times when you really piss me off!"
Is that why the woman is reported as having been unharmed, Owl.
-
Is that why the woman is reported as having been unharmed, Owl.
Yet more evidence of your total sense of humour failure!
Either that or yet another instance of the bible being edited to show Jesus in the best possible light.
Edited for typos.
-
Yet more evidence of your total sense of humour failure!
Either that or yet another instance of the bible being edited to show Jesus in the best possible light.
Edited for typos.
There is a 3rd option, Owl. Your attempt at humour is so pathetic, as to be unrecognisable as such. ;)
-
There is a 3rd option, Owl. Your attempt at humour is so pathetic, as to be unrecognisable as such. ;)
You lose - see #45 from LJ
-
Shkaes, bear in mind that the context of the original question was theological and it is pretty clear from Scripture that there are forms of behaviour which damage our relationship with God: that relationship is both individual and communal, so anything that damages an individual relationship impacts on the communal relationship as well.
Stop dodging. You said damaging to society, not damaging to a relationship with an entity at least half of that society (and falling) don't even believe exists. That's just the UK; rates of belief in the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Czech Republic etc. are on the floor. So I'll ask again: how is society - ours; theirs - damaged by homosexuality which is what you originally stated?
I have yet to be convinced that there is any theological argument for accepting homosexual realtionships ...
Fortunately for society almost nobody actually cares about such twaddle.
-
Dear Hope,
I have yet to be convinced that there is any theological argument for accepting homosexual realtionships ...
Love, compassion, do not judge, The second Greatest Commandment, Corinthians 1 chapter 13, John 8:7.
All mentioned in that old tired book you prize so highly.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Brownie,
Gonnagle, I really love what you said about the artist in Scotland. I understand that better than church services.
I thank God that you are on this forum, a voice of Christian reason.
Gonnagle.
-
People are not going to change their minds on this issue, it seems pointless to start up this thread - I already told Sass that was my opinion.
Having known Sassy for several years I do know very well that she has no personal prejudice, what she believes is Biblical by her interpretation. She does not believe homosexuals are Hell bound any more than anyone else and has no dislike of anyone on grounds of their sexuality. In the past I have seen really horrible posts from so called Christians, calling gays ''degenerate'' and goodness knows what else, displaying personal distaste. Sass is not in that category.
I don't agree with Sassy at all about this, which she knows. Jesus certainly never mentined the subject and the Old Testament teachings are, in my view, contextual and indicative of the culture at that time. Had God not wanted there to be homosexuals he would not have created them.
Everyone knows what I think about it all so I won't say any more. However if someone has genuine religious objections to gay couples we can't do anything about it and accusing them of bigotry doesn't help. We end up being equally bigoted. We can ignore them. Time will take care of all that, after we have left this life no-one will care about it any more. Society, secular and religious, is moving that way thank goodness.
On this wet and windy Easter day it does not seem appropriate to me to bring up what is always a contentious subject. Can't we think about something other than people's sex lives? We could think about our own or lack of :D.
You are, as ever, lovely but why are views that are genuine religious ones somehow not bigoted as opposed to other views? Should homosexuals killed by IS console themself that at least they are only being killed by thugs with genuine religious views that mean they are getting killed rather than the really bad non religious bigited ones? When Hope says that active homosexuality is the same as rape, should Trentvoyager and Leonard James, not be that bothered because it's a genuine religious view?
-
Since you can't establish the veracity of your manual, so until you do, is it really worth taking the trouble to find out if homosexuality is still condemed in the New Covenant of Christ or if this christ figure of your imagination ever existed in the first place?
It just seems to me to be such a pointless exersise to undertake in seeing that you haven't managed to find any evidence to prove these things you think about religion are actually anything more than just a collection of baseless mythical stories. yet.
Kind regards ippy
-
You are, as ever, lovely but why are views that are genuine religious ones somehow not bigoted as opposed to other views? Should homosexuals killed by IS console themself that at least they are only being killed by thugs with genuine religious views that mean they are getting killed rather than the really bad non religious bigited ones? When Hope says that active homosexuality is the same as rape, should Trentvoyager and Leonard James, not be that bothered because it's a genuine religious view?
Wasn't Len very recently involved supporting something someone shouldn't have really said so the thread had to be removed?
-
You are, as ever, lovely but why are views that are genuine religious ones somehow not bigoted as opposed to other views? Should homosexuals killed by IS console themself that at least they are only being killed by thugs with genuine religious views that mean they are getting killed rather than the really bad non religious bigited ones? When Hope says that active homosexuality is the same as rape, should Trentvoyager and Leonard James, not be that bothered because it's a genuine religious view?
No-one should be killed because of a warped ideology and I part company with any Christian who believes that loving, same sex partnerships harm our relationship with God. I just can't understand it and ask again, why would God make homosexuals if there was something inherently bad about them? It's people who feel insecure about anyone they perceive to be 'different'.
-
No-one should be killed because of a warped ideology and I part company with any Christian who believes that loving, same sex partnerships harm our relationship with God. I just can't understand it and ask again, why would God make homosexuals if there was something inherently bad about them? It's people who feel insecure about anyone they perceive to be 'different'.
I don't think you can odds love. That said the interest in homosexuality by antitheists is IMHO utilitarian and to be used as a weapon for the cause.
Since religion is a minority feature antitheists are IMHO bound to account for casual homophobia in the non religious majority population.......where did the derogatory use of the word ''gay' to describe something ineffectual come from for instance?
My understanding of the biblical context in the NT was that in the belief of Palestinian culture anyone could decide on relationships outside marriage with people of either sex and marriage was the norm. There was no real distinction since sexual relations outside the norm were treated equally extremely.
IMHO much of the NT's problems with sex is in its orgiastic self indulgent form anyway.
In any case heterosexual self indulgent shagging and sexual self satisfaction as opposed to building relationships has got to be a big problem for society.
Or am I being shaggerphobic?
-
I don't think you can odds love. That said the interest in homosexuality by antitheists is IMHO utilitarian and to be used as a weapon for the cause.
Since religion is a minority feature antitheists are IMHO bound to account for casual homophobia in the non religious majority population.......where did the derogatory use of the word ''gay' to describe something ineffectual come from for instance?
My understanding of the biblical context in the NT was that in the belief of Palestinian culture anyone could decide on relationships outside marriage with people of either sex and marriage was the norm. There was no real distinction since sexual relations outside the norm were treated equally extremely.
IMHO much of the NT's problems with sex is in its orgiastic self indulgent form anyway.
In any case heterosexual self indulgent shagging and sexual self satisfaction as opposed to building relationships has got to be a big problem for society.
Or am I being shaggerphobic?
What truly amazes my in the screed above is your trying to classify your opinions as "humble" - a monumental misnomer if ever there was one! Almost, in fact, as monumental a misnomer as calling the god of the Christians "loving"!
-
Dear Leonard,
Amen Brother Leonard, Amen.
Oh! and Sass, I like this forum, it is full of weird and wonderful minds and just for the record, homosexuality is not, I repeat not a sin.
Gonnagle.
When you write this scripture comes to mind...
King James Bible
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Isaiah 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Would you stake your life and the lives of others on your claim?
I would love that to be true. That homosexuality not a sin. But if homosexuality isn't wrong why did God tell men not to lie with other men as with women?
To be honest what if you are wrong? If you teach others to sin who really do you love?
I feel for those who may be harmed if you are wrong. I do not want anyone lost, really. :(
There can be no mistake that God forbid it in the OT. So if you saying not condemned in the New Covenant of Christ then please show us your reasons using scripture.
Christ told the woman caught in adultery whom they were to stone, to go her sin was forgiven but not to do it again.
Why would he tell her not to do it again if you believe his coming and resurrection changed it. The version of all the commandments summed up in two commandments.
-
Seb, homosexuality is an orientation (A person’s basic attitude, beliefs, or feelings in relation to a particular subject or issue:) [Oxford Dictionary] or tendency - and it would appear that many people have such 'orientations' - some sexual, many other things.
2)a man to lie with another man as he would a woman - I would understand this as referring to any form of sexual purpose - be it relational or ritualistic.
2) A practising homosexual/heterosexual/whatever, is someone who puts their sexual orientation/tendency into practice. You could say 'acts' on that orientation.
And why is there anything wrong in a homosexual having sex with someone of the same gender? It is as natural to them, as it is for a heterosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.
-
When you write this scripture comes to mind...
King James Bible
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Isaiah 5:20King James Version (KJV)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Would you stake your life and the lives of others on your claim?
I would love that to be true. That homosexuality not a sin. But if homosexuality isn't wrong why did God tell men not to lie with other men as with women?
To be honest what if you are wrong? If you teach others to sin who really do you love?
I feel for those who may be harmed if you are wrong. I do not want anyone lost, really. :(
There can be no mistake that God forbid it in the OT. So if you saying not condemned in the New Covenant of Christ then please show us your reasons using scripture.
Christ told the woman caught in adultery whom they were to stone, to go her sin was forgiven but not to do it again.
Why would he tell her not to do it again if you believe his coming and resurrection changed it. The version of all the commandments summed up in two commandments.
Your god is an evil bigoted b*stard if he deemed homosexual acts to be sinful. However, you have absolutely no evidence ANYTHING in the Bible is anything to do with the thinking of god, which more than likely doesn't exist. The documents making up the Bible are very human in context, surely an omnipotent deity would be well above human faults and failings?
-
And why is there anything wrong in a homosexual having sex with someone of the same gender? It is as natural to them, as it is for a heterosexual to have sex with someone of the opposite gender.
Most people have sexual urges that feel natural to them, floo. Some have to be restrained though, such as a desire for a married person.
-
Most people have sexual urges that feel natural to them, floo. Some have to be restrained though, such as a desire for a married person.
They have to be restrained if they are going to hurt another person ... but homosexual acts between consenting adults hurts nobody.
-
Most people have sexual urges that feel natural to them, floo. Some have to be restrained though, such as a desire for a married person.
Why bother to restrain sexual desire if you are an adult, in a consenting relationship, gay or straight, married or unmarried and not cheating on a partner? There is NOTHING wrong with sex providing one takes the necessary precautions.
-
I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness. :)
-
I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness. :)
Actually, is it not possible, in view of the "fact" that the Christian god made us all in his image, that he had homosexual tendancies and wanted all the really nice guys for himself, and so banned anyone else from hitting on them?
-
Actually, is it not possible, in view of the "fact" that the Christian god made us all in his image, that he had homosexual tendancies and wanted all the really nice guys for himself, and so banned anyone else from hitting on them?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Well, the selfish old sod won't get the guy I married! At least, not as a virgin. ;)
-
Why bother to restrain sexual desire if you are an adult, in a consenting relationship, gay or straight, married or unmarried and not cheating on a partner? There is NOTHING wrong with sex providing one takes the necessary precautions.
I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.
On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?
Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.
-
I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness. :)
I wonder if that miserable little git Paul was a gay in denial?
-
I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.
On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?
Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.
GARBAGE! Not every couple wants kids, and why should they? My sister, who is an Anglican Priest, never wanted kids and ensured she never had any, fortunately her husband was of the same mind. Consensual adult sex is something to be enjoyed, or did the nasty sky fairy make it enjoyable, but then made it a 'sin' to take pleasure in it unless you were procreating? :o Thank goodness for gays and heteros who don't want kids, the world is over populated as it is.
-
I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.
On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?
Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.
Why is that the wisest way?
Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.
-
Someone said: On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?
I doubt if anyone is very often, even of the Christian persuasion. According to statistics, in the 1950s one in three brides was pregnant. That accounts for a third of the married population at least. There were no doubt plenty of girls over twenty who were pregnant too. So those couples had sexual intercourse before marriage and no doubt many were Christian. Today those of non-Christian religions are more likely to eschew sex before marriage.
Someone else said the word ''Gay'' was perjorative; I did not know that. I first heard it used in 1965, when I was fifteen, and was told that it was a word homosexuals used to describe themselves but nothing about it being an offensive term.
-
Why is that the wisest way?
Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.
Thank goodness for contraception. Producing more kids than you want, or can afford to look after, was awful in the bad old days! Thank goodness many Catholics in the West seem to have put two fingers up to their Church's crazy doctrine banning contraception.
However, there are some extreme fundamentalist Christians, mainly in the US, who think that god sends babies so they must do nothing to prevent conception. ::) If that were really the case, why doesn't the daft sky fairy be a bit more discriminating as to where it sends them? Sending them to families who will abuse them is lunacy. >:(
-
I was answering your claim that 'if it feels natural, it must be ok'. Which clearly is incorrect.
On your above point- why should you be married, to someone of age of the opposite sex, before having sex?
Because that is the wisest way to use the sexual function which, like it or not, is procreation.
You are correct that something feeling 'natural' doesn't make it ok. However, gay relationships come in as many varieties as straight ones do; there's nothing intrinsically harmful in them, and so to prohibit them is both pointless and cruel.
As for your point on sex being just for procreation - no. That isn't the case. To illustrate, I once knew a family from the Hare Krishna sect - couples who adhere to that religion have to refrain from all sexual contact unless they are specificly intending to conceive a child. The wife had all manner of sex toys and not because she thought they were going to get her pregnant. Humans don't only have fertile periods when they desire sex, but want it whether they want to have children, intend to have them or even can't have them or don't want them at all.
As an aside, the Hare Krishna top guru chap resigned from his position because he's fallen in love with a woman other than his wife. Even though he and the other woman had never had any physical contact at all - not even brushing fingers accidentally. This idea that human emotion and pain can be even partly controlled and avoided according to ensuring particular body parts go in particular places is risible.
-
What truly amazes my in the screed above is your trying to classify your opinions as "humble" - a monumental misnomer if ever there was one! Almost, in fact, as monumental a misnomer as calling the god of the Christians "loving"!
Not at all. As far as atheists and pagans are concerned the world is your Oyster since you both 'worthship' the things of it . Christians on the other hand are but pilgrims through the world.
I don't take anything you say about love since in my humble opinion there is not one scintilla of it in any of your posts other than to your own and then only I suspect for utilitarian purpose.
-
Not at all. As far as atheists and pagans are concerned the world is your Oyster since you both 'worthship' the things of it . Christians on the other hand are but pilgrims through the world.
I don't take anything you say about love since in my humble opinion there is not one scintilla of it in any of your posts other than to your own and then only I suspect for utilitarian purpose.
Your posts and 'love' are at odds with each other, that is for sure. ::)
-
Your posts and 'love' are at odds with each other, that is for sure. ::)
Shouldn't you be attending to your hobby....rewriting Christianity to make it fit your little spiteful view of it?
-
Shouldn't you be attending to your hobby....rewriting Christianity to make it fit your little spiteful view of it?
Plenty of others are already busily at work on that.
-
Plenty of others are already busily at work on that.
Yes but we know better than that don't we Shakes ;)......How's the pantheism coming on?
-
Yes but we know better than that don't we Shakes ;)
Do we? Explain.
How's the pantheism coming on?
That's the second time you've mentioned it today. You seem to be rather hung up on an old thread, Vlad. Why is that?
-
Aren't you a whole continent off topic... just as floos post was.... ;D
I'd have thought that, rather than derailing your own thread, the best way to deal with off topic posts is to raise a complaint with the moderators using the Report to Moderator button.
-
That's the second time you've mentioned it today. You seem to be rather hung up on an old thread, Vlad. Why is that?
I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means. He seems to think it's something that people do.
-
I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means.
Well, there's history there ..
-
I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means. He seems to think it's something that people do.
Pantheism is not atheism in most circles. The fact that you just care what your wee little atheistic sect think is neither here nor there.
-
Pantheism is not atheism in most circles. The fact that you just care what your we little atheistic sect think is neither here nor there.
You didn't have to demonstrate my point quite so neatly, but thanks anyway.
-
Heh ;D
-
Someone else said the word ''Gay'' was perjorative; I did not know that. I first heard it used in 1965, when I was fifteen, and was told that it was a word homosexuals used to describe themselves but nothing about it being an offensive term.
Let's face it, in Victorian times a 'gay' woman was a prostitute whether lesbian or straight.
-
I think it is highly possible that the writer of Leviticus had felt an attraction to another guy who was hetero and rejected him, so he decided to veto anybody else's chances of homosexual happiness. :)
I can't wait for the miniseries on the True Entertainment channel as part of the series ''Love burns.............. but you can get antibiotics for it.''
-
Let's face it, in Victorian times a 'gay' woman was a prostitute whether lesbian or straight.
I didn't know that Owlswing! I bow to your superior knowledge. However I was not speaking of Victorian Times but the 1960s. Names change their meanings, or at least emphasis, over time. I never thought ''Gay'' (with a capital G), was a perjorative term for people with same sex attraction. It may well become so, in time, which is what happens with names that label people. It wasn't then.
-
'Gay' is now in common usage as a put-down meaning a bit rubbish - 'those shoes are a bit gay'; 'it's a bit gay to do that' etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people
-
'Gay' is now in common usage as a put-down meaning a bit rubbish - 'those shoes are a bit gay'; 'it's a bit gay to do that' etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people
Yes used by wily if homophobic secularists to avoid any anti harrassment edicts.
-
I wonder if that miserable little git Paul was a gay in denial?
Whether gay or not De Nile is a river in Egypt which was hundred of miles to the southwest of where Paul was active.
-
Why is that the wisest way?
Sex hasn't been inescapably tied to reproduction in a very long time indeed, by the way.
True - seems they got divorced when the humble microscope revealed that they were inescapably meant for each other!
-
True - seems they got divorced when the humble microscope revealed that they were inescapably meant for each other!
Your knowledge of history needs some attention to say the least.
Microscopes date from the early seventeenth century.
There are papyrus records of contraceptive usage dating back to ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia c. 2000BCE.
Try again.
-
Yes used by wily if homophobic secularists to avoid any anti harrassment edicts.
Still not up to speed with the whole secularism thing I see, Vlad.
-
Still not up to speed with the whole secularism thing I see, Vlad.
OK perhaps you can help me out with the correct term. what do you call the vast majority of sly homophobes who statistics demands, are not religious?
Perhaps You are the wrong person to ask as you strike me as being the first to be in denial about where the vastest pool of homophobia resides...........
Have a nice day.
-
OK perhaps you can help me out with the correct term. what do you call the vast majority of sly homophobes who statistics demands, are not religious?
Homophobes, usually.
Perhaps You are the wrong person to ask as you strike me as being the first to be in denial about where the vastest pool of homophobia resides...........
Where does it reside?
-
Homophobes, usually.
Where does it reside?
The behaviours that people like yourself attribute to religious people usually are found in the general non religious population and the non religious population is statistically the largest pool e.g. non religious people use the word 'gay' in a sly derogatory way as a reflection of legally suppressed feelings towards homosexuality in general.
This slyness allows the non religious person who is so disposed to fool themselves into thinking they are right on whereas they can sublimate their socially conservative core thoughts in a sly and plausibly deniable way.
That unfortunately is the case in a country where the majority are non religious.
-
The behaviours that people like yourself attribute to religious people usually are found in the general non religious population and the non religious population is statistically the largest pool e.g. non religious people use the word 'gay' in a sly derogatory way as a reflection of legally suppressed feelings towards homosexuality in general.
This slyness allows the non religious person who is so disposed to fool themselves into thinking they are right on whereas they can sublimate their socially conservative core thoughts in a sly and plausibly deniable way.
That unfortunately is the case in a country where the majority are non religious.
Nope - I've read it several times and it makes even less sense than your usual contributions (which aren't exactly overburdened sense-wise).
Perhaps your random sentence generator is buckling under the strain (again)!
-
Nope - I've read it several times and it makes even less sense than your usual contributions (which aren't exactly overburdened sense-wise).
Perhaps your random sentence generator is buckling under the strain (again)!
Let me sum it up then.
The majority of people in the country are not religious.
The biggest pool of sly homophobia is in the non religious.
-
Let me sum it up then.
The majority of people in the country are not religious.
The biggest pool of sly homophobia is in the non religious.
So, first you need to define 'sly homophobia' then explain why this is different from common or garden homophobia, then you need to provide the method whereby you've measured this and then, of course, present the results.
Over to you.
-
So, first you need to define 'sly homophobia' then explain why this is different from common or garden homophobia, then you need to provide the method whereby you've measured this and then, of course, present the results.
Over to you.
I have defined it and why it is sly.
If you want to talk about common or garden homophobia, let me put it this way.
The majority of people in this country are non religious.
The largest pool of common or Garden homophobia is among the non religious. However since it is illegal to be openly homophobic the tendency is sublimated in sly homophobic acts e.g referring to things as not very good as 'gay'.
We know that homophobia by is almost always attributed to the religious by the antitheists on this site. Statistically though most things which are seen as negative are found in the general population...which is mainly non religious. It is reasonable to suppose particularly if one has vast and current life experience as opposed to being an old guy spending his days on say a forum, that this is so with homophobia.
It is a bit rich therefore for a group of people who have merely asserted homophobia as a religious trait without any backup to be demanding a methodology.
let me just repeat what you can't face up to again. Statistically non religious people make up the majority of people. Statistically they are more likely to represent the biggest pool of homophobia.
-
The largest pool of common or Garden homophobia is among the non religious.
Citation required.
However since it is illegal to be openly homophobic the tendency is sublimated in sly homophobic acts e.g referring to things as not very good as 'gay'.
.
Citation required
Statistically though most things which are seen as negative are found in the general population...which is mainly non religious.
And the statistics are?
It is reasonable to suppose particularly if one has vast and current life experience as opposed to being an old guy spending his days on say a forum, that this is so with homophobia.
If this is indeed 'reasonable' then present your reasoning.
let me just repeat what you can't face up to again. Statistically non religious people make up the majority of people. Statistically they are more likely to represent the biggest pool of homophobia.
Then you'll be able to demonstrate this using data and the outcomes of statistical tests applied to these data - should be interesting.
-
Citation required.
.
Citation required
And the statistics are?
If this is indeed 'reasonable' then present your reasoning.
Then you'll be able to demonstrate this using data and the outcomes of statistical tests applied to these data - should be interesting.
Let me spell it out for you again.
The biggest proportion of the population is non religious.
The largest pool of homophobia is therefore likely to be amongst the non religious.
That is entirely reasonable.
We know that there is homophobia in sport. The majority of sports fans are non religious.
We know that the term Gay to mean less than good is widespread, the majority of users are likely to be non religious. That they don't know that it also means 'homosexual' is highly unlikely.
Now either try to argue, using citations or methodology, the fondly held and peddled antitheist myth that homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious or deny that it ever was.
Over to you.
-
Let me spell it out for you again.
The biggest proportion of the population is non religious.
The largest pool of homophobia is therefore likely to be amongst the non religious.
That is entirely reasonable.
We know that there is homophobia in sport. The majority of sports fans are non religious.
We know that the term Gay to mean less than good is widespread, the majority of users are likely to be non religious. That they don't know that it also means 'homosexual' is highly unlikely.
Let me spell it out for you, Vlad: you see before I retired I used to 'do' statistics as part of my career path so stuff like sampling methods, data collection methods and the proper use of appropriate statistical tests is something I know about: and your non sequiturs based on generalisations are fairly hopeless.
For instance, you seem to be assuming simplistic association based on your claim that there are more non-theists than theists (we'll put your evidence for this to one side for now) then there are more homophobes who are non-theists - so what data have you used and what is the strength of the association?
By the way, there are more right-handed than left- handed people so does your 'reasoning' extend to an association between homophobia and handedness too?
Over to you.
-
Let me spell it out for you, Vlad: you see before I retired I used 'do' statistics as part of my career path so stuff like sampling methods, data collection methods and the proper use of appropriate statistical tests is something I know about: and your non sequiturs based on generalisations are fairly hopeless.
For instance, you seem to be assuming simplistic association based on your claim that there are more non-theists than theists (we'll put your evidence for this to one side for now) then there are more homophobes who are non-theists - so what data have you used and what is the strength of the association?
By the way, there are more right-handed than left- handed people so does your 'reasoning' extend to an association between homophobia and handedness too?
Over to you.
So you have no evidence then that homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious.
We can therefore discount the numerous threads based on that premise then.
-
Dear Gordon,
Actually I think there may be some truth in what Vlad is talking about, I have two friends ( no not you and Sane, I do have other friends :P ) both are atheist and both are the live and let live type or so they say, but in homosexual company they become very edgy, tripping over their own tongues, hell one time one of my mates was verbally attacked by a homosexual guy, he was accused of being patronising.
I think this is a real problem for homosexual people, people need to recognise that they have that little spark of homophobia inside them and address it, only then will they feel more comfortable in homosexual company.
And no, I am not saying that everyone has that little spark inside them, just that some people might be fooling themselves, also it is most definitely not just a religious issue.
Gonnagle.
-
So you have no evidence then that homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious.
We can therefore discount the numerous threads based on that premise then.
So you are stats-dodging as well as building more straw men.
That it has been noted that the likes of the CofE has argued against social progress, such as SSM, is not the same thing as claiming homophobia is the preserve of the religious: I don't recall anyone saying specifically that so perhaps you could cite the instances.
-
So you are stats-dodging as well as building more straw men.
.
You mean you have stats to show that the premise of numerous forum threads....that homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious......is true.
Please present them.
-
Dear Gordon,
Actually I think there may be some truth in what Vlad is talking about, I have two friends ( no not you and Sane, I do have other friends :P ) both are atheist and both are the live and let live type or so they say, but in homosexual company they become very edgy, tripping over their own tongues, hell one time one of my mates was verbally attacked by a homosexual guy, he was accused of being patronising.
I think this is a real problem for homosexual people, people need to recognise that they have that little spark of homophobia inside them and address it, only then will they feel more comfortable in homosexual company.
And no, I am not saying that everyone has that little spark inside them, just that some people might be fooling themselves, also it is most definitely not just a religious issue.
Gonnagle.
I don't doubt that Gonners - but Vlad is making a claim based on what he thinks is statistical evidence , and he clearly doesn't understand statistics, that atheists like me see homophobia as being primarily a position held by the religious - and I don't since like you, I too have encountered homophobes who haven't been religious.
I think Vlad is asserting statistical inference without providing the supporting stats.
-
........... he clearly doesn't understand statistics
Ok, show me the stats that show homophobia to be extremely rare in the non religious
yet rife among the religious and talk me through them.
-
You mean you have stats to show that the premise of numerous forum threads....that homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious......is true.
Please present them.
No I dont mean that, and now you are being silly, Vlad - remember it is you and not I who started citing statistics, albeit simplistically: I'm merely questioning your competence.
If you want to do a content analysis study on posts in this forum then go ahead, but remember to set out your methods and data analysis options that would be needed.
-
Ok, show me the stats that show homophobia to be extremely rare in the non religious
yet rife among the religious and talk me through them.
Vlad - I'm not making any statistical claims: you are, so the burden of proof in yours.
I'm simply querying the unsupported generisations you made earlier.
-
No I dont mean that, and now you are being silly, Vlad
No I think you had better take each of my statements point by point rather than assuming.
If they are in your view unreasonable then you should put up a counter argument.
Do you disagree with my reasoning that there is likely to be more homophobia in a larger population than in a smaller population?
Do you disagree that the majority narrative on this board is that homophobia is focussed within the religious community?
-
Vlad - I'm not making any statistical claims
Because there are no statistics which back the central religionethics narrative: that Homophobia is the almost exclusive preserve of the religious, maybe?
-
I don't care where homophobia and hate is most prevalent. I get pissed off about people using it as a support of their position. Spent too much time with people beaten up because they were gay to deal with people indulging in their position.
-
Whether gay or not De Nile is a river in Egypt which was hundred of miles to the southwest of where Paul was active.
Don't give up the day job, as a comedian you are crap!
-
Don't give up the day job, as a comedian you are crap!
I thought it was funny and at the end of the day that's what counts.
-
The biggest pool of sly homophobia is in the non religious.
Statistics in confirmation of the load of bollocks please.
-
Statistics in confirmation of the load of bollocks please.
A load of bollocks?It has always ever been two Owlswing..............or in your case .....none.
-
You are correct that something feeling 'natural' doesn't make it ok. However, gay relationships come in as many varieties as straight ones do; there's nothing intrinsically harmful in them, and so to prohibit them is both pointless and cruel.
As for your point on sex being just for procreation - no. That isn't the case. To illustrate, I once knew a family from the Hare Krishna sect - couples who adhere to that religion have to refrain from all sexual contact unless they are specificly intending to conceive a child. The wife had all manner of sex toys and not because she thought they were going to get her pregnant. Humans don't only have fertile periods when they desire sex, but want it whether they want to have children, intend to have them or even can't have them or don't want them at all.
As an aside, the Hare Krishna top guru chap resigned from his position because he's fallen in love with a woman other than his wife. Even though he and the other woman had never had any physical contact at all - not even brushing fingers accidentally. This idea that human emotion and pain can be even partly controlled and avoided according to ensuring particular body parts go in particular places is risible.
Unfortunately, Rhi, the Bible does say that people who practise homosexuality are not in God's kingdom. This is stated in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. So that answers Sassy's point, and means that Christians need to abstain from this as they would abstain from adultery - if they want to be living for God. The passage in acts where the apostles decided which aspects of the Mosaic law needed to be kept by Gentile believers, is to do with those things that God prohibited in Leviticus 17 and 18 which applied to Israelites and non Israelites living with them. The connection should be clear.
But in answer to your second point: yes, people desire sex and that desire is essential to continuing the human race. But there are obvious limits beyomd which the sexual instinct needs to be restrained, and one of those is with homosexual urges. There is a reflex in men which deals with excess build up of sperm. Therefore there is no biological requirement for a man to have sex with another person. I don't know if the equivalent happens with women, and the OT mentions nocturnal emissions as being normal and not sinful. I think the area I need to think through more is how homosexual relationships cause harm. I was friends with a gay bloke and a lesbian at one time, and I was aware that I was personally affected by their homosexuality, because I fancied the lesbian and the bloke fancied me... A right muddle!
-
I think the area I need to think through more is how homosexual relationships cause harm.
They don't.
Moreover, it's not merely that they don't cause harm but can be the cause of actual, explicit and positive good. See ... well, innumerable people for details. See our own Leonardo Di Jamesio for details and work your way out from there.
There are those (like Hope on this forum*) who claim that homosexuality causes damage to society, but when asked to specify and quantify this alleged "damage" always run away like the snivelling cowards and spineless bigots that they are, so can for all purposes (save target practice) be roundly ignored.
* For example: http://goo.gl/bJim2s
-
I'm not entirely sure he knows what pantheism means. He seems to think it's something that people do.
Isn't pantheism something practiced on your knees after having drunk to much beer, spirits or both?
ippy.
-
They don't.
Moreover, it's not merely that they don't cause harm but can be the cause of actual, explicit and positive good. See ... well, innumerable people for details. See our own Leonardo Di Jamesio for details and work your way out from there.
I'm waiting eagerly for The Leonard James Story..............You see I've had trouble sleeping lately.
Doesn't he support Ippy in his controversial approach to the treatment of Christians?
-
I'm waiting eagerly for The Leonard James Story..............You see I've had trouble sleeping lately.
Doesn't he support Ippy in his controversial approach to the treatment of Christians?
Out of interest Vlad, what's this controversial approach to the treatment of christians you're saying about me, only apart from locking them up, a little bit of torture and the odd murder of one or two of them now and again, I bear them no particular ill will Vlad, so what is it?
ippy
-
Out of interest Vlad, what's this controversial approach to the treatment of christians you're saying about me, only apart from locking them up, a little bit of torture and the odd murder of one or two of them now and again, I bear them no particular ill
Crikey.....You've mellowed a bit.
-
A load of bollocks?It has always ever been two Owlswing..............or in your case .....none.
I suggect that you either provide proof of this statement or withdraw it.
I have four children to prove their existence - your proof of their non-existence is . . . ?
-
I suggect that you either provide proof of this statement or withdraw it.
I have four children to prove their existence - your proof of their non-existence is . . . ?
did I say you were missing your balls?......I meant your sense of humour.
-
did I say you were missing your balls?......I meant your sense of humour.
I'm sure that you thought that was funny.
And that's all that counts, allegedly!
-
I'm sure that you thought that was funny.
And that's all that counts, allegedly!
....Am I the only one who thinks the new Work and pensions secretary looks like Ricky Gervais, the atheist comedian?...........................I think we all know what's coming next........
-
....Am I the only one who thinks the new Work and pensions secretary looks like Ricky Gervais
Almost certainly.
-
Almost certainly.
.And whatever he looks like, he's been supportive of Christian 'curing' of homosexuality
-
did I say you were missing your balls?......I meant your sense of humour.
YOU lying sack of shit!
Re: Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?
« Reply #126 on: Today at 19:28:04 » From Vlad
Quote from: Owlswing on Today at 19:22:25
Statistics in confirmation of the load of bollocks please.
A load of bollocks? It has always ever been two Owlswing..............or in your case .....none.
I always suspected that you were a gutless coward - thanks for the confirmation.
May your ear'oles turn to arse'oles and shit all over your shoulders!
-
I do not know the statistics but in my lifetime I have come across many homophobic people who have no religious belief. It does seem odd, shocking even, but is a fact. Not on forums of course :D.
I've also known a few gay men who were extremely racist which is going off the point somewhat but I found that unpleasant, as I find racism unpleasant anywhere.
The word ''Gay'' was not coined as a perjorative term and perhaps Len or someone will corroborate that. As I said before, I first heard it as a description of homosexuals in 1965. It's possible that the original meaning of 'Gay' (capital G as opposed to 'gay' which means happy and bubbly), has altered somewhat with time, as happens with many words used to describe people.
-
I do not know the statistics but in my lifetime I have come across many homophobic people who have no religious belief. It does seem odd, shocking even, but is a fact. Not on forums of course :D.
I've also known a few gay men who were extremely racist which is going off the point somewhat but I found that unpleasant, as I find racism unpleasant anywhere.
The word ''Gay'' was not coined as a perjorative term and perhaps Len or someone will corroborate that. As I said before, I first heard it as a description of homosexuals in 1965. It's possible that the original meaning of 'Gay' (capital G as opposed to 'gay' which means happy and bubbly), has altered somewhat with time, as happens with many words used to describe people.
And I'll ask again, why do you think that arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against is somehow more acceptable if it is for genuinely religious reasons'?
-
Dear Gordon,
Actually I think there may be some truth in what Vlad is talking about, I have two friends ( no not you and Sane, I do have other friends :P ) both are atheist and both are the live and let live type or so they say, but in homosexual company they become very edgy, tripping over their own tongues, hell one time one of my mates was verbally attacked by a homosexual guy, he was accused of being patronising.
I think this is a real problem for homosexual people, people need to recognise that they have that little spark of homophobia inside them and address it, only then will they feel more comfortable in homosexual company.
And no, I am not saying that everyone has that little spark inside them, just that some people might be fooling themselves, also it is most definitely not just a religious issue.
Gonnagle.
Do I think all atheists are gay friendly? No. Does that mean as Vlad has touted on here that atheists who support gay rights are just doing it because they are antitheist, ffs no!
Read the meretricious shite he has consistently poured out on this , Gonzo and get back to me. Tell me that you support his idea that I'm only supporting the rights of friends to annoy Christians, or perhaps get back to him and tell him to fuck off, that perhaps having seen people beaten up because apparently their assailants' thug God thinks what they do with their dick or pussy is so bad that they deserve a beating, that just maybe I think my friends do not deserve to be discriminated or beaten up because being gay is a-feckin-ok!
Read his posts, properly, gonzo.
-
I've also known a few gay men who were extremely racist which is going off the point somewhat but I found that unpleasant, as I find racism unpleasant anywhere.
As a white gay man who has lived with an Asian gay man these last 37 years I can attest to that.
But that isn't the point. That some gay men hold the same repugnant views as another section of society is not that surprising - I mean for goodness sake some gay men vote conservative!
As I have tried to point out elsewhere - the majority of people who hold these stupid views are not religious or atheist. They are the great unthinking led by their baser emotions.
-
As a white gay man who has lived with an Asian gay man these last 37 years I can attest to that.
But that isn't the point. That some gay men hold the same repugnant views as another section of society is not that surprising - I mean for goodness sake some gay men vote conservative!
As I have tried to point out elsewhere - the majority of people who hold these stupid views are not religious or atheist. They are the great unthinking led by their baser emotions.
Yep - you're not wrong TV.
-
....Am I the only one who thinks the new Work and pensions secretary looks like Ricky Gervais, the atheist comedian?...........................I think we all know what's coming next........
That would be another new thread to try and distract from the shite you're spouting on this one, then.
-
Dear Sane,
No big man, you read my post properly, the important part is some truth but maybe I should have said smidgeon or a tiny bit.
My point in my post was to highlight the fact that there are some who are uncomfortable in homosexual company, why!! homophobia, which is not exclusively a religious failing.
Homophobia is a very contentious word but for me it covers a very wide spectrum, most liberal people would probably say, I am not homophobic but I think they are deluding themselves and this is something that needs to be addressed.
I myself have come a very long way in combating my own homophobia, my problem, but I feel that other people don't confront their homophobia, they might suppress it, sweep it under the carpet but this does homosexual people an injustice.
I personally have never hated homosexuals, now there might be a fear element, I don't know and this is something I have to work through but I am still homophobic, but I think about it, I confront it, I don't sweep it under the carpet, one thing I am almost sure of, it is not a religious thing, I did not have a religious up bringing, I came to my faith in my late teens, my homophobia ( I think ) is a cultural thing.
Now Sane old buddy >:( the above is from the heart, open and honest, now let me say a few words on what I think about Vlads ramblings, first of all, this is a open forum, freedom of speech has been discussed many times on this very forum.
Vlad has a great fan club on here and I count you as one of his fans, every time the man opens his gub, his fans all come out of the cupboard, you, Shaker, Bluehillside, Gordon etc etc etc, now on this forum ( it is only a forum ) you have the God given right to ignore or to attack, respond, give your own thoughts, for me and one of the things I have tried to learn, try to walk a mile in the other man's shoe's.
Now I think I have said enough, to end, some of the subject we discuss on here are very emotional, homosexuality being just one, but I think we need to remember that it is only a forum, if Vlad pushes your buttons, that's fine, he doesn't push mine.
Gonnagle.
-
My point in my post was to highlight the fact that there are some who are uncomfortable in homosexual company, why!! homophobia, which is not exclusively a religious failing.
No, Gonners, it is not exclusively religious ... but I think many cultures were influenced by their particular religion. So you don't have to be religious to be homophobic, but you are receiving s/hand the homophobia (however slight), unaware of its origin.
-
Your god is an evil bigoted b*stard if he deemed homosexual acts to be sinful. However, you have absolutely no evidence ANYTHING in the Bible is anything to do with the thinking of god, which more than likely doesn't exist. The documents making up the Bible are very human in context, surely an omnipotent deity would be well above human faults and failings?
Says she who makes it her life's work to insult the bible, the believer and especially Jesus Christ and God.
For someone who does not believes there is no evidence that God exists etc. You spend an awful long time blaming God for your life and the way you think about religion.
In truth you are bigger hypocrit than anyone. Because you allow yourself to hate that which you believe does not exist.
How can you hate something you claim not to exist. In truth you are calling yourself and all mankind an evil bigoted bastard because if there was no God, then the bible is the work of men.
Would men really write such things making God the centre of everything and not themselves as Pharaoh in Egypt?
You see you see everything in a detrimental way. You appear to think you can insult someone you do not believe exist.
When in reality if God does not exist then you have to accept responsibility as a member of mankind that it is people like yourself and came from people like yourself. So in truth the world would be full of evil, bigoted bastards those who believe anything to be right they first believed to be wrong.
Truth is you are blinkered to the life and world you live in. In reality the bible is written in a time where people were bigoted, evil, liars who would sell their own family for a meal. Because the truth is that only since God and his people did a time come in where people behaved themselves and learned to love in difficult circumstances.
If you take away the blame for what you believe does not exist then the only person to blame is the still on the stage "YOU"
and those other humans like you.
As you can see humankind would have to take the blame for their own evil.
-
Do I think all atheists are gay friendly? No. Does that mean as Vlad has touted on here that atheists who support gay rights are just doing it because they are antitheist, ffs no!
Read the meretricious shite he has consistently poured out on this , Gonzo and get back to me. Tell me that you support his idea that I'm only supporting the rights of friends to annoy Christians, or perhaps get back to him and tell him to fuck off, that perhaps having seen people beaten up because apparently their assailants' thug God thinks what they do with their dick or pussy is so bad that they deserve a beating, that just maybe I think my friends do not deserve to be discriminated or beaten up because being gay is a-feckin-ok!
Read his posts, properly, gonzo.
I don't know if what I say here will calm your ire and frankly I can only donate half a shit if it does not.
I do not include you as those who specifically focus on religious homophobia and ignore the vast pool of casual and entrenched homophobia in the general population which happens to be non religious. The argument they mount is utter humbug.
Are you an antitheist? I know not.
-
No, Gonners, it is not exclusively religious ... but I think many cultures were influenced by their particular religion. So you don't have to be religious to be homophobic, but you are receiving s/hand the homophobia (however slight), unaware of its origin.
So, religion made them do it.
Or is it macho culture?
You have to expand and develop your thesis Len, otherwise it's the usual assertive durry.
-
Most people have sexual urges that feel natural to them, floo. Some have to be restrained though, such as a desire for a married person.
Or sexual desires for Children evil in entirety.
It is a fact that because someone desires something- that in itself is not a measure of it being right or natural.
We cannot use the definition "it feels natural" because that in itself does not make it right or natural.
We always come back to the law on what is right and wrong.
The individual has to live with the laws regardless of their views and feelings.
However, I think Spud and I, have made it clear that because we feel something to be normal and natural for the individual
it does not make it so.
We have responsibilities as human beings to uphold the law and do no harm to others.
There are many arguments for right and wrong but if people do not believe in God then they cannot call him evil or blame him.
-
Dear Leonard,
Thank you, and yes I think you are right, the very man my post was directed at will tell you that when I speak of culture I am also saying who I am, where I came from, what made me, what shapes me, what shapes us all, and a big part of our culture is religion, he is right, and you are right, and it needs to be discussed, not jumped on, not argued, discussed in a open and honest way.
Oh and BTW, it has been largely due to your good self and Trentvoyager that I have tried to confront my own failings, so thank you.
Gonnagle.
-
And I'll ask again, why do you think that arguing that homosexuals should be discriminated against is somehow more acceptable if it is for genuinely religious reasons'?
From my point of view Nearly Sane, it not acceptable for anyone to discriminate but those who are religious feel they have scriptural back up. We've had people quote the Bible on this thread, people who appear to be quite reasonable in most respects and certainly don't have any personal animosity - they just think it is wrong. There's no arguing with that view point, believe me I've tried many times (I suppose I still do up to a point but I do it with no hope of having any effect). They have to choose to think outside their very small box for themselves before having a change of heart on this issue; it happens but we are probably in for a long wait. They are quite different to people who feel personal distaste towards homosexuals.
However, religious or not, the law does not tolerate discrimination and that takes care of some of it thank goodness.
(Briefly, having just scanned a couple of recent posts before posting this one, the evil of sexual desire for children has been mentioned. That is not an inherently natural desire, no-one is born a child molester. No comparison in my view.
Gonnagle's post is great.)
-
Dear Leonard,
Thank you, and yes I think you are right, the very man my post was directed at will tell you that when I speak of culture I am also saying who I am, where I came from, what made me, what shapes me, what shapes us all, and a big part of our culture is religion, he is right, and you are right, and it needs to be discussed, not jumped on, not argued, discussed in a open and honest way.
Oh and BTW, it has been largely due to your good self and Trentvoyager that I have tried to confront my own failings, so thank you.
Gonnagle.
Thank you, Gonners. It is very encouraging to be told that I have helped you to accept us as normal human beings with the same rights and responsibilities as everybody else. That is all most of us want, and the changes that have come about in recent years are wonderful to see.
-
Briefly, having just scanned a couple of recent posts before posting this one, the evil of sexual desire for children has been mentioned. That is not an inherently natural desire, no-one is born a child molester. No comparison in my view.
I'm afraid I am going to stick my neck out on this, Brownie, ... cut my throat if you like! :)
A tendency to be sexually attracted to children is just as much genetic (natural) as homosexuality. That is how evolution works, I'm afraid. All we can do is legislate against it to protect children.
-
Dear Leonard,
Exactly, how dare I or any human being treat you differently, the theist of any flavour miss this, it is probably the greatest sin, for me a theist it leads to crimes against God and crimes against God are crimes against humanity.
Gonnagle.
-
I wonder if that miserable little git Paul was a gay in denial?
Oh my what have you ever done for anyone at your own cost?
NOTHING... yes I am sure of it. If no praise or glory for yourself, I am sure you have never done anything for anyone that was a cost to yourself.
No I am not talking about doing your duty as a mother and wife. I am talking about real cost.
As for Paul, unlike yourself he got his ass and went and did something about the things he did not believe to right.
He did not believe in Christ and as the first martyr was murdered Stephen he kept the clothes of his killers.
Your attitude is the attitude which will eventually see Christians murdered in the street because you hold hatred in your heart for something you claim not to exist?
What did Paul's beliefs in God have to do with Jesus if he did not believe Jesus was who he was?
Why allow himself to witness and agree with the murder of those who did, if Jesus not the Son of God and Messiah?
You beliefs lead you to make bigoted statements and yet if there is no God, why hold any views at all on God or the bible?
But when faced with the truth, Saul/Paul repented and he became one of the followers of Christ, he who persecuted the followers of Christ and condoned their killing now became his own enemy. What if faced with evidence in your own life of God. Say your child facing certain death and the only way to save them was a miracle from God. What if you prayed to God and that miracle came. Would you return to your old ways?
What has Paul ever done to you or anyone that deserves your malicious and unwarranted liable?
There is nothing to make anyone wonder about what you wrote. Do you not think your own ability to make false accusations against others comes from the evil in your own heart? Because there is nothing to give foundation to your false accusation against Paul.
Gods love is pure love.
-
I'm afraid I am going to stick my neck out on this, Brownie, ... cut my throat if you like! :)
A tendency to be sexually attracted to children is just as much genetic (natural) as homosexuality. That is how evolution works, I'm afraid. All we can do is legislate against it to protect children.
I won't cut your throat Len but believe you are wrong about this.
-
I won't cut your throat Len but believe you are wrong about this.
Possibly, but can you explain WHY the desire exists if it is not natural?
-
Dear Leonard,
A tendency to be sexually attracted to children is just as much genetic (natural) as homosexuality. That is how evolution works, I'm afraid. All we can do is legislate against it to protect children.
Well F*** me side ways with and old washing pole, that is how evolution works!! well until I get my head around evolution I will have to disagree, and you Leonard old son if I remember correctly have not got your head around evolution.
It is not simple Leonard, and anyone who says they fully understand it are deluding themselves, everytime we learn something new about evolution it opens up hundreds more questions, old Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" wants us to upgrade evolution from theory to fact, I think that is wrong, there are lots of facts about evolution but the whole thing, and it is huge should sit in science as a theory, a brilliant theory until such times that we have dotted the "i" and crossed the "t" it is far to important.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Well F*** me side ways with and old washing pole, that is how evolution works!! well until I get my head around evolution I will have to disagree, and you Leonard old son if I remember correctly have not got your head around evolution.
It is not simple Leonard, and anyone who says they fully understand it are deluding themselves, everytime we learn something new about evolution it opens up hundreds more questions, old Dawkins in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth" wants us to upgrade evolution from theory to fact, I think that is wrong, there are lots of facts about evolution but the whole thing, and it is huge should sit in science as a theory, a brilliant theory until such times that we have dotted the "i" and crossed the "t" it is far to important.
Gonnagle.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You do have an exquisite turn of phrase at times, Gonners. I love the washing pole phrase!
Now, in my defense, I will say that I believe human sexuality is just like all other aspects of our lives, genetically directed. We are what our genes make us, nothing more or less. Even our reaction to nurture is dependent on our genes.
-
'Gay' is now in common usage as a put-down meaning a bit rubbish - 'those shoes are a bit gay'; 'it's a bit gay to do that' etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people
That is certainly the case, has been for years. Most recently I heard a young chap describe his mother's Smart car as ''A bit gay''.
-
Dear Leonard,
Fine old son, my take, you have been seduced by the lovely science, genetics for me is still in its infancy, I will try to learn about it, but I know that new things will be discovered about it, I keep an open mind about just how much it tells us about who we are, what makes us, us. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Fine old son, my take, you have been seduced by the lovely science, genetics for me is still in its infancy, I will try to learn about it, but I know that new things will be discovered about it, I keep an open mind about just how much it tells us about who we are, what makes us, us. ;)
Gonnagle.
Since there is no other logical explanation for us, I accept the scientific one. If evidence arises of any other possibility I will consider it.
-
Possibly, but can you explain WHY the desire exists if it is not natural?
Anyone can have a brief, fleeting desire for anything Len and that is natural. An abiding longing for sexual satisfaction with children, who have not reached puberty, in the same way that one would want an adult partner, is something quite different.
-
Anyone can have a brief, fleeting desire for anything Len and that is natural. An abiding longing for sexual satisfaction with children, who have not reached puberty, in the same way that one would want an adult partner, is something quite different.
You haven't answered my question. What is the cause of it, in your opinion?
-
Dear Leonard,
Since there is no other logical explanation for us, I accept the scientific one. If evidence arises of any other possibility I will consider it.
Go ahead and accept but please, please also question, it is yours Leonard, if some muppet says, hey do you know you are descended from a monkey, if he has letters after his name, don't just think, well he must be right, question it, you never know, sitting there in the sun sipping your fine wine, you may have an epiphany and be on the road to collecting your first Nobel. :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Go ahead and accept but please, please also question, it is yours Leonard, if some muppet says, hey do you know you are descended from a monkey, if he has letters after his name, don't just think, well he must be right, question it, you never know, sitting there in the sun sipping your fine wine, you may have an epiphany and be on the road to collecting your first Nobel. :P :P
Gonnagle.
The argument and evidence for evolution is sufficient to convince me that it is correct.
It definitely does NOT say that I am descended a monkey.
-
Dear Leonard,
It definitely does NOT say that I am descended a monkey.
I was being flippant.
The argument and evidence for evolution is sufficient to convince me that it is correct.
I am not arguing how correct it is, but is it all there.
Gonnagle.
-
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
Just to be clear then, lesbians are safe?
-
Just to be clear then, lesbians are safe?
Romans 1:26 is supposed to be a reference (the only one, I think) to lesbians.
-
Dear Leonard,
I was being flippant.
I am not arguing how correct it is, but is it all there.
Gonnagle.
Of course not ... there are always nuances waiting to be revealed.
-
So I'm told these people that find young children sexually attractive, don't think there's anything wrong with themselves they think it's all OK and there is no cure for these people either.
Not somewhere I would like to be doing the reason why research, I'll take a pass on that one.
ippy
-
So I'm told these people that find young children sexually attractive, don't think there's anything wrong with themselves they think it's all OK and there is no cure for these people either.
Not somewhere I would like to be doing the reason why research, I'll take a pass on that one.
ippy
I don't believe they think there's nothing wrong in it ... society has shown repeatedly that most people disapprove and they must be aware that it is a punishable offence. But clearly some find it difficult to suppress, since it is a 'natural' urge in them.
-
Just to be clear then, lesbians are safe?
Read the bible...
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
As you can see people swopping the truth for a lie. How many professing Christ are swopping Gods truth for a lie.
I am sad for all of us... But I am sad for those lost and being lost because of the lies embraced... :(
-
I am sad you believe the nonsense you spout to be true. :(
-
I am sad you believe the nonsense you spout to be true. :(
If one word of that were true you would stop using homosexuality as a battering ram for your own hatred of God and Christianity.
You would know that the homosexual community suffer enough without having their cause thrust into the limelight by people wanting to score points for themselves in Christian subjects.
As Christians we love everyone regardless of creed, colour, language and sexuality.
Once you realise that true believers have love for their fellow beings then you will see the truth between true Christianity and false detrimental Christianity.
Our beliefs do not lead us to condemn others for their lives and choices.
It is about our lives and choices. We tell the truth in love and we love others no matter how different they maybe to us.
God created all and he loves all. Including the sinners.
-
Dear Sass,
Our beliefs do not lead us to condemn others for their lives and choices.
Glad to hear it and hopefully you will join me in ripping out Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, hopefully you will stand beside me as a fellow Christian and denounce this part of the Bible, hopefully if you meet with other people who profess to being Christians you will say, not in our name, hopefully you will say that Leviticus 20:13 is a abomination to Christ.
Gonnagle.
-
As Christians we love everyone regardless of creed, colour, language and sexuality.
No you don't - love requires actions not just words. If you love someone who is gay then you will want them to be treated equally in society, and not to suffer discrimination. You would not try to prevent them from having consensual loving relationships. You would not try to prevent them from being allowed to get married to their same sex partner.
To claim to love gay people but then to act in a manner completely counter to that claim is hollow indeed. In a way I'd prefer someone who was openly hostile toward gay people, not claiming to love them and also acting in accordance with that view. At least there is some honesty there. But to claim to love gay people and then to fight tooth and nail to prevent them from being treated as anything other than second class citizens is despicable.
-
Dear Sass,
Glad to hear it and hopefully you will join me in ripping out Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, hopefully you will stand beside me as a fellow Christian and denounce this part of the Bible, hopefully if you meet with other people who profess to being Christians you will say, not in our name, hopefully you will say that Leviticus 20:13 is a abomination to Christ.
Gonnagle.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You have to be kidding!
-
Dear Sass,
Glad to hear it and hopefully you will join me in ripping out Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, hopefully you will stand beside me as a fellow Christian and denounce this part of the Bible, hopefully if you meet with other people who profess to being Christians you will say, not in our name, hopefully you will say that Leviticus 20:13 is a abomination to Christ.
Gonnagle.
Good for you Gonnagle. :) But Sass's posts give the lie to her statement!
-
Good for you Gonnagle. :) But Sass's posts give the lie to her statement!
This is the problem with Sassy.
She cannot see what we see in her statements. They do not mean to her what they mean to others.
-
Dear Sass,
Glad to hear it and hopefully you will join me in ripping out Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, hopefully you will stand beside me as a fellow Christian and denounce this part of the Bible, hopefully if you meet with other people who profess to being Christians you will say, not in our name, hopefully you will say that Leviticus 20:13 is a abomination to Christ.
Gonnagle.
I think we could safely do without the whole of Leviticus (something I wouldn't say about quite a bit of the Bible) Are there any life-enhancing lessons to be learned from the B of L?
-
I don't believe they think there's nothing wrong in it ... society has shown repeatedly that most people disapprove and they must be aware that it is a punishable offence. But clearly some find it difficult to suppress, since it is a 'natural' urge in them.
This is indeed quite a problem, Len. Since I believe that our sexual natures are largely 'fixed' by our mid-teens, and no amount of therapy is going to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, by the same token, those who are attracted to juveniles are likely to continue to be sexually aroused by them, no matter what. I suppose with most of us, we are likely to find the most desirable partner to be someone who not only turns us on sexually, but shares common interests with us on a wide variety of matters, and that 'maturity' of sexual taste lies in moving towards that. But the instantaneous 'turn-on' is likely to remain the same throughout life. Certainly the case with me.
Some people argue that the pederast gains sexual stimulation from a power relationship, and it is certainly easy to dominate a child or youth. Maybe some education towards 'normality' might occur there. But I'm not so sure - I think, like you, that the pederasts' sexual feelings are entirely natural to them.
However, since we recognise that such relationships are almost universally harmful to children, probably for the rest of their lives, the only socially acceptable behaviour for pederasts is celibacy.
The composer Benjamin Britten was unquestionably a natural pederast. Even though he had a life-long relationship with the tenor Peter Pears, there is every indication that he harboured deep-rooted sexual longings for young boys. He managed to sublimate his desires, and though no doubt he sought out the company of young boys somewhat obsessively, he never interfered with them sexually, and it is quite likely that many of these young boys benefited greatly from being in the company of a genius.
-
DU, I remember, very well, reading the book of Leviticus with other girls when I was really too young to be reading it! It was eye opening to say the least, scary and informative - up to a point because some of the things dealt with in the book we didn't understand. We read it in secret, hee hee, though I could have read it in front of my parents and they wouldn't have noticed ::) .
-
DU, I remember, very well, reading the book of Leviticus with other girls when I was really too young to be reading it! It was eye opening to say the least, scary and informative - up to a point because some of the things dealt with in the book we didn't understand. We read it in secret, hee hee, though I could have read it in front of my parents and they wouldn't have noticed ::) .
Did you read Ezekiel 23 with the other girls :) ?
-
No, wish I had, I can just imagine us reading it open-mouthed!
-
This is indeed quite a problem, Len. Since I believe that our sexual natures are largely 'fixed' by our mid-teens, and no amount of therapy is going to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals, by the same token, those who are attracted to juveniles are likely to continue to be sexually aroused by them, no matter what. I suppose with most of us, we are likely to find the most desirable partner to be someone who not only turns us on sexually, but shares common interests with us on a wide variety of matters, and that 'maturity' of sexual taste lies in moving towards that. But the instantaneous 'turn-on' is likely to remain the same throughout life. Certainly the case with me.
Some people argue that the pederast gains sexual stimulation from a power relationship, and it is certainly easy to dominate a child or youth. Maybe some education towards 'normality' might occur there. But I'm not so sure - I think, like you, that the pederasts' sexual feelings are entirely natural to them.
However, since we recognise that such relationships are almost universally harmful to children, probably for the rest of their lives, the only socially acceptable behaviour for pederasts is celibacy.
The composer Benjamin Britten was unquestionably a natural pederast. Even though he had a life-long relationship with the tenor Peter Pears, there is every indication that he harboured deep-rooted sexual longings for young boys. He managed to sublimate his desires, and though no doubt he sought out the company of young boys somewhat obsessively, he never interfered with them sexually, and it is quite likely that many of these young boys benefited greatly from being in the company of a genius.
One can only feel sympathy for such people, since they have to quell their natural urges for life ... something which is nigh on impossible, especially if they are cursed with a high libido.
But there ya go, that's nature for you ... she doesn't give a toss for our petty human foibles. :(
-
Dear Sass,
Glad to hear it and hopefully you will join me in ripping out Leviticus 20:13 from the Bible, hopefully you will stand beside me as a fellow Christian and denounce this part of the Bible, hopefully if you meet with other people who profess to being Christians you will say, not in our name, hopefully you will say that Leviticus 20:13 is a abomination to Christ.
Gonnagle.
Good start Gonners you just need to chuck out the rest of it now.
ippy
-
So I'm told these people that find young children sexually attractive, don't think there's anything wrong with themselves they think it's all OK and there is no cure for these people either.
Not somewhere I would like to be doing the reason why research, I'll take a pass on that one.
ippy
Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves.
Supposing for a minute that homosexuality was still illegal. I wonder if a similar kind of process could be found for enabling homosexuals to reach a point where, having suppressed their urges for some time, they could reach the point where they could live with their attraction to the same sex, and form a strong emotional and physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
-
Supposing for a minute that homosexuality was still illegal. I wonder if a similar kind of process could be found for enabling homosexuals to reach a point where, having suppressed their urges for some time, they could reach the point where they could live with their attraction to the same sex, and form a strong emotional and physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
Why should that even be an option? Asking - or rather demanding, or enforcing - that paedophiles suppress their sexual orientation and urges is done with the intention of not having people's entire lives maimed by having been abused early in life. Asking - or rather demanding, or enforcing - gay people to suppress their sexual orientation and urges is a one-way ticket to said people being compelled to live loveless, sexless lives devoid of the human intimacy, the relationships that most people find one of the more important aspects of existence.
Wait - you do understand the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia, right? Right?
-
Supposing for a minute that homosexuality was still illegal. I wonder if a similar kind of process could be found for enabling homosexuals to reach a point where, having suppressed their urges for some time, they could reach the point where they could live with their attraction to the same sex, and form a strong emotional and physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
You don't really understand sexuality at all do you?
In the not so distant past gay people did try and form bonds with the opposite sex - and I have so many stories of the trauma and mental ill health that that caused to all concerned that I am quite frankly shocked that you could even think that a possibility.
-
You don't really understand sexuality at all do you?
Any more than he seems to understand relationships between two parties based on equality and consent, and those devoid of consent and where a power imbalance comes into play.
-
Spud said: "Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves."
That sounds gross to me Spud. So, would the child be told, when adult, that this person 'courting' them, fancied them when they were a child? Can you begin to imagine? It wouldn't work anyway because the child's allure would disappear when they reached adulthood, in the meantime the predator would have moved on to one or more other kids whilst undergoing therapy. I am sure he would like talking about his fancies to someone who listens in a non-judgemental way in a confidential environment.
Yes, older men marry younger women and sometimes the other way around, nothing wrong with that, but hopefully when both parties are adult.
How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may just have been thinking out loud, not giving your own opinion.
-
Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves.
Fool
-
Dear Brownie,
How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may just have been thinking out loud, not giving your own opinion.
No my friend, that is the true enemy, that kind of unChristian thinking, the atheist is not the enemy, we are our own worst enemy, when we finally realise the true message of Christ, we will move on, it will happen, atheism is a fad.
Study the history of man, it is all there.
Gonnagle.
-
You don't really understand sexuality at all do you?
In the not so distant past gay people did try and form bonds with the opposite sex - and I have so many stories of the trauma and mental ill health that that caused to all concerned that I am quite frankly shocked that you could even think that a possibility.
Yes it's much better for everyone, if people are allowed to be honest at the outset.
It's not acceptable to be expected to live a lie IMO.
It's cruel.
-
Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves.
Supposing for a minute that homosexuality was still illegal. I wonder if a similar kind of process could be found for enabling homosexuals to reach a point where, having suppressed their urges for some time, they could reach the point where they could live with their attraction to the same sex, and form a strong emotional and physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
To equate homosexuality as being as wrong and abnormal as paedophilia is SICK, SICK, SICK. >:( Homosexuality is as normal as being left handed, although some cretins in the past believed that to be abnormal.
-
Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves.
Supposing for a minute that homosexuality was still illegal. I wonder if a similar kind of process could be found for enabling homosexuals to reach a point where, having suppressed their urges for some time, they could reach the point where they could live with their attraction to the same sex, and form a strong emotional and physical relationship with someone of the opposite sex.
You seem to be advocating the use of "correction therapy" I think it called, that supposedly can "cure" homosexuality; a therapy which has been proven to be so dangerous to the "patient" that it has been declared illegal in the US where it was invented/created at the instigation of Christian psychotherapists!
-
Spud said: "Such a condition could be treated by the person waiting until the child is an adult, in the mean time suppressing their urges under supervision by a phsychotherapist and perhaps being allowed to conduct a friendship with the child, thus forming an emotional bond with him/her which might be the foundation for a future physical relationship when the child is old enough. We do after all see older men marrying women much younger than themselves."
That sounds gross to me Spud. So, would the child be told, when adult, that this person 'courting' them, fancied them when they were a child? Can you begin to imagine? It wouldn't work anyway because the child's allure would disappear when they reached adulthood, in the meantime the predator would have moved on to one or more other kids whilst undergoing therapy. I am sure he would like talking about his fancies to someone who listens in a non-judgemental way in a confidential environment.
Yes, older men marry younger women and sometimes the other way around, nothing wrong with that, but hopefully when both parties are adult.
How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you may just have been thinking out loud, not giving your own opinion.
Hi Brownie,
Yes I was thinking out loud. Perhaps not with the view to an eventual marriage, then. Except in cases where the child is sexually mature but not old enough by law to marry.
In the case I suggested, it wouldn't be with a view to future marriage, then, and the child wouldn't be told about the pedophile's condition. Forming a friendship with the child but without any physical contact might be therapeutic for the pedophile, in that it would help him learn how to relate to children in the right way. You would have to have the parents' involvement of course. I'm not sure how else you could treat a pedophile for pedophilia.
The only other option would be for them to avoid all contact with children, which would not be achieving as much as if they found they could eventually relate to children socially without needing to go further.
Relating this to homosexuality, it is clear to me that for Christians homosexual practices are forbidden. So I am interested in ways that could help homosexuals to change.
The issue is of course, does it harm anyone. Aside from the obvious harm caused by sodomy, there is the psychological harm to both involved. There is loss of masculinity (in men who treat another man as if female, or behave effeminately) or loss of femininity (in women). I think this is swept under the carpet by people who refer to them as "harmless".
-
Relating this to homosexuality, it is clear to me that for Christians homosexual practices are forbidden. So I am interested in ways that could help homosexuals to change.
That may possibly apply to a tiny minority of Christians with very warped ideas of human sexuality, but a tiny minority says it all, doesn't it?
The issue is of course, does it harm anyone. Aside from the obvious harm caused by sodomy
What harm is that?
there is the psychological harm to both involved.
Again, what harm?
There is loss of masculinity (in men who treat another man as if female, or behave effeminately) or loss of femininity (in women).
That's your idea of "harm," is it? How very peculiar.
I think this is swept under the carpet by people who refer to them as "harmless".
Perhaps those people don't think that the word "harm" is in any way justified, and indeed is indicative of not only 1970s stereotypical timewarp at best but a highly offensive view of gay people.
-
Spud:
"Forming a friendship with the child but without any physical contact might be therapeutic for the pedophile, in that it would help him learn how to relate to children in the right way. You would have to have the parents' involvement of course. I'm not sure how else you could treat a pedophile for pedophilia.
The only other option would be for them to avoid all contact with children, which would not be achieving as much as if they found they could eventually relate to children socially without needing to go further."
---------------------
I hope you will not be offended Spud if I say that I find the above somewhat naive, albeit very thoughtful. In this day and age, knowing what we do and being aware of areas that cannot yet be understood, parents would not knowingly allow their children to be involved in any way with a paedophile.
Adults can take risks, trusting people and maybe believing that a person has changed etc, but no risks can be taken with children who are unable to understand or consent. Our role is to protect them.
Convicted paedophiles often undertake programmes in prison but the success rate is poor. If you can imagine a scenario where they all sit together with a therapist and discuss their feelings, they back eachother up. That isn't the intention of course but it's the way it pans out. They can also be very convincing and pull the wool over the eyes of therapists. The same can be said of clergy and chaplaincy helpers who may come to believe that a conversion will have 'cured' them.
On release they are not allowed to live near, eg, a school or anywhere that children congregate and an eye is kept on them. Obviously there cannot be absolutely no contact with children because that would be impossible, going to a shop or on a 'bus will bring them into contact, but contact has to be limited and their movements monitored. Yet, with all the help and goodwill in the world, and even with the best intentions of the perpetrators, they frequently re-offend.
'Treatment' is virtually impossible. Prevention however is not impossible. If everyone was taught from an early age to respect themselves and others I doubt it would happen. Until fairly recent years, respect of children was not a consideration, they were definitely not respected and had no rights. They belonged to their parents and, when at school, up to a point they belonged to teachers. Individual fears, needs, etc, were not considered except by the most enlightened. Even in hospital kids were not treated as people. They were taught to believe that grown ups were right and couldn't speak out for fear of being told off (I saw a programme recently where a woman said that she had been raped as a youngster, but could not tell her parents something like that!).
Things have improved for children, thank goodness. I've seen a vast change in attitude in my lifetime and hope to see even more.
The rest of your post deals with homosexuality and I've said my bit on that. Shaker has addressed it, probably better than I could.
(Edited for clumsy phrasing)
-
Hi Brownie,
This is in line with the thread topic, because I am thinking in the context of Christian families who care about the people in society and are willing to take risks in order to help them. As an example, a few male friends who shared a house together took in someone who was an alcoholic. They let him live in their house and encouraged him for some time and he gradually got back into work and living a normal life. If someone can come off alcohol or drugs, then surely a person with homosexual or pedophile-type tendencies can be turned around if they express a desire to do so.
There was something on the news recently about the Spanish prison system. They have much better facilities for rehabilitation, and a much lower proportion of those released re-offend than in Britain.
I guess what I want to get across is that when a person loses something they think of as part of them, for example the freedom to express the desire to molest children (it being illegal), they need something to fill that hole. It can be a hobby or a friendship, something to take away the urges. Sometimes they will surface again but over time an offender can learn how to deal with unwanted desires and live a healthy lifestyle.
In churches where there is real conviction that homosexuality is against God's will, you will find individuals with the gift of helping people struggling in that area; they know how to support them, pray for them and help them change their lifestyle. A lot of it is about not being judgmental when they sometimes fall back into it, recognizing that change doesn't happen overnight.
You said, "How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion."
It depends on what you read. I have found literature which tells a different story about homosexual lifestyles from what one normally hears. You just have to read Shaker's post above to see that he is unwilling to see anything negative about them, or admit that they cause harm. Personally, one look at the biological evidence makes it quite clear that homosexual sex is nothing other than destructive.
We will see eventually whether or not the West's acceptance of homosexuality makes it stronger. It has been interesting to see how the USA and NATO were powerless to do anything about Russia's recent involvement in Syria.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
-
Thank you for your post Spud.
I have worked in a prison and know something of sex offenders, of all types. It's difficult to talk about it though, without saying too much about me and I've no wish to set myself up as an expert of any kind. I just know things and not only from reading. I can assure you that a comparison between an alcoholic/drug addict and a paedophile is not a fair comparison. I would love to be able to trust a paedophile and do believe they can change if they really want to, but not enough for them to be trusted with children; they're also very good at convincing people they've changed.
Regarding homosexual sex, I once posted something about it and was told off (not here), for being too explicit. I merely wanted to clarify something, in no way would I ever seek to shock or titillate and some things I find distasteful to think about. I don't think about them unless I have to, the same goes for other peoples' sex lives generally. It's their business. However homosexual sex is quite safe as long as people are considerate to eachother, same as heteros really. I won't say any more about it. Again I am no expert but, again, worked in an environment where I gained relevant knowledge.
Although our opinions differ it's good to discuss these, and other, things and learn something about the viewpoints of others.
-
Hi Brownie,
This is in line with the thread topic, because I am thinking in the context of Christian families who care about the people in society and are willing to take risks in order to help them. As an example, a few male friends who shared a house together took in someone who was an alcoholic. They let him live in their house and encouraged him for some time and he gradually got back into work and living a normal life. If someone can come off alcohol or drugs, then surely a person with homosexual or pedophile-type tendencies can be turned around if they express a desire to do so.
There was something on the news recently about the Spanish prison system. They have much better facilities for rehabilitation, and a much lower proportion of those released re-offend than in Britain.
I guess what I want to get across is that when a person loses something they think of as part of them, for example the freedom to express the desire to molest children (it being illegal), they need something to fill that hole. It can be a hobby or a friendship, something to take away the urges. Sometimes they will surface again but over time an offender can learn how to deal with unwanted desires and live a healthy lifestyle.
In churches where there is real conviction that homosexuality is against God's will, you will find individuals with the gift of helping people struggling in that area; they know how to support them, pray for them and help them change their lifestyle. A lot of it is about not being judgmental when they sometimes fall back into it, recognizing that change doesn't happen overnight.
You said, "How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion."
It depends on what you read. I have found literature which tells a different story about homosexual lifestyles from what one normally hears. You just have to read Shaker's post above to see that he is unwilling to see anything negative about them, or admit that they cause harm. Personally, one look at the biological evidence makes it quite clear that homosexual sex is nothing other than destructive.
We will see eventually whether or not the West's acceptance of homosexuality makes it stronger. It has been interesting to see how the USA and NATO were powerless to do anything about Russia's recent involvement in Syria.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Clearly, Spud, you have never had contact with a paedophile - if this is your attitude I hope, most sincerely, that you never do!
This is the most Godawful load of tosh I have ever seen. Paedophiles do NOT want to be cured! And you are beyond moronic if you think that there is anyway they can be. Paedophiles are convinced that what they are doing is perfectly natural and that they should be left alone to get on with their lives.
I had the misfortune to have my youngest daughter assaulted by a paedophile "in order to show his son what sex was all about".
His social worker called in two priests and several other persons of character in te community to give him character references! He got off with a warning!
I got months and months of trying to convince my daughter that it was not her that was to blame.
Putting it bluntly people with attitudes to paedophilia like yours make me sick! The only way you are ever going to find out just what rubbish you are talking is for a child of yours to becoime a victim - and I truly hope that this will never happen - I would rather leave you talking total crap than have you put through what my wife and I went through!
-
That is a very shocking and sad story Owl.
You are right too. Spud just doesn't know, at least that's the impression I have. I may have been similarly naive when I was young.
-
That is a very shocking and sad story Owl.
You are right too. Spud just doesn't know, at least that's the impression I have. I may have been similarly naive when I was young.
Yes, the family has had it share of the shit-end of the stick of life, but, fortunately, we have come through it stronger for the experiences.
However, for this who think my views on Christians and Christianity, not all of the Christians obviously, are extreme, those of my daughters make mine seem mild by comparison!
In fact, it was, by the priest's attitude to my daughter's plea for help after the divorce that caused her to investigate other religious beliefs and paths and to become Pagan and, to give me the understanding of what a Pagan path was and is, to give me cause me to covert too. As she got oldder, the youngster converted as well. So you could say that Christians and Christianity led me to the religion in which I now find myself.
It is, I have to say, the only positive thing that I ever got out of Christianity.
-
That may possibly apply to a tiny minority of Christians with very warped ideas of human sexuality, but a tiny minority says it all, doesn't it?What harm is that?
Again, what harm? That's your idea of "harm," is it? How very peculiar.Perhaps those people don't think that the word "harm" is in any way justified, and indeed is indicative of not only 1970s stereotypical timewarp at best but a highly offensive view of gay people.
Yet again you ignore the warped ness of human sexuality in society in general in the cinema in the media etc, in a jointly held and contradictory prudery and licentiousness.
-
You just have to read Shaker's post above to see that he is unwilling to see anything negative about them, or admit that they cause harm.
Mere assertion doesn't cut it on this forum. The post to which you refer (#201) asked you to specify/substantiate, with evidence, exactly what harm homosexuality causes. You failed to answer this challenge.
Personally, one look at the biological evidence makes it quite clear that homosexual sex is nothing other than destructive.
Destructive how? Again, your say-so doesn't count as credible evidence.
-
Hi Brownie,
This is in line with the thread topic, because I am thinking in the context of Christian families who care about the people in society and are willing to take risks in order to help them. As an example, a few male friends who shared a house together took in someone who was an alcoholic. They let him live in their house and encouraged him for some time and he gradually got back into work and living a normal life. If someone can come off alcohol or drugs, then surely a person with homosexual or pedophile-type tendencies can be turned around if they express a desire to do so.
There was something on the news recently about the Spanish prison system. They have much better facilities for rehabilitation, and a much lower proportion of those released re-offend than in Britain.
I guess what I want to get across is that when a person loses something they think of as part of them, for example the freedom to express the desire to molest children (it being illegal), they need something to fill that hole. It can be a hobby or a friendship, something to take away the urges. Sometimes they will surface again but over time an offender can learn how to deal with unwanted desires and live a healthy lifestyle.
In churches where there is real conviction that homosexuality is against God's will, you will find individuals with the gift of helping people struggling in that area; they know how to support them, pray for them and help them change their lifestyle. A lot of it is about not being judgmental when they sometimes fall back into it, recognizing that change doesn't happen overnight.
You said, "How can any of that compare to homosexual relationships between consenting adults? It is rather an insulting comparison in my opinion."
It depends on what you read. I have found literature which tells a different story about homosexual lifestyles from what one normally hears. You just have to read Shaker's post above to see that he is unwilling to see anything negative about them, or admit that they cause harm. Personally, one look at the biological evidence makes it quite clear that homosexual sex is nothing other than destructive.
We will see eventually whether or not the West's acceptance of homosexuality makes it stronger. It has been interesting to see how the USA and NATO were powerless to do anything about Russia's recent involvement in Syria.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Spud mentioning paedophilia and homosexuality together as if they were both bad is SICK as I have pointed out before. >:( Paedophilia is ALWAYS wrong and not curable. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay, and if the deity doesn't like it, assuming it exists and that is so, then the deity is WRONG! >:(
-
Clearly, Spud, you have never had contact with a paedophile - if this is your attitude I hope, most sincerely, that you never do!
So you have, I am sorry to hear about your experience. I have had an experience with a homosexual that was probably as bad. This guy befriended me at a church when I was new to the area. Not knowing his sexuality I thought him very pleasant, and was intrigued that someone could be so friendly. Well, eventually we discussed relationships, and he told me about a previous one he had had, and that it was with a man. My approach as a Christian was to stay friends with him but make it clear that I believed that was wrong. His approach was to get me in a headlock and force me to say it is not wrong.
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill disordered and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles. Read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah for more evidence.
Regarding their rehabilitation. If I had continued to live near to this person I hope I would have forgiven him and remained friends. As it was I moved away and didn't want to stay in contact. However, I know a chap who has had homosexual attraction but is a Christian and has coped with it while remaining celibate. This is due to support from his church. I do not know any pedophiles, but have read an article online written by one, who claims he is also celibate and never molests children. I will try and find a link. But people here who claim all pedophiles do not want to be cured are clearly wrong; neither do they know the power of prayer.
-
So you have, I am sorry to hear about your experience. I have had an experience with a homosexual that was probably as bad. This guy befriended me at a church when I was new to the area. Not knowing his sexuality I thought him very pleasant, and was intrigued that someone could be so friendly. Well, eventually we discussed relationships, and he told me about a previous one he had had, and that it was with a man. My approach as a Christian was to stay friends with him but make it clear that I believed that was wrong. His approach was to get me in a headlock and force me to say it is not wrong.
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles. Read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah for more evidence.
Regarding their rehabilitation. If I had continued to live near to this person I hope I would have forgiven him and remained friends. As it was I moved away and didn't want to stay in contact. However, I know a chap who has had homosexual attraction but is a Christian and has coped with it while remaining celibate. This is due to support from his church. I do not know any pedophiles, but have read an article online written by one, who claims he is also celibate and never molests children. I will try and find a link. But people here who claim all pedophiles do not want to be cured are clearly wrong; neither do they know the power of prayer.
My sainted old mother will pray for you and your inability to control your vile hate
-
he told me about a previous one he had had, and that it was with a man. My approach as a Christian was to stay friends with him but make it clear that I believed that was wrong. His approach was to get me in a headlock and force me to say it is not wrong.
Apart from the inexcusable use of physical violence, he was correct and you were wrong.
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles.
No more so than heterosexuals.
Read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah for more evidence.
In which the so called "righteous" heterosexual man offers to let a crowd rape his daughters? I don't think I'll be taking any morality lessons from that fable.
Regarding their rehabilitation.
Hopefully, one day you will be rehabilitated into humanity. Your hate is not becoming for somebody who professes to follow a god of love.
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill psychologically disordered, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
And you have just called Leonard mentally ill and dangerous.
-
Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
If, as a rule, you find homosexuals not to be friendly, I would suggestion look to the common factor in your encounters. i.e. you.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful.
Homosexuals are no more or less harmful than anybody else in the general populace.
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
Oh, and what is this change you see in Leonard?
-
I have had an experience with a homosexual that was probably as bad. This guy befriended me at a church when I was new to the area. Not knowing his sexuality I thought him very pleasant, and was intrigued that someone could be so friendly. Well, eventually we discussed relationships, and he told me about a previous one he had had, and that it was with a man. My approach as a Christian was to stay friends with him but make it clear that I believed that was wrong. His approach was to get me in a headlock and force me to say it is not wrong.
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles. Read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah for more evidence.
One person and the contents of your silly storybook is not evidence.
Those who suffer from religiously inspired prejudice, such as yours, are certainly not harmless, they are, at the very least, deluded and can be dangerous...
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum.
Well, Spud, people's personality and beliefs don't remain static ... we are continually developing, even at my age.
Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Just to put you right, the only homosexual activity I have indulged in in recent years is looking and wishing! Sad, ain't it? :(
-
Well, Spud, people's personality and beliefs don't remain static ... we are continually developing, even at my age.
Just to put you right, the only homosexual activity I have indulged in in recent years is looking and wishing! Sad, ain't it? :(
This made me think of this
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=vbAoOeXC2Sg
-
This made me think of this
https://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=vbAoOeXC2Sg
Snoopavision? I don't think me old 'eart would stand it! :(
-
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles.
I haven't time to be eloquent.
So fuck off.
-
Spud, I found your account of your experience with the man from church quite chilling because I can put myself in your place at that time and imagine how totally unexpected and scary it was.
But Spud, do you not think that many girls and young women have had some awful and unexpected experiences with men whom they thought were friends, or 'fatherly' if older? I can assure you that happens and used to happen a lot in my day. It was a breach of trust and, years ago, the girls couldn't tell anyone because things were not talked about. I mentioned 'friends' and 'fatherly' but that can be expanded to encompass clergy, teachers and others. Then there were men at work who tried to corner inexperienced girls in their first job (''hands''), and made constant innuendoes.
That didn't put most off of us off men for good, or make us think that all males were so badly behaved. I'm sure nearly all of us met plenty of nice chaps and eventually married.
You had a horrible experience Spud with a very angry and cruel man who was obviously unbalanced; what made it worse was the church connection. I feel very sorry for you that such a thing happened, the memory must be an abiding one but, Spud, he was not a typical example of a homosexual or even of the average bloke.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush. There are horrible people in the world (both sexes) but plenty of decent ones and their sexuality doesn't enter into it.
-
So you have, I am sorry to hear about your experience. I have had an experience with a homosexual that was probably as bad. This guy befriended me at a church when I was new to the area. Not knowing his sexuality I thought him very pleasant, and was intrigued that someone could be so friendly. Well, eventually we discussed relationships, and he told me about a previous one he had had, and that it was with a man. My approach as a Christian was to stay friends with him but make it clear that I believed that was wrong. His approach was to get me in a headlock and force me to say it is not wrong.
Homosexuals are not harmless, they are mentally ill and can be dangerous, just like pedophiles. Read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah for more evidence.
Regarding their rehabilitation. If I had continued to live near to this person I hope I would have forgiven him and remained friends. As it was I moved away and didn't want to stay in contact. However, I know a chap who has had homosexual attraction but is a Christian and has coped with it while remaining celibate. This is due to support from his church. I do not know any pedophiles, but have read an article online written by one, who claims he is also celibate and never molests children. I will try and find a link. But people here who claim all pedophiles do not want to be cured are clearly wrong; neither do they know the power of prayer.
The man was probably not homosewxual but heterosexual and, seeing you behaviour considered that you were a female - or more accurately (to use a Vladisim) a c**t!
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
You, Spud, and Sassy and Hope et al, and your poisonous brand of Christianity are far more dangerous than the entire world population of homosexuals!
-
Dear Spud,
How are you old son, still taking the tablets, good, anyway, this little bit in your post has left me bewildered,
We will see eventually whether or not the West's acceptance of homosexuality makes it stronger. It has been interesting to see how the USA and NATO were powerless to do anything about Russia's recent involvement in Syria.
I don't follow your posts as fervently as others and maybe you have already explained it.
My thanks in advance,
Gonnagle.
-
[/size] Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?
[size=78%]
Only by some.
-
As a post script to the above, I would add that I have noticed a change in L-J which I see as being thanks to his friends on this forum. Although he is continuing to practice homosexuality I would say that he is a friendly, intelligent person, so I mean no disrespect to him.
Anticipating a reaction from people to my comment about homosexuals being mentally ill, this was the diagnosis in medical textbook until it was decided that they were not harmful. My comment is a result of my experience with the person I described above.
Homosexuals are no more mentally ill than heterosexuals.
-
You, Spud, and Sassy and Hope et al, and your poisonous brand of Christianity are far more dangerous than the entire world population of homosexuals!
Here we go, false accusations which cannot be substantiated by Owlswing in any form.
Brand of Christianity... Love your neighbour as you love yourself and love God. Nothing dangerous about it.
The truth is that you are showing and establishing prejudicial bias and bigotry against believers without evidence.
So prove the statement or apologise. YOUR actions on this forum have shown your type of paganism to be damning and damaging. Because you make up lies about people by falsely accusing them. WHAT amazes me more is that you suggest the population of homosexuals to be dangerous and Christianity far more dangerous. When in reality I have never suggested or even deemed Christians or Homosexuals to be dangerous. The fact is that in reality our sexuality and religious beliefs do not make us dangerous as individuals. Nor on this forum. The truth is that people do wrong whatevre their beliefs and sexual orientation. But they do not do wrong on this forum according to either religion or homosexuality. The world is not the discussion just us here.
I believe your own bigotry as a pagan is a bigger problem here than anything we Christians or Homosexuals have to add.
Your hatred and intentions words to harm show through your posts...
Truth sets us free. From now on may the Almighty God show everyone clearly the hatred in your heart and bigotry towards any believers posting here. May they always see the reality of the heart of you and your posts. In Jesus Name.
From now on all will see how you falsely accuse others and have no reason for doing so but your own bias towards members here.
-
You cannot love your neighbour and at the same time condemn him for not believing the same things that you do, even though he harms nobody. That is not love.
-
Homosexuals are no more mentally ill than heterosexuals.
I think to suggest homosexuals are mentally ill, is far from acceptable.
I also believe - had that been the case, they would not be held accountable for their actions.
WHY do I believe such an interesting point of view?
My own daughter is incapable of understanding right from wrong. I believe God will account innocence towards her.
I believe that God loves us all.
-
It's really not an interesting point of view, Sass.
-
You cannot love your neighbour and at the same time condemn him for not believing the same things that you do, even though he harms nobody. That is not love.
Again, the condemnation thing...
We don't condemn anyone because love for God is that we know he speaks the truth.
The truth is that we do not single our or judge people...not even according to their sin.
If you see someone stealing... is it wrong to say they are a thief because they are stealing?
Is it a judgment or just telling the truth? But we are not condemning them for what they do.
So we would both agree someone stealing your goods or my goods were doing wrong.
But we are not condemning them or condoning their actions.
Because we do not steal, does that make us better people? Can we suggest that person is less a person
because they steal than we are?
The truth is because I am a Christian does not mean him being a non-Christian that he is condemned by me.
A thief harms but we all know someone whether knowingly or not, who have stolen.
Truth is society thinks that being a believer somehow condemns all who are not.
In reality Christianity should cause us to tell the truth and to love our neighbour.
It does not cause us to condemn.
-
It's really not an interesting point of view, Sass.
I also believe - had that been the case, they would not be held accountable for their actions.
WHY do I believe such an interesting point of view?
You don't believe that homosexuals not being accountable for their actions if mentally ill, not an interesting point of view.
Why is that?
For it to take away all condemnation not an interesting point of view. EXPLAIN PLEASE...
-
I have no idea what you are saying. There seems to be quite a few words missing.
Assuming you want to know why I think it isn't interesting - to think it interesting I'd need to think there was some merit in it. And I don't. There isn't any, for a range of reasons.
-
Editorial from current Scottish Sunday Mail: times, thank goodness, really are a-changing for the better, as is noted here.
http://tinyurl.com/jxzwb67
-
My kids' generation just accepts sexuality, all kinds, G. We were discussing this in the light of this thread and my eldest just doesn't get it - even among her peers who are religious she's only heard one negative comment, and that was from a girl whose parents are very conservative. Perhaps some of it is to do with YA fiction of all kinds very often featuring gay relationships in the same context as straight ones ie just part of the plot line.
-
If by "the old covenant of the actual law" you are referring to the ten commandments, I believe that Jesus could see that loving God and your neighbour covered them all much more simply.
Of course, the "love your neighbour" bit was already well established thousands of years before Jesus came along.
-
Dear Khatru,
Of course, the "love your neighbour" bit was already well established thousands of years before Jesus came along.
And?
Anyway, all this homosexual stuff, just Gods way of tackling population explosion, tis true!! for I am a prophet of God, oh sorry, I am a false prophet of God, well according to our Sass. :o
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?
Is this another kind of false prophet/profit.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Khatru,
And?
Anyway, all this homosexual stuff, just Gods way of tackling population explosion, tis true!! for I am a prophet of God, oh sorry, I am a false prophet of God, well according to our Sass. :o
Is this another kind of false prophet/profit.
Gonnagle.
I think it would be safe to say that homosexuality evolved long before there was a population problem. :)
-
Dear Khatru,
And?
Anyway, all this homosexual stuff, just Gods way of tackling population explosion, tis true!! for I am a prophet of God, oh sorry, I am a false prophet of God, well according to our Sass. :o
Is this another kind of false prophet/profit.
Gonnagle.
Just giving credit where it's due, Gonny.
The Golden Rule was not something that Jesus came up with.
8)
-
I think to suggest homosexuals are mentally ill, is far from acceptable.
I also believe - had that been the case, they would not be held accountable for their actions.
WHY do I believe such an interesting point of view?
My own daughter is incapable of understanding right from wrong. I believe God will account innocence towards her.
I believe that God loves us all.
That evil b*stard doesn't know the meaning of love if the Biblical actions of its actions were true! >:(
-
Dear Leonard,
I think it would be safe to say that homosexuality evolved long before there was a population problem.
Forward planning Leonard old chap, God knew we were all going to go around shagging everything that moves.
Gonnagle.
-
Forward planning Leonard old chap, God knew we were all going to go around shagging everything that moves.
What about the other species that exhibit homosexual behaviour? Practice?
-
Dear Leonard,
I
Forward planning Leonard old chap, God knew we were all going to go around shagging everything that moves.
Gonnagle.
My pillow didn't use to move. ;) :-[
-
In the 21st century it is really sad and crazy that some people still think there is something abnormal and 'sinful' about homosexuality. :o
-
Dear Leonard,
My pillow didn't use to move.
Thank you, that was my first laugh out loud today. ;D
Dear Stranger,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etymology
The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid, with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, "same" (not related to the Latin homo, "man", as in Homo sapiens)
You learn a new thing everyday, I did think that the homo part was related to homo sapiens.
Which gives me pause for thought, you can't argue with nature or can you, do other species who exhibit homosexual behaviour mate for life.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Thank you, that was my first laugh out loud today. ;D
Dear Stranger,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Etymology
You learn a new thing everyday, I did think that the homo part was related to homo sapiens.
Which gives me pause for thought, you can't argue with nature or can you, do other species who exhibit homosexual behaviour mate for life.
Gonnagle.
I believe swans do.
EDIT.
Yes, I was right, but many more do.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/photos/11-animals-that-mate-for-life/old-faithful
-
We will see eventually whether or not the West's acceptance of homosexuality makes it stronger. It has been interesting to see how the USA and NATO were powerless to do anything about Russia's recent involvement in Syria.
For a post full of pig ignorant fucking bollocks this is easily the fucking pig ignoranty bollocksy bollocks ever fucking bollocked.
-
In the 21st century it is really sad and crazy that some people still think there is something abnormal and 'sinful' about homosexuality. :o
The real problem, Floo, is that they do NOT "think" it is sinful or wrong - they "KNOW" it and are going to keep banging on about it until we all say "OK Enough - it IS sinful and wrong".
They do not realise that the more they bang on about it the more resolute the denyers become NOT to change.
-
Spud, I cannot for the life of me see what NATO, the USA and their failure with regard to Russia's involvement with Syria, has to do with the topic of this thread, even allowing for the fact that we frequently go off topic. I did reply to a previous post of yours earlier on too, I may not have said anything very new or interesting but there is the possibility that you might understand it.
Sassy, you said yesterday that you felt the H subject should not be discussed on this forum, or words to that effect. Yet you started this thread; now that you've had a change of heart, why not pull it?
-
I don't believe they think there's nothing wrong in it ... society has shown repeatedly that most people disapprove and they must be aware that it is a punishable offence. But clearly some find it difficult to suppress, since it is a 'natural' urge in them.
I must have missed this one of yours Len, my wife was in the probation service at one time and had to deal with these child abusing people and it's strange but true they really don't see that there is anything wrong with themselves and find it difficult to understand why there is so much fuss made about them.
We were talking to some specialists about this and they confirmed that this was so, I have difficulty with it myself, but the people we were talking to were the ones that have to deal with these people, I can think of a cure for them but I also think it wouldn't get to the first reading.
ippy
-
A unit was set up to try to 'cure' paedophiles in the 90s, I think, but it wasn't successful.
-
Sassy, you said yesterday that you felt the H subject should not be discussed on this forum, or words to that effect. Yet you started this thread; now that you've had a change of heart, why not pull it?
Sorry, Brownie, but I thgink that you have misunderstood Sassy's comment regarding the "H subject on this forum".
It is not the forum that she is questioning; it is the fact that she originally posted the OP on the Faith Sharing Area and the Mods decided that, as several posts had been made by non-Christians, they would move it to the Religion and Ethics topic rather than delete the posts by non-Christians.
This is one of the reasons for Sassy's tirade of rage and indignation at the mods and her demand for their removal. She really thought that, by posting to the F S A, she could protect herself against the indignation (at the very mildest end of the spectrum) of the non-Christians on the Forum, an unpleasant act of cowardice in my opinon!
She thought so so so wrong!
-
A unit was set up to try to 'cure' paedophiles in the 90s, I think, but it wasn't successful.
You might just as well set up a unit to cure religious fanaticism!
-
I must have missed this one of yours Len, my wife was in the probation service at one time and had to deal with these child abusing people and it's strange but true they really don't see that there is anything wrong with themselves and find it difficult to understand why there is so much fuss made about them.
We were talking to some specialists about this and they confirmed that this was so, I have difficulty with it myself, but the people we were talking to were the ones that have to deal with these people, I can think of a cure for them but I also think it wouldn't get to the first reading.
ippy
Not having had the misfortune to meet a paedophile (as far as I know) I can't speak from experience. But is it not a fact that all of them tell the minor NOT to say anything about it or else? That indicates that they are perfectly aware that society sees it as wrong. As the attraction is natural to them they don't consider it wrong themselves, but they are perfectly aware that it is unlawful.
-
Not having had the misfortune to meet a paedophile (as far as I know) I can't speak from experience. But is it not a fact that all of them tell the minor NOT to say anything about it or else? That indicates that they are perfectly aware that society sees it as wrong. As the attraction is natural to them they don't consider it wrong themselves, but they are perfectly aware that it is unlawful.
Agreed.
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Gonnagle.
;D
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Gonnagle.
Wow, Gonners! That might even make them feel pleasures they have hitherto been unaware of.
I believe the use of a n a l toys has become very widespread among hetero men, as an enhancement of their sexual feelings.
ps. the spacing of the 'a' word was necessary because the server rejects the correct typing.
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Gonnagle.
I'll go with that - baggsy being on the safe end of the cattle prod!
-
Anal, testing testing, anal.
-
Dear Leonard,
You must have a very prudish server, make of that what you will :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Anal, testing testing, anal.
Well I'm damned! I can only tell you that my first attempt to post was rejected, but when I changed the spacing of anal, it went through OK.
-
Dear Leonard,
You must have a very prudish server, make of that what you will :P :P :P
Gonnagle.
Maybe! I remembered the problems other people had had, and anal was the only word that I thought might be the culprit. It seems to have been some other reason. :(
-
Dear Leonard,
Well I'm damned! I can only tell you that my first attempt to post was rejected, but when I changed the spacing of anal, it went through OK.
Did it ;D ;D Is it just my little Carry On mind but "changed the spacing of anal it went through OK", I don't think my mind will ever leave the playground :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
Did it ;D ;D Is it just my little Carry On mind but "changed the spacing of anal it went through OK", I don't think my mind will ever leave the playground :P
Gonnagle.
Gonners, you are incorrigible! But i like you! :-*
-
Maybe! I remembered the problems other people had had, and anal was the only word that I thought might be the culprit. It seems to have been some other reason. :(
I suspect it was the fact you put 'toys' after it.
It doesn't like 'gay' followed by 'sex' or 'gay' followed by 'women' either.
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Well, I don't want to pour cold water on your idea, but would a cattle prod up their erky's cure them or make them resent homosexuals even more?
"We must kill all homosexuals because if they didn't exist, nobody would stick a cattle prod up my - OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"
-
Not having had the misfortune to meet a paedophile (as far as I know) I can't speak from experience. But is it not a fact that all of them tell the minor NOT to say anything about it or else? That indicates that they are perfectly aware that society sees it as wrong. As the attraction is natural to them they don't consider it wrong themselves, but they are perfectly aware that it is unlawful.
Absolutly, I assume the people in probation would know, I can rember sometimes when my wife came home having had to deal with some of these people, although she wasn't a probation officer herself, they had made her flesh creep, can't pass on any more than that.
ippy
-
Sorry, Brownie, but I thgink that you have misunderstood Sassy's comment regarding the "H subject on this forum".
It is not the forum that she is questioning; it is the fact that she originally posted the OP on the Faith Sharing Area and the Mods decided that, as several posts had been made by non-Christians, they would move it to the Religion and Ethics topic rather than delete the posts by non-Christians.
This is one of the reasons for Sassy's tirade of rage and indignation at the mods and her demand for their removal. She really thought that, by posting to the F S A, she could protect herself against the indignation (at the very mildest end of the spectrum) of the non-Christians on the Forum, an unpleasant act of cowardice in my opinon!
She thought so so so wrong!
You may well be right Owlswing but I have a recollection that Sass said something of the ilk, ''Why not ban all posts on homosexuality''. The context may be as you said but I'd like Sass to tell me. I tried looking through her posts but I always feel a bit of a voyeur doing that apart from the fact that it is very time consuming. The post may well have been deleted anyway. I replied to that post so I suppose I could look through mine - maybe later.
I accept what you said about posts being changed from one forum to another.
-
Well, I don't want to pour cold water on your idea, but would a cattle prod up their erky's cure them or make them resent homosexuals even more?
"We must kill all homosexuals because if they didn't exist, nobody would stick a cattle prod up my - OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!"
Don't you mean
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKK!
That hurt you bastard!
Now do it again and turn the bugger on this time!
-
I suspect it was the fact you put 'toys' after it.
It doesn't like 'gay' followed by 'sex' or 'gay' followed by 'women' either.
If somebody would compile a log of all these 'verboten' expressions it would be very useful ... said he, closing the door behind him. :-[
-
Floo, iirc you compared homosexuality with left-handedness. I disagree because whichever hand is used for, say, writing, that hand is gripping an object, so it is fulfilling its purpose. Sex between two of the same sex is not fulfilling it's purpose, ie producing and enabling parents to successfully rear offspring.
-
Homosexuals are no more mentally ill than heterosexuals.
I've changed the word 'ill' to 'disordered'.
-
I've changed the word 'ill' to 'disordered'.
Which, Spud, is just as bad!
Let's face it - the blame for homosexuality is firmly to be laid at the door of your God.
He, in your belief, created men and women in the form which they exist upon this earth. He gave the male a penis which is shaped to penetrate a vagina. He then makes the practice of placing the penis in the vagina one of the most pleasurable pursuits known to man and woman so that they will do it as often as possible to provide Him with a never-ending stream of new followers.
Then what does he do? He says men and women can only enjoy the pleasures which he has thus provided if they want children. Talk about bloody silly! It is not going to take long for someone to invent a way of having the fun without the kids. When they do so your stupid God says that the invention must not be used and some idiot followers of your God are still enforcing this ban despite the over-population it has caused and is causing in some of the poorer countries (Catholic countries most of them) in the world. He also bans masturbation which is probably the oldest form of birth control.
Add into the mix Satan; Satan whom God has put on Earth to test the faith of humanity. Satan tells man that he should enjoy sex as much as he can during his life. God tell man that if he does so he wil burn in Hell after he dies for doing what Satan says and not what he says. Man listens and says "Bugger that! I'll enjoy sex as much as I can while I'm alive - I'll take my chances on what happens after I die.
So far so good - but he also creates man with a penis that is idealy shaped to penetrate a rectum. What happens? Men and women get their heads together - babies come from the vagina - shit comes from the rectum, but hey, it's easier to wash shit off your penis than try to feed a swarm of kids.
Later some men discover that, actually, it can also be fun to have a penis pushed into his rectum.
Don't go telling homosexiuals that they are "sick" or "disordered" - go and tell your God that he made one Hell of a cockup (no pun intended) when he made sex enjoyable and then expected humans not to enjoy it!
All in all - what a wanker your God is!
-
I've changed the word 'ill' to 'disordered'.
Then all you have done, Spud, is successfully jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
-
I have no idea what you are saying. There seems to be quite a few words missing.
Assuming you want to know why I think it isn't interesting - to think it interesting I'd need to think there was some merit in it. And I don't. There isn't any, for a range of reasons.
Don't make comments you cannot show understanding about or cannot back up!
If you cannot think beyond the pale of what is written then leave it for someone who can and avoid making comments you cannot support. Your first sentence contradicts your last paragraph.
I would leave it to those who actually know what they mean when they make comments.
-
Of course, the "love your neighbour" bit was already well established thousands of years before Jesus came along.
You seen the bloody history of the world before and after?
Well, it clearly shows before Christ it was NOT established thousands of years before.
Dumber and dumber some of the remarks on the forum.
Off-the-cuff remarks like yours above Khatru do not belong here. But tell us what religion you belong to and what their history is...
-
If you cannot think beyond the pale of what is written ...
Magnificent irony, coming from a person who is quite unable to think beyond the pale of what is written in the Buybull.
-
You seen the bloody history of the world before and after?
Well, it clearly shows before Christ it was NOT established thousands of years before.
Dumber and dumber some of the remarks on the forum.
Off-the-cuff remarks like yours above Khatru do not belong here. But tell us what religion you belong to and what their history is...
Selectively blind, as usual. The bloody history of the world became bloodier because of some of the followers of Christ.
-
Floo, iirc you compared homosexuality with left-handedness. I disagree because whichever hand is used for, say, writing, that hand is gripping an object, so it is fulfilling its purpose. Sex between two of the same sex is not fulfilling it's purpose, ie producing and enabling parents to successfully rear offspring.
You really don't know much about sex, do you, Spud?
-
You really don't know much about sex, do you, Spud?
Think of the fun he is going to have when he finds out! If he ever does.
-
Dear Forum,
I may be stating the obvious over all this homosexuality stuff but the problem is not homosexuality but homophobia, what we need is a cure for them, what about a cattle prod up their erky's, just saying like! In the spirit of scientific endeavour.
Gonnagle.
Does God love them all? Did Christ die for all sins? Then you are answerable for every word you have said...
-
I was thinking that Rhiannon. None of us know eachother really but I have a mental picture of Spud as being quite shy, fairly insular and innocent in many ways.
-
Floo, iirc you compared homosexuality with left-handedness. I disagree because whichever hand is used for, say, writing, that hand is gripping an object, so it is fulfilling its purpose. Sex between two of the same sex is not fulfilling it's purpose, ie producing and enabling parents to successfully rear offspring.
Sex is for PLEASURE as well as procreation, you SAD person!
-
I've changed the word 'ill' to 'disordered'.
You are the one who is disordered, your nasty bigotry needs treatment. :o
-
Floo, iirc you compared homosexuality with left-handedness. I disagree because whichever hand is used for, say, writing, that hand is gripping an object, so it is fulfilling its purpose. Sex between two of the same sex is not fulfilling it's purpose, ie producing and enabling parents to successfully rear offspring.
So is waving at someone a sign of a "disordered" mind then? After all you have said the purpose of a hand is to grip things.
Could it be that like hands, sex has multiple purposes?
And in terms of the main purpose of sex, in my case it is not the production of offspring. I have two children with my wife but I am pleased to say that I have got lucky many more times than that. :)
-
I was thinking that Rhiannon. None of us know eachother really but I have a mental picture of Spud as being quite shy, fairly insular and innocent in many ways.
I'm not sure if it isn't an act though. I think there is a good deal of faux naivety here.
But, as you say, we can't really tell from posts on an MB.
-
Dear Sass,
Does God love them all?
Yes, each and every one of us, which baffles me as there have been some real monsters in history, and we his children still don't learn.
Did Christ die for all sins?
Christians throw that about like so much confetti, it is a contemplation of the whole, the Passion, The Crucifixion, his Baptism by John, his forty days and forty nights, his story of the Prodigal son, the good Samaritan, washing the feet of his Disciples, do not Judge, Love Thy Neighbour, take this cup from me, the whole Sass not just one bit.
Then you are answerable for every word you have said...
We are all answerable, which is why I try to search my own blackened soul, which is why I try not to point the finger but then I fail at that, I do point the finger at organised religion who use an old tired part of our Holy book to persecute Gods children.
Gonnagle.
-
Indeed, Gonners, I come back to the worship of that book as idolatry.
-
I'm not sure if it isn't an act though. I think there is a good deal of faux naivety here.
But, as you say, we can't really tell from posts on an MB.
I could easily be wrong but I have a hunch, something about his style of writing and things he has told us he has read on the internet. Plus the horrible experience he had with a man at church.
I'd like to think Spud reads some of the posts on here and may eventually see that there is another way of thinking. We'll see.
-
Does God love them all? Did Christ die for all sins? Then you are answerable for every word you have said...
Same old tired platitudes.
-
You seen the bloody history of the world before and after?
Well, it clearly shows before Christ it was NOT established thousands of years before.
Dumber and dumber some of the remarks on the forum.
Have you any idea how many people died a horrible death before Christ 'introduced' love-thy-nieghbour?
Now compare that to how many people have died horrible deaths after Christ 'introduced' love-thy-nieghbour.
Now do the logic. ::)
Dumber and dumber some of the remarks on the forum.
Indeed!
-
You seen the bloody history of the world before and after?
Well, it clearly shows before Christ it was NOT established thousands of years before.
Dumber and dumber some of the remarks on the forum.
Off-the-cuff remarks like yours above Khatru do not belong here. But tell us what religion you belong to and what their history is...
The Golden Rule is pretty much accepted as originating thousanda of years before Jesus in the Jain/Hindu religions.
You only have to compare the level of Christian violence theoughout history to that of the Hindus amd Jains to see that the Golden Rule had far more effect in the eastern religions than it ever did with Christianity.
-
Don't make comments you cannot show understanding about or cannot back up!
If you cannot think beyond the pale of what is written then leave it for someone who can and avoid making comments you cannot support. Your first sentence contradicts your last paragraph.
I would leave it to those who actually know what they mean when they make comments.
FFS NOTE THIS POST IN THE DIARY!
A post from Sassy without an emboldened Biblical cut-and-paste!
-
Sex is for PLEASURE as well as procreation, you SAD person!
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
-
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
So? Does it mean that people that cannot give birth for whatever reason are 'disordered' mentally when they have sex. And let's be honest here, you only changed ill to disordered, in context a synonym, because you felt a bit caught out in the clarity of your bigotry, and decided to obfuscate, or lie about it.
-
You are the one who is disordered, your nasty bigotry needs treatment. :o
And thousands of doctors whose handbooks of Clinical Medicine called it a psychosexual disorder until whenever it was changed.
Nearly Sane. Ill means something different to disordered. You can have a disorder and not be ill.
-
So? Does it mean that people that cannot give birth for whatever reason are 'disordered' mentally when they have sex.
That is a falacy of some kind, you could ask Gordon or Shaker which cos they seem well clued up on them.
-
And thousands of doctors whose handbooks of Clinical Medicine called it a psychosexual disorder until whenever it was changed.
Nearly Sane. Ill means something different to disordered. You can have a disorder and not be ill.
Thousands of white people used to call black men 'boy', doesn't make it right.
And in mental health terms disorder covers schizophrenia, as does mental illness. As I said in context it's synonym and you make clear you know that in your first para in the above answer.
-
That is a falacy of some kind, you could ask Gordon or Shaker which cos they seem well clued up on them.
which one is it? If you think it is one, you should at least be able to tel me why. You don't have to name it, just an explanation will be fine.
-
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
Why is it secondary?
Says who?
Who decided this?
Why didn't we get the memo?
-
That is a falacy of some kind, you could ask Gordon or Shaker which cos they seem well clued up on them.
No fallacy that I'm aware of. It's certainly a question that you've yet to answer, for sure.
-
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
Not in my case.
-
So? Does it mean that people that cannot give birth for whatever reason are 'disordered' mentally when they have sex.
No. The disorder is physical.
-
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
The last I knew you'd told us you aren't married, Spud. You might want to revise that opinion before you are.
-
No. The disorder is physical.
I have told already told you that in my case the pleasure is the primary function. What is wrong with that?
-
Is there something wrong with pleasure, Spud?
-
Why is it secondary?
Gene transmission is evidently the main function of our sex organs, and any alleged additional value of sex – as a means to erotic pleasure, comfort or love – can only be incidental.
...
Its biological function is to encourage actual, frequent coitus, followed by reproduction, so that the species has a maximum chance of continued existence.
The physical pleasure of sex must be viewed in this context; it is intended to entice and incite us to sex. Without the reward of pleasure, we would be less likely to engage in sex; and if it promised us only pain, we would avoid it altogether.
http://thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_6/6f_chapter_04.htm
-
That's only one person's opinion that you happen to agree with.
I don't.
You mentioned fallacies earlier. Well, here's a fallacy that both you and the author of that piece have committed - the appeal to nature, which (wrongly) has it that whatever is 'natural' is right, correct, good, desirable and/or true.
A few pertinent examples that spring easily to mind demonstrate just how fallacious this is.
-
No. The disorder is physical.
What does that mean? In what sense is any sexual thought or act purely physical?
-
Its biological function is to encourage actual, frequent coitus, followed by reproduction, so that the species has a maximum chance of continued existence.
http://thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_6/6f_chapter_04.htm
Bullshit! If birth control weren't available, women would give birth every year. What kind of society could support that sort of birthrate and survive?
-
Gene transmission is evidently the main function of our sex organs, and any alleged additional value of sex – as a means to erotic pleasure, comfort or love – can only be incidental.
...
Its biological function is to encourage actual, frequent coitus, followed by reproduction, so that the species has a maximum chance of continued existence.
The physical pleasure of sex must be viewed in this context; it is intended to entice and incite us to sex. Without the reward of pleasure, we would be less likely to engage in sex; and if it promised us only pain, we would avoid it altogether.
http://thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_6/6f_chapter_04.htm
This guy seems to think that because something evolved for one purpose, that is what it "ought" be used for and to do otherwise is somehow "wrong". There is no "ought" in evolution and biology.
Hey, our big brains evolved to help us survive - not write pompous drivel about sex.
Avi Sion ( A viSion: seriously?) is sinning!!
-
Dear Sass,
Yes, each and every one of us, which baffles me as there have been some real monsters in history, and we his children still don't learn.
People who learned because God separated the sheep from the goat.
Christians throw that about like so much confetti, it is a contemplation of the whole, the Passion, The Crucifixion, his Baptism by John, his forty days and forty nights, his story of the Prodigal son, the good Samaritan, washing the feet of his Disciples, do not Judge, Love Thy Neighbour, take this cup from me, the whole Sass not just one bit.
And the way we show this is in belief to receive freely.
But as much as confetti, not all who are invited want to go to the wedding.
Think on Gonnagle God is not fooled.
We are all answerable, which is why I try to search my own blackened soul, which is why I try not to point the finger but then I fail at that, I do point the finger at organised religion who use an old tired part of our Holy book to persecute Gods children.
Gonnagle.
Blackened soul; not point the finger; or point finger at organised religion?
Do you not believe the word of God. Have you taken what you received and hidden it, buried it for when the master returns?
Is your sins not forgiven and forgotten by God?
King James Bible
As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
King James Bible
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
You speak as a man who does not believe the word of God. That once he has forgiven you, he does not remember your sins.
What finger will God point at you? If you have Christ as your saviour what sins are you not pointing the finger due to?
You mislead yourself and others if you think anyone but you remembers your sins and act as if they are still accounted toward you.
King James Bible
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
How can you hope to lead a life set free and help others become free if you really do not believe the truth about your own sins and relationship with Christ and God?
The truth helps you walk in the ways of God not hide from them and teach others to do the same.
You need to examine yourself. We all do, and we need to come before God in faith and reveal the truth to others.
No condemnation for those in Christ.
-
Indeed, Gonners, I come back to the worship of that book as idolatry.
It isn't about a book it is about TRUTH within the book.
John 4:24.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Hence you went wrong... worshipping a book instead of reading it... at least it would have lead you to the real God.
-
Quote from: Sassy on April 04, 2016, 08:17:49 AM
Does God love them all? Did Christ die for all sins? Then you are answerable for every word you have said...
Same old tired platitudes.
Platitudes which if adhered to bring life, hope and a reason for existing.
When did you tire of truth and giving hope.
The day you chose to go your own way. It is because you cannot live your own way if Christ is real.
Tell me, if you had stood before Christ and witnessed all the disciples had done. Would you so easily dismiss him from your life?
Truth is that you would be between a rock and a hard place. You cannot say to God, " I just didn't believe it" if you chose not to believe to avoid conflict.
-
Have you any idea how many people died a horrible death before Christ 'introduced' love-thy-nieghbour?
Now compare that to how many people have died horrible deaths after Christ 'introduced' love-thy-nieghbour.
Now do the logic. ::)
Indeed!
Now don't make yourself look even dumber...
The before and after... Before Christ, the Jews changed a lot of things and often it was Jews who caught the backlash due to Jealousy and fear from others. You see the way of the world is to live in fear and to react to that fear to harm others.
But for Gods intervention before and after Christ things would have been a lot worse... Now that is the logic and the fact.
-
And in mental health terms disorder covers schizophrenia, as does mental illness. As I said in context it's synonym and you make clear you know that in your first para in the above answer.
Illness and sickness are generally used as synonyms for disease.[5] However, this term is occasionally used to refer specifically to the patient's personal experience of his or her disease.[6][7] In this model, it is possible for a person to have a disease without being ill (to have an objectively definable, but asymptomatic, medical condition), and to be ill without being diseased (such as when a person perceives a normal experience as a medical condition, or medicalizes a non-disease situation in his or her life).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Terminology
-
Thousands of white people used to call black men 'boy', doesn't make it right.
In medicine, a disorder is a functional abnormality or disturbance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Terminology
So they were right, in the sense that homosexuality interferes with the function of reproduction.
-
I hate to say this, but the pleasure is secondary.
If you don't want kids, or have completed your family why is it secondary?
-
In medicine, a disorder is a functional abnormality or disturbance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Terminology
So they were right, in the sense that homosexuality interferes with the function of reproduction.
Presumably the non-act of not having heterosexual intercourse also interferes with the function of reproduction? That's celibate priests on the list for a start ... a list that includes any heterosexual people not having sex at every available opportunity.
This would be a reductio ad absurdum except that there's no need to reduce to absurdity something utterly absurd to begin with.
-
People who learned because God separated the sheep from the goat.
And the way we show this is in belief to receive freely.
But as much as confetti, not all who are invited want to go to the wedding.
Think on Gonnagle God is not fooled.
Blackened soul; not point the finger; or point finger at organised religion?
Do you not believe the word of God. Have you taken what you received and hidden it, buried it for when the master returns?
Is your sins not forgiven and forgotten by God?
You speak as a man who does not believe the word of God. That once he has forgiven you, he does not remember your sins.
What finger will God point at you? If you have Christ as your saviour what sins are you not pointing the finger due to?
You mislead yourself and others if you think anyone but you remembers your sins and act as if they are still accounted toward you.
How can you hope to lead a life set free and help others become free if you really do not believe the truth about your own sins and relationship with Christ and God?
The truth helps you walk in the ways of God not hide from them and teach others to do the same.
You need to examine yourself. We all do, and we need to come before God in faith and reveal the truth to others.
No condemnation for those in Christ.
You might be in for a nasty shock one day with that sort of smug attitude! You don't present your case well, and bring the faith into disrepute.
-
In medicine, a disorder is a functional abnormality or disturbance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease#Terminology
So they were right, in the sense that homosexuality interferes with the function of reproduction.
So, we should try to cure all those who have the mental disorder of wanting to use contraception in order to limit the number of children that are born to those that are wanted and can actually be looked after?
Or do regard any sex that is not an attempt at conception as a mental disorder? If that is the case, I think most of the word's population need treatment.
In never ceases to amaze me what appalling and damaging nonsense people are prepared to believe because of religion...
-
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.
-
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.
Pish, drivel and balderdash
-
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.
The "transfer of genetic material" as you put it is something that people can choose to do or not according to wish, given that we have such a thing as contraception.
You are desperately trying to derive an ought from an is - a moral edict from a biological process - and failing spectacularly because it can't be done.
-
If you don't want kids, or have completed your family why is it secondary?
Don't forget nurture of the family ideally requires the parents to stay together for life.
Not wanting kids doesn't change the fact that the main purpose of sex is to have them, and that pleasure increases the probability of having them.
-
Presumably menopausal and post menopausal women who have sex are similarly 'disordered'.
-
Dear Spud,
What's it like down there, keep digging you might reach China, anyway old son,
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
I will contemplate on the fact that I might be wrong, will you do that?
Gonnagle.
PS: It really is okay to be wrong, I think :o
-
We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.
-
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.
Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.
-
Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.
And those who cannot have children
-
You might be in for a nasty shock one day with that sort of smug attitude! You don't present your case well, and bring the faith into disrepute.
You have nothing to actually add to the content of the thread or even the individual aspects of a post.
SMUG ATTITUDE... how do you arrive a such a thought when NOTHING within the post would actually suggest such a thing.
Your mind is the problem... your bigoted attitude to believers and faith.
If I am smug so is every other believer including your own daughter... whoops the brick you threw broke your glass house window. We have to make light because your ignorance is beyond belief.
-
Presumably menopausal and post menopausal women who have sex are similarly 'disordered'.
You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.
-
Dear Spud,
What's it like down there, keep digging you might reach China, anyway old son,
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
I will contemplate on the fact that I might be wrong, will you do that?
Gonnagle.
PS: It really is okay to be wrong, I think :o
I believe Spud is just expressing an opinion. Could be digging a hole...would of thought Australia more his destination. :o
However as a directive how do you contemplate the nature of man and woman in the eyes of Gods creation?
Did God make another man for Adam to procreate and live with as a companion? The way of the LORD and that of mankind are very different. But God wants the best for his creation. When young we do not always appreciate our Fathers direction but when Fathers or Mothers ourselves we understand only too well how different life can be for everyone.
In the next life men and women won't marry and there will be no arguments about two men or two women it will be irrelevant.
Truth is Gonnagle we only know how to live with what we are now.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.
That is Wisdom, a little pearl of Wisdom.
Gonnagle.
-
You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.
What about infertile couples that never could?
-
We're all wrong, Gonners, it's just that some are more wrong than others, because that kind of wrong leads to a lot of hurt.
It isn't a right or wrong that leads to hurt. It is the attitudes of others to those who believe different things to be right and wrong.
People get hurt when someone disagrees and the other feels the need to launch an attack.
Spud is not trying to hurt anyone with what he says. But a lot would disagree so insult and attack him.
The twin towers do you feel that wrong and hurt caused to many innocent people did not give America the right to hit back at those responsible for it happening? With actions comes responsibility. Had they done nothing how many more attacks would have taken place?
In reality only humans can hurt other humans. The right and the wrong comes from them.
-
Quote from: Spud on Today at 09:04:01 AM
Shaker and Stranger, the reason homosexuality is a disorder is that the sufferer cannot participate in the transfer of genetic material because they are not sexually aroused by the opposite sex.
Your 'logic' makes anybody who wants to have sex but not children similarly 'disordered', along with those who choose celibacy.
The real logic is that Spud is talking about the 'disorder' he refers to as Homosexuality cannot by natural means of nature transfer genetic material to have children.
It therefore cannot apply to those who can have children by natural means but want to refrain from doing so.
Celibacy is simply abstaining as birth control is a method of prevention.
Whilst both require a deliberate act to prevent transference of gentic material they are not the same as homosexuality in that they are unable to transfer genetic material to make a baby.
So it is not the same thing.
-
You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.
That's OK then - people just have to have sex *once* with the intention of procreation, then they can have all the pleasure sex they want, using contraception.
Sorted.
ht
-
Dear Rhiannon,
That is Wisdom, a little pearl of Wisdom.
Gonnagle.
That is not knowing what is precious pearls so as not to cast them before the swine.
Bit like stringing pearls around your pigs neck then taking them out to dinner.
Would the string of pearls really fool anyone that it was still a pig wearing them?
I know this is all getting through to you. I see your heart hardening resisting the LORD God.
But when you do come face to face with God. You have nothing to hide behind. Not even a string of pearls for your wisdom you have cast aside choosing the world over Gods.
-
;D ;D ;D
-
What about infertile couples that never could?
Usually there is a medical issue including age having left it too late in life to have babies.
But there being something wrong with the ability to share the genetic material is not the same as never having had the ability.
Cancer treatment can make someone infertile. Does not mean they were not naturally made to have children.
ALL whether male, female or homosexual have the material to make babies men and women the natural way.
But infertility affects all and it is not their sexuality which makes having babies impossible in heterosexual couples.
But it is the sexuality in homosexuals which makes it impossible for them to conceive "pass genetic material" one from another to make a baby.
Two men, two women cannot procreate by themselves and can be infertile. Where as heterosexuals can pass the genetic material male to female and also be infertile. Infertility has nothing to do with the ability to naturally conceive a child.
Only a man and a woman can conceive by passing the necessary genetic material one to another during sexual relations.
Two men together or two women together cannot. So infertilty has nothing to do with what Spud is clumsily trying to say.
Either he is clumsy or you are just deliberately throwing anything in to try and make something wrong into a right.
In this case it cannot be done because Spud is scientifically right when it comes to natural conception.
Only one immaculate and that was Jesus Christ. :)
-
Dear Sass,
My opinion and just because it is you, one Christian speaking to another Christian.
Before I even open the Bible I think on the two Greatest Commandments, why, because he told me to, Our Lord commanded it.
So if I read the Bible and any part does not agree with The Two Greatest Commandments then it is flat wrong.
In this world we live in there is so much hurt, so much pain, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home becomes an irrelevance.
To end, and remember it is only my opinion, have you ever watched a gay pride march, the passion and commitment, if we could harness that, I say open the doors, a world changer for the better.
Gonnagle.
-
That's OK then - people just have to have sex *once* with the intention of procreation, then they can have all the pleasure sex they want, using contraception.
Sorted.
ht
HI h,
Talking about ' natural ability' your reply has nothing to do with what is being said.
Menopausal women and post menopausal women were once able to have babies by conceiving the natural way.
Homosexuals never can or could have babies through homosexual sex. Men and women are all capable if not infertile of possessing the necessary genetic material to make a baby. You just cannot do it naturally by sexual intercourse unless a man and a woman.
Spud was addressing the fact two men together and two women as together as couples cannot transfer that genetic material to make a baby.
As I said there is a difference to once having something and then not having it... to having never had it.
Quote from: Sassy on Today at 10:06:22 AM
You presume wrong!
There is a difference between once having and then having not - to have never had.
I think you get the picture now. The other posts would have explained.
-
Usually there is a medical issue including age having left it too late in life to have babies.
But there being something wrong with the ability to share the genetic material is not the same as never having had the ability.
Cancer treatment can make someone infertile. Does not mean they were not naturally made to have children.
ALL whether male, female or homosexual have the material to make babies men and women the natural way.
But infertility affects all and it is not their sexuality which makes having babies impossible in heterosexual couples.
But it is the sexuality in homosexuals which makes it impossible for them to conceive "pass genetic material" one from another to make a baby.
Two men, two women cannot procreate by themselves and can be infertile. Where as heterosexuals can pass the genetic material male to female and also be infertile. Infertility has nothing to do with the ability to naturally conceive a child.
Only a man and a woman can conceive by passing the necessary genetic material one to another during sexual relations.
Two men together or two women together cannot. So infertilty has nothing to do with what Spud is clumsily trying to say.
Either he is clumsy or you are just deliberately throwing anything in to try and make something wrong into a right.
In this case it cannot be done because Spud is scientifically right when it comes to natural conception.
Only one immaculate and that was Jesus Christ. :)
Some men and women NEVER had the ability.
Can they still have sex?
-
Dear Sass,
My opinion and just because it is you, one Christian speaking to another Christian.
Before I even open the Bible I think on the two Greatest Commandments, why, because he told me to, Our Lord commanded it.
Your posts show you do not even obey the first of those two great commandments...
Your replies show NO love for God.
So if I read the Bible and any part does not agree with The Two Greatest Commandments then it is flat wrong.
Again, you twist everything ignoring the truth.
Christ said: " If you love me you will obey my commandments"
The first commandment is to love God with all your heart. If you obey Christ, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
In your reply lies the very error in your thinking.
You see God made all the laws for the good of mankind not his harm.
If you take away one iota of the law and teachings of the Prophets Christ said...
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
God gave laws to keep people safe from their own evil. When the woman caught in adultery was forgive she was told not to sin again.
You do worse harm than someone teaching another believer. You tell sinners it is okay to carry on sinning.
In this world we live in there is so much hurt, so much pain, what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home becomes an irrelevance.
To whom? To all mankind it is irrelevant but what do you believe God thinks about it?
A married woman consenting to sleep with another man in the privacy of her own home... How does that sit well?
To end, and remember it is only my opinion, have you ever watched a gay pride march, the passion and commitment, if we could harness that, I say open the doors, a world changer for the better.
Gonnagle.
Have you ever watched a public excution of a woman stoned to death for an adultery she did not commit?
Or a man killed and beheaded for being a Christian in a Muslim Country?
Or even a man being executed for being homosexual?
Those three things ending is a changer for the better.
We are not talking about live and let live. We are talking about falsely giving them false hope.
We both know that homosexuality is not Gods way. We both know that we love all others because God is love and places love and care in our hearts for everyone regardless of colour, creed, religion and sexuality. But what we don't do and must never do is lie and change Gods laws to fit in with your own blown up thoughts of the bible and truth.
You see Christ never sinned because God was his first love. He said:- Anyone who does the will of my FATHER, is my mother, brother and sister."
If everyone loved God first with all their hearts would those three things above have happened in the first instance?
Those three things happen because man does not love God or know Christ.
-
Some men and women NEVER had the ability.
Can they still have sex?
You need to read it properly everything is covered in that one post.
The issue is that two men together or two women cannot pass to each other the genetic material to procreate.
Infertility or ability to have actual sexual intercourse is not and never has been the issue.
It is what can be passed gentically to make a baby through intercourse.
It is clear and you do yourself a disservice in deliberate avoidance of the truth.
-
Dear Horsethorn,
Welcome back, remember when I asked about that membership form for joining Paganism :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Don't forget nurture of the family ideally requires the parents to stay together for life.
Not wanting kids doesn't change the fact that the main purpose of sex is to have them, and that pleasure increases the probability of having them.
Sensible people have sex for pleasure and take precautions to prevent pregnancy, until they are ready to procreate. As for the idea of pleasure increasing the more kids you have, I don't believe that is true in most cases. Sex would have been a nightmare if I had been concerned I might get pregnant again after we had completed our family, where birth children were concerned. I was sterilised after the last child was born, to ensure I didn't have that 'pleasure' again.
-
BeR, it would be very sad for people unable to have children, to be denied the comfort and support of a partner. You are quite right that some are born infertile, they wouldn't necessarily know until they try but some do know, eg if a woman is born with something malformed internally they probably would have found out with routine gynaecological examination or maybe if they went to the doctor for contraceptive advice! Likewise, there are men who always have infertile spermatazoa. These are normal healthy people who can love like anyone else.
If two people are infertile they have another purpose in life, not enough is made of that in our society nowadays but there are endless possibilities for people without children. Not just taking on someone else's children, which some do, but pursuing a career path that changes the lives of others.
Gonnagle makes a good point about there being so much pain in the world, two people of the same sex finding happiness together is a very small thing in the general scheme (my paraphrase), love and commitment are to be celebrated. Homosexuals are a small percentage of the population, that's just how it is, and don't affect the rest of us. I don't know why people are overly concerned, most of us are not gay and thank goodness nowadays gays are able to be happy, openly, without fear of the law coming down like a ton of bricks. That must have been terrible, something we can hardly imagine!
-
Dear Brownie,
And I come winging all the way back to Christianity, God Bless you, Horsethorn can keep his Pagan membership form, anyway, running about in the forest with nae drawers on is not my idea of fun ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Bit cold, insects bite and brambles scratch, far nicer on a beach, basking in the warm sun (far away from public gaze of course). Not that I've ever done it, nor likely to now, but I can imagine.
-
I am asking this question to see if the believers and all others, believe that homosexuality has an acceptance in the Kingdom of Heaven.
I believe that homosexuality is still a sin against God as it is forbidden for man to lie with another man as he would a woman.
This is about the bible content and nothing to do with personal beliefs and prejudices. So instead of calling people a bigot or anything else. Let us remember this is about the bible take on this matter. Please be free to tell us if you believe the bible still sees this as sin. Tell us and discuss if this a conflict in any church and why you think if a person is a practicing homosexual and a Christian why it is okay to be so.
I think it is a tough subject... So no insults to others let us be adult and discuss what is happening in the Church and world today.
To suggest something as normal as homosexuality is a 'sin' is a HUGE insult to gays! >:(
-
Try and find another sentence, floo, please!
Sass, I have never before come across a Christian person who says that homosexuality is a sin; they say the practice of homosexuality is sinful, according to Christians. Which quite rightly provokes much response and consequent discussion, as on here, but is not the same at all as saying that 'homosexuality' is a sin.
-
HI h,
Talking about ' natural ability' your reply has nothing to do with what is being said.
Menopausal women and post menopausal women were once able to have babies by conceiving the natural way.
Homosexuals never can or could have babies through homosexual sex. Men and women are all capable if not infertile of possessing the necessary genetic material to make a baby. You just cannot do it naturally by sexual intercourse unless a man and a woman.
Spud was addressing the fact two men together and two women as together as couples cannot transfer that genetic material to make a baby.
As I said there is a difference to once having something and then not having it... to having never had it.
I think you get the picture now. The other posts would have explained.
Hi Sass
Some people (of either gender) can have children.
Some people (of either gender) can later become unable to have children.
Some people (of either gender) never have the ability to have children.
1. If one or both people in a couple is/are unable to have children, how is that any different to a same-sex couple?
2. If a couple get together knowing that one or both cannot have children, should they ever have sex?
3. As it is now perfectly possible for people to "transfer that genetic material to make a baby" through artificial means, in what way is sexual intercourse relevant any more - or indeed the sexual preference of the person? If a same sex couple want to have a child, they can indeed "transfer that genetic material to make a baby".
4. What about sex when the normally fertile woman is in a non-fertile phase of menstruation? Should a mixed-gender couple avoid having sex then?
Please answer each question separately.
ht
-
Dear Brownie,
And I come winging all the way back to Christianity, God Bless you, Horsethorn can keep his Pagan membership form, anyway, running about in the forest with nae drawers on is not my idea of fun ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
Shame. I had a wonderful image of you with only your beard to cover yourself, skipping across a Scottish hillside (and it wouldn't be the hillside that was blue!)
:(
ht
-
Try and find another sentence, floo, please!
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
Hi Sass
Some people (of either gender) can have children.
Some people (of either gender) can later become unable to have children.
Some people (of either gender) never have the ability to have children.
1. If one or both people in a couple is/are unable to have children, how is that any different to a same-sex couple?
2. If a couple get together knowing that one or both cannot have children, should they ever have sex?
3. As it is now perfectly possible for people to "transfer that genetic material to make a baby" through artificial means, in what way is sexual intercourse relevant any more - or indeed the sexual preference of the person? If a same sex couple want to have a child, they can indeed "transfer that genetic material to make a baby".
4. What about sex when the normally fertile woman is in a non-fertile phase of menstruation? Should a mixed-gender couple avoid having sex then?
Please answer each question separately.
ht
You are missing the boat...
The fact we are discussing is one made by SPUD...
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough? :D
If you had only two men left in the world or only two women they could not exchange the bodily genetic materials to make a baby naturally. A man and a woman could. Infertility as nothing to do with the natural way of conceiving a child.
Because when fertile the only two people to exchange the genetic material during natural intercourse/sex is a male and female.
Hence the beginning and end of the point made by Spud. Glad you are back... :-*
-
Shame. I had a wonderful image of you with only your beard to cover yourself, skipping across a Scottish hillside (and it wouldn't be the hillside that was blue!)
:(
ht
You do know Brownie is a woman, right ?
;D
-
You do know Brownie is a woman, right ?
;D
You do know he was replying to Gonnagle, right? ::)
-
You are missing the boat...
The fact we are discussing is one made by SPUD...
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough? :D
If you had only two men left in the world or only two women they could not exchange the bodily genetic materials to make a baby naturally. A man and a woman could. Infertility as nothing to do with the natural way of conceiving a child.
Because when fertile the only two people to exchange the genetic material during natural intercourse/sex is a male and female.
Hence the beginning and end of the point made by Spud. Glad you are back... :-*
Just because only a woman's eggs and a man's sperm can produce a child, doesn't make homosexuality wrong. ::)
-
You are missing the boat...
The fact we are discussing is one made by SPUD...
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough? :D
If you had only two men left in the world or only two women they could not exchange the bodily genetic materials to make a baby naturally. A man and a woman could. Infertility as nothing to do with the natural way of conceiving a child.
Because when fertile the only two people to exchange the genetic material during natural intercourse/sex is a male and female.
Hence the beginning and end of the point made by Spud. Glad you are back... :-*
I still don't see how you get a should from a could.
ht
-
Without wishing to come over all 'Jurassic Park' some species are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis. It is believed that it has occasionally happened in humans though I don't have any links to that; I read of a couple of cases years ago (not the Virgin birth) but don't know how true they were. They were certainly believed to be true by the medics involved, I have little idea how something like that could be proved. However, here is a link about parthenogenesis in some animals:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/features/science/environment/Parthenogenesis--When-Animals-Reproduce-Without-a-Mate.html
-
Without wishing to come over all 'Jurassic Park' some species are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis. It is believed that it has occasionally happened in humans though I don't have any links to that; I read of a couple of cases years ago (not the Virgin birth) but don't know how true they were. They were certainly believed to be true by the medics involved, I have little idea how something like that could be proved. However, here is a link about parthenogenesis in some animals:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/features/science/environment/Parthenogenesis--When-Animals-Reproduce-Without-a-Mate.html
I could be wrong but I thought when parthenogenesis occurred the resulting offspring was always female.
-
Apparently not floo, according to that article. I had thought the same previously, possibly because of Jurassic Park :D. Parthenogenesis only occurs in females, when there are no males around. Survival of the species I suppose. So if a load of blokes are on there own, tough! However the babies can be of either sex so the usual method of procreation can take place.
Nice to think that sisters really can do it for themselves! It all ties in with ancient myths and religions, Mother Earth and the like (quite right too).
-
Dear Brownie,
Aye!! and if we are still evolving, us men could well become obsolete. :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Ah, it's all clear to me now! I've often wondered why men are so scared of us.
-
In my darker moments it isn't about being scared, it's this fear.
"Do you know what would be the best way to wipe out all of human kind if you were a space alien with a special kind of mind ray..?..make all women telepathic. Because if they suddenly found out about the kind of stuff that goes on in our heads they would kill us all on the spot. Men are not people - we are disgustoids in human form"
-
. If one or both people in a couple is/are unable to have children, how is that any different to a same-sex couple?
Welcome back, ht.
The same sex "couple" are more than simply infertile. Homosexual and some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit, or anti-procreative, acts, (though I wouldn't include contraception where there is a legitimate reason for it, such as spacing out births.)
-
some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit, or anti-procreative, acts,
....such as?
-
Well we all want spaced out births man.
I hate to say the same thing over and over again, it is tedious to read, but I don't understand why God created homosexual and lesbian people if they were not supposed to have relationships. They are a minority group, their relationships don't affect heterosexuals in any way. For countless years they were persecuted and at best viewed with suspicion and derision.
Maybe God wanted us all to learn something about compassion, tolerance and the fact that not everyone fits into the conventional slot. We certainly have learned a lot over the years and surely we should be glad that finally ordinary people, our gay neighbours, can live settled, contented lives with someone they love. It's not all about procreation.
-
Welcome back, ht.
The same sex "couple" are more than simply infertile. Homosexual and some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit, or anti-procreative, acts, (though I wouldn't include contraception where there is a legitimate reason for it, such as spacing out births.)
In other words, special pleading.
-
It's not all about procreation.
Mr Potato Head for some reason seems to think it is, goodness only knows why.
-
Well, because men and woman are generally built for procreation and the act of intercourse leads to it but I use the word ''generally'' because there are exceptions - those who are homosexual who obviously cannot procreate, at least not with eachother. I can't see why it is such a big deal, it's just a fact of life.
-
You do know he was replying to Gonnagle, right? ::)
I assumed like Gonnagle he was talking to Brownie...
:D
-
Just because only a woman's eggs and a man's sperm can produce a child, doesn't make homosexuality wrong. ::)
You missed the boat! Spud is saying that it is NOT the natural way for men and women.
Hence he was using the reproductive part as proof of that.
Which was what I was trying to explain to those who didn't get it, and were nattering on about something else.
Just as you are misrepresenting something as being 'natural' to something being 'wrong'.
Spud was saying that it is proof that the 'NATURAL' way the way of nature is a male and a female hence they procreate when everything working.
-
I still don't see how you get a should from a could.
ht
But you do see that Spud (whose post I am explaining) is saying that a man and a woman are the only 'natural' way for children to be born. The only way through intercourse to pass the genetic material naturally to make a baby. Hence he believes it is the 'natural' way and the true way of humans and procreation.
-
Dear Brownie,
Aye!! and if we are still evolving, us men could well become obsolete. :o :o
Gonnagle.
The scientist say they say 'NO' mankind no longer evolving we will look the same now in millions of years if still around.
Aye it is darkest before the dawn but the dawn will soon usher in the morning of Christs Kingdom.
-
The argument from naturalism is a complete and utter red herring.
If we were only to allow things that were natural - likely everyone of us posting here would have been dead years ago.
I do not understand why in an over-populated world people think that an argument about whether a same sex couple can procreate is any way relevant.
I do object to being called disordered, unnatural or what other term poster conjure up to hide their base bigotry.
Gay people are just people who want the same things as straight people the right to love who they want and to live lives free from discrimination, or in some countries free from oppression. That posters support views that lend credence to oppression says far more about their moral values than it ever does about gay peoples moral values.
I suggest some of you (as Bill Shatner said to some trekkies once) get a fucking life.
-
But you do see that Spud (whose post I am explaining) is saying that a man and a woman are the only 'natural' way for children to be born. The only way through intercourse to pass the genetic material naturally to make a baby. Hence he believes it is the 'natural' way and the true way of humans and procreation.
What about IVF?
ht
-
IVF is still about sperm and ova, they just meet differently because some of us are unable to conceive naturally. Generally IVF is accepted by Christians though I have come across some negative attitudes concerning embryo selection. I might be getting confused here, sorry, or maybe ..... anyway, you'll know :D.
-
And yet they are quite happy, despite IVF not being in any way 'natural'.
ht
-
It would seem so Horsethorn, because it is a man-woman thing. I'm sure there are some extremists who are against it. I'll have to go google, it's bugging me now.
Later: Lots of articles on the internet. Here is one:
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/parenting/kids/is-ivf-an-ethical-choice-for-pro-life-parents.html
-
It would seem so Horsethorn, because it is a man-woman thing. I'm sure there are some extremists who are against it. I'll have to go google, it's bugging me now.
Later: Lots of articles on the internet. Here is one:
http://www.crosswalk.com/family/parenting/kids/is-ivf-an-ethical-choice-for-pro-life-parents.html
Although IVF means that same sex couples can also have children; advances in that science may also mean that both of those in a same-sex relationship can have biological input into the child.
ht
-
The argument from naturalism is a complete and utter red herring.
If we were only to allow things that were natural - likely everyone of us posting here would have been dead years ago.
I do not understand why in an over-populated world people think that an argument about whether a same sex couple can procreate is any way relevant.
I do object to being called disordered, unnatural or what other term poster conjure up to hide their base bigotry.
Gay people are just people who want the same things as straight people the right to love who they want and to live lives free from discrimination, or in some countries free from oppression. That posters support views that lend credence to oppression says far more about their moral values than it ever does about gay peoples moral values.
I suggest some of you (as Bill Shatner said to some trekkies once) get a fucking life.
Did they not argue that Homosexuality was natural?
My posts were to explain what SPUD WAS saying and defining it clearly for all.
When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.
As for the rest then I suggest you stop giving the atheist or believers something to gripe over.
What the real problem is... is atheists and pagans constantly griping over things which do not concern them.
Using homosexuality as a battering ram for believers because they have absolutely nothing else to cover their nudity when it comes to real reasons to attack. The ordinary man in the street know that atheists, theists, and Pagans all have people in their walk of life who are literal homophobic's. Those who attack and don't live and let live.
Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.
By all means be annoyed at people who hurt others and attack others for those things. But do not make the grave mistake of thinking anyone here would hurt, harm or treat differently because of their colour and sexual orientation.
-
Did they not argue that Homosexuality was natural?
My posts were to explain what SPUD WAS saying and defining it clearly for all.
When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.
As for the rest then I suggest you stop giving the atheist or believers something to gripe over.
What the real problem is... is atheists and pagans constantly griping over things which do not concern them.
Using homosexuality as a battering ram for believers because they have absolutely nothing else to cover their nudity when it comes to real reasons to attack. The ordinary man in the street know that atheists, theists, and Pagans all have people in their walk of life who are literal homophobic's. Those who attack and don't live and let live.
Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.
By all means be annoyed at people who hurt others and attack others for those things. But do not make the grave mistake of thinking anyone here would hurt, harm or treat differently because of their colour and sexual orientation.
Since when were your posts clear to all? ::) Besides which it is for Spud to explain himself, where his unpleasant comments about gays are concerned, NOT you.
-
Although IVF means that same sex couples can also have children; advances in that science may also mean that both of those in a same-sex relationship can have biological input into the child.
ht
Yes I know that horsethorn but I think that is another topic altogether.
-
Yes I know that horsethorn but I think that is another topic altogether.
Is it? How, exactly? It is a means of bypassing "natural" childbirth.
I would have thought that pro-life christians would have been very anti-IVF, as it goes against "God's decision whether a couple can have children".
ht
-
I assumed like Gonnagle he was talking to Brownie...
:D
No he wasn't but I don't mind being Mr Brown for a day :D.
-
Is it? How, exactly? It is a means of bypassing "natural" childbirth.
I would have thought that pro-life christians would have been very anti-IVF, as it goes against "God's decision whether a couple can have children".
ht
The link I posted was to a Pro-Life site horsethorn and I imagine many of the Pro-Life people would be against IVF but not all Christians would classify themselves as Pro-Life in the same way as those people, who are usually quite militant and carry on as though there is only one issue. The rest of us don't take such a hard line.
If homosexual people use IVF there will of necessity be input from a member of the opposite sex.
-
If homosexual people use IVF there will of necessity be input from a member of the opposite sex.
Not necessarily, soon.
And currently, it could be a gay man and a lesbian who have IVF together.
ht
-
Well we all want spaced out births man.
I hate to say the same thing over and over again, it is tedious to read, but I don't understand why God created homosexual and lesbian people if they were not supposed to have relationships. They are a minority group, their relationships don't affect heterosexuals in any way. For countless years they were persecuted and at best viewed with suspicion and derision.
Maybe God wanted us all to learn something about compassion, tolerance and the fact that not everyone fits into the conventional slot. We certainly have learned a lot over the years and surely we should be glad that finally ordinary people, our gay neighbours, can live settled, contented lives with someone they love. It's not all about procreation.
Absolutely. There is no problem with gay people having good relationships with people of the same sex whom they love, as long as they don't engage in sexual acts. God created male and female and it was good. Homosexuality is one manifestation of man's rebellion against God. It is not good. Yes as you say we should be compassionate; the problem comes when you have a communion service, and the priest knows that a member coming for communion is a practicing homosexual. If someone is living in defiance of God's moral law (eg having an affair), the priest may refuse them communion. This is why it is important to be clear about what the Bible says. The priest is actually doing a more compassionate thing by not giving them communion because if he did he would be encouraging them to continue to sin, so their soul would not be saved.
-
In other words, special pleading.
Please explain.
-
Mr Potato Head for some reason seems to think it is, goodness only knows why.
In the sense that eating is just as much about nutrition and growth as it is about having nice tasty food, sex is as much about children as it is about pleasure. The two cannot be separated except in people's minds - if they are ignorant or foolish.
-
Absolutely. There is no problem with gay people having good relationships with people of the same sex whom they love, as long as they don't engage in sexual acts. God created male and female and it was good. Homosexuality is one manifestation of man's rebellion against God. It is not good. Yes as you say we should be compassionate; the problem comes when you have a communion service, and the priest knows that a member coming for communion is a practicing homosexual. If someone is living in defiance of God's moral law (eg having an affair), the priest may refuse them communion. This is why it is important to be clear about what the Bible says. The priest is actually doing a more compassionate thing by not giving them communion because if he did he would be encouraging them to continue to sin, so their soul would not be saved.
Spud there is NOTHING wrong with homosexuals having sex. If the evil deity doesn't like it, then it can stick its dislike up its bum! >:( You have absolutely NO idea if the deity exists let alone what it likes or dislikes, neither did the Biblical authors.
-
Absolutely. There is no problem with gay people having good relationships with people of the same sex whom they love, as long as they don't engage in sexual acts.
Who are you to deny sexual relationships to anybody? That's right - nobody.
God created male and female and it was good. Homosexuality is one manifestation of man's rebellion against God. It is not good.
These may well be your beliefs. They are certainly bald assertions unsupported by evidence, and as such are not binding upon anybody.
-
Please explain.
Gladly.
You wrote:
The same sex "couple" are more than simply infertile. Homosexual and some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit, or anti-procreative, acts, (though I wouldn't include contraception where there is a legitimate reason for it, such as spacing out births.)
It's special pleading to let contraception go through on the nod for a reason that you happen to decide is acceptable (spacing out births) while saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't have sex because they can't produce offspring that way. No they can't, but contrary to your belief sex isn't just about reproduction. Indeed, it's not about reproduction for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, since there are vastly more instances of sexual intercourse than there are offspring. Unless you're stupid enough to believe that couples who have just the one child only ever had sex on one occasion.
Lastly, your keyboard seems to put quotation marks around random words for no particular reason. The English word couple refers to a pair or a duo, two of something, as in two human beings (of whatever sex) in a romantic-sexual relationship. If you're not quoting a text from another source you don't need quotation marks around the word.
-
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough? :D
Yes it's clear.
My mother is well past the age where she can naturally procreate, therefore, you think her marriage to my father is a sin.
This is what I have to say to you on that:
Please take your bigotry and spite elsewhere.
EDIT I'm surprised I got back here before the mods.
-
Who are you to deny sexual relationships to anybody? That's right - nobody.
These may well be your beliefs. They are certainly bald assertions unsupported by evidence, and as such are not binding upon anybody.
The thread is about what Christians believe, and the teaching of the New Testament is that sexual relationships are to be reserved for one man and one woman only. I was answering Brownie's question about why God (not me) would deny anyone a sexual relationship.
-
It's special pleading to let contraception go through on the nod for a reason that you happen to decide is acceptable (spacing out births) while saying that two people of the same sex shouldn't have sex because they can't produce offspring that way. No they can't, but contrary to your belief sex isn't just about reproduction. Indeed, it's not about reproduction for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, since there are vastly more instances of sexual intercourse than there are offspring. Unless you're stupid enough to believe that couples who have just the one child only ever had sex on one occasion.
Point about special pleading taken, and ok, sex isn't just about reproduction. But I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse. What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts, which cannot to be compared with it, as ht did.
Lastly, your keyboard seems to put quotation marks around random words for no particular reason. The English word couple refers to a pair or a duo, two of something, as in two human beings (of whatever sex) in a romantic-sexual relationship. If you're not quoting a text from another source you don't need quotation marks around the word.
If I'm not mistaken, the English word 'couple' (meaning a man and woman in a relationship) was coined before homosexuality became accepted, Shaker.
-
Point about special pleading taken, and ok, sex isn't just about reproduction. But I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse.
I don't claim to be any great expert in these matters but I'm pretty sure they can and it is.
What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts. These are not comparable to sexual intercourse, and therefore are not to be compared with it, as ht did.
This is not your decision to make.
If I'm not mistaken, the English word for couple was coined before homosexuality became accepted, Shaker.
It may well have been - but is utterly irrelevant. Acceptance is neither here nor there or indeed anywhere; we all know what a couple refers to in any context. A couple of pints of lager; a couple of minutes; the couple next door. You get it I'm sure.
Two people in a relationship whether they are of the same sex or of different sexes are a couple and remain a couple whether accepted or not. That is, if you understand what the word couple refers to.
-
I don't claim to be any great expert in these matters but I'm pretty sure they can and it is.
If you want to think that, fine, but you're wrong. Only a male and female can.
This is not your decision to make.
Horsethorn apparently wanted a reason why homosexuals should not while heterosexual couples (who may or may not be infertile) can.
-
In the words of a song
Burt Bacharach
What The World Needs Now Is Love
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No not just for some but for everyone.
Lord, we don't need another mountain,
There are mountains and hillsides enough to climb
There are oceans and rivers enough to cross,
Enough to last till the end of time.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No, not just for some but for everyone.
Lord, we don't need another meadow
There are cornfields and wheat fields enough to grow
There are sunbeams and moonbeams enough to shine
Oh listen, lord, if you want to know.
What the world needs now is love, sweet love
It's the only thing that there's just too little of
What the world needs now is love, sweet love,
No, not just for some but for everyone.
No, not just for some, oh, but just for everyone.
Everyone, is ..... Well everyone.
Love isn't just about sex and procreation.
What people of the same sex do, to express that love, is private.
Love is blind, crosses boundaries
We can recognise love exists between consenting adults and be blind to things that are only their business.
Christians IMO should show the fruits of the spirit towards them
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness"
Love is love.
Why judge and discriminate?
The world needs more love, wherever it exists.
There is no love in being reduced to a breeding 'mare'
Love is so much more.
-
If you want to think that, fine, but you're wrong. Only a male and female can.
Flat assertion may work in your old book, chummy, but not on here it doesn't. You're going to need to do very significantly better at explaining yourself than simply tossing out assertions.
-
I saw this
Peter tells us that "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1Peter 4:8). He echoes the proverb, "Hatred stirs up strife but love covers all sins" (Proverbs 10:12).
So I would argue to Christians, that love covers ALL sins.
So no-one should judge the love, one consenting adult holds for another, maybe their love, covers all.
They are not hurting anyone else, just because they are the same sex.
-
The thread is about what Christians believe, and the teaching of the New Testament is that sexual relationships are to be reserved for one man and one woman only. I was answering Brownie's question about why God (not me) would deny anyone a sexual relationship.
Not all Christians believe that at all, only ignorant bigots! >:(
-
Can you be bigoted if you haven't actually thought about the issues in question?
Ignorant, yes.
-
Yes it's clear.
My mother is well past the age where she can naturally procreate, therefore, you think her marriage to my father is a sin.
Why does marriage mean you can or cannot procreate? Explain how being past the age of conceiving makes being married a sin.
You can't because by all means of logic and reasoning it is the most ridiculous reply anyone could make...
This is what I have to say to you on that:
Please take your bigotry and spite elsewhere.
EDIT I'm surprised I got back here before the mods.
Which also makes this reply of yours totally false and even idiotic.
From now on may the Almighty God show the reality of how you deliberately add things no one has said or suggested because of your bigotry towards believers. May they always be as plain as the nose on your faith and may God show others just how stupid they would look and become if they try to defend such dreadful misleading thoughts. In the name of Jesus. Amen
Spud made an comment not intended to harm or hurt anyone. But the fact is that his comment is true.
I also made a statement to the fact that Spud was saying:
When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.
They can exchange the necessary materials naturally. Now marriage does not affect this act.
Did they not argue that Homosexuality was natural?
My posts were to explain what SPUD WAS saying and defining it clearly for all.
When it comes to being natural then procreation in it's most natural form is a male and female of any species.
As for the rest then I suggest you stop giving the atheist or believers something to gripe over.
What the real problem is... is atheists and pagans constantly griping over things which do not concern them.
Using homosexuality as a battering ram for believers because they have absolutely nothing else to cover their nudity when it comes to real reasons to attack. The ordinary man in the street know that atheists, theists, and Pagans all have people in their walk of life who are literal homophobic's. Those who attack and don't live and let live.
Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.
By all means be annoyed at people who hurt others and attack others for those things. But do not make the grave mistake of thinking anyone here would hurt, harm or treat differently because of their colour and sexual orientation.
In future Jeremyp keep your own brand of bigotry and false accusations to yourself. No one is interested in trouble makers and from now on people will see such posts for what they are. Believers would no more harm a person because of their sexual orientation (on this forum) than the homosexual person would harm the believer because of their faith(on this forum).
I do not believe that Spud or Trent meant harm to each other or insult.
Diversity of beliefs is what keeps this forum alive and going. The more believers who leave the less this forum will be in it's contents.
-
Trent I really do not know any Christians who would treat people differently because of their colour or sexual orientation.
But you do.
They are on here. They would deny the same rights to gay people that are applied to heterosexual people.
Do you not read Hope's posts. He defines himself as a Christian. He was against civil partnerships when they were introduced (and that wasn't even an equalising measure but a half way house towards marriage) and he was against civil marriage for gay people which again in some people's eyes was only one step further than a half way house.
I have seen a few Christians on here in the past deny even the most basic rights - and in one memorable case a Christian poster calling for the death penalty for gay people (where for art thou Cymru?).
Now you may not know them in 'Real life' I fully accept that - but you are aware that they exist - the proof is, and always has been, right here under your nose.
-
I know Christians personally who think as Hope does. The frightening thing is that they generally tend to be quite nice, homophobia aside.
-
There was one poster, now banned, who claimed to be a Christian but took a great pride in being rabidly anti-gay and racist. >:(
-
Dear Trent and ProfDavey,
Over here lads, on this thread, I don't want to derail the experience thread further.
Yes gentlemen, you are both right,
I think like myself on a couple of issues there is a residual prejudice by the very nature of our upbringing and heritage.
We are a product of our past and the culture and society that shaped that past.
When I see another thread which attacks homosexuality I think, oh no here we go again.
Nature, nurture, science says this, therapy for gay people, and the most galling, paedophilia rears its ugly head, it disgusts me, and if I try to walk a mile in a homosexuals shoes, what the fuck must they be feeling.
As you suggest gentlemen, the real problem is homophobia, this is what should be discussed in an open and frank manner, what is wrong with these people, why do they think like that, do they need therapy.
In discussion with Leonard James I agree with him that Christianity is a major factor, in this country you can't get round it, over it, we are a culturally Christian country, residual prejudice, product of our past.
I think this has to be highlighted, confronted, where we have come from, how the ordinary man in the street thinks, our thinking has to be woken up.
To end gentlemen, this word "homophobia" am I wrong in thinking that in the past it simply mean't fear of, and that today it has been changed to include, hatred of, I think this is important, we could then ask, what the hell are you afraid of??
Gonnagle.
-
I saw this
Peter tells us that "Love covers a multitude of sins" (1Peter 4:8). He echoes the proverb, "Hatred stirs up strife but love covers all sins" (Proverbs 10:12).
So I would argue to Christians, that love covers ALL sins.
So no-one should judge the love, one consenting adult holds for another, maybe their love, covers all.
They are not hurting anyone else, just because they are the same sex.
Is homosexual love right for you, Rose?
Is Christianity right for you, Rose?
Does that mean by not engaging in any of these you have no love?
To live and let live is to show love. Spud is not judging and neither am I, those who are homosexual or Christians.
In truth we live together in this world and we should live and let live each to our own.
You subscribe to neither Christianity or homosexuality does that make you incapable or not loving truly?
Love is not about who we have sex with or which G/god we believe in. Love is a selfless action of how we treat others.
As people we are not defined by our sexual orientation or religious beliefs. We are defined by our actions and how we show love.
bigot
ˈbɪɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
The atheists and some of the pagans are intolerant to some of those who hold different opinions here.
They do not allow those who hold different beliefs to hold them without being intolerant.
They are more bigoted toward the believers for belief in God, than there are people intolerant of them.
At the end of the day it is about how we treat others. Spud was asked a question and used what he believed to be the evidence by natural process.
What I dislike is when people especially Jeremyp try to deliberately ignore the true contents of peoples posts and twist it to something it isn't making false accusations. No love in that action and definitely nothing good for the believer or in helping take away the suffering of those who are truly suffering the real homosexual bigots of the world.
We need to protect those in our society who would use one targeted group by bigots against another group targeted by bigots.
The believers as you can see get targeted by some atheists and pagans for making a simple statement which is not and never was meant to target anyone.
There was nothing bigotry in the response from Spud. He was talking of the 'normal' by that 'natural' process of procreation.
As this is not reliant on sexual orientation but a fact of life that only male and female can mate and procreate from their union there is nothing offensive or bigotry in what he stated.
Look at the replies I had from Jeremyp for just trying to explain what Spud was saying. One of my nephews came out about two years ago he is gay. I treat him no differently now to before. I love him still and I cannot think why his homosexuality would make me want to treat him differently. How can we stop atheists who are not homosexual using the homosexuality soap box to voice their bigotry toward Christians?
They need to grow up and mature in these discussions. :(
-
The same sex "couple" are more than simply infertile. Homosexual and some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit,
Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?
-
Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?
Or this one?
I haven't actually said that same sex couples shouldn't have sex - they can't. What they do is in no shape or form sexual intercourse. What I said was that they shouldn't engage in homosexual acts, which cannot to be compared with it
-
But you do.
They are on here. They would deny the same rights to gay people that are applied to heterosexual people.
Do you not read Hope's posts. He defines himself as a Christian. He was against civil partnerships when they were introduced (and that wasn't even an equalising measure but a half way house towards marriage) and he was against civil marriage for gay people which again in some people's eyes was only one step further than a half way house.
I have seen a few Christians on here in the past deny even the most basic rights - and in one memorable case a Christian poster calling for the death penalty for gay people (where for art thou Cymru?).
Now you may not know them in 'Real life' I fully accept that - but you are aware that they exist - the proof is, and always has been, right here under your nose.
Yes they do exist, Trent.
But I have no problem with civil partnerships. What I have to ask myself is this question:-
Whilst Hope may not believe in somethings because of his faith does that mean he does not love or care about what happens to
people regardless of their sexual orientation?
A person should not be judged because of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
A person should be loved for themselves and how they actually treat others in real life.
How do educate a world where people cannot see that it the 'person' as a whole who needs support and love.
That no one should be loved according to anything but who they are.
My nephew came out and it was difficult for him because out of the forty odd grandchildren in the family he is the only person who is homosexual. However, the grandchildren do not have any prejudices or bias as they were raised as my siblings and I.
Without prejudices of any kind. When raised right we love others for who they are.
I wish I could take the hurt away that the beliefs of others cause so that homosexuals can see themselves as the person and not how the belief sees you. Worthy of love and worthy of being able to live without any stigma because they are different to what man has classed the norm for many centuries. In all centuries I believe homosexuality has existed. But it is only the last two centuries where people can live openly.
For myself, it is not about sexuality it is about treating others the same.
-
There was one poster, now banned, who claimed to be a Christian but took a great pride in being rabidly anti-gay and racist. >:(
The same pride you take in attacking Christians? ::)
-
Why does marriage mean you can or cannot procreate? Explain how being past the age of conceiving makes being married a sin.
You're the one defining sex as sinful unless you can procreate with it. You tell me.
From now on may the Almighty God show the reality of how you deliberately add things no one has said or suggested because of your bigotry towards believers.
Instead of invoking a fictional deity, why not do your own arguing?
-
Sassy are you saying you see nothing judgemental in this pronouncement from Spud?
I am saying that Spud was not being judgmental against the sexual orientation of any person.
He was asked for evidence of the natural. In this case he used a natural as being the truth that only a male and female during intercourse can swap the genetic material to make a baby.
I do not see it was an attack or even a judgement because if the statement is correct that Homosexuality is natural.
Then the truth is that we all have to see what Spud says as being a natural truth too.
To suggest what Spud has said to be judgmental would mean that people would have to think it showed something thought to be natural was not natural.
So I do not see that what Spud said actually to be judgmental. For that to happen people would have to judge something thought natural to be proved not natural by his statement.
He literally was just giving an example of the natural truths of nature. I am sure you see what I see now. :)
-
You're the one defining sex as sinful unless you can procreate with it. You tell me.
Instead of invoking a fictional deity, why not do your own arguing?
I have never defined sex as sinful unless you can procreate.
You got the wrong person...
What you have stated is untruthful. Never and never would I, make such a ridiculous statement.
Never in the history of my posting have I ever said or made such a ridiculous and stupid statement.
The world wonders why bigotry still exists when atheists make up their own untrue stories.
-
I have never defined sex as sinful unless you can procreate.
Reply #360 shows you up as a liar in that respect.
-
From now on may the Almighty God (blah blah blah). In the name of Jesus. Amen
(my italics)
This and the other 'request' to have this board closed (how is that going by the way), reminds me of the Traveller women who used to come to our doors offering 'lucky' heather and then always and I do mean always, offering a 'curse' when the purchase was not concluded!
::)
-
(my italics)
This and the other 'request' to have this board closed (how is that going by the way), reminds me of the Traveller women who used to come to our doors offering 'lucky' heather and then always and I do mean always, offering a 'curse' when the purchase was not concluded!
::)
What happened to these Traveller women? I haven't seen one in years except when abroad, eg. Greece or Spain. That lucky heather used to work a treat :)
-
What happened to these Traveller women? I haven't seen one in years except when abroad, eg. Greece or Spain. That lucky heather used to work a treat :)
We had one visit here a couple of years ago, same sales pitch, same polite thanks but no thanks, same curse on exit!
-
Reply #360 shows you up as a liar in that respect.
post 360
Shows you are a liar.
You are missing the boat...
The fact we are discussing is one made by SPUD...
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough? :D
If you had only two men left in the world or only two women they could not exchange the bodily genetic materials to make a baby naturally. A man and a woman could. Infertility as nothing to do with the natural way of conceiving a child.
Because when fertile the only two people to exchange the genetic material during natural intercourse/sex is a male and female.
Hence the beginning and end of the point made by Spud. Glad you are back... :-*
You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.
Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...
-
post 360
Shows you are a liar.
You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.
Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...
Hi Sass,
It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!
-
post 360
Shows you are a liar.
You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.
Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...
The bit in bold shows that I am correct and you are a liar.
-
I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.
It is doubtful that anyone here does the above. Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.
-
I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.
It is doubtful that anyone here does the above. Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.
Mmm I agree the idea that people are lying is often questionable but I have seen too many posts where people have said 'I have done this' when they haven't to think that it is that easy. If you want to accept that for example Hope isn't lying, then you would have to accept that nothing they say is of any value in discussion, since truth is made worthless.
-
Hi Sass,
It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!
Spud, Has someone hacked your account?
Marriage, can take place at any time during a womans' menstrual cycle.
There is NO argument because what I was talking about is what you stated about the only way procreation can take place naturally during sexual intercourse is with a man and a woman.
Please do not drag me into such crazy stupid thinking of when a woman can marry.
I am all for truth and I am not for adding or taking anything away from the bible.
-
I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.
It is doubtful that anyone here does the above. Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.
Look at the posts then make the comment.
This time your white washing the coal cellar does not work. It is still the coal cellar however white you want to paint it.
-
Look at the posts then make the comment.
This time your white washing the coal cellar does not work. It is still the coal cellar however white you want to paint it.
Why don't you look at your own posts?
You still owe an apology and a retraction for saying that I discriminate against Christians.
-
Hi Sass,
It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!
Spud what a daft comment! ::)
-
Hi Sass,
It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!
Obviously all your arguments have made perfect sense however.
-
Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.
Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.
The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.
-
Quite a lot of gay people do indeed have children by one means or another, so I really don't see what your point is supposed to be.
-
Dear Shaker,
Spud has a point!! Yes, God says it is bad, all other points, arguments, are null and void, even bloody stupid.
Trouble is God did not say it was bad, a wee man thousands of years ago for reasons known only to himself, cleanliness, to protect his wee clan, his neighbour ( who he hated, probably coveted his latest model of camel, two humps rather than one ) was gay.
Gonnagle.
-
Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.
Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.
The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.
Replace 'infertile' with 'unable to produce offspring solely by having sex with each other' and see how that pans out?
-
Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.
Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.
The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.
No, it has nothing to do with fertility or not, it is whether the couple together can have children. A heterosexual couple may not be able to have children for any number of reasons. In fact, if both are technically fertile they may still not be able to have children, for example, if one has a genetic defect that prevents the baby from being carried to term. We place no restrictions on such couples getting married (excepting incest of course). Therefore, the "gay couples can't have children" argument is equally false.
-
Quite a lot of gay people do indeed have children by one means or another, so I really don't see what your point is supposed to be.
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
Says who?
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
What is wrong with having sex for pleasure between two consenting adults, gay or straight? There is NOTHING wrong with that at all, it is sad that you can't see it. :(
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
Why is "openness to producing children" the only moral justification for a sexual act?
On that basis, you have (yet again) excluded heterosexual couples who don't want, and never want, children, and who use contraception...
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right?
Mental capacity, emotional maturity and informed consent, I would say.
Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose
Which would apply equally to heterosexual people who are infertile for one reason or another. A case in point being some old friends of mine, the female half of the couple having had a hysterectomy at an early age after years of what are technically known in medical speak as lady's problems down there. It hasn't stopped the couple having a sex life, yet you reckon that that sex life isn't justified.
I don't know for sure and don't claim it as a fact because nobody really knows the gay percentage of the population with any certainty, but given that gay people are outnumbered by heterosexuals by a very large margin I would suspect that there are considerably many more heterosexual couples who literally can't (or simply don't want to) have children than there are gay couples. Why is it then that it's gay couples who receive all the attention from the like of you, do you think?
Having freed ourselves pretty comprehensively of an inevitable link between sex and pregnancy, the purpose of sex is whatever you wish to make of it. For most people most of the time it's an exercise in intimacy. It's a binding thing - sex with no expectation of pregnancy was defined by Alex Comfort as the adult version of play, good and enjoyable for its own sake with no ulterior motive. Amongst people in enduring relationships, done skilfully it strengthens said relationships. Even if it's on a more transient basis, it still gives people pleasure. I don't have a problem with pleasure - do you?
Why are you such a slave to biology?
-
Why is "openness to producing children" the only moral justification for a sexual act?
On that basis, you have (yet again) excluded heterosexual couples who don't want, and never want, children, and who use contraception...
They might change their minds, though, so are, to an extent, open to the possibility.
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
What rubbish.
So what about a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy?
-
What rubbish.
So what about a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy?
See #446. I can confidently state that precisely zero offspring will result in such a situation. To quote Life of Brian, where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?
-
Mental capacity and informed consent, I would say.Which would apply equally to heterosexual people who are infertile for one reason or another. A case in point being some old friends of mine, the female half of the couple having had a hysterectomy at an early age after years of what are technically known in medical speak as lady's problems down there. It hasn't stopped the couple having a sex life, yet you reckon that that sex life isn't justified.
Why are you such a slave to biology, do you think?
They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.
-
They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.
You're dodging. You asserted (on no evidence whatever, needless to say): "What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself."
How open to producing children do you think a woman who has had a hysterectomy can be? Do you know what the term means?
If childbirth is an optional extra of sexual intercourse, what makes certain forms of sex "the right way"? Right according to what standard?
-
See #446. I can confidently state that precisely zero offspring will result in such a situation. To quote Life of Brian, where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?
I beg your pardon sir.
I will read more carefully in future.
-
They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.
Using it the right way!
Are other forms of sexual activity e.g. an*l and or*l activities immoral according to you then? (It won't let my post go through if I don't use an asterisk.
For your benefit Spud I'm sure you can work out which letter replaces the asterisk, but if in doubt it is an "a"
If these activities are not OK for homosexual couples are they OK for heterosexual couples?
-
They might change their minds, though, so are, to an extent, open to the possibility.
They might have had irreversible surgery.
Can't you see how utterly silly your argument is?
-
I beg your pardon sir.
I will read more carefully in future.
I wasn't telling you off :D
-
Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.
My sister never wanted kids so was sterilised to ensure she didn't. She has not regretted it.
-
What would she have done before anesthetics and antibiotics or reliable contraceptives?
-
What would she have done before anesthetics and antibiotics or reliable contraceptives?
Well how would I know, she was fortunately born at a time when she had a choice.
-
Oh sorry, I thought you knew everything !
-
You're dodging. You asserted (on no evidence whatever, needless to say): "What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself."
How open to producing children do you think a woman who has had a hysterectomy can be? Do you know what the term means?
If childbirth is an optional extra of sexual intercourse, what makes certain forms of sex "the right way"? Right according to what standard?
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
-
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
Says who - where is your authority for this statement?
-
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
The problem being that 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion.
-
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
Sez you, but that is just your rather nasty opinion. >:(
-
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
PS to #462
You have also, in your laughable attempts to justify your homophobia, now condemned good Christian couples who have children and remain faithful but enjoy other sex acts.
-
The problem being that 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion.
Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.
-
Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.
What's unpleasant about it and how is he/who is he discriminating against?
-
Quite a lot of gay people do indeed have children by one means or another, so I really don't see what your point is supposed to be.
No you are NOT getting away with that...
You know perfectly well the point spud originally made.
That during sexual relations the only people who can successfully swap genetic material to conceive is a man and a woman.
Now you do look every bit as devious as they come. You know perfectly well his point. Is it worth it to pretend and lose any respect anyone had for your posts?
-
No you are NOT getting away with that...
You know perfectly well the point spud originally made.
That during sexual relations the only people who can successfully swop genetic material to conceive is a man and a woman.
And this, according to Mr Potato Head, is the only "right" way of having sex (see #460), thus making everybody who has any other sort of sex - penetrative sex in infertile straight couples; gay couples - automatically wrong. This is a foul and noxious opinion.
Now you do look every bit as devious as they come. You know perfectly well his point. Is it worth it to pretend and lose any respect anyone had for your posts?
I couldn't give two shiny shits about "respect."
-
Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.
While I am happy to accept that my (actually, anybody's) concept of 'right', in the moral sense, is (ultimately) an opinion, I'm interested to know what part of what I regard as 'right' you are referring to, who I'm discriminating against, and why you regard it as unpleasant?
-
Dear Shaker,
Spud has a point!! Yes, God says it is bad, all other points, arguments, are null and void, even bloody stupid.
Trouble is God did not say it was bad, a wee man thousands of years ago for reasons known only to himself, cleanliness, to protect his wee clan, his neighbour ( who he hated, probably coveted his latest model of camel, two humps rather than one ) was gay.
Gonnagle.
Eat tickler...people pleaser....
13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.
15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
Explain these two verses from Genesis 19. I and other believers need to hear what your type of truth really is...
-
Says who - where is your authority for this statement?
How else does a man and woman swap the necessary genetic material without aids or science naturally?
Don't be so facetious and deliberately stupid. It has been done that way for thousands of years well before IVF etc.
What more authority and evidence can you get than that?
Sit down Gordon before you fall down under the weight of your own silliness...
-
Sez you, but that is just your rather nasty opinion. >:(
So you didn't have your children by the means of his nasty opinion or is that the fact he was stating of a penis and vagina being only natural method to conceive?
You look even more silly than ever before Floo. I guess you just cannot help yourself. Read the thread replies. ::) ;D
-
So you didn't have your children by the means of his nasty opinion or is that the fact he was stating of a penis and vagina being only natural method to conceive?
You look even more silly than ever before Floo. I guess you just cannot help yourself. Read the thread replies. ::) ;D
You should take your own advice with regard to reading the thread.
Nobody is disputing the means by which conception occurs.
What is being challenged is the opinion of King Edward of Maris Piper that the only legitimate, permissible form of sexual intercourse is that in which conception is possible and can result in offspring.
-
PS to #462
You have also, in your laughable attempts to justify your homophobia, now condemned good Christian couples who have children and remain faithful but enjoy other sex acts.
Nah! Your wrong and inexcusable twisting is what is wrong.
What has homophobia to do with a man and woman genetically producing a baby? Are you saying because a man and a woman can produce a baby naturally through genetic swapping of necessary material that being heterosexual is not normal?
You are making a rod for your own back. You see you are not listening to the purpose of Spud explaining.
Spud was asked to provide evidence that Heterosexuality is the natural way not about the right and wrongs. But actual evidence for it being the natural way of things. He provided evidence an evidence which is clear and concise which would prove that natural way. A man and a woman are the ONLY natural way of being able to swap the genetic materials during sexual intercourse to procreate.
That is the beginning and end of the matter. Unless anyone can show that is not the case and the natural evidence that man and woman are suppose to be together then please do.
The obvious answer is that without science that the natural course of things would cease to be if all men went with men and all women went with women. No babies...
God wanted to populate the world. Hence he created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
But we know now we have populated we do have an Adam and Steve somewhere in the world. Actually we probably have many.... ;D
-
And this, according to Mr Potato Head, is the only "right" way of having sex (see #460), thus making everybody who has any other sort of sex - penetrative sex in infertile straight couples; gay couples - automatically wrong. This is a foul and noxious opinion.
I couldn't give two shiny shits about "respect."
In the the 1950's was sodomy illegal?
Tell me wasn't having sex with dead bodies also illegal?
Is having sex with Children illegal?
What changed? I am asking you to tell me what changed and why sex with dead bodies or children are still illegal?
What changed is the way people now looked at these things? Do you believe the law should change allowing sex with dead bodes and children?
No! Why is that? Why do we believe we can change one and not another. There are people who believe the latter still against the law to be what they want. Does the minority make them right. Is it really natural or nature to want sex with dead bodies and even worst Children.
Whilst I do not believe that homosexuality harms anyone. I do believe the other two which still illegal to be really really sick.
So don't preach about people believing one type of sex to be wrong.
The truth is we all believe some type of sex to be wrong. Furthermore, having never had homosexual sex myself, neither you, how do we know exactly what harm it may or may not do? But we all take risks even with heterosexual sex.
Because there are things like STD's which harm people.
He was giving the evidence which would make heterosexual sexual relations the natural way.
He did that... whether he disagrees or agrees with others about what is right for him and others is called freedom to choose.
Would you choose to have sex with another man? We both know you are married and heterosexual. How can you speak against Spud when you choose to refrain from homosexual intercourse yourself.
Keep to the point Spud made... Providing evidence that heterosexual sex is NATURES true way and order of things.
But it doesn't mean man has to stick to that or will stick to that we history has shown.
We all agree some intercourse is not and never can be right.. Intercourse with dead bodies etc.
-
You should take your own advice with regard to reading the thread.
Nobody is disputing the means by which conception occurs.
What is being challenged is the opinion of King Edward of Maris Piper that the only legitimate, permissible form of sexual intercourse is that in which conception is possible and can result in offspring.
No Shaker,
You are not getting away with it. See last post before this.
You either challenge the point Spud makes or accept the fact that it is the only evidence of Nature that shows heterosexual intercourse is the natural way of Nature because it produces off-spring.
The argument is not whether other forms of intercourse exist but evidence that the way of NATURE is for a man and a woman to have intercourse.
What is more to the point has all homosexual men had intercourse with a woman? Same for the woman and a man?
Did they find it enjoyable if they did? Maybe sex is /can be down to choice and experience.
Some men and women like both. But we know that the evidence that Spud was asked to produce he did.
Now either prove Nature is wrong or shut up!
-
In the the 1950's was sodomy illegal?
Yes. We have seen that that was a silly and unjust law and scrapped it.
Tell me wasn't having sex with dead bodies also illegal?
Yes.
Is having sex with Children illegal?
Yes, for very good reasons.
What changed? I am asking you to tell me what changed and why sex with dead bodies or children are still illegal?
Having sex with dead bodies is considered an outrage to public decency as well as indicative of a very serious psychological abnormality, and children lack mental competence and can't give informed consent to sexual activity.
Two people of the same sex and above the age of consent however do have mental competence and can give informed consent to sexual behaviour (other things being equal, i.e. assuming they're not suffering from some form of mental disability) exactly the same as two people of opposite sexes can - there's exact parity between the two groups, therefore it was recognised to be unjust to make one form of sexual behaviour legal and the other illegal, and so the law was changed.
What changed is the way people now looked at these things? Do you believe the law should change allowing sex with dead bodes and children?
No! Why is that? Why do we believe we can change one and not another.
Because some people understand the concept of sexual behaviour between equal parties based on mental competence and informed consent.
The hard of thinking don't, unfortunately.
There are people who believe the latter still against the law to be what they want. Does the minority make them right. Is it really natural or nature to want sex with dead bodies and even worst Children.
In the case of children, yes, it seems that it's perfectly natural - sexual behaviour between adult and infant bonobos is widespread, for example.
Whilst I do not believe that homosexuality harms anyone. I do believe the other two which still illegal to be really really sick.
So don't preach about people believing one type of sex to be wrong.
I don't preach about anything. I do however reserve the right to criticise obnoxious beliefs.
He was giving the evidence which would make heterosexual sexual relations the natural way.
Appeal to nature fallacy.
We both know you are married and heterosexual.
Do we?
Given that online I keep my private life exactly that, how do we know?
How can you speak against Spud when you choose to refrain from homosexual intercourse yourself.
Because Mr Jersey Royal deems any form of perfectly consensual sex between two adult parties which is incapable of conception to be impermissible.
Keep to the point Spud made... Providing evidence that heterosexual sex is NATURES true way and order of things.
Appeal to nature fallacy.
-
No Shaker,
You are not getting away with it. See last post before this.
You either challenge the point Spud makes or accept the fact that it is the only evidence of Nature that shows heterosexual intercourse is the natural way of Nature because it produces off-spring.
The argument is not whether other forms of intercourse exist but evidence that the way of NATURE is for a man and a woman to have intercourse.
What is more to the point has all homosexual men has intercourse with a woman? Same for the woman and a man?
Did they find it enjoyable if they did? Maybe sex is can be down to choice and experience.
Some men and women like both. But we know that the evidence that Spud was asked to produce he did.
Now either prove Nature is wrong or shut up!
Ah. I see that you are incapable not only of writing comprehensible English but of understanding the point being made.
Figures.
-
How else does a man and woman swap the necessary genetic material without aids or science naturally?
Don't be so facetious and deliberately stupid. It has been done that way for thousands of years well before IVF etc.
What more authority and evidence can you get than that?
Sit down Gordon before you fall down under the weight of your own silliness...
Leaving aside that I know where babies come from (I've seen the opening scenes of Dumbo y'know), I take it you didn't actually read the quote from Spud that I was responding to and that, therefore, you've missed the context. Spud said this:
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
I asked him where his authority for the 'right' element of this claim lies.
-
Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good. And if something is both natural and good that does not mean that that other things can't also be both natural and good.
-
Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good.
You're trying to explain to Sassy an elementary logical fallacy, one made by Spud.
Don't. Seriously. Just don't.
-
Ah. I see that you are incapable not only of writing comprehensible English but of understanding the point being made.
Figures.
It won't matter how I write it, what excuse you make we both know you read and understood it, the same.
Just as everyone else.. Want a rock to crawl under....
Oh sinnerman, where you gonna run to?
Sinnerman, where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna run to?
All along dem day
Well I run to the rock, please hide me
I run to the rock, please hide me
I run to the rock, please hide me, lord
All along dem day
But the rock cried out, I can't hide you
Truth is the number of posts you answered showed clearly and consistently you understood the conversation between us and it's contents. To now come up with this demonstrates a sad side to your nature which shows no openness of mind or ability to admit when you do something deliberate and misleading in what you write.
The rock you need is Jesus Christ, but he won't allow you hide behind him and neither would a normal rock.
You live with the embarrassment of hiding behind your fictitious rock. We can all see you. :(
-
Leaving aside that I know where babies come from (I've seen the opening scenes of Dumbo y'know), I take it you didn't actually read the quote from Spud that I was responding to and that, therefore, you've missed the context. Spud said this:
I asked him where his authority for the 'right' element of this claim lies.
AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.
That is the authority of the 'right' element. So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against
that law of nature. So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.
You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?
Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?
-
The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
What do you mean by 'right'?
-
AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.
We know this. So what?
Do you understand what the appeal to nature fallacy is?
That is the authority of the 'right' element.
No, obviously you do not.
So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against
that law of nature. So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.
Further proof that you do not.
You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?
Yet more confirmation.
Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?
Spud hasn't produced any evidence whatsoever that what is natural is right simply by virtue of being natural. That's a logical fallacy.
-
Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good.
Show me how heterosexual couples having intercourse and conceiving a baby is not right or good for them.
That reply was stupid in every aspect and below your intelligence. You cannot argue a right wrong because it does not fit in with your philosophy about other things. In this case the reasoning is clear.
Spud showing heterosexual intercourse being the natural way of Nature by stating that this type of intercourse is the only NATURAL way of swapping the genetic material to make a baby.
There is no right or wrong to the natural course as far as Nature is concerned and the evidence.
And if something is both natural and good that does not mean that that other things can't also be both natural and good.
You deliberate IGNORE the reason for Spuds statement., It is NOT ABOUT GOOD is it about evidence of it being NATURAL.
But to deny that conceiving a child is good and natural is to frankly to be so engrossed in a belief you will at all costs of integrity deny and make less of it, to your own purpose and end.
In this case... it is NATURAL evidence that Natures way is for a man and woman to be the people to procreate naturally together.
There is nothing personal in it. No natural not being good. It is as they say " A FACT OF LIFE".
You will get this if you read the rest of the posts. Nothing personal to atheist, pagans or agnostic's, Rhi, just stating the facts
-
You're trying to explain to Sassy an elementary logical fallacy, one made by Spud.
Don't. Seriously. Just don't.
How deep can you dig your own hole?
Australia quite nice this time of year.... ;D ;D ;D
You don't get it, do you. Shaker?
Those days are over... You have no credibility it just went caput... came to a head no longer viable.
And all that matters and will matter is that you know that we both know it.
Lay down your credibility just died.
-
AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.
If a baby is to made: but not all people wish to, or can, make babies when having sex. Some have the potential to but take measures to avoid said babies, and for others the baby element isn't relevant. The biology bit is understood though: nobody is confused on that.
That is the authority of the 'right' element. So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against that law of nature.
Which isn't the point re. Spud's statement. Spud said:The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)
I'm asking him where his authority for the 'right' claim comes from.
So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.
You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?
Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?
As I've said, you are assuming my question to Spud is about natural biology, and it isn't: it is about the source of the prescriptive moral authority he implies.
-
Show me how heterosexual couples having intercourse and conceiving a baby is not right or good for them.
One fairly obvious reason would be because they didn't want and never intended to initiate a pregnancy - a contraceptive failure, for example.
Spud showing heterosexual intercourse being the natural way of Nature by stating that this type of intercourse is the only NATURAL way of swapping the genetic material to make a baby.
We know this.
Nobody is saying otherwise.
There is no right or wrong to the natural course as far as Nature is concerned and the evidence.
Except that Spud has said otherwise.
You deliberate IGNORE the reason for Spuds statement., It is NOT ABOUT GOOD is it about evidence of it being NATURAL.
Every time you throw the word natural around you confirm that (a) you haven't a clue what the appeal to nature fallacy is and therefore (b) what this discussion is actually about.
But to deny that conceiving a child is good and natural
It isn't always good - see first response above.
In this case... it is NATURAL evidence that Natures way is for a man and woman to be the people to procreate naturally together.
But what is natural is not necessarily good. One example of this has already been given. Here's another: rectal cancer.
Spud claims that it is. It isn't and he is wrong. He is wrong because he's committing the same elementary fallacy that you are.
-
If a baby is to made: but not all people wish to, or can, make babies when having sex. Some have the potential to but take measures to avoid said babies, and for others the baby element isn't relevant. The biology bit is understood though: nobody is confused on that.
It takes absolutely NOTHING away from the point that the NATURAL evidence that by way of Nature that Heterosexual intercourse is the ONLY way to swap the genetic material necessary to make a baby.
You are rambling - WHAT you say does not take away from the truth that Natures way and the FACT OF LIFE is that only men and women can together swap the genetic material to make a baby. It is not about the individuals fertility because even gay couples can be fertile and infertile. But the fact is their fertility alone is worth nothing in the force of NATURE.
Nature only allows fertile heterosexual couples to swap the necessary genetic material during intercourse.
You know that... I know that.... the world knows that... as evidence you cannot change it.
Which isn't the point re. Spud's statement. Spud said:
I'm asking him where his authority for the 'right' claim comes from.
As I've said, you are assuming my question to Spud is about natural biology, and it isn't: it is about the source of the prescriptive moral authority he implies.
The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.
-
The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.
Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).
You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't. Nature also gives babies spina bifida - do you consider that to be right, good or desirable?
If your answer is no there might just be a chance of getting you to the point of being able to see the fallacy both you and Spud are committing here - the yoking of natural with right/good/true/desirable; the illegitimate derivation of an ought (a moral prescription) from an is (some particular state of affairs about the world).
-
Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).
You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't. Nature also gives babies spina bifida - do you consider that to be right, good or desirable?
If your answer is no there might just be a chance of getting you to the point of being able to see the fallacy you're committing here.
You must have reached Australia by now... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
You can't write, you can't reason, you can't even answer a simple question.
Pitiful.
-
You must have reached Australia by now... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
He won't have got there before you did though!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
It takes absolutely NOTHING away from the point that the NATURAL evidence that by way of Nature that Heterosexual intercourse is the ONLY way to swap the genetic material necessary to make a baby.
You are rambling - WHAT you say does not take away from the truth that Natures way and the FACT OF LIFE is that only men and women can together swap the genetic material to make a baby. It is not about the individuals fertility because even gay couples can be fertile and infertile. But the fact is their fertility alone is worth nothing in the force of NATURE.
Nature only allows fertile heterosexual couples to swap the necessary genetic material during intercourse.
You know that... I know that.... the world knows that... as evidence you cannot change it.
The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.
Sheer waffle: the point I have with Spud is the difference between 'is' and 'ought', since he is fallaciously assuming the latter from the former. You seem to have missed this critical aspect of the discussion.
-
So, if Gavin and Barry are going at it, then Barry "transfers his genetic material" into his wife's nunny, that's fine?
But if Barry gets a bit over excited and jizzes on Gavin, then that's a bad thing?
Obviously it's an important question that I... I mean we...I mean Barry. And Gavin. And Mrs Barry...um...
-
Nunny? ;D
-
Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).
You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't.
Interesting..... what then would your answer be to those who would argue that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in nature or that epicurean shagfests are justified because Bonobos indulge in it?
Would you tell them that nature has no ''authority'' or nod your head sagely in agreement?
-
Interesting..... what then would your answer be to those who would argue that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in nature or that epicurean shagfests are justified because Bonobos indulge in it?
Would you tell them that nature has no ''authority'' or nod your head sagely in agreement?
I've never heard anybody say that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in (non-human) nature. It clearly does so, and in being a fact that's an is, not an ought. It's the because that's always the problem in fallacies such as these - the illegitimate linkage between what is the case and what ought to be the case. That's the mistake that Spuddychops keeps making; that some particular feature of the way the world is is the only right one because it's natural.
The only time that people raise the subject of homosexual behaviour in non-human animals is to refute the patently false assertions either that homosexuality is unnatural or that non-human animals (such as bonobos) don't exhibit it, which we still see sometimes.
-
So, if Gavin and Barry are going at it, then Barry "transfers his genetic material" into his wife's nunny, that's fine?
But if Barry gets a bit over excited and jizzes on Gavin, then that's a bad thing?
Obviously it's an important question that I... I mean we...I mean Barry. And Gavin. And Mrs Barry...um...
Hang on, We've got Barry and Gavin, Barry's wife and a Nun? what's going on here?
-
You can pay to watch it on certain tv channels I believe.
-
You can pay to watch it on certain tv channels I believe.
What, bonobos shagging?
I blame Attenborough.
-
Shaker has dealt very well with the fallacy of equating the natural with the good, or is/ought, in other words.
I was thinking about making a cup of tea with an electric kettle, a tea-bag and a ceramic mug. All of these things are unnatural in a sense; i.e. they are not found in the wild rain-forest, but must be bought from shops, and are man-made.
But we don't think that making a cup of tea is unnatural really. We don't try to make one with a fire made from birch-twigs, tea freshly plucked in Sri Lanka, and a cup made of a giant leaf.
I suppose it's sex that gets people salivating about the natural and unnatural, trying to find a rationale for their bigotry, usually.
-
Yes, and the use of the word 'fallacy' is bandied about quite a bit, albeit the spelling is atrocious ;).
-
It's Freud's fault. He would go on about phallusies, and then there was phallocentric worlds, and you ended up with fail-safe condoms that were anything but, hence there's many a slip betwixt phallus and lip. Highly unnatural, of course!
-
Yeah, what with that and nuns, the mind boggles doesn't it, fella?
-
Yeah, what with that and nuns, the mind boggles doesn't it, fella?
🙈
-
You should take your own advice with regard to reading the thread.
Nobody is disputing the means by which conception occurs.
What is being challenged is the opinion of King Edward of Maris Piper that the only legitimate, permissible form of sexual intercourse is that in which conception is possible and can result in offspring.
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
OK lets just take random nonsense from the book:
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
Its a Good Book. Pah.
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
So, married heterosexual couples (even those have or intend to have children) are "dishonouring their bodies" if they enjoy other sex acts together?
Are you for real?
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
Bullshit.
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
Whilst the Bible says some sensible things, it also says some very stupid things as well! >:(
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
Is that your authority? Really, is that it???
If so it can simply be ignored as being ancient opinion that is now at odds with a modern civilised society.
-
Once upon a time......
People thought the parts of the body had one specific purpose ( God designed it with one purpose in mind)
Your anus for example was for waste removal and nothing else, the Woman's vagina was just for a mans penis to enter and nothing else, well apart from giving birth.
Anything else was considered as defiling the body.
So those vibrating sex AIDS were also out.
It was all considered unnatural and a perversion of what it was all designed for.
In fact having sex doggy fashion was probably considered dodgy........... :-\
In fact at times I think enjoying sex was also frowned on.
Having sex just for fun the RC still frowns on as it considers contraception wrong and seems to think sex without babies or preventing babies is sinful.
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
Paul was a right miserable prude, wasn't he?
-
He won't have got there before you did though!
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
It won't be from digging a hole on my part, though.
You going with him to keep him company? ;D
-
Sheer waffle: the point I have with Spud is the difference between 'is' and 'ought', since he is fallaciously assuming the latter from the former. You seem to have missed this critical aspect of the discussion.
Gordon don't make yourself look any less sincere and truthful than you already have.
The fact is clear:- Nature has made it so only a man and a woman can procreate naturally by sexual intercourse.
A fact of life, and no matter how you look at it, the only evidence that nature wanted Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Anne and Eve to make babies.
Whatever your point does not take away from the true point being made which I am speaking about.
Waffle and excuses from yourself and others don't wash in this particular case. My posts have been clear and to the point.
-
The fact is clear:- Nature has made it so only a man and a woman can procreate naturally by sexual intercourse.
Well, you're clearly unbothered by making yourself look stupid, indeed more so with each post.
We all know how babies are made. You don't need to keep spelling it out because we're all familiar with the specifics and nobody is disputing them.
Spud is using this neutral, value-free fact about a particular state of affairs in the world to construct a moral edict that this is the only acceptable and permissible form of sexual behaviour for humans. This is a philosophical dead end, it being pretty well universally acknowledged that you can't derive moral prescriptions and prohibitions simply from facts about the world - in other words, he is wrong to think that he can derive an ought from an is.
Do you understand now?
A fact of life, and no matter how you look at it, the only evidence that nature wanted Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Anne and Eve to make babies.
What about hermaphroditic creatures? There are said to be about 65,000 species of those. Why didn't nature want "Adam and Eve" ::) to create offspring there?
-
Is it really so difficult to understand that natures way for human kind to procreate is a man and a woman?
Is this fact of life so hard to relate to because people cannot accept the truth for what it is?
To ridicule a person for giving the example of it as evidence that it is the natural way by nature shows a lack of ability to accept truth by those attacking Spud.
I personally do not see sex as a commodity to bandy about anywhere and everywhere and I am sure a lot of people who have slept around (especially women) who end up unable to have children because of an STD have regretted it too.
Are we really so immature and so against others having different beliefs that we would allow the stupidity displayed in replies on this thread to be acceptable?
Spud had made a perfectly good answer. He has shown evidence that suggests intercourse between a man and a woman is the only natural way in nature to conceive a child.
I personally believe it shows a lack of maturity and even honesty that people would try and make stupid arguments as if it will lessen the truth.
What you do is take away any credibility that atheists, pagans or agnostics have any open mindedness when it comes to God and would never be willing to change their mind regardless of any evidence.
They cannot even accept the truth of Nature and the evidence it gives.
-
Is it really so difficult to understand that natures way for human kind to procreate is a man and a woman?
It's pretty clear by this stage that you're incapable of understanding that nobody is disputing this. The discussion moved on when Mr Potato Head decided that this is the only acceptable form of sexual expression, but hey, if missing the point completely and utterly and repeating what nobody else denies is the full extent of your engagement with this discussion, by all means carry on.
-
Spud had made a perfectly good answer. He has shown evidence that suggests intercourse between a man and a woman is the only natural way in nature to conceive a child.
Sass - nobody, but nobody is disputing that. So just stop repeating yourself.
What they are saying is that to take that as the preferred model for sexual behaviour and say it is the only reason to have sex is nonsense. And to go further, to make a moral judgement from a biological action makes no sense.
I don't know why you are having trouble with this line of reasoning - it is quite simple.
-
Well, you're clearly unbothered by making yourself look stupid, indeed more so with each post.
We all know how babies are made. You don't need to keep spelling it out because we're all familiar with the specifics and nobody is disputing them.
Spud is using this neutral, value-free fact about a particular state of affairs in the world to construct a moral edict that this is the only acceptable and permissible form of sexual behaviour for humans. This is a philosophical dead end, it being pretty well universally acknowledged that you can't derive moral prescriptions and prohibitions simply from facts about the world - in other words, he is wrong to think that he can derive an ought from an is.
Do you understand now?What about hermaphroditic creatures? There are said to be about 65,000 species of those. Why didn't nature want "Adam and Eve" ::) to create offspring there?
Tell me what qualifications you have SHAKER.
The truth is that sexual behaviour being acceptable or permissible is a chosen way. But the only evidence of a natural way of sexual behaviour is a man and woman being able to procreate.
In truth a man can stick his willy anywhere. But it won't make it natural. Be it in an animal or another person. It won't make it acceptable either. Because it is all about choice.
Spud is a Christian so we both know that he believes only sex between a man and woman, a married couple is the natural and normal way for him. When asked for evidence it is the normal and natural way in his faith and the world. We see he uses the example of man and woman having sexual intercourse being able to procreate.
How he sees it is is right for him. How you see it, is wrong for you.
But nonetheless, he has given evidence independent of his faith that would suggests natures way is a man and a woman.
Our lusts are not always leading us in the right way. A man who lusts after a woman and then attacks and rapes her.
Is that sex really natural is it a loving and committed relationship or a consensual act?
Does the fact he can perform the act make it natural? As humans we make choices and we choose our partners.
But being able to do something, in itself does not make it natural or right.
Given the greater scheme of things...Spud makes an excellent point of evidence. That only a man and woman can produce a baby through natural sexual intercourse. Whatever the choices we make what ever way we choose to have sexual relationships, none of the other ways can produce a child. Whilst for Spud it is that way and no others.
We know that sexual relations do not decide how a baby is made. Nature does. In the fact of that argument there is none to change it.
Spud has not changed anything he has said previously. As a Christian he has always proclaimed that his beliefs are such.
So it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact he has now given you a natural evidence that no other sexual intercourse but a man and a woman will produce a baby. Nature makes the statement not spud.
We are talking about mankind and no diverting to any other animal will change that fact.
In this case it was HUMANS which were being discussed.
So no! You just have to admit you can't twist your way out of it this time.
-
Nature makes the statement not spud.
Nature makes all kinds of statements - but they are devoid of morality. It just is.
So smallpox is natural - do we say that's just fine and dandy - let it just take its course? Of course we don't, we use unnatural means to defeat it.
Whether something is natural or not does not bestow any morality thereon. Surely you get that.
Oh and PS - it seems to me that Spud is reducing us to the level of animals by saying that the purpose of sex should only be for procreation. ::)
-
It's pretty clear by this stage that you're incapable of understanding that nobody is disputing this. The discussion moved on when Mr Potato Head decided that this is the only acceptable form of sexual expression, but hey, if missing the point completely and utterly and repeating what nobody else denies is the full extent of your engagement with this discussion, by all means carry on.
It is clear that you used the above to try and get out of admitting that Spud was right.
So admit it.. that the evidence by nature shows that the natural way of humans is for a man and a woman.
Because only they can procreate naturally together by sexual intercourse.
Admit it, that nature favours the man and woman.
Mr potatoes head as you referred to him I find a little weird as you are the one with all the specks in your spud eyes.
You knew before the discussion what Spuds beliefs were. So by nature only a man and woman is favoured as being the correct way. You can stick your willy where you want, it won't make it natural or right.
Because you get to choose. Therefore choice plays a part. As for having babies in a sexual relationship only Nature gets to choose and they choose the heterosexual sexual relations.
What Spud believes otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with you attacking him and making it about something else.
So go on admit it... Nature makes the man and woman the natural way of sexual relations because only they can procreate.
He never said other sexual relations didn't happen. It was clear he was discussing all sexual relations and making a point of natural evidence that only male and female can have the baby. So me thinks the last minute ditch to try and save yourself was an epic fail since the argument was about the natural way of sexual intercourse being a man and woman as opposed to the other ways.
-
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies,
Sass
This is what Spud thinks of me.
I'm unnatural - and apparently dishonouring my body (although a chance would be a fine thing ;))
So he is making judgements based on a belief that procreation is the only reason for sex. A judgement. And what does your book say about judgements?
-
Sass
This is what Spud thinks of me.
I'm unnatural - and apparently dishonouring my body (although a chance would be a fine thing ;))
So he is making judgements based on a belief that procreation is the only reason for sex. A judgement. And what does your book say about judgements?
He's sucking the fun right out of it
-
Sass has really surpassed herself this morning with her crazy posts! ::)
-
The truth is that sexual behaviour being acceptable or permissible is a chosen way.
This isn't even English.
In truth a man can stick his willy anywhere. But it won't make it natural.
In a naturalistic universe, which is the only kind of which I have any knowledge, everything is by definition natural.
Spud is a Christian so we both know that he believes only sex between a man and woman, a married couple is the natural and normal way for him. When asked for evidence it is the normal and natural way in his faith and the world. We see he uses the example of man and woman having sexual intercourse being able to procreate.
Plenty can't procreate; plenty do not wish to.
The interesting thing is that further up-thread Spud tellingly - perhaps rashly, mistakenly - conceded that sex isn't all about reproduction, yet later regaled us with his opinion that only sexual behaviour open to reproduction is permissible.
In other words, he seems, to say the least of it, rather confused as to what it is he purports to believe.
But nonetheless, he has given evidence independent of his faith
I suggest you cast an eye over reply #508:
Anything else is not only unnatural but dishonouring of their bodies, according to Romans 1:24-27.
You will have to tell us whether that strikes you as independent of his faith.
Our lusts are not always leading us in the right way. A man who lusts after a woman and then attacks and rapes her.
Is that sex really natural is it a loving and committed relationship or a consensual act?
No, that's rape. But then so much of the sexual expression that Spud regards as impermissible is in a loving and committed relationship and is entirely consensual - childless by choice couples, infertile couples, gay couples everywhere.
Does the fact he can perform the act make it natural?
Yes. Natural doesn't inevitably or inherently equal right, good, true or desirable - that's Spud's fallacy.
As humans we make choices and we choose our partners.
Certainly we do when we are given the freedom to do so, which often means getting religion out of the way first.
-
He's sucking the fun right out of it
I would say that sucking is natural, and blowing is unnatural. Having said that, after a few vodkas, it's hard to tell the difference, but who cares.
-
I would say that sucking is natural, and blowing is unnatural. Having said that, after a few vodkas, it's hard to tell the difference, but who cares.
Odd that the second term has come to refer to the action alluded to, though :)
-
This isn't even English.
In a naturalistic universe, which is the only kind of which I have any knowledge, everything is by definition natural.
Plenty can't procreate; plenty do not wish to.
The interesting thing is that further up-thread Spud tellingly - perhaps rashly, mistakenly - conceded that sex isn't all about reproduction, yet later regaled us with his opinion that only sexual behaviour open to reproduction is permissible.
In other words, he seems, to say the least of it, rather confused as to what it is he purports to believe.
I suggest you cast an eye over reply #508:
You will have to tell us whether that strikes you as independent of his faith.
No, that's rape. But then so much of the sexual expression that Spud regards as impermissible is in a loving and committed relationship and is entirely consensual - childless by choice couples, infertile couples, gay couples everywhere.Yes. Natural doesn't inevitably or inherently equal right, good, true or desirable - that's Spud's fallacy.Certainly we do when we are given the freedom to do so, which often means getting religion out of the way first.
Regarding what I've underlined. I did say before that apparently, from nature's perspective, the pleasure of sex is what entices us to want it, and this in turn increases the likelihood of reproducing. I think this is an objective perspective on the subject.
From a sociological perspective, we need to have reproduction to ensure our survival. But it has to be within certain parameters. Hence we have marriage which reduces adultery so that offspring are given the greatest chance of survival. The sexual appetite has to be restrained (chastity). Some activities which might feel natural, aren't good for society or the individual. Some which seem natural are unnatural even by nature's standards. Adultery might feel right, but restraint would be more in the interests of the whole family.
Homosexuality in animals can be described as natural but actually it is unnatural because it is contrary to how the body is designed to work.
Sex in an infertile couple is natural because it is a natural act, being the same act that brings about procreation. It also unifies a man and a woman, which is good for society because it is consistent with the structure of the family unit.
Sex in homosexuals is unnatural because it is an act that can never bring about procreation. It is bad for society because it is contrary to the structure of the family.
Please don't think I am looking down on anyone. I'm a boring bachelor, a spud not a stud, and would prefer to be talking about Isaiah or something.
-
It is bad for society because it is contrary to the structure of the family.
No it isn't.
-
I thought the issue was less about procreation or homosexuality as an identity, and more about the risk of contact with faeces during sodomy (faeces is natural but pretty disgusting and a source of infection) as well as the tissues in the anus being more liable to tears as they don't have the natural lubrication required, which increases the risk of spreading certain diseases.
Hence, the ban on men who have had sex with men (whether heterosexual, homosexual bisexual or anywhere in between) donating blood for 12 months, based on statistical analysis of the risk to recepients of blood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-cant-gay-men-donate-blood-10426364.html
-
From a sociological perspective, we need to have reproduction to ensure our survival.
Not only is our survival not in peril, our proliferation is making a bollocks of the planet not only for ourselves but every other species on it. With a human population still undergoing an unstoppable rise any argument predicated on the survival of the species, as though we were still a gaggle of hairy hominids on the savannah undergoing a disastrous population bottleneck, is a bad joke. That scenario occurred at least once - it's thought that at one point around 70,000 years ago the human population crashed to anywhere between 10,000 and 2,000 individuals - but extinction through low numbers is now really not the issue.
Homosexuality in animals can be described as natural but actually it is unnatural because it is contrary to how the body is designed to work.
Except that it wasn't designed. Form isn't always function and you still can't get that ought (or, as is invariably the case, ought not) from an is.
Sex in an infertile couple is natural because it is a natural act, being the same act that brings about procreation.
Unless you don't understand the concept of infertility, that is an act from which no procreation will result.
It also unifies a man and a woman, which is good for society because it is consistent with the structure of the family unit.
Now we're getting somewhere - possibly. This is exactly and precisely what I've already said - sex is a bonding exercise between two people (or more, if you're lucky). Except that rather than your narrow parameters, it's also a bonding exercise between people who don't have a family, don't want a family, can't have a family, gay couples, etc.
Sex in homosexuals is unnatural because it is an act that can never bring about procreation.
And this is precisely the spot where your would-be argument collapses, since you draw an entirely artificial and ad hoc distinction between two scenarios with precisely the same effect or outcome, or rather the lack of one. Heterosexual sex between two people who can't reproduce (one or both parties are infertile) gets merrily waved through, but homosexual sex - with precisely the same result or non-result - is impermissible, according to you. This glaring inconsistency can only stem from animus against homosexuality, which as we know is mostly religiously inspired.
It is bad for society because it is contrary to the structure of the family.
I don't fetishise families as so many seem to, for one thing. There are a billion and one ways of living, enough to suit all kinds of people in all their dizzying variety, of which a family is only one kind. It suits some, but it doesn't suit others.
As for society, my conception of a happy as well as fair and just society is one that extends to its citizens the greatest possible personal freedom and the maturity to treat them as competent actors capable of directing the course of their own lives and finding their own happiness in their own way according to their lights. People like Hope call this rampant individualism; correct. It is. The sort of social cohesion that he has talked about may have some good points, but the bad outweighs the good; it has a tendency to squash individual freedom and to enforce at best a bland and invariably hypocritical conformity and at worst oppression, overt (such as we see in strongly religious societies - Saudi Arabia's morality police, for example) or covert, through what John Stuart Mill called 'the tyranny of the majority.' In passing I would add that in On Liberty, as near to a Bible as I've ever had (or one of them) Mill talks at length about how strong, mature, confident societies have to cast off that sort of explicit or implicit tyranny and not merely tolerate but positively encourage diversity and dissent.
-
It's entirely possible that once there's a Mrs Spud, HRH might find it somewhat less important to adhere to his rule book as to what belongs where.
-
Crossed my mind too ;)
-
It's entirely possible that once there's a Mrs Spud, HRH might find it somewhat less important to adhere to his rule book as to what belongs where.
You wish.
-
Does anybody else find it somewhat odd that the Christians who think we are something special in "God's creation" are the ones appealing to base biological function here?
-
It's entirely possible that once there's a Mrs Spud, HRH might find it somewhat less important to adhere to his rule book as to what belongs where.
Good point.
-
Shaker,
I see the counter-argument to Spud seems to be a lot of equally pie in the sky wishful thinking and beliefs about free societies where people do what they are supposed to do and find individual happiness while not negatively impacting on society.
The rise in mental and emotional problems amongst young people in this increasingly liberal and individual-centric society suggests that your faith in your mantra that individualism leads to happiness needs a bit of a re-think.
-
Shaker,
I see the counter-argument to Spud seems to be a lot of equally pie in the sky wishful thinking and beliefs about free societies where people do what they are supposed to do and find individual happiness while not negatively impacting on society.
As you have evidently missed, the counter-argument to Spud is the correct pointing out that his pseudo-arguments rest on a number of assertions which are themselves predicated on various logical fallacies, one in particular, by people who understand these fallacies and can correctly identify them.
The rise in mental and emotional problems amongst young people in this increasingly liberal and individual-centric society suggests that your faith in your mantra that individualism leads to happiness needs a bit of a re-think.
No, I've already thought about it, thank you.
-
Not sure what was written pages ago - but I read your reply #534 and commented on that - sorry i should have made that clearer.
Your view that more individualism leads to increased happiness seems simplistic idealism and isn't supported by the evidence of rising mental health problems since the 1970s in an increasingly liberal society like the UK. There may be many other factors contributing to this rise but it shows that individualism isn't some magic cure that should be aspired to in order to alleviate poverty, crime, unemployment, inequality etc - which are pretty significant problems today.
Individualism does work in some instances - it allows me to reject a lot of the liberal parenting culture that tries to promote tolerance of individual freedom for my children as a path to happiness. As I often point out to them if they want to be part of a family they need to be useful and productive contributors to the family's needs and values, regardless of how happy doing their own thing makes them. It is of course their choice if they want to continue being part of the family - they have that freedom.
-
As I often point out to them if they want to be part of a family they need to be useful and productive contributors to the family's needs and values, regardless of how happy doing their own thing makes them
But what if the values of the family run counter to the needs of the individual - even though that individual may want to be a useful and productive contributor to the family. How do you square the circle of a gay person in a homophobic family?
-
Not sure what was written pages ago - but I read your reply #534 and commented on that - sorry i should have made that clearer.
Your view that more individualism leads to increased happiness seems simplistic idealism and isn't supported by the evidence of rising mental health problems since the 1970s in an increasingly liberal society like the UK. There may be many other factors contributing to this rise but it shows that individualism isn't some magic cure that should be aspired to in order to alleviate poverty, crime, unemployment, inequality etc - which are pretty significant problems today.
Individualism does work in some instances - it allows me to reject a lot of the liberal parenting culture that tries to promote tolerance of individual freedom for my children as a path to happiness. As I often point out to them if they want to be part of a family they need to be useful and productive contributors to the family's needs and values, regardless of how happy doing their own thing makes them. It is of course their choice if they want to continue being part of the family - they have that freedom.
If one is part of a family ALL members should be making a contribution, to try to make it work, but one should also look out for one's own interests too.
I do my best to be there for my brain damaged husband, but at the same time I ensure that I get plenty of me time too, otherwise I would go completely crazy. I also insist my husband does his bit to help with the chores etc.
-
But what if the values of the family run counter to the needs of the individual - even though that individual may want to be a useful and productive contributor to the family. How do you square the circle of a gay person in a homophobic family?
Well, a few points in relation to that - my parents are Hindu, I was an atheist for about 10 years and have been a Muslim for over 20 years and I wasn't expecting my parents to just accept my choices - it's up to them to decide if my contributions to the family induce them to accommodate the changes in behaviour that my different values have created. They weigh up the whole person and decide if having me in their lives brings them more happiness than pain. I would encourage my kids to take the same approach with me, their parent, and I would take that approach with them.
A Hindu friend of my parents was very upset on finding out her son was gay - she still mourns the loss of a future daughter-in-law and feels he is missing out on a lot in life. Initially she didn't want to see him but gradually she realised he brought so much happiness to her life that she could not cut him off. She says his spouse is wonderful - he would be perfect, if only he was a she - ah well.
-
Well, a few points in relation to that - my parents are Hindu, I was an atheist for about 10 years and have been a Muslim for over 20 years and I wasn't expecting my parents to just accept my choices - it's up to them to decide if my contributions to the family induce them to accommodate the changes in behaviour that my different values have created. They weigh up the whole person and decide if having me in their lives brings them more happiness than pain. I would encourage my kids to take the same approach with me, their parent, and I would take that approach with them.
A Hindu friend of my parents was very upset on finding out her son was gay - she still mourns the loss of a future daughter-in-law and feels he is missing out on a lot in life. Initially she didn't want to see him but gradually she realised he brought so much happiness to her life that she could not cut him off. She says his spouse is wonderful - he would be perfect, if only he was a she - ah well.
How sad the woman initially thought of cutting him off, that doesn't put her in a very good light! >:(
-
How sad the woman initially thought of cutting him off, that doesn't put her in a very good light! >:(
Not really Floo. I think you do have to take into account cultural issues. My mother in law when she was alive - was very hostile to me for the first year or so of my relationship with her son - but she came round to it, by and large. She was Asian from East Africa - and although Catholic it was a different kind of Catholicism from that practiced in the here and now. It takes some people time to adjust their expectations is all.
-
Not really Floo. I think you do have to take into account cultural issues. My mother in law when she was alive - was very hostile to me for the first year or so of my relationship with her son - but she came round to it, by and large. She was Asian from East Africa - and although Catholic it was a different kind of Catholicism from that practiced in the here and now. It takes some people time to adjust their expectations is all.
You are a good, forgiving person. :)
-
Not really Floo. I think you do have to take into account cultural issues. My mother in law when she was alive - was very hostile to me for the first year or so of my relationship with her son - but she came round to it, by and large. She was Asian from East Africa - and although Catholic it was a different kind of Catholicism from that practiced in the here and now. It takes some people time to adjust their expectations is all.
Yes, among my parents' generation the expectation was that any offspring you popped would one day have a white wedding followed by a couple of children. It was hard for the parents of my gay friends to adjust their expectations. These days of course few parents have any such expectation - and those that do will be able to see their gay children marry and have a family anyway.
-
How sad the woman initially thought of cutting him off, that doesn't put her in a very good light! >:(
Not really. It's up to her as to whether she wants to socialise with her son and his partner.
And she also has to decide whether she is up to dealing with any social stigma the relationship will cause amongst her peers - she seems to have told no one except my parents. Her son has his partner so he's happy - she has no one as she is divorced. She has obviously decided that she prefers social isolation to losing her son. It's her call - she is the one who has to live her life and make choices to maximise her happiness.
-
And has she maximised her happiness?
-
Yes, among my parents' generation the expectation was that any offspring you popped would one day have a white wedding followed by a couple of children. It was hard for the parents of my gay friends to adjust their expectations. These days of course few parents have any such expectation - and those that do will be able to see their gay children marry and have a family anyway.
I think you are generalising. Most Asian parents in my generation, while recognising that heterosexual marriage has lots of problems, still have an expectation of traditional marriage and grand children as the lesser evil compared to individualism.
-
And has she maximised her happiness?
In relation to those particular circumstances, I suppose that her current view is her son means more to her than her peers, so yes she believes she made the right choice - she also took into account how upset he would feel if she didn't see him as he is devoted to her. Not every parent and child have that kind of relationship.
-
I think you are generalising. Most Asian parents in my generation, while recognising that heterosexual marriage has lots of problems, still have an expectation of traditional marriage and grand children as the lesser evil compared to individualism.
Even if that leads to disappointment and unhappiness.
-
Err...disappointment and unhappiness are part of the "rich tapestry of life". So long as you're not disappointed and unhappy most of the time over a long period of time with most areas of your life and there are only rare periods of happiness to balance it out, then it's up to the individual to appreciate the positives and not dwell on the negatives. It's about trying to find a balance.
-
Gabriella talks a lot of sense and we cannot really assess people from different cultures, certainly not judge them. We must all know, from work or neighbours or our childrens' school friends, lots of people from Hindu or Muslim backgrounds who live happy and fulfilled lives. They can still divorce like anyone else, it happens. No-one is happy all the time.
-
Yes but we can find our own unhappiness and disappointment. We do
We don't need to impose it on others, or have it imposed on us.
And my best friend from school was a Hindu, and she did get divorced, and then had to leave the country and start a new life because of the shame - not something I'm having to do as a consequence of my own separation.
And that isn't a judgement, it's just how it was.
-
Yes but we can find our own unhappiness and disappointment. We do
We don't need to impose it on others, or have it imposed on us.
And my best friend from school was a Hindu, and she did get divorced, and then had to leave the country and start a new life because of the shame - not something I'm having to do as a consequence of my own separation.
In London, divorced Hindus and Muslims whom I have met don't seem to need to hide away in shame or leave the country. My parents' friend got divorced a while ago, long before her son told her about being in a relationship with a man - I don't know if his dad knows.
My mother-in-law divorced and remarried while she was in Sri Lanka. She ran away from her first husband (they had no kids) when she fell in love with my husband's late father - she was from a well-known Muslim family so it was in the papers and security forces were hunting for them so they had to hide out with sympathetic friends until it all died down. Her mother disowned her for at least 10 years. She eventually came to the UK with her children as her new husband was involved in politics and as a result death threats had been made against her because her husband was a bit of a maverick who wouldn't go along with the corruption in politics.
By the way, she thinks she has had a good life - she doesn't dwell on the negative, which I think most of the time feels like it is imposed on us by others. Whether imposed by others or not, it is still possibly to navigate a path to contentment a lot of the time - if you manage your expectations and don't obsess over disappointments.
-
I grew up in London, as did my friend. Maybe different backgrounds involved.
Your mother in law, by choosing to see that she has had a good life, isn't letting anyone impose unhappiness on her. Choosing how we respond to our feelings is the one thing we all have left to us at any time, however hard. The complication of having unhappiness imposed upon us by family is that we don't want to hurt those that we love.
-
I agree - but then that is the downside of social living and love in general - there are more opportunities for people to hurt you.
Each person will look at their own individual circumstances and weigh up whether the benefits of family and love and agreeing to compromise, co-operate, and negotiate are worth the pain of getting hurt, of having to compromise and, sacrificie etc
-
Well yes, and of course when it comes to partners and friends we can only have love and happiness if we are prepared to risk losing them.
With family though, we don't seek out that love, it just is, and in context of the discussion we are talking about people being asked by their loved ones to choose one kind of love over another, or stay in an unhappy situation, in order to keep others happy, and for what - social approval?
-
I can't generalise and my experience of non-Asian culture in terms of family relationships is fairly limited, but my experience of Asian culture is that duty and responsibility and generally being useful and helpful to people, especially your family, is considered a worthwhile way to spend your time before you die.
Seeking periods of happiness outside of that scenario is ok but spending too much time focusing only on your own happiness - that can't be shared by your family who may have different traditions - is not something that is considered a meaningful way to spend your time. You then have to choose what means more to you - your family and their traditions or forging a new path where your family continues their traditions mostly without you, because those traditions bring them collective happiness.
ETA: There is a Muslim family, friends of my husband, and the youngest son has a boyfriend / partner (don't know how serious they are) - he and his partner come to his family's public celebrations sometimes, but he doesn't join them for community events - maybe he is not interested and he and his family have found a relatively happy compromise.
-
Gabriella talks a lot of sense and we cannot really assess people from different cultures, certainly not judge them.
Why can't we judge them?
-
Because we do not fully understand jeremy. We are not them. We can look at a different way of life and, by our assessment, believe it isn't for us or that we wouldn't like it but judging means saying certain values are wrong. Who are we to say what is wrong when it comes to family values of a different community? Especially if it works quite well for the majority. If people are unhappy with how things are they'll make adjustments without our input.
-
If people are unhappy with how things are they'll make adjustments without our input.
Tell that to all the raped abused and beaten women of India and Pakistan and Bengladesh.
-
Tell that to all the raped abused and beaten women of India and Pakistan and Bengladesh.
Exactly! If a culture allows turns a blind eye to evil acts it should be judged, and pressure put on it to change.
-
Morning Shaker, I'll answer one point now as am a bit puched for time.
And this is precisely the spot where your would-be argument collapses, since you draw an entirely artificial and ad hoc distinction between two scenarios with precisely the same effect or outcome, or rather the lack of one.
As Gabriella pointed out, though, in hetero couples the anatomy allows sex.
Form isn't always function and you still can't get that ought (or, as is invariably the case, ought not) from an is.
Structure governs function - one of the principles of Osteopathy.
-
Morning Shaker, I'll answer one point now as am a bit puched for time.As Gabriella pointed out, though, in hetero couples the anatomy allows sex.
Sex? as in
physical activity between people involving the sexual organs:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sex
I'm quite sure that non 'hetero' couples' anatomy allows that! ::) ::)
-
I am wondering if spud is a gay in denial?
-
I always think of Boxing.
Two men fighting each other and possibly giving themselves brain damage is never called unnatural, in fact they are more often than not admired as sportsmen.
Two men loving each other - and whoa, not in front of the horses.
Some people have seriously warped minds. :-\
-
I always think of Boxing.
Two men fighting each other and possibly giving themselves brain damage is never called unnatural, in fact they are more often than not admired as sportsmen.
Two men loving each other - and whoa, not in front of the horses.
Some people have seriously warped minds. :-\
Agreed.
-
I always think of Boxing.
Two men fighting each other and possibly giving themselves brain damage is never called unnatural, in fact they are more often than not admired as sportsmen.
Two men loving each other - and whoa, not in front of the horses.
Some people have seriously warped minds. :-\
One thing that I've noticed - I don't know if it's relevant to anything but I'll throw it out there - is that some people spend an awful lot of time and effort talking about sex between people of the same sex, but practically never once mention the word love in the same context.
Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
-
One thing that I've noticed - I don't know if it's relevant to anything but I'll throw it out there - is that some people spend an awful lot of time and effort talking about sex between people of the same sex, but practically never once mention the word love in the same context.
Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
There will no doubt be a word for it - but I think they are downgrading the relationships by focussing on the purely physical aspect of it.
-
Tell that to all the raped abused and beaten women of India and Pakistan and Bengladesh.
Oh really, why are you bringing up extremes? Hard cases never prove anything. I was talking about ordinary reasonable families, such as you and I know, and you know it. Can't believe you chimed in with that one - with floo, unthinking, hot on your tail.
We have raped, abused and beaten women in England too - you only have to look at the news to hear about them. Plus [lenty of child abuse. I don't go around thinking everyone is a potential abuser and neither do you, hopefully
-
Oh really, why are you bringing up extremes? Hard cases never prove anything. I was talking about ordinary reasonable families, such as you and I know, and you know it. Can't believe you chimed in with that one - with floo, unthinking, hot on your tail.
We have raped, abused and beaten women in England too - you only have to look at the news to hear about them. Plus [lenty of child abuse. I don't go around thinking everyone is a potential abuser and neither do you, hopefully
I don't trust anyone unless I have reason to do so.
-
Boxing is acceptable - men fighting, that's what men are supposed to do. Even the traditional view of heterosexual relationships is one of inequality. We still have very odd concepts about what are 'masculine' and what are 'feminine' attributes and it is still viewed as more acceptable for girls to cry than boys - and women to feel more than men.
I wonder if seeing a loving gay relationship somehow makes it unavoidable to look at the vulnerability of love in general.
-
Boxing is acceptable - men fighting, that's what men are supposed to do. Even the traditional view of heterosexual relationships is one of inequality. We still have very odd concepts about what are 'masculine' and what are 'feminine' attributes and it is still viewed as more acceptable for girls to cry than boys - and women to feel more than men.
I wonder if seeing a loving gay relationship somehow makes it unavoidable to look at the vulnerability of love in general.
Boxing has caused many men to be brain damaged, I am surprised it has not been banned in a health and safety culture as we have in the UK.
-
Boxing has caused many men to be brain damaged, I am surprised it has not been banned in a health and safety culture as we have in the UK.
I can't stand it, but as Trent says it doesn't frighten the horses in the way two blokes holding hands in the street does. Probably because we've had some very skewed ideas on what it is to be male in our society for a very long time. Patriarchy hasn't fucked up things for women only.
-
I have no idea how relevant this is, but it's a story I like, so...
Some friends of my family's relocated from the UK (where being out was fine) to the USA (where it wasn't quite so easy). They soon realised that one of their neighbours was watching them with binoculars, so eventually they decided to give her something to look at. When they got home from work they'd change into their clubbing gear, put on all the lights and then go about their usual evening - cooking, watching telly, putting the cat out etc. Then at bedtime they'd pull the curtains, get into their pyjamas and go to bed.
-
Morning Shaker, I'll answer one point now as am a bit puched for time.As Gabriella pointed out, though, in hetero couples the anatomy allows sex.
Structure governs function - one of the principles of Osteopathy.
If by sex you mean penetrative sex, then yes, statistically, anal penetration has a greater risk of causing harm and transmission of infection due to risk of tears in the tissue membrane and contact with faeces.
Presumably there is a greater spread of infection amongst men who perform oral sex on other men, as that question is in the blood donor screening process. But sex workers and drug users are also screened out because of the higher spread of infection risk - so it is not about homophobia.
Other forms of sex between men don't cause an issue.
-
Boxing has caused many men to be brain damaged, I am surprised it has not been banned in a health and safety culture as we have in the UK.
Can you - should you - ban something that people freely, willingly and voluntarily choose to do even at the risk or actuality of harm to themselves? Based on things like the notorious Spanner case from some years back the law says no, in certain cases, but plenty of people disagreed with that ruling then and still do now.
-
If by sex you mean penetrative sex, then yes, statistically, anal penetration has a greater risk of causing harm and transmission of infection due to risk of tears in the tissue membrane and contact with faeces.
Given the statistical imbalance between hetero- and homosexual people in the population there will be vastly many more heterosexual people having anal penetration than homosexual men. Simple numbers are at play here. Are they taken into account when giving blood, for example?
-
Arguably the availability of boxing gyms does take young men - and increasingly women - away from lifestyles that are catastrophic and give them both discipline and a sense of family.
It's a funny sentimental world, boxing. Kellie Maloney has not only been accepted but has gone back into boxing promotion almost immediately after her story broke. I'm not sure too many other sports that are constantly in the public eye would just get on with it in the same way.
-
Freud is supposed to have said that anatomy is destiny - widely discredited now - but Spud seems to be saying that anatomy should determine morality. In other words, God made the tabs and slots so that tab A should go in slot B, and woe betide you if you get the wrong tab in the wrong slot, even if its delicious, you'll make baby Jesus cry.
It's just a private opinion, and should not detain us really.
-
It's all down to Paul and his hang-ups really. Freud would have had a field day with that one.
-
Dear Wigs,
Slots and tabs, you are just a old romantic at heart, Dear do you mind if I insert my tab into your slot, hell! that is my new chat up line ;D ;D ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Slots and tabs, you are just a old romantic at heart, Dear do you mind if I insert my tab into your slot, hell! that is my new chat up line ;D ;D ;D ;D
Gonnagle.
I did think of designing a range of greeting cards, with jazzy slogans - my tab longs for your slot, or slotwards aims the great tab, roses are red, violets are blue, my slot is yearning for a tab or two, from you, etc.
-
From tabs and slots I'd got to the Wiccan athame and cup, and the vagina being a sheath or scabbard (literal translation) for a sword, gladius being slang for penis, apparently.
You can see why some feminists find 'cunt' less offensive.
-
Of course, the irony is that God has provided us with multiple tabs, if you include fingers and tongues, and multiple slots, modesty forbids me from outlining them. However, only some combinations have a bar-code by Yahweh.
-
However, only some combinations have a bar-code by Yahweh.
;D ;D
-
I understood, from working in a hospital, that stomach acid kills off harmful bacteria so I would have thought oral sex was safe. Also men are 'tougher' around the backside than women so there is less chance of damage. (I've no idea why any woman would want to do that, I know it is 'fashionable' atm.) Men have a prostate gland, something we don't have, which apparently enhances pleasure. Plenty of heterosexual men like that to be tickled too.
It's quite true that sex workers are banned from giving blood, odd considering they probably have more safe sex than anyone else. Their livelihood depends on it.
-
I understood, from working in a hospital, that stomach acid kills off harmful bacteria so I would have thought oral sex was safe. Also men are 'tougher' around the backside than women so there is less chance of damage. (I've no idea why any woman would want to do that, I know it is 'fashionable' atm.) Men have a prostate gland, something we don't have, which apparently enhances pleasure. Plenty of heterosexual men like that to be tickled too.
It's quite true that sex workers are banned from giving blood, odd considering they probably have more safe sex than anyone else. Their livelihood depends on it.
Do they?
-
Yes, condoms are mandatory. The rules about blood donation are there for the few who take risks and those who use iv drugs but a prostitute would generally take every precaution. A sex worker who is quite sure she (or he) is absolutely clean, and wants to give blood, is not going to be truthful before donating anyway.
The fact is, donated blood needs to be tested for infection before it is given to anyone else, the most unlikely and unknowing people could pass on infection.
(Going back to previous point floo, I am sure you are careful about who you trust on a personal level but writing off a large proportion of the males in the Indian subcontinent cannot be right. It reminds me of strident feminists some years back who said that ''all men are rapists''. We don't have room to talk in our culture.)
-
Given the statistical imbalance between hetero- and homosexual people in the population there will be vastly many more heterosexual people having anal penetration than homosexual men. Simple numbers are at play here. Are they taken into account when giving blood, for example?
In terms of blood donor screening, I personally think it should be based on behaviour and not on the sexual identity adopted by someone.
There are probably a combination of factors that are taken into consideration. The current screening rules have prevented disease transmission through receipt of donated blood so even though you are probably right about the absolute numbers - heterosexuals have not been deferred. Maybe they should be.
I suppose increased screening will mean not enough donors so I think they are trying to find the right balance to try to ensure adequate, safe supplies.
-
Yes, condoms are mandatory. The rules about blood donation are there for the few who take risks and those who use iv drugs but a prostitute would generally take every precaution. A sex worker who is quite sure she (or he) is absolutely clean, and wants to give blood, is not going to be truthful before donating anyway.
The fact is, donated blood needs to be tested for infection before it is given to anyone else, the most unlikely and unknowing people could pass on infection.
(Going back to previous point floo, I am sure you are careful about who you trust on a personal level but writing off a large proportion of the males in the Indian subcontinent cannot be right. It reminds me of strident feminists some years back who said that ''all men are rapists''. We don't have room to talk in our culture.)
I didn't say all men were rapists, did I?
-
I understood, from working in a hospital, that stomach acid kills off harmful bacteria so I would have thought oral sex was safe.
Cuts and sores increase risk of infection. Hep A can be passed through oral contact with faeces. Also men are 'tougher' around the backside than women so there is less chance of damage.
They are? I haven't heard about that. Got a link?
The issue with men who identify as gay or bi is that they will probably be selecting their partners from the gay/bi group and because of the higher percentage of that group with HIV, it means there is a greater likelihood of having penetrative sex with an infected person.
It's quite true that sex workers are banned from giving blood, odd considering they probably have more safe sex than anyone else. Their livelihood depends on it.
Presumably the stats show they have higher rates of infection compared to non-sex workers.
-
Boxing has caused many men to be brain damaged, I am surprised it has not been banned in a health and safety culture as we have in the UK.
So long as there is mutual consent, it is healthy and safe, I thought?
-
One of the arguments against banning boxing, is that it would go underground, and would be unsupervised. Still, you could apply this argument to lots of things, e.g. dog-fighting, but then that has gone underground.
-
So long as there is mutual consent, it is healthy and safe, I thought?
Who has argued that mutual consent makes something healthy and safe...?
-
I didn't say all men were rapists, did I?
No and I didn't say you did! Did you read my entire post floo? What I said was your attitude towards the majority of men in the Indian subcontinent was reminiscent of what strident feminists used to say (all men are rapists), not that many years ago. That wasn't true, neither is it true that the majority of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi men abuse their wives.
Anyway let's get back to homosexuals, at least we all know where we are on that one.
-
Surely the difference is the legal and cultural attitudes to the victims?
-
Oh really, why are you bringing up extremes? Hard cases never prove anything. I was talking about ordinary reasonable families, such as you and I know, and you know it. Can't believe you chimed in with that one - with floo, unthinking, hot on your tail.
We have raped, abused and beaten women in England too - you only have to look at the news to hear about them. Plus [lenty of child abuse. I don't go around thinking everyone is a potential abuser and neither do you, hopefully
Of course I don't, but, in the countries that I mentioned, these kinds of assaults are treated as perfectly normal behaviour for males against females. males go unpunished and a women is sentenced to be raped by an all -male court!
Your post above seems to suggest that such happenings are acceptable here too because they are part of the culture of those who have moved here! Not by me they ain't!
And again with the put-down for Floo - she is as entitled to her opinion and I to mine as you are to yours!
-
Owlswing: Your post above seems to suggest that such happenings are acceptable here too because they are part of the culture of those who have moved here! Not by me they ain't!
I didn't mean that Owlswing. I can't help feeling that I wasn't clear at all, or else my post was not read thoroughly. I certainly wasn't thinking of people who have moved here but people of our culture who do such things, and of course I don't think they are in any way acceptable. Did you really think I did?
My intention was not to put down floo and apologise to her if that is how I came across, but she was straight on your heels agreeing, appearing not to have thought it out. Floo is quite good at one liner put downs anyway and she knows me well enough as I do her, there's no animosity. I'd never stifle anyone's opinion but this is a discussion forum and we are bound to disagree at times. We do need to read eachother's posts properly though and not just jump on one sentence out of context. Gabriella undoubtedly knows more about this subject than either of us, perhaps she'll say something though we have gone off topic.
Please let's get back to homosexuality. Can't believe that is actually more civilised :).
-
Please let's get back to homosexuality. Can't believe that is actually more civilised :)
Excuse me - I'll have you know I'm very civilised :P
-
Blimey, don't tell me I've offended you too??!!! >:(
Now where were we?
-
Please let's get back to homosexuality. Can't believe that is actually more civilised :).
More civilised than what or whom particularly?
I have worked and been friends with homosexuals who are several orders of magnitude more civilised than some heterosexuals that I have worked with and known.
The reverse also applies - one homosexual I knew as a schoolboy was, and as far as I am able to ascertain, still is, one of the most unpleasant humans that has drawn breath.
Anothger with whom I had the misfortune to work for about five years alientaed just aboiut everyone because he considered that, as a homosexual, he was enetitled not to be treated equally with heterosexuals but better than them.
Please explain your "Can't believe that is actually more civilised" comment.
-
More civilised than what or whom particularly?
I have worked and been friends with homosexuals who are several orders of magnitude more civilised than some heterosexuals that I have worked with and known.
The reverse also applies - one homosexual I knew as a schoolboy was, and as far as I am able to ascertain, still is, one of the most unpleasant humans that has drawn breath.
Anothger with whom I had the misfortune to work for about five years alientaed just aboiut everyone because he considered that, as a homosexual, he was enetitled not to be treated equally with heterosexuals but better than them.
Please explain your "Can't believe that is actually more civilised" comment.
And none of the above is against Brownie's views. The more civilised comment is about people's behaviour and reactions on the board. Now and again we all need to count to ten, higher in some cases.
-
And none of the above is against Brownie's views. The more civilised comment is about people's behaviour and reactions on the board. Now and again we all need to count to ten, higher in some cases.
I am sure that Brownie can speak for herself. Please allow her to do so before you jump in.
-
I am sure that Brownie can speak for herself. Please allow her to do so before you jump in.
Yes, I'm sure she can but you wouldn't if someone took, oh, let's say Rhiannon, the wrong way, so stop with the random rules that you wouldn't follow yourself.
-
Yes, I'm sure she can but you wouldn't if someone took, oh, let's say Rhiannon, the wrong way, so stop with the random rules that you wouldn't follow yourself.
I cannot remember ever having done so despite several occasions when perople have take Rhiannon the wrong way - usually because they haven't read what she says - unlike me she rarely make ambiguous posts!
And, in view of the fact that you do not know me - do not predict my actions or, like Hope and Sassy, think that you know what I think or know.
You may argue how you wish against anything that I say, your prerogative after all, but do it for yourself not someone else!
Your comment above sounds reminiscent of BA's everlasting bleat of "hypocrite".
-
Of course I don't, but, in the countries that I mentioned, these kinds of assaults are treated as perfectly normal behaviour for males against females. males go unpunished and a women is sentenced to be raped by an all -male court!
Your post above seems to suggest that such happenings are acceptable here too because they are part of the culture of those who have moved here! Not by me they ain't!
Brownie's post might suggest that to you, but that's because your posts suggest you are someone who looks for a reason to get self-righteously belligerent even when one doesn't exist. You seem to enjoy it, given your self-induced explosive rants all over the forum.
Given we are not talking about local tribal kangaroo courts in rural parts of India or Pakistan, where corrupt politicians rely on the strong-arm tactics of local leaders to order the locals to vote a particular way, and given that these courts haven't been a problem here, and given that gang rape is evident in local British sub-cultures - you should worry about local British culture raping and exploiting women and children without any help from other cultures that come to the UK.
And no, the punishments of rural kangaroo courts such as gang rape are not considered normal, which is why they are flagged in the local press and there are demonstrations and protests in cities in India and Pakistan demanding that the illegal rural courts be closed down. You should get yourself better informed.
-
I cannot remember ever having done so despite several occasions when perople have take Rhiannon the wrong way - usually because they haven't read what she says - unlike me she rarely make ambiguous posts!
And, in view of the fact that you do not know me - do not predict my actions or, like Hope and Sassy, think that you know what I think or know.
You may argue how you wish against anything that I say, your prerogative after all, but do it for yourself not someone else!
Arguing for someone else is pretty common on here - you've done it yourself. I suggest you get used to it if you intend sticking around - though you can still entertain us with a self-induced explosive rant if you want...
-
I cannot remember ever having done so despite several occasions when perople have take Rhiannon the wrong way - usually because they haven't read what she says - unlike me she rarely make ambiguous posts!
And, in view of the fact that you do not know me - do not predict my actions or, like Hope and Sassy, think that you know what I think or know.
You may argue how you wish against anything that I say, your prerogative after all, but do it for yourself not someone else!
Your comment above sounds reminiscent of BA's everlasting bleat of "hypocrite".
People continually pick up other's on here about something they have said to someone, and yes, i've seen you do it. Your blatant attempt to poison the well doesn't mean you are not a hypocrite.
-
I AM NOT OFFENDED BY ANY COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ME, unless they accuse me of lying, or comments made about the faith of my children, who can't answer for themselves as they are not members of this forum, then I get very annoyed. >:(
Anyway getting back to the subject of homosexuality. I think discriminating against gays and treating them as lesser mortals should be illegal just as racism is.
-
I think it is illegal floo, no-one is allowed to discriminate against gay people with regard to employment, housing etc. Anti-gay hate propaganda is criminal. We can't stop anyone thinking what they want to think though, or speaking in private, even if we'd like to change their attitude. We are, however, approaching a time when no-one will think twice about anyone being gay so that's something to be thankful for.
-
I think it is illegal floo, no-one is allowed to discriminate against gay people with regard to employment, housing etc. Anti-gay hate propaganda is criminal. We can't stop anyone thinking what they want to think though, or speaking in private, even if we'd like to change their attitude. We are, however, approaching a time when no-one will think twice about anyone being gay so that's something to be thankful for.
But shouldn't anti-gay comments on a public forum be illegal if that is the case? If people made openly racist comments they would be in the deep proverbial, and the forum could also be in bother if they weren't banned.
-
What I find extraordinary is the fact that all the talk about sexual relations none have mentioned the most important thing about relationships.
The emotional and stable support that two people in love give to each other. A man and a woman are not just about sex and what goes where. God gave Eve to Adam because she was taken from him and was part of him. Eve was a match for Adam to bring him all the things he needed as a man both physically and mentally.
Sometimes we need to stop seeing the physical side to embellish the emotional side of human beings.
Relationships are not really built on sex. Somewhere along the way it appears that whilst sex crowns a relationship it is not the be and end all of a relationship.
Sexual relations in a loving caring relationships deepen the relationship but a relationship which is emotionally secure will face any problems in the physical area together and with support.
I personally find bantering of the nature on this thread distasteful. I am all for a laugh and making silly remarks when it is not a serious topic. But one couple I know who are gay have been together over 20 years now. They have no sexual relationship, by that I mean penetrable but they are in love with each other. Strange, I know and for some it would be difficult to understand.
But they are happy are they are.
Sexual relations are not a competition they are something between two people which should be kept between two people.
I would not want people to think I took them so lightly. Sex and relationships are important but it should never be about what others think or society putting on pressure. NOT about performance but exchanging the emotionally felt into the physically felt.
Love is what is needed as well as respect and care for our partner to make a relationship work. We need to be faithful and also sincere. We need to love the person before we take it to the level of physical. Otherwise it isn't worth anything.
-
Arguing for someone else is pretty common on here - you've done it yourself. I suggest you get used to it if you intend sticking around - though you can still entertain us with a self-induced explosive rant if you want...
TEMPTATION No please don't tempt him... enough is enough.... ;D ::)
He can Rant for the whole of the UK, no make that the world... ;D
-
I AM NOT OFFENDED BY ANY COMMENTS DIRECTED AT ME, unless they accuse me of lying, or comments made about the faith of my children, who can't answer for themselves as they are not members of this forum, then I get very annoyed. >:(
Anyway getting back to the subject of homosexuality. I think discriminating against gays and treating them as lesser mortals should be illegal just as racism is.
As a matter of interest...How do you suppose discriminating against gays could be done in a way to make them lesser mortals?
Do you think atheists using them in arguments as a rod with which to beat the Christian could be such a way?
Just asking?
-
Why bother to restrain sexual desire if you are an adult, in a consenting relationship, gay or straight, married or unmarried and not cheating on a partner? There is NOTHING wrong with sex providing one takes the necessary precautions.
It's only recently that modern medicine has been able to come up with any precautions that help negate a lot of the harm caused by sex. Not that long ago people used to die of STDs or become infertile or have to deal with unwanted pregnancies that could lead to death while having an abortion or death in childbirth, or a life of poverty raising a child on their own.
There has been a recent increase in infections transmitted through sex, so despite the precautions available and the huge amount of education and information out there, there are plenty of people still not using those precautions. It seems pretty clear that sex is having a harmful effect on society if people are so caught up in their sexual desire, it prevents their brain from engaging enough to take some basic precautions.
I don't think commenting on the harmful effects of high-risk sexual behaviour is discriminatory. That would be like saying we can't comment negatively on high-risk sex games if it is consensual.
-
As a matter of interest...How do you suppose discriminating against gays could be done in a way to make them lesser mortals?
Do you think atheists using them in arguments as a rod with which to beat the Christian could be such a way?
Just asking?
The idiots who describe homosexual love as 'sinful' are demeaning gays.
-
It's only recently that modern medicine has been able to come up with any precautions that help negate a lot of the harm caused by sex. Not that long ago people used to die of STDs or become infertile or have to deal with unwanted pregnancies that could lead to death while having an abortion or death in childbirth, or a life of poverty raising a child on their own.
There has been a recent increase in infections transmitted through sex, so despite the precautions available and the huge amount of education and information out there, there are plenty of people still not using those precautions. It seems pretty clear that sex is having a harmful effect on society if people are so caught up in their sexual desire, it prevents their brain from engaging enough to take some basic precautions.
I don't think commenting on the harmful effects of high-risk sexual behaviour is discriminatory. That would be like saying we can't comment negatively on high-risk sex games if it is consensual.
People who don't have safe sex are idiots.
-
The idiots who describe homosexual love as 'sinful' are demeaning gays.
Not sure what love has to do with anything - that's an emotion. Sex is an act. I thought the OP was about actions, not emotions.
-
People who don't have safe sex are idiots.
Yes, but that's why we have laws and social pressure - to try and limit the damage the idiots cause.
-
Not sure what love has to do with anything - that's an emotion. Sex is an act. I thought the OP was about actions, not emotions.
By homosexual love, I meant sex as well as emotion.
-
As a matter of interest...How do you suppose discriminating against gays could be done in a way to make them lesser mortals?
By denying them the same rights as heterosexuals. Obviously really.
Do you think atheists using them in arguments as a rod with which to beat the Christian could be such a way?
No.
I have never seen anyone use homosexuality as a stick to beat Christians with. I have seen people challenging people with vile homophobic views though.
Just asking?
No problem.
How is the apology coming along?
Just asking.
-
Yes, but that's why we have laws and social pressure - to try and limit the damage the idiots cause.
To which laws are you referring?
Of course having sex with lots of different people is not wise. My comments about sex were aimed at those who believe one has to be in a heterosexual, married relationship before having sex. I see nothing wrong in having unmarried sex , gay or straight, in a consenting, adult, steady relationship.
-
By homosexual love, I meant sex as well as emotion.
Ok but emotion doesn't cause the spread of infection. It's sex or sharing needles that has the potential to do that.
-
Ok but emotion doesn't cause the spread of infection. It's sex or sharing needles that has the potential to do that.
What have needles got to do with sex? Gay or straight, people need to take sensible precautions when having sex.
-
To which laws are you referring?
For example preventing a man who has had sex with a man in the last 12 months from donating blood because of the higher rates of serious sexually transmitted infections amongst that group therefore the greater risk of them being infected. A woman who has had sex with a man who has previously had sex with a man in the last 12 months is also barred from donating blood for 12 months due to the risk of the blood being infected.
Of course having sex with lots of different people is not wise. My comments about sex were aimed at those who believe one has to be in a heterosexual, married relationship before having sex. I see nothing wrong in having unmarried sex , gay or straight, in a consenting, adult, steady relationship.
What's your definition of a steady relationship?
-
For example preventing a man who has had sex with a man in the last 12 months from donating blood because of the higher rates of serious sexually transmitted infections amongst that group therefore the greater risk of them being infected. A woman who has had sex with a man who has previously had sex with a man in the last 12 months is also barred from donating blood for 12 months due to the risk of the blood being infected.
What's your definition of a steady relationship?
People who are in an exclusive relationship. It is people, gay or straight, who keep bed swapping who are likely to have STDs, especially if they aren't taking proper precautions.
-
What have needles got to do with sex? Gay or straight, people need to take sensible precautions when having sex.
Nothing - it's another example of a high risk activity and people are not accused of being phobic against drug users if they make negative comments about their behaviour and the harm it causes society. Similarly people who make negative comments about the risks associated with sexual activity are not being phobic or kill-joys.
-
People who are in an exclusive relationship. It is people, gay or straight, who keep bed swapping who are likely to have STDs, especially if they aren't taking proper precautions.
Exclusive relationships for how long? 2 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?
-
Exclusive relationships for how long? 2 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years?
YAWN! ::)
-
Since you seem to have run out of answers on the rules relating to sex in order to protect society, hopefully you now realise why sex is a subject for debate on this forum and why there are lots of different opinions on what those rules could be.
-
People who are in an exclusive relationship. It is people, gay or straight, who keep bed swapping who are likely to have STDs, especially if they aren't taking proper precautions.
There is a greater risk for men who have sex with men. I am not really interested in whether they self-identify as gay or straight.
-
What I find extraordinary is the fact that all the talk about sexual relations none have mentioned the most important thing about relationships.
The emotional and stable support that two people in love give to each other....
Sometimes we need to stop seeing the physical side to embellish the emotional side of human beings.
Relationships are not really built on sex. Somewhere along the way it appears that whilst sex crowns a relationship it is not the be and end all of a relationship.
Sexual relations in a loving caring relationships deepen the relationship but a relationship which is emotionally secure will face any problems in the physical area together and with support.
...
Love is what is needed as well as respect and care for our partner to make a relationship work. We need to be faithful and also sincere.
I agree with all these. I wonder if AB does?
ht
-
I do too, it's a very thoughtful and loving post.
-
Quote from: Sassy on Today at 10:05:56 AM
As a matter of interest...How do you suppose discriminating against gays could be done in a way to make them lesser mortals?
By denying them the same rights as heterosexuals. Obviously really.
Paedophiles want the same right to have sex with children as adults do with each other... are we demeaning them by saying they are wrong and it is a sin?
Don't be so bloody stupid and arrogant. I have to say you and floo and people like you are responsible for the way homosexuals couples have to put up with ignorance and name calling. You add to the problem you don't help them.
The best thing you can do is shut up on the subject.
Quote
Do you think atheists using them in arguments as a rod with which to beat the Christian could be such a way?
No.
I have never seen anyone use homosexuality as a stick to beat Christians with. I have seen people challenging people with vile homophobic views though.
No problem.
See ignorance even towards your own damning behaviour. If you let things be they would not have such a hard time.
Your opinions are as bad as your refuting the truth. Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Tell us ALL those vile homophobic views here posted by Christians and explain point by point with post reference what is vile about them. You can't they don't exist only in your mind. Who really is the bigot here?
How is the apology coming along?
As I said: this post adds to my evidence of what you truly are... And there is no apology required only on your part to Christians here and the homosexuals who post here.
Just asking.
[/quote]
-
Oh dear oh dear. What a rant.
Paedophiles want the same right to have sex with children as adults do with each other... are we demeaning them by saying they are wrong and it is a sin?
Equating consenting relationships with those in which no consent can be given tells us just about all we need to know about your ability to hold a position based on reason.
Don't be so bloody stupid and arrogant. I have to say you and floo and people like you are responsible for the way homosexuals couples have to put up with ignorance and name calling. You add to the problem you don't help them.
So by attacking homophobia and people who want to discriminate against homosexual people, I myself am responsible for the suffering inflicted by homophobia.
Are you sure you are feeling well today? Did you think about that before you typed it?
The best thing you can do is shut up on the subject.
I think you are the last person that I will take any advice from thank you.
Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Tell us ALL those vile homophobic views here posted by Christians and explain point by point with post reference what is vile about them. You can't they don't exist only in your mind. Who really is the bigot here?
Well you have a different meaning of the word vile to me. When Hope describes homosexual people as "damaged" and having a "medical condition" I think that is a pretty vile thing to say about someone based just on their sexuality.
As I said: this post adds to my evidence of what you truly are... And there is no apology required only on your part to Christians here and the homosexuals who post here.
Just asking.
No an apology is needed. You lied about me in saying that I have discriminated against Christians.
-
You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Nope you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
Here is the evidence.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11884.0
So now, I need an admission that you were wrong AND an apology for lying about me.
-
Nope you are COMPLETELY WRONG.
Here is the evidence.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11884.0
So now, I need an admission that you were wrong AND an apology for lying about me.
The oceans will run dry before you get that! ::)
-
There has been considerable talk on here around the issues of STI's.
Just a few thoughts of my own. Gay men are without a doubt more promiscuous than the general population, one of the effects of that is a higher rate of sti's for men who have sex with men..
Some of the reasons for this seem obvious to me. Firstly historically it was difficult for gay men to form stable relationships because of the legal situation.....this often led to series of brief encounters. That has carried over in some gay peoples attitudes. Secondly the nature of male sexuality which makes a quick hook up easy. Soon aroused soon gone. I really think a lot of heterosexual women would be amazed at the number of straight men who play around with other men. All to do with the nature of male sexuality.
But here is an interesting thing, and i apply all sorts of caveats to this but studies coming out of the USA show a drop in promiscuity amongst married gay men. Now i say caveats because this is a new development so lets not get too carried away. But wouldnt it be ironic if the thing some Christians and others fought so hard against proved to be the very thing that helps to promote faithful long lasting relationships.
Lastly to some on here. You do concentrate on the mechanics too much. In my experience love is equally important to gay people as to the rest of the population.
I know so many loving gay couples that have ben together for decades and also been faithful that again i think many of you would be shocked. Pleasantly.
-
As pretty well all of the time, I agree with trent but I would add that people get very hung up on both a particular sex act (which is not exclusive to homosexuals) and on male homosexuality.
-
Paedophiles want the same right to have sex with children as adults do with each other... are we demeaning them by saying they are wrong and it is a sin?
Don't be so bloody stupid and arrogant. I have to say you and floo and people like you are responsible for the way homosexuals couples have to put up with ignorance and name calling. You add to the problem you don't help them.
The best thing you can do is shut up on the subject.
See ignorance even towards your own damning behaviour. If you let things be they would not have such a hard time.
Your opinions are as bad as your refuting the truth. Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Tell us ALL those vile homophobic views here posted by Christians and explain point by point with post reference what is vile about them. You can't they don't exist only in your mind. Who really is the bigot here?
As I said: this post adds to my evidence of what you truly are... And there is no apology required only on your part to Christians here and the homosexuals who post here.
Just asking.
Jesus Christ!
And you have the balls to accuse me of ranting - mote beam eye!
-
There has been considerable talk on here around the issues of STI's.
Just a few thoughts of my own. Gay men are without a doubt more promiscuous than the general population, one of the effects of that is a higher rate of sti's for men who have sex with men..
Some of the reasons for this seem obvious to me. Firstly historically it was difficult for gay men to form stable relationships because of the legal situation.....this often led to series of brief encounters. That has carried over in some gay peoples attitudes. Secondly the nature of male sexuality which makes a quick hook up easy. Soon aroused soon gone. I really think a lot of heterosexual women would be amazed at the number of straight men who play around with other men. All to do with the nature of male sexuality.
I personally don't think it's that surprising - it's been well documented in various articles - men who self-identify as straight but have sex with men. Hence STD clinics don't make their rules based on whatever sexuality a person identifies with but focuses only on the mechanics of the sex that potential blood donors have had, and the clinics decide their policies based on the science and the statistical risk associated with those mechanics.
Also, there are many reported instances of men having sex with other men in prison but they do not self-identify as gay. Sex occurs between males in some species in the animal kingdom and I am not aware of any evidence that animals have any concept of sexual identity.
But here is an interesting thing, and i apply all sorts of caveats to this but studies coming out of the USA show a drop in promiscuity amongst married gay men. Now i say caveats because this is a new development so lets not get too carried away. But wouldnt it be ironic if the thing some Christians and others fought so hard against proved to be the very thing that helps to promote faithful long lasting relationships.
Lastly to some on here. You do concentrate on the mechanics too much. In my experience love is equally important to gay people as to the rest of the population.
I know so many loving gay couples that have ben together for decades and also been faithful that again i think many of you would be shocked. Pleasantly.
The science and the mechanics are relevant to the discussion, as ithey show that the sexuality of a person or their emotions are not the cause of harm in society - just the mechanics of the sex they have, and how often they have it.
It's perfectly understandable to create some special narrative around the chemicals in the body and the evolutionary instincts that lead to attraction and sexual desire - and I don't doubt that this narrative is true for every person who creates it - but love is subjective. It's fairly common on this forum to focus on objective facts in discussions - many theists and atheists are hung up on the science - so I would think that facts are important in a discussion such as this one about why certain sexual acts were discouraged more than others in societies affected by STDs.
-
Do Floo and Stephen Taylor know each other off the forum?
-
Do Floo and Stephen Taylor know each other off the forum?
No
-
Do Floo and Stephen Taylor know each other off the forum?
No, why do you ask?
Anyway how is the admission that you were wrong about me being the only one who has seen vile homophobic views, and the apology for lying about me coming on?
-
No, why do you ask?
Anyway how is the admission that you were wrong about me being the only one who has seen vile homophobic views, and the apology for lying about me coming on?
I wasn't wrong you have provided NO EVIDENCE as of yet. You have no evidence and we are still awaiting it...
You have been here since the 1st MARCH 2016 so show us evidence from the posters who are here and Christians whom you make the false claims about. We have shown Spud quoting a medical textbook and also stating no offence intended to our own Leonard.
Truth is you are failing fast. People even forgetting what your thread is originally about.
You are making less impact that a snowflake on already fallen snow.
Losing not your forte then?
-
I wasn't wrong you have provided NO EVIDENCE as of yet. You have no evidence and we are still awaiting it...
You have been here since the 1st MARCH 2016 so show us evidence from the posters who are here and Christians whom you make the false claims about. We have shown Spud quoting a medical textbook and also stating no offence intended to our own Leonard.
Truth is you are failing fast. People even forgetting what your thread is originally about.
You are making less impact that a snowflake on already fallen snow.
Losing not your forte then?
Sass, you make it up as you go along. ::)
-
I wasn't wrong you have provided NO EVIDENCE as of yet. You have no evidence and we are still awaiting it...
On reply # 639 of this thread, you said to me.
Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Read that again slowly.
Right in order to show that your statement is factually wrong I have to show that at least one other person on this forum thinks that vile homophobic views exist.
It is that simple.
The evidence (actually in this case it is proof) can be seen on this poll.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11884.0
Currently 10 other people agree that they think vile homophobic views have been expressed on this forum. Therefore, your statement that I am the only one who thinks this has been proven incorrect.
Everyone can see it, how you can deny it is beyond belief. Why can’t you simply admit you were wrong?
You have been here since the 1st MARCH 2016 so show us evidence from the posters who are here and Christians whom you make the false claims about. We have shown Spud quoting a medical textbook and also stating no offence intended to our own Leonard.
What false claims?
Very rich coming from you, who won’t apologise for the lie you told about me.
Truth is you are failing fast. People even forgetting what your thread is originally about.
You are making less impact that a snowflake on already fallen snow.
Which thread, if you mean this one I didn’t start it, you did!
Judging by your frothing at the mouth outbursts I certainly seem to be making an impact on you.
Losing not your forte then?
We will find out if I ever lose anything.
Honesty and apologising for lying about people is not your forte though.
-
Read that again slowly.
Right in order to show that your statement is factually wrong I have to show that at least one other person on this forum thinks that vile homophobic views exist.
Going by the way the passage you quote is emphasised - '... only YOU ...' would suggest that Sass is referencing your particular views; she isn't comparing or contrasting them with anyone else's views. If she had written ' ... ONLY you ...' then I could see your point about her claiming that you are the only person to hold those views.
To quote your own post "It is that simple".
-
Going by the way the passage you quote is emphasised - '... only YOU ...' would suggest that Sass is referencing your particular views; she isn't comparing or contrasting them with anyone else's views. If she had written ' ... ONLY you ...' then I could see your point about her claiming that you are the only person to hold those views.
To quote your own post "It is that simple".
Unbelievable bullshit.
Your tongue could pull the cork out of bottles.
See ignorance even towards your own damning behaviour. If you let things be they would not have such a hard time.
Your opinions are as bad as your refuting the truth. Everyone knows that there is no vile homophobic views held by the Christians at all on this site. Just your false accusations and using such as a rod to beat the Christians. You have proved my point. Because only YOU believe any vile homophobic views actually exist.
Note the phrase "everyone knows that there is no homophobic views held by Christian at all on this site"
No everyone doesn't know that. Look at the poll. Lots of people think that their are homophobic views held by Christians on this site.
This is a pathetic attempt even by your standards.
-
Going by the way the passage you quote is emphasised - '... only YOU ...' would suggest that Sass is referencing your particular views; she isn't comparing or contrasting them with anyone else's views. If she had written ' ... ONLY you ...' then I could see your point about her claiming that you are the only person to hold those views.
To quote your own post "It is that simple".
By the way I take it you will be picking her up on the lie she told about me?