Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Horsethorn,

Welcome back, remember when I asked about that membership form for joining Paganism

Gonnagle.

[floo]

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.

[Brownie]

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!

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Brownie]

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.

[horsethorn]

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

[horsethorn]

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

[floo]

Try and find another sentence, floo, please!

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

[Sassy]

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?
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...

[Sassy]

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 ?


 

[Aruntraveller]

You do know Brownie is a woman, right ?


 

You do know he was replying to Gonnagle, right? 

[floo]

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?
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. 

[horsethorn]

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?
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

[Brownie]

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

[floo]

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.

[Brownie]

Apparently not floo, according to that article.  I had thought the same previously, possibly because of Jurassic Park  .  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).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

Aye!! and if we are still evolving, us men could well become obsolete.

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

Ah, it's all clear to me now!  I've often wondered why men are so scared of us.

[Nearly Sane]

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"

[Spud]

. 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.) 

[Sebastian Toe]

some other kinds of acts are in essence counterfeit, or anti-procreative, acts,

....such as?

[Brownie]

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.

[Shaker]

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.