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

[Shaker]

It's not all about procreation.

Mr Potato Head for some reason seems to think it is, goodness only knows why.

[Brownie]

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.

[Sassy]

You do know he was replying to Gonnagle, right? 

I assumed like Gonnagle he was talking to Brownie...
 

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

Dear Brownie,

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

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.

[Aruntraveller]

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.

[horsethorn]

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

[Brownie]

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  .

[horsethorn]

And yet they are quite happy, despite IVF not being in any way 'natural'.

ht

[Brownie]

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

[horsethorn]

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

[Sassy]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Brownie]

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.

[horsethorn]

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

[Brownie]

I assumed like Gonnagle he was talking to Brownie...
 

No he wasn't but I don't mind being Mr Brown for a day  .

[Brownie]

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.

[horsethorn]

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

[Spud]

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.

[Spud]

In other words, special pleading.

Please explain.

[Spud]

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.

[floo]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Shaker]

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.