Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality.

reference to support your homophopia you have nothing but unsupported assertion and prejudice. So far, no one has been able to come up with anything from the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin that has been able to stand up when examined. Feel free to give it a try but I doubt that you will succeed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree with this.Also, the whole bible is about what God gave us, Life.If we were all Gay, and there wasn't any science to help reproduce. The Human race as we know it would dissappear from the face of the earth in less than 120 years.This pretty much goes against what almost everyone believes in, even athiests.We are taking Life into our own hands when we do this. Life is a gift from God. Its his will that we are to try and fulfill.
So being Gay goes directly against the will of God, and all the teachings of the Bible.Being Gay is also hypocritical. Gays talk about love, and monogamy, and how they can do it better than heterosexuals. But if everyone followed there choice of lifestyle, we would vanish.
Love at the price of exticntion.Good thing bacteria don't think this way So being that it is against the law of nature, and against Gods will, I would say its a bad idea.
But I love gay people all the same, I just don't agree with what they do, nor will I vote for it a law to do so.

You actually know the method in which God used that rib to make woman, and call it cloning?
wow.

Well actually, God came to Adam and said he could make him a helpmeet, one to alway be beside him, to know his every need, to be a continous comfort, but that it would cost an arm and a leg.Adam said, "Well, what can I get for a Rib?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

riVeRraT regurgitates:

quote:

---

If we were all Gay, and there wasn't any science to help reproduce.

---

Do they not even bother to teach English in fundie school? This is an incomplete sentence, as any second grader should know.

quote:

---

We are taking Life into our own hands when we do this.

---

'Life' should not be capitalized unless it is used as a title or is the first word of a sentence.To the point, what are "we" doing that "we" are taking life into "our" own hands?

quote:

---

Its his will that we are to try and fulfill.

---

When 'its' is used as a contraction for 'it is' an apostrophe is needed.To the point, it is his will that YOU are to try and fulfill, not me. I don't give a damn what somebody said in a book thousands of years ago and I don't care what you think God wants.

quote:

---

So being Gay goes directly against the will of God, and all the teachings of the Bible.

---

'Gay' should not be capitalized unless it is used as a title or is the first word of a sentence.How does being gay go against "all the teachings of the Bible"?

quote:

---

But if everyone followed there choice of lifestyle...

---

In this context, 'their' is the correct spelling, not 'there'.Who said anything about a choice? Did you choose to be straight? If you insist on making stupid claims like this you need to provide strong evidence. That evidence should not include the text of some irrelevant book that was written thousands of years ago by barely civilized men.

quote:

---

So being that it is against the law of nature...

---

What is the law of nature?

quote:

---

...and against Gods will...

---

You need an apostrophe between the 'd' and the 's' in 'Gods'.There you go speaking for God again. Why can't he speak for himself?

quote:

---

...I would say its a bad idea.

---

And we should care what you would say because...?

PecosGeorge divagates:

quote:

---

The inversion, however, is deliberately doing that which cannot achieve God's purpose.

---

So when a sterile heterosexual has sex with his or her spouse, he or she is deliberately doing that which cannot achieve God's purpose. So they are sinning (inverting?) after all. Thanks for clearing that up.By the way, why do you use the word 'inversion'? Where does the bible say that inverted sex (whatever the hell it is; you seem to know) is sinful?

Because this is what God wanted. Genesis 1:28. You say why are they denied their expression. The same reason why three people who love each other and have orgys are denied. The same way adultery, fornication, and all other sexual immoral acts are denied by God. Because he calls this perverse and sin against the body. And that these people will not enter the kingdom of heaven. You say it would be terrible if christians ruled. But look back at America, Englands 18 century revival, Australia. All these great democracies prospered and peace abounded as there society were built upon christian foundation and God blessed these nations. Today these countries are very much secular and man determines truth. It seems as though all must be tolerated. All opinions, all acts. And no abosolutes exists. This foundation i believe is all the more dangerous then having an abosolute authority. As anything can be deemed right or wrong. And sexual liberation is now considered normal. However it goes against what God ordered. Do you really think you believe in a holy God?. Which holy God. I dont believe you have found one and are on the same new age par as Jar which all religions must be accepted, religious textbooks are all maps etc. Im not even sure what Jar believes in.

Genesis 1:28 says Please point out from that verse where it says homosexuality is wrong?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Berberry displays his vocabulary: Love it.This message has been edited by custard, 05-29-2004 03:56 AM

Aha, but what if we were all bi-sexual? Your interpretation of the bible would still condemn our behavior, but we wouldn't disappear from the face of the earth. So would having homosexual sex still be against God since we are still reproducing?I suspect you, backtalk, pecos, and almeyda would say yes, that behavior would still be going against god. In fact, the other three have said this. So this argument about reproduction doesn't really hold much water and we have to let that one go. A - how does vanishing make being gay hypocritical? I submit it does not.b- aren't heterosexuals just as hypocritical? So what's hypocrisy got to do with homosexuality being immoral?

almeyda responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:

quote:

---

It is the primary purpose.

---

So heterosexual people who cannot reproduce are just as sinful in their sexual activity as homosexual people. If straight people are allowed to have sex without any possibility of reproduction simply for the pleasure of it, then so are gay people.

quote:

---

The problem is many people see nothing wrong with fornication, promiscuity, orgys, and other sexual acts.

---

None of those things are unique to homosexuality. Sex outside marriage, sex with more than one person over time, sex with more than one person at the same time, etc., etc., are all done by straight people. Why do you pick on gay people when straights are the ones who usually do the above?

quote:

---

So in answer to your question, Yes married couples can enjoy a sexual life without having to conceive every time they do it.

---

So why are you picking on gay people? Remember, the claim was that same-sex sex was immoral because it couldn't lead to a baby.Well, sterile heterosexual couples having sex also cannot lead to having a baby. If it's immoral when gay people do it because it can't lead to a baby, then it's immoral when straight people do it because it can't lead to a baby.If it isn't immoral when straight people do it, then it isn't immoral when gay people do it.Ergo, you must be using some other criteria for why same-sex sex is immoral.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge responds ostensibly to me:

quote:

---

To be barren or sterile is not an inversion

---

I never said it was. Instead, as I directly stated, having sex that cannot lead to having a baby is the inversion. That was the argument: Same-sex sex is immoral because it cannot lead to having a baby.But mixed-sex sex with at least one member of the couple being sterile or sexual activity that is not penis/vagina cannot lead to having a baby. Therefore, those things must be just as immoral.So if it's OK for a man to give a woman oral sex, why is it wrong for a woman to give it? Neither one can lead to having a baby and that is the criterion for declaring the sex immoral.

quote:

---

Barren/sterile humans cannot achieve by virtue of something that is not their doing.
The inversion, however, is deliberately doing that which cannot achieve God's purpose.

---

Like oral sex.Fertile couples who deliberately engage in sexual activity that cannot lead to having a baby must be just as immoral as gay people.Oral sex is an inversion? Masturbation is an inversion?There is nothing gay people do that straight people don't. So if it isn't immoral when straight people do it, why is it a problem when gay people do it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Oral sex is a form of foreplay for most people so it's not like it's taking the place of regular sex.

---

Actually, it is.Oral sex is the most common sexual activity between two people.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Woo hoo! Who says the world is going to hell in a handbasket!

Is it? Like, it's the climax of their encounter, not just a stop on the way?Interesting.