The bible and homosexuality

mike the wiz writes:

quote:

---

So - the point is, I believe fully, and therefore am convinced that Christ is the truth - what would you do in my position?

---

Keep my big mouth shut. Have the respect to understand that I am not in any position to tell anybody else about the supernatural since the only evidence that exists is entire personal and subjective. Have enough faith that god does not need me to spread the word. If god wants another person to join the song, he'll hand out the music for himself.Why is that so difficult to understand?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Anal sex is a poor choice of intercourse method, since the anal cavity is fragile and not intended for the purpose.

---

Obviously untrue by mere observation. Since so many people engage in anal sex without any problems...including putting things much larger than a simple penis in there...then it necessarily is the case that anal sex is a perfectly legitimate choice of intercourse.In fact, depending upon how you look at it, anal intercourse is a better choice than vaginal intercourse. For one, everybody has an anus. Thus, everybody can participate in the pleasures of anal sex. Two, the rectum doesn't have a stopper on the end the way the vagina does (i.e., the cervix). Thus, anal sex provides more possibilities.By your logic, we should give up eating any sort of grown food and instead all switch to processed, "engineered" foods and vitamin pills. They are much more efficient at providing the exact levels of nutritional value needed.I've never understood the argument of "the parts don't fit." Obviously, they do or people would be incapable of having sex that way.By the way, what do you say to all the heterosexuals who have anal sex? There's more of them, you know. And just because somebody is gay does not mean he engages in anal sex.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

But the contention that God has somehow changed his rules to suit our times, is ridiculous since health and multiplying are still extant facts. Does God want New Testament people to be healthy? Well, yes! Therefore, the laws of health as found in Leviticus, including those of sexual behavior, apply throuhout time and apply to all those who wish to obey the God who gave them.

---

Oh, stop beating around the bush.You're talking about HIV.Hate to break the news to you, but HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex. It always has been. There is more to the world than the United States. Worldwide, three-quarters of all cases of HIV transmission were passed via heterosexual sex. Guess what #2 was? That's right...IV drug use. Sex between men is such a tiny part of HIV transmission that it is only in the West that it shows up as a significant vector.In fact, the US is one of the last remaining places in the world where HIV is transmitted mostly between men. Europe flipped to primarily heterosexual sex back in 1999.So go ahead and talk about health all you want.You still have to show that there is any health risk to same-sex sexual activity that isn't just as prevalent in opposite-sex sex.By your logic, god's chosen people are lesbians. They have the lowest transmission of STDs of all. If health is your criteria, why are you condemning the healthiest?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Unseul responds to me:

quote:

---

Erm, anal intercourse is thought to be more risky as far as transmitting AIDS is concerned.

---

Perhaps. That doesn't respond to the point, though:HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex.Shooting yourself in the head with a dozen bullets may be more dangerous than shooting yourself in the head with only three, but you're still shooting yourself in the head.

quote:

---

Statistics your using for HIV being primarily transmitted by heterosexual intercourse are probably extremely biased.

---

They come from the World Health Organization. You know...the folks that wiped smallpox off the face of the earth.What possible benefit could there be in distorting the data?

quote:

---

Because as far as i am aware homosexuals are still in the minority (by a large degree) so obviously once HIV enters the heterosexual pool then its going to cause more cases, simply through larger number.

---

But you've got the direction backwards. HIV did not spread from the gay population to the straight population. It spread from the straight population to the gay population.You really need to get over this attitude that the US is the center of the universe. There are some 40 million people with HIV/AIDS in the world. Guess how many are in the United States? That's right...only about a million.Now, do you seriously think that the epidemic in the rest of the world is going to be identical to the epidemic in one particular country?Here's a good quote from WHO Report on Global Surveillance of Epidemic-prone Infectious Diseases in 2000. In 2002, 14,439 new cases of HIV were reported in Western Europe:44% of infections occurred through heterosexual contact.
26% were in men who have sex with men.

quote:

---

Of course not just homosexuals engage in anal sex (if they do), however it still stands that the anus, whilst being capable of taking a penis, still does take damage.

---

You are defining "damage" so broadly that by the same token, I shouldn't scratch that itch on the end of my nose since that causes "damage" to my skin.Again, simple observation shows you to be wrong. Millions of people engage in anal sex with no ill effects every single day. If it were "damaging," then we would see problems. Since we don't, it must not be.

quote:

---

One last thing, even tho you appear to be an extremely regular poster,you seem to be not taking much notice of the rules by being slightl insulting to Mike, "Keep my big mouth shut" could easily have been put better.

---

No, it couldn't. As a newbie, you don't know mike very well.And believe me, that's not "being insulting." You'll know when I'm being insulting.

quote:

---

Plus as mike said, as far as hes concerned he might not want to do that, but its what his diety says he should do.

---

That's not what the Bible says. It is very explicit that one should not make a show of one's religion before others like the Pharisees since they only do it to gain the glory of men.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

Enter a gerbil, and the theme takes on the bizarre, perversion at its ultimate.

---

And could you please provide a single instance of "gerbiling" anywhere? Strange how nobody has been able to provide any direct evidence. It's always, "My father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate saw the X-ray!"You'd think that finding a gerbil in someone's rectum would be noted somewhere in some medical journal but alas, it seems the doctors, who have no problem reporting other bizarre things removed from people's anal cavities, are just skittish about reporting gerbils.And notice the other evidence that it's an urban myth: The person who did this is usually in California and the animal in question is almost always a gerbil.But there's a problem: You can't get gerbils in California. They're considered an agricultural hazard and are illegal.

quote:

---

When, where, how, by whom, etc., disease is transmitted

---

You're the one who brought it up. If you can't handle the fact that your argument actually shows that heterosexuality is more dangerous than homosexuality (remember...lesbians have the lowest rate of STDs of all sexually active groups), then perhaps you should reconsider your argument.

quote:

---

Therefore, the discussion is mostly about did God mean what he said, does he mean what he says....."perverted sex is unhealthy

---

That may be.Where was it decided that same-sex sex was perverted? After all, it isn't unhealthy. It's healthier than opposite-sex sex. So if perverted sex is unhealthy and homosexual sex is healthier than heterosexual sex, then it follows that if one of these is perverted, it's the straights, not the gays.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

PecosGeorge writes:

quote:

---

God disapproves of homosexuality. If his warning/advice/command had been heeded........well, do you think there would be HIV today or other STD's promoted through practice of practicing multiple partners....and so on?

---

Obviously it would since HIV is primarily transmitted through heterosexual sex.If god disapproves of homosexuality by visiting disease, why do lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I only said to Loudmouth, "why not become christian". It was hardly a full out - attack of preaching.

---

Did you make reference to god?Then it's preaching.It really is that simple. If someone wants to know about your opinion, he'll ask you for it.

quote:

---

However, you are right, God doesn't need me to preach, yet if there is a chance you may believe I have to take that chance to preach.

---

You just contradicted yourself.God doesn't need you to preach. In fact, that Bible of yours you claim to follow specifically instructs you not to preach. Do not make a show of your religion among men like the Pharisees for they only do it to win the glory of men.So why are you? It is not up to you. It is not your job. If god wants someone, god will come for him. Since you are not god and are absolutely incapable of speaking for him, where do you get off trying to tell others about what god wants?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Keep my big mouth shut. Have the respect to understand that I am not in any position to tell anybody else about the supernatural

---

​

Well, I am in a position to tell people about the bible and what it says

---

Um, how did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible? Seems that your god isn't actually god but rather a book.If you want to talk about a book, that's fine. To pretend that the book is god is something very different.

quote:

---

It says that Christ is the truth

---

And as you well know, that means nothing since it is illogical to use a circular argument. The Bible is true because it says it is.Fine. I'm god. I'm god because I say I am and I say I am because I am.Now, why is it you seem to believe your book and not me?

quote:

---

I only testify that I also believe that and preaching isn't a crime you know.

---

Never said it was.It is, however, obnoxious and rude and simply unacceptable in polite society.

quote:

---

I never preach after people have stated dis-interest.

---

Hah!Why do you still preach to me? You know I don't want to hear it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Unseul responds to me:

quote:

---

OK, the statistics you've used later on in your quote with percentages of how HIV occured does just go to show my point.

---

Incorrect. Let's try this again:With three-quarters of HIV transmissions from heterosexual sex and another 20% or so from IV drug use, as well as mother-child transmission, transfusions, etc., we're left with less than 1% of HIV cases from homosexual sex worldwide.So even if we go with the unreasonable claim that only 1-2% of the population is gay (which, for the US, means that every single gay person lives in New York and Los Angeles leaving such gay meccas as San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Boston etc. completely free) that still means that gay people are not disproportionately represented in HIV transmission.

quote:

---

It doesnt make any adjustments for numbers

---

Incorrect. It does precisely that by making note of how HIV is transmitted. Homosexual sex is such a minor cause of HIV transmission worldwide that the claim that somehow gay people gave it to straights is laughable on the face. HIV is and alwas has been transmitted primarily by heterosexual sex.

quote:

---

and there are about half as many occurences through homosexual behaviour as heterosexual.

---

Incorrect. For every case of HIV from same-sex sex, there are more than 30 cases from opposite-sex sex.

quote:

---

But it is associated more often with homosexuals

---

No, it isn't. You need to stop thinking that the West is equivalent to the world. Yes, HIV has a high occurrence in men who have sex with men in the West (by the way...less than half of new infections are among MSM's in the West these days), but the West is an anomaly in HIV infection compared to the worldwide trend.The original argument was that homosexuality is bad for "health" reasons (which was just a euphemism for HIV). But if that were the case, then HIV should be mostly prevalent in gay people around the world and it isn't. It's mostly prevalent in straight people. And then IV drug users. And then children who got it from their mothers in the womb. By the time you get to gay men, you've got practically none left.

quote:

---

Right im defining damage as causing cuts, any open wound.

---

Then by that definition, vaginal sex is just as damaging as anal sex.Why do you think that more than half of all cases of HIV are in women?

quote:

---

So anything which is a lot more likely to causes an open wound is a lot more risky.

---

Like vaginal sex.Most cases of HIV are in heterosexuals and most cases of HIV are in women.

quote:

---

OK, the thing thats been annoying me so far is somehow you have become convinced that i believe the USA is the centre of the world. I do not live in the US, i live in England, OK, and England is most definitly the centre of the universe.

---

No matter. You have confused your personal experience with a worldwide trend. Yes, HIV first became known in the West among gay men. But it didn't stay that way. In the UK, heterosexual cases became the most common mode of transmission in 1999. Where have you been for the past five years?In fact, in 2002, for the UK, 1,691 cases of HIV were transmitted via men who have sex with men. 3,305 cases were transmitted through heterosexual sex. Nearly twice as many straights as gays.

quote:

---

Also i suspect that 40 million is quite a low figure for the total number.

---

You realize that only reinforces my point. There are only about 2 million cases of HIV total in the US and Europe. Only about half to two-thirds of those cases can be traced to MSMs.With the rest of the world so heavily biased toward heterosexual transmission, having a million out of 40 million means only about 2.5% of all cases of HIV transmission could possibly be traced to gay men. If the actual number of HIV cases is higher, then the percentage from MSMs is even smaller.We're left with the original conclusion: HIV is transmitted primarily through heterosexual sex and there is no "health" issue regarding same-sex sex.And you still haven't responded to my direct question:If the argument against homosexual sex is "health" in general and HIV in particular, then why prevent lesbian sex since they have the lowest rate of STDs among all sexually active groups?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Unseul responds to me:

quote:

---

Originally you were asking me if god should condone this and no other, and telling me how silly i was for believing this. I replied saying that i didnt believe in god, and so it didnt make a difference to me.

---

But the argument that you're defending is that homosexual sex is somehow "unhealthy." And yet, sex between women is the least likely to transmit disease. Forget about god, the argument are defending is disproven by lesbians.Remember the original argument: Sex between people of the same sex is "unhealthy."For you to backpedal and say that you're only talking about how anal sex is more likely to result in HIV transmission than vaginal sex is disingenuous at best. As I said, shooting yourself in the head with twelve bullets is, indeed, more dangerous than shooting yourself in the head with only three bullets...but you're still shooting yourself in the head.You are making anal sex out to be something tremendously damaging compared to vaginal sex and it simply isn't. Yes, the rectal lining is a bit more delicate than the vaginal lining, but not by that much. Unprotected vaginal sex is still a wonderful vector for transmitting HIV as can be seen by the breakdown of the epidemic: Most people who have HIV got it from heterosexual sex and most people who have HIV are women.

quote:

---

Right you keep jumping between Western Europe (and countries) and worldwide, and so your figures can jump around too.

---

Incorrect. The numbers remain the same. HIV is primarily transmitted via heterosexual sex, worldwide. In the West such as Western Europe and the US, it used to be primarily transmitted via men who have sex with men, but that is changing. For the past five years, Europe has seen HIV transmitted primarily via heterosexual sex. In fact, the total number of people who have HIV in Europe is almost split even between those who got it from heterosexual sex and those who got it from homosexual sex. The US is going the same way.You are stuck on this vision of HIV being connected to gay men when that is a localized phenomenon that is rapidly disappearing. It was never a global trend.

quote:

---

your previous stats were saying 44% hetero and 26% homo werent they?

---

For the UK for the one specific year of 2002. Do you bother to read posts before responding?

quote:

---

What i have disagreed with is that this means that it is more likely to spread through heterosexual contact.

---

Logical error: Equivocation.You are switching from "heterosexual contact" meaning the rates of those with HIV who acquired it via heterosexual sex to "heterosexual contact" meaning the concept of a single act of unprotected sex through vaginal sex compared to anal sex (not to mention the error that heterosexuals don't commonly engage in anal sex compared to men who have sex with men).And on top of that, you're confusing relative risk for absolute risk. While anal sex may be a better vector of HIV transmission compared to vaginal sex, vaginal sex is still a pretty good vector. And we can see that simply by looking at the breakdown of the epidemic. Most people with HIV got it from heterosexual sex. Most people with HIV are women.Shooting yourself in the head with twelve bullets is more dangerous than using only three...but you're still shooting yourself in the head.

quote:

---

Can you please stop insisting that you know the way i think of the world.

---

I only go off of what you say. You keep insisting that somehow HIV has some big connection to men who have sex with men and that simply isn't true. The only place that ever happened was in the West...where you happen to live. If you truly did understand the epidemiology of the epidemic, you wouldn't make such comments. So if it isn't because you're stuck on this vision that your local experience generalizes to the world at large, what is it?Less than 5% of cases worldwide from men who have sex with men and you claim that there is some big connection between HIV transmission and men who have sex with men?

quote:

---

And i believe that i have already answered your direct question.

---

No, you haven't. You're stuck on HIV and sex between men.The question is: If homosexual sex is to be prevented because it is "unhealthy" (with that being nothing more than a euphemism for HIV), then how to explain the fact that sex between women is the least likely to transmit STDs?That is the original argument. Just in case you forgot, Message 28 by PecosGeorge: This isn't just about men putting their wee-wees where you poo-poo. This is about all gay people.Well, that includes lesbians. And they're the least likely to get STDs from sex.So if the condemnation is against "unhealthy" sex practices, why are lesbians condemned?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

You take offense, but Loudmouth didn't. He didn't complain.

---

I don't pretend to speak for Loudmouth.By the way, Loudmouth didn't even respond. We have no idea what he thinks. You asked what someone else would do in your position.You got an answer.Now you're whining that it wasn't the answer you were expecting.The recent case before the Supreme Court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance had a very good exchange regarding just this point:Souter comments that the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is "so tepid, so diluted ... that it should be under the constitutional radar."Newdow's response is that it is "getting slapped in the face every time" he hears it.That is the part you don't seem to understand: Etiquette is not to smooth the feelings of people who aren't offended by your behaviour. It's to smooth the feelings of those who are. Think about it: Do you really think someone who shares your religious opinion is going to find anything wrong with your actions?So why do you assume that someone who doesn't share that opinion should behave in the same way?

quote:

---

quote:

---

God doesn't need you to preach. In fact, that Bible of yours you claim to follow specifically instructs you not to preach.

---

​

Can you provide the quote from the bible in it's entirety please.

---

(*sigh*)You mean you don't know? I thought you were supposed to be such a wonderful follower of the Bible. You don't know what it says?Matthew 6:1: Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.6:2: Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:3: But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:6:4: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.6:6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.6:7: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.6:8: Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.Matthew is filled with admonitions that it is one's actions, not one's words, that will determine if one achieves salvation...and that those actions are to be for the glory of god, not for the benefit of other humans:Matthew 7:15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.7:16: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?7:17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.7:18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.7:19: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.7:20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.7:21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.7:22: Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?7:23: And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.7:24: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:In short, if you make a spectacle of yourself, making sure that everybody knows what a good and pious person you are, then you are not doing the will of god. God does not need your assistance. "Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."

quote:

---

And even if you do, talking about God is not preaching

---

It is when you're trying to convince someone to believe in your god. And that's precisely what it became when you asked, "Why not become Christian." You said so, yourself (Message 63): No, you don't. God doesn't need you to. God doesn't want you to. You're only doing it for the glory of other humans, not for god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, how did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible? Seems that your god isn't actually god but rather a book.
If you want to talk about a book, that's fine. To pretend that the book is god

---

​

We shifted from the supernatural which is spoke of in the bible and you have now shifted into saying I am pretending God is a book. Hmmmm...

---

Hmmmm, indeed. I notice you didn't answer the question:When did we shift from the supernatural to the Bible?You asked about what you should do regarding your belief in god (Message 41): And then you shift to the Bible (Message 63): Well, you may be in a position to talk about the Bible and what it says, but we weren't talking about the Bible. We were talking about god.You are confusing the Bible and god.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And as you well know, that means nothing since it is illogical to use a circular argument. The Bible is true because it says it is.

---

​

Even if there is a possible logical possibility (not error) that the bible argument is circular - what would that mean if it really is the truth?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You really don't know? What it would mean is that we have no reason to believe it. You really don't get it, do you? The Bible may be absolutely correct in every instance (it isn't, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is). How do you distinguish between it and another, identically justified text that contradicts it at every turn?Do you remember the old game show, To Tell the Truth? You'd have three people, each claiming to be the same person simply by assertion. "I am Frank Abagnale."Who are you going to believe? The only justification you have is their own say so and yet they can't all be the one. Indeed, one of them is the right one, but how the hell do you know?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Fine. I'm god. I'm god because I say I am and I say I am because I am.

​

Now, why is it you seem to believe your book and not me?

---

​

I thought a book was God

---

Ah, that's how you know. You believe god is a book and since I am not a book, I cannot be god.But, of course, that avoids the entire question (not surprising given your confusion over what is a book and what is god). Suppose I were to send you another book that claims it is the word of god (say, the Koran).How are you going to distinguish between the two?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why do you still preach to me? You know I don't want to hear it.

---

​

I am not preaching, I am debating.

---

Hah! Message 63: And you think you're not preaching?

quote:

---

Your problem is that you are a preachophobic.

---

(*chuckle*)Hey, some of my best friends are preachers....Seriously, the problem is not that I'm afraid of preaching. It's that I understand that there is a time and a place for preaching. That time and place is one that must be mutually agreed upon by all participants. Otherwise, it's nothing but an obnoxious interruption of what was previously a lovely day.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Lam responds to me:

quote:

---

And just exactly how many straight men you know that doesn't like to see 2 girls going at it?

---

Actually, quite a few.But the problem really stems from the assumption that those two women going at it will somehow welcome the presence of the man watching them. That is, even though the women are having sex, they're having it for him and not for each other.As soon as that straight man comes across real lesbians who will kick him out of that little fantasy before it even starts, you'd be surprised how quickly that "hot" scene becomes "disgusting."Amazingly, Friends made note of that. In a fantasy episode, Ross wonders what it would have been like if he had proposed a three-way with his first wife before they got divorced when she realized she was a lesbian. The result? Ross feeling very, very left out as the two women paid absolutely no attention to him.Which isn't surprising: They're lesbians. What on earth are they going to do with an icky, disgusting man?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar writes:

quote:

---

But what does any of that have to do with the Bible and Homosexuality?

---

Because the claim is that god prohibited same-sex sex because it was unhealthy and as proof of that, just look at HIV, intimating that it is a gay disease and that vaginal sex is barely a risk whereas anal sex is almost a guarantee of transmission.But looking at HIV, we find that it's actually heterosexual sex that is the primary culprit. Too, while anal sex does seem to be a better vector than vaginal sex, that is only a relative statement, not an absolute one. Vaginal sex is a pretty good vector for transmission, too, as seen by the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who contracted HIV got it from heterosexual sex as well as the fact that most people who contracted HIV are women.Therefore, if god is going to be condemning certain sexual practices as sin due to their being "unhealthy," then penis-vagina sex has to go.Remember what PecosGeorge wrote in Message 28: As I said in my reply: Quit beating around the bush. He's talking about HIV and AIDS.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zachariah writes:

quote:

---

The sphincter muscle of your anus was made to allow things to go out only.

---

Incorrect. If that were the case, then you couldn't make anything go into it. Since you can make something go into it, it must be the case that it wasn't "made to allow things to go out only."Your vocal cords, for example, originally came on the scene in order to prevent large objects from entering your lungs.Does that make speech an unnatural use of them?By the way, if you truly believe the "it's an exit, not an entry" balderdash, you had better let your doctor know that you refuse to take any medication rectally.

quote:

---

Over prolonged "misuse" that muscle will not function as well as one used correctly.

---

Indeed...if you "misuse" anything, it will break.Anal sex, however, is not misuse. I see you've been reading Paul Cameron and have fallen for his "gay bowel syndrome" where he thinks that gay people will lose control of their sphincters and will have to wear diapers in their dotage.In fact, the exact opposite is true. Those who practice anal sex become much more adept at controlling the anal sphincter because they are practicing that control. By your logic, a dancer who works hard at maintaing flexibility will be incapable of walking because the looseness of the tendons and ligaments precludes any ability to maintain tension.Instead, we find that dancers are much more capable of movement than those who don't maintain their flexibility. It is precisely because they exercise those body parts in order to maintain control.

quote:

---

Two women cannot produce a child nor can two men.

---

Neither can sterile heterosexuals or women past menopause. Should their sex lives be curtailed and declared "unnatural"?

quote:

---

If we were all gay life would die.

---

And if we were all rocket scientists, life would die, too.Since we are in no danger of everybody being gay or everybody being rocket scientists, why bother stopping those who are so?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

In this nation, I have a right to vote for the candidate or the law according to whatever the heck I think is best.

---

Nobody said otherwise.What we're asking is why you seem to want to violate the Constitution.

quote:

---

I desire that this nation function according to God's principles because I believe this is the only way it will last and prosper.

---

So you are saying that you are for the repealing of the First Amendment, no religious freedom, and that the US should become a theocracy.You certainly have the right to that opinion.You will understand when many of us think you're a danger to a free society.

quote:

---

If I get married just as the majority of America decides and votes that Homosexuality is the only valid lifestyle, I will simply leave.

---

But this is the point you seem to misunderstand:Nobody here is saying that everybody should be forced to be gay. If you want to be straight, you go right ahead and be straight. The government will not make you do anything you don't want to do with your penis.Why are you incapable of extending that respect to others who aren't straight? It would be just as much an affront to a free society to make everyone gay as it would be to make everyone straight.This is the part that many people don't understand about anti-discrimination laws: They protect the majority as well as the minority. While the minority may have cause to avail themselves of those protections more often, those protections are just as available to those in the majority when they are needed.The right to marry a person of your choice protects mixed-sex marriage just as much as same-sex marriage.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You will understand when many of us think you're a danger to a free society.

---

​

A free society does not come without laws.

---

Is not one of those laws to treat everyone equally under the law? In fact, isn't that one of the hallmarks of free society? And yet, here you are demanding that some people are to be discriminated against for no reason other than a religious squick factor.If you establish that as a precedent for legitimate government, how do you stop it from being applied against you?

quote:

---

It is my desire and the desire of many that the laws of this nation stay aligned with God's moral law

---

Why yours and not mine? Wouldn't a free society not choose sides? If you are free to subjugate me for your god, what's to stop me from doing the same to you for my god?

quote:

---

A change in the nature of marriage, a fundamental societal institution, will inevitably result in a change in the entire society.

---

And this is necessarily a bad thing because of what? This argument of yours was also used to prevent interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. Did this make society freer or worse?

quote:

---

As long as I am a voting citizen in this society, I am alowed my beliefs and my vote as to what is immoral and what should be lawful and what should not be.

---

Nobody said you didn't have that right. But again, you understand why we think you are a danger to free society. You are trying to deny your fellow human equal rights.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why are you incapable of extending that respect to others who aren't straight?

---

​

When have I disrespected a gay person?

---

When you refused to treat gay people equally with all the rights and privileges that you have.

quote:

---

If I meet a gay person on the street, I will treat them with respect as I treat anyone else.

---

No, yoa don't. You refuse to grant gay people the same rights and privileges that you have. Doesn't equal treatment under the law mean anything to you?

quote:

---

But I am a part of this society and have a voice as to how it should function.

---

Nobody said you shouldn't. But you understand why we think you are a danger to a free society. Nobody is trying to make you do anything you don't want to do. Why are you incapable of returning the favor?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!