The bible and homosexuality

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!

Propaganda. Let's see your evidence for this.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 03:17 AM

Ok, well, here's something from the apparently anti-homosexual National Liberty Journal:

quote:

---

To the contrary, the homosexual community maintains an economic advantage over the heterosexual community. In 1991, the Wall Street Journal published information from the Simmons Market Research Bureau and the United States Census data based on figures from 1988. The survey showed that the average annual income for homosexuals was over $55,430 compared to the national average of $32,144. Simmons Market Research Bureau's first survey was released in 1989. Their second survey, which was released in 1996, produced similar findings. The 1996 study found that 28% of gays earned more than $50,000, while 21% of gay households had incomes over $100,000. A gay research group known as Overlooked Opinions reported similar findings following a survey released in 1993. One internet census reported that 22% of gays and 20% of lesbians had an income of between $70,000 and $100,000, while 29% of gays and 16% of lesbians had incomes in excess of $100,000. This survey was based upon 2001 statistics of 6,351 individuals who identified themselves as gay, lesbian or transgender.

---

(from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.lc.org/radiotv/nlj/nlj1002.htmalthough I guess there's some controversy about the "Overlooked Opinions" information.Then again, here's an interesting article that purports to debunk the "myth" that gay people are more affluent: Page not found – NOGLSTP is Out to InnovateI'm very glad you asked. The subject is considerably less clear than I had thought. It appears there's every possibility you're correct - presumptions of gay affluence may very well be conservative propaganda.AbE: On the other hand, though, do you think it's more or less likely that, out of the homosexuals that do decide to leave the country, it'll tend to be homosexuals with the affluence to afford that sort of flexibility? And that therefore a homosexual exodus would tend to constitute a "brain drain" situation?I just bring it up because I know that, around the Minneapolis area, one of the complaints of a lot of businesses is that Minnesota's DOMA acts and other legislation make it hard to attract professionals, especially homosexual ones.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-13-2004 04:10 AM

Great example. As I suspected, these are merely more pseudo-statistics that aren't questioned by those using them to make their point. Someone sees a percentage in a publication, it gets recycled and re-used until it becomes accepted as 'fact,' and you have another '1 in 10 people is gay' myth that is so deeply entrenched, people get defensive when the statistic is challenged(very similar to YECs responding to biblical challenges). Criticism of sample population used in SMS survey:

quote:

---

To apply information about some subgroup (the "sample") to the larger group (the "population"), the sample must be "representative" of the group. A sample is representative if each member of the group has an equal chance of being in the survey.
  —http://www.noglstp.org/economic.html

---

That's bad enough without the fact that the study was comissioned by a group with a clear agenda: demonstrate to advertisers of gay publications that gay households had a great deal of disposable income.The other studies cited? Even worse: Bias. Should be treated the same way Pat Robertson's survey results are treated - as an outlier at best. Yeah those ever accurate internet censuses (censi, censisticles?). That it was anonymous lends extra authority to the results. I'm sure the sample set was statistically valid.Unfortunately these sorts of statistics are almost worthless; and even more reliable surveys should be questioned until the sample population, selection criteria, variance, and actual verbiage of the questions asked are made available in order to see how the result was obtained. Additional information such as the type of average used is also necessary. Mean can be very different than median.But whether gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have more money or are better educated as a group doesn't really matter: they are still human beings who should be afforded the same rights and respect that every other human being deserves.Jar and others have made eloquent posts explaining how the bible, with the exception of Leviticus which is apparently against everything, does not encourage people to be homophobic or biased against non-heterosexuals.Besides, it's insinuated that Jesus is bi-sexual: he spends an inordinate amount of time with Mary M. and James. Who does he love best? He can't make up his mind. The entire crucifixion is clearly a grand metaphor for sexual identity crisis and desires not conforming to accepted socio-religious practices.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 04:42 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 04:43 AM

To PecosGeorge: Thanks, I will now rephrase the situation:Ok. So for heterosexuals, we have "marriage between one man and one woman" so that they can display their love for each other.For homosexuals, we are promoting "marriage between two partners of the same sex" so that they too can display their love for each otherWhich part of the above do you have a problem with now?Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

A free society does not come without laws. It is my desire and the desire of many that the laws of this nation stay aligned with God's moral law (Laws of Divine Establishment: see thread on Satan). A change in the nature of marriage, a fundamental societal institution, will inevitably result in a change in the entire society. 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. When have I disrespected a gay person? If I meet a gay person on the street, I will treat them with respect as I treat anyone else. But I am a part of this society and have a voice as to how it should function.

You are descriminating against gay people.I have asked several times, without getting an answer, this simple questionWhen you get married, who does the marriage license come from?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

lust is a good thing in its proper setting
do you have a problem with that?
the subject is lust, not het or gay, but lust.
my response deals/dealt with lust.
Is it more clear now? I hate it when people change the subject.

If you believe like I do that marriage between gay people is simply illegitimate and therefore a non-marriage, then discrimination is a non-issue.The license comes from the government. The marriage covenant comes from God. In fact the Government that gives the licenses was set in place by God for God.

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!

Hangdawg13 responds to jar:

quote:

---

In fact the Government that gives the licenses was set in place by God for God.

---

Incorrect. Nowhere in the Constitution do you find god mentioned.In fact, the Constitution explicitly points out that the government is set in place by the people:

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg stated, "If you believe like I do that marriage between gay people is simply illegitimate and therefore a non-marriage, then discrimination is a non-issue."A bit disgusting - I doubt that you have convinced people that discrimination is a non-issue because you personally believe something is illegitimate - I think you've done more to define yourself as discriminatory.Some believe that marriage between a man and woman is illegitimate, a non-marriage, if they are of different races. Instituted as rule or law, this belief is discriminatory - I trust you can see that?Similarly, some could believe members of a particular group are illegitimate non-persons, and therefore see them as property or without rights. That belief by some does not enslave under our constitution.True, the US may have been founded by people who believed they were doing so "by God for God", but they did have enough sense to include freedom of religon and separation of church and state - which is why I was able to be legally married without a religious leader or religious ceremony, and why same-sex couples should be able to marry without religious discrimination.If the US government agreed that the marriage covenant was granted by a JudeoChristian God, only JudeoChristians would be able to marry within the US - would you find that discriminatory?Since many seem to tie-up homosexual marriage with ideas of fornication and perversion, it would seem like the same people should logically restrict marriage to virgin couples who have no intent on engaging in oral, anal, or otherwise non-vaginal, sexual acts.Although I have heard political leaders talk about the "dangers" of same sex marriage to our society, none have yet come up with any description of what these "dangers" might be - I assume the true reason is religious belief, and that should not enter into policy-making.Whether prevention of marriage to an individual couple is based on race, religion, sex, or creed, it remains discrimination.Thanks.

Nonsense.You can have a completely secular marriage. You can not get married without the sanction of the state.Marriage, in the US is simply not a religious issue. It is a social contract between people with stated rights and responsibilities.Marriage in the US has NOTHING to do with religion.You can personally get your religious faith to bless a marriage, but it is not necessary, legal or of note.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To PecosGeorge: Actually, the subject is homosexuality AND lust, not just lust.Yes, you are talking about lust and not homosexuality, but keep in mind that you are interrupting a discussion on both homosexuality AND lust between Hangdawg13 and myself (see post 193).Are you asking me to change the topic of discussion I was having with someone else just because your post deals with lust only? Why, that's rather arrogant of you.Also, pray tell me, if you are discussing lust but NOT homosexuality, are you sure you're posting on the right thread? Me? A problem with lust? Surely not!However, what your perception of a "proper setting" for lust may be very different to what the rest of the world thinks. Keep that in mind.*********************************************************************And to add further to the insult, you have ignored post 177. Pay special attention to this: I hate it when people ignore posts.Patiently awaiting your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"