The bible and homosexuality

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.

There are also thousands of homosexuals living in a state of self-loathing, repression, and fear due to growing up in a good Christian environment...To someone who does not believe homosexuality is immoral, "epistemologically rehabilitation" sounds downright frightening, especially if a genetic basis for homosexuality exists.

I don't think the dance example is a joke - I don't believe that tendons/ligaments/muscle are made to do splits, or allow someone to bend their body in half, or dead lift several hundred pounds. Humans train them to be capable of that - just as someone can train their anal sphincter to relax (and enjoy!) having something placed in it...Considering all of the 'unnatural' things people do with their bodies - wearing clothes, eating cooked/processed foods, staring at a computer screen for hours at time, etc.; it seems silly to say that in this one sexual context biology dictates proper use (and by extension morality).

My (heterosexual) marriage ceremony was performed by a homosexual man.I find it an interesting societal contradiction that a homosexual can legally perform and bless a marriage but not legally be married himself. A homosexual (fornicator!) can be a judge, religious leader, boat captain - not to mention teacher/senator/doctor/etc...If homosexuality represents such a danger to society, why let homosexuals take such jobs? Homosexuals can lead religions or perform brain surgery, but are not ethical or moral enough to be husbands or wives? Ridiculous...

I have anal sex with my heterosexual wife, and in a loving, respectful way - is that right or wrong? What about oral sex?

True. Yet my spouse reports having better, more intense orgasms during anal sex than during vaginal sex. The nerves in the anus are actually more sensitive than in the vagina, which is why anal sex can be painful if done improperly (and why it feels so good when done properly). See above comment. It feels good. And we are not into 'naughtiness' or 'taboos', especially after years of marriage and a couple hundred anal encounters, so to speak. (and if I thought my sex life was taboo I wouldn't be writing about it here, I can tell you that.) Ridiculous - like saying if you enjoy having your scrotum handled you will enjoy having an examination for testicular cancer; or if you enjoy having your breasts fondled you will enjoy a mammogram. One is cold and clinical and has nothing to do with sensuality - unless you have some sort of medical fetish.You don't have to enjoy anal sex. That doesn't mean that everyone else is incapable deriving pleasure from it...(Apologies to all if that was too much information - just tired of people stating as fact that anal sex is painful, unnatural, wrongly lustful, perverse, etc.)

Possibility to transfer an STD is evidence to not engage in a particular form of sex?We better put a halt to all forms of sex.Goodbye species...

Sorry for the misread... perhaps I am confused on your stance.In your mind is anal sex "unnatural", "immoral", neither, or both?What about the same question for oral sex?

custard - Thanks for the clarification... I wouldn't have been so argumentative if I had known...

I like to have my ears nibbled on. Is that aural sex?

That ain't the half of it, my friend. The condom is a dangerous, insidious beast. Here's a recent journal article: Just when you thought it was safe to have safe sex...