Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I want one good reason that being gay is ok
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 436 of 510 (124057)
07-12-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by arachnophilia
07-08-2004 6:24 PM


quote:
well, he does that out of need for symbolism. in john, jesus IS the passover supper. john does a lot of things like this that just shouldn't be taken literally, because it was written as a form of symbolic propaganda.
Yes, John's Gospel is really, really different from the other three, and much more symbolic in nature.
Do you have a book called "Gospel Parallels"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by arachnophilia, posted 07-08-2004 6:24 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 5:47 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 437 of 510 (124059)
07-12-2004 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by riVeRraT
07-09-2004 7:50 AM


Re: everyone suck toes with moral purpose!
quote:
Go check all your statistics, and learn from medical science why this is true.
Funny how it all matches the bible.
But I thought that we couldn't trust statistics.
Isn't that your opinion, that we can't trust statistics because some of them are fixed and/or wrong?
You are contradicting yourself now. Which is it? Are statitics to be trusted or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by riVeRraT, posted 07-09-2004 7:50 AM riVeRraT has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 438 of 510 (124062)
07-12-2004 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by nator
07-12-2004 5:33 PM


Do you have a book called "Gospel Parallels"?
nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by nator, posted 07-12-2004 5:33 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by nator, posted 07-12-2004 6:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 439 of 510 (124066)
07-12-2004 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:48 PM


I just told rhain, but now I will tell you.
He came to fulfill the law. Once it was fulfilled it could change.
again.
quote:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
no part of the old law was abolished by jesus. i'm sorry, that's what the bible says he said. you can't claim to believe the bible and disagree with that.
and if you do, well, then being gay is certainly ok, since everything else is too, because jesus abolished the law. or, are you picking and choosing now?
The parable of eye for an eye.
it's not a parable, and i covered this.
Jesus's 2 greatest commandments.
as with the last example, there is a difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of those under it. jesus doesn't talk much about laws, but personal morality.
Be more specific.
http://EvC Forum: I want one good reason that being gay is ok -->EvC Forum: I want one good reason that being gay is ok
Explain that one.
if you don't get the first one, you won't get the second. if jesus was divine, perhaps you'd favor the gnostic texts, which actually separate jesus the man and jesus the god at some points, since material creation is, well, immaterial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:48 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 440 of 510 (124070)
07-12-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by riVeRraT
07-09-2004 8:54 AM


quote:
Then you should know more than anyone that a gay marraige is not the same as a straight marraige.
No individual marriage is the same as any other.
My marriage is not at all like my parent's marriage, for example, nor is it like my brother's marriage, nor is it like either one of my sisters' marriages (particularly one of them).
What's your point?
quote:
I am sure you are well aware of the difficulties of marriage, and how screwd up it is.
Creating a successful marriage isn't easy, but the benefits are wonderful if it's worked at and undertaken seriously.
I wouldn't describe the institution as "screwed up".
When did you become an anti-marriage activist?
quote:
If you succeed at it, then you are ahead of the world these days.
Agreed.
quote:
Gay people do not have to face the same challanges in marriage that straight people do. They can have it much easier (yet this still does not stop them from having screwd up relationships). They don't have to worry about birth control, having children, raising them,
Many gay people have children and raise them. There are many gay folks in my town who have adopted kids, and of course you have completely forgotten about the fact that lesbians can get artificially inseminated.
Also, straight people who choose not to have children also have it "easier" according to you. Do you propose that these people shouldn't be allowed to get married?
quote:
getting along with a partner of oppisite sex, and so on.
What makes you think that one's partner being of the opposite gender makes that big of a difference in how the couples get along in a marriage?
Please be specific.
quote:
Yet they want the same rights as us who work very hard to have a family, and do the right thing.
So, are you trying to say that couples who, according to your particular personal standards, have marriage "easier", shouldn't be allowed to get married because you perceive that you work harder?
quote:
When you get married you start a family. When a gay person gets married he/she starts a "legal contract" with another person. There is a big difference.
Marriage in the US IS A LEGAL, SECULAR CONTRACT as far as the state is concerned.
As far as the US government is concerned, all you have with YOUR spouse is a legal contract, nothing more.
OTOH, you do realize that you insult and demean couples who choose not to have children (like my husband and I) as not being a family, don't you?
quote:
If you vote for gay marriages, you are going to give up your rights. Thats provided you are straight, you didn't say.
What rights?
Nowhere in your post did you list any rights that I would be losing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by riVeRraT, posted 07-09-2004 8:54 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 441 of 510 (124077)
07-12-2004 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 427 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:07 PM


Prove it.
Nobody with a sexual orientation - that is, any human being - has ever felt that they had a choice about it.
Why would anybody choose to be gay? It means social ostracism, to some degree, discrimination, and actual threats of violence against one's person.
What, the food's better or something? It's simply ludicrous to suggest that it's a choice. Think about your own reaction to the thought of same-sex activity. What on Earth would make anyone choose it?
If literally no human being feels that their sexual orientation was something they had a choice about, it's just stupid to try to pretend that it's a choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:07 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 442 of 510 (124081)
07-12-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by riVeRraT
07-09-2004 8:54 AM


Let's change your statement a bit. Interesting how it would have worked 50 years ago...
(my changes in bold)
[quote]Yes I have complained about it, but money costs is not what really bothers me. It costs me in other ways. Its going to force me to accept what I do not wish to accept. If colored people and white people just have sex, I don't care, and I don't have to accept it. If you make it legal, then I have to accept it. There will be many things that happen because of this.
Our lives are going to change, and in the long run it won't be for the better.[quote] You do realize that being gay and having gay sex is currently legal, don't you?
You really are terribly homophobic, and that's not healthy. It's irrational and unfounded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by riVeRraT, posted 07-09-2004 8:54 AM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 443 of 510 (124083)
07-12-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:02 PM


It's that "negotiating gender challenge" thing that makes it different.
But since that's the least challenging thing facing a married couple, it's hardly worth speaking about.
Moreover it's stupid to suggest that since gay people might face less challenges, they have less of a marriage. Rich people aren't faced with the majority of married challenges you and I are - financial obligations, household duities, etc - are you trying to tell me that rich people can't actually have marriages?
Where striaght sex have to always worry that a baby might pop out.
Unless they're infertile. Are infertile people "less" married?
You earned that leagal contract IMo because you want to start a family.
A family consisting of me and my wife. Same as gay people.
I am not convinced that same-sex couples make better parents, than striaght couples.
Well, I predict that since they're generally higher-income than your average straight parent (due to the monetary cost of overcoming the fertility problem) they're in all likelyhood able to provide a better environment than your average straight person. I could probably dig up some stats, but why bother if you're already just making stuff up off the top of your head? I can play that game too.
Your a woman now, did you know that?
Well, a quick check down the front of my pants puts that to the lie. If you really need me to I can scan my junk and email it to you, but that might weird out your wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Rrhain, posted 07-14-2004 2:53 AM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 444 of 510 (124090)
07-12-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:05 PM


quote:
Because having gay sex is a choice,
Yes, just like having heterosexual sex, or sterile sex is a choice.
BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE, however.
Ask any gay person if they chose to be gay. Ask any straight person if they chose to be straight.
How many men did you have sex with before you decided that you didn't like it?
quote:
being sterile is not. Usually you wouldn't find out if your sterile until you try to reproduce.
Sterilization, in my husband's case, was most definitely a choice.
It's called a v-a-s-e-c-t-o-m-y.
The female version is a t-u-b-a-l l-i-g-a-t-i-o-n.
So, are you saying that people who choose to become sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:05 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 445 of 510 (124092)
07-12-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:02 PM


quote:
Most of them don't want to start a family, (or have kids I should say)
You earned that leagal contract IMo because you want to start a family.
My husband and I got married because we wanted to get married.
We have never wanted children, neither of us, ever.
He has recently gotten a vasectomy.
According to you, we don't have a "real" marriage nor a "real" family.
You can bite me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:02 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 446 of 510 (124094)
07-12-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:20 PM


Re: moral purpose and birth control
quote:
I am also a hypocrite, because I have had a vascectomy.
Since you cannot procreate, you haven't had sex since you became sterile, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:20 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 447 of 510 (124096)
07-12-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 5:20 PM


Re: moral purpose and birth control
quote:
I am also a hypocrite, because I have had a vascectomy. I did this before I was saved. I have 5 children, and cannot afford to raise anymore. My work is done here.
I almost feel now that I got saved, that I regret that desicion to get a vasectomy.
So, God actually wanted you to have more children than you could afford to feed, clothe, house, and educate?
I guess getting saved makes you irresponsible with your reproduction, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 5:20 PM riVeRraT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 448 of 510 (124097)
07-12-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by arachnophilia
07-12-2004 5:47 PM


I think you'd like "Gospel Parallels".
It presents the Gospels side by side so you can compare them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 5:47 PM arachnophilia has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 449 of 510 (124114)
07-12-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:28 PM


quote:
kissing=sex, need more?
Does this mean you have watched your parents having sex, repeatedly?
And I'm with Dan on this one, I am a stud when it comes to sex. I must average 10 times a day, and some of that in public.
quote:
I am against it, need more?
Actually we were hoping you might explain why you are against it. It is difficult to have a discussion when you don't know what the other party's beef is with a perfectly simple situation. All of the people who are arguing with you simply don't feel it is wrong at all. Since it isn't wrong then it must be OK. You don't seem willing to explain why that isn't the case. And I'm just not buying the "mental anguish" angle. I see and read things every day that bother me to one degree or another but that doesn't make them wrong.
quote:
From post #354
Also, cumming in a girls mouth or spilling your seed anywhere but into the vagina is immoral. The rest is moral.
Did you hold this view before you became a Christian or after? If the answer is after then, as per you opening post, this isn’t a relevant reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:28 PM riVeRraT has not replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 450 of 510 (124115)
07-12-2004 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by riVeRraT
07-12-2004 4:41 PM


quote:
Note, the serpent did not tell Eve to actually eat from the tree. He simply pointed out that god was lying to them regarding the consequences of eating from the tree.
Oh, you mean she got tricked. lol
No, She was told the truth. This is not trickery.
quote:
Without the tree, we would not have free will, we would just be robots.
This is off topic but I have wondered about this. Did Adam and Eve really have free will if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by riVeRraT, posted 07-12-2004 4:41 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024