The "sex" in Homosexuality is what's wrong.

[LittleNipper]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, noble and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

The MTV generation.

What did you expect?

Hollywood and the media propped up this social movement.

 

[Freodin]

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting.

Why is that the "real" issue? Why is that even an issue?

 

[OdwinOddball]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

Sex has not been solely for the purpose of procreation since, well, since we were mentally capable of feeling pleasure.

Your idea of sex is not realistic, and has never been the "standard" no matter how much you want to romanticize it. People had sex for fun long before Jesus lived, and they will keep doing it no matter how much you don't like it. Get over it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting.

Why? Why is sex only OK if it's to make babies in wedlock? What happens if one has sex in any other circumstance?

That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

It also includes sex between the elderly and the sterile. If a man, for whatever reason, cannot conceive, is it immoral for him to have sex? Must a post-menopausal woman be chaste for life?

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous.
Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

You talk as if decency and corruptness are objective standards we can ascribe to things. They're not.
Back in the day it was considered extremely racy for a woman to show a bit of ankle, but do you consider this picture indecent and corrupt?

I find it strange that you uphold the traditions and values of your generation, but not those of any other generation. The Zeitgeist moves on, it seems.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why is that the "real" issue? Why is that even an issue?

Because people are being labeled by how they act and not with whom they have sex with only.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

What about a married couple (man and woman) who have sex as a part of their relationship, to help them grow more intimate, and since they are unable to support a child (at least, not without major set backs), they are using birth control... or maybe they are just infertile and still choose to have sex?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why? Why is sex only OK if it's to make babies in wedlock? What happens if one has sex in any other circumstance?


It also includes sex between the elderly and the sterile. If a man, for whatever reason, cannot conceive, is it immoral for him to have sex? Must a post-menopausal woman be chaste for life?


You talk as if decency and corruptness are objective standards we can ascribe to things. They're not.
Back in the day it was considered extremely racy for a woman to show a bit of ankle, but do you consider this picture indecent and corrupt?

I find it strange that you uphold the traditions and values of your generation, but not those of any other generation. The Zeitgeist moves on, it seems.

Sorry, but even a woman in a long dress can dress very immodestly to draw attention to herself.

 

[Freodin]

Because people are being labeled by how they act and not with whom they have sex with only.

Sorry, that I did not understand. At all. Neither syntactically not semantically.

People are labeled by how they act, and this is wrong... did I understand that correctly?
Instead, they should be labeled only by whom they have sex with... is that correct?

So it´s all about labels? That´s not what your previous quote said. It said that the issue was that sex in situations other than making babies in wedlock is "abuse".

Is it? Why is it?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

L-N,

To Christians* it is the sex in homosexuality that is wrong. Not to pagans, tax collectors and their associates.

C'mon now. Be fair.



*That adhere to the Gospel and Apostolic testimony known as the New Testament.

 

[LittleNipper]

What about a married couple (man and woman) who have sex as a part of their relationship, to help them grow more intimate, and since they are unable to support a child (at least, not without major set backs), they are using birth control... or maybe they are just infertile and still choose to have sex?

I am a firm believer that such pills are a cause of infertility problems later and may even hurt the woman physically.

 

[Washington]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

I really don't see any state government wasting its time or money trying to make non-baby-making sex or fornication either noble or virtuous. Care to cite your examples?
Moreover, to refuse to use a particular religious view of an issue to create laws is exactly what our (USA) government should be doing.

 

[pgp_protector]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

So those that are sterile and married shouldn't have sex ???

 

[lawtonfogle]

I am a firm believer that such pills are a cause of infertility problems later and may even hurt the woman physically.

You dodged the question.

And I know you have had to have a better sex education than to think there are only pills. Also, why do you think such pills are harmful? Some are, but those have been removed. Why do you think pills deemed safe are harmful? Especially those who work by hormones?

 

[Polycarp1]

Little Nipper, kudos for taking a different tack on the interminable 'gay=bad' threads around here. I'm going to differ with your OP in one particular way, not directly related to homosexuality. God gave animals sex for reproduction. To humans, who are in the old Christian paradigm defined as animal rationale, i.e., possessed of animated fleshly bodies like animals but endowed with a soul capable of reason and moral choice as well, His gift was something greater. What was merely a means of reproducing the species in dumb animals became both that and a phsycal way of expressing the union of two persons in marriage, of celebrating their kove with their whole selves, body and mind. It therefore functioned as a bond drawing them together into marriage, keeping them united in marriage, celebrating their unity at times when they were not particularly interested (or even incapable) of starting a child. This unitive aspect of human marital sex is important to any sensible moral theology that addresses sex,

I think if we reduce sex to the reproductive aspect, we fall into the trap of Modernism and reduce humanity to nothing but animalhood. Picking up on this point, therefore, is not merely a sidebar to your OP, but a necessary modification. Would you agree?

(I am sure we will come to different opinions on gay sex, but I am specifically not addressing that in this post, but rather narrowly focusing on the function of sex in marriage. Kindly do not misinterpret that point, please.)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry, but even a woman in a long dress can dress very immodestly to draw attention to herself.

That doesn't answer my questions. Namely:
Why is sex only OK if it's to make babies in wedlock?
What happens if one has sex in any other circumstance?
If a man, for whatever reason, cannot conceive, is it immoral for him to have sex?
Must a post-menopausal woman be chaste for life?
Back in the day it was considered extremely racy for a woman to show a bit of ankle, but do you consider [an exposed ankle] indecent and corrupt?

My point about the ankle is that what people consider to be modest, immodest, decent, taboo, etc, changes with the decade.

 

[b&wpac4]

L-N,

To Christians* it is the sex in homosexuality that is wrong. Not to pagans, tax collectors and their associates.

C'mon now. Be fair.



*That adhere to the Gospel and Apostolic testimony known as the New Testament.

Ha, so there's one group called Christians, then a second group that are "pagans, tax collectors, and their associates"? Those are the only two groups?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sir please do not make it appear as humans are in anyway superior to that of animals, just because they do not possess the mental capacity ( as we know it ) to conceptualize what we do, does not make them "dumb" nor does it give us the right to even judge their own behaviors/moods/feelings.

Clearly you've never been around kids . We have laws in place to protect them from themselves, despite what they believe to be true.

 

[Zebra1552]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting. That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

Um... perhaps because people should have the freedom to choose what's right for them and their loved ones rather than the government choose it for them? And perhaps because those same people have a first amendment right from the establishment of religion?

 

[KCKID]

I really do not to label people. At least I try not to-- to the very best of my ability. Homosexual sex is the issue and should be considered the evil. Women who enjoy playing football and men who love to style hair are not the focus nor a concern in the least.

Well, of course it's homosexual sex that is the issue. You know why? It's because so many Christians are hung up on sex, either in a puritanical or taboo sense or a 'someone else is getting what I want' sense. Or, to win favor with God. Seriously!

Consider this ...no one actually sees the sex that is supposedly 'going on' because it's something that is only imagined. And, if someone should be sneaking around someone's bedroom then there's a special word beginning with 'p' that aptly describes them. In some cases I firmly believe (I have a degree in social science ...whoopee!) that Christians actually require what they perceive to be evil in others in order to fulfill some personal inner need. Again, seriously! In fact, at least one such person on this forum participates in these type issues constantly. He/she NEEDS homosexuality (or some other 'perceived evil' if not homosexuality) in order to affirm his/her own status with a Being that they believe will favor them as long as they are seen to be actively condemning it. It's kinda like one's taking an apple to the teacher in order to be liked. Just think about it.

The real issue is the abuse of sex for any purpose other than the encouragement of trying to make babies in a marriage setting.

Absurd ...but, carry on . . .

That lumps fornicators, adulterers, and and the get drunk and have sex crowd all in the very same boat with people who engage in any same sex intimacy.

Well, you would no doubt be aware that quite a number of men and women (who were always 'gay' but gave the illusion to society that they were not) married and produced families over a period of many years before 'coming out'. So, since they have already 'done their bit', so to speak, of procreating is it now okay (with you anyway) that they engage in same sex intimacy? If not, why not?

So for some strange reason our state governments seem to be wasting time and money trying to make the indecent, nobel and the corrupt, virtuous. Now, isn't that just like liberal politicians?

I have no idea. What I do know is that just about everything I see on TV nowadays is indecent and corrupt. And, the only reason it's on TV and stays on TV is because the majority of the noble and virtuous public are fine with it.