Homosexuality (Give me your opinion)
- Thread starter Jesusfreak93
- Start date
- Status
Fenny the Fox
Well-Known Member
- Apr 21, 2009
- 4,147
- 315
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
The safest form of sex is actually cyber-sex.
No, your computer can get viruses...
Phone sex is safer.
Upvote
0
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
No, your computer can get viruses...
Phone sex is safer.
Unless all the telephone sanitisers get sent off on the B-Ark, then we're in trouble...
David.
Upvote
0
Do people realize that even if the Bible only talks about homosexuality a few times, it still talks about God creation of men and women and the unity they share in becoming one. No where does the bible so much as indicate this takes place between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Why are people so quick to dismiss this foundational truth in Scripture? Even if homosexuality was never mentioned in the Bible we can learn from the very fact of men & women being created for one another that homosexuality is wrong. Jesus told the Pharisees, "what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate". God joined together men and women in their very creation to be unified together as one flesh in intimate relationships. I love how this is so conveniently ignored in these discussions. As well as how He designed of each body to accommodate one another, should end the discussion really. It is when we evaluate [FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]God's purpose in creating human sexuality that we truly see homosexuality for what it is, wrong and a distortion of God's design, purpose and gift to us when we relate intimately with others. [/FONT]
As for your assertions on arsenokoites I will simply provide you with some links...
http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php (long but very interesting - pretty much addresses any and all defenses of homosexuality biblically)
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-bible-and-homosexuality
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1443-the-plague-of-perversion
Last edited:
Upvote
0
These are the exception not the rule
Being overly dry does not effect the sanitation and can merely be the result of hormones being "off" due to meds, nursing, etc. Guess it depends on what you are attempting to be "safe" from.
Upvote
0
And 0.06% of people have Dwarfism. If a minority group is deemed immoral and harmful to society if it has a prevalence of less than 5%, then why don't you consider Little People to be inherently detrimental to society? While their short stature poses health risks to them, what detriment do they post to soceity?
Or could it be the prevalence of a particular minority is no bearing on its inherent morality?
For you. The majority of heterosexuals don't think about homosexual sex, and vice versa. But the internal 'ick' factor is to be expected regardless of the morality of homosexuality: heterosexuals, by definition, aren't attracted to their own sex, so, by definition, same-sex sex doesn't appeal to them*. Likewise, homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex, so opposite-sex sex holds little attraction to them.
In other words, that heterosexuals are generally turned off by same-sex sex, that's neither surprising nor pertinent.
*A caveat: same-sex sex that involves their sex. Same-sex sex that involves the opposite sex (e.g., a man watching two women, or a woman watching two men) does not cause that same internal 'ick' factor. Straight men don't like male-male sex because they're not attracted to men, but they like female-female sex because they're attracted to females. This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
I agree with you thus far, except for the bit about Europe. I have never been accused of being homosexual for being friendly towards a stranger of my own sex, for the simple reason that no one over here (in the UK, at least) gives a monkey's. Sure, there are anti-gay people lurking in the shadows, but, by and large, it's a non-issue.
But I agree that, in the US, there is a curious social stigma associated with being attracted to one sex or the other (or both, or, indeed, neither).
While a tragic comment on society and culture in the US, it seems you're arguing against the social stigma against homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself. As I said above, in the UK, because no one cares whether you're gay or not, no one cares if one man is overly friendly to another (maybe he's gay, maybe he's drunk, maybe he's just full of joie de vivre). Is the existence of this lamentable social stigma not then a case against
If there was some sort of 'forced' acceptance of homosexuality, that would negate the effect you talked about. As it happens, there's nothing forced about it: people are growing up, and new generations no longer see it as this dark perversion that the older generation generally did. The moral zeitgeist moves on, and the stubborn will always moan about a past lost to some perceived activism.
Did you know that those opposed to interracial marriage labelled lawmakers as 'activist judges'? Sound familiar?
And when did activism become a bad thing
Anyway. Your three objections, 1) that homosexuality is rare, 2)that same-sex sex is generally unappealing to heterosexuals, and 3) that the social stigma in US society against homosexuality has created an air of distrust towards percieved homosexuals, are not objections to homosexuality. They're either irrelevant as objections, or objections to something else entirely.
Apparently you are a proponent of "forced indoctrination" of the acceptance of homosexuality. Unfortunately, unlike real prejudice, such as against intermarriage, a heterosexual will never change to feel comfortable being "hit on" by a homosexual.
God in His infinite wisdom understood this and in fact took drastic measures to resolve this issue in the city of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Furthermore, any student of history should understand the close relationship that the acceptance of homosexuality has to do with the failure of a society. This is just one side effect but there are others as well. Homosexuality is not a positive contributor in any measure to society, rather it by it's very nature is belligerent and destructive to said.
Upvote
0
I find your links less than compelling. The fact two of them start out making sensationalist statements against homosexuality show they have no value as an objective look at the subject. One of them starts, "[FONT=trebuchet ms,geneva]The gay rights movement does not just want the right to privacy and to be left alone.[/FONT]" And as you might expect, the article is a build up of a claimed "gay agenda" that is more sensationalist than accurate -- especially since all the cited material used to make these claims is at least 18 years old.
Another article starts, "One of the most potentially devastating movements to evolve from the environment of human degeneracy in recent decades is the so-called Gay Movement.". The content after does not improve.
The closest to being an actual examination is the first link, but even it has major problems. Typically what he does is bring up a claim made, turns it into a straw man, and then knocks down the straw man; rather than looking at the various points and objectively look at the validity of the various points. Also, his "knocking down" of the straw man is weak and contrived.
For example, he talks of how the homosexual rape in Sodom is representative of homosexuality in general -- using men as prison (who rape other inmates in the absence of women) as "proof" of what homosexuals really do. And then, oddly, he states that the proof the people in Sodom were homosexual is, "This is supported by the fact that in both instances, when women were offered to the men, both groups of men initially rejected the offer."
I'm sorry, none of the papers you present provide any true insight.
Upvote
0
Yes, in English translation by people conditioned by generations of the assumption that the passage meant just that, it is simple and straightforward. But it is not accurate.
The rabbis whose discussions formed the respected commentaries such as the Talmud spoke the same language, but were 400 to 1400 years removed from the original authors. They saw the verse, not as forbidding "homosexuality," but as forbidding one of two men performing one particular act from taking that particular role in the act -- the same role he would take in a similar act with a woman. They freely admit that they created the rules that broadened this commandment into forbidding all other male-male sexual activity, and any unchaperoned physical contact between young, unmarried men.
They could not reach consensus on why the innocent second man needed to die, but did compare it to the case of the need to destroy the innocent beast in the next verse. As to women, they reached the conclusion that neither God nor they cared whether two women "rubbed" one another.
However, a good look at the structure of the whole of Leviticus chapter 18, shows that in concentrating their discussion on verse by verse exegesis, they lost sight of the purpose of the chapter as a whole. Chapter 18 is a warning about adopting certain practices of the Canaanites. These practices are to be considered toevah to the Jews. Toevah is usually translated "abomination" because it was the closest common word available to the translators of the AV. As English continued to gain new words from other languages, we now have the Polynesian word taboo to use to translate the sense more closely: forbidden generally, but for strictly ritual reasons.
After the general warning, Chapter 18 gives the first forbidden practice, and several examples of it. This is the so-called incest passage. It actually forbids wife-swapping within the extended family. It concludes with declaring this practice zimmah, wicked, and repeating the commandment against adultery.
Then it moves on to sexual idolatry: the Canaanites, in their worship of Molech, offer their sexuality to him in various ways. Neither Molech nor Yaweh are to be worshiped in these ways. The man's seed is not to be offered as a burnt sacrifice, nor is it to be given into the bodies of temple acolytes or sacrificial animals. Nor is a woman to accept into herself the seed of a sacrificial animal. These practices are confirmed as taboo, but they are not called wicked, as the incestual adultery was.
Chapter 18 concludes as it began with a warning that breaking God's taboo will result in expulsion from the land of promise.
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
No it isn't. Try again.
Unless, of course, you actually want to give evidence as to how homosexuality is destructive and negative for society.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So why is it that women have no problem being hit on homosexually, it seems to be only men. Perhaps the truth has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with being "macho" (which I would also suggest has more to do with male behavior in the US than fear of homosexuals). Many men are afraid to appear feminine so they feel the need to act "tough", in ways that society sees as "manly". Getting "hit on" is something that only happens to women so it is a huge insult to these "manly men". Sorry, it is nothing more than a prejudice that is reinforced by the current culture -- much like the prejudice against interracial couples (and all things Black) a century ago.
And this fails as well. Sparta did quite well with an army that practiced homosexuality. It was known in Athens for centuries, while Athens was at the height of it's power (including the rumors of Alexander the Great having homosexual relationships). Rome had homosexuality at least as early as they conquered Greece, and the evidence is it was there all along, yet Rome still lasted a thousand years. Interestingly, the fall of Rome only occurred after they became Christian. The Chinese dynasties allowed homosexuality, it was allowed in ancient Eqypt and ancient Japan. In none of these cases did it contribute to the failure of the society.
Upvote
0
Nice try. Not exactly:
First is the English translation by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in the "Living Torah"http://www.christianforums.com/wiki/Aryeh_Kaplan
Navigating the Bible II
20:13If a man has intercourse with another man in the same manner as with a woman, both of them have committed a disgusting perversion.
Here is another in it's original Hebrew form:
יג וְאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת-זָכָר מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה--תּוֹעֵבָה עָשׂוּ, שְׁנֵיהֶם; מוֹת יוּמָתוּ, דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
www.mechon-mamre.org
Upvote
0
SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
So Christianity did lead to the downfall of Ancient Rome. Interesting...
Upvote
0
Please quote the science or medical book that tells us what "purpose" body parts have and why it can only be used for that "purpose".
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
The fact it occurs in nature, the fact that sexual orientation is natural for everyone
Mouths arent designed for kissing
Nipples are not designed to be erogonous zones
Ears are not designed to hold up glasses
hands werent designed for typing
what body organ do you use to pass urine?????
(I must be doing it wrong)
Upvote
0
LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 173
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And 0.06% of people have Dwarfism. If a minority group is deemed immoral and harmful to society if it has a prevalence of less than 5%, then why don't you consider Little People to be inherently detrimental to society? While their short stature poses health risks to them, what detriment do they post to soceity?
Or could it be the prevalence of a particular minority is no bearing on its inherent morality?
For you. The majority of heterosexuals don't think about homosexual sex, and vice versa. But the internal 'ick' factor is to be expected regardless of the morality of homosexuality: heterosexuals, by definition, aren't attracted to their own sex, so, by definition, same-sex sex doesn't appeal to them*. Likewise, homosexuals aren't attracted to the opposite sex, so opposite-sex sex holds little attraction to them.
In other words, that heterosexuals are generally turned off by same-sex sex, that's neither surprising nor pertinent.
*A caveat: same-sex sex that involves their sex. Same-sex sex that involves the opposite sex (e.g., a man watching two women, or a woman watching two men) does not cause that same internal 'ick' factor. Straight men don't like male-male sex because they're not attracted to men, but they like female-female sex because they're attracted to females. This is a gross oversimplification, but you get my point.
I agree with you thus far, except for the bit about Europe. I have never been accused of being homosexual for being friendly towards a stranger of my own sex, for the simple reason that no one over here (in the UK, at least) gives a monkey's. Sure, there are anti-gay people lurking in the shadows, but, by and large, it's a non-issue.
But I agree that, in the US, there is a curious social stigma associated with being attracted to one sex or the other (or both, or, indeed, neither).
While a tragic comment on society and culture in the US, it seems you're arguing against the social stigma against homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself. As I said above, in the UK, because no one cares whether you're gay or not, no one cares if one man is overly friendly to another (maybe he's gay, maybe he's drunk, maybe he's just full of joie de vivre). Is the existence of this lamentable social stigma not then a case against
If there was some sort of 'forced' acceptance of homosexuality, that would negate the effect you talked about. As it happens, there's nothing forced about it: people are growing up, and new generations no longer see it as this dark perversion that the older generation generally did. The moral zeitgeist moves on, and the stubborn will always moan about a past lost to some perceived activism.
Did you know that those opposed to interracial marriage labelled lawmakers as 'activist judges'? Sound familiar?
And when did activism become a bad thing
Anyway. Your three objections, 1) that homosexuality is rare, 2)that same-sex sex is generally unappealing to heterosexuals, and 3) that the social stigma in US society against homosexuality has created an air of distrust towards percieved homosexuals, are not objections to homosexuality. They're either irrelevant as objections, or objections to something else entirely.
One thing you may wish to consider --- on pro football teams and basketball teams, there are no dwarfs. At this point in time, no dwarf is insisting that it is discrimination not to include dwarfs. The reality is, the exclusion of dwarfs for any reason is a form of discrimination. But the reality is that such is accepted for obvious reasons.
The very same can be applied to marriage. Marriage is an institution not to promote mere sex, but so grow, promote, and nurture healthy family units to raise children as naturally as possible.
The goal of the team is to win. If even a few dwarfs were allowed to play simply because they were humans would not facilitate that end. The very same is true of homosexual marriage. It in no natual way promotes, procreation and child rearing.
Upvote
0
Not sure what that statement is supposed to be evidence of. I mean, on one hand, yes, Greece and Rome still exist.
OTOH, just because a country no longer exists does not make any reason given for its fall true. And, in the case of homosexuality, since it was accepted from the beginning, that means it is not a reason that the country fell.
Again, Rome became Christian before it fell -- does that mean Christianity caused the fall of Rome? Does the fact that Rome, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the British Empire, or the Swedish Empire, no longer exist prove they fell because of Christianity? Or perhaps we should look at actual causes and reasons (such as Rome depending on an expansionist economy and falling when they were to large to expand further) rather than engaging in unsupported causation fallacies.
Upvote
0
B
BigBadWlf
Guest
Please reference all this medical evidence for us
Something you dont particularly like =/= unnatural
Are you aware of all the risks involved with anal sex?
So by your standard vaginal sex must be unnatural too
Wow an unreferenced essay with no author color me impressed
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sorry, you've made a false premise. The fact is, dwarfs are free to play football and could start a professional league. But because the fact they are not as skilled, much less as large, as other professional leagues would not preclude them from claiming they are playing professional football (much less just calling it "football").
And where is it stated in US law, or anywhere else for that matter, that marriage is to "grow, promote, and nurture healthy family units to raise children as naturally as possible"? And if this is true, why do we allow the elderly who cannot conceive (much less raise children effectively because of infirmities due to age) to marry? Why do we allow people known to be infertile to marry since their marriage, "in no natual [sic] way promotes, procreation and child rearing"?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
