Homosexuality (Give me your opinion)

catolico · May 12, 2010

For those who think homosexuality played no role in the demise of some of the ancient societies I urge you to do a web search on "pederasty".

Pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archer93 · May 12, 2010

LittleNipper said:
No matter what one does it should be done as unto the LORD.

Colossians 3:17
and all, whatever ye may do in word or in work, do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus -- giving thanks to the God and Father, through him.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.....

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

Phinehas2 said:
Supernaught454,
Common sense and a sense of reality is the reason. Paedophilia gives paedophiles a sense of pleasure how come you are so certain paedophilia isnt a purpose alongside anal sex?

Another attempt to falsely associate gays and lesbians with the sexual abuse of childrenhow sad

pwfaith · May 12, 2010

Maren said:
I'm sorry, none of the papers you present provide any true insight.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I liked them and found them very insightful (but then again I agree with them - my goal is not to change anyone's view, but simply provide another, one that I agree with)

SithDoughnut · May 12, 2010

catolico said:
For those who think homosexuality played no role in the demise of some of the ancient societies I urge you to do a web search on "pederasty".

Pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, now you just need to give the evidence that Pedastry caused the downfall of some societies.

LittleNipper · May 12, 2010

Maren said:
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"?

Never needed such a declaration. People just accepted reality of religion and moral behavior patterns.

pwfaith · May 12, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
So by your standard vaginal sex must be unnatural too

Only if you nit-pick it apart and don't look at it as a whole. Color me not surprised.

(eta - if you notice that quote doesn't say it's unnatural because of that but it talks about the dangers of it - the risks of infection with vaginal sex - if done according to God's word - are very minimal - infections by way of sex when we go outside of God's plan and design. How many sexually transmitted diseases would there be if everyone lived by God's design for sex - monogamous hetero relationship only within the bound of marriage? ).

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

Phinehas2 said:
Of course homosexuality is hurting children,

Do you have actual evidence to support this?

its disordered,

Do you have actual evidence to support this?

dysfunctional

Do you have actual evidence to support this?

and outside reality.

Do you have actual evidence to support this?

We now have, in the interests of gays and lesbians two women on the birth certificate. This has to a breach of human rights, a child has the right to know who his true biological parents are.

So you must think that adoption is also a human rights violation

To suggest to children that homosexual is normal and a valid choice is denying them the right to come to terms with reality.

One has to wonder what sort of damage hatred and discrimination does to children

Maren · May 12, 2010

catolico said:
For those who think homosexuality played no role in the demise of some of the ancient societies I urge you to do a web search on "pederasty".

Pederasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only if you accept the same societies failed because "marriages" were often between an older man and an adolescent girl. In Rome, women typically were married between the ages of 12 and 14. In 1371 in England, the average age of men getting married was 24, the average age of a girl was 16. By 1427 that had changed, with most men not getting married until they were in their 30s but they still married young girls. It is dishonest to try to scapegoat homosexuality over age of consent when not providing both a true historical background including girls were marrying at the same ages.

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

catolico said:
For those in doubt, to reiterate, the Bible clearly shows that homosexuality is abhored by God: Lev 20

So is eating shrimp scampi

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

It boggles the mind that some might imply that this means anything other than sex between two men.

is a simple and straightforward translation

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who dont follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.

Even though you personally do not follow the many laws of Leviticus yet you do not seem to have a problem using Leviticus laws to attack a minority. Why?

Using Leviticus to justify prejudice and discrimination has many issues

First we live under a new covenant. Jesus did away with the law and put in place his commandment
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. John 13:34

Promoting or justifying discrimination against a minority is not loving. And no matter how one tries to twist the justification it is an act of hate.

If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20

A further problem is one of translation. Leviticus has many injunctions against engaging in sex specifically carnal knowledge (yakhasey). However the word for sex / carnal knowledge (yakhasey) is not used in either Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 the word that is used is shakab. It is popularly translated to mean to lay (lie) as in have carnal knowledge of/with but there is a problem with that translation in that there is nothing to support the contention that it is an act of consent. Shakab is used 52 times elsewhere in the old testament and is always used to a sexual encounter typified by deceit or force, in other words, some type of rape.

Shakab Means "Rape" not copulation, not carnal relationsrape.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 means that a man shall not force, or in any way coerce, another man to have sex, in the way that a man is allowed to force sex upon his wife. In other words, man is not allowed to rape a man, it is an abomination.
A man raping a man is no more a description of homosexuality than a man raping a woman is a description of heterosexuality.

pwfaith · May 12, 2010

BigBadWlf said:
So is eating shrimp scampi

Do you follow all the laws of Leviticus?

I doubt it
Do you cut your hair?
Wear clothing made of different fabrics?
Allow people with glasses to attend your church?
Keep slaves?
Eat shellfish?

It is interesting how those who dont follow the laws of Leviticus are so willing to inflict cherry picked verses out of this book to attack a minority and defend prejudice and discrimination.

why do you ask questions like this and then ignore when people respond to them?

Maren · May 12, 2010

LittleNipper said:
Never needed such a declaration. People just accepted reality of religion and moral behavior patterns.

I'll take this as an admission that you are unable to support your claim.

catolico · May 12, 2010

Maren said:
Only if you accept the same societies failed because "marriages" were often between an older man and an adolescent girl. In Rome, women typically were married between the ages of 12 and 14. In 1371 in England, the average age of men getting married was 24, the average age of a girl was 16. By 1427 that had changed, with most men not getting married until they were in their 30s but they still married young girls. It is dishonest to try to scapegoat homosexuality over age of consent when not providing both a true historical background including girls were marrying at the same ages.

Nice way to skirt the subject. So typical.

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

catolico said:
For those who might claim that homosexuality has no adverse affect on society I disagree.

First, studies have shown that homosexuals represent only 1-2% of the population. Also, by far the majority of people are heterosexual and in fact the idea of having homosexual sex is a very uncomfortable and unnatural idea.

At what percentage do minorities stop having this imaginary negative effect on society? How populous does a minority have to be before bigotry becomes bad?

What I have seen living outside of the US for some time now in a country where homosexuality is not widely condoned nor accepted is the still apparent camaraderie among men and people in general. It is not uncommon for men to greet other men who are complete strangers with a smile and start up a conversation, as it is considered civil.

Point?

It used to be this way in the US by all accounts. However, not anymore. More and more it is interpreted in the "street" that if a man is overtly friendly or smiles excessively to other men that this behavior means they are homosexual. I learned this the hard way in the Army in the 80's. Raised a Catholic I led somewhat a sheltered life and tried to apply my loving values in the real world. More often than not I was considered to be a homosexual, which was disconcerting to say the least. Nonetheless, I had to make a change unfortunately.

Gee, in my time in the army I was friendly to just about everyoneand no one ever stopped me to ask if I were gaymaybe it was just you

The fact is the fear being "hit on" by homosexual is very much alive and well and normal in the US and is a simple knee jerk reaction to something that the majority of people find unappealing. Worse is the effect of not wanting to provoke such advances; people become reserved or downright antisocial. In fact, even I a devout Catholic found I had become borderline antisocial at times in my "public" demeanor.

I asked one of my gay friends about this once. He indicated he thought it was strange that the straight men who were worried about having a gay man make a pass at them were the ones who really didnt have to worry about that.

As we human beings thrive on interpersonal contact, "love" in it's simple and most basic form, homosexuality quells this very natural manifestation of our humanness.

Are you saying gays and lesbians are incapable of love?

Maren · May 12, 2010

catolico said:
Nice way to skirt the subject. So typical.

I'm not skirting anything. I'm pointing out your dishonesty, when you claim homosexuals were immoral because of the age of one partner while ignoring heterosexuals were doing the same thing. I'm pointing out that what we consider children who are 12 to 14 were considered adults at the time of the Roman Republic. You are the one wanting to use modern standards, pretending these boys were considered children (as we do today) when they got their first jobs to support themselves and started into adult relationships.

Worst, it doesn't even support your point that it led to the downfall of society. All it means is that they had an "age of consent" that you consider immoral by today's standards.

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

The Penitent Man said:
The safest form of sex is actually cyber-sex.

Not truehave you ever heard of carpel tunnel syndrome?

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
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?

catolico said:

Apparently you are a proponent of "forced indoctrination" of the acceptance of homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Great question Wiccan _Childtoo bad you never got an answer

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

LittleNipper said:
Never needed such a declaration. People just accepted reality of religion and moral behavior patterns.

And that is why infertile heterosexuals are not allowed to get married.right?

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

LittleNipper said:
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.

So gay and lesbian families are not really families? So what are they then?

BigBadWlf · May 12, 2010

pwfaith said:
why do you ask questions like this and then ignore when people respond to them?

Your response was (in basic terms) I just know God doesnt want me applying all those inconvenient rules to mebut any law I can cherry pick out of that pile to force onto otherswell of course God wants THAT

Homosexuality (Give me your opinion)

Junior Member

Regular Member

BigBadWlf

Guest

Newbie

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

Contributor

Newbie

BigBadWlf

Guest

Veteran

BigBadWlf

Guest

Newbie

Veteran

Junior Member

BigBadWlf

Guest

Veteran

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

BigBadWlf

Guest

Similar threads