Has the gay community infiltrated this website?

[Myriah]

People changing sexualities does not convince me that it is a sin to act upon same sex feelings, one way or the other. We still don't know how many gay people that have converted weren't really bisexual to start, and just were able to amplify their opposite sex attraction.

It isn't an argument one way or the other...

There are heterosexuals married Christians on Christian websites that say they engage in anal sex in their heterosexual marriage.

Now personally, I don't want to engage in anal sex nor does my husband. We both think it is not for us. However, if heterosexual Christians are having anal sex, where is the difference?

Sorry to be so blunt, but I think sodomy is rape, and should be considered rape for under age people, whether male or female.

Consensual anal sex between married heterosexual Christians seems to be an a-okay on message boards. So, either all anal sex is sodomy, or there are delineating lines.

And if sodomy is anal sex, then heterosexual married Christian's shouldn't do it either. Why... because it's not the "natural use" for male/female intercourse, as that word so often seems to come up in these debates.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

(snip)Sorry to be so blunt, but I think sodomy is rape, and should be considered rape for under age people, whether male or female.
(snip)

You do realise there is a lot more to homosexuality than anal sex, don't you?

Yes, it SHOULD be considered rape for underage people... but as has been said repeatedly, there is NO correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, and to justify one is NOT a justification of the other.

So why do you consider anal sex between two consenting adults to be rape?

 

[davedjy]

You do realise there is a lot more to homosexuality than anal sex, don't you?

Yes, it SHOULD be considered rape for underage people... but as has been said repeatedly, there is NO correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, and to justify one is NOT a justification of the other.

So why do you consider anal sex between two consenting adults to be rape?

Actually, the correlation is w/people and families who claim to be "heterosexual", and do those pedophilia things.

She didn't say anal sex between two consensual is rape, she said she thinks the definition of sodomy is rape.

Sodomy is not rape, but that should technically be the definition, since that is what Sodom and Gomorrah were all about, and not loving, consensual, monogamous sex relationships.

 

[Myriah]

You do realise there is a lot more to homosexuality than anal sex, don't you?

Yes, it SHOULD be considered rape for underage people... but as has been said repeatedly, there is NO correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia, and to justify one is NOT a justification of the other.

So why do you consider anal sex between two consenting adults to be rape?

Or sorry, you completely misunderstood my post and also I wasn't clear.

First, I don't think oral sex is ever mentioned in the Bible. So, I think oral sex is okay.

And, no, I don't think there is correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia at all. My point was/is that sodomy is no longer a crime in some parts of the world, BUT should be kept a crime as rape, and for both sexes, when it's rape and when it's a non-censenting person and of course including the underage too.

However, consenting adults, this is not a crime now in many parts of the world.

I am also trying to say if sodomy is anal sex, then why should heterosexuals married Christians be allowed to do sodomy while a SS couple is forbidden?

So my point revolves around the fact is sodomy anal sex or rape? And, I happen to think it is rape because I know heterosexual married Christians who have anal sex in their marriage and they say it's fine. So, if all anal sex IS sodomy, then the married heterosexuals Christians are sinning too. Yes? And as a heterosexual, I'd see that as hypocritical to condemn gays because that goes against the "natural use" of male/female intercourse.

This is hard to explain w/out getting too graphic.

 

[davedjy]

Or sorry, you completely misunderstood my post and also I wasn't clear.

First, I don't think oral sex is ever mentioned in the Bible. So, I think oral sex is okay.

And, no, I don't think there is correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia at all. My point was/is that sodomy is no longer a crime in some parts of the world, BUT should be kept a crime as rape, and for both sexes, when it's rape and when it's a non-censenting person and of course including the underage too.

However, consenting adults, this is not a crime now in many parts of the world.

I am also trying to say if sodomy is anal sex, then why should heterosexuals married Christians be allowed to do sodomy while a SS couple is forbidden?

So my point revolves around the fact is sodomy anal sex or rape? And, I happen to think it is rape because I know heterosexual married Christians who have anal sex in their marriage and they say it's fine. So, if all anal sex IS sodomy, then the married heterosexuals Christians are sinning too. Yes? And as a heterosexual, I'd see that as hypocritical to condemn gays because that goes against the "natural use" of male/female intercourse.

This is hard to explain w/out getting too graphic.

You really do walk in wisdom, Myriah...God Bless you for that, the wisdom and logic that you apply in your understandings is so deep and true.

 

[Lisa0315]

...yet Scripture speaks of men burning one for another, and it speaks against it. THIS is the NATURAL affection that they are leaving. It is not NATURAL according to God's Word for men to be with men or women to be with women. It is also not NATURAL for men and women to be with each other outside the bonds of marriage.

I speak against homosexuality, but only in the context of it is among MANY sexual sins, and is not greater or less than any other.

So, as for the live-in girlfriend who said that homosexual sex was not wrong, well, she is not the right source to go to as her sin is the same.

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

...yet Scripture speaks of men burning one for another, and it speaks against it. THIS is the NATURAL affection that they are leaving. It is not NATURAL according to God's Word for men to be with men or women to be with women. It is also not NATURAL for men and women to be with each other outside the bonds of marriage.

I speak against homosexuality, but only in the context of it is among MANY sexual sins, and is not greater or less than any other.

So, as for the live-in girlfriend who said that homosexual sex was not wrong, well, she is not the right source to go to as her sin is the same.

Lisa

Burning in lust and having a natural attraction to your same gender are NOT the same thing!

Abandoning your natural use as described in Romans 1, directly implies you had the natural use to start. We know for sure that they had no knowledge of an orientation back in Biblical times, but that isn't what is addressed here, it is some pagan worship that turned people up to do these things.

 

[Lisa0315]

Burning in lust and having a natural attraction to your same gender are NOT the same thing!

Abandoning your natural use as described in Romans 1, directly implies you had the natural use to start. We know for sure that they had no knowledge of an orientation back in Biblical times, but that isn't what is addressed here, it is some pagan worship that turned people up to do these things.

Well, as you and I have already discussed. Even if you are right, it is still sexual sin outside the bonds of marriage. Then, we have to discuss what marriage is in the eyes of God. A civil union is just not the same thing. As you have said, a quickie marriage/divorce in Vegas is not the same either.

Can you show me where God condones MARRIAGE between two people of the same sex?

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

Well, as you and I have already discussed. Even if you are right, it is still sexual sin outside the bonds of marriage. Then, we have to discuss what marriage is in the eyes of God. A civil union is just not the same thing. As you have said, a quickie marriage/divorce in Vegas is not the same either.

Can you show me where God condones MARRIAGE between two people of the same sex?

Lisa

It wasn't around back then, so one could not show that distinction. Again, it a monogamous example like this wouldn'tve been in existence till the 19th century...so that is long after the Bible was written. It wouldn't even be fair to ask for an example of a homosexual orientation that was not even known in Biblical times.

 

[Myriah]

...yet Scripture speaks of men burning one for another, and it speaks against it. THIS is the NATURAL affection that they are leaving. It is not NATURAL according to God's Word for men to be with men or women to be with women. It is also not NATURAL for men and women to be with each other outside the bonds of marriage.

I speak against homosexuality, but only in the context of it is among MANY sexual sins, and is not greater or less than any other.

So, as for the live-in girlfriend who said that homosexual sex was not wrong, well, she is not the right source to go to as her sin is the same.

Lisa

No, that passage says "relations" which I believe means intercourse. But, how did all the men and all the women just decide to do this?

To me the Romans 1 passage is speaking of ancient pagan fertility worship or some other type of ritual orgy.

All women wouldn't "just" change? I'm heterosexual... I'm not going to just "change"?

Also, if God gives people over to a depraved mind when they serve created things and they all suddenly become homosexual because they serve created things, then why aren't all Hindu's homosexual? They worship the Elephant god among their 300 or so gods.

That's how that logic should work then.

 

[davedjy]

No, that passage says "relations" which I believe means intercourse. But, how did all the men and all the women just decide to do this?

To me the Romans 1 passage is speaking of ancient pagan fertility worship or some other type of ritual orgy.

All women wouldn't "just" change? I'm heterosexual... I'm not going to just "change"?

Also, if God gives people over to a depraved mind when they serve created things and they all suddenly become homosexual because they serve created things, then why aren't all Hindu's homosexual? They worship the Elephant god among their 300 or so gods.

That's how that logic should work then.

THAT IS PRECISELY Peggy Campolo's argument! it is about pagan worship orgies! we know for sure that this is not an example of a loving, monogamous same-sex relationship!!! Great interpretation, Myriah!

 

[Lisa0315]

No, that passage says "relations" which I believe means intercourse. But, how did all the men and all the women just decide to do this?

To me the Romans 1 passage is speaking of ancient pagan fertility worship or some other type of ritual orgy.

All women wouldn't "just" change? I'm heterosexual... I'm not going to just "change"?

Also, if God gives people over to a depraved mind when they serve created things and they all suddenly become homosexual because they serve created things, then why aren't all Hindu's homosexual? They worship the Elephant god among their 300 or so gods.

That's how that logic should work then.

Your logic against 2000 years of scholarship. Sorry, I will take the scholarship.

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

Your logic against 2000 years of scholarship. Sorry, I will take the scholarship.

Lisa

You mean YOUR INTERPRETATION against her interpretation. That is all your doctrine is...just interpretations...

 

[savedandhappy1]

I never said you personally, so why are you making this a flame argument? clearly you are making something about human emotion and mixing it w/a doctrinal belief.

Oh come on Dave, how can someones interpretation be those 3 things without the person being that?

It isn't I who has ever flamed, it is unbelievable to me, that you can't see how saying what you said wouldn't also mean the person is that way also.

My belief is a scriptural belief, and has nothing to do with doctrine, no matter how many times you say it.
​

 

[davedjy]

Oh come on Dave, how can someones interpretation be those 3 things without the person being that?

It isn't I who has ever flamed, it is unbelievable to me, that you can't see how saying what you said wouldn't also mean the person is that way also.

My belief is a scriptural belief, and has nothing to do with doctrine, no matter how many times you say it.
​

Well, whatever it is, I hold the right to view what you believe the way I want to, just like you have the right to believe homosexuality is a sin, and that I am living in sin, if I'm a practicing homosexual.

You also might believe gays go to hell (like 40 others on the other thread), so I reserve the right to believe that is a horrible doctrinal error from Satan, too.

 

[savedandhappy1]

SavedandHappy1,

I don't see Dave as believing that God's chosen people, the Jews, will not be saved in the last days? How do you know his church is teaching that?

I said denomination, not his personal church, but ask if he had checked with his church to see if they believed that, also. He says there are 28 denominations who now say homosexutality isn't a sin. Of the 4 he listed, 2-3 are ones that are preaching against the Jews being the chosen people of God. Since I know that not all churches of a certain denomination preach and or believe the same thing as head office, or whatever you want to call it, I ask if he checked into that. There are more and more churches changing to the replacement theory doctrine, just like they are changing from homosexuality being a sin, and alot of them are the same denominations.

So, again I was just asking if he checked.

​

 

[kiwimac]

Myriah,

Excellent post!

 

[Lisa0315]

You mean YOUR INTERPRETATION against her interpretation. That is all your doctrine is...just interpretations...

No, sorry, not my interpretation, but 2000 years of scholarship. Far greater minds than mine have studied this out. You have to understand that homosexuality has been an issue since the dawn of man. The church has had to deal with it since the beginning. This is NOT a new issue.

Lisa

 

[davedjy]

No, sorry, not my interpretation, but 2000 years of scholarship. Far greater minds than mine have studied this out. You have to understand that homosexuality has been an issue since the dawn of man. The church has had to deal with it since the beginning. This is NOT a new issue.

Lisa

Homosexuality in the Bible? LOL! No such thing... just combined with orgies, prostitution, idoltary, rape (Sodom and Gomorrah), etc.

Care to cite the loving, monogamous relationship in Scripture? how about homosexual attraction or romantic love? 2,000 years of scholarship will not be able to bring forth one occurence of orientation or a monogamous relationship that I demand for proof!

 

[Lisa0315]

Homosexuality in the Bible? LOL! No such thing... just combined with orgies, prostitution, idoltary, rape (Sodom and Gomorrah), etc.

Care to cite the loving, monogamous relationship in Scripture? how about homosexual attraction or romantic love? 2,000 years of scholarship will not be able to bring forth one occurence of orientation or a monogamous relationship that I demand for proof!

Sure it can. Adam and Eve, Sarah and Abraham, Joseph and Mary. Song of Solomon is written about heterosexual love.

Lisa