Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[LightHorseman]

Oh please. Does that apply to the tree stump in my back yard also?

So you didn't even look at the article huh?

Domestic dogs do hump inanimate objects, and this is usually explained through compusion or other forms of aberant conditioning, and, again, is a behaviour NOT observed in the wild, although dog/dog homosexuality IS.

 

[Jase]

So you didn't even look at the article huh?

Domestic dogs do hump inanimate objects, and this is usually explained through compusion or other forms of aberant conditioning, and, again, is a behaviour NOT observed in the wild, although dog/dog homosexuality IS.

Please don't bore them with facts and evidence. That might get in the way of their preconceived notions of what they want to believe based on absolutely no evidence except ill conceived opinions.

 

[LightHorseman]

Please don't bore them with facts and evidence. That might get in the way of their preconceived notions of what they want to believe based on absolutely no evidence except ill conceived opinions.

And the part that is really sad is the extreme contortions of logic by which they excuse themselves from any reference to real facts seems utterly natural and reasonable to them.

Confabulation and rationalisation... Satan's ultimate tools.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

So you didn't even look at the article huh?

Domestic dogs do hump inanimate objects, and this is usually explained through compusion or other forms of aberant conditioning, and, again, is a behaviour NOT observed in the wild, although dog/dog homosexuality IS.

Et voila!! Somebody got it!

 

[Texas Lynn]

I disagree with you. The homosexual act is not part of God's creation.

And that's just your opinion.

That is not a hate-filled statement since it happens to be true.

There's no basis for it but wishful thinking.

This is not my opinion either since a simple reading of Genesis confirms that.

Genesis says nothing about sexual orientation.

My argument in no way shows discrimination against homosexuals and your misinterpretation and accusation is not appreciated.

It's used as a basis for discrimination.

Unless you can biblically prove that God created homosexual sex then all you have is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

"Biblical proof" is always in the eye of the beholder. You won't find "Biblical proof" computer message boards are morally acceptable either. The Bible is not a Human Sexuality 101 textbook.

 

[LightHorseman]

Unless you can biblically prove that God created homosexual sex then all you have is your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.

I look forward to the forthcoming goal post shift, however...

God created animals, according to the Bible. Some of those animals display bi and homosexual traits as well as heterosexual ones. Therefore, if God created animals, and some animals are homosexual, then God created homosexuality, and thus, homosexual sex. QED.

 

[Zeena]

Judges 19:20-25
20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

bumpity bump!

It's quite the slippery slope you ride as a Christian who sets aside Scripture...

 

[david_x]

am quite sure that God doies think of us differently than he thinks of animals. However, I don't buy the "homosexuality is wrong cos is unnatural" argument when there is so much homosexuality in nature

You are very correct, in fact i would take it further. I say this: homosexuality is wrong because it is natural. Animals are slaves to the most basic drives that could ever compel humans. Humans on the other hand have another part of their brain, the "God" side. The "God" side gives us, as humans, the ability to love, hope, and of course free will. Therefore when an animal is shown as doing something, God is in fact showing us what is in our fallen nature to do. This is in fact a great tool as it is much easier to solve a problem when you know what it is.

(btw Edgar Allen Poe was big on this whole animal vs. human sides to our brain, read some of his works they are incredible!)

\\praise God

 

[LightHorseman]

bumpity bump!

It's quite the slippery slope you ride as a Christian who sets aside Scripture...

Ready for the translation discussion? There are a great many scholars who will tell you that the "vile thing" refered to here is NOT homosexual sex, but rather, desecration of someone with the protected status of GUEST. And yes, it is perfectly acceptible to offer women in the place of men to be violated, if it protects a male guest, on account of the importance of men in that society, and the place of women as chatels.

Of course, I fully expect that many people will discard this very valid and relevant interpretation, but do be aware that there is more ways of understanding this passage than the straightforward, Western Anglophile reading of the passage you just cited.

 

[Zeena]

Ready for the translation discussion? There are a great many scholars who will tell you that the "vile thing" refered to here is NOT homosexual sex, but rather, desecration of someone with the protected status of GUEST. And yes, it is perfectly acceptible to offer women in the place of men to be violated, if it protects a male guest, on account of the importance of men in that society, and the place of women as chatels.

Of course, I fully expect that many people will discard this very valid and relevant interpretation, but do be aware that there is more ways of understanding this passage than the straightforward, Western Anglophile reading of the passage you just cited.

Reason alone dictates this vile act as sexual intercourse.
For the concubine was humbled and abused in knowing her.
And they were going to do this wicked act to the man! :o

Judges 19:20-25
20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.
21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.
22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

 

[LightHorseman]

The super sized chunky text really doesn't add to the discussion.

You are, of course, welcome to believe that the "vile act" refers to homosexual intercourse. I merely point out that there are other interpretations, arrived at by scholars far more learned than either you or I.

 

[Hentenza]

I look forward to the forthcoming goal post shift, however...

God created animals, according to the Bible. Some of those animals display bi and homosexual traits as well as heterosexual ones. Therefore, if God created animals, and some animals are homosexual, then God created homosexuality, and thus, homosexual sex. QED.

Your church disagrees with you. Again, God created animals of a different flesh.

1 Cor 15:39
39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Your logical premise above fails because, although God did create animals, He created them of a different flesh and therefore, morally separate from humans. Read your bible.

 

[one11]

Humans are animals. The only reason most of us don't take part in "feral behavior" is because we have higher intellegence and reasoning than the rest of the animal kingdom, and have created socities designed to protect our interests. That doesn't mean biologically we are any different from the rest of the animal kingdom. You just find it convenient to use this argument, because the fact that a large percentage of the animals on Earth ( including humans) exert homosexual behavior is indicative of homosexuality being part of God's creation.

I think you mean humans are mammals? And I don't think animal behavior has anything to do with human behavior. It's a straw man and silly.

 

[one11]

Your church disagrees with you. Again, God created animals of a different flesh.

1 Cor 15:39
39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Your logical premise above fails because, although God did create animals, He created them of a different flesh and therefore, morally separate from humans. Read your bible.

The truth!

And I've been an animal activist volunteer since I was a teenager. I love animals, but they are not like us. Though they appreciate our love and kindness to them. Many animals are more like children with very little understanding on how to take care of themselves nor know what's best for themselves. I know I have to keep certain things away from my cats that they could swallow and die from.

 

[Zeena]

Homosexuals call themself gay, but I have never met a happy one in my life. They are not gay they are miserable. Nor are they liberated; they are enslaved. But God will set them free, if they will repent and believe in his name.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

Homosexuals call themself gay, but I have never met a happy queer in my life. They are not gay they are miserable. Nor are they liberated; they are enslaved. They are enslaved to their lust. But God will set them free from their abominable sin, if they will repent and believe in his name.

They are mostly not happy because others would take away their rights.

 

[Jase]

Your church disagrees with you. Again, God created animals of a different flesh.

1 Cor 15:39
39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Your logical premise above fails because, although God did create animals, He created them of a different flesh and therefore, morally separate from humans. Read your bible.

Based on the fact that the authors of the Bible knew barely a thing about biology, that verse doesn't really carry much weight. How does one define "flesh"? It certainly isn't skin, as many other animals have skin. And since man is an animal, we don't biologically have different flesh.

 

[HuntingMan]

The super sized chunky text really doesn't add to the discussion.

You are, of course, welcome to believe that the "vile act" refers to homosexual intercourse. I merely point out that there are other interpretations, arrived at by scholars far more learned than either you or I.

And you might have an argument *IF* the data werent so consistent against same gender sex...

 

[HuntingMan]

Based on the fact that the authors of the Bible knew barely a thing about biology, that verse doesn't really carry much weight.

They knew sooo little about it...yet for some reason some of the cleanness laws would have directly been responsible for controlling the spread of germs and disease....

 

[HuntingMan]

So you didn't even look at the article huh?

Domestic dogs do hump inanimate objects, and this is usually explained through compusion or other forms of aberant conditioning, and, again, is a behaviour NOT observed in the wild, although dog/dog homosexuality IS.

This is pretty funny.
So when a dog humps another dog of the same gender you folks claim its homosexuality.
If the same dog humps anything else then its simply a compulsion or something.
Sorry if your story just sounds like its trying to find a way to justify homosexuality yet isnt very coherent.

And sir....have YOU been in the wild to see EVERY wild animal out there to know if they hump inanimate objects or not ?
Youre claim that it doesnt happen is fairly irrelevant seeing that WE see animals like dogs and rabbits who will hump anything they can find.

And again it is meaningless what animals do...animals arent required to obey Gods word.