Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[beechy]

Would she want sex after such a procedure?

Why wouldn't she? If she does, do you think she should refrain?

 

[LittleNipper]

My hypothetical involved a couple having sex post-hysterectomy with the knowledge that they would not get pregnant, and with no intention of getting pregnant. A woman without any ovaries, fallopian tubes, or uterus is about as likely to get pregnant as my computer screen.

Why do you need to go to the extreem to try to prove the correctness of homosexuality. Why can't you provide less radical examples? Perhaps because homosexuality is neither normal nor uncomplicated?

 

[b&wpac4]

How about:

What gives you the right to dictate to others how they should live if do not share your beliefs?

 

[LittleNipper]

I'd like to see humanity saved from any zealots who see fit to remove freedom from their neighbors. You like to do something even God doesn't do; remove the free will of people around you to conform to your standards. You know better than God, eh?

Homosexuals never had the right to homosexual marriage in 6000 years of human history, I doubt they deserve such a "right" now... I can and do look for GOD's answers in HIS Holy Word. I don't pull them out of a hat or make a pretense of rights that never existed.

 

[LittleNipper]

How about:

What gives you the right to dictate to others how they should live if do not share your beliefs?

What gives you the right to tell me what marriage is?

 

[b&wpac4]

What gives you the right to tell me what marriage is?

The same right you have to tell me what it is.

 

[Shane Roach]

In a free society, people decide these things, including the question of whether or not a behavior is honestly termed criminal. The question is whether or not people believe in free government.

Nowadays, people attempt to claim every law having anything to do with sex is somehow disallowed. Sex is one of the most heavily regulated activities in history. Perhaps since our government sees fit to demonize its population over the issue, it is time to let our government know that we no longer feel it is a legitimate government.

We have laws protecting kiddy inappropriate content if it is animated, and cannot speak truth from our own pulpits without risking attacks on "non-profit" status for being too "partisan". So the very speech that was supposed to be protected, political speech, is now regulated in many ways, but inappropriate content gets a by even in the most disgusting subject matter.

This is where the push for gay marriage comes from. These same people who hate the idea of decent people holding folks accountable and not allowing indecency to flood our nation find excuses at every opportunity to attempt to demonize any rule that touches on sexual behavior.

Now they are elevating a simple sexual perversion to the level of the fundamental building block of civilization, and the pretense is this will be a good thing? No... Not any better than animated kiddy inappropriate content.

Folks you better start getting angry. You better start getting real. This is no game. They intend to destroy simple decency forever and don't believe for a second if they get the chance they will not follow China into heavy regulation of the church under the name of "tolerance".

 

[b&wpac4]

If you aren't with me, you're against me!

 

[Polycarp1]

That baby was CHRIST. GOD created the world and the woman. CHRIST came to save humanity from sin. That is a far cry from anything you seem content to pronounce, promote & protect.

In case it had not come home to you, that CHRIST whom Mary gave birth to, who was God the Son Incarnate, taught particular behaviors as commanded by God of every man -- and they include not sitting in judgment over others like the Pharisees, but judging their acts with mercy and forgiveness as you yourself would wish to be judged, turning the other cheek, reaching out in love, treating others as yourself or even as you would Christ Himself....

We are all sinners, all saved by God's grace alone and through no merit of our own. You are drawing a line between good and bad people. In Christ's view as taught by Him and recorded in the Gospels, that line does not exist.

Pro-gay Christians do not 'condone sin' -- they say that what the Bible rightly condemns as evil and heinous sin has been misused by anti-gay people to condemn them, that what Leviticus, Romans, I Corinthians, etc., speak of were particular sinful acts (like using enslaved boys as prostitutes to slake one's lust) that were justly condemned, and not relevant to that minority of human beings who for reasons not clear but not their own choice find themselves attracted to people of the same sex in ways that most people feel toward the opposite sex.

Is it proper to plunge a knife into someone's chest and take large sums of money from them? No, if you're an armed robber. Yes, if you're a heart surgeon. It's the same act done for quite different reasons. And that's the parallel -- it's not the act that's sinful but the motive of the heart. Don't engage in anal sex with another man as the Canaanites do, says God in Leviticus -- but why the Canaanites did it was part of a Ba'alite fertility ritual, to propitiate a false god to make the crops grow. Look at the vile, backbiting, dissolute Roman elite, says Paul in Romans 1:8-32, turning from the God of which Creation gives evidence to all sorts of evil practices, and then realize (2:1-3) that you too are just as evil, because (3:23) all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, but He mercifully sent Christ to atone for our sins and the Holy Spirit to work within us and sanctify us. As I've pointed out before, the Satryicon of Petronius Arbiter describes the vicious, depraved behavior of the Roman elite -- and if you were to summarize the multi-book Satyricon in a couple of short paragraphs, you'd be writing something very much like Romans 1:18-32. Paul was very well educated, a Roman citizen when that was rare among Jews, and he knew very well what he was doing -- and told the Christians in Rome, meeting less than a mile from the orgies of the Roman elite, that they too were sinners no better and no worse than the people whose behavior they'd instantly recognize from that passage. It's not saying, "Adam and Steve who want to settle down and get married to each other," it's saying people who hire rent boys, people who party hearty and have orgies, people who have fertility rites... and the rest of us, who are just as much sinners as they are.

 

[rosenherman]

I feel such acts are wrong unless the ultimate goal is to have a baby. It is never impossible to have a baby until death do they part. There are at least four instances in the Bible were infertile and or elderly couples gave birth to a baby. None of them were of the same sex.

You are of the opinion that sex, between spouses, one male and one female when the ultimate goal is pleasure, and steps have been taken to prevent pregnancy is wrong?

 

[Polycarp1]

What gives you the right to tell me what marriage is?

What gives ypou the right to tell someone else that the marriage they enter into is not "a real marriage" -- and to enforce that on them by rule of law? That's a much better question.

Nobody is telling you what you can think a marriage ought to be. On the other hand, you and those who think like you are telling others what you demand it has to be.

 

[Shane Roach]

What gives ypou the right to tell someone else that the marriage they enter into is not "a real marriage" -- and to enforce that on them by rule of law? That's a much better question.

Nobody is telling you what you can think a marriage ought to be. On the other hand, you and those who think like you are telling others what you demand it has to be.

What gives you the right to denounce such a behavior as defining "real"? It is the same source that gives Joe the right to make the judgment in the first place.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Homosexuals never had the right to homosexual marriage in 6000 years of human history, I doubt they deserve such a "right" now... I can and do look for GOD's answers in HIS Holy Word. I don't pull them out of a hat or make a pretense of rights that never existed.

This same statement could be made for many other minorities and many other situations over history where our laws have changed. Just because it's been one way for thousands of years does not instantly mean it is right.

Women weren't allowed to vote, but now they are, should that have changed? African Americans weren't allowed to marry or vote, but now they can, should that have changed?

And although I'm sure this has been said numerous times in numerous different threads regarding homosexuality, but separation of church and state.

Religion is more of a choice then homosexuality is, so why are religious groups allowed so many rights?

 

[Philothei]

Paul was very well educated, a Roman citizen when that was rare among Jews, and he knew very well what he was doing -- and told the Christians in Rome, meeting less than a mile from the orgies of the Roman elite, that they too were sinners no better and no worse than the people whose behavior they'd instantly recognize from that passage. It's not saying, "Adam and Steve who want to settle down and get married to each other," it's saying people who hire rent boys, people who party hearty and have orgies, people who have fertility rites... and the rest of us, who are just as much sinners as they are.

So how is that any different in you "opinion" from Paul saying that "arsenokoitia" is condemned? oh...So Paul agreed with the homosexual marriage.. In a while you will tell us about Paul actually being in such marriage or that he blessed such unions?

Again "stretching" the Bible to fit our "image" or what it says...

Paul condemned homosexual acts thus he would condemn also the so "called, manifactured" homosexual life style and the so "called family". I do not see anywhere in the Bible being supported so for those who have ears let them hear. Just because he tells those who were "condemning" by probably being violent against those who lived with the same sex partner that they should not judge them that does not mean he "accepted" them as an example that Christians should emulate... Like I said keeping the commandments is what we are told to do and keeping marriage sacred and from God is what we should practice. Whether or not those who do not keep the commandments will be forgiven or not is irrelevant to us and we should pray for all to be saved. But as far as keeping the commandments that is what we are told. I do not see why it is such a shock that this lifestyle is not acceptable to those who follow the Biblical teaching.

 

[Philothei]

This same statement could be made for many other minorities and many other situations over history where our laws have changed. Just because it's been one way for thousands of years does not instantly mean it is right.

Women weren't allowed to vote, but now they are, should that have changed? African Americans weren't allowed to marry or vote, but now they can, should that have changed?

And although I'm sure this has been said numerous times in numerous different threads regarding homosexuality, but separation of church and state.

Religion is more of a choice then homosexuality is, so why are religious groups allowed so many rights?

If "everything" is a choice then bistiality should be next.... What happened to the good of the society? Or I forgot animals have no rights...same with children. Before we know it the society as we know will be governed by the logic of animals well.... too bad we worked so hard to become "civilized" then to go back to our animalistic insticts...finally...

 

[beechy]

Why do you need to go to the extreem to try to prove the correctness of homosexuality. Why can't you provide less radical examples? Perhaps because homosexuality is neither normal nor uncomplicated?

It's not about proving the "correctness" of homosexuality (which I don't think can be characterized as "correct" or "incorrect" ... it's not a math problem). It's a technique for thinking through any issue. When you step away from the easy examples and examine the grey areas it exposes the problems with your theories, and forces you to refine and articulate your thoughts.

Let's say a new law is passed which simply reads: "No vehicles in the park". That might seem simple at first, but the minute you try and enforce it you realize it raises legitimate questions.

If I drive my car through the park, I don't think anybody would question whether I'd broken the law. But what if a teenager rode his bike through the park? Is a bike a vehicle within the meaning of the statute? Let's say the law is amended, in response to that question, to clarify that a vehicle, in this case, means a motorized vehicle. A few months later, somebody asks whether she can ride her motorized wheelchair in the park. You see where this is going ...

Life isn't just easy questions, you know. And radical hysterectomies are more common than you seem to think. So let's try this again. If a woman has her womb removed and, as a result, believes (with very good reason) that she can't have kids through sexual intercourse, should she refrain from sexual intercourse?

 

[Mercy Medical]

If "everything" is a choice then bistiality should be next.... What happened to the good of the society? Or I forgot animals have no rights...same with children. Before we know it the society as we know will be governed by the logic of animals well.... too bad we worked so hard to become "civilized" then to go back to our animalistic insticts...finally...

Once again, using inappropriate behavior with animals and pedophilia as an example is wrong. Both acts do not pertain to CONSENTING ADULTS. An animal cannot consent to a relationship of that nature, therefore the individual is forcing it into that situation. They aren't even comparable and this is the typical "slippery slope" argument used by religious folks against homosexuality and gay marriage.

And your response really does not address anything that I brough up in my initial post. It's the same fear mongering [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] that religious individuals like to use.

EDIT: Holy LOL at the editting of "naughty phrases."

 

[LittleNipper]

In case it had not come home to you, that CHRIST whom Mary gave birth to, who was God the Son Incarnate, taught particular behaviors as commanded by God of every man -- and they include not sitting in judgment over others like the Pharisees, but judging their acts with mercy and forgiveness as you yourself would wish to be judged, turning the other cheek, reaching out in love, treating others as yourself or even as you would Christ Himself....

We are all sinners, all saved by God's grace alone and through no merit of our own. You are drawing a line between good and bad people. In Christ's view as taught by Him and recorded in the Gospels, that line does not exist.

Pro-gay Christians do not 'condone sin' -- they say that what the Bible rightly condemns as evil and heinous sin has been misused by anti-gay people to condemn them, that what Leviticus, Romans, I Corinthians, etc., speak of were particular sinful acts (like using enslaved boys as prostitutes to slake one's lust) that were justly condemned, and not relevant to that minority of human beings who for reasons not clear but not their own choice find themselves attracted to people of the same sex in ways that most people feel toward the opposite sex.

Is it proper to plunge a knife into someone's chest and take large sums of money from them? No, if you're an armed robber. Yes, if you're a heart surgeon. It's the same act done for quite different reasons. And that's the parallel -- it's not the act that's sinful but the motive of the heart. Don't engage in anal sex with another man as the Canaanites do, says God in Leviticus -- but why the Canaanites did it was part of a Ba'alite fertility ritual, to propitiate a false god to make the crops grow. Look at the vile, backbiting, dissolute Roman elite, says Paul in Romans 1:8-32, turning from the God of which Creation gives evidence to all sorts of evil practices, and then realize (2:1-3) that you too are just as evil, because (3:23) all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, but He mercifully sent Christ to atone for our sins and the Holy Spirit to work within us and sanctify us. As I've pointed out before, the Satryicon of Petronius Arbiter describes the vicious, depraved behavior of the Roman elite -- and if you were to summarize the multi-book Satyricon in a couple of short paragraphs, you'd be writing something very much like Romans 1:18-32. Paul was very well educated, a Roman citizen when that was rare among Jews, and he knew very well what he was doing -- and told the Christians in Rome, meeting less than a mile from the orgies of the Roman elite, that they too were sinners no better and no worse than the people whose behavior they'd instantly recognize from that passage. It's not saying, "Adam and Steve who want to settle down and get married to each other," it's saying people who hire rent boys, people who party hearty and have orgies, people who have fertility rites... and the rest of us, who are just as much sinners as they are.

Sorry, I must beg to differ with you. GOD does look at the motive; however, HE also knows that sin is not relative to one's intentions. Money is not the root of all evil, but the love of money is. Sex is not evil in and of itself; however, the love of sexual behavior for self indulgence and fulfillment sake, along with its exploits is. And one is not to place even the love of one's own child above the love he shares with the LORD. How much less expressive is such love than where two men cannot even refrain from sexual contact with each other.

The reality is that homosexuality is about the act of sex for sexual favor and gratification that extends beyond the GOD ordained purpose for which sex was created. We are faced with various groups who wish to change the definition of marriage to accommodate sexual desires, that while seemingly natural in a fallen world, are no less vile in either the influence they spreads among those learning to cope with their own sexual preoccupations, and those who for whatever reason feel insecure in their social interaction with members of both their own or the opposite gender.

The Pharisees were not condemned by CHRIST for passing judgment, but for applying their OWN values and "learned" opinions above what the scripture declared and distorting GOD's Word in the comdemnation of others, while engaging in the very same acts in private and unashamedly.

Was it wrong for JESUS to heal on the Sabbath day? If so, wouldn't it be wrong to engage in sex on that day also? Was it wrong to hold a trial at night? Why was JESUS so tried? HYPOCRISY is not washed away by excuses and neither is sin.

 

[Shane Roach]

One thing most people are not actually aware of is that there is a legal concept concerning acceptable public standards that speaks to this issue. It's the same reason you are allowed to have laws against public indecency. The courts have been busy paring the application of this concept back to the bare bone, and it is because of this that this issue is even possible. Otherwise homosexuality would still be illegal across most of the country.

This happened relatively quietly since no one was expecting people to try to normalize the perversion. Folks thought it was merely about keeping the government out of the bedroom.

What it is actually about is keeping the people out of their own government.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are of the opinion that sex, between spouses, one male and one female when the ultimate goal is pleasure, and steps have been taken to prevent pregnancy is wrong?

Yes; ultimately, I feel that it is wrong though forgivable. And taken to the extreem, it becomes yet another reason why the divorce rate in modern society is so rampant.