I am GAY

[Montalban]

Where is the evidence for same sex marriages? We've seen one modern church. Does this mean that, in the life of 'the' church this was the norm? Who knows, for as yet David's shy in providing evidence.

He suggests that every time the Bible mentions marriage, and it uses terms such as 'man' and 'woman', that this is not significant because it could mean 'man' and 'man', or 'woman' and 'woman' - based on what reasoning is yet to be presented.

He talks a lot about consent, but then applies this selectively. Certain sexual relations where consent isn't even an issue, he doesn't approve of. Because he doesn't.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, the church quite often disagrees with itself, about all manner of subjects. Same-gender marriage is just one in a long line of such disagreements.

David.

So for you the church can't offer any guidence. I take it then this is why you have no historical evidence.

It's sad that Jesus would create a church that can't agree on anything.

 

[Nadiine]

If marriage could refer to either man and woman unions, or same sex unions then passages regarding marriage would mention only 'male' and 'female' but 'person'.

The absence of the word 'animal' would mean, according to David Brider's novel 'abscence' argument mean that it would be allowable to... given that the word is not used, therefore because it's not used, it can't be discounted

And, inanimate object too, is okay.

yes thank you - again, we have to be consistent with people's
"hermeneutics" (for lack of a better term).

& does the NT talk about necrophilia either? I haven't seen that.
(altho the OT does contain laws on handling a dead body).

This is why I used that extreme example earlier - their method
of arriving at what's moral in scripture, always opens up a virtual
Pandora's box for every other sexual scenario in some way for
people 'born with' their particular "inclinations"
http://www.afa.net/sexualorientations.asp

Whether it be the 'absence' in a definition (absence of something in
a definition is never license to ADD something in to it becuz it's
not there... it's not there on purpose becuz it's defining something
specifically that doesn't include it).
Absence in defininition opens the door to anything else.

Or, to arrogantly (and arbitrarily) decide the universal moral code
rule is based on "consent" (even tho the same people push relative morality
to each person's personal desire & inclination).....
And "consent" has to include all fornication and depraved perversions within those
relationships -- and even underage sex by adults as well since they consent to their participation.

These are the substitutions we're given to replace God's standard of
morality from His word. They fall far short of anything comprehensive or healthy
for any society - and even further from God's statutes.

But...... as usual, man knows best

 

[Montalban]

yes thank you - again, we have to be consistent with people's
"hermeneutics" (for lack of a better term).

& does the NT talk about necrophilia either? I haven't seen that.
(altho the OT does contain laws on handling a dead body).

I've never thought of that one - now I don't have to harp on about inappropriate behavior with animals all the time.*

Necrophilia; David must approve of it, so long as they were MARRIED


*I do this because I know most people are against it, even pro-gays, but then I get them on the issue of 'consent'.

 

[David Brider]

Arsenokoites is the act of homosexual penetrative sex. The fact that it was once called sodomy, and that we now have a new term 'homosexuality' doesn't alter this fact.

Even if that is what arsenokoites means (and that's doubtful - it's certainly not how it's always been translated down the ages; see whichever post it was upthread that listed the various translations of the word), there is a difference between "homosexual penetrative sex" and "homosexuality". The first refers to a specific sexual activity, the second to a sexual orientation.

Do I take it that you believe that, even with 'consent' and 'within marriage' certain sexual practices are forbidden?

Personally, I'd say that what a married couple gets up to in their bedroom is nobody's business but their own. And to be honest, although personally I believe that sexual activity should only take place within a marriage, I'm also realistic enough to realise that many couples will engage in sexual activity without waiting to get married. As long as there's consent and they're above the legal age, I'd say that's very much up to them.

So Levitcus 18 doesn't exist?

It exists. It just doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.

David.

 

[Montalban]

By David's rationale, I suppose that given the church is against itself on all manner of things that all of them then are allowable?

I suppose that might widen the debate, which is not my intent.


Welcome Nadiine

 

[Nadiine]

I don't, and I've already made it quite clear why not.

Tell me - you seem to discuss inappropriate behavior with animals quite a lot. Do you agree or disagree with it? And what is your reason for your position regarding it?

David.

he's bringing it up becuz you are the one opening the door to
it being lawful thru your modified definitions of morality here for us.

We're bringing up very heinous perversions that your alterations to
the moral code protect and support as being good and acceptable
for people to engage in.

You're making these definitions, it's YOUR job to make sure they don't
open doors to perversions - we're simply forcing you to face the
problem you create by it.

 

[David Brider]

Based on your selective use of consent. I'd like to explore that further - perhaps you don't.

Obviously you don't eat meat or keep a pet, or wear/use products from animals... or do you get the animal's consent first?

Given that we're discussing consent within the context of romantic and/or sexual relationships, meat eating or pet-keeping isn't really relevant to the discussion.

I don't agree because of reasons I've already discussed - sex only within marriage, which is only between a man and a woman

So within those parameters, would you say consent is important, or isn't? If a man rapes his wife, is that acceptable to you because it's within a marriage, or unacceptable because it's non-consensual?

I've also raised the issue of inanimate objects too, which you must therefore condemn because a vibrator can't consent either.

One can't have a relationship with an inanimate object.

David.

 

[David Brider]

he's bringing it up becuz you are the one opening the door to it being lawful thru your redefined definitions of morality here for us.

But I've quite clearly explained why I believe that inappropriate behavior with animals is wrong. Montalban seems to be ignoring that. He's glibly asking why I agree with something that I've made clear time and again and that I don't agree with.

David.

 

[Montalban]

Even if that is what arsenokoites means (and that's doubtful - it's certainly not how it's always been translated down the ages; see whichever post it was upthread that listed the various translations of the word), there is a difference between "homosexual penetrative sex" and "homosexuality".

More of your evidence-lite approach doesn't help - here you're waving your hand to an argument somewhere else as evidence for your case.
Even the pro-gay side can make a few slip-ups.
"If one wants to cite I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 6:10 which condemns "malakoi" and "arsenokoitai", I would advise the reader to note that "malakos" is an adjective meaning soft, and is used to refer to a number of morally neutral things; to use "soft" in a negative sense is hardly a condemnation of homosexuality; as for "arsenokoitai", it is strange that this feminine plural is used to condemn gay males; some even have taken it upon themselves to consider "malakoi" as feminine homosexuals and "arsenokoitai" as masculine homosexuals; they obviously don't know their Greek. St. John the Faster notes that "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives" (P.G. 88:1893) so one can hardly consider it as something uniquely homosexual."
ENGLISH.GAY.RU: Life in Russia > Religion :: On Being Orthodox And Gay
What he fails to understand is that what St. John the Faster is talking about is 'buggery' (or 'sodomy'). So malakoi is receiving, and arsenokoiai is giving buggery. That is why malakoi is feminine, because in the 'normal' sexual relations it is the woman who is penetrated and the man doing the penetration.
That is; sodomy. The Sodomy of the Old Testament is also confused because some people say that they weren't 'homosexuals' the confusion comes from the fact that they probably weren't. Not all male rapists are homosexual, most probably aren't. And that's what sodomy here is again, buggery, a male penetrating the someone in the rear.

The first refers to a specific sexual activity, the second to a sexual orientation.

*sigh* which means that you'd suppor a celibate gay marriage if arsenokoites meant what I state... because although their specifically condmening the sexual action, not the sexual union - according to you.

Personally, I'd say that what a married couple gets up to in their bedroom is nobody's business but their own.

Ultimately God will judge them. But you're here to suppor whatever they get up to in the bedroom, and I'm here to respond with the 'orthodox' response.

And to be honest, although personally I believe that sexual activity should only take place within a marriage, I'm also realistic enough to realise that many couples will engage in sexual activity without waiting to get married.

I agree that this happens. Why do you mention it?

As long as there's consent and they're above the legal age, I'd say that's very much up to them.

Which leads me immediately back to the issue you want to ignore - inappropriate behavior with animals.

Now we have another example, necrophilia.

It exists. It just doesn't say anything about sexual orientation.

David.

Because it doesn't use the term 'sexual orientation'?

 

[David Brider]

I've never thought of that one - now I don't have to harp on about inappropriate behavior with animals all the time.*

Necrophilia; David must approve of it, so long as they were MARRIED

Find me a corpse that can offer consent, then I'll agree that you might have a point.

*I do this because I know most people are against it, even pro-gays, but then I get them on the issue of 'consent'.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what consent - particularly mutual consent - means. Given your continual harping about inappropriate behavior with animals and now the shift to necrophilia, I suspect not.

David.

 

[Montalban]

But I've quite clearly explained why I believe that inappropriate behavior with animals is wrong. Montalban seems to be ignoring that. He's glibly asking why I agree with something that I've made clear time and again and that I don't agree with.

David.

No. You've said it's wrong because it doesn't involve consent. But how can it? Therefore you're against eating animals because they can't consent either.

I'm not being glib at all, I'm pointing out you being selective.

 

[Montalban]

Find me a corpse that can offer consent, then I'll agree that you might have a point.



I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what consent - particularly mutual consent - means. Given your continual harping about inappropriate behavior with animals and now the shift to necrophilia, I suspect not.

David.

Which means you're against sexual equipment such as a vibrator which can't consent.

The reason I seem to be 'harping' because it's such a glaring hole in your reasoning.

You are against inappropriate behavior with animals because the animal can't consent.

Are you against eating animals because they can't consent? No (I presume) because you're not because why?

Why's consent matter only selectively?

This is what you've not answered. You've avoided it because it's a major problem for your argument.

 

[David Brider]

So for you the church can't offer any guidence. I take it then this is why you have no historical evidence.

Oh, the church can offer guidance, no problem. But where there is genuine disagreement, I think it's healthy to be honest about that, rather than dogmatically insist that one particular approach is necessarily the only correct one. So, some folks think Calvinism is Biblically correct, some think Arminianism, some neither; some think we're saved by grace through faith, some by works righteousness; some think that pacifism is the best response for a Christian to take towards violence, others endorse Just War theory; some folks think marriage should be solely between a man and woman, others think same-gender couples can get married. The church has always had disagreements, it probably always will.

It's sad that Jesus would create a church that can't agree on anything.

I'd like to think that there are some things the church can agree on (although if I'm honest, given that there are some things that I'd've thought were pretty basic creedal statements that some on the fringes of the church can disagree with, I might not want to hold my breath on that score), but yeah, there are disagreements within the church. As long as we're civilised about it, is that really a problem?

David.

 

[David Brider]

Because it doesn't use the term 'sexual orientation'?

No, because it doesn't describe anything that can remotely be equated to a sexual orientation.

David.

 

[Montalban]

Given that we're discussing consent within the context of romantic and/or sexual relationships, meat eating or pet-keeping isn't really relevant to the discussion.

No. You're arguing that an action is wrong because it doesn't involve consent.

Why is one action wrong based on no consent, but another is right based on no consent. All you've said is that it is, because it is.

Why isn't it 'right' based on the fact it's not mentioned in the NT?

So within those parameters, would you say consent is important, or isn't? If a man rapes his wife, is that acceptable to you because it's within a marriage, or unacceptable because it's non-consensual?

Consent doesn't come into it for me at all. I've already explained this. Certain sexual practices are condemned even WITHIN marriage (regardless of consent).

Thus if a woman consented to being abused (say through S&M) then it wouldn't matter to me that she'd consented because I would believe that it's still wrong.

However for you, your problem is a selecitve use of consent.

One can't have a relationship with an inanimate object.

So one has to have a 'relationship'? I take it then that you're against masturbation by someone within a marriage because although (in this case) the male might consent within himself he's not in a relationship with himself.

Necrophilia is an act that can be in a relationship. If (say the woman) consents to this after her death, it's okay, by your selective argument based on mutual consent and relationship

 

[Nadiine]

Originally Posted by David Brider

Find me a corpse that can offer consent, then I'll agree that you might have a point.
​

Is it objecting David?
It's just laying there, not putting up any protest at all.

It IS consenting by laying there for them. What more
do you need?

I know, now we need to redefine "consent" to fit your
universal moral code for the world.
Consent CAN MEAN lack of protest!



​

 

[Montalban]

No, because it doesn't describe anything that can remotely be equated to a sexual orientation.

David.

So when it specifically condemns men sleeping with other men it doesn't cover those men who are orientated towards sleeping with other men! It also covers those who would casually sleep with other men who consider themselves 'straight'.

 

[Nadiine]

No. You're arguing that an action is wrong because it doesn't involve consent.

Why is one action wrong based on no consent, but another is right based on no consent. All you've said is that it is, because it is.

Why isn't it 'right' based on the fact it's not mentioned in the NT?

This puts a whole a new spin on kids refusing to brush their
teeth and not consenting to go to bed at a certain time when
mom & dad say they have to.

 

[Nadiine]

I've never thought of that one - now I don't have to harp on about inappropriate behavior with animals all the time.*

Necrophilia; David must approve of it, so long as they were MARRIED


*I do this because I know most people are against it, even pro-gays, but then I get them on the issue of 'consent'.

ya, they're tired of hearing the same examples - but they keep hearing
them becuz they haven't solved the problem they created.
And yes, we all KNOW they're deviant sexual orientations & that's why
we do use them - becuz as I see it, they practically embrace
any sexual acts that aren't so shocking, they're repugnant.
If it doesn't sound heinous enough, it's all good w/ them.


Their modifications to God's moral standards open up a wide array
of perversions that harm people in many ways - including young
kids who "consent".

And from that list of fetishes & 'orientations' I posted,
http://www.afa.net/sexualorientations.asp
we'd also have to say that many of those things are just fine.
And from David's recent post, it looks like he's ok with fornication.
great.

Makes me wonder why God bothered with a Bible at all
when we could just rewrite it for ourselves & take some scissors
to a few pages & verses to cut & paste a new one together
for ourselves.

Sounds like the theme of Judges: "and everyone did what was right
in their own eyes".