Just a question on the matter

[EnemyPartyII]

Ahh, because it's a by-product of sin for one.

Secondly, if you ever plan on going to uni or similar you are going to have to do a lot of work on your ability to reason and put forward an argument. It has already been ponted out that humans and dolphins are the two species that engage in sex socially. Therefore, your references to other animals is irrelevant to the point at hand.

So, how's that list of wonderful people concieved withing a homosexual relationship coming along? It's 'natural' after all.

actually, at university, you'd be expected to provide a citation supporting your claim that dolphins and humans are the only animals that have sex socially... so lets not get all high horsed about conforming to the university form guide there boy-o 'cos you just committed the cardinal university sin of failing to adequately reference your text.

(P.S. The bonobos would like to have a word with you about their social sex)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Disprove it sunshine.

I have gathered that information from science documentaries etc. You got a problem with it, take it up with the scientific community.

Bonobos. Consider yourself disproved *smiles sweetly* http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

 

[k2svpete]

*LMFCO* I KNEW he'd take issue! Just for the sake of disagreeing!

So you want to expand that acronym out?

 

[Wednesday]

Its not when its ice

ROFL! Oh my word!

 

[OllieFranz]

Thank you for supporting my arguement on the perversity of homosexuality and the unnatural state of it. If you had bothered to read what I had posted I said that dolphins and humans are the only two species that engage in sex for reasons other than to procreate. If that's too big a word for you, I'll break it down. Humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex socially, without the aim being to make babies.

One word. Bonobos
(Or are you counting them among the humans?)

Edited to add:

I see EPII has beaten me to it. Oh well, great minds think alike.

 

[k2svpete]

actually, at university, you'd be expected to provide a citation supporting your claim that dolphins and humans are the only animals that have sex socially... so lets not get all high horsed about conforming to the university form guide there boy-o 'cos you just committed the cardinal university sin of failing to adequately reference your text.

(P.S. The bonobos would like to have a word with you about their social sex)

Since when has that been a hurdle to you with the dross you put up?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Pull out a dictionary and read it yourself.

There are a large number of other animal species that engage in "if, then" behaviour, otherwise known as "reasoning ability"... most primates, several cetaceans, some canids and other predators, and several avians, notably corvids and parrots.

Humans may have the most highly developed reasoning abilities... but that is a long way from saying we are the ONLY species that reasons

 

[Brieuse]

Disprove it sunshine.

I have gathered that information from science documentaries etc. You got a problem with it, take it up with the scientific community.

Funny, my dog regularly tries to hump my leg. Not only is that gay as he's male, it's kinda like reverse bestiality which I would think is unnatural. He must get some kind of pleasure out of it else he wouldn't do it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Since when has that been a hurdle to you with the dross you put up?

I'm not the one criticising others based on "if you ever go to university"

its one of those pot vs. kettle things... don't criticise other people for failings you yourself posess.

Oh, and I'll happily reference any claim I have made that isn't personal opinion... just ask.

 

[k2svpete]

Bonobos. Consider yourself disproved *smiles sweetly* http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/bonobo/behav

Well there you go I learnt something new today. Perhaps my example to be teachable will serve as an example? I can live in hope at least.

 

[k2svpete]

Well yeah... but no matter... I'm sure its one of those

"everything on THIS list is condemned, but everything NOT on THAT list is condemned... everything on THOSE lists are OK, and everything NOT on those OTHER lists is OK"... or something.

Then he'll accuse you of not taking it in context, and twisting scripture... and anyway, you aren't a real Christian, otherwise you'd know all this stuff.

Once again you choose to ignore what has actually been said. Use God's characteristics and priciples as a guide. If something is in conflict with God's nature then its not good.

I do seem to recall you having a dig at people attacking the poster rather than the material. How about you take some of your own advice.

 

[k2svpete]

I'm not the one criticising others based on "if you ever go to university"

its one of those pot vs. kettle things... don't criticise other people for failings you yourself posess.

Oh, and I'll happily reference any claim I have made that isn't personal opinion... just ask.

I put that forward as a constructive point of criticism as if anyone tried to structure an argument like that they'd get grilled. Better to learn here than get a fail from a lecturer.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Once again you choose to ignore what has actually been said. Use God's characteristics and priciples as a guide. If something is in conflict with God's nature then its not good.

I do seem to recall you having a dig at people attacking the poster rather than the material. How about you take some of your own advice.

I thought it was a pretty good 5 second summary of some of the Biblical "logic" that floats around here...

But seriously... using God's nature as a guide is all well and good... but what about when the Bible tells us conflicting things about God's nature?

I mean, I'm still waiting for you to sort out the context riddle for me, so forgive me if I seem confused...

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Already on another thread we have seen a dozen Bible passages to show God's purpose is man and woman in union and same-sex union as error. On top of that you provided one story, of David and Jonathan, which has no evidence to support what you claim and actually to the contary as David slept with women, so any contradiction on the subject is the product of your disbelief in what the Bible actually says.

 

[k2svpete]

Well its been........interesting folks but its far too late for me to keep on going with this so I bid you all goodnight.

 

[jamielindas]

Someone remind me what the point of this thread was again?
Weren't we talking about whether the institution of marriage (as it stands now in our society) still had the same meaning as it did in the past and whether it's new meaning included committed same sex couples?

 

[Wednesday]

That and questioning fundie knowledge of their own theology. But going offtopic was inevitable.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Well yeah... but no matter... I'm sure its one of those

"everything on THIS list is condemned, but everything NOT on THAT list is condemned... everything on THOSE lists are OK, and everything NOT on those OTHER lists is OK"... or something.

Then he'll accuse you of not taking it in context, and twisting scripture... and anyway, you aren't a real Christian, otherwise you'd know all this stuff.

"You can safely conclude you have created God in your own image when it turns out that He hates all the same people you do" - Anne Lamott

 

[k2svpete]

Well praise the Lord that I haven't done that!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well praise the Lord that I haven't done that!

Hey.

You look up bonobos yet?