Won't somebody please think of the lesbians?! and other thoughts.

clarksided · Jan 15, 2008

What if every person on earth ate mcdonald's at every meal? Human kind would also disappear in such a scenario. Is eating mcdonald's at every meal immoral? Better go protest Super Size Me, then.

...silly logic deserves a silly joke, all right?

igotbegot · Jan 15, 2008

ArchaicTruth said:
So long as sexual acts of any sort are clean(hygienically), not breaking certain "promises", are completely consensual, and of course with possible children in mind, you can party all you want

Do you know what you sound like?

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

UIN said:
hello there;

I roughly refuse the homosexual activeties, why? because it's not a right thing to do, whether you like it or not.
how do we know it's not right?
let's assume that wvery singal human on earth is a homosexual person, what will be the result, the human kind will disappear, so we can know wrong things by knowing what will happen by continuing them.

This is bizarre for two reasons.
1. No one is suggesting that people who do not have homosexual desires should have gay sex. Many acts, if universalised, would be catastrophic for the human race. Are firefighters bad because if everyone was a firefighter there'd be no policemen, bankers, professional athletes, pop stars, dustmen &c.? No, because we don't foresee a situation where everyone becomes a firefighter. Nor do we foresee a situation where everyone becomes gay.
2. Gay people aren't necessarily infertile, and many gay people want children. If everyone were homosexual there would still be sperm banks.

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

igotbegot said:
Do you know what you sound like?

He sounds like a pretty sane, reasonable person to me.

igotbegot · Jan 15, 2008

cantata said:
He sounds like a pretty sane, reasonable person to me.

So you believe sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to have sex because there is no "...possible children in mind..."

Or that a married couple can't enjoy certain sex acts because they are unhygienic?

Really, that sounds reasonable to you?

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

igotbegot said:
So you believe sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to have sex because there is no "...possible children in mind..."

I read him to mean that people should be responsible about sex and bear in mind potential pregnancy when engaging in sex. I do not think he was suggesting that only people who want to have babies should have sex.

igotbegot said:
Or that a married couple can't enjoy certain sex acts because they are unhygienic?

Really, that sounds reasonable to you?

I suspect that he chose his words poorly and was merely pointing out that people should do their best to avoid the spread of disease. The definition of 'hygienic' is also quite vague. Is anal sex with a condom hygienic? It is probably hygienic enough.

I also think that his suggestion that people should consider hygiene was more a practical concern than a moral judgement. Obviously it is morally dubious to have sex, get gonorrhoea, and then have sex with lots of other people so that they all get gonorrhoea too. However, between a monogamous couple it is merely a practical concern of avoiding yeast infections, cystitis &c.

I think you malign the poster on both counts.

EnemyPartyII · Jan 15, 2008

Might be worth pointing out again that homosexual women as a group have the lowest rate of STD transmission and sexually related injury of any sexual activity sub-group.

Much safer than heterosexual sex... for all those claiming that somehow std rates are indicative of sinfulness

quatona · Jan 15, 2008

UIN said:
hello there;

I roughly refuse the homosexual activeties, why? because it's not a right thing to do, whether you like it or not.
how do we know it's not right?
let's assume that wvery singal human on earth is a homosexual person, what will be the result, the human kind will disappear, so we can know wrong things by knowing what will happen by continuing them.

So the maxime of your ethics is: "If every single human would do the same and the result would be undesirable, it is wrong"? I doubt you have thought this through.
I have often heard parents say this to their children for an argument, and my parents occasionally said it, too. I never understood why doing something is wrong because if everyone did it there were negative consequences.
If everyone in the world decided to spend their vacations in Spain in July there would be a world crisis. So is going to Spain in July wrong?

Besides, there is no plan whatsoever to make homosexual activities mandatory for everyone, and since homosexuals are and will always be a minority, there would be no problem with assuming that god made them so intentionally without endangering the continuation of his creation.

selfinflikted · Jan 15, 2008

UIN said:
hello there;

I roughly refuse the homosexual activeties, why? because it's not a right thing to do, whether you like it or not.
how do we know it's not right?
let's assume that wvery singal human on earth is a homosexual person, what will be the result, the human kind will disappear, so we can know wrong things by knowing what will happen by continuing them.

Worst reasoning ever.

ArchaicTruth · Jan 15, 2008

igotbegot said:
So you believe sterile couples shouldn't be allowed to have sex because there is no "...possible children in mind..."

Or that a married couple can't enjoy certain sex acts because they are unhygienic?

Really, that sounds reasonable to you?

someone sounds a bit touchy....

"excuse me dear, let me roll around in [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] before we go to bed"

"hey hun, I had sludge dumped on me at work today, pretty kinky huh?"

tell me begot, would you have sex in those scenarios? It's not so hard to take a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]' shower. And if you don't have a shower, then you're probably meeting your hygiene standard already. And really, I meant that one should only have sex with the awareness of the possibility that a child might be created in the process. Of course, that applies to heterosexuals only.

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

ArchaicTruth said:
someone sounds a bit touchy....

I *knew* you were a reasonable person! You were totally maligned, I got what you were saying

Renton405 · Jan 15, 2008

Is it wrong for a couple of the same sex to kiss or caress one another in a sexual fashion?

Yes, it is a mortal sin because it is a defiant blow to the nature God gave us. It is saying to God "My lustful desires are more important than you"

(edit)

They would also be sinful in places of non-marital sex between man and woman. Even in married couples tthis would be abuse of procreation. Sex is for the act of procreation. Anything else would constitute a sin..

Are lesbians and bisexual women as morally compromised as gay and bisexual men? If so, why are they so rarely discussed when homosexuality is the matter at issue?

They are living in sin the same way homosexuals are. In denial about their sins, won't repent of the wrongness of them, etc. Why lesbian are dicussed less is probably because of the media, since homosexuality in men seems to be dicussed more and a more popular topic. One reason would be the AIDS outbreak in the homosexual community that happened in the 70s-80s..

Is sexual activity between women biblically condemned?

Yes, both in the OT and NT

Finally, as a matter of interest, is it wrong for two (or more) men, two (or more) women, or an unmarried man and woman, to touch in the same room (with one another's knowledge) without touching one another?

Yes..

stan1980 · Jan 15, 2008

I'm not sure who can take the moral highground here out of the Christians who believe that homosexuality is evil (when it clearly isn't IMO), or the Christians who believe that homosexuality is fine (when it clearly says in the bible that it isn't).

One camp is a nasty piece of work, and the other camp are hypocrites.

Tenka · Jan 15, 2008

Renton said:
One reason would be the AIDS outbreak in the homosexual community that happened in the 70s-80s..

There was no HIV AIDS until the early 80s.

Criada · Jan 15, 2008

Renton405 said:
They would also be sinful in places of non-marital sex between man and woman. Even in married couples tthis would be abuse of procreation. Sex is for the act of procreation. Anything else would constitute a sin..

????

You are married - don't know whether you have children... but I find it hard tto believe that you truly think that sex within marriage is sinful unless you are specifically trying to create a child! Is it wrong for infertile married couples to have sex? Or those beyond childbearing age?
I think you will struggle to find scriptural justification for that view!!

selfinflikted · Jan 15, 2008

stan1980 said:
I'm not sure who can take the moral highground here out of the Christians who believe that homosexuality is evil (when it clearly isn't IMO), or the Christians who believe that homosexuality is fine (when it clearly says in the bible that it isn't).

One camp is a nasty piece of work, and the other camp are hypocrites.

I think that's a bit harsh, stan. I'm of the opinion that the bible does not clearly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many biblical scholars are of the same belief, and there's huge controversy surrounding just that very topic.

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

Renton405 said:
Yes, it is a mortal sin because it is a defiant blow to the nature God gave us. It is saying to God "My lustful desires are more important than you"

Mkay.

Renton405 said:
They would also be sinful in places of non-marital sex between man and woman. Even in married couples tthis would be abuse of procreation. Sex is for the act of procreation. Anything else would constitute a sin..

Do you have a biblical basis for the claim that sex is for the act of procreation and everything else is a sin? Would not the fact that sex is pleasurable be evidence to suggest that it is intended to be valued as more than a simple procreative act, just as eating good food has value beyond the nourishment of the body? Is it a sin to enjoy married, heterosexual sex?

Renton405 said:
They are living in sin the same way homosexuals are.

Lesbians *are* homosexuals.

Renton405 said:
In denial about their sins, won't repent of the wrongness of them, etc. Why lesbian are dicussed less is probably because of the media, since homosexuality in men seems to be dicussed more and a more popular topic. One reason would be the AIDS outbreak in the homosexual community that happened in the 70s-80s..

Lesbians are discussed plenty, but usually in the context of them being totally hot.

Renton405 said:
Yes, both in the OT and NT

Could you provide citations?

Renton405 said:
Yes..

Why?

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

stan1980 said:
I'm not sure who can take the moral highground here out of the Christians who believe that homosexuality is evil (when it clearly isn't IMO), or the Christians who believe that homosexuality is fine (when it clearly says in the bible that it isn't).

One camp is a nasty piece of work, and the other camp are hypocrites.

A Christian who says homosexuality isn't wrong is no more hypocritical than a Christian who eats prawns.

stan1980 · Jan 15, 2008

cantata said:
A Christian who says homosexuality isn't wrong is no more hypocritical than a Christian who eats prawns.

If it doesn't say in the bible that homosexuality is wrong, then i of course apologise for calling christians hypocrites, but i was fairly certain i'd seen this several times.

I don't particularly want to go digging about for quotes, as i'd hate to give the anti-gays ammunition, so i guess i've left myself in a position where i can't defend myself.

cantata · Jan 15, 2008

stan1980 said:
If it doesn't say in the bible that homosexuality is wrong, then i of course apologise for calling christians hypocrites, but i was fairly certain i'd seen this several times.

I don't particularly want to go digging about for quotes, as i'd hate to give the anti-gays ammunition, so i guess i've left myself in a position where i can't defend myself.

My point was that it also says in the Bible that eating prawns is wrong. Christians who recognise that the Bible was written with a particular time and people in mind do not feel the need to cling to every last scrap of now-obsolete direction contained therein. There is nothing hypocritical in that.

I am not a Christian, and I don't believe in God. Yet I believe that there are some true things written in the Bible, as well as many false ones. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Won't somebody please think of the lesbians?! and other thoughts.

Veteran

Active Member

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Active Member

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Under Deck

Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Renton405

Guest

Veteran

Tenka

Guest

Well-Known Member

Under Deck

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Veteran

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency