Pengiuns

[telkanuru]

[sarcasm] Homosexuality is explicidly forbidden in the bible. If you remember your Exodus and the 10 commandments, you remember "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ***" [/sarcasm]

Ok, I grant that was crude, but my point is that any one passage in the bible may be interpreted an infinite number of ways, even the most explicit 'thou shalt nots'. Heck, I've used the Bible to prove that not only is abortion good and right in the eyes of god, but we should kill all babies. After having done this, I am very wary of people who say the bible gives definite truth.

Oh, and just to tick people off, 1) religion is a mass delusion caused by the desire for the father figure; 2) Paul, founder of the church, was a eununch, as he castrated himself to restrain his homosexual urges; 3) going by Judges, the appropreate solution to Iraq would be to have the first lady go to Iraq, sleep with Sadam, and then drive a tent stake though his forehead, and flee; 4) omnipotence and free will cannot coexist; 5) benevolent omipotent and evil cannot coeixist.

so there

[Strytllr]

See, now I can only respond to that by chuckling.

[D'Artagnan1673]

Sorry buddy, you didn't prove anything.

[Soldier]

Not familiar with Calvin and Hobbes? Now that IS sacreligious!! Where else will you find such lines as "and so the aliends took our hero, Spaceman Spiff [One of Calvin's imaginary things] to be debriefed...little did they know, our hero doesn't wear briefs!" Gotta love it, man.

I agree that homosexuality is not in itself sinful, any more than blindness is - it's not something that people choose. However, the practice of it, is. You've seen the various citins posted regarding it. As for "they said interracial marriage was wrong, too", I don't buy it. Interracial marriage still works - there's nothing biologically wrong with it. It's quite obvious it's a matter of opinion that it "wasn't meant to happen". Homosexuality, however, is quite obviously unnatural. We're simply not built that way. The only ways it can be practiced involve using body parts in ways they were not meant to be used. Men and women work, men and men don't work, women and women don't work. Regardless of color, all around. Hence, the racism comparison is inappropriate.

I don't hate gays. Rather, I pity them - they're condemned to a life of hatred and persecution, in general. And, if they are to live morally, they are condemned to a life of celibacy. As D'Artagnan said - I don't hate any sinner. Everybody is a sinner, regardless of sexual orientation; and, still regardless of sexual orientation, everybody has the opportunity to be forgiven their sins through Christ.

And don't get me started with Catholics.

[Strytllr]

And don't get me started with Catholics.

See... now to THAT all I can do is laugh...

[jeff]

Originally posted by Soldier
I agree that homosexuality is not in itself sinful, any more than blindness is - it's not something that people choose. However, the practice of it, is. You've seen the various citins posted regarding it. As for "they said interracial marriage was wrong, too", I don't buy it. Interracial marriage still works - there's nothing biologically wrong with it. It's quite obvious it's a matter of opinion that it "wasn't meant to happen". Homosexuality, however, is quite obviously unnatural. We're simply not built that way. The only ways it can be practiced involve using body parts in ways they were not meant to be used. Men and women work, men and men don't work, women and women don't work. Regardless of color, all around. Hence, the racism comparison is inappropriate.

Wrong. The basis of this entire thread is evidence that homosexuality is natural, as it shows up in many species. Some (small) percentage of individuals in many species is built that way. No, it doesn't propagate the species, but that's what the other 95% of the species manages to do. So, the natural/unnatural argument completely fails.

The comparison with interracial marriage fits for two reasons: one, because churches, sad to say, used almost the exact same language against them as we hear now against homosexual marriages (including "unnatural"). Second reason: the laws of the land prohibited such marriages, and then we learned to not enforce racial bigotry through the legal code. Now it seems as if the world is getting better about extending the same rights to homosexuals.

At least we agree on Calvin and Hobbes.

[Soldier]

Wrong. Look at it very simply: Anal sex uses the anus in a manner for which it was not intended; oral sex makes the same improper use of the mouth. Female homosexual relations can barely be classified as such, considering biological definitions, unless the mouth is used for something it was never intended for, or perhaps the hand - in which case the woman on the receiving end is receiving something she was never meant to there.

Because of this, your church argument still does not stand.

[jeff]

You're completely missing the point - if it happens in nature (and it does, as the start of the thread shows), then by definition it is natural, even with multiple-use organs. Duh. Whether you or I think it's icky is besides the point (and frankly, that's most of what your argument consists of). Your claim that female homosexuality 'can barely be classified as such' is very funny.

[Tireur]

I really hate religious arguments, I don't know that much about it but your statement

You're completely missing the point - if it happens in nature (and it does, as the start of the thread shows), then by definition it is natura

Seems to suggest that cannibalism is, also, Ok. It occurs in nature, therefore, it's completely natural. What would you say to us having funeral feasts instead of burials. Be a great savings on real estate........

[Catal]

Originally posted by Soldier
Wrong. Look at it very simply: Anal sex uses the anus in a manner for which it was not intended; oral sex makes the same improper use of the mouth. Female homosexual relations can barely be classified as such, considering biological definitions, unless the mouth is used for something it was never intended for, or perhaps the hand - in which case the woman on the receiving end is receiving something she was never meant to there.

I may be reading your response incorrectly, but if it's the church's position that we can't have anal intercourse because the anus is being used for something other than its intended biological reason, then kissing should be banned as well. The mouth is for eating and breathing. Kissing is a learned cultural exchange; it is not an instinctual process, therefore it is not biologically natural.

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by Tireur
I really hate religious arguments, I don't know that much about it but your statement



Seems to suggest that cannibalism is, also, Ok. It occurs in nature, therefore, it's completely natural. What would you say to us having funeral feasts instead of burials. Be a great savings on real estate........

Again...Natural? Yes! Legal? No. Though one could make the case that if the eaters and the eaten both consented that you could make a case for it being okay....though it does bring up the issues of assisted suicide....but then again you don't necessarily have to KILL someone....maybe we've just hit on a use for all those "bad legs" that us older fencers seem to develop....

Hey! Barbecue at my house this weekend :-)

[Tireur]

Hey! Barbecue at my house this weekend :-)

Now I have to wonder about those cookies of your wife's you promised me.

Takes all kinds of critters to make......FoilyGeezers fritters?????

[D'Artagnan1673]

personally, I am in the mood for some Grumblecakes.

[Strytllr]

I may be reading your response incorrectly, but if it's the church's position that we can't have anal intercourse because the anus is being used for something other than its intended biological reason, then kissing should be banned as well. The mouth is for eating and breathing. Kissing is a learned cultural exchange; it is not an instinctual process, therefore it is not biologically natural.

Catal, do not mistake personal opinion for the opinion of an entire church, or for that matter, an entire religion.

Jeff, just because something happens in nature does not make something natural. But before you immediately return post, let me give you Webester's definition so you understand where I'm coming from.

Main Entry: nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&-r&l, 'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

That is only a small part of their definition, but it's the part that matters. What you're arguing is the second definition and rightly so, if something is of nature, then yes, by definition, it must also be natural. But the first definition is what many people read at the same time (stupid english language that has 20 some-odd defitions for the same word...). By the first definition, they are reasoning that it isn't, due to their inherent sense of right and wrong.

Some (small) percentage of individuals in many species is built that way.

I will again refer to one of your older posts where you linked to a website on genetics and homosexuality. Homosexuality is not "built" that way in regards to genetics (which is the only way we're "built"). By that website, it is either any number of possible problems, such as chemical inbalances, learned behavior, personal choice, etc. The only homosexuals who might have a cause to say that it is genetic are the ones who were actually born transexual and whom the doctors corrected wrongly (yes, that does happen quite frequently, unfortunately). Again, by that article, the true reason some people are homosexual will never be fully understood because to understand it would mean that it can indeed be fixed... back to what is (ahem) "natural".
hehe... couldn't resist that last part... sorry.
And that is something that the gay community does not wish to have happen.

[Catal]

Originally posted by Strytllr
Catal, do not mistake personal opinion for the opinion of an entire church, or for that matter, an entire religion.

That's why I ask the question. Personally, I'd like to see if the pope's opinion would change on this matter if someone polished his pulpit...

[Philistine]

Originally posted by Soldier
Wrong. Look at it very simply: Anal sex uses the anus in a manner for which it was not intended; oral sex makes the same improper use of the mouth. Female homosexual relations can barely be classified as such, considering biological definitions, unless the mouth is used for something it was never intended for, or perhaps the hand - in which case the woman on the receiving end is receiving something she was never meant to there.

At the risk of being indelicate, I'll point out that a great many heterosexual couples (including married ones ) do at least some of those "unintended" things to each other with their mouths and hands. And some do all of them.

At times, some (or all) were illegal, even for married couples. Now, all are legal.

Also, as noted above, kissing would seem to be on the list of things that the mouth was not intended to do....

--Philistine

[FoilyGeezer]

Originally posted by Tireur
Takes all kinds of critters to make......FoilyGeezers fritters?????

Wasn't Silence Of The Lambs a cooking show?

[jBirch]

Strytllr,

Jbirch, the only issue I've had with your posts are your frequent assertations of the literalness of the bible. Knowing full well that the bible (OT anyway) was written by men for men, and that there are hardly any rules anywhere that are directed specifically toward women... Therefore, it may be assumed that women don't have to do much of anything to achieve righteousness... OR, it may be assumed that both genders must take the male oriented word bias to heart equally.

Hey now, I never said that I'm for the literalness of the Bible, far from it. However, I know that Calvinism, as a protestant religion, subscribes to Luther's ideas on Biblical Theology: read it, think about it, talk about, THEN do what we tell you. *grin* I enumerated pretty much at the beginning of the post that the Biblical argument is usually one of those arguments that you come across. I also asserted that you can walk through the Bible, from front to back, and rebutt every argument. D'Art didn't believe me, so we went through the song and dance of arguing scripture and interpreting different passages. I stand by my argument that the Bible does not condone or decry homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour with the caveat that it is the context of a loving relationship. Homosexuality has been determined by the Church to be a sin, but there is nothing that says that the Lord agrees with this statement except in the concept of Dogmatic Law (what you hold true on earth, I will uphold in Heaven). Which we can argue all we want.

We now seem to be moving on to the "it's unnatural" argument which was what I was originally trying to flesh out.

Look, this argument is going to go like this:

"Anal intercourse is unnatural! Lesbian 'sex' is unnatural too!"

The counter being: "sexual pleasure is not unnatural and is done equally between men and women. " We then go on a long diatribe where we argue various scientific findings that oral and anal intercourse, really isn't un-natural. This leads to: "But the purpose of sex is procreation!" (Didn't we reject this argument already???) And we then cite all sorts of evidence about the social benefits of homosexuality in the population including, population trimming, ability for fertile couples to have more kids then they can rear, etc...

"Think of the children! Won't someone please think of the Children!??" And we then cite all sorts of evidence that Homosexual couples rear children that are just fine, thank you very much. Someone usually mentions single parents rearing good kids and we get into divorce as being a sin...and we start all over again.

At any rate, this should be fun.

Take it easy.

[D'Artagnan1673]

jBirch,

You still haven't convinced me that the Bible only condems homosexuality in pagan rituals.

I'll get to that when I have time

[Strytllr]

hehe Jbirch...

Didn't we deja vu this all before?