Is Homosexuality sinful and/or unnatural?

Blackdog said:

He! I have always been more of a social liberal. I am however a strict Constitutionalist and fiscal conservative.

My Constitutional side overrode my religious side because we do have a secular government.

Click to expand...

Yay! Reasonable, rational conservatives. There really need to be more of you guys.

RamFel said:

Because it's a major turn off. It's my right to want what I want. You may think that this whole gay scene is really cool, but I don't. It's illogical, unnatural, and a major turn off seeing it in our society. You want to know what turned me this way? Seeing a real good example of what's ahead, if we let it, during a gay pride parade on TV. It was a look into what was to come. And it's coming fast with Gay Marriage. So, you'll pardon me if I want to push it back.

Click to expand...

BEWARE THE COMING MENACE!

RamFel said:

Because it's a major turn off. It's my right to want what I want. You may think that this whole gay scene is really cool, but I don't. It's illogical, unnatural, and a major turn off seeing it in our society. You want to know what turned me this way? Seeing a real good example of what's ahead, if we let it, during a gay pride parade on TV. It was a look into what was to come. And it's coming fast with Gay Marriage. So, you'll pardon me if I want to push it back.

Click to expand...

Your palaeolithic attitudes and bigotry are a major turn-off, but you can spout your prejudice as loudly as you wish.

You say you are basing your opinion on having seen a Gay Pride march. I'm guessing you're referring to the drag queens and the leather boys with their arses hanging out of their chaps and such like. I'm delighted they get to do that once a year. I'm guessing you'd like to outlaw all Brazilians too, given the way they cavort themselves on the Rio Carnival parade.

StillBallin75 said:

You don't have the Constitutional right to not be offended. Guess what, seeing obese people turns me off. Maybe we should just shut them in their closets and forbid them to leave the house as well. :roll:

Click to expand...

So now you think obese people are on the same level as gays? Wow, what an insult! Actually, I'd rather see them than see what I saw during that gay pride parade.

RamFel said:

So now you think obese people are on the same level as gays? Wow, what an insult! Actually, I'd rather see them than see what I saw during that gay pride parade.

Click to expand...

You don't like gay pride parades, just leave and don't watch. What's the big ****ing deal? Your right to only see what pleases you somehow trumps the equality of others?

Gina said:

As for gay sex, don't like it? Don't do it. Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Ha, good one. Thanks Gina, I won't do it.

Good night all.

RamFel said:

So now you think obese people are on the same level as gays? Wow, what an insult! Actually, I'd rather see them than see what I saw during that gay pride parade.

Click to expand...

Oh please do share. I'm sure the boys dancing in speedos and flaming drag queens were quite horrifying to you.

atrasicarius said:

Yay! Reasonable, rational conservatives. There really need to be more of you guys.

Click to expand...

Republicans =/= conservatives

Unfortunately the Republican Neocons and Partisan hacks get all the attention.

Don't get me wrong. If I had my way as a Christian, I would not allow gay marriage, no more than I would allow divorce or adultery to go unpunished. We do however have a secular government and we are all supposed to be equal under the law, period.

RamFel said:

So now you think obese people are on the same level as gays? Wow, what an insult! Actually, I'd rather see them than see what I saw during that gay pride parade.

Click to expand...

Most gays don't like gay parades.

Just sayin'.

Redress said:

Most gays don't like gay parades.

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

I marched in a couple. I wouldn't take a kid to one. My job was to hand out condoms to adults and the kids who were there were jumping up and down trying to get one because they thought it was candy.

CriticalThought said:

I marched in a couple. I wouldn't take a kid to one. My job was to hand out condoms to adults and the kids who were there were jumping up and down trying to get one because they thought it was candy.

Click to expand...

if i were a kid i would be ****in disappointed. You better take that condom out of it's wrapper, blow it up and make some balloon animals.

Blackdog said:

My Constitutional side overrode my religious side because we do have a secular government.

Click to expand...

I applaud your consistency.

StillBallin75 said:

if i were a kid i would be ****in disappointed. You better take that condom out of it's wrapper, blow it up and make some balloon animals.

Click to expand...

ROFL. We figured it out and the second year we brought candy and chap-stick for the kids and condoms for the adults. We went through over 1,000 condoms in less than 20 minutes.

CriticalThought said:

I marched in a couple. I wouldn't take a kid to one. My job was to hand out condoms to adults and the kids who were there were jumping up and down trying to get one because they thought it was candy.

Click to expand...

I took my pre-teen nephew to a Gay pride march in London a few years ago. He had a blast, ended up with a Village People Indian headress and face-paint and was pulled up on stage to dance to Gina G's 'Ooh ah, just a little bit'. We met up with a lesbian friend in full 'diesel' get up. He kept referring to her as Uncle Carola. Now, as a very hetero 19-year-old, he still remembers the experience fondly.

Andalublue said:

I took my pre-teen nephew to a Gay pride march in London a few years ago. He had a blast, ended up with a Village People Indian headress and face-paint and was pulled up on stage to dance to Gina G's 'Ooh ah, just a little bit'. We met up with a lesbian friend in full 'diesel' get up. He kept referring to her as Uncle Carola. Now, as a very hetero 19-year-old, he still remembers the experience fondly.

Click to expand...

That's cool. I just think some parades are a little much. In some cities you could see people walking around bare ass naked. At one parade I went to, there were a few men engaging in some sexual acts in public. I think they tend to be a lot better in more conservative cities.

CriticalThought said:

That's cool. I just think some parades are a little much. In some cities you could see people walking around bare ass naked. At one parade I went to, there were a few men engaging in some sexual acts in public. I think they tend to be a lot better in more conservative cities.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I've seen some video. Not exactly a family affair. And not the stuff found in network footage of these events.

CriticalThought said:

That's cool. I just think some parades are a little much. In some cities you could see people walking around bare ass naked. At one parade I went to, there were a few men engaging in some sexual acts in public. I think they tend to be a lot better in more conservative cities.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, some people have very different standards of behaviour. I haven't got a problem with showing a bit of ass flesh, you'll see worse on the average Mediterranean beach, but carrying out sex acts in public is icky no matter who does it. I've never seen that on London, Manchester, Amsterdam or Berlin pride marches, and you couldn't really class any of those as 'conservative' cities.

Andalublue said:

I know what you mean, some people have very different standards of behaviour. I haven't got a problem with showing a bit of ass flesh, you'll see worse on the average Mediterranean beach, but carrying out sex acts in public is icky no matter who does it. I've never seen that on London, Manchester, Amsterdam or Berlin pride marches, and you couldn't really class any of those as 'conservative' cities.

Click to expand...

It may be a lot different in Europe. The worst was in California. Unfortunately the exhibitionism and vulgarity of those few is broadcast over the internet like it is representative of every gay pride parade in the country.

mac said:

Does your religion allow homosexual intercourse?

Click to expand...

Define homosexual intercourse.

Removable Mind said:

Huhhhh, what if one doesn't believe "that the bible is divinely inspired" AS I DO.

Why can't this topic be held to human standards? Nobody in the forum is supernatural.

Bringing in religious beliefs is like me playing a Ouija Board and claiming that that is some a root source of universal truths and moral standards.

In my opinion, there is no proof that any scripture, regarding any topic it address, or is of a supernatural origin.

The bible's content is basically stories that are used as a type of instrument used to create some moral foundation. I suggest that had there been no bible or related religions...humanity would have created very sound moral standards and laws.

As the famous Dennis Hopper would say, "Keep it real, man!"

Click to expand...

The information I provided was a response/reaction to the religious argument against homosexuality and SSM, only. It has nothing to do with any non-religious argument.

RamFel said:

It's true that some straight couples don't, or can't procreate. But when two opposite sex partners mate with the intent to make a baby, the odds are in their favor because their copulation is natural. When two same sex partners do it, there is NO CHANCE of making a baby because their copulation is unnatural.

It's the fact that opposite sex partners have the right equipment that makes it "natural".

The truth is inescapable.

Click to expand...

And this is irrelevant since the desire for procreation is neither a determinant for sexual orienatation nor marriage.

Redress said:

You are confusing an act with an orientation. Just thought I would mention it before CC did.

By the way, I am a child of a gay person. ~1/3 of all lesbians have given birth, and about 1/4 of gay men have fathered children.

Click to expand...

You're just lucky I've been very busy at work this week. :2razz:

Blackdog said:

Not again true. My numbers go to support "To promote the health of the population" if we go by my numbers and the resulting AIDS info, I am absolutly correct.

Click to expand...

And again, you draw an inaccurate conclusion from the numbers. AIDS is not an issue of homosexuality. It is an issue of unsafe sex and IV drug use. Your perception is inaccurately sterotypical. SSM poses no health risks and the state has no reason to not sanction it.

You did not look at the relatively high numbers with homosexual vs heterosexual did you? Then you just flat out say I am wrong?

Click to expand...

You made an anectotal statement. I made an anectodal statement. Yours has the same value as mine. You say your right. I say I'm right. We've now cancelled each other out.

And yet the logical numbers who have no wrong or right say I am stating my position accurately and you are not.

Click to expand...

There are other "logical numbers" that say the opposite.

Do I have to name BDboop? Criticalthought? Redress? I mean please man, be real.

Click to expand...

Good. CT I agree with. BDB and Redress attacking Christians? Not at all.

I don't remember you ever posting it, I could be wrong. I have on the other hand seen you mention it MANY times. So I figure you are not willing to exchange the same courtesy, no problem.

Click to expand...

I have about 6 bookmarked posts that I present in SSM threads every few months when these issues come up. I mention them a bit because lots of folks who frequent these threads have seen them. When requested, if someone hasn't seen them, I ALWAYS post them.

Yet what I observe is dismissed out of hand? We have a word for this.

Click to expand...

My observation is shared by quite a few folks around here. Your observation is not. Further, my observation is easily testable by reading my posts. Yours is not. The burden of proof is on you since your observation cannot be investigated by folks here.

You quoted what AN interpretation is as you yourself said "Probably" and then post nothing about any evidence for "prostitution," none.

Click to expand...

I certainly did.

No I did not because homosexual sex was still outlawed and it said nothing about it being prostitution.

Click to expand...

Anal sex was prohibited BECAUSE it related to Pagan rituals of the time. This is a specific restriction.

As an example of an accurate translation AND it backing up the NT which it does.

Click to expand...

Your translation was incorrect and faulty as I proved. A faulty translation cannot back up the NT.

The NT was always part of my argument???? You took one part out of one post and then got it wrong and still could not prove homosexual sex is not a sin.

Click to expand...

I proved that homosexuality was not a sin. I proved that under certain conditions, because of situations of the time certain sex acts (anal sex) where considered rituallistically unclean. I understand that this prevents you from using Leviticus as a religious reason to see homosexuality as wrong... unless you continue to believe an incorrect translation. And from what I saw, the NT was not part of your argument.

#1 I was not showen wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, you were.

#2 It was part of a larger discussion that you did not take part in.

Click to expand...

If it happened in this thread, I was here.

#3 The translation I put forward is accurate and you have yet to show were it "probably" says they only meant "prostitution."

Click to expand...

Your translation is inaccurate. I already pointed out how the word "abomination" is NOT what was meant. I demonstrated, based on the section of the Bible Leviticus 18:22 was in and the issues of the time, what was meant... along with Hebrew traditions, the use of wording, and accurate translations. At this point, you only have the NT to fall back on. If you want to use that, more power to you. Your religion, your beliefs. Using Leviticus would be failure, however, unless you choose to use a translation that does not reflect what was written.

Well lets see since you seem to all of a sudden have forgotten English...

"If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on."

If: 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to.

OK so we are setting that the condition is of someone calling themselves a Christian. They should know the holy book of said religion.

You are starting to sound like Bill Clinton on the stand.

Click to expand...

Seems like you have forgotten the meanings of pronouns. I will highlight the important words:

"If you call yourself a Christian, you should know the holy book your religion is based on."

You posted towards ME. Who else does "you" refer to?

It has everything to do with it as I pointed out in the statements in red you ignored. When you jump into the middle of a conversation it is amazing how much you miss.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the "background noise" issue, that's why I'm asking for clarification. If you are talking about something else, I've been in the converstation from the beginning.

You have got to be kidding me. Please point out where in the Bible it EVER used the term "wife" for anything other than a female? :lamo

Click to expand...

If those who translated the bible can mess up on a word like abomination, they could have messed up on other words.

You have not taken anything away from me. Anal sex is a sin.

Click to expand...

In the context of the time regarding Pagan rituals with male prostitutes.

Anal sex is a large part of homosexuality.

Click to expand...

Very poor logic. Anal sex is a behavior. Homosexuality is an orientation. Not all homosexuals practice anal sex. Some heterosexual practice anal sex. Your point on this is invalid.

So please explain what you have taken away again? Or in context did you end up backing up my point? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I have now removed Leviticus from it being used as a relgious weapon against homosexuality. Now, you can continue to use your inaccurate translation, but if you do, you must ask yourself why you are using something that is inaccurate.

They are completely the same. You are trying to say because they said only anal sex, somehow this does not apply. Wow.

Click to expand...

I'll explain it again. Anal sex is a behavior. Homosexuality is an orientation. Not all homosexuals practice anal sex. Some heterosexual practice anal sex. This is why your position on this is invalid.

So you still got nothing. I got it.

Click to expand...

Nope. You want to hold onto the NT, fine. The OT can no longer work for you unless you want to hold onto an inaccurate translation.

Ahh no.

Click to expand...

Ahh, yes.

Oh I get it. If your "observations" are not "global" it's OK. If mine are it's not.

No problem.

it's what I did.

Click to expand...

Faith is an individual issue. Your belief in how faith and logic work and the examples you used is YOURS.

Leviticus does not change. I have shown this with your help. I don't need to do anything else.

Click to expand...

Your denial is impressive. Of course I showed the accurate translation/interpretation of Leviticus. You do not want to accept it because of the cognative dissonance it causes. I understand that you have believed that homosexuality is a sin based on those two passages for a long time and giving that up, even in the face of accurate translations is not something that you want to do. Doesn't change the fact that you are holding onto a belief based on an inaccurate translation/interpretation. You can certainly do that, if you wish.

RamFel said:

Oh, I see.

That's the reason gays are so anxious to prove that gay sex is natural. If proven (unlikely) then they can claim the right to SSM.

Click to expand...

You already proved that homosexuality is natural... right from the definition you posted. I am glad to hear that you now support SSM.

RamFel said:

It looks like your attempt to prove gay sex is natural has failed, and so now it's "who am I to deny them that right". Nice switcheroo!

I'll tell you why.

It will make the gay life seem valid and respectable. It's what you're after, isn't it? Validity and respectability, and acceptance?

That's why.

Click to expand...

No, you already PROVED that "gay sex" is natural... and I thank you for that. So, it is good to see, based on that, that you now see the gay life as being valid and respectable.