• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Faith and politics[W:398]

jmotivator said:
You are now claiming that your statement that gays are fighting the urge to procreate wasn't linking gay sex to procreation? :roll:

You probably should have stuck to your "this is my last statement" bit...

Or just admitted you used the wrong word in the first place.
Click to expand...

No mate. My argument hasn't changed. Go back and read my original post. I'm sorry you didn't get that "procreation" was used as a euphemism for sex.

We are going into the back room to procreate. What are we going to do?
 
jmotivator said:
You are trying to use Jesus teachings to defend your stupid statement about gay procreation.

You got Jesus' teachings wrong (shocker) and tried to strengthen your argument for your wrong headed argument with passages from Exodus. You don't seem very equipped to argue either side.
Click to expand...

Not at all mate. The scriptures i was quoting where to show how the Jews took words literally instead of the implied meaning. I'm not insane. I know two gay men can't procreate. I was using the word procreate as a euphemism and you took it literally like the Jews took the scripture literally and literally tied the law to their forehead and arms.
 
jmotivator said:
You got Jesus' teachings wrong (shocker) and tried to strengthen your argument for your wrong headed argument with passages from Exodus. You don't seem very equipped to argue either side.
Click to expand...

I was raised a JW. I bet I know the bible better than you. I don't quote scripture verbatim because I don't believe the Bible. It would be like me quoting passages from Harry Potter. If you really knew the Bible you would have understood my postings better and not dismissed them as crap. But If it makes you feel good, I was wrong you were right. Whatever mate!!! Gay procreation...LOL!!!
 
jmotivator said:
You are now claiming that your statement that gays are fighting the urge to procreate wasn't linking gay sex to procreation
Click to expand...

Just to clarify. No where did I state that gays are fighting the urge to procreate. I said as a gay man fighting the urge to procreate (euphemism for sex) so as to comply with God's requirements is burdensome. Simply that. I'm not arguing gays can procreate or that gays should be able to procreate.

I should have just ignored your posts jmotivator. I'm just flabbergasted that someone could take what I wrote literally and think there was any link between gay sex and procreation. I could have expressed myself better but to be honest I'm lazy and didn't put the effort in.
 
Last edited:
Barny said:
Just to clarify. No where did I state that gays are fighting the urge to procreate. I said as a gay man fighting the urge to procreate (euphemism for sex) so as to comply with God's requirements is burdensome. Simply that. I'm not arguing gays can procreate or that gays should be able to procreate.

I should have just ignored your posts jmotivator. I'm just flabbergasted that someone could take what I wrote literally and think there was any link between gay sex and procreation. I could have expressed myself better but to be honest I'm lazy and didn't put the effort in.
Click to expand...

Bolded for your convenience:

Barny said:
As a person raised as a JW but unfortunately born gay I can tell you his commandments are burdensome. Try a lifetime of fighting the desires to procreate, the desires that god created us with and then get back to me on that one!!
Click to expand...
 
jmotivator said:
Bolded for your convenience:
Click to expand...

His point went right over your head. Procreate was used as a euphemism. He did not mean it literally. If you don't understand that, there is nothing anyone can do to help you.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, it is in a heterosexual urge, is what I am saying. Christian morality on sex is, put simply, that sexual urges and procreation should not be disconnected as it leads to vice. That isn't to say that people don't try to separate them all the time, but they have a purpose. It would be like trying to say hunger and nourishment aren't connected because a hungry person can swallow sand. Sure, it is possible, but that doesn't change the biological purpose of feeling hungry nor does it normalize eating sand because it stops hunger pangs.
Click to expand...

There is only the urge for sexual pleasure. People don't choose their sexual urges, they occur naturally. People will eat anything if they are hungry enough. The urge remains the same and does not have to always fulfill what you say is the only biological purpose. All physical urges do not have one pure purpose. People eat and have sex mostly for pleasure. Pleasure is just the driving force that leads to survival of the species. We don't consciously choose to have these urges.
 
jmotivator said:
Sure there are. Sexual urges for heterosexual sex are procreative urges because heterosexual sex is an act of procreation.
Click to expand...

No, all sexual urges are for sexual pleasure. That is the motivation for sex.
 
devildavid said:
His point went right over your head. Procreate was used as a euphemism. He did not mean it literally. If you don't understand that, there is nothing anyone can do to help you.
Click to expand...

"Procreate" was not used as a "euphemism", it was used incorrectly.

Please recheck the meaning of the word "euphemism" and then present an argument was "procreate" would be a euphemism in a thread discussion where "sex" is a perfectly acceptable word to use.
 
devildavid said:
No, all sexual urges are for sexual pleasure. That is the motivation for sex.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of biology is not a very good argument. The reason sex brings pleasure is because it promotes the act of procreation. If sex were painful humans wouldn't seek to do it and the species would die. The pleasure absent the purpose is vice.
 
jmotivator said:
"Procreate" was not used as a "euphemism", it was used incorrectly.

Please recheck the meaning of the word "euphemism" and then present an argument was "procreate" would be a euphemism in a thread discussion where "sex" is a perfectly acceptable word to use.
Click to expand...

Your refusal to accept how the word was meant is your problem. It is perfectly clear to me what he meant and he even went further to explain it. But go ahead, cling to your "literal' take if you insist.
 
jmotivator said:
Your ignorance of biology is not a very good argument. The reason sex brings pleasure is because it promotes the act of procreation. If sex were painful humans wouldn't seek to do it and the species would die. The pleasure absent the purpose is vice.
Click to expand...

Sexual pleasure doesn't "promote" anything but the desire to have sex. This in turn helps to create more of any species. Vice is a subjective moral term and doesn't change the nature of the pleasure gained from all sexual activity. It's a numbers game, essentially, not a moral one. No one chooses to feel sexual pleasure. It is an inborn, amoral, and natural desire that doesn't always end up in procreation but does often enough to keep the species going. It is a biological mechanism we have zero control over and not everyone gets to choose how it will be manifested in them. There may even be those who don't enjoy it at all. But it is a big picture biological mechanism that works to create more of the same species that came about through evolution.
 
devildavid said:
Your refusal to accept how the word was meant is your problem. It is perfectly clear to me what he meant and he even went further to explain it. But go ahead, cling to your "literal' take if you insist.
Click to expand...

I refuse to accept the word because it was the wrong word. I could say that I want to eat an alligator and if it turns out I meant chicken wings it doesn't make "alligator" a euphemism. :lamo
 
devildavid said:
Sexual pleasure doesn't "promote" anything but the desire to have sex. This in turn helps to create more of any species. Vice is a subjective moral term and doesn't change the nature of the pleasure gained from all sexual activity. It's a numbers game, essentially, not a moral one. No one chooses to feel sexual pleasure. It is an inborn, amoral, and natural desire that doesn't always end up in procreation but does often enough to keep the species going. It is a biological mechanism we have zero control over and not everyone gets to choose how it will be manifested in them. There may even be those who don't enjoy it at all. But it is a big picture biological mechanism that works to create more of the same species that came about through evolution.
Click to expand...

Again, your ignorance of biology is not an actual argument. Sexual pleasure is a mechanism to promote procreation. That is the simple truth.

Also, welcome to the Faith and Politics forum where we express our opinions on matters moral and political. I have stated my point that sexual pleasure and procreation are intrinsically connected in both Christian ideology AND scientifically... you have chosen to adopt a belief that is neither Christian nor scientific. You are welcome to actually argue why you think species that procreate through heterosexual intercourse derive pleasure from the act outside of the drive to procreate, and good luck to you, as you are accepting a point of argument you can't win.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
I refuse to accept the word because it was the wrong word. I could say that I want to eat an alligator and if it turns out I meant chicken wings it doesn't make "alligator" a euphemism. :lamo
Click to expand...

That is an invalid analogy. The meaning was clear from the context.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, your ignorance of biology is not an actual argument. Sexual pleasure is a mechanism to promote procreation. That is the simple truth.

Also, welcome to the Faith and Politics forum where we express our opinions on matters moral and political. I have stated my point that sexual pleasure and procreation are intrinsically connected in both Christian ideology AND scientifically... you have chosen to adopt a belief that is neither Christian nor scientific. You are welcome to actually argue why you think species that procreate through heterosexual intercourse derive pleasure from the act outside of the drive to procreate, and good luck to you, as you are accepting a point of argument you can't win.
Click to expand...

No, you don't understand biology. Procreation is the random result of sex, not its purpose. There is no purpose in the natural world. There are things that happen with varying results. The things that succeed tend to continue while those that fail do not. You see a purpose where there is none. It is a numbers game for every species that engages in sex. It is simply one method of perpetuating species that happened to work, in large part because of the pleasure derived from it.
 
devildavid said:
No, you don't understand biology. Procreation is the random result of sex, not its purpose. There is no purpose in the natural world. There are things that happen with varying results. The things that succeed tend to continue while those that fail do not. You see a purpose where there is none. It is a numbers game for every species that engages in sex. It is simply one method of perpetuating species that happened to work, in large part because of the pleasure derived from it.
Click to expand...

Reaffirming that you are oblivious to even the most fundamental concepts of biology continues to be a terrible debate technique on your part.
 
jmotivator said:
Reaffirming that you are oblivious to even the most fundamental concepts of biology continues to be a terrible debate technique on your part.
Click to expand...

And your personal attack does not mean that you understand biology and is a worse debate technique.
 
devildavid said:
No, you don't understand biology. Procreation is the random result of sex, not its purpose. There is no purpose in the natural world. There are things that happen with varying results. The things that succeed tend to continue while those that fail do not. You see a purpose where there is none. It is a numbers game for every species that engages in sex. It is simply one method of perpetuating species that happened to work, in large part because of the pleasure derived from it.
Click to expand...

Humans have long recognized that our sexual urges are much more powerful than our spiritual ones. The battle to wrest that power from women has been a longstanding testament to the true weakness of men and their imaginations.
 
jmotivator said:
Bolded for your convenience:
Click to expand...

Jmotivatior,

'Procreate' was used as a euphemism. I gave you an example. 'My girlfriend and I are going into the back room to procreate.' What are we going to be doing in the back room? Sex! I used a euphemism for reasons, but for the sake of simplicity i'm not going to explain why again.

In my replies to you I used the Biblical parable of 'straining the gnat but swallowing the camel' as you were fixated on the use of the word procreate and missed the whole meaning of my post. Just as someone would strain a gnat out of their tea but miss the camel in the tea and swallow it. You missed the meaning of my post because you were fixated on the small detail of the strict meaning of a word. My post had nothing to do with a link between gay sex and procreation!!!! Simply I was saying abstaining from sex and companionship is burdensome. Gay people have to do this to adhere to Gods Laws. Hence Gods laws are burdensome to some. I was simply pointing out to the person I was responding to that the scripture she quoted is not true for all.

The scriptures I quoted in my replies to you were to show you that even scriptures in the bible use words that can't be taken literally. Tying the law to your forehead and arms were not meant to be taken literally and the Jews were admonished for taking them literally by literally putting the law in a box and tying it to their head and arms.

As you yourself said a sane person would know that two gay men cannot procreate. That should have been the clue to not take the word literally.

I think my mistake was thinking you understood the Bible better than you do otherwise you would of got what I was hinting at in my replies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom