Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[RedhorseWoman]

I am not against homosexuals but I am against homosexual sexual behavior. However while feverishly trying to keep up with my responses I use a sort of shorthand or terminology. Your the one who brought up the sexual orientation at birth. Did you not want a response?

Homosexual sexual behavior--behavior which, as we know, is not exclusive to homosexuals, but is engaged in by heterosexuals as well. Do you, therefore, condemn a heterosexual married couple for engaging in sexual behaviors that homosexuals also employ?

 

[1robin]

I’m not going to waste time on your first misunderstood point. But I would care to address the second, because it is insidious. It dehumanizes while masquerading as humanitarian.

Identity politics.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

You believe that the costs of homosexuality vastly outweighs the benefits. So, a sexual orientation, that is, how one identifies, carries some “cost” to the human race. And by coming down on the negative side, you imply that the cost isn’t worth it for humanity. Can you see how utterly effing dismissive that is for that segment of the population? Can you not see how that devalues them for even being homosexual? And even if you meant “homosexual acts” rather than “homosexuality,” you’re still devaluing the benefits their sexual relations have for them, which is still dehumanizing. You’re treating them as if they have no right to express themselves, because it might “cost something.” Which is putting a price tag on human pursuit of fulfillment. Which is dehumanizing.

I have said twice that I am typing as fast as possible and use terms indiscriminately. Many times I use the shortcut of "homosexuality" when I am referring to the sexual acts performed by homosexuals. Look I am tired of this virtual signaling and am really sick of this "dehumanizing" rant your own. At least try some new terms. Not a single human is harmed by anything I have said and I resent claims otherwise. This lefty tactics 101. Give me a break.

Your argument is evil, the more so because it masquerades as humanitarian.

A parrot has a larger vocabulary. Either get your comments out of the gutter or this discussion will end soon.

 

[1robin]

So, what’s your point? Heterosexuality is cheaper, so we should do away with homosexuality? That could easily be interpreted as “heterosexuals are worth more on the human bottom line than heterosexuals.” What a disgusting, foul, despicable idea to advertise. “Butt sex is ok for heterosexuals because it costs me less.” Un-frickin-believable!

You’ve just put a price tag on the homosexual community. Worse, you’ve also managed to ascribe that value judgment to God! God, who said that people are blessed when they’re reviled. God, who hears the cries and sees the plight of the disenfranchised. Really just pretty dang ugly, IMO.

I have soured on our discussion. Your rants are far too emotionally charged for me and I have had all the virtue signaling I can take for now. For the time being consider our discussion terminated. Perhaps I will talk with you on another topic.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I do not remember them all. If you review Sojourners recent replies you will find a list of them. Basically homosexuality costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and since it doesn't create life or money it isn't justifiable. Your the one defending homosexuality it is your burned to know its benefits. We all die sooner or later but homosexuality causes death without producing life. This is one absurd argument.

Talking about absurd arguments. Homosexuals contribute to society in many ways, which creates "money." Homosexuals can be and often are, parents to multiple children--either their own by birth or through adoption. They are just as capable of creating life as anyone else, and when they adopt children in need of parents they are also sustaining life.

Just because people don't do things exactly the way YOU believe they should does not make them irrelevant or a waste or something to be eliminated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

I have been condemning a behavior that kills millions and costs billions, your the one defending it.

What the heck is this?

Why waste your time about complaining about how many times that you have been corrected. Instead it would be wiser to learn from your mistakes.

And I have been defending a trait of humanity.

 

[1robin]

No, I don't think that I am agreeing with you. Just because an infant does not express a sexual attraction towards either the same or the opposite sex does not mean that they do not possess an inborn sexual orientation.



This works both ways. You cannot legitimately claim that homosexuals do not have a same-sex attraction until later in life.



You need to do some research because there have been a number of documented cases of animals that are, in fact, 100% homosexual without ever being interested in a member of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is NOT "invented"...it simply is a part of life.

I remember reading about a captive condor breeding program in which the scientists tried unsuccessfully to get two male condors to mate with females. These males simply would not mate with females, but stayed as a bonded pair. Initially, the scientists thought that the loss of two breeding males would negatively impact the breeding program, but they eventually decided to allow these two males to remain as a couple, and they gave them fertilized eggs from heterosexual pairs to brood and raise the chicks.

The "uncles" turned out to be great parents to their adopted chicks, and the heterosexual pairs simply laid more eggs that they raised, so that the program benefited greatly.

There have also been similar 100% homosexual pairs of various animals that have been observed. NONE of these pairs EVER engaged in heterosexual sexual relations.

Being born with a homosexual orientation from birth most definitely DOES affect your arguments against homosexuality. If a person or animal is born with a specific sexual orientation, that makes it perfectly normal even if such humans or animals are not in the majority, and declaring them "sinful" or "useless" or "detrimental to society" and something that should be "eliminated" makes YOU the sinner--not them.

Sorry but I am going to have to draw the debates I have been having to a close. I do not like the direction they have been going (not your fault) and no matter how fast I type I can't catch up. So far just today I have 45 responses. I don't have time to post in depth reply's and people are getting too emotional. Hopefully I will hear from you again on another subject soon.

 

[1robin]

Interesting. Are you actually claiming that sexual orientation shows up in DNA? Where, might I ask is the marker in DNA for heterosexuality? If you can tell us that, then I'm sure that researchers could look in that same area and find where the DNA differs for homosexuals.

So, where is the heterosexual marker?

Please see See post #426.

 

[1robin]

Homosexual sexual behavior--behavior which, as we know, is not exclusive to homosexuals, but is engaged in by heterosexuals as well. Do you, therefore, condemn a heterosexual married couple for engaging in sexual behaviors that homosexuals also employ?

Please see See post #426.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

I have been condemning a behavior that kills millions and costs billions, your the one defending it.

What the heck is this?

No, you have been attacking humanity. And are you totally uneducated?:

King Canute and the tide - Wikipedia

King Canute was wise enough to know what he could not change. He did not believe in the divine nature of kings. You seem to place yourself above him.

 

[1robin]

Talking about absurd arguments. Homosexuals contribute to society in many ways, which creates "money." Homosexuals can be and often are, parents to multiple children--either their own by birth or through adoption. They are just as capable of creating life as anyone else, and when they adopt children in need of parents they are also sustaining life.

Just because people don't do things exactly the way YOU believe they should does not make them irrelevant or a waste or something to be eliminated.

Please see See post #426.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

Your premise was completely wrong so everything that followed was invalid.

Wow!! Amazing hypocrisy. Wasting your time is no answer. All you need to do is to change your behavior. No need to reply to every post.

 

[1robin]

No, you have been attacking humanity. And are you totally uneducated?:

King Canute and the tide - Wikipedia

King Canute was wise enough to know what he could not change. He did not believe in the divine nature of kings. You seem to place yourself above him.

Ok.

I can't possibly catch up with everyone in this thread. I am taking a break for awhile and this time it wasn't all your doing. People are getting emotional so it's best to call a timeout.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. The old and sick are a burden but being old or sick is not a choice, homosexuality is.

Are you actually claiming that aids acts one way in the US and a completely different way in Africa?

You are kidding, right? Seriously? Sexual orientation is NOT a choice. I do believe that I asked you previously when, exactly, YOU "chose" to be heterosexual and to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. I don't think that you ever responded to that, did you?

I do agree that being old is not a choice, but very often people make very bad decisions as far as what they eat, drink or do, which can, and does, make them sick. Many health conditions are based on a choice, but you don't seem to have a problem with people who choose to abuse themselves, become sick, and then are a burden to society. Why is that?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Are you actually claiming that aids acts one way in the US and a completely different way in Africa?

AIDS is not a "homosexual disease." It can be caught in many ways and by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Even the practice of eating "bush meat" can cause a person to become infected.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. Not on topic.

I think that you have posted this same statement way more than 41 times. Perhaps you should try limiting your responses rather than whining about how many you've gotten?

 

[Subduction Zone]

AIDS is not a "homosexual disease." It can be caught in many ways and by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Even the practice of eating "bush meat" can cause a person to become infected.

More likely it was butchering "bush meat". If one cuts oneself as one works on an infected animal there is a huge risk of getting AIDS oneself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok.

I can't possibly catch up with everyone in this thread. I am taking a break for awhile and this time it wasn't all your doing. People are getting emotional so it's best to call a timeout.

You don't have to "catch up". Merely make every post worthwhile. Once again change your behavior instead of making petty responses. And see if you can learn from what has been presented for you.

Earlier to day you demanded proof that animals can be gay. I provided that. You wanted to see the "Gay Gene" I provided an article on that as well. It is funny how you have time for petty remarks but ignore the evidence presented that shows that you are wrong.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Then the CDC is skewed because it was their statistics I used.

No, the CDC's statistics are sound. It is your interpretation of them that is skewed. A. your causality is unsupported, and B. CDC stats are not globally representative.

 

[oldbadger]

.

Knowing how much god hates homosexual sex, and that it's almost a given that every homosexual couple engage in it, .........

Skwim.......... that's what you think. Some of us don't think like that. God didn't hate Gay sex any more than he hated shellfish.
Never mind......... keep rolling..... what do you wanna ask?

.........how can any Christian denomination or Jewish movement sanction same-sex marriages, in effect sanctioning homosexual sex?

Because, Skwim, they're moving forward, progressing...
Now I would have thought that you would have positively praised such movements. Can anything in any religion please you?

The Rabbi who tutored/mentored one of the UK's leading Jewish Lords (a Baron, no less) was............ gay, Skwim. This amazing teacher was the first religious person to broadcast 'thought for the day' on UK BBC radio........ so he wasn't really hiding in the shadows.

Those religious Abrahamic religious organizations that sanction same-sex marriage.

Alliance of baptists
Conservative Judaism
Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reform Judaism
United Church of Christ (Congregational Church)
And perhaps the United Methodist Church (We'll know in February, 2019) .​

Are you supporting them, or knocking them, Skwim?​

 

[1robin]

No, the CDC's statistics are sound. It is your interpretation of them that is skewed. A. your causality is unsupported, and B. CDC stats are not globally representative.

I didn't interpret them at all, I simply posted them and quoted almost word for word from them. I also didn't say they were internal. However aids works the same in Africa as it does here.