Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[psychoslice]

Aye, I know that. I never once made reference to your beliefs, or lack thereof, so respect is something that I don't think you really understand. Additionally, how dare you call me ‘narrow-minded’, thereby attacking my character! I will have you know, dear psychoslice, that because of (not, inspite of) my Christian faith, I am very much supportive of the LGBT community, and I, myself, exploring any attractions I have towards transgender individuals. How rude!

Ok then, we will leave it at that, I have my beliefs as you have yours, I don't believe in yours as you don't believe in mine, and that's the way it should be, for in the end none of us truly knows the truth.

 

[MountainPine]

(1): So I suppose that a Muslim should make everyone who drinks not do it around them?

(2): Wouldn't this apply to people of different religions as well?

(3): Your video is not scientific.

(1): Yes. People who know that drinking, or doing anything at else that would cause a religious person or group to be bothered should do such things around them. It's called respect. And if that person doesn't have the courtesy to do that, then that religious individual or group should remove that person out of their presence, via request or force. (the former is preferred obviously)

(2): Yes, why not?

(3): Then you either didn't watch the video, or you have a bias against sources that you don't agree with, and don't know what "scientific" means. Whether you accept it as a valid source or not is not my problem. I've backed my claims up with evidence. End of discussion.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

(1): Yes. People who know that drinking, or doing anything at else that would cause a religious person or group to be bothered should do such things around them. It's called respect. And if that person doesn't have the courtesy to do that, then that religious individual or group should remove that person out of their presence, via request or force. (the former is preferred obviously)

(2): Yes, why not?

(3): Then you either didn't watch the video, or you have a bias against sources that you don't agree with, and don't know what "scientific" means. Whether you accept it as a valid source or not is not my problem. I've backed my claims up with evidence. End of discussion.

(1) So you are an anarchist?

(2) So can someone sacrifice babies if that is their religion?

(3): No it is not I would recommend you look up what a scientific article is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

where as a vagina has natural lubricants.

It is not at all unusual if the vagina does not produce enough or any lubrication. Even young women sometimes prefer it be used any ways just it doesn't become an issue mid-coitus if she dries up.

Anuses have weak tissue making it easier to contract STDs being that the tissue easily cracks allowing for them to enter the bloodstream,

That is not true: The link between the anus and infection is that the anus is a warm and moist area, making it ideal for bacteria. Much like the vagina is a warm and moist area. Or between the toes. Or the mouth. And there are no "easily cracked" tissue, and if you read up on hemorrhoids and rectal fissures, things like constipation, IBS, and obesity are the leading causes, not anal penetration.

People who practice sodomy over long periods of time have loose anuses because the tissue doesn't contract.

This is untrue. If there were any smidgen of truth to this, then you would find "anal penetration" when reading what causes a loose/leaky anus. And of course if a muscle being used causes it to weaken, there is likely to be a serious health issue going on, and being anally penetrated isn't it. And you also have to consider that heterosexual couples are way more into anal than gay male couples.

Does this make me 'less' of a Christian?

From my understandings, it makes you far more Christian, in regards to being "Christ-like," which is what being a Christian is supposed to be about anyways, than most people who call themselves Christian.

Which does? Sex is messy in general, lol.

I'm fond of holding my breath a really long time to heighten orgasm. Once, when I was with my ex, she gave me a handjob and I got stuff all over her, the walls, the ceiling, and even the cat. Yeah, sex, of any sort, can definitely be very messy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(1): Yes. People who know that drinking, or doing anything at else that would cause a religious person or group to be bothered should do such things around them. It's called respect. And if that person doesn't have the courtesy to do that, then that religious individual or group should remove that person out of their presence, via request or force. (the former is preferred obviously)

Are you serious? If I felt "bothered" by a particular position or ideology, am I justified in having that person with that ideology removed from my presence via request or force? If someone feels bothered by the actions of another human being that directly affect nobody but themselves, the genuinely respectful thing to do is to respect their right to do it. People can voice their disapproval if they wish, or politely request them to do otherwise, but ultimately other people's personal decisions, beliefs and actions are not beholden to your sensibilities, religious or otherwise. To suggest that others amend their personal freedoms in accordance to someone else's personal beliefs it thoroughly absurd.

 

[MountainPine]

A trait is not determined by a single gene, and sexual orientation is not genetic. Scientists have tried to make this evident by studying twins, but failed to produce solid concrete evidence of a gay gene. People don't even have a sexual orientation until puberty. It is true that humans are genetically sexual, but that only means we desire our private parts to be stimulated. The only reason we have have different private parts is for procreation. The purpose of sex cells is to perform meiosis when the two are combined in a heterosexual union. This is simple logic. The peg fits in the hole. Women were made differently to appeal to men and vice-versa.

As for animal homosexuality, this is why it happens. A female will release the estrus scent during mating season. After a male mounts the female, that male will have the scent rubbed off on him and another male will sometimes mistake him for a female and mount him because an animal's instincts override their brains. Animals will also commit homosex as an act of dominance, or if there is no opposite sex around they will practice mutual masturbation. But no animal is ever consciously gay. While homosexual behavior is apparent in many species, it is not possible that individual animals will have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities.

Bottom line: It's not a choice. Not any more than heterosexuality or any other sexual orientation is a choice.

Real mature. You intentionally ignored what I wrote and stated the antithesis.

Also humans do practice cannibalism and filicide already. Apparently a lot of animals do and it is natural. (Of course that doesn’t mean we should[/i}, just pointing out that we do.)

No, it means that when animals do it it is unnatural. An animal is going against it's nature when it eats it's young when there is a scarcity of food. "Survival mode" is not natural behavior.

Who says it was designed at all?

The Bible, and other creationist religious sources.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it means that when animals do it it is unnatural. An animal is going against it's nature when it eats it's young when there is a scarcity of food. "Survival mode" is not natural behavior.

So you are arguing that something that occurs in nature... Isn't natural?

Just exactly what IS your definition of "natural"?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, it means that when animals do it it is unnatural. An animal is going against it's nature when it eats it's young when there is a scarcity of food. "Survival mode" is not natural behavior.

Survival mode is in fact natural behavior as is any other behavior which exists in nature. Natural is not a synonym of normal or average, nor is what's natural necessarily good or what's unnatural necessarily bad. The whole thing is an appeal to nature fallacy.

 

[MountainPine]

(2) So can someone sacrifice babies if that is their religion?

Sacrificing babies is destructive, so is drinking, and so is homosexuality, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone with a religious foundation. And the reason why I say that homosexuality is destructive is because

a) It causes anal destruction, resulting in infection. And the people here who are objecting to this and to the fact that the anus is not a sex organ like ShadowWolf and SkepticThinker are loaded with bs.

b) It causes destruction of family values. All homosexuals who have religious parents have dishonored them and setting bad examples for the next generation. This new Common Core curriculum is going to teach young children that being gay is normal and will discourage heterosexuality. (source: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/19/3439163/state-rep-common-core-gay/

 

[MountainPine]

Survival mode is in fact natural behavior as is any other behavior which exists in nature. Natural is not a synonym of normal or average, nor is what's natural necessarily good or what's unnatural necessarily bad. The whole thing is an appeal to nature fallacy.

I disagree. You seem to think that nature encompasses all. Would it be natural if I stabbed someone?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Sacrificing babies is destructive, so is drinking, and so is homosexuality, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone with a religious foundation. And the reason why I say that homosexuality is destructive is because

a) It causes anal destruction, resulting in infection. And the people here who are objecting to this and to the fact that the anus is not a sex organ like ShadowWolf and SkepticThinker are loaded with bs.

b) It causes destruction of family values. All homosexuals who have religious parents have dishonored them and setting bad examples for the next generation. This new Common Core curriculum is going to teach young children that being gay is normal and will discourage heterosexuality. (source: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/19/3439163/state-rep-common-core-gay/

But then you are violating their religion and it must b allowed.

a) Yeah you are obviously talking out of your ***. (no pun intended).

b) Actually that has been scientifically disproven. But you are obviously a science denier so I doubt that will do any good for you.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I disagree. You seem to think that nature encompasses all. Would it be natural if I stabbed someone?

Yes, but not right.

 

[MountainPine]

Yes, but not right.

Not right according to who? This is coming from someone who thinks morality is subjective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure they do.

The prefix 'true' implies they live by the biblical teaching.....the bible does not teach sexual deviation.....

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I disagree. You seem to think that nature encompasses all. Would it be natural if I stabbed someone?

Natural encompasses everything in nature. It is opposed to unnatural, which is a synonym of artificial. Glasses are unnatural, for example.

Killing people for various reasons is a big part of nature. Once again, nature does not mean good, nor does unnatural mean bad.

You could easily put an argument that stabbing someone tangibly causes social harm and runs contrary to evolved empathy, which helps keep social order in social species. However, that wouldn't change the fact that killing is natural, a part of nature.

Homosexuality is also natural, a part of nature. Unlike killing however, religious individuals struggle to present a case of tangible social harms. Religious condemnation of homosexuality is no more a compelling argument to me than religious condemnation of other religions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How do you know it does have divine input?

I have experienced the divine....

 

[MountainPine]

Actually that has been scientifically disproven. But you are obviously a science denier so I doubt that will do any good for you.

No it hasn't. Again, your "science" is actually pseudo-science. Quit wasting your time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And, as I had pointed out, the exact same would be true if Adam had taken a vow of abstinence. So, in light of that point, what is the point you are trying to make? Are you trying to say that anal sex is therefore bad - because that must mean that you believe abstinence is bad. If that's not the case, what is?

But Adam did not take a vow of abstinence....and in case you ask, nor did Eve.... And of course deviate sex of any type is condemned by the bible...why would you think anal sex with any human, regardless of gender, would be given a free pass?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sacrificing babies is destructive, so is drinking, and so is homosexuality, and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone with a religious foundation. And the reason why I say that homosexuality is destructive is because

a) It causes anal destruction, resulting in infection. And the people here who are objecting to this and to the fact that the anus is not a sex organ like ShadowWolf and SkepticThinker are loaded with bs.

Lots of sex acts can result in bodily harm and infection. What's more, if you honestly only view homosexuality in terms of "anal sex", then your view is obviously skewed toward the gutter. The vast majority of anal sex is still performed in heterosexual relationships, and if your argument is merely against anal sex as an unsafe sexual practice, then your argument is against poor sexual hygiene, not homosexuality. Many homosexual men do not practice anal sex. Also, I assume this means you can find no issue with lesbianism?

b) It causes destruction of family values. All homosexuals who have religious parents have dishonored them and setting bad examples for the next generation. This new Common Core curriculum is going to teach young children that being gay is normal and will discourage heterosexuality. (source: http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/05/19/3439163/state-rep-common-core-gay/

Since you have started with the assumption that homosexuality is abnormal and devaluing, your logic is purely circular. There is no good reason to assume that children can be "taught" to be gay. And, frankly, what you personally believe honors or shames families is a complete non-issue. There are parts of the world where a young girl not consenting to having her genitals mutilated, or being forced into an arranged marriage, supposedly "dishonors" her family. What people may feel honors or dishonors their family is irrelevant - what's relevant are the rights of human beings be protected and that their preferences and actions, provided those actions bring no harm to others, are not used as grounds for the discriminating ideologies of bigots.

So, essentially, your argument for homosexuality being destructive is "Anal sex can sometimes be dangerous" and "It doesn't mesh with my personal view of what family should be". Not exactly a formidable case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But Adam did not take a vow of abstinence....and in case you ask, nor did Eve.... And of course deviate sex of any type is condemned by the bible...why would you think anal sex with any human, regardless of gender, would be given a free pass?

You've still not answered my question!

The question was: WHAT was the POINT you were TRYING TO MAKE by making the FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

Eve was made as a mate for Adam...if Adam used the Eve's back passage for sex...the human race would not exist...

This really isn't that difficult to understand. Its a very simple question. WHY did you say that? WHAT was your point? Were you trying to argue that anal sex is bad because Adam and Eve wouldn't have had children if he had done that instead? If so, then you must also believe that abstinence is bad, since the exact same logic applies.

If you fail to answer my question, then I'll just interpret that as you being unable to admit that you made a completely asinine statement without any reason or logic behind it.