Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

You will have to follow the exchange between Jo and I about anal sex.. Jo asked for a source and I told her the bible and she would not accept... And iirc, she then asked where the bible said anal sex was wrong between a man and a woman.. I then made the point of the logical result of such an approach to sex....that if the first man used the woman's anus as the place for his penis....there would be no humanity today....

So what do you think would be the logical result of male horses, pigs, dogs, fowls, etc., using the female's anus to have sex?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You will have to follow the exchange between Jo and I about anal sex.. Jo asked for a source and I told her the bible and she would not accept... And iirc, she then asked where the bible said anal sex was wrong between a man and a woman.. I then made the point of the logical result of such an approach to sex....that if the first man used the woman's anus as the place for his penis....there would be no humanity today....

So what do you think would be the logical result of male horses, pigs, dogs, fowls, etc., using the female's anus to have sex?

The same logical result of all of those animals engaging in abstinence. So you must think the Bible is against abstinence, right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The same logical result of all of those animals engaging in abstinence. So you must think the Bible is against abstinence, right?

I do not follow your logic...or lack thereof...on the subject of anal sex being an unsound practice morally....what has abstinence got to do with it? Now I know abstinence means no descendants...but so would castration, infanticide, Adam murdering Eve before giving birth to the first child, etc., etc....but the point is that abstinence and all these other unlikely possibilities have absolutely zilch to do with anal sex which is what the topic is...yes? So please pay attention to what you say and make it relevant because you've wasted so much of my time on your nonsense...

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

It is subjective and to me it is not right.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

So is that another word you want to take over?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

Actually glasses can occur in nature when lightning strikes sand.

Also humans are part of nature, so anything we do is therefore natural.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I do not follow your logic...or lack thereof...on the subject of anal sex being an unsound practice morally....what has abstinence got to do with it? Now I know abstinence means no descendants...but so would castration, infanticide, Adam murdering Eve before giving birth to the first child, etc., etc....but the point is that abstinence and all these other unlikely possibilities have absolutely zilch to do with anal sex which is what the topic is...yes? So please pay attention to what you say and make it relevant because you've wasted so much of my time on your nonsense...

If your argument is that homosexuality is wrong because other animals do not do it (which is false) then abstinence must be as well.

YOU pay attention.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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

So any science that goes against your fantasy novel is pseudo-science?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually glasses can occur in nature when lightning strikes sand.

Also humans are part of nature, so anything we do is therefore natural.

Glasses as in spectacles, not glass.

Unnatural is artificial, man made, synthetic or inorganic. If natural were to equal everything than you might as well toss the term out because it no longer has any descriptive value.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Glasses as in spectacles, not glass.

Unnatural is artificial, man made, synthetic or inorganic. If natural were to equal everything than you might as well toss the term out because it no longer has any descriptive value.

1) I thought you meant glasses in the sense of plural glass.

2) The term is useful for distinguishing the idea of the supernatural from the reality of the natural.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So is that another word you want to take over?

What are talking about?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

What are talking about?

The meaning of the prefix true is not dictated by your religion.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

1) I thought you meant glasses in the sense of plural glass.

2) The term is useful for distinguishing the idea of the supernatural from the reality of the natural.

Unnatural =/= Supernatural though. Most supernatural believers I know don't believe supernatural is unnatural but a category of natural beyond current understanding or empirical testing. The two aren't used synonymously. Unnatural is used synonymously with artificial, however.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

natural beyond current understanding or empirical testing.

Why would someone claim to believe in something that by definition cannot be rationally believed? LOL

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If your argument is that homosexuality is wrong because other animals do not do it (which is false) then abstinence must be as well.

YOU pay attention.

Good grief......read my words in the quote you responded to...your post #1929....where is the word animal even mentioned??? The irony of asking me to pay attention and you are too obtuse to even know your response makes no sense and has no relevance to what you quoted... time waster!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Why would someone claim to believe in something that by definition cannot be rationally believed? LOL

You'd have to ask someone who believes in supernatural things. I'm not one of them. Just talking about word usage.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The meaning of the prefix true is not dictated by your religion.

You are hopeless....the word 'true' is not a prefix....it is an adjective...and I can assure you my religion is not dictating it....in fact have no idea what you mean by my religion dictating it?

 

[MountainPine]

It is subjective and to me it is not right.

No offense, but for the sole purpose of example, if I believed it was okay to rape women and I broke into your mother's house and raped her, then you would have no right to hate me for it but have respect for my subjective morality. See the error in your logic? Morality is not subjective.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Morality is not subjective.

It clearly is subjective. In this thread for example we have some people arguing that it is right to discriminate against gays, and others arguing that it is wrong.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Spiny...the thread is about homosexuality in the context of biblical teaching......shellfish is way off topic....but it is your standard mo to misdirect and create strawman digressions...kids..

No, shellfish is very relevant because you have claimed the Bible as a source of authority on moral questions. I really think you should "clam" up on this point now.