It's not a problem for animals to have sex with the same sex

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The fact that there are drugs out there to be taken by homosexuals specifically designed to help low the risk of STDs from homosexuality is all you need to know about how disgusting and bad it is.

You called an entire group of people "disgusting" and "bad". When it was pointed out to you that you were being biggoted by judging a whole group of people based on the questionable behavior of a portion of that community, you waved it off. Then you insulted "me" for not knowing the drug name was "Truvada". So yeah. You are being insulting.

To say the least.

I guess I've been living in a shell; thinking that the worst of the discrimination against LGBT was behind us.

I need to rethink that.

 

[Earthtank]

You called an entire group of people "disgusting" and "bad". When it was pointed out to you that you were being biggoted by judging a whole group of people based on the questionable behavior of a portion of that community, you waved it off. Then you insulted "me" for not knowing the drug name was "Truvada". So yeah. You are being insulting.

To say the least.

I guess I've been living in a shell; thinking that the worst of the discrimination against LGBT was behind us.

I need to rethink that.

Another pro victim here. I would not expect you to be to actually take what i said, instead of what you manipulated it to be to fit your victim narrative. My words of "how disgusting and bad it is." were referring to the sexual act of homosexuality, not homosexuals. But, hey, its what pro victims do, they try to take every comment and see how far they can stretch it in an attempt to be able to have it cover and offend as many people as possible. Quite sad really.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Another pro victim here. I would not expect you to be to actually take what i said, instead of what you manipulated it to be to fit your victim narrative. My words of "how disgusting and bad it is." were referring to the sexual act of homosexuality, not homosexuals. But, hey, its what pro victims do, they try to take every comment and see how far they can stretch it in an attempt to be able to have it cover and offend as many people as possible. Quite sad really.

What "sexual act of homosexuality"? You mean anal sex? Straight people do that, too. There's nothing gay men do with each other that straight people don't. So what makes it so bad or disgusting? That it's man on man? That's all? Is the male body repulsive to you? If you're a guy, are you disgusted by your own body? That's not very rational.

Of course, this doesn't even get into lesbians. But it's the same with them. There's only so many things humans can do with each other sexually.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Another pro victim here. I would not expect you to be to actually take what i said, instead of what you manipulated it to be to fit your victim narrative. My words of "how disgusting and bad it is." were referring to the sexual act of homosexuality, not homosexuals. But, hey, its what pro victims do, they try to take every comment and see how far they can stretch it in an attempt to be able to have it cover and offend as many people as possible. Quite sad really.

I'm not gay.

So why, in your opinion, is a gay relationship disgusting or bad? Does this equally apply to both male and female gay relationships? If we were to remove promiscuity with fidelity, would it still feel the same way? If we were to remove anal sex from the relationship, does that change your view? Or if we removed sex altogether; just two gays involved in a romantic, deep friendship, would you still find it wrong?

 

[Earthtank]

I'm not gay.

So why, in your opinion, is a gay relationship disgusting or bad? Does this equally apply to both male and female gay relationships? If we were to remove promiscuity with fidelity, would it still feel the same way? If we were to remove anal sex from the relationship, does that change your view? Or if we removed sex altogether; just two gays involved in a romantic, deep friendship, would you still find it wrong?

Its so funny and ironic when atheists try to talk about right and wrong

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

• First Responder
• Medical professional
• Working with homeless
• Cohabitating with an HIV positive person
• Military duty stationed in areas with high rates of HIV
• Working, residing or doing business in the same
• Corrections Officer
• Working in mental health facilities
• Drug Abuse Rehab worker

All of these would constitute some pretty darned good reasons to consider Truvada.
But this guy thinks its just for gays.
Sheesh.

 

[InChrist]

Could you, then, quote the scripture and/or scriptures that specifically state that a monogamous same-sex relationship is harmful? Just something that explicitly states that and not a scripture that you have to manipulate and massage in order to try to imply that that is what it says.

I don't believe that is the way the scriptures work. They are not meant to be picked apart in single isolated verses to prove or disprove someone's own personal theology or desire. The Bible in it's entirety reveals God's perspective, standards, and will for humanity, which I believe is always in our best interest based in His perfect love.
It is very obvious when taking the whole counsel of the scriptures that God designed male and female and brought them together in relationship (Genesis 2:24) and whenever the Bible speaks about a marriage relationship it is always in reference to a man and woman. On the other hand, homosexuality is always addressed as wrong and a behavior outside of God's will. I don't see that a monogamous relationship would change God's view on homosexuality. If it is outside of God's will for humans then it is harmful, as is anything that is outside of God's will or design.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Point to ponder.

I can explain why killing is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why stealing is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it,
I can explain why most parents should be obeyed by their parents; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why falsely accusing someone is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why child molestation and sexual assault are wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why polygamy is highly questionable and probably wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it
I can explain why fidelity and faithfulness are good virtues for couples to have; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why love, joy, hope, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control are really great qualities to have; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why violence and cruelty to each other, ourselves or the other living creatures that share our planet is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.

But none of you can tell me why homosexuality is wrong without invoking your religion

Think about that.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That was never said. We are, by definition, animals.

You are definitely correct. That was just my poor attempt at a joke in responding to Earthtank, who said this:

Earthtank said: ↑
Because man is NOT an animal unless they choose to act like one.

Since he stated that man is NOT an animal, I wondered if he considered man to be either plant or mineral. For some reason, he didn't respond.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

No. Incidental sterility is not the same as sterility by design or nature. An act must be ordered towards its proper end. That does not mean that the procreative end must be assured to happen with each and every act. A man and woman who come together are always in principle procreative unless they engage in acts that frustrate the telos intentionally. Sin lies in the will. A wilful act of sex which is sterile by intent is where the sin lies.

Well, looks like you just opened up yet another can of worms. A couple who, because of the disability of one partner, cannot engage in anything other than a "sterile by intent" sex act is sinning? For instance, the husband is confined to a wheelchair, so the couple engage in intimacies involving oral and/or manual stimulation. You consider that couple to be sinning?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I don't believe that is the way the scriptures work. They are not meant to be picked apart in single isolated verses to prove or disprove someone's own personal theology or desire. The Bible in it's entirety reveals God's perspective, standards, and will for humanity, which I believe is always in our best interest based in His perfect love.
It is very obvious when taking the whole counsel of the scriptures that God designed male and female and brought them together in relationship (Genesis 2:24) and whenever the Bible speaks about a marriage relationship it is always in reference to a man and woman. On the other hand, homosexuality is always addressed as wrong and a behavior outside of God's will. I don't see that a monogamous relationship would change God's view on homosexuality. If it is outside of God's will for humans then it is harmful, as is anything that is outside of God's will or design.

In other words, you know that there are NO scriptures stating that homosexuality is "harmful" or even "sinful". Homosexuality is not addressed at all in the scriptures unless you try to twist the injunction against heterosexuals abandoning their "natural" urges in order to engage in same-sex relations (which was quite prevalent, especially with temple prostitutes) into a condemnation of homosexuality.

You choose to demonize those who are different from you by invoking "God" and "sin" simply because you can't accept that there are many differences to be found in humans, just as there are many differences to be found throughout creation. And those differences do not mean that God is going to condemn anyone for being "different."

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Another pro victim here. I would not expect you to be to actually take what i said, instead of what you manipulated it to be to fit your victim narrative. My words of "how disgusting and bad it is." were referring to the sexual act of homosexuality, not homosexuals. But, hey, its what pro victims do, they try to take every comment and see how far they can stretch it in an attempt to be able to have it cover and offend as many people as possible. Quite sad really.

Excuse me? There IS no "sexual act of homosexuality." Heterosexual couples engage in exactly the same types of sexual acts as homosexuals. For that matter, lesbians don't engage in the "sexual act of homosexuality" to which I believe you are referring.

You could, however, know about some prevalent sexual act that is exclusive to homosexuals (both male and female) that cannot be engaged in by heterosexuals? Could you please let us know what that is? Thanks.

 

[InChrist]

In other words, you know that there are NO scriptures stating that homosexuality is "harmful" or even "sinful". Homosexuality is not addressed at all in the scriptures unless you try to twist the injunction against heterosexuals abandoning their "natural" urges in order to engage in same-sex relations (which was quite prevalent, especially with temple prostitutes) into a condemnation of homosexuality.

You choose to demonize those who are different from you by invoking "God" and "sin" simply because you can't accept that there are many differences to be found in humans, just as there are many differences to be found throughout creation. And those differences do not mean that God is going to condemn anyone for being "different."

No. I am not demonizing those who are different. I am only demonizing "sin" which really all, including myself, are guilty of. In my view being "different" does not excuse what the scriptures plainly reveal as sin.

"1. Homosexual desire is not what God originally intended. This is not to say that homosexual desire is the only thing that God did not originally intend. All of our desires have been distorted by sin. But Paul does describe both lesbian and male homosexual behaviour as “unnatural.” Some have argued this refers to what is natural to the people themselves, so that what is in view is heterosexual people engaging in homosexual activity and thereby going against their “natural” orientation. According to this view, Paul is not condemning all homosexual behaviour, but only that which goes against the person’s own sexual inclinations. But this view cannot be supported by the passage itself. The words for “natural” and “against nature” refer not to our subjective experience of what feels natural to us, but to the fixed way of things in creation. The nature that Paul says homosexual behaviour contradicts is God’s purpose for us, revealed in creation and reiterated throughout Scripture."


"So what does all this mean for our understanding of homosexuality?


1. Homosexual sin is serious. Paul says the active and unrepentant homosexual, as with all active, unrepentant sinners, will not enter God’s kingdom. Paul urges his readers not to be deceived on this point. He assumes there will be those who deny this teaching, and argue that some forms of homosexual conduct are acceptable to God. But Paul is clear: homosexual conduct leads people to destruction. This is a serious issue.


2. Homosexual sin is not unique. Paul’s list includes other forms of sexual sin (sexual immorality and adultery), and it includes non-sexual forms of sin (drunkenness and theft, for example). Homosexual sin is incredibly serious, but it is not alone in being so. It is wicked, but so is, say, greed. We must not imply that homosexual sex is the sin of our age. If we are to be faithful to Scripture, we must also preach against theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and defrauding others, many of which are also trivialised in our society, and all of which also characterize the unrighteous.


3. Homosexual sin is not inescapable. Paul continues in verse 11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).


These forms of behaviour are not appropriate for the Corinthian church precisely because it is not who they are any more. Some of them clearly had been active homosexuals. They did once live in these ways. But no more. They have been washed, sanctified and justified; forgiven, cleansed from their sins, and set apart for God. They have a new standing and identity before him.


However ingrained it may be in someone’s behaviour, homosexual conduct is not inescapable. It is possible for someone living a practicing gay lifestyle to be made new by God. Temptations and feelings may well linger. That Paul is warning his readers not to revert to their former way of life suggests there is still some desire to do so. But in Christ we are no longer who we were. Those who have come out of an active gay lifestyle need to understand how to see themselves. What defined us then no longer defines us now. "

"Conclusion

Attempts to read these texts as anything other than prohibitions of homosexual behaviour do not ultimately work. The plain reading of each passage is the right one. It is homosexual practice in general, rather than only certain expressions of it, which are forbidden in Scripture. To attempt to demonstrate otherwise is to violate the passages themselves. Yet these very same texts list homosexuality alongside many other forms of behaviour that are also against God’s will. The very passages that show us that homosexual activity is a sin, make it very clear that it is not a unique sin. It is one example of what is wrong with all of us."

excerpts from:
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out

 

[InChrist]

Point to ponder.

I can explain why killing is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why stealing is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it,
I can explain why most parents should be obeyed by their parents; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why falsely accusing someone is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why child molestation and sexual assault are wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why polygamy is highly questionable and probably wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it
I can explain why fidelity and faithfulness are good virtues for couples to have; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why love, joy, hope, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self control are really great qualities to have; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.
I can explain why violence and cruelty to each other, ourselves or the other living creatures that share our planet is wrong; and I don't have to use the bible to do it.

But none of you can tell me why homosexuality is wrong without invoking your religion

Think about that.

I would ask you to explain your "whys" to all the points you made above without the Bible, but then again it would get off track from this thread. Maybe you'll start a thread on the subject sometime.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans copying animals generally doesn't lead to the most civilised behaviour.

Even if you support homosexual sex, this argument is bad.

What this says is not that "humans are copying animals" when being homosexual, any more then humans are copying animals when they are breathing or eating.

What it actually says, is that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

It means that it's not "some 'lifestyle' free choice by humans who love sin" or whatever religious mumbo-jumbo claims theistic homophobes like to make about the subject.

 

[Rival]

What this says is not that "humans are copying animals" when being homosexual, any more then humans are copying animals when they are breathing or eating.

What it actually says, is that homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

It means that it's not "some 'lifestyle' free choice by humans who love sin" or whatever religious mumbo-jumbo claims theistic homophobes like to make about the subject.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that just because it occurs in nature that has no bearing on its morality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The concept of sin is from the scriptures and according to the scriptures humans, not animals, were made in God's image and designed By God to function and live in certain ways and not others, So I'd say that according to God's design for humans, homosexual sex is sinful or wrong because it is outside of God's design for the best way for humans to function and interact, irregardless of animal behavior. Although, the large majority of animals practice heterosexual sex for reproduction and the scriptures also reveal that this world is in a fallen state so that all of nature is corrupted, which would include the animals. So looking to animal behavior is not necessarily wise.

I'ld say that your "argument" is self-defeating....

Because if "right" is that which is in compliance with god's design, then prohibiting people to express their own sexuality, is what should be sinfull.

God's design happens to include gay people.
Forbidding them to be gay, would thus be against god's design.

If god didn't want gay people, maybe he shouldn't have designed gay people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And also the scientists thinking it might have biological benefits to it.

It's also very possible that there is another, related (directly or indirectly), trait that IS actually evolutionary relevant and of which the occasional homosexual individual is but a side effect. And that in that way, homosexuality kind of "piggy backed" on the evolutionary wave of that other trait, which is actually the thing that selection favours.

However to me though, all that isn't really relevant in a discussion of whether or not it's okay to be gay.
Just like it doesn't matter to me how evolution made us end up with white and black people. No matter what that explanation is, it's not really going to change anything in the discussion of wheter or not it is okay to be black......

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think it is a matter of whether God "doesn't like it", rather it is outside of His design and therefore not optimal or beneficial for anyone.

If god designed humans, then it's not outside his design because the fact is that homosexual humans exist.