• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The bible and gays

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
no, there is nothing that indicates that sex is for reproduction only. its a large part of it but it isnt the only thing im not even sure if reproduction is the primary function or not.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion at all
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I have my own rationalizations why these things are wrong, wholly apart from the bible and i believe even stronger arguments than given by religion. however i wouldnt mind if my partner asked me to perform anal sex on her or if she did a blowjob i wouldnt give a crap about these rationalization for these things being wrong.

My reason are: while the vagina's primarely function is sex the anus and mouth are not used for sex and thus are basically not 'made' or 'designed' to be used for these actions. the anus and mouth have different primary functions. so it is wrong to use wrong body parts for something they arent made for. for example you wouldnt put your penis into somebodies ear because the primery function of the ear is to listen not to have sex with. How good is this, what do you think?
Wait, you're opposed to anal sex but you'd have anal sex if your female partner wanted it?
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
While I recognise that this particular post wasn't addressed to me, I feel compelled to respond. Jo, not all Christians will tell you to deny your sexuality. As you already are aware, there are many denominations which are welcoming and affirming of people who are LGBT. Secondly, the verses used by many Christians as sweeping condemnation of homosexuals in general are actually referring to men (not women) and acts of anal sex (so, that means that lesbians are out of the equation), and even then, there are only two or three of them in the ENTIRE BIBLE. Third, coming from that, there are (obviously) FAR more verses in Scripture that talk about and condemn immorality among heterosexuals than homosexuals (but do you see us complaining about it?) So my ending question for you is: why you trippin', yo?
I understand that DJ and thank you but as you will have noted, the very next post (#1166) was a slam against gays, and in particular, lesbians. It gets very very old.
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
I understand that DJ and thank you but as you will have noted, the very next post (#1166) was a slam against gays, and in particular, lesbians. It gets very very old.
Dont take it too personal or be disgusted by it: What do you think of anal sex(since we're talking about homosexuality)? I heard many females says: 'I am no hooker so i dont want to do that.' Are you of a similar extraction or do you think gays are in their perfect right to do it(without being denegraded or equalized to 'hookers')?
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
That would still be wrong though. It does not produce life and body parts are pretty understood now I think...we don't need to be confused with them.
Again, in your opinion. You are free to believe whatever you want. You are not free to tell me what is natural or not.
 

JoStories

Well-Known Member
Dont take it too personal or be disgusted by it: What do you think of anal sex(since we're talking about homosexuality)? I heard many females says: 'I am no hooker so i dont want to do that.' Or you of a similar extraction or do you think gays are in their perfect right to do it(without being denegraded or equalized to 'hookers')?
I think that whatever sexual act a couple wants to participate in is up to them. And frankly, none of my business. I have my own preferences and you likely have yours. And those are private issues that are none of the other's business. What I find distasteful are people who pass judgment on me based on a book.
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
I think that whatever sexual act a couple wants to participate in is up to them. And frankly, none of my business. I have my own preferences and you likely have yours. And those are private issues that are none of the other's business. What I find distasteful are people who pass judgment on me based on a book.
How do you deal with someone who has actual arguments, without necessarely adhereing to religious scripiture, that certain sexual acts are irrational?
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
How do you deal with someone who has actual arguments, without necessarely adhereing to religious scripiture, that certain sexual acts are irrational?
But you yourself have an exception to the rule "if she wants it". I don't see you having an argument here even you find worth defending.
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
But you yourself have an exception to the rule "if she wants it". I don't see you having an argument here even you find worth defending.
Because it depends on the person. We all do irrational things in our life, especially if youre in love. If your partner wants you to give her flowers every valintines day then its not a rational thing to do(who needs flowers?) but you still do it to bring a smile on her face.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
So you are for anal and oral intercourse if it's love, but just regular intercourse if there is no love. You know that homosexual attraction is just like the one we heterosexuals have, so what are you against?
 

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
So you are for anal and oral intercourse if it's love, but just regular intercourse if there is no love. You know that homosexual attraction is just like the one we heterosexuals have, so what are you against?
Thats not my exact words. Im for it if she takes the initiative to to ask for something stupid, with conviction. Im against it if she doesnt want or is neutral towards it, because the bodyparts are not for sex. Homosexual relationships and specifically the intercourse is irrational from the get-go in this view.

You know, its like telling your children that Santa Claus is brining them presents(irrational) knowing fully well that you are the one hiding it under the tree so that they may receive joy. It is not necessarey for you to lie to them, especially if you want to raise rational children. Same with this intercourse argument.
 

Pudding

Well-Known Member
Indeed, we do many irrational things and are not free of error. It is better to avoid them if you cant get any joy out of them.
Sure, we should avoid to do irrational things, but the standards of how things is irrational may greatly differ from people to people. A group may have the rights to continually advice/told another B group that B group is irrational for doing somethings, but B group may also have the rights to continually explain why what they do is not irrational and refuse to do as what A group have say.

It's okay to debate who is right, but it's not okay to force one's standards of rationality upon other group to follow. As long as one doesn't infringe others' human rights, then i don't see any problem with what they do.

One can't get any joy out of something? Then don't do it.
If others want to do that something, should anyone forbid them to do so? Maybe they should only be forbidden to do so if what they do infringe others' human rights, physically and mentally harming others. If not, i don't see why they should be forbidden.
edit
 
Last edited:

Princeps Eugenius

Active Member
Sure, we should avoid to do irrational things, but the standards of how things is irrational may greatly differ from people to people. A group may have the rights to continually advice/told another B group that B group is irrational for doing somethings, but B group may also have the rights to continually explain why what they do is not irrational and refuse to do as what A group have say.

It's okay to debate who is right, but it's not okay to force one's standards of rationality upon other group to follow. As long as one doesn't infringe others' human rights, then i don't see any problem with what they do.
there is only one truth and one rationality. since when does 1+1=/=2?
 
Top