Human Sexuality

[Magena]

you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women.  It is not natural.  That is why I disagree with same sex relations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Define "natural," because homosexuality does occur in other animals in nature than just human beings.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for bring that up. There are animals in nature who don't just have sex to breed. Dolphins for instance just seem to like the touch and feel, because by our standards they are bi-sexual.

 

The other thing is that often, well confuses me on the subject, is that most people like physical interaction. Our society puts as much on "if it's initiated, you need to follow through" as they do on "yuck, how could you do that with <fill in the blank>".

 

It is natural for us to want to be touched and to feel comfortable within the embrase of another. - if it isn't then how come children can die from the lack of human touch? -- but again, the problem comes about when you start stating when someone is on one side or the other of that imaginary mark. Until hormones start overriding any other thoughts in ones mind, then holding hands with someone of the same sex is often seen as cute and totally acceptable. It is that fear of intercourse that causes the problems.

[cewekeds]

Mothman I think your using the wrong word. You really can't disagree with the homosexuals lifestyle and still think its ok for people to live that way. You can say in your beliefs its wrong but thats just your opinion. You claim to be alright with people who choose that life style for themselves. I don't like faith group lifestyle but think they have the right to pray to superman if they like.

[julianw]

I think what Mothman is trying to say is that he respects homosexuals as creations of God just as he does with everybody else.

 

Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, but so is adultery, which many Christians commit. Christians are sinners, too, so they cannot claim superiority in their soul over any one else's. They can only claim that they are more enlightened than others, but that's just my understanding of Christianity, and I am not part of it.

[Dark Moth]

I think what Mothman is trying to say is that he respects homosexuals as creations of God just as he does with everybody else.

 

Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, but so is adultery, which many Christians commit. Christians are sinners, too, so they cannot claim superiority in their soul over any one else's. They can only claim that they are more enlightened than others, but that's just my understanding of Christianity, and I am not part of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Great, Julianw. Couldn't have said it better myself. That's what I'm driving at. My whole philosphy is simply this: I don't agree with you, but I still respect you.

 

@Alanchu: I know, actually I meant it that it's not a normal instinct. Sorry, I should have phrased that differently. But as Lucius said, there's really no point in continuing this argument anyway. Guess I'll have to ignore Metadigital's trolling when it comes.

[metadigital]

...

Well, once you learn the difference between race and lifestyle, I'll get back to you.  And I'm not discriminating against them.  Look up discrimination in your beloved online-dictionary. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see you don't like facts, then? Or why are you so upset that I back up my statements with dictionary defintions, when required?

 

The point about using racist language was not to call you a racist.

 

I know this is difficult for you, so I'll type slowly so that you can keep up.

 

That is what we grown-ups call an analogy. You may have heard of "metaphors" at school.

 

The point is not to transpose the racism, it is to demonstrate that your methodology is flawed. You are acting in an identical way, viz.: making sweeping statements of people based on nothing but your own ignorance.

...I don't treat homosexuals any differently.  Crap, I know some in real life.  I don't hate them or treat them any differently than I would a straight person.  That would be being bigoted; that would be discriminating .  All I merely stated in the first place was that I disagree with it, and suddenly that makes me a bigot, racist, zealot, narrow-minded person, nazi, whatever you want to call me.  I disagree with polygamy, too.  Does that make me a bigot or racist or hypocrite?

...

Crap, now you're discriminating against me cause I'm a Christian.  You can't seem to tolerate people of differing opinions.  Hypocrite. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd like for me to discriminate against you because of your faith, but I do not. I have respect for intelligent people, regardless of their faith or lack of it. I discriminate against you on the basis of intellect.

 

I call it like I see, whether you like it or not. I called you a bigot, because your language is bigoted. I notice you didn't comment on my direct quote fo yours, in which you are being a bigot. Let me highlight it for you:

... you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women.  It is not natural. That is why I disagree with same sex relations.  It is a particular lifestyle I am not comfortable with ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are actively discriminating against them, you are a bigot. "It is not natural."

 

So when I say you're a hiprocrite, you are. For a start you claim to be a tolerant Christian, yet you openly bad-mouth people you have no personal contact with, based on a generalisation and NO information. You are a BIGOT.

n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

A friend of mine, who happened to be HIV positive for over a decade, was an ardent Christian. He saw no contradiction. He went to church every Sunday, last time I spoke to him. Christianity, the great inclusive religion that Jesus Christ started

[metadigital]

...

Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it is not, at least for a lot of the Christians that I have spoken with.

 

I suppose you adhere to the strictest interpretation of the Bible, do you?

 

That masturbation is wrong? And blood transfusions?

 

I think the problem is that you don't know what you are talking about, and spouting off your opinion like it matters.

 

The only reason I am calling you on it, btw, is because your continued bigotry, whether you are aware of it or not, will hurt others in lesser or greater ways.

 

Your ideology needs to be amended, so that we can prevent the spread of suffering. (And you claim to be a Christian.)

[Dark Moth]

:cool: [eating popcorn]

 

That's some quality flaming, metadigital! Keep it up!!

[metadigital]

...

That's some quality flaming, metadigital!  Keep it up!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, as you have no argument I can perfectly understand that you don't want to answer and want to deflect away from the fact.

Just don't forget, the KJV is not the "official" Holy Bible, nor was it even the first English bible.  it's just one popular version among many.    King James merely supervised the translation of the Bible into English.  Also, the Bible is a collection of books written by many different authors over hundreds of years.  In fact, the original languages of the OT were Hebrew/Aramaic while the NT was originally in Greek.  If you already know that, then my bad. 

 

And thank you for arguing in a non-abusive manner.  See, metadigital?  It's not so hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

King James did not "supervise" anything, Henry VIII had William Tyndale burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the Bible into English. James was just the one to rubber stamp it.

 

But you aren't one for details, are you?

[Dark Moth]

I know that, I was referring to him supervising the KJV's translation into English. (although I should have phrased that better) Look at my post more carefully and you'll see that I said it wasn't the first english Bible.

 

And I could argue with you if I want, but I knew that would get me nowhere and decided to ignore your flaming instead. So far you've both misinterpreted me and put words into my mouth. But that's okay, I've made my case already. And seriously, Meta, read the Bible for once and you'll find that it does teach against homosexuality.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[julianw]

Meta - My understanding of Chritianity is that there are minor and major sins. While harming another being is considered a major offense, masturbation and homosexuality would be considered minor sins in Chrisianity. Educate me if it's otherwise.

[Dark Moth]

Meta - My understanding of Chritianity is that there are minor and major sins. While harming another being is considered a major offense, masturbation and homosexuality would be considered minor sins in Chrisianity. Educate me if it's otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, the bible does teach against homosexuality. And it is one of the more minor of sins. And we can't single out homosexuals as sinners, because we are all sinners. It's just one of the issues that tend to create more controversy these days.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[metadigital]

I know that, I was referring to him supervising the KJV's translation into English. (although I should have phrased that better) Look at my post more carefully and you'll see that I said it wasn't the first english Bible. 

 

And I could argue with you if I want, but I knew that would get me nowhere and decided to ignore your flaming instead.  So far you've both misinterpreted me and put words into my mouth.  But that's okay, I've made my case already.  And seriously, Meta, read the Bible for once and you'll find that it does teach against homosexuality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have read the entire Bible, have you?

 

Furthermore, I have lived a life not isolated from real people, cosetted in an artificial reality where bogus notions of what is "natural" are fostered and foisted on unsuspecting gullible fools, under the guise of wisdom.

 

If your message weren't so dangerous, your obliviousness notwithstanding, I wouldn't bother trying to correct you.

 

You are preaching a dangerous form of intolerance.

 

"I don't mid, BUT it is not natural" is one step from "it is not natural, so it is forbidden". You are already claiming the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, and therefore is a sin.

 

You are dangerous. You are so feebleminded that you don't even realise how wrong you are.

 

You seem to think I'm flaming you for some arbitrary reason. I am flaming your bigoted attitude.

 

Repent! Salvation is at hand.

[Hydrogen]

Thread closed due to trolling, flaming, personal assaults, and general derailment throughout.