Do you expect your wife to submit to you?

Originally posted by vivify
I here this a lot from Christians. Host, turrets no biblical stipulation saying a wife is allied to stop obeying her husband if he doesn't love her that much. What if he doesn't love her at all, but at least treats her with basic respect? In that case, the wife is still obliged to submit. In fact, even if he's a jerk to her (not really abusive, just a jerk) sure must still submit.

I know of a women that doesn't want her son to play soccer but in respecting her husband is letting the son play soccer because the husband wants him to.

The Proverbs 31:10-31 (NOG) The women you what as a wife:
A Poem in Hebrew Alphabetical Order

10
“Who can find a wife with a strong character?
She is worth far more than jewels.
11
Her husband trusts her with all his heart,
and he does not lack anything good.
12
She helps him and never harms him all the days of her life.
13
“She seeks out wool and linen with care
and works with willing hands.
14
She is like merchant ships.
She brings her food from far away.
15
She wakes up while it is still dark
and gives food to her family
and portions of food to her female slaves.
16
“She picks out a field and buys it.
She plants a vineyard from the profits she has earned.
17
She puts on strength like a belt
and goes to work with energy.
18
She sees that she is making a good profit.
Her lamp burns late at night.
19
“She puts her hands on the distaff,
and her fingers hold a spindle.
20
She opens her hands to oppressed people
and stretches them out to needy people.
21
She does not fear for her family when it snows
because her whole family
has a double layer of clothing.
22
She makes quilts for herself.
Her clothes are made of linen and purple cloth.
23
“Her husband is known at the city gates
when he sits with the leaders of the land.
24
“She makes linen garments and sells them
and delivers belts to the merchants.
25
She dresses with strength and nobility,
and she smiles at the future.
26
“She speaks with wisdom,
and on her tongue there is tender instruction.
27
She keeps a close eye on the conduct of her family,
and she does not eat the bread of idleness.
28
Her children and her husband
stand up and bless her.
In addition, he sings her praises, by saying,
29
‘Many women have done noble work,
but you have surpassed them all!’
30
“Charm is deceptive, and beauty evaporates,
but a woman who has the fear of Yahweh should be praised.
31
Reward her for what she has done,
and let her achievements praise her at the city gates.”

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's rather unpleasant, are you intoxicated?

Originally posted by C Hess
Yes, Mr. Carrobie, but the question is whether or not you feel the urge to engage in any kind of sexual activity. I find other men to be sexually unappealing, but if I was attracted sexually to men, and not women, who the hell are you to tell me that this would be a simple matter of choice for me? Also, I'll never understand this obsession with other p ...[text shortened]... if I was a hunk.

(Come to think of it, I seem to have unconsciously gone for boobs.)

Now you are now falling into fiction dear Hess. I have not once attempted to moralise over anyone nor have I made it my business to pry into the sexual practices of others. Is the same as someone saying all atheists have pointy ears and reason like Spok.

As far as choice goes it stands to reason. As a free moral agent you can choose to engage in any type of sexual act you desire. You are not coerced by some genetic disposition to do so, because predisposition is not the same as causation, is it.

You people need to stop trying to hinge everything on genetics and face up to the fact that human beings are responsible for their own actions.

Originally posted by sonship
Does anyone think seriously on the physiology of the male body and the female body to ascertain what nature seems to equip each for.

It is the physical design, the [b]plumbing of the way the male and female body is that hints to the complementary functions they have.

Not going along with the physiological plumbing of the design is to kind of b ...[text shortened]... d each with.

The "plumbing" so to speak, agrees with male / female complimentary function.[/b]

You are making a critical error. [as well as logical fallacies]

We were never designed.

We evolved, and evolution is a blind process with no directing mind.

Evolution will, in the right circumstances, select for cannibalism of other
peoples children to promote your own genetic code and improve the
chances of your own children surviving.

Evolution will promote ANY change that improves the odds of passing
your genetic code on to the next generation.

Evolution does not give us moral imperatives.

Just because we didn't evolve to fly is not a good or moral reason not
to get in an air-plane or go hang-gliding.

It should also be noted that homosexuality is observed throughout the
animal kingdom, and appears to actually give benefits to the survivability
of the species [in many cases] at a certain level of prevalence.


It is in fact highly likely that evolution actually selected for the increased
probability that subsequent human sons have of being gay.
The more older brothers you have, the greater the probability that you will
be gay.

The reason being that family members are likely to share most of your DNA and
thus there is an evolutionary pressure to help ensure your families survival
even at times over the chance of passing on your own DNA.

Brothers can be [and often were] rivals, both for power and sexual mates.
They could also be potential allies and provide hunters and defenders for the
family/tribe.

Having gay brothers who were not about to pose a sexual threat but who
could still help hunt and fight [inta-tribal wars, ect] were probably beneficial
and increased your chances of reproducing and passing on your genes.


This mechanism works not just on humans but on Apes and Monkeys which
live in social groups, and in which the males typically do any hunting, fight
for the right to mate and lead the group, and also fight in any 'wars' with
other groups.



More formally you are committing the naturalistic fallacy by arguing that because
something is 'natural' it is thus better/morally good.

This is, in this case, wrong twice because given that homosexuality is not just
present but common in the animal kingdom, and we ourselves are members of the
animal kingdom, homosexuality is itself natural.

Originally posted by divegeester
That's rather unpleasant, are you intoxicated?

He'd be banned if a mod reads it.

And deservedly so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now you are now falling into fiction dear Hess. I have not once attempted to moralise over anyone nor have I made it my business to pry into the sexual practices of others. Is the same as someone saying all atheists have pointy ears and reason like Spok.

As far as choice goes it stands to reason. As a free moral agent you can choose to engage in ...[text shortened]... ing on genetics and face up to the fact that human beings are responsible for their own actions.

just to clarify robbie, you would have no problems gaining and sustaining an erection in a sexual encounter with another man..if you decided to?

does this logic apply to all things? for example could you decide to be aroused by pigs, or teapots, or maybe even big hairy scottish women???

Originally posted by googlefudge

You are making a critical error. [as well as logical fallacies]

We were never designed.

The critical error is yours.

We evolved, and evolution is a blind process with no directing mind.

That is your religious faith speaking.

Evolution will, in the right circumstances, select

Doesn't "select". It mindless, goaless, selectless.

for cannibalism of other
peoples children to promote your own genetic code and improve the
chances of your own children surviving.

A goalless, mindless, purposeless thing has no thought, no intention to "improve" anything.

Evolution will promote ANY change that improves the odds of passing
your genetic code on to the next generation.

A goalless, mindless, purposeless "whatever" doesn't "promote" anything.

Evolution does not give us moral imperatives.

Just because we didn't evolve to fly is not a good or moral reason not
to get in an air-plane or go hang-gliding.

It should also be noted that homosexuality is observed throughout the
animal kingdom,

Should we do it just because its observed in the animal kingdom?
There are plenty of things observed in the animal kingdom which we ought not to play copycat to just because of that.

and appears to actually give benefits to the survivability
of the species [in many cases] at a certain level of prevalence.

If whole nation goes homosexual there will be no next generation produced. It seems to be to be a recipe for extinction.

It is in fact highly likely that evolution actually selected

Mindless, goalless, purposeless evolution shouldn't be thought to "select" anything.

for the increased
probability that subsequent human sons have of being gay.
The more older brothers you have, the greater the probability that you will
be gay.

I think the more college grads and Phds. wanting to publish a controversial authoritative sounding papers and books on rationalizing homosexual living the greater the probability that impressionable minds will be led into thinking they should be homosexuals.

More formally you are committing the naturalistic fallacy by arguing that because something is 'natural' it is thus better/morally good.

The physiology of the male body and the female body is just right for the intended purpose of coupling. I don't think you can improve upon it.

The anus is made for another function than what the homosexual man desires to pretend it is. It is better to go along with the way God designed us. Its a least a starting place if not a completely utopian arrangement.

Originally posted by sonship
Does anyone think seriously on the physiology of the male body and the female body to ascertain what nature seems to equip each for.

It is the physical design, the [b]plumbing of the way the male and female body is that hints to the complementary functions they have.

Not going along with the physiological plumbing of the design is to kind of b ...[text shortened]... d each with.

The "plumbing" so to speak, agrees with male / female complimentary function.[/b]

It is the physical design, the [b]plumbing of the way the male and female body is that hints to the complementary functions they have. [/b]


are there any naturally occurring, designed things that you use for purposes they were not designed for?


"play acting"

this has me baffled. what do you think people are 'play acting'.

Originally posted by sonship

You are making a critical error. [as well as logical fallacies]

We were never designed.

The critical error is yours.

We evolved, and evolution is a blind process with no directing mind.

That is your religious faith speaking.

Evolution will, in the right circumstances, select

Doesn't ...[text shortened]... h the way God designed us. Its a least a starting place if not a completely utopian arrangement.

The anus is made for another function than what the homosexual man desires to pretend it is.

so is just homosexual men that cant have anal sex, as you seem to be specifically saying homosexual men?

you are also specifically talking about anal sex, does this mean it is okay for homosexual men to indulge in sexual activity with other men, as long as no anal sex is involved?

Originally posted by stellspalfie

are there any naturally occurring, designed things that you use for purposes they were not designed for? [quote]

So now we get busy to search for at least one exception.
This thinking I don't think is that important.

"As long as we can locate ONE exception, we discard the general principle" kind of rationale, seems often the next step for the promotion of deviancy.

[quote]
"play acting"

this has me baffled.

I don't know why this should "baffle" you.

what do you think people are 'play acting'.

Why do they call the difference "Gay" and "Straight" ?
Why didn't they speak of Homosexual as "Straight" ?

I think the connotation of Straight verses something other than straight suggests a degree of innovation to imitate. And that is to pretend - to play act.

Maybe it will come to that in another 20 years. Maybe in the future the heterosexual "deviants" will be contemptuously called "Breeders". And the homosexuals will call themselves "Straight."

Anyway, I am into the love of Jesus Christ for all sinners - heterosexual sinners and homosexual sinners. We need help with our problems from the Lord and Savior. And He happens to be the Creator as well, become a man.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The husbands role is simply to rubber stamp mutual decisions. Its a very strange relationship where a husband and wife don't discuss decisions together.

Originally posted by sonship

You are making a critical error. [as well as logical fallacies]

We were never designed.

The critical error is yours.

We evolved, and evolution is a blind process with no directing mind.

That is your religious faith speaking.

Evolution will, in the right circumstances, select

Doesn't ...[text shortened]... h the way God designed us. Its a least a starting place if not a completely utopian arrangement.

You are making a critical error. [as well as logical fallacies]

We were never designed.

The critical error is yours.

We evolved, and evolution is a blind process with no directing mind.

That is your religious faith speaking.

No, I have NO faith, let alone religious faith. Do try to remember that.
YOU are the one of the two of us who believes based on faith and who
is religious. Neither of which is true of me.

Evolution will, in the right circumstances, select

Doesn't "select". It mindless, goaless, selectless.

for cannibalism of other peoples children to promote your own
genetic code and improve the chances of your own children surviving.

A goalless, mindless, purposeless thing has no thought, no intention to "improve"
anything.

Evolution works by "Natural Selection", this is why it is in fact called
"Evolution by Natural Selection".

No mind or intention is required to do this selecting.
Simply those individuals that have genetic codes that give them traits that
improve their chances of reproducing successfully will be more likely to pass on
those genes to the next generation leading to those genes becoming more prevalent
in succeeding generations.

This is basic evolution theory here, you should know this by now, have you not listened
to anything we have said for all these years?

Also this breaking into sentence and commenting before they are finished is likely to
lead you to make mistakes by not comprehending the whole. It's also a pain in the
ass to respond to.

Evolution will promote ANY change that improves the odds of passing
your genetic code on to the next generation.

A goalless, mindless, purposeless "whatever" doesn't "promote" anything.

Again, words have more than one meaning. It makes sense to use the right one.

I am simply saying here that genes that confer survival benefits will be more likely
to be passed on and will become more prevalent [get promoted] because of the
process of Evolution.

This also seems to be a repeat of the last interjection... You couldn't have done
them both at the end rather than keep interrupting with the same [wrong] point?

Evolution does not give us moral imperatives.

Just because we didn't evolve to fly is not a good or moral reason not
to get in an air-plane or go hang-gliding.

It should also be noted that homosexuality is observed throughout the
animal kingdom,

Should we do it just because its observed in the animal kingdom?
There are plenty of things observed in the animal kingdom which we ought not to
play copycat to just because of that.

No. We shouldn't do stuff just because other animals do things, and/or because
it is natural.
We shouldn't not do stuff just because other animals do things, and/or because
it is natural either.

Of course you would know this if you waited till the end of my post where I expressly
state that committing the naturalistic fallacy is, well, a fallacy.

I was simply pointing out that any suggestion that being gay isn't natural is wrong as
well as irrelevant.

and appears to actually give benefits to the survivability
of the species [in many cases] at a certain level of prevalence.

If whole nation goes homosexual there will be no next generation produced.
It seems to be to be a recipe for extinction.

This is indeed true... Although I think you meant species instead of nation...
Otherwise this is not true and you're talking nonsense.

However I anticipated this response which is why I included the phrase
"at a certain level of prevalence." thus indicating that a certain level of
homosexuality has survival benefits, that higher levels might not have.

This also fits in with the full description I gave in which I explained that
having younger brothers that don't compete for mates but act as allies
could increase your chances of mating/gaining power successfully.

Obviously if you are also gay this doesn't work. this piecemeal approach
really doesn't seem to work very well. Try to be more holistic...
Or at least try to respond to points rather than sentence fragments.

It is in fact highly likely that evolution actually selected

Mindless, goalless, purposeless evolution shouldn't be thought to "select"
anything.

This seems familiar... Have you made this [erroneous] point several times
before, or am I just imagining it?

When people talked about "Natural Freaking Selection"... what was
it you thought they were talking about?

for the increased probability that subsequent human sons have of being gay.
The more older brothers you have, the greater the probability that you will
be gay.

I think the more college grads and Phds. wanting to publish a controversial authoritative
sounding papers and books on rationalizing homosexual living the greater the probability
that impressionable minds will be led into thinking they should be homosexuals.

I am sure you do. It's one of the drawbacks of believing things based on faith,
and in believing that faith is a valid method OF forming beliefs, that you will
tend to believe things that are not true and are contradicted by all the actual
evidence.

Given that I know that your belief is wrong, I'm not sure why you think I
would care that you believe this... but ok, thanks for telling me...

Next point....

More formally you are committing the naturalistic fallacy by arguing that because
something is 'natural' it is thus better/morally good.

The physiology of the male body and the female body is just right for the intended purpose of
coupling. I don't think you can improve upon it.

This is a serious lack of imagination, and knowledge of biology.
I am not going to go into details, because this is a family rated forum, but while you may
not be able to think of any improvements I sure as hell can, and so can many many other
people... I do not kid when I say books have been written, and entire fictional civilisations
imagined whose appeal lay in large part in the improvements and upgrades made to sex.

The anus is made for another function than what the homosexual man desires to pretend it is.
It is better to go along with the way God designed us. Its a least a starting place if not a completely
utopian arrangement.

What did I JUST say about committing the naturalistic fallacy?

What did I JUST say about whether or not we were designed?

It is indeed a starting place.

A truly bad, irrational, illogical, and horrific starting place that has led to gross breaches
of human rights and dignity and moral atrocities.

Lets NOT start there. It's been tried, it was terrible.

Also this is a simple restating of the original position you gave that I objected to.
Given that you have failed to address any of my points, or expand on your position,
this was basically a pointless waste of time.

If you are going to waste my time... Could you at least do it pithily.