07 Nov 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo what's the deal with homosexuals joining your organisation if they do not engage in sodomy and oral sex? Surely there is no problem if it's only the 'acts' that are prohibited?!
well ok then, perhaps we have learned something, we shall differentiate between
homosexuals who practice anal sex and those who do not. I do not think that the
dangers of anal sex were exclusively applied to homosexuals, clearly the physiological
basis was provided irrespective of the consideration of whether a homosexual or a
heterosexual e ...[text shortened]... d for the consideration of
those who do not accept any of the biblical mandates or principles.
07 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyes, this would be the case I think, no one can be condemned for an act that they have
So what's the deal with homosexuals joining your organisation if they do not engage in sodomy and oral sex? Surely there is no problem if it's only the 'acts' that are prohibited?!
only the potential to commit. Although they would need to remain abstinent.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KIf you look at scripture you will find ample evidence that taking unecessary risks to your person is sinful. For example, the Hebrews were forbidden to drink blood and eat fat which are clear health risks. They were forbidden to touch "unclean" things like a dead animal carcus etc.
Despite everyone's remonstrations that sex is different from intimacy, you have all implied that homosexuality and anal sex are roughly the same and so statistics on the dangers of anal sex have some bearing on the morality of homosexuality.
Of course, they had no idea why these rules were in place but today it is pretty apparent as to why.
As for gays, if it is not anal sex that is the driving factor for the AIDS epidemic then what is in your opinion?
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by whodeyunsafe sex. sharing needles. unsafe sex with random partners. sex with random partners (though a condom lessens the risk of stds, it is not 100% effective).
If you look at scripture you will find ample evidence that taking unecessary risks to your person is sinful. For example, the Hebrews were forbidden to drink blood and eat fat which are clear health risks. They were forbidden to touch "unclean" things like a dead animal carcus etc.
Of course, they had no idea why these rules were in place but today it is ...[text shortened]... is not anal sex that is the driving factor for the AIDS epidemic then what is in your opinion?
two gay partners that are faithful to each other and aren't hived to begin with will not magically get aids just by exploring each other butholes.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou want him to touch his peenus? that's unclean too.
But the glaring elephant in the room that no one seems to be able to find is this. We are Gods creation (speaking from the point of view of a Christian here), and for God sodomy is such an abomination that he felt the need to condemn people to death in the OT. Then why did he create us with the ability to orgasm purely through penetrative anal sex. That ...[text shortened]... other point earlier. Oral sex unclean? Do you not have soap and water up in Scotland??? Come on.
07 Nov 11
3 edits
Forget the Bible. Specifically let's set aside Romans Chapter 1 which deals exclusively with 'unnatural behavior'.
Instead let's focus for a moment on the observation of the fact of nature that in the lower order of food chain creation animals do indiscriminately behave homosexually. Since when, however, does irrational animal gratification behavior become the yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable or beneficial conduct for rational creatures (which possess categorically different endowments of a higher order, i.e., self consciousness, self determiniation, norms and standards, conscience informed social behavior and an immortal soul)? Follow-on question: If the theory of evolution correctly advocates same sex sex in and/or out of marriage how does someone of that persuasion postulate that the human race would or could possibly continue and avoid becoming extinct?
Thoughts.
gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbySimple Answers : those who use animal behaviour as their yardstick [I pity them], I say let them behave like animals as long as their activities do not break any law of the land or hurt anyone else.
Forget the Bible. Specifically let's set aside Romans Chapter 1 which deals exclusively with 'unnatural behavior'.
Instead let's focus for a moment on the observation of the fact of nature that in the lower order of food chain creation animals do indiscriminately behave homosexually. Since when, however, does irrational animal gratification behavior ...[text shortened]... human race would or could possibly continue and avoid becoming extinct?
Thoughts.
gb
Thankfully gays [a very small part of the population] cannot reproduce .. need I say more! 😀
Originally posted by Rajk999Thankfully gays [a very small part of the population] cannot reproduce .. need I say more!
Simple Answers : those who use animal behaviour as their yardstick [I pity them], I say let them behave like animals as long as their activities do not break any law of the land or hurt anyone else.
Thankfully gays [a very small part of the population] cannot reproduce .. need I say more! 😀
The love of Jesus Christ sure runs through your veins.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999IDIOT
Simple Answers : those who use animal behaviour as their yardstick [I pity them], I say let them behave like animals as long as their activities do not break any law of the land or hurt anyone else.
Thankfully gays [a very small part of the population] cannot reproduce .. need I say more! 😀
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobWith one tongue you claim not to care what Christians think of gay sex. With your other forked and lying tongue you make statements which clearly show that you need Christians to say " ... its ok ProperKnob .. you go right ahead and have gay sex .. nothing is wrong with that" You are confused.
[b]Thankfully gays [a very small part of the population] cannot reproduce .. need I say more!
The love of Jesus Christ sure runs through your veins.[/b]
07 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59For which of the following do you call me an idiot :
IDIOT
- that gays should be left alone as long as they dont break the law or
- that gays cannot reproduce. ?
Or are you simply envious that I have the balls to stand up for what is right whereas you clearly dont have any moral conviction, but just drift with the crowd.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Your remark wasn't about gay sex, it was about gays in general. You are the one who is confused.
With one tongue you claim not to care what Christians think of gay sex. With your other forked and lying tongue you make statements which clearly show that you need Christians to say " ... its ok ProperKnob .. you go right ahead and have gay sex .. nothing is wrong with that" You are confused.
I also 'need Christians' to say diddly-squat, i'm not quite sure where you've got this bizarre idea that i'm asking your permission for anything.
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf everytime someone says that gay sex is wrong you come down on them, then its obvious that that statement does not meet with your approval and you want them to say something different.
Your remark wasn't about gay sex, it was about gays in general. You are the one who is confused.
I also 'need Christians' to say diddly-squat, i'm not quite sure where you've got this bizarre idea that i'm asking your permission for anything.
And I already made my position clear to you that desires which remain within you and not acted upon is not sinful. There are many people who will want to do something considered wrong [biblically speaking] murder, theft, fornication, lie, cheat etc etc and they dont do it becuase their moral conviction overrides that desire. It is not a sin until it is acted upon.
07 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999The point is that not every male gay couple engage in sodomy, as has been pointed out on this thread only 40% of gay men partake. So that means 60% of gay men are, by your own definition, not sinning. Also by your own definition 100% of lesbians cannot be sinners.
If everytime someone says that gay sex is wrong you come down on them, then its obvious that that statement does not meet with your approval and you want them to say something different.
And I already made my position clear to you that desires which remain within you and not acted upon is not sinful. There are many people who will want to do something con ...[text shortened]... it becuase their moral conviction overrides that desire. It is not a sin until it is acted upon.
So that's 80% of gay people who are not sinners,by your own definition, yet you seem to want to lump them all together under one Biblical sinning umbrella.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
07 Nov 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziExactly. I explained this in my last post to Whodey but clearly he was not attentive.
unsafe sex. sharing needles. unsafe sex with random partners. sex with random partners (though a condom lessens the risk of stds, it is not 100% effective).
two gay partners that are faithful to each other and aren't hived to begin with will not magically get aids just by exploring each other butholes.