Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 120

Thread: Dilemma of Being ****sexual

  1. #76
    IncitingRiots
    Guest

    Default

    Would not have.....if?

  2. #77
    ActRaiser
    Guest

    Default

    Would not have... if they had another target. Which is a selfish thing to wish for, but it might be true (another if coming) if they of course, did things to gratify their paraphilias.

  3. #78
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IncitingRiots View Post
    CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You win the "Most Ignorant Person I Have Ever Met" Award.
    Thank you for your comment.

    It reminds me of the following:

    Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1.26-31, NRSV)

    What can I say? Live and let live, who are you to judge my standards when your standards have no backbone. I've been in situations were I was kicked down for my beliefs in Tacoma, WA. I share my beliefs with people who have laid down their life for the Gospel. My belief system supports missionaries in places where your high life Satanists would never consider going because of the discomfort and hardships, what good is all your wisdom? What is it you hope to attain in this life? And when atrocities have been filmed, evidences have been obtained, what makes it so difficult to believe people have gone through trauma? If ActRaiser says it, you can reserve judgement because you haven't the facts--but I would not dismiss the possibility. Next thing you are going to say is that the holocaust never happened and it is a down right lie and exaggeration.


    There is one more thing in regards to the p***age I quote. Jesus said love your enemies, you despise them; Jesus was crucified, and not Ceasar; Jesus was lowly, he was weak and he was despised. But why was he despised? He judged peoples' actions as sinful, and he calls us to share in his suffering. When we speak, he promised the world would despise us. You are of the world. It is only natural for you.
    Last edited by Columcille; 04-18-2009 at 07:15 AM. Reason: added comment about Jesus being lowly.

  4. #79
    jade84116
    Guest

    Smile Just Some Thoughts

    Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before. First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like. Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice. Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly. Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is. Just my thoughts on the issue.

  5. #80
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before. 1) First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like. 2) Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice. 3) Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly. 4) Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is. Just my thoughts on the issue.
    1) I really don't get your point about the sneering. My main thrust is what does biblical and historical Christianity have to say on the issue and how does the Church respond without watering down or cheapening the Gospel. Churches that affirm the ****sexual lifestyle do not have the biblical nor the history of the Church to demonstrate a consistent Gospel message from Christ to the present. Such churches have created a new gospel where they select what is convenient for their own doctrine rather than the other way around for Scripture and Tradition to define doctrine and morals.

    2) You are going to hear that sexual preference is not a choice either. If you were born a male or a female, you could get an operation for a sex change, so while I would agree that such a perversion is a choice, all we are going to see from the left is junk science as a means of propoganda. You are not going to see from their studies any connection to family neglect, physical, sexual, or mental abuse, nor any bullying from peers. So we are going to go in circles with the opposition until there is competant scientific studies which can factor in such aspects. As is, we are in a Christian forum so the opposition we face is mainly within our own rank and file. Asdf is one person who I am trying to get to come out with a positive Scriptural and historical Christian affirmation of such a lifestyle, but he seems only to talk about experience in terms of emotion and secular wisdom. Any quotes you find from Scripture by him is actually a negation and he hasn't addressed the Levitical text where it shows ****sexual acts are condemned for not only rape, but also consentual act is condemned. I understand where you are coming from and I try to point to the natural order of parenting as evidence against ****sexuality to being an acceptable lifestyle. If two daddies and two mommies are parenting a child, the child could be adopted, but it does not mimic the natural occurance of copulation. We are in essence denying the child his rightful father or his rightful mother should gay or lesbians be the biological guardian. And in extention, we are causing even more problems for that child should they be adopted since it is natural in our society to talk about both mother and father as a parental unit.

    3) Any society can set up laws that are unjust. Even if a vast majority of societies believe it to be ok, morality is not based on a majority opinion. For the Christian, it is based on Scripture and Tradition as verifying its consistency.

    4) With modern medical advances, test-tube babies, and other such things... I do not think lesbians, or gay female supporters who would carry a baby to full term like a gay person's sister or female friend would make society to cease. Some gay and lesbians might also be bisexual. I think there are problems in raising such children because of my argument stated under #2.
    Also, Islamic nations have laws that allow one man to marry up to five women. Since this law is acceptable, there does seem to be a high rate of ****sexual acts amongst the male population who are financially disadvantaged... even though Islam also condemns ****sexuality. Also you see in the prisons and detention camps such practices. I was in Iraq at one such detainee camp and while we joke about man-love Thursday, it actually happens.

  6. #81
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jade84116 View Post
    Here are some ways of looking at ****sexuality that you may not have considered before.
    I appreciate your entry into the conversation.

    First, if it's wrong for a man to sneer at a ****sexual they don't like, then, it's wrong for a woman to sneer at a man she doesn't like.
    I'm confused about what you're saying. What cons***utes this "sneer", and what is the sneer in response to? What do you mean by "wrong" - do you mean "is immoral", "should be frowned upon by society", or "should be illegal"? (Or something else altogether. Sorry, I just don't understand what you said.)

    Second, ****sexuality cannot be a civil right, because black isn't a choice whereas sexual preference is a choice.
    All evidence points to sexual preference and gender iden***y being some combination of genetic predisposition and 'choice' - cultural, societal, environmental &c. factors.

    There are factors that are civil rights that are:

    • purely innate - like race, ethnicity, gender, or inborn physical handicap;
    • purely environmental - like physical handicap due to loss of function (whether accidental or inflicted);
    • purely 'choice' - like religious and political expression;
    • or some amorphous combination of them all - like sexual preference or dexterity (right- vs. left-handedness).

    Clearly, 'choice' is not the rubric which determines whether something is a civil right.

    Third, ****sexuality cannot be a human right, because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights p***ed in 1948 never refers to it directly.
    Ooh, I like the UDHR. Thanks for bringing it up. I must say, though, that I find it odd that you seem to regard the UDHR as proving a point against equality for gay and lesbian people - considering that almost every Article begins with "Everyone..." "Everyone..." "No one..."

    Anyway, I just re-read the Declaration, and I think these points are particularly pertinent. All emphasis mine.
    Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

    Article 7: "All are equal before the law and are en***led without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are en***led to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

    Article 12: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation."

    Article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference..."

    Article 29: "(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
    Article 29 strikes me as particularly relevant in re same-sex sexual expression. In order to prove that gay and lesbian people are not deserving of equal protection and rights under the law, a government would have to compellingly prove that such actions interfere with the rights of others. In other words, if there is no harm in an action, it is protected, regardless of whether it is a majority.

    Fourth, if ****sexuality that stands at roughly 3% today were to increase to 25%, then, that would mean that 22% of humanity isn't reproducing every subsequent generation until humanity no longer exists this side of the millennium that is.
    This is an odd argument. Why would you think that the proportion of gay people would increase over time?

    Just my thoughts on the issue.
    Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate having another conversation partner

    Shalom,
    asdf

  7. #82
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Notice Jade how Asdf's comments have no scriptural allusion? The only thing that might make you think he is a professing Christian is his signature from Simone Weil. I call this a front or a mask. How does a Christian reject scripture and the orthodoxy that it has maintained throughout history for some postmodern dribble?

  8. #83
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Come, all you who are thirsty,
    come to the waters;
    and you who have no money,
    come, buy and eat!
    Come, buy wine and milk
    without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread,
    and your labor on what does not satisfy?
    Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
    and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
    Give ear and come to me;
    hear me, that your soul may live.
    -Isaiah 55

  9. #84
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
    7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55

    A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts. It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

    To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.

    Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex. Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support. You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.

  10. #85
    Austin Canes
    Guest

    Default God is the alternative to religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    6Seek the LORD while he may be found, call him while he is near.
    7 Let the scoundrel forsake his way, and the wicked man his thoughts; Let him turn to the LORD for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving. --Isaiah 55
    Possessing a ****sexual-orientation is not a sin (not anymore than possessing a heterosexual-orientation). People do not 'choose' to be ****sexual.

    A cheap gospel tells people they don't have to give up their sinfulness of ****sexual acts.
    Then it must really be cheap for scores of heterosexuals.

    It is not God's plan that people should conduct in such behavior, it is clearly a sin of the flesh. Paul even addresses lust by saying the following:

    To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with p***ion. 1 Cor. 7.8-9.
    Even so, it isn't your place to enforce the morality you speak of, only to adhere to that which you believe is true. Many have their struggles before God to endure, even many who are heterosexual.

    Marriage in the bible is only given to a man and a wife and not with the same sex.
    Even so, there must be something for those who are ****sexual, that you cannot yourself address (even suing the Bible); let God handle it.

    Asdf, your gospel is a postmodern idealogy that has no scriptural support.
    That is what you believe, but from what I've read is not necessarily true.

    You quote p***ages of comfort to those who remain in their sinfulness and are not willing to repent. This is a false sense of hope, it is a false gospel.
    And from what I've seen, some have interpreted Scripture so narrowly and selectively, that they're IN while believing those they determine are OUT. I think God has a lot more hopeful things to say, than most anti-****sexual Christians tend to.

  11. #86
    johnd
    Guest

    Default

    Threads as old as this one tend to change directions drastically enough to make the OP obsolete. Still I like to address the OP to refresh the original intent.

    ****sexuality clinically is an abomination to the intended function of human sexuality. The mistake Christians make is that it is not the ONLY abomination to the intended function of human sexuality.

    The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.

    I preached it six ways from Sunday only to find believers less and less willing to listen or be around me... for telling them the truth. At times I began to doubt myself and figured there was the ideal "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not" and then there was the practical "let's be reasonable" here in the {{real}} world...

    This led me to an interesting discovery in the Bible... the concessions God makes.

    Before you bristle at the thought and bring up the "God does not change" verse... consider this may not apply to all things... for example... the monarchy in Israel (1 Samuel 8). And later the building of the Temple (2 Samuel 7:12-13 contrast with Zechariah 6:12-13, Matthew 16:18, 1 Peter 2:3-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17).

    God did not intend there to be a monarchy in Israel. Or at least not until his prepared king from the line of Judah was ready. God told Moses to build the tent and gave specific designs (Hebrews 8:5). Solomon and David not... God conceded to deal with Israel according to these situations, but not without great cost and set backs.

    The temple God wanted built is of the living members of the Body of Christ. So the builder would be the Messiah and 2 Samuel 7:12-13 was a messianic prophecy. Solomon's temple, Zerubbabel's Temple, and Herods Temple had only brief periods of righteousness. Defilement, destruction, desolation are the ways of the temples. Solomon broke numerous Levitical sacrificial laws in the dedication of the thing and some say in the use of conscripted foreigners to build it. It was the millstone for Judaism thrown into the deepest sea...

    So what about ****sexuality?

    What about adultery? Divorce? Lust? Pandering to lust?

    Romans 1:
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,



    The truth we ought to be spreading gets suppressed by the unrighteousness of our thoughts and deeds.



    Romans 1:

    19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.


    How much more does this verse apply to we who have the truth in God's word and in our faith and in our being indwelled by the Spirit of God himself...


    We have to suppress him... to go a head and do what we know we ought not or to not do what we know we ought to... and he prompts us beyond that in our consciences... and we push it down and sin... and grieve the very person in the Godhead who loved us enough to indwell us as the deposit for eternal life to come.



    Romans 1 is speaking about general humanity...


    21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
    22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
    23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
    24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
    25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading p***ions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
    27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
    28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
    29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
    30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

    31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
    32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


    ****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...



    My use of the word "normal" refers to the original intent of God the Creator and not the percentage of the "norms" of today.



    ****sexuality is not normal. Adultery is not normal. Lusting after other women or other men or preparing one's appearance or exposing one's self to gain the lust of others is not normal. These are sadly common, but they are not normal.


    Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.



    Judgment must BEGIN with the house of faith. Meaning we must get our own act together first before we go out to judge others with right judgments. Otherwise we end up with today's circumstances.



    Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality. Like America has been doing progressively for the last 20 - 30 years now.

  12. #87
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnd View Post
    ****sexuality clinically is an abomination
    Stop right there. This is utter nonsense. ****sexuality may be religiously an abomination, but clinical? Clinical research has no category of "abomination".

    The manufacturer's manual (the Bible) has a lot to say on the subject, and most believers would not be too thrilled to learn that they are daily committing some form of abomination to God's intended use of their sexuality.
    They might be surprised that they are daily eating "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of food, or wearing "some form of abomination to God's intended use" of fabric, too.

    (...) all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
    30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
    (...)

    ****sexuality is not the only thing on the list above. Yet all the others have sympathizers and empathizers in the Church...
    I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness.

    The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship.

    Whenever someone tells me their ****sexuality is natural (that they were born with it) I remind them that we were natural born without potty training. And that whatever our natural tendencies are that are in opposition to the normal intent of the Creator must be disciplined (potty training, learning manners, learning respect for the opposite sex and one's self) etc.
    I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea.

    Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect.

    Missler pointed out on a recent video taping that God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was not for the ****sexuality itself but for the social / official condoning of ****sexuality.
    That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view.

  13. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    I do appreciate the opening up of the conversation from the myopic focus on ****sexuality. But I have to believe that if God's commands mean anything, they exist for the sake of human betterment and shalom—wholeness.
    Agreed.

    The same-sex sex acts described in Romans, as with the other social evils in Paul's list, were not characterized by shalom. But I have no reason to believe that the acts condemned had any bearing on a committed, mutual, monogamous, lifelong, covenantal same-sex intimate relationship.
    Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount), are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.

    I don't think, and every mainstream scientific organization would also denounce, that attempting to "train" gay people out of ****sexuality is a good or healthy idea.
    Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.

    Society used to try to "train" left-handed people out of their "sinister" nature, to similar effect.
    But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone. As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.

    That's interesting, but of course has no support from a biblical point of view.
    The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman. There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.

  14. #89
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Agreed.
    Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat.

    Same sex relationships are distructive in nature. Statistics show that ****sexuals are far likely to be less monogamous (by a very statistically significant amount),
    In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)?

    Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit.

    are more likely to cause physical damage because the body is not made for the type of sexual behavior seen in ****sexual relationships, and more likely to cause physical diseases such as hepa***is. This is just a beginning list of the problems found by ****sexual behavior.
    Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior.

    Only because the gay movement has a very strong lobbying network that attacks anyone who attempts to denounce ****sexual behavior or help those who desire to not engage in ****sexual behavior. Scientific organizations tend to follow the money, unfortunately.
    Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately.

    But society does train people away from being alcholics and other destructive behaviors in which they are genetically prone.
    There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation.

    As I said before, disease alone (not including AIDS) would show that ****sexuality is destructive in nature.
    If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all!

    But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral?

    The Bible supports marriage between a man and a woman.
    Sometimes.

    It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
    Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
    Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".

    There is a reason for the term "sodomy" which is directly related to Sodom and Gomorrah.
    Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.

    Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now.)

  15. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE=asdf;82230]Howdy, BigJulie. Thanks for stopping by to chat.



    In my opinion, you may be confusing cause and effect. That is to say, I wonder whether systemic and long-lasting traditional social prejudices can lead to the ghettoization of gay people. What is more likely to encourage monogamy—cultural stigmatization leading to a repressed underground subculture, or embracing people and welcoming them into societal norms that encourage long-lasting relationships (i.e., marriage)?
    Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.

    Also, these statistics you mention are for male ****sexuals. Lesbians are a different picture. More on that in a bit.
    Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.

    Again, you're referring to gay men and not lesbians. Also: some gay men do not have **** sex. Many straight couples do. It is not a "****sexual" behavior any more than it is a heterosexual behavior.
    It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.

    Professional scientific organizations follow the evidence—fortunately.
    They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.


    There is no evidence that ****sexuality is destructive, nor that it is possible to "train people away" from their attractional orientation.
    And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.

    If that were true, it would show that lesbians are the least destructive of all!
    If disease were the only problem, I would agree.

    But no, we don't correlate prevalence of disease in a community with morality or "destructiveness". Or do you think that a higher prevalence of AIDS among black Americans than white Americans indicates that being black is immoral?
    Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.


    Sometimes.

    It also supports marriage between a man and a child.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
    Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
    Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
    I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me. But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.


    Sort of. "Sodomy" initially referred to all non-procreative sex, whether hetero- or ****sexual (including masturbation, coitus interruptus, oral sex, and more). It's really been only in the past 50 or so years that "sodomy" has narrowed in focus to refer to ****sexuals only.
    Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.
    Read all about it: We're all Sodomists now.)
    I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.

    I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.

  16. #91
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    Data from countries that have long accepted ****sexual marriages have shown that the lack of monogamy in ****sexual relationships is not due to social stigma--rather the lifestyle of ****sexuality includes a more open sexual experience. Hence, the bath houses are not a result of social stigma, but a lifestyle choice.
    I'd like to see the data you're referring to.

    Yes, they are different, but there are problems with both gay and lesbian relationships.
    From a religious perspective, perhaps. From a scientific and/or social perspective, no. (Or at least, none that do not also apply to heterosexual relationships.)

    It is far more common among gay men. Oral sex can also lead to many STD's. The fact of the matter is that oral or **** sex can also lead to STD's and gay relations are not as monogamous and tend to practice these types of sex. Clearly, there is going to be some cross-over, but to use the small percentage of straight couples who practice what ****sexuals practice on large scale is not a fair comparison to the damage that is done via the ****sexual lifestyle.
    There is no "****sexual lifestyle" any more than there is a heterosexual lifestyle. And if you're including oral sex as disease-ridden immoral behavior, you're fighting a losing battle, even among the religiously conservative.

    They follow the money--garbage in, garbage out. A study is only as good as its methods. Look at the methods of supporting studies and you will find subjective methods are being used.
    If you have some information to support this, or links to better, more accurate scientific research, I'm all ears.

    And once an alcoholic always and alcoholic, but we can train someone away from a destructive behavior. This is cleary seen.
    Sure. And I'd love to see gay people fully embraced and accepted by the church, then guided into healthy expressions of their sexuality within committed, monogamous, lifelong relationships.

    If disease were the only problem, I would agree.
    So far you've got "disease" (tenuously supported) and moral disapproval. What else do you have?

    Well, lets see. I don't think to be black is immoral. What we can see from evidence is that there is a higher rate of unwed pregnancies among blacks as well as a higher rate of AID (according to you.) What I would say is that there is some factor which is influencing the black communities to get these higher rates. Education and help may decrease these problems as blacks are intelligent, capable people and so obviously something is not working in our society for them.
    Exactly. I'd say the same thing for gay and lesbian people, to the extent that there is a problem of prevalent disease and unhealthy expressions of sexuality among them.

    I don't know who the child/marriage is, you can tell me.
    Is there any Biblical guidance on the minimum age for marriage? Child marriage (particularly w/r/t girls) was prevalent throughout the Ancient Near East, and most scholars agree that this was true of ancient Israel as well.

    But, with all of the others--isn't it amazing that God would support so many types of marriages, but not ****sexual. Makes you think.
    Yes—it makes me think that they were a product of their time. And just as we in modern Western society have evolved beyond viewing this treatment of women as acceptable, I believe it is time to open our eyes to the reality and the normalcy of same-sex couples.

    Yes, so according to at least your understanding...according to the Bible, all of these types of sex are wrong INCLUDING ****sexuality.
    Okay. You're welcome to believe that. You're welcome to practice that, to teach it to your children, to shout it from the rooftop, preach it at your church, etc.

    I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)

    I would hve to see the methods section on this one as well. It may be someone just making excuses for themselves by finding every bodies opinion and making it the "definition" of sodomy.
    It's a pretty well-researched article, and makes extensive reference to the book on which it's based.

    I just looked up "sodomy" in the 1828 Webster's dictionary. Definition "SOD'OMY, n. A crime against nature." Under this definition, anything that is un-natural is a sodomy. Clearly, ****sexuality would fit this definition. So, the question isn't whether ****sexuality is wrong, it is whether all these other things are right according to the Bible.
    So your research corroborated what I told you.

    Feel free to make your Biblical argument against oral sex, non-procreative sex, contraception, heterosexual **** sex, coitus interruptus, masturbation, and any other deviation from vanilla missionary-position procreative heterosexual sex you'd like to include as "a crime against nature".

    I find this all pretty bizarre, to be honest. These things occur in nature, therefore they are by definition "natural".

  17. #92
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    I'd like to see the data you're referring to.
    The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 ****sexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years. While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of ****sexual relationships, it does indicate that few ****sexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

    In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."

    · A study of ****sexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.

    · In his study of male ****sexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few ****sexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."

    · In Male and Female ****sexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male ****sexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

    A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows.

    · A 1997 national survey appearing in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that 75 percent of husbands and 85 percent of wives never had sexual relations outside of marriage.

    · A telephone survey conducted for Parade magazine of 1,049 adults selected to represent the demographic characteristics of the United States found that 81 percent of married men and 85 percent of married women reported that they had never violated their marriage vows.

    · The Dutch study of partnered ****sexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year.

    · Bell and Weinberg, in their cl***ic study of male and female ****sexuality, found that 43 percent of white male ****sexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having one thousand or more sex partners.

    · In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older ****sexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of ****sexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.

    · A survey conducted by the ****sexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than one hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than one thousand sexual partners.

  18. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post


    I would disagree with you, as would many Christians. I've read the Bible, and haven't seen a word about masturbation or oral sex or heterosexual **** sex. Coitus interruptus was condemned in a narrative context in one particular instance that I'm aware of, in which the man was neglecting his duties to provide an heir for his late brother's wife. (As far as I'm aware, that's the only condemnation of any sort of contraceptive.) Same-sex sex was condemned, but in my opinion it too should be viewed contextually with the practices of the Ancient Near East—same-sex sex was characterized by pederasty, temple pros***ution, rape, displays of dominance... (For the record, I reject all that, in both gay and straight expressions.)


    I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

    Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

  19. #94
    ErikErik
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

    Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

    The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong. God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.

  20. #95
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Sorry for the delay in response, BigJulie.

    As for the data you cited, in the future I'd appreciate it if you could cite your source. In poking around online, I found that it's often copy+pasted into arguments, and promulgated by groups like FRC and Exodus.

    I'm not impressed.

    For one, these studies have been criticized because of their lack of a representative sample. Recruiting people from gay bars or readers of a quasi-pornographic magazine is not likely to bring about the kind of diversity that would be representative of gay people as a whole.

    Second, it quite simply does not square with the gay and lesbian people I know. Of the gay people who are my friends, almost all of them are in long-term committed relationships. I know of one guy out of the tens of gay people I know who has been rather promiscuous in the past.

    Third—and this goes back to our discussion of disease rates across racial demographics—we simply don't discriminate against people even if they were demographically inclined to be promiscuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
    I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.
    Not really. It just puts a caveat on it. Just like:

    – I understand that slavery is accepted within the Bible. But I think that's wrong, as do most Christians today.
    – I understand that lending money at interest is condemned in the Bible. But most Christians don't regard that as binding today.

    Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.
    There's no reason to believe that children need to be "protected" from having gay parents. You're projecting a very narrow religious view on society at large.

  21. #96
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ErikErik View Post
    The Holy Bible also says that polygamy is wrong.
    Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.

    God designed marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. He never changed it. Because God does not change, neither do His doctrines.
    So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

    Marriage between a man and a child.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
    Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
    Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
    Marriage as a political contract.
    etc.?

  22. #97
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdf View Post
    Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.



    So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

    Marriage between a man and a child.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
    Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
    Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
    Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
    Marriage as a political contract.
    etc.?
    If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law. Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies. In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible. In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob. As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this. It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

    So there a few questions that must be asked....
    1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.
    2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it? (But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

    Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice. As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

    Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality. The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way. The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

  23. #98
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law.
    Sure, but that only serves to reinforce my point. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that "the definition of marriage" according to Biblical sources had a single monolithic meaning running throughout the disparate accounts, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Solomon to Jesus to Paul.

    Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies.
    In at least three cases (Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20), virgin spoils of war were given to men as wives. Deut 20 is presented as words directly from the mouth of God:
    When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.
    In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible.
    I was thinking more of Deuteronomy 22.28-29:
    If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
    I'm not sure what I think of the "rape" of Dinah (Gen 34). That's a pretty weird story. It looks like it might have been consensual, but considered "defiling" because of not going through the proper protocol. (And by the way, if they demonstrated "genuineness to make things as right as possible", Jacob's family sure treated that honorably and respectfully, eh?)

    Oh, there's also the account of Tamar, who is called "righteous" for impersonating a pros***ute and seducing her father-in-law in order to trick him into impregnating her.

    In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob.
    It's nice of you to read back your interpretation of modern history into the Bible, but Abraham's consorting with Hagar is not explicitly condemned by God. Certainly Jacob's consorting with two wives and two servants is not condemned—indeed that's the origin of the twelve tribes!

    As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this.
    That was my only point. That which is condemned by modern morality was not condemned by "biblical" morality. Just because a young girl has experienced menarche does not make her emotionally, mentally, and physically mature enough for marriage—that is, unless she's considered a piece of property transferred from one man (her father) to another (her husband) with or without her consent, and expected to begin bearing children immediately whether or not it kills her in the process.

    It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.
    Sure.

    So there a few questions that must be asked....
    1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.
    Yes, of course. Of course I'm prejudiced against ancient moralities that explicitly regard women as property, that forces women to marry their rapists, that execute women if they don't scream loud enough when they're being raped...

    2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it?
    I think that if the scriptures are anything like what some Christians regard it as, i.e., a rulebook dictating eternal and unchanging morality, God might have had a word of condemnation when a practice was committed that violated it.

    But it's a moot point when some of these disgusting practices are ascribed to have come directly from the mouth of God (e.g., Deut 20, 22).

    (But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).
    If I believe in a god, it is in a God who is good. If the writers of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures had experiences with a real and true and good deity, their experiences were necessarily (and by definition) partial and incomplete.

    Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity.
    I think one completely glosses over (and thereby, does not understand) much of the Bible if one wishes to state that the concept of marriage "never changed".

    Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice.
    There was a lot of scholarly debate over the acceptability of usury.

    As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.
    And I'm saying that if God were providing some sort of unchanging morality, there could most easily have been a "thus sayeth the Lord" that outright condemned slavery. I mean really—God bothered to outright condemn shaving the sideburns and eating bacon, but didn't have a word of condemnation for the practice of owning other humans? That was an acceptable accommodation to the "ways and customs of surrounding cultures", but God had to put God's foot down on lobster and polyester?

    Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality.


    The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way.
    What kind of compromise or middle way are you offering?

    As for me, I've already offered something as close to a middle way as I think I can get: full legal equality under civil law, with religious exemptions for those who do not want to participate. Your church will never be forced to hire a gay person or perform a same-sex commitment ceremony; your family will never be forced to watch Ellen or Glee—hell, you can even join Westboro in protesting All Things Gay with signs and slogans.

    In short: don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

    The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.
    The church has enough sins to account for without me needing to project anything on it. For now, the mere fact of them wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people speaks for itself.

  24. #99
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there. They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom. There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

    I offer no middle way. Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality. I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities. So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals. But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment). I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances.

  25. #100
    asdf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there.
    What do you suppose was done to adult women taken as "plunder"? Nevermind, you don't have to wonder; the Bible is pretty clear here:
    When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
    – Dt 21.10f
    They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom.
    Not servants who were taken, shall we say, "in the Biblical sense":
    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (...) If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
    – Ex 21.7, 10-11
    There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.
    I don't see those "boundaries" in any way precluding the acquisition of women as sex slaves through war or purchase.

    I offer no middle way.
    I didn't think so. So why'd you grouse at me for not offering a compromise?

    Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality.
    Sure, and that is not at all in most cases. You remain free to regard any marriage other than that between an never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman as invalid; but you don't expect civil law to follow in tow.

    I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities.
    Of course not. Neither should you impose the teachings of the church on outsiders to the church.

    So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals.
    The Catholic Church's "teaching authority" is limited to the Church and its members.

    But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment).
    There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

    I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.
    I'll tell you what I find disgusting (though it's another rabbit-trail): Catholic bishops who move to deny communion to Catholic politicians who do not think outlawing abortion is the best way to prevent it (without, of course, advocating or endorsing abortion), but have nary a word to say about Catholics like Mark Thiessen and Rick Santorum openly embracing and advocating the "intrinsic evil", the "***ault on human life and dignity", the practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person" which is torture.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
    Exactly! Once again, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But seeking to make a law respecting the establishment of your religion is plainly, flatly, and nakedly uncons***utional.
    Last edited by asdf; 05-30-2011 at 02:51 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •