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".