The Homosexual Dilemma

[beagle9]

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Not true... Christ said he did not come to change the law. He came to spare us from the law, to help us to recognize that the law is objective perfection that we can never meet. And to tell us of God's grace, that through him, we can be spared from the law... by admitting that we are flawed, unworthy and asking to be forgiven, accepting Christ as the light and the way, as a lord and he that has come to save us, from our own evil nature.

Amen and well said....

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

My Bible reading was done in childhood. Lots of begatting. Lots of smiting. Lots of irrational anger and killing of non believers....of course that was mostly the OT with a pissy diety. I always had a thumbs up for Jesus though: love your neighbor as you would yourself and love God with all your heart.

Do you realize that Jesus is in fact the God of the Old Testament?

There's a lot of love in the Old Testament when you know that God is love. The occupation of Canaan, for example, was for the cessation of evil, and evil system that killed children sacrificing them to various gods. There were plenty of acts of mercy, such as when Israel was attacked and God struck the enemy with blindness. The Israelites led them into their city and when their sight was restored and they feared they would die, they were fed and sent home instead. Your problem is you didn't read past halfway through Genesis, and you read with judgment, not trust.

You should try praying and reading the Bible with new eyes, understanding that God loves mankind and has from the beginning sought the very best for people.

 

[Carib Gyal]

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

It is fascinating, isn't it? Adultery and sodomy have the exact same penalty in the OT. But you don't often hear for the execution of cheating husbands.

Why? Because it would directly effect too many of those condemning the gays.

Isn't that the truth.

And what about the abomination of eating shellfish? Talk about picking and choosing...

HAHA Jews! Can't eat shrimp! Can't eat lobsters, can't eat conks! Can't eat pork chops, can't eat bacon!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Did you get a medal?

A certificate. The real rewards cannot be seen with human eyes though.

 

[Skylar]

Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality... Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.

Again, there's fucking in nature. There's no marriage. We invented marriage as a social construct. So means whatever we want it to. We can apply our capacity for reasoning and adapt our own social institutions to the circumstances and ideals that we hold now. Some cultures define it as one man and one woman. Others, one man and several women. We define it as two adults.

The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.

Yet as you've said before, marriage isn't about procreation. Rendering all your babble about 'mommies and daddies' irrelevant. Millions of infertile couples marry or are allowed to remain marry. The childless enjoy the same benefits from marriage as those with children. And no state requires anyone who gets married to have children or be able to have children.

Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

How then do you account for the standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage neither existing nor applying to anyone? You can't. Ending your entire argument.

 

[beagle9]

Sex is not just about begatting anymore and unbegattable seniors are getting married everyday.

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.

 

[Skylar]

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Did you get a medal?

A certificate. The real rewards cannot be seen with human eyes though.

There are kids that memorize the Koran by that age. As a theist, you're clearly lagging behind.

 

[bodecea]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

Dogs eating their puppies is natural as well, you are not suggesting...

Mark

Oh dear....another poster who cannot tell the difference between that which does not harm others......and that which does. It concerns me how many like you can't see the plain difference.

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Cafeteria Christianity....pick and choose what they want to push and what to ignore.

 

[Coyote]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.

Books like the Bible, or the Koran have to be read in context and with an understanding of the times it was written and the fact that there are layers of meaning beyond just the words. I do understand that. And part's of them are sheer poetry.

But I am an irreverant creature and always will be and if people use the Bible ,or the Koran, to bring about injustice then I think it's our duty to speak up.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Scamp, the issue here is the sexual deviancy of homosexuality and the perversion of human reasoning which justifies that abnormality... Science has demonstrated that the sexual standard is established by the physiological human design, wherein two complimenting genders are designed to join together... which is analogically followed by marriage.

Again, there's fucking in nature. There's no marriage. We invented marriage as a social construct. So means whatever we want it to. We can apply our capacity for reasoning and adapt our own social institutions to the circumstances and ideals that we hold now. Some cultures define it as one man and one woman. Others, one man and several women. We define it as two adults.

The 'joining' part of all of that stuff... is what is called 'sex'... which nature designed as a means to propagate the species; meaning that THAT is how mommies and Daddie show their love for one another and when they love each other enough, YOU were conceived in Mommy's tummy, where you lived for 9 months, until you grew big enough to survive, er uh... to live outside of mommy's tummy.

Yet as you've said before, marriage isn't about procreation. Rendering all your babble about 'mommies and daddies' irrelevant. Millions of infertile couples marry or are allowed to remain marry. The childless enjoy the same benefits from marriage as those with children. And no state requires anyone who gets married to have children or be able to have children.

Demonstrating elegantly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

How then do you account for the standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage neither existing nor applying to anyone? You can't. Ending your entire argument.

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

100 years ago, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would have meant it was so happy.

35 years ago, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would have referred to the pink shirt you wore to the homosexual bar.

Today, if I told you, "That shirt is SO GAY!" It would mean that shirt is stupid, lame, ugly.

Different definitions.

 

[Skylar]

Sex is about nothing else, but begatting.

The principles of nature never change... cultures simply devolve, due to the nature of evil, it induces deviancy.

Nothing complex about any of this stuff.

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.

Here's the problem Beagle......mother teresa and grand inquisitor Torquemada both thought they were right too. When you get into subjective interpretations of religion, its like burger king. You can have it your way. And there's no way for anyone else to 'know' who is right, or if any of you are right.

And that's just in the same religion, using the same book, and the same general religious traditions. Go between religions, across greater spans of time, or between language families, and things get even more wildly disparate. Which each of the faithful certain that their interpretation of their sect of their book of their passage of their religion is the only correct one in all the world.

And obviously, you can't all be right. Nor is there anything that mandates any of you are. Which is why religion as a basis of morality or law is so demonstrably subjective. A fact the theists can't really dispute. So they ignore.

But there's no reason that those who don't follow your beliefs ever would.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Since that was not the question, you have given the wrong answer.

Mark

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments. Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them. God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason. Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant. Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds. What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.

 

[Coyote]

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments. Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them. God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason. Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant. Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds. What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.

Sorry dude, but it's not us Leftists who are insisting that the American Law should be based on the Ten Commandments.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.

Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.

 

[Skylar]

You use an example of something found in nature that harms others as if it makes sense as a comparison. That shows a fundamental lack, on your part, of discerning that which does no harm and that which does harm others. That is disturbing....even a little sociopathic.

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.

Says you, citing your personal interpretations. Others interpret it differently. And the differences are as subjective as one's favorite color.

The Puritans killed adulterers and sodomites. The founders killed only sodomites. Modern American Christians kill neither. Religion means whatever you want it to mean as you can ignore anything you don't like through interpretation. Wanna eat a cheese burger? Interpret around dietary restrictions. Wanna kill gays? Interpret that that passage of the OT that commands the execution of gays is still in force.

You can imagine special 'categories' for the word of God that let you ignore whatever you wish. Such as 'standing orders' and 'specific orders'. Despite the fact that no such distinction actually exists in the text. That's the beauty of religion: its straight up silly putty, meaning whatever you want it to.

And why your religious interpretations have no more relevance to someone who doesn't already agree with you than your interpretation of favorite foods, colors, or sports teams.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Have you informed those 75 year olds having sex that begatting is out of the question?

How sad it is for him, that sex is ONLY about procreation.

It's an understandable confusion when your life is ruled by a book that emphasizes begatting.

Didn't make it past the first half of Genesis, huh? Short attention span, a symptom of Leftist dumbing down and lowering of standards

I read the Bible from cover to cover before I was 10 just to show it can be done even by a child.

Probably a comprehension problem, because certain things won't be revealed unless the reader has an open mind when reading it, and if the mind is closed due to the heart not being where it should be, then the book will become boring very quickly to that person.

Books like the Bible, or the Koran have to be read in context and with an understanding of the times it was written and the fact that there are layers of meaning beyond just the words. I do understand that. And part's of them are sheer poetry.

But I am an irreverant creature and always will be and if people use the Bible ,or the Koran, to bring about injustice then I think it's our duty to speak up.

Yet somehow in your twisted Leftist brain, American conservatives who are extremely tolerant of homosexuality but just don't agree with it are more of a danger than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt where homosexuals are hung in the streets. In fact, perversely the same Left that celebrates "gay rights" will also throw their support behind Islam and Muslims, reminding everyone ad nauseum that not all Muslims are terrorists every time a terrorist act occurs with the blessing of the Muslim community. All these "peaceful Muslims" think homosexuality is so wicked and socially harmful that they should be executed. Former Iranian president Ahmadinejad spoke to American college students and seeing their metrosexual qualities volunteered, "There are no homosexuals in Iran" to the oblivious idiots so proud to have such a progressive man speak to them. Your knee jerk affinity to Islam virtually ignores that they actually kill homosexuals every day while at the same time seeing mortal danger in Christians who remind you that God considers homosexuality to be a sinful lifestyle.

How you maintain such duality only betrays how utterly deceived you people are.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, and it's being given a new definition. It's being redefined.

Its being expanded. As the previous application still applies. It just doesn't exclusively apply.

Tell it to the people who say it's being redefined. It will mean something different than it always has.

It means something more than it has before. But the Bible clearly describes polygamy. And many religions still practice it. They certainly considreed that marriage. And then times changes.

There's no 'intrinsic' definition of marriage. There's whatever we agree marriage is, based on whatever system of rules that we choose to use. And our laws use a system of rights that are protected against violation by the state.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments. Standing orders are those with permanent effect, that is, that all generations are to adhere to them. God gave specific commandments to a specific people at a specific time for a specific reason. Those Christians who attempt to adhere to the whole law today are called "legalists" because they reject the gospel of grace and attempt to return to the outmoded Old Covenant. Really, the only ones saying that antiquated Biblical commandments are valid today are you Leftists, who are hostile to God and see through a shroud of adumbrated darkness, and unregenerated minds. What little you know of the Scriptures, and you know VERY little, you use against the message of the Bible and the message of the cross, confounding the people of God through your twisted regurgitation of what you don't understand.

Sorry dude, but it's not us Leftists who are insisting that the American Law should be based on the Ten Commandments.

Um...nobody is. This is the problem, you're making up lie after lie about Christians, the same ones you Leftists tell yourselves in your sick little circle jerks, and then passing them on as truth when in fact they're complete bullshit. Because you lack any moral foundation whatsoever, this kind of slander doesn't sear your conscience in the slightest; much to your opprobrium.

 

[Carib Gyal]

When someone uses nature to defend that practice in humans, it deserves that type of response. If you want to use nature to defend the actions of humans, using all of nature is the only fair way.

Mark

That's kind of like saying if you use the Bible to defend marriage you have to use ALL the bible - the stonings and slavery etc.

Not exactly. The New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete.

Mark

Tell that to the Dominionists and those who insist we live by the Ten Commandments. The OT is not obsolete, the NT just gives them permission to cherry pick their abominations.

The Old Testament gives no standing orders except for the 10 commandments.

Says you, citing your personal interpretations. Others interpret it differently. And the differences are as subjective as one's favorite color.

The Puritans killed adulterers and sodomites. The founders killed only sodomites. Modern American Christians kill neither. Religion means whatever you want it to mean as you can ignore anything you don't like through interpretation. Wanna eat a cheese burger? Interpret around dietary restrictions. Wanna kill gays? Interpret that that passage of the OT that commands the execution of gays is still in force.

You can imagine special 'categories' for the word of God that let you ignore whatever you wish. Such as 'standing orders' and 'specific orders'. Despite the fact that no such distinction actually exists in the text. That's the beauty of religion: its straight up silly putty, meaning whatever you want it to.

And why your religious interpretations have no more relevance to someone who doesn't already agree with you than your interpretation of favorite foods, colors, or sports teams.

Except you base your opinions on other books you may have read, other opinions you may have heard, other criterion that you believe. Intellectually, neither is more valid than the other. He is as free to dismiss your opinion as you are to dismiss his. And yet you insist he be forced to accept your views.