Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeanne71350
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker2010 said:
A: You haven’t established that, merely declared it.
B: Homosexuals have sex in ways other than just anal sex.
C: Lesbians not only don’t have anal sex, in fact they’re physically incapable of it. Does this mean you are in favor of lesbian marriage but against it for gay men? (Be careful arguing that what they do is ‘not natural’ either, though I know nothing about your personal life, statistically speaking you’ve likely engaged in the same sexual practices used by lesbians.)
Click to expand...
point of order
I am only refering to anal sex. I
Not only can I not understand the “reciever”, I can not understand the “giver”. Subjecting yourself to waste for minimal contact. It’s not natural from a scientific view point. How it probably started was humiliation, not pleasure. I imagine many a disease was passed this way, seeing it is an unnatural place to put one’s privates.

why all the other deviations? Would you not agree anal sex is not natural from a scientific viewpoint?
 
NE_Catholic said:
why all the other deviations? Would you not agree anal sex is not natural from a scientific viewpoint?
Click to expand...
No, I would not. Again, only if you have a presumption that non-procreative sex is unnatural. Is manual stimulation unnatural? Oral sex?

Let me be clear. Unprotected anal sex is the riskiest form of sex a human is capable, but that’s true regardless of the gender of the ‘receiver’, I’m not arguing otherwise. That doesn’t make it unnatural.

@buffalo, the above paragraph could rebut your post as well. Just because it’s the most dangerous kind of sex doesn’t make it inherently unnatural or bad. Because we’re talking RELATIVE risk here, SOMETHING, by definition, has to be the riskiest. Every day there are millions of incidents of anal sex happening somewhere in our country by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals that result in nothing but pleasure.

I would also reiterate that the LEAST dangerous form of human sex is girl on girl, but I don’t see that fact causing you to endorse it. If male-male sex is bad simply because it carries some inherent risk, shouldn’t girl-girl sex be considered good because it carries the least risk?
 
It should be apparent to those who do not believe in divine revelation or an afterlife, that Catholics believe we are not the final end in ourselves. Our bodies are not our own, our lives are not our own. There are laws and there is a lawgiver.

By not having a correct understanding of human sexuality, abuses occur. The Golden Rule is fine, but the order of human life has been established. It does little good to engage in complex machinations to find the new, new way to do things. Man needs his daily bread. He needs to wash and relieve himself. Human dignity is a reality not an experiment, and rearranging the social furniture is just a search for novelty and/or a way to alleviate boredom.

It’s too bad that some see a distortion as a valid way to live. By adopting this worldview, Christian beliefs become just another manmade idea - no better or worse than most others.

Homosexual behavior, wherever it occurs, does not require anyone’s outside approval. It should never have appeared on the ballot. It does not require my permission or the permission of the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
By adopting this worldview, Christian beliefs become just another manmade idea - no better or worse than most others.
Click to expand...
But that’s just it, Ed, Christian beliefs ARE just another man-made idea. Do you seriously think that the Creator of the Universe, if we wanted to send us an instruction manual, would do so in such a manner that HIS instruction manual had viable, reasonable competition?? The entity capable of creating interstellar space, and everything therein, can’t supply absolutely indisputable evidence that THIS BOOK IS MINE??

If I told you I heard a voice come from a bush that was on fire, that told me what to do, you’d rightly question either my sanity, my sobriety, or both. But when it’s a dude named Moses who died thousands of years ago, it’s credible?
edwest2 said:
Homosexual behavior, wherever it occurs, does not require anyone’s outside approval. It should never have appeared on the ballot. It does not require my permission or the permission of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Did you not on this very board 2 or 3 days ago call for not only homosexuality, but a whole slew of adult consensual sexual behaviors to be criminalized? Does that not imply that you think society has the right to grant, or NOT, permission for such behavior?

What appeared on your ballot was a proposal to make homosexual marriage legal. Currently it is not in most jurisdictions, in order to make it so requires legislative action, a popular referendum, or finding the lack of it to be unconstitutional. While I believe the latter will eventually occur, that process takes time. The proposal was not asking for your opinion, or permission, to engage in homosexual activity.

As allowing gays to marry won’t change YOUR life in any way whatsoever, I do not fathom why you care.
 
Newbie2 said:
the Catholic Church, of which I am a part believes his writings to be divinely inspired, I take his writings as if directly from God.
Click to expand...
That’s where you lose me. You seriously believe that God literally spoke to a lucky few people, at least he used to? That for some reason he gave ‘The Truth’ to a hand-picked select few, and created a system wherein the rest of us just have to take their word for it? That seems so preposterous to me that I have a hard time believing ANYONE buys it, but to each their own, I suppose.
Newbie2 said:
I’ve given you the answer, take it or leave it, but if you leave it, at least try to make a more cognitive argument against it, now that you (should) understand that part of what we believe and why we believe it.
Click to expand...
Forgive me, I must have missed a post, or perhaps misunderstood a post, for I don’t remember seeing an explanation. To clarify my question, if Leviticus is accurate when it proclaims homosexuality to be ‘an abomination’, why is it not equally accurate when it declares that different crops should not be planted side by side, or that wearing different types of cloths at the same time is immoral?
 
I actually know of a few people who ended up LEAVING homosexuality because of Christian friends who were good to them, kind to them, and did not judge them.

People who are experiencing SSA need friends just like everyone else. They are also lost and need help coming back to God. Many SSA have not had good male influnce in their lives, so they look to males for sexual attention. This is similar to the 14-year-old girls with absent fathers or fathers who don’t pay attention to them, and end up getting pregnant by either boys their own age or older men.

Homosexual acts are sins. Premarital sex is a sin. What these people need are GOOD, positive, male Christian role models to help them. Do not judge them. Do not talk about God unless they ask. They will ask you when they’re ready.

And [at least] two of the men who left homosexuality are now happily married to women.
 
stephe1987 said:
Many SSA have not had good male influnce in their lives, so they look to males for sexual attention.
Click to expand...
Does that also apply to lesbians?

It seems to me that so much is made of the so-called depravity of sodomy (meaning anal sex, conveniently ignoring the fact that oral sex is also technically sodomy), the skeeviness of male on male sex, the weirdness of gay pride parades, etc, etc. It’s like only men are homosexuals.
 
Seeker2010 said:
But that’s just it, Ed, Christian beliefs ARE just another man-made idea. Do you seriously think that the Creator of the Universe, if we wanted to send us an instruction manual, would do so in such a manner that HIS instruction manual had viable, reasonable competition?? The entity capable of creating interstellar space, and everything therein, can’t supply absolutely indisputable evidence that THIS BOOK IS MINE??

If I told you I heard a voice come from a bush that was on fire, that told me what to do, you’d rightly question either my sanity, my sobriety, or both. But when it’s a dude named Moses who died thousands of years ago, it’s credible?

Did you not on this very board 2 or 3 days ago call for not only homosexuality, but a whole slew of adult consensual sexual behaviors to be criminalized? Does that not imply that you think society has the right to grant, or NOT, permission for such behavior?

What appeared on your ballot was a proposal to make homosexual marriage legal. Currently it is not in most jurisdictions, in order to make it so requires legislative action, a popular referendum, or finding the lack of it to be unconstitutional. While I believe the latter will eventually occur, that process takes time. The proposal was not asking for your opinion, or permission, to engage in homosexual activity.

As allowing gays to marry won’t change YOUR life in any way whatsoever, I do not fathom why you care.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s credible and you insisting otherwise is just an example of turning away. Christoper Hitchens was quoted in the National Catholic Register that if he he saw a miracle he would doubt the evidence of his own eyes. I can’t make you do anything, only provide the message.

Apparently, nothing I say will allow you to understand why I care.

God bless,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Yes, it’s credible and you insisting otherwise is just an example of turning away.
Click to expand...
OK, so first it’s credible because Paul said so, now it’s credible because Ed says so. You ignore my points, you ignore my questions, and you just declare it credible ‘because’. Credibility is earned for a reason, and something can not just claim credibility. If I do the right thing, Harvard just may come along and award me a degree despite the fact that I never attended a class. That doesn’t mean I’m edumacated.
edwest2 said:
Apparently, nothing I say will allow you to understand why I care.
Click to expand...
You’ve made no effort, that I’ve seen, to explain it. Now, I’m not cyber stalking you, so it’s entirely possible that you did and I missed it, but IF you did, I did in fact miss it. You rant against homosexuality, you rant against sexual liberty, and you rant against swingers. You have yet to explain how homosexuality, homosexual marriage, porn, or swingers affect you personally, considering the (assumed) fact that you are not homosexual, don’t wish to marry a man, don’t use porn, and are not a swinger.

A question I’d like you to specifically and explicitly answer:

Considering the fact that our society allowing homosexuals to get married will not affect your life, why do you object?
 
Jeanne, in your heart you know you are right. . . and you ARE right!

You know this, so just remember it.

I also feel it’s a dirty rhetorical trick when a person gets called “homophobic” just because you disagree with another person’s politics. This just ups the anger quotient of everybody and throws smoke and murk into a difficult matter.
 
Seeker2010 said:
Does that also apply to lesbians?

It seems to me that so much is made of the so-called depravity of sodomy (meaning anal sex, conveniently ignoring the fact that oral sex is also technically sodomy), the skeeviness of male on male sex, the weirdness of gay pride parades, etc, etc. It’s like only men are homosexuals.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose that homosexuality is seven times more prevalent in males?
 
Hey, people!!!

I have stopped reading this thread because the TMI factor was really high :mad: Seeker has been judicious in his/her descriptions (at least up to the point I stopped reading), and I really think that the *opponents *of homosexual activity should not get disgustingly graphic, kind of messes up their argument, no?
 
Seeker2010 said:
OK, so first it’s credible because Paul said so, now it’s credible because Ed says so. You ignore my points, you ignore my questions, and you just declare it credible ‘because’. Credibility is earned for a reason, and something can not just claim credibility. If I do the right thing, Harvard just may come along and award me a degree despite the fact that I never attended a class. That doesn’t mean I’m edumacated.

You’ve made no effort, that I’ve seen, to explain it. Now, I’m not cyber stalking you, so it’s entirely possible that you did and I missed it, but IF you did, I did in fact miss it. You rant against homosexuality, you rant against sexual liberty, and you rant against swingers. You have yet to explain how homosexuality, homosexual marriage, porn, or swingers affect you personally, considering the (assumed) fact that you are not homosexual, don’t wish to marry a man, don’t use porn, and are not a swinger.

A question I’d like you to specifically and explicitly answer:

Considering the fact that our society allowing homosexuals to get married will not affect your life, why do you object?
Click to expand...
Here is the objection:

jurist.org/paperchase/2010/09/states-file-amicus-brief-against-california-same-sex-marriage-decision.php

God bless,
Ed
 
stephe1987 said:
I actually know of a few people who ended up LEAVING homosexuality because of Christian friends who were good to them, kind to them, and did not judge them.

People who are experiencing SSA need friends just like everyone else. They are also lost and need help coming back to God. Many SSA have not had good male influnce in their lives, so they look to males for sexual attention. This is similar to the 14-year-old girls with absent fathers or fathers who don’t pay attention to them, and end up getting pregnant by either boys their own age or older men.

Homosexual acts are sins. Premarital sex is a sin. What these people need are GOOD, positive, male Christian role models to help them. Do not judge them. Do not talk about God unless they ask. They will ask you when they’re ready.

And [at least] two of the men who left homosexuality are now happily married to women.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your testimony. I dated a bisexual young lady after she gave her life to Christ and stopped behaving as she once did.

God bless,
Ed
 
Seeker2010 said:
No, I would not. Again, only if you have a presumption that non-procreative sex is unnatural. Is manual stimulation unnatural? Oral sex?

Let me be clear. Unprotected anal sex is the riskiest form of sex a human is capable, but that’s true regardless of the gender of the ‘receiver’, I’m not arguing otherwise. That doesn’t make it unnatural.

@buffalo, the above paragraph could rebut your post as well. Just because it’s the most dangerous kind of sex doesn’t make it inherently unnatural or bad. Because we’re talking RELATIVE risk here, SOMETHING, by definition, has to be the riskiest. Every day there are millions of incidents of anal sex happening somewhere in our country by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals that result in nothing but pleasure.

I would also reiterate that the LEAST dangerous form of human sex is girl on girl, but I don’t see that fact causing you to endorse it. If male-male sex is bad simply because it carries some inherent risk, shouldn’t girl-girl sex be considered good because it carries the least risk?
Click to expand...
why are you equating “risk” with “natural”? It is unnatural.
 
Seeker2010 said:
Upon what data do you base that question?
Click to expand...
I will see if I can locate it.

Researchers found it was 7 times more prevalent in men. That is what put them on the course of examining early childhood. Essentially, it was determined that a child is born “female” and the father teaches him masculinity. An overbearing mother and/or absent father denies the boy this masculinization.
 
Seeker2010 said:
But that’s just it, Ed, Christian beliefs ARE just another man-made idea. Do you seriously think that the Creator of the Universe, if we wanted to send us an instruction manual, would do so in such a manner that HIS instruction manual had viable, reasonable competition?? The entity capable of creating interstellar space, and everything therein, can’t supply absolutely indisputable evidence that THIS BOOK IS MINE??
Click to expand...
This is where I differ with you. God did send us an instruction manual, just some choose to use their “machinery” in a manner not recommended by the manufacturer. Anyone with a brain would know some forms of sex are not natural and come with consequences. Just like I don’t need a doctor to tell me obesity is bad for me. The difference between us today and when Moses and Jesus were here on Earth is that technology has made some forms of deviate sex safer. There was an actual secular reason these practices were frowned on. You are also kidding yourself that pleasure should be the only motive behind sex. There is an emotional attachment that can not be denied, unless of course you have debased your feelings to that of an animal.
 
edwest2 said:
Here is the objection:

jurist.org/paperchase/2010/09/states-file-amicus-brief-against-california-same-sex-marriage-decision.php
Click to expand...
That article mentions several legal reasons why the decision on Prop 8 should be overturned. As I’m not a lawyer, I can’t speak to the reasonableness of the article, but really it doesn’t matter for our purposes, for one thing the article does NOT do is outline a case against gay marriage in general.

Again, I ask, why do you care? How are you affected? And if you’re not affected, why do you object?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top