A
AgnosTheist
Guest
are you sure? then by that definition there is no such thing as homosexual sex.
anything that an intimate couple does that involves the use of sexual organs and which is intended for sexual gratification.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
Are you attempting to start an argument over semantics? if so count me out.
Which reduces man to nothing more than an animal. Sex must be both unitive and creative.anything that an intimate couple does that involves the use of sexual organs and which is intended for sexual gratification.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
You got it the other way around. Only animals see sex as purely for unitive and creative purposes only. Part of what makes us human is our creativity. The creative use of sex other than the animalistic purposes of procreation, is very human.
I
iamrefreshed
Guest
Someone once said that reading your posts made them feel ‘dirty’.You got it the other way around. Only animals see sex as purely for unitive and creative purposes only. Part of what makes us human is our creativity. The creative use of sex other than the animalistic purposes of procreation, is very human.
I concur.
J
john_ennis
Guest
Well, Thirst 4 You,
I’ll say again, as at the start of the thread, that the most productive thing would be to ask him to lay out his philosophy on what sex ought to be. (If there is no “ought” in his philosophy, then he must be prepared to support some pretty unspeakable stuff as “natural”.)
You can best discuss it after you’ve had a chance to absorb the implications of what he says.
As you’ve seen here, there’s not a lot of strong philosophical rhetoric out there for accepting homosexual behavior. It’s mostly negative and reactive.
Nothing so sublime as the philosophies which hold sex to be something special (not just an appetite like the enjoyment of a meal), and giving (not *taking or getting, *as in porn, masturbation, prostitution, etc.), and procreative (as contrasted with homosexual, incestual, or contraceptive sex).
I’ll say again, as at the start of the thread, that the most productive thing would be to ask him to lay out his philosophy on what sex ought to be. (If there is no “ought” in his philosophy, then he must be prepared to support some pretty unspeakable stuff as “natural”.)
You can best discuss it after you’ve had a chance to absorb the implications of what he says.
As you’ve seen here, there’s not a lot of strong philosophical rhetoric out there for accepting homosexual behavior. It’s mostly negative and reactive.
Nothing so sublime as the philosophies which hold sex to be something special (not just an appetite like the enjoyment of a meal), and giving (not *taking or getting, *as in porn, masturbation, prostitution, etc.), and procreative (as contrasted with homosexual, incestual, or contraceptive sex).
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Just because homosexuals do it in that way doesn’t mean they are entirely “homosexual acts”.
You are missing the forest for the trees here. Sex is about more than what position you use or how it pleasures the body.
P
patg
Guest
Then the argument that repulsiveness can define sinfulness regardless of the natural nature of the thing is likewise useless. Repulsiveness is in the eye of the beholder and has no relation to sin.
What a useless analogy.
Eating a rare steak or wearing a wool-blend suit are also repulsive to God and yet we freely ignore those and many other abominations.
M
mlchance
Guest
Why do people keep trotting out the same tired, already-refuted nonsense? Just to display their lack of understanding?
orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/SilverShrimp.shtml
– Mark L. Chance.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Heres philosophy for you. Homo behavior is their natural sexual orientation. Forcing them not to function according to their nature would be like forcing you to either have sex with a fellow male or not have sex at all. Golden Rule, dude.
And yes there is no scientific certainty that its inborn, but for sure it is evident at a very young age, and that there is no known way of making them straight. That makes homosexuality their nature.
Mind you, I dont like it one bit. I dont agree with legalizing thier marriage. But I can tolerate their natural behavior.
E
estesbob
Guest
It is kind of hard to discuss Scripture with someone has no understanding whatsoever of it. Suffice it to say what you’ve written above is utter nonsense.
E
estesbob
Guest
As Catholic we too tolerate (but not validate) their unnatural behavior, sinful though it may be, but it would be remiss of us not to point out that it is a grievous sin and imperils their immortal soul. Validating their behavior can take many forms, one of which is ignoring comments in forums like these that homosexual behavior is perfectly acceptableHeres philosophy for you. Homo behavior is their natural sexual orientation. Forcing them not to function according to their nature would be like forcing you to either have sex with a fellow male or not have sex at all. Golden Rule, dude.
And yes there is no scientific certainty that its inborn, but for sure it is evident at a very young age, and that there is no known way of making them straight. That makes homosexuality their nature.
Mind you, I dont like it one bit. I dont agree with legalizing thier marriage. But I can tolerate their natural behavior.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
i understand, coming from a religious perspective.
those comments are not ignored. what validates their behavior is the golden rule.
M
mlchance
Guest
No. Rather the Golden Rule validates Christians calling homosexual persons out of a self-destructive lifestyle that violates natural and divine law and into an appropriately chaste lifestyle that does neither.
Christ Jesus admonishes us to do for others what we would have them do for us. I hope that when I choose to engage in immoral behaviors that people who love me would advise me to change my ways.
– Mark L. Chance.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
so long as its just a friendly advise, i dont see anything wrong with that.
if thats how catholics think then this shouldnt be an issue. you are not the type of christians who roams the streets carrying signs that says “God hates Fags”.
M
mlchance
Guest
Thank God for that. We’ve got quite enough anti-social behavior as it is from all sides of the “God debate” without adding fuel to the fire.if thats how catholics think then this shouldnt be an issue. you are not the type of christians who roams the streets carrying signs that says “God hates Fags”.
– Mark L. Chance.
I
I_thirst_4_YOU
Guest
Wow, i was the one who started this thread and i never thought it would take off this much.
I
I_thirst_4_YOU
Guest
Heres philosophy for you. Homo behavior is their natural sexual orientation. Forcing them not to function according to their nature would be like forcing you to either have sex with a fellow male or not have sex at all. Golden Rule, dude.
There are two “books” if you will in the world.
Again and again it has been stated in this thread that it is un-natural for two men to engage in sexual acts. You said in your quote above that it would not be according to their nature to “force” them not to engage in these acts.
- The book of nature: where created things speak to us directly
- The book of Revelation, where God himself reveals to us his own inner nature and his free gifts and plans for humanity.
The God of Judeo-Christianity Created the world and “nature” of our beings. He created it with an order not to be thrown out of whack. Two men doing committing such acts throw the natural order out of whack.
I
I_thirst_4_YOU
Guest
Those who walk with those signs are ill informed anti-Catholic protestants. Southern Baptist. The man who started this organization has no clue what Christianity even is.if thats how catholics think then this shouldnt be an issue. you are not the type of christians who roams the streets carrying signs that says “God hates Fags”.
He can call himself a believe but he is not.
E
estesbob
Guest
I fail to see how do on to others as you would have them do unto you validates homosexual behavior. If I am engaged in sin I would hope someone would love me enough to point it out to me. The worst thing someone could do is act like my sin is not a sin at all. That would be a gross violation of the golden rule.
E
estesbob
Guest
You know Agnos we have told you this before before but these little off-the-cuff, catty little remarks is why more and more people are ignoring you.so long as its just a friendly advise, i dont see anything wrong with that.
if thats how catholics think then this shouldnt be an issue. you are not the type of christians who roams the streets carrying signs that says “God hates Fags”.
- Status