Homosexuality and Religion (Jesus Christ, agnostic, LDS, bible, God)

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by rheff78

umm, ok, sorry sex is so terrible for you

It was a joke, trying to allude to the male point of view in your post.

so everyone who has sex is for pair bonding? onoly people in love have sex?

No, it's just one of the possible purposes.

I couldn't tell you, it's nature's law. Ask yourself, why was sex invented? Not just for fun.

As I said, for several reasons. But my point is that there is no moral standing to using what has evolved for only that purpose. Another example: our legs evolved for walking. No harm in using them to dance.

The question isn't what you would use it for, it is what it was designed for.

It wasn't designed; it evolved.

The question is, what is immoral about using our body organs for purposes other than what they evolved for primarily?

[DallasApple]

What about people who choose to live a life of abstinence??..Wouldnt that go against nature as well?...Supressing thier "natural" sexual urges altogether?..Not using thier sexual organs for reproduction or pleasuure?.>>(its original design and for what it was intended for?)

Using the line of thinking that if everyone was homosexual the human race would cease to exist therefore its wrong/against nauture ..then people who abstain from sex all together pose just as much of a "threat' to humanity as homosexuals...

In fact Paul the apostle wished that everyone would abstain like him...from how I interpreted him he knew it was an impossiblity that everyone would be like him able to control their burning desires so go ahead and get married rather than burn.

But in fact had we all taken his advice that its better to remain a virgin the human race would have ended long ago...

Love

Dallas

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Brain scans show that when people are divided into three groups and put into a room with a piano over a period of several days, the brains of the group told to think about practicing hard on the piano changed almost as much as the group that actually practiced, while the group that was instructed to do nothing showed no change at all. We can argue, then, that if the brain of a homosexual is different than that of a heterosexual, it is the thinking that alters it.


Oops.

I am pretty sure this is not the case.

[rheff78]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

It was a joke, trying to allude to the male point of view in your post.
No, it's just one of the possible purposes.
As I said, for several reasons. But my point is that there is no moral standing to using what has evolved for only that purpose. Another example: our legs evolved for walking. No harm in using them to dance.

It wasn't designed; it evolved.

The question is, what is immoral about using our body organs for purposes other than what they evolved for primarily?

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

[rheff78]

But I guess getting back to the OP, in Christianity (with the exception of I think the Episcopals) we are against the ACT of homosexuality. I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Alceste

I am pretty sure this is not the case.

Doesn't change the results of the experiments or the implications.

[DallasApple]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

But based on this line of thinking..Heterosexuals should never give each other oral or manual or anal sex..

My mouth was not designed for a penis to go in it.(sorry to be graphic)..It was designed for air to go in and out and to eat food. and to communicate.My hands were desinged for many purposes one of which was not specifically for sex...I can concieve a child without hands ever being involved.My hands or my husbands..My breast were designed to produce milk to feed a child..They arent needed for the actual sex act for me to become pregnant..

Blessings

Dallas

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by rheff78

Sorry I missed the joke. We males are pretty simple minded creatures.
Anyway, IMHO dancing is a consequence of walking. Look, not to get too graphic but it is of my opinion, as far as gay male sex I have to say, that is not what certain things were designed for. Only things are suppose to come out, not go in. As for female lesbian sex, if you don't have what is designed to fit in, without the aid of technology, you shouldn't be doing it. I'm sorry for the graphic phrasing, I just don't know how else to put it.

I don't like to get too graphic on the net, but I assure you that no technology is involved, and everyone is quite happy with the situation. And why exactly should we not be doing it?

You seem to forget about oral sex, which is harmless and pleasant for all parties.

Dancing is not a consequence of walking; a consequence of walking is getting where you want to go. Dancing is an alternative use of your legs. My point is that you do not apply this rule: "Only use it for its primary evolutionary purpose" to any other organ. Indeed, our lives would be poorer if we did. So why this rule for sex organs only?

There are a million examples. I'm sure you agree that our mouths did not evolve to permit us to whistle, but there is no harm or immorality in doing so.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by rheff78

But I guess getting back to the OP, in Christianity (with the exception of I think the Episcopals) we are against the ACT of homosexuality. I think most religions throughout the world are pretty much in line with this.

No, you're wrong on both counts. There are millions of Christians right here in the United States, possibly the majority, who have no problem with homosexuality by either sex. Indeed, there is an entire mainstream Christian Church with a special outreach to this community, the