Left handedness comparable to homosexuality?

Lightkeeper · Aug 3, 2004

Mr_Spinkles said:
I kind of agree with dan on this...people have a choice in the matter. The lines between gay and straight, man and woman are pretty grey...I think everyone, ultimately, is a blend. Lots of male and female heterosexuals have had gay experiences, and lots of male and female homosexuals have had straight experiences. I don't think that everyone is totally one or the other. Also, I think he is accurate in saying that homosexuality, like left-handedness, is abnormal....although a different term might be preferred if that word has a negative (rather than neutral) connotation.

Still, I disagree with dan that homosexuality is bad or morally wrong.

Red Frog says that you cannot know what it means to be a red frog unless you are a red frog. He can try to dye himself green to be like the other frogs, but that would be a muddy color and he is still red underneath. He is much more beautiful when he is being what he truly is.

Ceridwen018 · Aug 4, 2004

Lightkeeper, that is excellent.

Lightkeeper · Aug 4, 2004

Thank you, Ceridwen.

Mr Spinkles · Aug 4, 2004

Of course, not all frogs are green, and not all frogs are red. A lot of frogs are a mix--that "muddy" color you were referring to.

Bastet · Aug 4, 2004

But the red frogs cannot be green, and the green frogs cannot be red...regardless of how many "muddy" frogs there are.

Mr Spinkles · Aug 4, 2004

Right--so there seems to be a continuum among frogs between red and green, rather than an impermeable barrier. In fact, I would venture to guess that completely red and completely green frogs are a rare find.

All this talk about frogs sure makes me hungry...

Pah · Aug 4, 2004

Mr_Spinkles said:
Right--so there seems to be a continuum among frogs between red and green, rather than an impermeable barrier. In fact, I would venture to guess that completely red and completely green frogs are a rare find.

All this talk about frogs sure makes me hungry...

Let's not forget those red frogs born with a green skin and vice versa, The process of getting the right color skin is long, hard and painful.

And what of frog the green or red skinned being born with a patch of the other color.. Sometimes the doctor frogs assign a color and corrects the poor frog to what they think it should be. Mistakes are made and these with varigated coloring have to be changed again as well as can be done. Of course, some frogs are born with no color at all.

-pah-

dan · Aug 4, 2004

How can we let sexuality define us if it is not possible to define sexuality? A man may be attracted to men, but that does not mean that he is forever stamped with the label of GAY and any deviation from that course is an absolute affront to his identity. We are not laid out in blueprint before we are born. Our existence and our behavior depends on many, many factors that often change. This idea that a gay man must not betray his gayness is an incredibly simplistic view of an infinitely complex subject.

I am not defined by my sexual preference. My sexuality is only one facet of my being, and it has a sphere of practicality within which I allow it to reign. Outside of that sphere it is nothing more than a character trait. It in no way defines it, and if I let it do so I become a slave to my own urges and desires.

The pleasure associated with sex is, in many species, only an assurance of the propagation of the species. We cannot put that cart in front of that mule. Sex is a tool; we are not a tool for sex. Sex is for two things: procreation and the strengthening of the bonds of intimacy in a marriage. Any purpose outside of that warps the sanctity and usefullness of the practice.

Ardhanariswar · Aug 4, 2004

true, i dont like labels either. its a part of me, but it does not define me. who said it did?

gay sex isnt really sex, since men dont have vaginas and women dont have penises. but because they can have orgasms, i think theyve got the whole "strengthening of the bodns of intimacy in a marriage" covered. procreation, thats a circumstance.

i mean, if a couple that was married, and a wife had ovarian cancer, would they have sex? but its not for procreation! but they love. isnt that enough?

my point proven.

dan · Aug 4, 2004

I can have an orgasm with any species of animal, including my own hand, but that doesn't strengthen any bonds. I suppose a man can marry another man just as well as I can marry a goat, though; so your "intimacy in a marriage" argument doesn't hold water.

Love is not something that you can look at under a microscope. It is something that is defined differently by every society, so saying that gay sex is OK because there's love is misleading. Are we to go house to house and test every couple for love to see if they can have sex? Would it involve cotton swabs and a stool sample? How can you prove there's love when it's a subjective concept?

Ardhanariswar · Aug 4, 2004

so i guess a married couple having orgasms doesnt mean anything either. OKAY??....

love is like faith. but what does this have to do with anything? i dont understand what ur trying to say.

you define the purposes of sex, saying its ONLY for procreation and intimacy in marriage.

ok... so what do gay couples do?

besides that, any hetero or gay couple may have sex because they love each other. of course there are the many sex addicts who have sex because the love... SEX.

gay sex is okay because of love? who said that? i say gay COUPLES and MARRIAGE is okay because of commitment and love. a bond that is DEEPER than the body, than sexuality, than SEX.

dan · Aug 5, 2004

Gay couples violate the sanctity of sex in a horrendous manner, that's what they do.

What is marriage but an instituion through which we have families and perpetuate our species? It is not a playground for infatuations and lust. Of course there's love, but "gay love" is an atrocity and an offense to God.

Ardhanariswar · Aug 5, 2004

"Gay couples violate the sanctity of sex in a horrendous manner, that's what they do. "

thats a matter of opinion, keep it to yourself or back it up with facts.

"What is marriage but an instituion through which we have families and perpetuate our species? It is not a playground for infatuations and lust. Of course there's love, but "gay love" is an atrocity and an offense to God."

gay love? love that gay couples, as anyother couples have is beyond the BODY AND SEUXALITY. it goes to thier souls. you love a husband or a wife not because of thier body, but becasue of their MIND, THOUGHTS, FEELINGS.

its sad this society is based on genitals. seriously, grow up and think beyond physicallness. jeez. people are soo worked up over loosing thier virginity and giving it to. women should be valued for thier thougts, not whats between thier legs.
same thing, gay couples should be valued just as relgular couples becasue they have the same love.

i dont love women just because they have breasts, i dont love men because they have penises, i love them for who they are on the inside. and i think God recognizes that.

since God is a form of Love, i think its okay. love is pure.

no such marriage can survive and be based on body and sex. its impossible.

dan · Aug 5, 2004

I never said that's what it was based on, and I think maybe you need to grow up as well. I am a virgin and will remain so until I get married, so I do not fall into the category you're ranting at. I appreciate women for who they are much more than what they look like. You have no idea just how I visualize women (or men) so please don't lecture me about that. You say gay and straight couples have the same love, but you can't even define love to begin with. It's a subjective experience, so refrain from categorizing us all together under the same kind of "love." God is love, that is true, and you know exactly what God says about homosexuality, don't you? It is abomination.

In this day of moral relativity everyone is starting to think everything is OK, and no one is responsibly for anything anymore, but that mindset is fickle and weak. It lasts only as long as MTV wants it to last. Moral relativity is ludicrous; and that is what has brought you to this conclusion. Your experiences over the years have shown you an ever more favorable opinion of homosexuality as it becomes more media prevelant, and you shape your logic around those experiences.

I will back up what I say with facts; but only if you do the same. Prove to me that the love that exists between men and men is the same love I feel for my girlfriend. Is it a matter of opinion, or is it fact? If it is this shouldn't be too hard. Once you answer I will as well.

(Q) · Aug 5, 2004

... and you know exactly what God says about homosexuality, don't you? It is abomination.

I'd like to see you back this one up with facts. I can't recall any verses in the Bible alluding to this - could you please refresh my memory?

Jayhawker Soule · Aug 5, 2004

(Q) said:
... and you know exactly what God says about homosexuality, don't you? It is abomination.

I'd like to see you back this one up with facts. I can't recall any verses in the Bible alluding to this - could you please refresh my memory?

Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Lev 23:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

(Q) · Aug 5, 2004

Ah yes, thanks Deut.

Pah · Aug 5, 2004

Dan - turn on your PM. If you want to keep the "hidden" option, that is up to you but you can't "hide" from the mods -pah-

dan said:
Gay couples violate the sanctity of sex in a horrendous manner, that's what they do

Anyone who has a civil ceremony violates the "sanctity" of marriage. And since that is where you would only allow sex, a civil procedure would violate the "sanctity" of sex. But sex is a right and freedom protected by the Constitution for any adult over the age of consent. And marriage is, first and foremost, a civil matter and our government allows clergy to witness the expression of the vow of intention for state purposes. What you have said is but your opinion regarding sex and is not prohibited by the highest authority in the land. I'm fairly certain that this is true of many other countries as well.

What is marriage but an instituion through which we have families and perpetuate our species? It is not a playground for infatuations and lust

.
Marriage is but one way of establishing a family according to constitutional law and some have no sex ever.The continuation of the species does not owe its thanks to marriage but to evolutionary biology.and that is available to any over the age of puberty and less than the age of menopause (sp?)

Of course there's love, but "gay love" is an atrocity and an offense to God.

I would challange to show that scriptually - not the mistaken verses that are thought to prohibit homosexual activity - but something that contradicts the overwhelming message of Jesus. You seem to be assigning a "hate" to one not neccesarily sinning because of your "hate" for the sin. Atrocity indeed! It is more atrocious that "love thy neighbor" is not being followed as commanded and denied in others. I feel that all the dogma in the world, if followed, will not get you the salvation that this commandment will garner.

-pah-

Dan - turn on your PM. If you want to keep the "hidden" option, that is up to you but you can't "hide" from the mods -pah-

dan · Aug 5, 2004

I did turn on my PM.

I fail to see the relevence of civil law in this debate. It has nothing to do with truth.

I do not hate anyone. Why do people always throw that stupid argument into this debate? I have many gay friends and I hate none of them. I happen to think a lot of them are more fun to hang out with than my straight friends, but that does not change the fact that homosexuality is an abomination. Despite your literalistic (and patronizing) view of those passages (what on earth do they mean if they don't mean "sex"?), God has been clear: love the sinner, hate the sin. I'm positive you're familiar with that phrase, but an unfamiliarity with the love of God would blind you from one's capacity to love a sinner and hate their sin, ergo your refusal to accept that saying is not surprising.

I do my best to love all, including those that spit on me (I have been spit on for my faith), stone me (yes, believe it or not, I have been stoned with rocks for my beliefs), steal from me (people have stolen much from me solely because of my faith) and despitefully use me (I have been despitefully used on multiple occasions for my beliefs). The overwhelming message of Jesus is totally compatible with the entire Old Testament. If you cannot find a way to reconcile the O.T. with the N.T. maybe you need to go back and study some more.

Ardhanariswar · Aug 5, 2004

"God says about homosexuality, don't you? It is abomination. "

u speak from leviticus. Dan, do not trim your bread? if you do, its an ABOMINATION. seriously, you are being a cafeteria christian, picking and choosing what you want to believe. if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you must have a really long beard. and ur fridge must be stocked up with kosher food! ...sigh.
and i quote from the new american bible:
"(leviticus 18:22) You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."
and..
"(Leviticus 19:26-27) Do not eat meat with the blood still in it. Do not practice divination or soothsaying. Do not clip you hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard."

if you follow the last quotation, i can truly truly truly believe that you believe in what God says about homosexuality.

also, leviticus was NOT meant for christians like YOU, rather (and i quote from page 95 of the New American Bible) "...ritual laws prescribed for the priests of the tribe of LEVI.....the laws contained in this book serve to teach the israelites that they shoudl always keep themselves in a state of LEGAL (and i repeat LEGAL) purity."

looks like some book writers descided to put words into God's mouth so that their laws will become *holy* and more followed by.

haha, no one is stoning you. your own relgion is stifling you.

Left handedness comparable to homosexuality?

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Mr

Vile Stove-Toucher

Mr

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

-- untitled --

Active Member

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

I'm back!