Homosexuality doesn't exist

[Stained_Class]

There's two schools of thought on this, Eastern (Asia, Middle East, tribal countries) and Western (W. Europe, Canada, United States) No suprise here. Since 9-11 we've been hearing a lot about East v West, haven't we?

Eastern cultures believe sex is an ACT, reserved privately for the bedroom, and is no one else's business. An artform, if you will. By sheer culture, this train of thought allows the people who live under its customs the only true sexual freedom in the world.

Western culture, conversely, views sex as an IDENTITY. By IDENTITY, I mean "hetero" ... "homo" ... and "bi". Because of this, sex is broken down into a science. You see the magazine racks with Cosmo and YM ... "The Top 10 Tips to Drive Your Partner Wild" and such trite nonsense.

The differences between these two are such: if sex is simply an ACT, between two people (or 3 or 4), then just because two chicks hop in the shower together for a little fun, this doen't make them "lesbians". "Lesbian" was actually the identity that was imposed on them by the heterosexual culture to make homosexuals more deviant from the norm.

Same thing with two guys hopping inbetween the sheets. When heterosexuals started pointing their fingers at gays and lesbians, making it known that this kind of behavior is a no-no, instead of shying away from that label, the homosexuals embraced it. Once you embrace the IDENTITY, you become a group that starts demanding rights.

However, us morons in the Western culture aren't as smart as those Easterners to simply ignore sexual behavior as being something private, and thus, the gay rights movement has been born. Once you start legislating sexuality, sex becomes an underground cultish type of movement relegated to porn stars, child molesters, and homoerotic types of people.

The fact the Christian churches embraced legislation to control sexuality doesn't surprise me. It fits right in with the current fascist pig mentality controlling U.S. politics as we speak.

 

[Green Gaia]

What about love? You define sex simply as an act, but isn't it, or shouldn't it really be an expression of commited love for another?

 

[Stained_Class]

What about love? You define sex simply as an act, but isn't it, or shouldn't it really be an expression of commited love for another?

The idea of love between two committed people, as I'm assuming you are putting it, did not rear it's head until the Victorian era (1837-1901), when England's Queen Victoria and famly became the poster boards for a tight knit, loving family relationship based on affection just as much as finance. Before such a time, marriages were legal arrangements to solidify property, gain political status, and more importantly, secure the finances of the wife and child(ren) should the male of the household die in war or from some other tragic accident. Sex was designed for procreation, and little more.

Which makes one of your posts under the "Bible and Homosexuality" even more confusing. It sounds to me like you cut & pasted the words from the actual website, as I cannot confim this fact because I did not check. But here was a quote from you on the other topic:

"The word 'homosexual' is made up of Greek homo, meaning "the same," and Latin sexualis, from which the English word 'sex' is derived. The word 'homosexual' has been in use to refer to people who have sex with others of the same gender for only about 100 years"

I guess that pretty much sums it up there: "Homosexual has been used to refer to people who have sex with others ..." No mention of love in that statement. Only problem is that people of the same "gender" are not engaging in coitus, but people of the same "sex" are. Minor detail that annoys me ad infinitum.

My post mentioned nothing of "loving relationships" between same sex couples for two reasons:

1) Sex is not an identity, it is an act, and this is how the two cultures (East and West) have attitudes towards sex. Because of this difference, the people we refer to as "homosexuals" have had fingers pointed and stones thrown in their direction because of their orientation for many, many moons. Instead of being ashamed and shying away from this identity, they embraced it. Once you embrace the identity, you then search for power through political means.

For example: In the 1970's, people with disabilities embraced the identity of being "diasabled", and through that identity were able to have the Americans With Disabilities Act passed, which forced businesses and public property alike to build wheelchair ramps, accessible bathrooms, and blue parking spaces. Without this "identity" no such group could have achieved that political power.

2) Simply because two women shack up or two men feel like getting it on, does not make them "homosexuals". They're just two consenting adults. It was a term coined by "heterosexuals" to make them more deviant from the norm. I have a problem with it because it turns everyday human beings into tools who have themselves defined by other people's terms. And because of this, we now have flag wavers at parades whose main objective is to tell the world "we are who we are" because of where we stick our genitals in our downtime, and this was all defined and created by heterosexuals .... the same people they cry "oppression" from

Talk about irony.

BTW, I see from your profile that you are into Native American religion. I just got back from a long weekend at the Seminole reservations in South Florida. Had a blast, truly. I may even have a job on the rez as a cultural/historical preservationist. The Seminole story is one of the most inspiring I have read about, and Native Americans are some of the most genuine I have ever come accross.

Goodbye for now ....

 

[Green Gaia]

So.... basically you're saying that those who engage in homosexual acts should keep it in the closet and their relationships are not the equal of heterosexual ones?

I'm a little confused by your posts, for one what do they have to do with Christianity (since you posted in this in the Christianity forum)? And two, if you think homosexuality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that heterosexuality is not for real either? What are we all then, asexual? I see no problem in someone identifing one way or the other, (or as bisexual). Yes, labels suck, but that's how we identify ourselves from others and find others like us.

Let me ask you: Are you married or in a relationship? And if you are, is it only for sex? The assumption that homosexuals engage in sex only for the sex act, is quite bluntly, very offensive to me personally.

 

[Stained_Class]

So.... basically you're saying that those who engage in homosexual acts should keep it in the closet and their relationships are not the equal of heterosexual ones?

No.

I'm a little confused by your posts, for one what do they have to do with Christianity (since you posted in this in the Christianity forum)?

The topic of homosexuality was brought up by yourself, I believe. You were showing through the versatility of the right mouse click that the Bible falsely condemns homosexuals. I was trying to illustrate that it did not exist to condemn in the first place.

And two, if you think homosexuality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that heterosexuality is not for real either?

Light bulb. Now you're thinking.

What are we all then, asexual?

"Asexual" means attracted to neither sex. Nowhere in any of my posts do I even allude to this.

Are you married or in a relationship?

No comment.

And if you are, is it only for sex?

No comment part 2.

The assumption that homosexuals engage in sex only for the sex act, is quite bluntly, very offensive to me personally.

Insults are taken, not given. Especially when, in trying to reiterate the history of sexuality within and without our present culture, you take it as a declaration of war against all things homo. Whatever exactly that is.

This conversation is getting a tad bit messy. May I offer you some tea and crimpets as so to divert you from turning pedestrian conversation into a series of quasi-rhetorical questions?

That would be neat.

 

[Green Gaia]

Fine... I respect your right to have your own opinions, and I really don't want to argue, especially since I cannot see the viewpoint you are coming from. The reason for the other thread about what the Bible says about homosexuality was because of the current attention homosexuality and gay marriage is getting in the media, and the opposition to these usually state their opinions are formed from the Bible.

 

[jtb]

There's two schools of thought on this, Eastern (Asia, Middle East, tribal countries) and Western (W. Europe, Canada, United States)

Wow only (2) culture's are the reason for all this turmoil, interesting!

No suprise here. Since 9-11 we've been hearing a lot about East v West, haven't we?

What does the day that thousands of people lost love one's have to do with "Homosexuality doesn't exist", please explain that because you lack morals for even making statement like that! How you might think I am attacking you, but I am not! It's just that your statement is very personal to me, because I lost one of my sister's in that terrible tragedy, on that very day!

Eastern cultures believe sex is an ACT, reserved privately for the bedroom, and is no one else's business. An artform, if you will. By sheer culture, this train of thought allows the people who live under its customs the only true sexual freedom in the world.

Listen, quoting your belief is one thing, but making statements that sound like you are the absolute spokesperson for a very large melting pot of peoples is moral wrong. Secondly being a missionary in many eastern countries I have had the opportunity to speak to many people about many things related to spirituality, sexuality and many other different topics and from my understanding your statement does not coincide with all those I have had the opportunity to speak with!

The differences between these two are such: if sex is simply an ACT, between two people (or 3 or 4), then just because two chicks hop in the shower together for a little fun, this doen't make them "lesbians". "Lesbian" was actually the identity that was imposed on them by the heterosexual culture to make homosexuals more deviant from the norm.

Why is it you believe the heterosexual culture is to blame for all these "Labels"! Labeling has existed for a very long time, we have labels for just everything, I know a few people that can watch you for a few minutes and tell you your "Astrology Label" and they are right 99% of the time. What I am trying to say is the label does not matter, and if you think it does then you might not be any better than the people who use them to characterize things they know nothing about!

The fact the Christian churches embraced legislation to control sexuality doesn't surprise me. It fits right in with the current fascist pig mentality controlling U.S. politics as we speak.

So you saying because one believe's differently than you they are fascist pig's. Because my belief says sexual acts between two of the same sex is a sin. Just because my faith tell's me it is a sin, I do not hate or treat people who are in those types of relationships any differently than I would my own Mother or Farther, for who am I or anyone else for that matter to judge them! If you are a true Christian sexual acts between two of the same sex is a sin, whether the act is done psychically or within one's thought's! Look at the story of "Noah" to see the results of this sin!


jtb

 

[ErikaLee]

As I've said before: Not everyone uses the Bible as a reference as to how to live their lives. You shouldn't assume they do, or that you are right for doing so, and they are wrong for not.

I agreed with some of what Stained Class said, atleast I think what he was trying to say. That not every culture has a problem with homosexuality and that up until recently it wasn't even labeled, because it wasn't wrong. And it seems to be specific cultures and religions that have brought attention to it, and have a problem with it.

As I've also said before, there are Gods from almost every continent throughout History that have themselves either condoned or participated in "homosexuality", but it wasn't called that, because it wasn't wrong or just wasn't an issue at all, it just was.

And sex is an act. There are hetero- and homosexual people that perform the act with or without love and commitment. Not one orientation more than the other. And we all know that, so no point getting touchy about it.

Oh, and as far as his reference to 9-11, although he mentioned it (and everything else in his post) in kind of a haughty, self-righteous manner, I think he was just trying to point out that up until then, the majority of people didn't pay attention to the "Eastern" cultures at all, much less how we differ.

EL

 

[Stained_Class]

I think the two of you should read Erika's post. She summed it up far better than I thought I could.

Oh, and as far as his reference to 9-11, although he mentioned it (and everything else in his post) in kind of a haughty, self-righteous manner

This was not my intention. However I will ask forgiveness if thou art willing to grant it.

 

[Colin_Admin]

This is starting to be a hot toipic.

 

[Green Gaia]

Haughty, self-rightous manner = ignore all postings from now on :roll:




















:lol: <--- smilies are a great way to express the true intent of your posts

 

[ErikaLee]

Oh, I forgive you!

If you can't pi... um... make people angry, what's the point? You just have to do it when it really counts and when you really mean it.

So far we've managed not to get into any knock-down-drag-outs on this forum, and I'm sure we can keep it that way. *knocks on wood*

EL

P.S. I'm a sweet girl I swear...once you get past the Kevlar body armor. And I don't take things (like Stained's marriage comment) seriously. It's very hard to offend me, so don't worry.

 

[Death]

SEx is just an act, sexuality is a deeper part of your personality and body that much of your biology is centred around. Romantic love is pretty much defined by a person's sexuality.

The topic of homosexuality was brought up by yourself, I believe. You were showing through the versatility of the right mouse click that the Bible falsely condemns homosexuals. I was trying to illustrate that it did not exist to condemn in the first place.

Er, homosexuality and same-gender sex do exist, it's the latter that the bible appears to condemn.

So you saying because one believe's differently than you they are fascist pig's. Because my belief says sexual acts between two of the same sex is a sin. Just because my faith tell's me it is a sin, I do not hate or treat people who are in those types of relationships any differently than I would my own Mother or Farther, for who am I or anyone else for that matter to judge them! If you are a true Christian sexual acts between two of the same sex is a sin, whether the act is done psychically or within one's thought's! Look at the story of "Noah" to see the results of this sin!

Where did noah think about having homo-sex?

But yes, believing that something is morally wrong without justification beyond the arbitrary whims of some imaginary friend does make you somewhat of a fascist pig, much like if you believed black people are inferior or sinning if they don't endeavour to become white because of your faith.

 

[angelgirl]

As I've said before: Not everyone uses the Bible as a reference as to how to live their lives. You shouldn't assume they do, or that you are right for doing so, and they are wrong for not.

I agreed with some of what Stained Class said, atleast I think what he was trying to say. That not every culture has a problem with homosexuality and that up until recently it wasn't even labeled, because it wasn't wrong. And it seems to be specific cultures and religions that have brought attention to it, and have a problem with it.

As I've also said before, there are Gods from almost every continent throughout History that have themselves either condoned or participated in "homosexuality", but it wasn't called that, because it wasn't wrong or just wasn't an issue at all, it just was.

And sex is an act. There are hetero- and homosexual people that perform the act with or without love and commitment. Not one orientation more than the other. And we all know that, so no point getting touchy about it.

Oh, and as far as his reference to 9-11, although he mentioned it (and everything else in his post) in kind of a haughty, self-righteous manner, I think he was just trying to point out that up until then, the majority of people didn't pay attention to the "Eastern" cultures at all, much less how we differ.

EL

You said that very well EL. I also agree with some of what Stained Class is trying to say. Obviously sex is an act...regardless of whether or not love is involved.

 

[Master Hoomer]

The fact the Christian churches embraced legislation to control sexuality doesn't surprise me. It fits right in with the current fascist pig mentality controlling U.S. politics as we speak. :lol: :lol: :lol:

come the revolution...

The idea of love between two committed people, as I'm assuming you are putting it, did not rear it's head until the Victorian era (1837-1901), when England's Queen Victoria and famly became the poster boards for a tight knit, loving family relationship based on affection just as much as finance. Before such a time, marriages were legal arrangements to solidify property, gain political status, and more importantly, secure the finances of the wife and child(ren) should the male of the household die in war or from some other tragic accident. Sex was designed for procreation, and little more.

Intereting....

FACT...pornography and prostitution was rife in inVictorian england

FACT...the Queen on england's Husband had a piercing..which now is immortalised....its called the "Prince Albert" and consist of a large bolt of metal through the penis.....yep sexually hung up victorians with a queen who enjoyed a man who had metal in his penis.....they had MANY children :lol:

The english are reserved...they were never sexless... :shock:


So you saying because one believe's differently than you they are fascist pig's. Because my belief says sexual acts between two of the same sex is a sin. Just because my faith tell's me it is a sin,

the bible never mentions homosexuality ..its interpretted to say that..INTERPRETED.....

I have a great article at home about St Paul advocating removal of testicles to reach God.....Maybe we should realise this interpretation and become "eunuch's for God" as did Paul?.........


IF Homosexuality does NOT exist...why has it been observed in OVER 200 NON human species?????? riddle me that batman?

The ancient greeks had NO problem with homosexuality...a lot of modern culture is based upon the Greek model of civilisation....

Sex is a divine union upon many levels of Being........the physical act is but one occurance...really quite a minor one......

Sex is polarity..polarity is magic..all magic is sex.....when one has sex one is re creating the first act of polarity....
Have sex...its great you are re creating the universe

its good for the skin too

 

[Rex]

What happend to sex being pleasure?

 

[painted wolf]

I have to say that once I suppressed my initial reaction and re-read what was origionally posted I have to agree...

Western culture is obessesed with labeling things so that they can control them...

what two people do in thier bedrooms is nobodies business but the people in the room.

we live in a culture that is obsesessed with sex, who's doing, how they do it... who they did it with before... we use it to sell things and to entertain ourselves...

I guess thats what happins after a few hundred years of supression...

wa:-do

 

[Bastet]

The idea of love between two committed people, as I'm assuming you are putting it, did not rear it's head until the Victorian era (1837-1901), when England's Queen Victoria and famly became the poster boards for a tight knit, loving family relationship based on affection just as much as finance. Before such a time, marriages were legal arrangements to solidify property, gain political status, and more importantly, secure the finances of the wife and child(ren) should the male of the household die in war or from some other tragic accident. Sex was designed for procreation, and little more.

But you're not talking about marriage...you're talking about sex, as you repeatedly remind anyone who contradicts you. The notion that romantic love didn't exist before the Victorian era is ludicrous. Love is an emotion...and while marriages based on love may not have been the norm, I'm sure you'll find that sex based on love, was. And, as Rex pointed out...what about sex for pleasure? If it wasn't enjoyable, people wouldn't do it, and the human race wouldn't procreate.

 

[LilChrist]

Lev 20:13 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.
The Bible DEFINITELY does condemn homosexuality.
Mat 5:27, 28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
If you lust after a woman that's not your wife, you've sinned. If you're in bed or something with a woman not your wife, chances are, you're lusting after her, being libidinous, in other words. Again, the Bible condemns sex outside of marriage.
I'm not trying to put words in god's mouth, but God created sex as a way of two married people of the opposite gender to show each other how much they love each other. Sex is not love in itself. Love is a feeling. Sex is a way of expressing either that feeling, which is only completely felt when it is inside marriage, or lust, a definite sin condemned by the Bible ALWAYS ends in someone getting hurt. Many people are responsible for suicides, because they acted on lust. Think about it...

 

[teapot_tall_and_yummy]

hold on there cowboy... lil christ... lets just take a minute here... why are you presuming we know what god was thinking when he created sex? so lets not second guess him, k? and in many of those bible stories, especially w/ jesus, people who acted on lust are FORGIVEN. FORGIVEN. not condemned kids. And do you know ANYTHING about suicide? cause there are PLENTY of times it has jack to do with lust. careful what your saying love.