|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The bible and homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Hangdawg stated, "If you believe like I do that marriage between gay people is simply illegitimate and therefore a non-marriage, then discrimination is a non-issue."
A bit disgusting - I doubt that you have convinced people that discrimination is a non-issue because you personally believe something is illegitimate - I think you've done more to define yourself as discriminatory. Some believe that marriage between a man and woman is illegitimate, a non-marriage, if they are of different races. Instituted as rule or law, this belief is discriminatory - I trust you can see that? Similarly, some could believe members of a particular group are illegitimate non-persons, and therefore see them as property or without rights. That belief by some does not enslave under our constitution. True, the US may have been founded by people who believed they were doing so "by God for God", but they did have enough sense to include freedom of religon and separation of church and state - which is why I was able to be legally married without a religious leader or religious ceremony, and why same-sex couples should be able to marry without religious discrimination. If the US government agreed that the marriage covenant was granted by a JudeoChristian God, only JudeoChristians would be able to marry within the US - would you find that discriminatory? Since many seem to tie-up homosexual marriage with ideas of fornication and perversion, it would seem like the same people should logically restrict marriage to virgin couples who have no intent on engaging in oral, anal, or otherwise non-vaginal, sexual acts. Although I have heard political leaders talk about the "dangers" of same sex marriage to our society, none have yet come up with any description of what these "dangers" might be - I assume the true reason is religious belief, and that should not enter into policy-making. Whether prevention of marriage to an individual couple is based on race, religion, sex, or creed, it remains discrimination. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
There are also thousands of homosexuals living in a state of self-loathing, repression, and fear due to growing up in a good Christian environment...
To someone who does not believe homosexuality is immoral, "epistemologically rehabilitation" sounds downright frightening, especially if a genetic basis for homosexuality exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The dance example is a joke. The tendens anf ligaments they work to stretch were made to work in those ways. Just because you can force somethiing into an opening doesn't mean that it was made for that. I don't think the dance example is a joke - I don't believe that tendons/ligaments/muscle are made to do splits, or allow someone to bend their body in half, or dead lift several hundred pounds. Humans train them to be capable of that - just as someone can train their anal sphincter to relax (and enjoy!) having something placed in it... Considering all of the 'unnatural' things people do with their bodies - wearing clothes, eating cooked/processed foods, staring at a computer screen for hours at time, etc.; it seems silly to say that in this one sexual context biology dictates proper use (and by extension morality).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
My (heterosexual) marriage ceremony was performed by a homosexual man.
I find it an interesting societal contradiction that a homosexual can legally perform and bless a marriage but not legally be married himself. A homosexual (fornicator!) can be a judge, religious leader, boat captain - not to mention teacher/senator/doctor/etc... If homosexuality represents such a danger to society, why let homosexuals take such jobs? Homosexuals can lead religions or perform brain surgery, but are not ethical or moral enough to be husbands or wives? Ridiculous...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Zachariah writes: I had anal sex with a girl I dated and thought it was great. Does that make it right? No. I have anal sex with my heterosexual wife, and in a loving, respectful way - is that right or wrong? What about oral sex?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Zachariah writes: Besides, the nerves in the anus aren't pleasure receptors like in the male and female genitalia. True. Yet my spouse reports having better, more intense orgasms during anal sex than during vaginal sex. The nerves in the anus are actually more sensitive than in the vagina, which is why anal sex can be painful if done improperly (and why it feels so good when done properly).
Zachariah writes: The reason that people "get into it" is because it is decadent, naughty, taboo. Not because it feels good. See above comment. It feels good. And we are not into 'naughtiness' or 'taboos', especially after years of marriage and a couple hundred anal encounters, so to speak. (and if I thought my sex life was taboo I wouldn't be writing about it here, I can tell you that.)
Zachariah writes: If it felt good most men would be running there ass off to get there next prostate check. Ridiculous - like saying if you enjoy having your scrotum handled you will enjoy having an examination for testicular cancer; or if you enjoy having your breasts fondled you will enjoy a mammogram. One is cold and clinical and has nothing to do with sensuality - unless you have some sort of medical fetish. You don't have to enjoy anal sex. That doesn't mean that everyone else is incapable deriving pleasure from it... (Apologies to all if that was too much information - just tired of people stating as fact that anal sex is painful, unnatural, wrongly lustful, perverse, etc.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Additionally, here is some evidence as to why one might not want to engage in anal sex. (looks like I was mistaken about gay men not being affected by HPV) Possibility to transfer an STD is evidence to not engage in a particular form of sex? We better put a halt to all forms of sex. Goodbye species...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Sorry for the misread... perhaps I am confused on your stance.
In your mind is anal sex "unnatural", "immoral", neither, or both? What about the same question for oral sex?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
custard - Thanks for the clarification... I wouldn't have been so argumentative if I had known...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I like to have my ears nibbled on. Is that aural sex?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6053 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I can tell you this my little friend. The states keep handing out condoms like they're going out of style and allowing the kids to believe that they are full proof against STDS. Guess what they aren't. That ain't the half of it, my friend. The condom is a dangerous, insidious beast. Here's a recent journal article:
Accidental condom inhalation. Arya CL, Gupta R, Arora VK. A 27-year-old lady presented with persistent cough, sputum and fever for the preceding six months. Inspite of trials with antibiotics and anti-tuberculosis treatment for the preceeding four months, her symptoms did not improve. A subsequent chest radiograph showed non-homogeneous collapse-consolidation of right upper lobe. Videobronchoscopy revealed an inverted bag like structure in right upper lobe bronchus and rigid bronchoscopic removal with biopsy forceps confirmed the presence of a condom. Detailed retrospective history also confirmed accidental inhalation of the condom during fellatio. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 2004 Jan-Mar;46(1):55-8.
Just when you thought it was safe to have safe sex...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024