Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The bible and homosexuality
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 286 of 323 (116544)
06-18-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Zachariah
06-16-2004 11:56 PM


not to rehash condoms, but...
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Zachariah, posted 06-16-2004 11:56 PM Zachariah has not replied

custard
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 323 (116586)
06-18-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dan Carroll
06-18-2004 3:36 PM


Once again, I have to bring up the clitoris.
Well, if you agree with Stephen Gould, then the clitoris actually has no function: the clitoris exists only because it is the female homologue for the penis. His argument is that human morphology and sexual reproduction require the penis to have a large concentration of nerve endings, so women end up with the clitoris as a by product; not because the clitoris is necessary for human reproduction.
He compares this to the same reason why men have nipples. Male nipples serve no meaningful function and exist only because females need nipples; and it is genetically economical to have one gene (set of genes?) for nipples (or penises) and hormones determine how they actually develop - breasts and larger nipples for women, penis for men.
I'll try to look up the name of the essay, but I know he originally wanted to call it 'tits and clits.' (not joking)
OK, all this nipple and clitoris talk reminds me... uh... I gotta go return some videos...
This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 09:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Dan Carroll, posted 06-18-2004 3:36 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 288 of 323 (116596)
06-18-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by custard
06-18-2004 10:32 AM


You can stick things up your anus and into your rectum all night long for all I care - whatever works for you, but it's pretty funny that you think an actual function of the anus is to stimulate a penis.
Like Dan has illustrated, I think it gets pretty fuckin' ridiculous to try and take objects and places not created by humans and try to ascertain their "intended" purpose or function.
Hell, even when humans make things, they have functions that weren't intended. It's ridiculous to try to tell me that I'm "breaking God's (or Stanley's) law" when I pound in a nail with the end of a screwdriver.
Obviously, screwdrivers aren't designed for the purpose of being hammers. But they have that function, as well as a theoretially infinite set of other, as-yet-undetermined functions, and it's pretty stupid of someone to tell me there's some kind of natural law I'm breaking when I bang the top of a paint can shut with my screwdriver.
Using your logic the mouth, ears and nostrils (depending on size of course), and the knot hole in the garden post all share the function of penile insertion.
Actually, that was your logic, remember? You're the one who advanced the idea that since penises can be inserted into vaginas, that must be one of their functions. I was simply applying that logic to other cases, but for some reason, you don't like when your arguments are taken to their logical conclusions. Oh, well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 10:32 AM custard has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 289 of 323 (116637)
06-19-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Zachariah
06-16-2004 11:51 PM


Re: scope
Zachariah writes:
The reason that people "get into it" is because it is decadent, naughty, taboo. Not because it feels good. If it felt good most men would be running there ass off to get there next prostate check. Do they? HELL no! I have had one....one! Not real excited about the next. Besides, the nerves in the anus aren't pleasure receptors like in the male and female genitalia.
Based on your logic, since I am not at all attracted to girls, I can conclude that no man is attracted to girls. Just because you did not feel pleasure from it doesn't mean it is true to everyone.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Zachariah, posted 06-16-2004 11:51 PM Zachariah has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 290 of 323 (116756)
06-19-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by custard
06-18-2004 9:03 AM


Re: unnatural
custard responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Hmmm...the cops hit on him and somehow he's the one at fault?
Not according to the police report he's the one at fault for masturbating in front of an undercover policeman. Are you contending the police illegally entrapped him?
That is Michael's claim.
Knowing what I know about police departments and their attitude toward gay people, I wouldn't be surprised.
Take a look at what happened with Louima. The man gets a plunger shoved up his rectum...so brutally that he has to be hospitalized...and none of the cops who were in the room did it?
I'm hardly clearing Michael of any wrong-doing. After all, he did expose himself by his own admission. But I highly doubt the claim that Rodriguez is completely innocent, either.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 9:03 AM custard has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 291 of 323 (116758)
06-19-2004 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by custard
06-18-2004 9:07 AM


Re: my reason LAM
custard responds to me:
quote:
quote:
So if it's "natural" to put a penis in a vagina, why isn't it "natural" to put a penis in an anus?
(*BLINK!*)
You did not just ask that did you?
What is one of the functions of the vagina? To collect and hold sperm until it can fertilize the ovum? So part of its function is to allow entry of the penis in order for this to happen.
Which one of the functions of the anus is to allow entry of the penis?
The same one that lets it be natural to put a penis in a mouth or a hand.
If oral sex or masturbation is not unnatural, then neither is anal sex.
People do it all the time. Usually straight people. It's a common method of birth control (and part of the reason that HIV has spread so rapidly in Africa).
The argument made was that the musculature of the rectum is such that it is constantly pushing out. Therefore, "it's an exit, not an entry." Therefore, to put a penis in it is "unnatural."
But the musculature of the vagina is such that it is constantly pushing out. Therefore, it must also be "an exit, not an entry." Therefore, to put a penis in it must be "unnatural."
Simple logic:
If A, then B.
A, therefore B.
If the musculature pushes out, then it is unnatural to have a penis go in against it.
The vagina musculature pushes out, therefore it is unnatural to have a penis go in against it.
The only way to say that anal sex is unnatural compared to vaginal sex is to insist that the only reason for sex is procreation...which makes all sex that is inherently incapable of leading to procreation such as oral, manual, and anal "unnatural."
In fact, the vagina is actively hostile to sperm. That's why ejaculate is alkaline: The vagina is acidic and will kill the sperm. The cervix is usually plugged with mucus to prevent entry of things from the outside...like sperm. A woman has to be at an appropriate point in her cycle where the mucus plug becomes more liquid and can be permeated by sperm in order for them to pass.
Given a woman's ability to engage in sex outside of fertility periods, she's usually going to be having sex when her reproductive tract is doing everything it can to keep her from getting pregnant.
And then, of course, there is the penis. It functions as both an excretory organ and a sexual organ.
If the penis is allowed to do both, why isn't the anus? Oh, I get it...every man uses his penis to urinate, but not every person engages in receptive anal sex, so therefore receptive anal sex is "unnatural." Well, that's a question of frequency, not a question of function. Since we don't have a problem with the general concept of an organ being used for both, why do we make a distinction for this one? Just because it never occurred to many people to try?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 9:07 AM custard has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 292 of 323 (116760)
06-19-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by custard
06-18-2004 9:09 AM


Re: scope
custard responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And most importantly, why do they all say that it does feel good?
They all say it feels good? None of the people who try it ever say "you're never sticking that up my butt again!" Really? Fascinating.
If you're going to deliberately misquote me, there is very little point in continuing. Here is what I actually said.
Then why do so many people, men and women, spend so much time having anal sex?
And most importantly, why do they all say that it does feel good?
Who are you to tell them that it doesn't? Are they all lying?
Now you tell me. Am I talking about the people who never have anal sex or only do it once or twice?
Or am I talking about people who regularly have anal sex?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 9:09 AM custard has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 293 of 323 (116762)
06-19-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by custard
06-18-2004 9:12 AM


Re: unnatural
custard responds to me:
quote:
So you've resorted to name calling? How original.
Or perhaps it's a horrible typo.
After all, why would I stick the "w." in front of it?
What on earth would be the point in calling you gay? I obviously don't have a problem with gay people. The point behind calling names is to be derogatory, right? If I don't find being gay derogatory, what is the point in calling someone gay?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 9:12 AM custard has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 294 of 323 (116765)
06-19-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by custard
06-18-2004 1:49 PM


custard writes:
quote:
The fact that it is pleasurable to stimulate the anus does not change its purpose as part of the digestive system.
Nobody said it wasn't. Nobody is saying that the anus is solely or primarily a sex organ.
However, we don't seem to have this problem with the penis...despite the fact that it is primarily an excretory organ, not a sexual organ.
So if the penis can be used for both, why can't the anus? Just because you don't want to?
Strange, but I never thought "I don't want to do that" to be a legitimate justification for whether or not something is supposed to be used that way.
Again, simple observation shows that anal sex happens all the time...and usually by straight people. Unless we are willing to state that the only function of sexual organs is procreation, then we have to admit that every single use of every single object for sexual pleasure is perfectly natural.
If A wants B to insert Tab A into Slot B, and there is no need to force it at all and it fits hand in glove, then how can anybody say that it wasn't meant to be?
quote:
Some people can achieve orgasm from being excreted upon or vomited upon, does that make the skin of their chests and faces genitals?
Define "gential."
If you mean "organ used for reproduction," then no. But if you mean "organ used for sexual stimulation," then yes.
There are many people who seem to have direct links between their nipples and their groins. What does that make them?

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by custard, posted 06-18-2004 1:49 PM custard has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 295 of 323 (117065)
06-21-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by berberry
06-17-2004 3:56 AM


Well, your post looked like it degenerated to complaints and rambling that have nothing to do with facts or truth, so I'm just going to point out a couple things on the off chance that anyone is actually paying attention to our discussion.
or 'slavery' when he means either 'indentured servitude' or 'the caste system in India'?
My point was that your definition of slavery was too narrow, not that Paul didn't mean what he said. Your definition of slavery is still too narrow, so you can't understand what's being said. That's no one's fault but your own.
Then what was the point of saying that the single women in your small town don't want to move away?
I can only guess this was said in order to make the argument continue or something. It's pointless.
My question is most certainly not irrelevant if you wish to assert that the bible condemns cowardice.
Ok, great. I'm not wanting to assert that the Bible condemns cowardice, and I've told you that repeatedly. We're discussing Paul here.
Then how can [the Bible] possibly condemn homosexuality?
Lam asked if there's anywhere that the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Clearly, the point was that none of the verses in the Bible are actually talking about homosexuality. In my opinion, that point so inaccurate that it's ridiculous to make, so I quoted some verses. It's obvious from this and previous discussions that no one can dispute that.
Now you want to know why the Bible doesn't condemn Lot's actions, and it has nothing at all to do with anything we've talked about, although really, I've answered you twice, but you're too busy finding arguments and complaints to listen. Oh, well.
Then why is it that so many Christians want homosexuality condemned by law?
Another irrelevant question. I can't answer for Christians, and I certainly don't want to defend or be found agreeing with their political opinions.
Then why did he speak out against homosexuality? If you are to be believed, he must have been pretty obsessed about it since he mentions it over and over.
This is where I decided you weren't interested in discussing or looking at anything. This is just silly.
I maintain that the bible never says one word against committed, monogomous homosexual relationships. However, many people don't agree and it is therefore quite relevant to establish that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and therefore anything it might say about homosexuality can be safely ignored.
These two sentences are two completely different subjects. The first one is just wrong, and you have pretty much had to admit it is wrong. The second is totally up to you, and I have never been on or discussed that subject at any point, because I don't think "the Bible" is anything more than a collection of books. I don't think those books can be discussed together, as though they were one book.
However, you said some really awful things about Paul, and I answered those, and you haven't been the least bit reasonable in discussing those things. In my opinion, since you couldn't defend your tirade against Paul specifically, you're wanting to expand the topic to the whole Bible, and I don't have time to discuss the 85,000 complaints you may be able to dream up against the various books of the Bible. I was willing to defend Paul against your bitterness and venom, so I took the time to do that, and I am satisfied at this point with the effectiveness of my defense, so I'm all done now. Thanks for your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by berberry, posted 06-17-2004 3:56 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 06-21-2004 3:47 PM truthlover has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 323 (117195)
06-21-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by truthlover
06-21-2004 9:35 AM


truthlover, I used to have some respect for your opinions, but in this post you do nothing but lie and obfuscate. To wit:
quote:
My point was that your definition of slavery was too narrow.
Slavery is the owning of one human being by another. Whether or not there is a time limit on the ownership is irrevelant. The fact that you don't see anything immoral about slavery is telling, indeed!
YOU were the one who tried to link Paul's words to the 19th century caste sytem in India. YOU brought that up, I didn't.
quote:
I can only guess this was said in order to make the argument continue or something. It's pointless.
Again, I didn't bring it up, YOU did. I simply asked why it was relevant that the young women of your town don't want to leave.
quote:
Ok, great. I'm not wanting to assert that the Bible condemns cowardice, and I've told you that repeatedly.
Yes you are and no you haven't. You said it and then you tried to run away from it. You said, and I quote: "I do think cowardice is among the major sins condemned by the Scriptures". I quoted the full passage in my last post and even provided a link to the post where you said it. Quit lying!
When I said: "I maintain that the bible never says one word against committed, monogomous homosexual relationships. However, many people don't agree and it is therefore quite relevant to establish that the bible is not a reliable moral guide and therefore anything it might say about homosexuality can be safely ignored." you replied:
quote:
These two sentences are two completely different subjects. The first one is just wrong, and you have pretty much had to admit it is wrong.
I have admitted no such thing. STOP LYING!
quote:
...you said some really awful things about Paul...
You're damned right I did!
quote:
In my opinion, since you couldn't defend your tirade against Paul specifically...
I can and I have.
quote:
...you're wanting to expand the topic to the whole Bible...
No, I'm satisfied to stick to the Pauline epistles.
quote:
...I am satisfied at this point with the effectiveness of my defense...
Fine with me if you're ready to give up defending the racist, sexist, homophobic apostle Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by truthlover, posted 06-21-2004 9:35 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Zachariah, posted 06-22-2004 1:27 AM berberry has replied
 Message 310 by truthlover, posted 06-22-2004 10:38 PM berberry has replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 323 (117291)
06-21-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Rrhain
06-18-2004 8:10 AM


Re: my reason LAM
the uterine and vaginal tracts acts as one big squeeze tube
yeah, once a month or during childbirth. Not all the time. Go take a few hundred hours of anotomy and physiology. The contractions a female has during labor is how the child gets out. And the hormones kick in during menstruation cycles which get the uterine lining to loosen and allow itself to be evacuated. You act like the ass and vagina are one in the same. Go figure, an actor, California, gay, liberal, ?religion. What's with you people in California. Why is it sooooooo screwed up there? Stay there......please, please don't leave. -Z

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Rrhain, posted 06-18-2004 8:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 9:29 PM Zachariah has replied
 Message 303 by Rrhain, posted 06-22-2004 6:34 AM Zachariah has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 298 of 323 (117319)
06-21-2004 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Zachariah
06-21-2004 7:11 PM


Not all the time. Go take a few hundred hours of anotomy and physiology.
No, actually, all the time. Talk to somebody that has a vagina. There's a constant outward flow of mucus. It's an outie hole, Zach. Especially for women that don't want penises to go in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Zachariah, posted 06-21-2004 7:11 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Zachariah, posted 06-22-2004 12:08 AM crashfrog has replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 323 (117367)
06-22-2004 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by crashfrog
06-21-2004 9:29 PM


ask someone who has a vagina
Crash...are you a girl? If you are and you have a constant discharge go see a doctor. Are you really a girl, because I always thought I was talking to a trash talking little man from Minnesota. You did tell me you had a wife. Are you a lesbian? Huh? Frog girl what up with you. Are you EVOLVING into a girl or have you alweays been one?
The vaginal flow to which you refer isn't the same as "the big squeeze tube". There are many mucus membranes throughout the body. We have them in our ears for one. Does that mean that you can screw me in the ear. According to Rrhain it does. Apparently anything that has an orifice is fare game. Your flow of mucus isn't the same as the use of the anus. The mucus flow starts when the arrousal process starts to increase. They may have some mucus in there at all times but the increase is due to stimulation. You've been with a girl before frog. The ones you are with stay somewhat dry. When their other boyfriend comes around then they get moist. See. That's how it works froggy. And if the mucus flow was constant it would soon be dribbling out of there pants and the girls would have to where diapers all the time. Missusing the vaginal mucus movement to attempt to make some warrant for your view is a lame attempt at validity and it's wrong frog. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-21-2004 11:13 PM
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-21-2004 11:14 PM
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-22-2004 12:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by crashfrog, posted 06-21-2004 9:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 1:59 AM Zachariah has not replied
 Message 304 by Rrhain, posted 06-22-2004 6:36 AM Zachariah has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 323 (117399)
06-22-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by berberry
06-21-2004 3:47 PM


Berberry,
Why is it that homosexuals seem to "almost" always refer to someone with a differnt view of homosexuality (that it is wrong and immoral) that they are a homophobe. What a bunch of cowards you are. I guess that means you are a heterophobe, and a christianaphobe, devinaphobe, Godaphobe, conservativaphobe, Bushaphobe, Americanaphobe, womanaphobe, etc............ By the way this is referring to
...homophobic apostle Paul.
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 06-22-2004 12:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by berberry, posted 06-21-2004 3:47 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Rrhain, posted 06-22-2004 6:40 AM Zachariah has not replied
 Message 307 by berberry, posted 06-22-2004 12:01 PM Zachariah has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024