[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sodomy is considered wrong for one reason: The Bible.
If that is so, how do you explain article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Is it based on the Bible?[/quote]
Where do you think the word Sodomy comes from?
I honestly don’t know how anyone could say it’s a choice. This does not mean that there are not environmental factors. Genetics in not the whole story. There have been twin studies where one identical twin identifies as gay and the other straight. We have yet to isolation the environmental factors that cause the genes to express themselves.
But it’s certainly not a conscious choice. The only people that claim it is are evangelist or closeted, gay ultraconservative. Maybe the same people. I don’t think there are any homosexuals that have ever said it’s a choice. And logically it doesn’t make sense to choose it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sodomy is considered wrong for one reason: The Bible.
If that is so, how do you explain article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Is it based on the Bible?[/quote]
…religion and the military; not what i would call great sources of moral code…
[quote]tedro wrote:
MTMNYC wrote:
tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.
So that which is natural is not immoral? For many it is natural to be attracted to minors, sometimes the minors are even consenting. According to this logic it is not immoral.
As much as I would like to, I did not set the moral standard for the Universe. Homosexuality is immoral because it harms society, plain and simple.
ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.
The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there.
Do you have a boyfriend? Did you choose your boyfriend? Do you choose to have sex with him or any other males?
There has actually been a consensus here that there probably are biological factors contributing to homosexuality, whatever you do about it is purely your choice.
Just because there are a bunch of gay bodybuilders out there and more gay men that I don’t know about we are supposed to accept it as ok?
[/quote]
Who you SLEEP with is a choice. Who you are ATTRACTED to is not. Do we choose to be atracted to women? No, we just are.
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.
(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.
(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D
That, in totality, is some of the most ludicrous shit I’ve heard in a long time (especially point number 4).
Quoting a book and paragraph from the Bible doesn’t make you sound any more authoritative, either.
I can do the same or similar if I like.
Luoma, 3:16
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.
(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.
(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D[/quote]
"Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Leviticus 1.9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus 15.19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Leviticus 25.44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obliged to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Leviticus 21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan."
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D[/quote]
pothead
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
tedro wrote:
MTMNYC wrote:
tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.
So that which is natural is not immoral? For many it is natural to be attracted to minors, sometimes the minors are even consenting. According to this logic it is not immoral.
As much as I would like to, I did not set the moral standard for the Universe. Homosexuality is immoral because it harms society, plain and simple.
ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.
The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there.
Do you have a boyfriend? Did you choose your boyfriend? Do you choose to have sex with him or any other males?
There has actually been a consensus here that there probably are biological factors contributing to homosexuality, whatever you do about it is purely your choice.
Just because there are a bunch of gay bodybuilders out there and more gay men that I don’t know about we are supposed to accept it as ok?
Who you SLEEP with is a choice. Who you are ATTRACTED to is not. Do we choose to be atracted to women? No, we just are.
[/quote]
Well said. It really depends on your definition of “being gay”… if “being gay” means having the attraction, then its not a choice, if “being gay” means certain actions (such as sex or affection with the same gender), then it is a choice.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
tedro wrote:
MTMNYC wrote:
tedro: " Immorality. WHo set the universal moral standard" YOU? To you maybe its immoral, but for a gay person its only natural not immoral.
So that which is natural is not immoral? For many it is natural to be attracted to minors, sometimes the minors are even consenting. According to this logic it is not immoral.
As much as I would like to, I did not set the moral standard for the Universe. Homosexuality is immoral because it harms society, plain and simple.
ALL: To me, my homosexualtiy is purely natural. It is not a choice to be a homosexual. We dont grow up saying “gee when i grow up i want to be a homosexual” as most on this thread would like to believe.
The only choice involved regarding my homosexuality was to be honest about it when asked by family, friends and co-workers. You would be shocked to learn who many bodybuilders are gay men, and how man;y gay men are out there.
Do you have a boyfriend? Did you choose your boyfriend? Do you choose to have sex with him or any other males?
There has actually been a consensus here that there probably are biological factors contributing to homosexuality, whatever you do about it is purely your choice.
Just because there are a bunch of gay bodybuilders out there and more gay men that I don’t know about we are supposed to accept it as ok?
Who you SLEEP with is a choice. Who you are ATTRACTED to is not. Do we choose to be atracted to women? No, we just are.
[/quote]
Perhaps you should read the whole thread before commenting next time.
[quote]Damici wrote:
That, in totality, is some of the most ludicrous shit I’ve heard in a long time (especially point number 4).
Quoting a book and paragraph from the Bible doesn’t make you sound any more authoritative, either.
I can do the same or similar if I like.
Luoma, 3:16
Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.
(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.
(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D
[/quote]
The difference is that HH’s argument can stand on its own. He could have left out the Leviticus 4:20 part and the argument would still be valid.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Um . . . no, it’s an example of siblings being born with different traits. You’ve never known of two siblings to have, say, different color eyes? My sibling and I have different color eyes. That example proves nothing.
tedro wrote:
BodyBldgBabe wrote:
IceGiant wrote:
tedro wrote :
I agree, as I said before, I doubt there is a purely genetic reason, but their is almost certainly some sort of biological reason that gives people homosexual tendencies. There are also likely biological reasons that cause some people to be sexual predators, child molesters, or even serial killers. Whether or not one acts on these urges is purely choice. I believe that God challenges us all in different ways and ultimately gives us the free will to make our own decisions. The decision to participate in homosexual behaviors is presicely that, a decision.
Even my half brother would agree with this statement…and he’s attracted to men. We were both raised in Christian homes and have great parents. He understands its a choice and like “Tedro” said God challenges us.He has struggled w/ this for years but finally allowed God to work in his life. Man was created for a woman and vica versa. Thats the beauty of free will though. You can agree with this statement or disagree. I won’t dislike someone cause they have different viewpoints than me.
BRAVO!!!
This is a great example of choice, but also a great example of why we should still treat gays with compassion. I am willing to guess that if your brother was ridiculed and belittled it would have driven him even more towards the gay community, and the choice he made would have been even more difficult. Much respect for him.
[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to prove anything, I was merely pointing out an example. I’m sorry that you confuse examples for proofs.
You are right in that it is also an example of different traits, I have never disputed this.
IceGiant,
Thanks for the PM! I tried to send you a response but for some reason I am unable to send PM’s right now.
[quote]Damici wrote:
That, in totality, is some of the most ludicrous shit I’ve heard in a long time (especially point number 4).
Quoting a book and paragraph from the Bible doesn’t make you sound any more authoritative, either.
I can do the same or similar if I like.
Luoma, 3:16
Headhunter wrote:
(1) Life must perpetuate itself. If any being acted on the premise of death, it would have died out long ago.
(2) Life perpetuates itself from sex. Humans MUST be designed for this or the species ends.
(3) Homosexual sex doesn’t have the possibility of producing new life. For this reason, it is called a perversion; it perverts the purpose of the act.
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D
[/quote]
It was a joke. Do you know the significance of ‘420’?
I don’t even know if Leviticus has 4 chapters or a section 20.
Lighten up, gents.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Leviticus, 4:20 ;D
pothead[/quote]
Hey, somebody got it!!! Kudos to Zap!
Alright then, let’s take one of those points on it’s own, specifically the fourth one and the his overall conclusion.
“Since it is not not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.”
“Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.”
Um . . . because something is not based on the premise of creating new life does not in any way mean that it is therefore “based on the premise of death.” Getting your shoes shined is an activity that is not based on the premise of creating new life. That does not therefore mean that getting your shoes shined is “based on the premise of death.” Not whatsoever. Merely saying something does not make it so.
Furthermore, to use silly terms like “death worship” conjures up images of people sitting around deviously rubbing their hands together and chanting, “Die, die, DIE!! I want us all to DIE!!” So it just gets silly at that point – no need to argue using silly terms or accusations like calling people “death worshippers.”
Are homosexuals naturally able to reproduce (putting aside modern possibilities like artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.)? No, of course not. Does that mean that if we allow gay people to be who they are and live the way they want that the human species will ultimately die off?? No, of course not!
See, they’ve been around since the dawn of time and will, as I explained earlier, always be around. They’re a small minority of the population – the gay community claims they’re 10% of the population, but I and many others suspect it’s probably even much smaller than that. Their numbers ARE NOT GROWING. They will ALWAYS be a small minority of the human population (whatever that population number happens to be), precisely because:
a.) They’re not reproducing. (* And those who do adopt children or use artificial insemination, from everything I’ve read so far, raise children that tend to grow up to be STRAIGHT, just as is normally the case with straight parents, which leads us to the next point . . . )
b.) Homosexuality is a recessive trait/gene. Whether it’s a gene, an environmentally formed trait, a hormonal balance issue or some combination of the above, it is a recessive trait. Although the following example is purely and clearly genetic, it illustrates the point just fine: Think of albinos (you know, the people with super-fair skin and almost white-blonde hair). Their population numbers aren’t growing, are they?
Gays are neither breeding a larger number of gays nor are they “indoctrinating” your children into gay-dom.
I’ll say it again: You really have nothing to fear. Live and let live.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Damici wrote:
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
The difference is that HH’s argument can stand on its own. He could have left out the Leviticus 4:20 part and the argument would still be valid.
[/quote]
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
A thought:
…
Sodomy is considered wrong for one reason: The Bible.
…[/quote]
Sorry, but this can be interpreted two ways, one of which (and I think it’s the one you meant) is incorrect.
Did you mean: The only reason sodomy is considered wrong is the Bible? or The Bible is one of the reasons sodomy is considered wrong, and probably the deciding reason for a lot of Americans?
The second is supportable. The first is incorrect.
[quote].
Sentoguy wrote:
…
The problem with most of the people who down play discrimination and seem to be so adamantly supporting the immorality of gay marriage/sexual preference is that the majority of them are probably the “norm” and have never had to deal with discrimination themselves. So, they basically cannot, or at least have not ever identified with those who do.
…[/quote]
What’s your definition of discrimination? Providing a set of benefits from the government for which you need to take certain actions to qualify?
Can y’all please define “wrong” for me? I’m being serious. What are the meanings/consequences of doing something “wrong?” And “wrong” by whose standards?
What about tagging a female in the keister? What if you start off by doing her in the keister but right before the moment of truth you pull out of her keister and spray your precious seed in her vag? Were the initial several/many strokes of keister-humping “wrong . . . ?” Yes, I’m still being serious!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
A thought:
…
Sodomy is considered wrong for one reason: The Bible.
…
Sorry, but this can be interpreted two ways, one of which (and I think it’s the one you meant) is incorrect.
Did you mean: The only reason sodomy is considered wrong is the Bible? or The Bible is one of the reasons sodomy is considered wrong, and probably the deciding reason for a lot of Americans?
The second is supportable. The first is incorrect.[/quote]
I meant it in a moral sense - my point was that cultures other than those that have a Biblical base have had various biases against homosexual activity and its practitioners, so you can’t just blame it on the Bible.
If you mean “wrong” in a risk-based sense so that there could be a public health reason for regulation, then it would probably be more correct to focus on anal sex rather than homosexual activity. But gay men are subject to a much greater risk from the sexual activity in which they tend to engage than are heterosexuals, on average, in the U.S.
[quote]Damici wrote:
Alright then, let’s take one of those points on it’s own, specifically the fourth one and the his overall conclusion.
“Since it is not not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.”
“Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.”
Um . . . because something is not based on the premise of creating new life does not in any way mean that it is therefore “based on the premise of death.” Getting your shoes shined is an activity that is not based on the premise of creating new life. That does not therefore mean that getting your shoes shined is “based on the premise of death.” Not whatsoever. Merely saying something does not make it so.
Furthermore, to use silly terms like “death worship” conjures up images of people sitting around deviously rubbing their hands together and chanting, “Die, die, DIE!! I want us all to DIE!!” So it just gets silly at that point – no need to argue using silly terms or accusations like calling people “death worshippers.”
Are homosexuals naturally able to reproduce (putting aside modern possibilities like artificial insemination, surrogate mothers, etc.)? No, of course not. Does that mean that if we allow gay people to be who they are and live the way they want that the human species will ultimately die off?? No, of course not!
See, they’ve been around since the dawn of time and will, as I explained earlier, always be around. They’re a small minority of the population – the gay community claims they’re 10% of the population, but I and many others suspect it’s probably even much smaller than that. Their numbers ARE NOT GROWING. They will ALWAYS be a small minority of the human population (whatever that population number happens to be), precisely because:
a.) They’re not reproducing. (* And those who do adopt children or use artificial insemination, from everything I’ve read so far, raise children that tend to grow up to be STRAIGHT, just as is normally the case with straight parents, which leads us to the next point . . . )
b.) Homosexuality is a recessive trait/gene. Whether it’s a gene, an environmentally formed trait, a hormonal balance issue or some combination of the above, it is a recessive trait. Although the following example is purely and clearly genetic, it illustrates the point just fine: Think of albinos (you know, the people with super-fair skin and almost white-blonde hair). Their population numbers aren’t growing, are they?
Gays are neither breeding a larger number of gays nor are they “indoctrinating” your children into gay-dom.
I’ll say it again: You really have nothing to fear. Live and let live.
tedro wrote:
Damici wrote:
(4) A perversion is an anamoly. Since it is not based upon the premise of creating new life, it must be based on the premise of death.
Conclusion: Homosexuality is a subset of death worship.
The difference is that HH’s argument can stand on its own. He could have left out the Leviticus 4:20 part and the argument would still be valid.
[/quote]
This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate the time you have taken to clearly state your beliefs. Thank you.
Now, if I used my shoes in a way for which shoes were not designed, what would be the result? If I use just about anything for something other than what it was designed for, its usually a bad idea.
I don’t know if God or nature designed us or evolved us. But I do know that going against our nature usually results in disaster. Look at the Soviet Union, where people were supposed to live not for themselves but for society (aka the government). Disaster. Same for Nazi Germany where people were supposed to live for the Aryan Race and not for their own happiness. Disaster.
A lot of evil has come from not recognizing and defining what a human being is.
I think a human penis was intended to deliver sperm into a vagina and hopefully produce another human being. It was not meant to be inserted in an anus, or anything else that happens to be tight and fit nicely. This is a perversion of the pleasure endowed upon orgasm. Of course, people are free to do this because they have free will. They are NOT free to escape the consequences of doing those things.
Usually, there are no consequences. Luck is that way. But of course, then the gay person dies out with no children. Its the end of the line. Stamp the bill as “PAID”.