Homosexuals

sponger

Ahnimus wrote:

If we are looking at homosexuality through the Vaticans eyes, then yes there is a difference, homosexuals are Sodomites. I don't think people that use birth control are considered sodomites, perhaps though.

According to your link, what makes the sodomites "bad" are the following:

they fuel God's wrath, they burn in lust, and they will burn in hell

The first and the last reasons aren't really reasons. They're consequences. Only the middle reason is actually a reason. The sodomites were "burning in lust" because homosexual sex is performed for the sole purpose of having sex just for the sake of having sex. That's what makes it lustful. When a man and a woman have sex without birth control, it can't really be said for sure that they aren't or are trying to reproduce. So, god gives them the benefit of the doubt.

But, homosexuals can't be given the benefit of the doubt. So, that's the only difference.

But, back when the bible was written, there was no such thing as birth control. Even when the guy "pulls out", there is still a chance of pregnancy, so "pulling out" is not birth control.

I'm sure if birth control were around during the time when the bible was being written, users of birth control would be viewed as perpetrating the same "lustful" behavior as the sodomites.

Also worth mentioning here is that god refers to the sodomites as "burning sticks." Yes, it is a metaphor. But, could this be a metaphor for the lack of lubrication involved in homosexual sex? Remember, lube wasn't around back then.

So, not only does god not approve of homosexual sex because it is undoubtedly "lustful", but he is also disgusted by the idea of unlubed sex. That is probably why rape is also a sin.

jeffbr

Ahnimus wrote:

But you can't conceive offspring through gay sex.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/fag.html

Jesus Fucking Christ. I can't believe you would use Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church website as a source for anything. Fucking disgusting.

hippiemom

sponger wrote:

The whole "marriage is a sacred insitution" rationale is really a hypocrisy within the context of gay marriage bans. Under the edicts of catholicism, the "sacred institution" of marriage between a man and a women is founded on the belief that sexual intercourse should only be performed for the purpose of conceiving offspring. What I'm talking about is the church's ban on birth control. According to "god", you shouldn't have sex unless you are trying to have kids. Therefore, homosexual sexual intercourse really is no different from heterosexual intercourse from "god's" point of view as long as birth control is being used.

Oh dear ... my ovaries are gone, I can't reproduce. No more sex for me, huh?

Ahnimus

jeffbr wrote:

Jesus Fucking Christ. I can't believe you would use Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church website as a source for anything. Fucking disgusting.

It's funny though, right?

Hey man, I don't know what god thinks. But I know he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent so when he referred to gay sex as sodomy, I'm sure he knew about the future existance of lube and birth control.

Anyway, I don't give a shit. I just think it's a mental disorder, I could care less what god thinks about it.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

colorado city has been in the news a lot and it's because the leader is indited for sexual contact with a minor and arranging marriages with minors. not for poligamy. also; the residents are not being prosecuted for polygamy. true; poligamists don't enjoy the same rights and advantages of marriage as we know it; but either do gays and thus brings us to the discussion. if gays get these rights; why not polygamists? polyigamy is illegal because a woman cannot marry another woman and visa-versa. thus; to have two wives; you cannot expect the same rights unless a man can marry both wives and both wives marry eachother. can you understand the doors it would open?

Polygamy is illegal because it is against the law to have more than one spouse. Allowing gays to marry would not have any effect on the one spouse rule. It would not require us to rewrite inheritance laws, pension plans, insurance contracts, welfare policy, etc. In other words, granting equality to homosexuals is not going to upset the entire apple cart of society. If you're not gay, I doubt it would affect you at all.

jeffbr

Ahnimus wrote:

It's funny though, right?

See, this is just a word of advice. It is impossible to use Fred Phelps in defense of any of your arguments and then claim not to be homophobic. Phelps' loony followers are homophobia incarnate. I know you dislike that label, so just some friendly advice. These people are so filled with hate they picket funerals of soldiers killed in action yelling insults at the grieving parents and holding signs like "Thank God for IEDs" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". At Matthew Sheppard's funeral they had signs reading "No Fags in Heaven" and "God Hates Fags" (which is the name of Phelps' website).

Not a lot funny about any of it.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

you're right. it doesn't fit. and genetics doesn't explain bisexuality. maybe there's an: any port in a storm gene. if they stopped trying to justify their lifestyle and keep their sex lives to themselves like everyone else; the problem would be solved.

I've never had to worry that holding hands with my significant other might get either of us beat up. If a man puts his arm around me in public, no one is going to insult us. No one snickers and points if he holds the door for me or helps me with my coat. These small public gestures make my sexual preference obvious, but I pay no price for it, whereas same-sex couples often do.

I agree that it's in poor taste to run around blabbing about your sex life, and graphic public displays of affection shouldn't be engaged in by ANYONE, regardless of orientation, but there are countless little things that people in relationships do for one another that aren't distasteful or graphic, and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to engage in those behaviors publicly without fear of repurcussions. I don't know what kind of gay people you've been associating with, but my gay friends only want to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do.

Cree Nations

hippiemom wrote:

I've never had to worry that holding hands with my significant other might get either of us beat up. If a man puts his arm around me in public, no one is going to insult us. No one snickers and points if he holds the door for me or helps me with my coat. These small public gestures make my sexual preference obvious, but I pay no price for it, whereas same-sex couples often do.

I agree that it's in poor taste to run around blabbing about your sex life, and graphic public displays of affection shouldn't be engaged in by ANYONE, regardless of orientation, but there are countless little things that people in relationships do for one another that aren't distasteful or graphic, and I see no reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to engage in those behaviors publicly without fear of repurcussions. I don't know what kind of gay people you've been associating with, but my gay friends only want to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do.

Here here!
The start of your last sentence was rich.

cornnifer

blackredyellow wrote:

So it might (would IMHO) help family life, but your perception of marraige is more important than helping families? If I'm putting words in your mouth I apologize, but I don't see how the institute of marriage is more important the the success of the family.

I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.

blackredyellow

cornnifer wrote:

I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.

But why does gay marriage make any difference in "when marriage suffers, so does the family" as compared to straight marriage? I just think for kids that having two loving parents (of any kind) at home is better for them then having a single parent, or unstable family or whatever. If a gay couple want to adopt or (somehow) have a child, I think that the kid will be better off then a lot of children out there. I just don't think that marriage and family are totally inclusive, as you don't need a successful marriage to raise a good children, and there are plenty of happy marriages that don't result in a family.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

you're right. it doesn't fit. and genetics doesn't explain bisexuality. maybe there's an: any port in a storm gene. if they stopped trying to justify their lifestyle and keep their sex lives to themselves like everyone else; the problem would be solved.

The problem with that is that people like you don't realize how much sex is a part of our culture. It's been the case for so long that people don't even notice it. Using (heterosexual)sex to sell products has become the norm, so much so that you aren't even consciously aware of it. You only notice the use of sex as a tool when it's gay sex, then it's "everywhere you look" and "being thrown in your face".

Also, in regards to the discussion on anal sex, it seems to me that the people who talk about this part of homosexuality the most are those who criticize homosexuals. Certain Republican politicians, religious types, etc., seem to be downright obsesssed with anal sex. They talk about it a hell of a lot more than gay people do.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

I won't say you are puting words in my mouth (at least not intentionally), but you are definitely misunderstanding me. Marriage and family go hand in hand. The family begins with marriage, and there is no denying that when mariage suffers, so does the family. I never said family was less important than marriage. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would, IN GENERAL, benefit the decaying respect for marriage OR the family.

I guess I just don't understand how allowing gay marriage would diminish respect for the institution of marriage. So many people already believe it's outdated and irrelevant ... I think it's sort of encouraging that there is a large group of people clamoring for the right to make a lifelong commitment to one another.

callen

Ahnimus wrote:

It's funny though, right?

Hey man, I don't know what god thinks. But I know he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent so when he referred to gay sex as sodomy, I'm sure he knew about the future existance of lube and birth control.

Anyway, I don't give a shit. I just think it's a mental disorder, I could care less what god thinks about it.

some old white guys did...in an attempt to control humans and for sure control their sexuality.....and it was affective...thousands of years later people are still reading and practicing by it....genius.

callen

walkthamile wrote:

Im not sure I really buy that "genetics as the cause of homosexuality" thing in all cases. Sure, it may explain some cases but...I don't know.

I have nothing against gay people...but I'm totally against promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle path to take for our younger generation. Acceptance of people that are homosexual is the key...promoting gay lifestyle should not be.

And before people point fingers at bible thumpers...take a look at evolution theory...homsexuality just does'nt fit...it does'nt belong.

how'd evolution get brought up in this??? Don't worry...there will always be plenty of people having sex resulting in babies in this world..sooo many millions of "special" humans will be born.
I'd rather have the young generation know and accept homosexuality as normal and get on with our lives. Its not a choice people...just like you can't willingly change your orientation...think about it..just for a second.

callen

cornnifer wrote:

I must admit, this is something I've also questioned and never quite understood. Those gay guys people often refer to as "flaming". There is no real way of explaining it to me other than its a big act. No one is that gay! It would be like extremely wealthy men all talking like Mr. Howell from Giligan's island. No one really talks like that!! Turn it down a little.

some men that are gay just have characteristic traits of women...chemical...so women dance with their hands in the air..so do gay guys....and whats wrong with how other people act...people can act and do as they feel as long as they don't assault you.....no biggy. If it offends you then who has the problem??? Cornifer this post is not directed at you per se.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Polygamy is illegal because it is against the law to have more than one spouse. Allowing gays to marry would not have any effect on the one spouse rule. It would not require us to rewrite inheritance laws, pension plans, insurance contracts, welfare policy, etc. In other words, granting equality to homosexuals is not going to upset the entire apple cart of society. If you're not gay, I doubt it would affect you at all.

i can will my estate to anyone i want. or anything i want. the state provides wic and welfare to just about anyone nowadays so that takes care of insurance. i don't know what you're referring to with pension plans????? if i have 100 wives i still get my pension and when i die the remaining becomes part of my estate.
gay marriage re-writes the laws now. why not re-write the laws to give everyone equal rights? to use an analogy; it's like when blacks were fighting for civil rights. the laws were changed to include ALL minorities. not just blacks. my having 2 wives in no way effects you in any manner; shape; or form. you're all for gay marriage yet against hetro marriage when more than 2 people are involved. why is this? i read somewhere that woman outnumber men 4 to 1. if a man can support 2 or 3 different families; why shouldn't he be allowed to?

onelongsong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The problem with that is that people like you don't realize how much sex is a part of our culture. It's been the case for so long that people don't even notice it. Using (heterosexual)sex to sell products has become the norm, so much so that you aren't even consciously aware of it. You only notice the use of sex as a tool when it's gay sex, then it's "everywhere you look" and "being thrown in your face".

Also, in regards to the discussion on anal sex, it seems to me that the people who talk about this part of homosexuality the most are those who criticize homosexuals. Certain Republican politicians, religious types, etc., seem to be downright obsesssed with anal sex. They talk about it a hell of a lot more than gay people do.

the sodomy reference was in response to gay sex not hurting anyone. i don't care if you spend your entire life in depends.
horney people will screw anything. i heard that aids is a mutation of a disease monkeys get. so the first case was from a guy screwing a monkey. i think i saw this on the national geographic channel. so where does that put your argument?

onelongsong

prism wrote:

yes, you're on to me, as I hate straight people soooo much that my children hatched from eggs in a field. I hate to disappoint you but i'm a woman that's sexually attrached to men. i just hate to see people discrimated against because of who they love when they love another consenting adult no matter if they're male/female, male/male or female/female.

and it shouldn't matter if it's man/woman/woman; or man/dog; or man/monkey. a persons sex life doesn't concern anyone else. if you want equality for one sector of society; why not give everyone that equality?
i really don't care what anyone does as long as they don't do it in my back yard. and i think marriage itself should be banned. or at least have the license expire in 5 years and do away with divorce. or maybe the first 5 years could be a learners permit.

Milhouse VanHouten

onelongsong wrote:

the sodomy reference was in response to gay sex not hurting anyone. i don't care if you spend your entire life in depends.
horney people will screw anything. i heard that aids is a mutation of a disease monkeys get. so the first case was from a guy screwing a monkey. i think i saw this on the national geographic channel. so where does that put your argument?

I'm not entirely sure what you think my arguement is, and I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. I wasn't arguing for or against sodomy. Is that what you thought I was doing?

onelongsong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you think my arguement is, and I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make here. I wasn't arguing for or against sodomy. Is that what you thought I was doing?

you're right; i don't understand your point. i agree sex is a big part of society. too big a part. and i don't think people recognise the difference between sex and love anymore. they are 2 different things. for many; one is the avenue to get the other. but that's like buying an airline to get free peanuts. you can't consider marriage a commitment to love with a 60% divorce rate. love doesn't begin and end. it just is. and it is timeless.