Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homosexuality and adultery are the same thing.
When a man and woman marry they become one flesh.
When a man has sex with another mans wife is is the same as having sex with that other man .
The bond exists till the death of one of them, as per their wedding vow.
Till death do us part.
Some people will say anything to bolster a dying viewpoint. The above quote is just such an example. I'm not even going to bother giving this any more attention than I already have.
You still haven't explained WHY! WHY is it harmful for the individual. Is it just because it violates your idea of what the body "ought" to be used for?
Your nose and ears weren't "designed" to hold up your glasses either, so I guess we should ban glasses, too.
As well as anything that -might- be construed as harmful to the individual. Like driving or riding in cars, for instance. Some 25,000 Americans die every year in car crashes; that should definitely be outlawed.
How many people die every year from anal sex, I wonder?
I'm still waiting for a -real- answer.
Tick tock.
I already answered that same question, from another poster. Do you believe repeated use of the anus as an entrance is NOT harmful to the body?
We know how many christians rant and rave against homosexuality in general and same sex marriage in particular.
They rant on forums, they rant from the pulpits, and they rant to their politicians.
Yet the focus on how destructive homosexuality and same sex marriage is makes one wonder why adultery does not have the same or a larger focus from christians and from the pulpit?
After all, what is more destructive to a traditional marriage? The deceit that one partner carries out? Or the fact that Eve and Mary next door have sex together in a loving stable relationship?
Maybe it's because surveys show that there is more cheating going on in the bible belt? Cheating site Ashley Madison has a higher percentage of members from the bible belt. What is it in the DNA of fundamentalist christians that causes that, and on the other hand, so object to homosexual marriage?
Inasmuch as adultery has made greater inroads into Christianity than homosexuality has, I would say that adultery is the greater danger.
I use the analogy of "The Marines at the Border."
Back during the Gulf War, General Schwarzkopf put a full 75% of the US Marines on the Saudi-Kuwait border and in the Gulf of Aqaba directly facing the Iraqi army. He did that because he knew that Saddam Hussein would be absolutely fixed on the prospect of pitting his army against the US Marine Corps (ever since that "...shores of Tripoli" thing). That was when Saddam was waxing in his anticipation of the "Mother of all Battles."
Schwarzkopf knew that Saddam would be so fixed on the Marines on the border that he would not notice the US Army armored divisions being prepared to make an end run, driving deeply through Iraq to strike the Iraqis in Kuwait from behind.
It's not that the Marines on the border were not a threat--they certainly were. But they were also a diversion from the direction from which the real killing blow would come.
For Christians, homosexual marriage is like the "Marines on the Border."
Adultery is the decisive attack from behind, and is proving itself so.
BTW, I also believe that Christian concepts of marriage, fidelity, and sexuality are binding only upon Christians. Non-Christians can do their own things.
Not true (bolded above). You are making assumptions. We've never met personally.
I responded to someone earlier about lesbian sex, and that it was certainly safer, compared to gay sex.
It's safer that straight sex, too, as I said - but I'm well beyond the idea what you won't intentionally distort what I said.
And the fact that you equate gay men with anal sex, as I've noted, is ignorant. Gay men are a minority of those to partake in anal sex. Yet you're not using anal-sex-having straights as an excuse to be anti-straight. Yet another example of that fact that you don't really believe those flimsy excuses that serve no purpose other than to try, and try rather feebly, to prop up your anti-gay animus. Beyond that, many gay men do not have anal sex at all - the sex they engage in (oral, manual) has a lower rate of disease transmission than does vaginal intercourse. Do you care? Nope. You don't care one bit about anyone's safety.
I guess you're not going to answer those uncomfortable questions I keep asking you. No surprise - I do not expect you to do so. I simply keep asking you to illustrate for the other readers how you continually run away from your own claims. Your dishonesty needs to be kept in the spotlight.
Running away from your own foolish, disproven claims is all you've got, Jimmie. Everyone can see that. And it undermines those things for which you stand. That's why I'm glad you're participating in this thread - you are an excellent example of the lack of justifiable reasons that people of your ilk have for being the bigots that they are.
All you are doing here is displaying for all to see the dishonest and incoherent lack of integrity that is at the core of the anti-gay crowd.
It's safer that straight sex, too, as I said - but I'm well beyond the idea what you won't intentionally distort what I said.
And the fact that you equate gay men with anal sex, as I've noted, is ignorant. Gay men are a minority of those to partake in anal sex. Yet you're not using anal-sex-having straights as an excuse to be anti-straight. Yet another example of that fact that you don't really believe those flimsy excuses that serve no purpose other than to try, and try rather feebly, to prop up your anti-gay animus. Beyond that, many gay men do not have anal sex at all - the sex they engage in (oral, manual) has a lower rate of disease transmission than does vaginal intercourse. Do you care? Nope. You don't care one bit about anyone's safety.
I guess you're not going to answer those uncomfortable questions I keep asking you. No surprise - I do not expect you to do so. I simply keep asking you to illustrate for the other readers how you continually run away from your own claims. Your dishonesty needs to be kept in the spotlight.
Running away from your own foolish, disproven claims is all you've got, Jimmie. Everyone can see that. And it undermines those things for which you stand. That's why I'm glad you're participating in this thread - you are an excellent example of the lack of justifiable reasons that people of your ilk have for being the bigots that they are.
All you are doing here is displaying for all to see the dishonest and incoherent lack of integrity that is at the core of the anti-gay crowd.
But as you said when you first came to the board. If it is males assessing the "wrongness" of two females having homosexual relations, weeeeeeell, that is nowhere near as bad. Especially if they get to watch!
Notice how much focus there is on "anus as an entrance" in the homosex criticism here.
Oh I completely agree.
Men are -far- more concerned about gender identity than women are. Women are free to morph and change as their whimsy sees fit. They can dress in all men's clothing and walk down the street without a second look. They can have short or long hair, they can have tattoos and piercings, they can wear leather or lace, skirts or pants. They can fix trucks or grow flowers, cook a mean pot roast and then go play football. There is less stigma regarding a woman's gender roles (except within the extremely conservative religious camp).
But men ... oh no, they have to -be- men and must act like men, have male interests, dress macho, and avoid anything that even hints of femininity. Men seem to be very insecure about their own sexuality, their own sexual identity, and their own gender role. So they over-compensate. They way, way, way over-compensate.
This abject hatred and fear of gays, then, is primarily felt by men, and they can't stand gay men. It calls into question their own sexuality and gender. Oh no, if he's doing -that- with him, does that mean it could happen to me? Could I be gay? What if I find out I am? What if a gay guy hits on me? Then other guys will think I'm gay. What does that say about me if I'm appealing to a gay man? Does that mean I'm too feminine?
And the doubts and questions swirl.
Now, I'm not trying to stereotype all men, but most of the ones who are so outspoken and vehemently against homosexuality fixate only on male homosexuality (but will secretly be aroused if they see two women engaging in sex).
Which tells anyone with even a modicum of psychology knowledge - the big issue surrounding gay marriage is not religion, it's not whether it's natural, not whether it's harmful, not even that it's icky.
It's because the homophobes fear and loathe gays because of what it says about masculinity as a whole.
For such an astute person, you should not need to resort to such tactics.
Thank you for the compliment.
But I just cannot understand why so many fundamentalists are so focused on the physical part of being gay. If it's not a part of someone's (your) personal life..... why even think about it?
Which tells anyone with even a modicum of psychology knowledge - the big issue surrounding gay marriage is not religion, it's not whether it's natural, not whether it's harmful, not even that it's icky.
It's because the homophobes fear and loathe gays because of what it says about masculinity as a whole.
But what puzzles me is where this came from... After all there are time periods and various cultures where male homosexual behavior was considered normal, or laudable. It seems to point to the idea that this revulsion is not entirely innate, but rather is conditioned. I certainly don't think one can point to the Abrahamic religions as the sole culprits here, but within certain Native American, African, Thai, ancient Greek and Roman, and quite a few other scattered cultures homosexuality and other non-normative gender or sexual identities are not stigmatized the same way.
I do think that the revulsion for homosexuality predated religious prohibition, but it aeems to me that religion has been used as a powerful lever to multiply the effect of this revulsion...
You still haven't explained WHY! WHY is it harmful for the individual. Is it just because it violates your idea of what the body "ought" to be used for?
Your nose and ears weren't "designed" to hold up your glasses either, so I guess we should ban glasses, too.
As well as anything that -might- be construed as harmful to the individual. Like driving or riding in cars, for instance. Some 25,000 Americans die every year in car crashes; that should definitely be outlawed.
How many people die every year from anal sex, I wonder?
I'm still waiting for a -real- answer.
Tick tock.
Well...it appears the 4th of July picnic is gonna get washed out. What a drag!
Yes..the bolded above is the crux of the whole argument. They place full credence in their Holy Texts...there are passages/verses in those texts that condemn some action or other...and they focus on them...some much more than others.
What they don't consider is that it isn't the "act" itself they are all twisted up about. MOF...there are "acts" that I'm sure they regularly have women perform on them...that if a man did that same thing to them or another male, they would then shout "SIN!", "REPENT!"
One cannot use their own personal opinion...based upon "regulations" that are put forth by sources that are not deemed/recognized by all concerned to have authority...to set absolute standards.
I, personally, find homosex to be completely unappealing...but that doesn't give me license to then deem those that chose to engage in that way to be unappealing as people based on my opinions of what they do sexually with others that consent.
But the Fundie Religious will never change. They see those texts as the ultimate authority...and anything else be damned. They then pick and choose the "sins" cited in those books that tweak them out the most to rally against.
I don't know why...but homosexuality is one of their favorites...they speak out less against rape and murder. Adultery is a good one to note...since the most common Holy Texts lists its proscription as a "commandment". But they STILL focus on homosexuals much, much more than adulterers. Strange.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
