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.
Is that all your argument consists of? Trying to get me on a technicality? You know full well what I meant. If homosexuality and promiscuity have nothing to do with each other then we should be seeing heterosexuals be the MAJORITY of HIV infections. That's not reality.
Sexuality immorality is just that. It's immoral. It includes incest. I bet they claim to have love for each other too. Perfectly fine, right?
Yup, that's the Jeff I know...missing the point completely. I was mainly getting on you about your reckless statement to begin with because this is a 'technicality' that is extremely hurtful to a large portion of the population, especially the ones in committed relationships who agree that promiscuity is a bad idea! And you would understand this if you weren't so buried in your ultra conservative understanding of the bible, but no, you'd rather associate make broad statements that associate all homosexual relationships with promiscuity just to have an extra brick to throw.
Incest is another thing all together and from a purely secular standpoint, no I would not immediately say its ok because there are potentially a lot of other psychological and potential manipulation issues with having a romantic relationship with someone you grew up with in the same family but that may be a case by case basis...but that's getting off topic...now how about answering Nateswifts question?
Careful there, Trout. That's really no better than was Jeff just did with his stupid equation.
It's the truth.
Nevermind the moral/sin aspect, I have yet to see a single fundamentalist Christian on this forum agree that a committed same-sex relationship makes sense when it comes to reducing the rate of STDs.
None, except IF God condemns it. Then each party is hurting the other as well as themselves.
Real love does not put ones own desires first.
God doesn't condemn homosexuality.
A couple of the anonymous guys who wrote a couple of the pamphlets a few thousand years ago which were later collated and became what is known (in its various forms) as "the bible" hinted that it might be wrong. Others hinted it might be a-ok (Naomi/Ruth, David/Jonathan).
People who don't like homosexuals interpret it the way they prefer.
Thankfully, most people today are educated enough to pluck the wheat from the bible and leave the chaff for the fundamentalists to gnaw on.
Nevermind the moral/sin aspect, I have yet to see a single fundamentalist Christian on this forum agree that a committed same-sex relationship makes sense when it comes to reducing the rate of STDs.
If I missed one, please point it out.
On that point I would probably agree and I find it silly that they haven't agreed at least that much. I was just worried that based on what Nateswift said, your words were too much of a blanket statement on all fundamentalists. Just trying to be consistent in my pointing out of technicalities
None, except IF God condemns it. Then each party is hurting the other as well as themselves.
Real love does not put ones own desires first.
This is assuming you are correct about God's present view of modern committed homosexual relationships based on the few arguably irrelevant verses in the bible you like to point out...Also, who says they are putting their own desires first before their partners any more than a heterosexual couple?
Yup, that's the Jeff I know...missing the point completely. I was mainly getting on you about your reckless statement to begin with because this is a 'technicality' that is extremely hurtful to a large portion of the population, especially the ones in committed relationships who agree that promiscuity is a bad idea! And you would understand this if you weren't so buried in your ultra conservative understanding of the bible, but no, you'd rather associate make broad statements that associate all homosexual relationships with promiscuity just to have an extra brick to throw.
If it is extremely hurtful to a large portion of the population then you are saying that a large portion are monogamous. Got any data to back that up? Your statements have no basis in reality. From a logical perspective, if a large portion was not promiscuous then we shouldn't see huge HIV infection rates in this demographic. Care to explain why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jrhockney
Incest is another thing all together and from a purely secular standpoint, no I would not immediately say its ok because there are potentially a lot of other psychological and potential manipulation issues with having a romantic relationship with someone you grew up with in the same family but that may be a case by case basis...but that's getting off topic...now how about answering Nateswifts question?
It is still just another form of sexual discrimination and I can use the same arguments that you throw at me.
"it's none of your business what people do in their private homes"
"Who are you to deny someone the right to love each other?"
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.
