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.
Alpha I usually agree with you and I see your point. But I do see reasons outside biblical principles to avoid this type of sex.
Besides the obvious reasons, which include it is well, unnatural. A body part whose purpose is waist removal used as a means as sexual gratification is pretty disgusting. The chances of spreading disease is very high (as can be seen in HIV infections).
A lot of God's rules he gave to his people in the OT were in placed to keep his people from sickness and disease, to keep them clean since they didn't have the means we do to keep clean. They are very practical rules.
In short the reasons to avoid this kind of activity goes beyond obeying God. It's practical too.
No argument from me, but WCRob said "Well, basically because outside of religion, I don't accept that there really is any moral basis for opposition to homosexuality." and I said "I totally agree with this portion of your post WCRob. Outside of religion there is no moral basis for opposition to homosexuality...."
I wasn't speaking from a practical or 'safety' issue, I was talking about morality. Also, in the example you used the same dangers would be there for hetero and homosexual sex, so I think you're agreeing with me as well. Remember, WCRob is asking, 'what's the difference?', and if it's a health and safety issue, there's little difference. Morally speaking, however, that's a different answer from a religious standpoint.
The body part used by most heterosexuals is also a "waste disposal "part to quote your words. god for those who believe in him did not have a problem with that aspect when he created man and woman. Also a lot of heterosexual people do practise sodomy.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Again, this thread is not about homosexuality, it's causes, it's moral justification or condemnation. This thread is about the differences between the exact same sexual acts between straight and homosexual people.
...How it is that we seemingly have lost the ability to really see people in all aspects of their humanity. Perhaps I am naive, perhaps I am (just like everyone else) just a by-product of my upbringing and environment. Perhaps if I had grown up in another part of the country, or the world, or had different life experiences no doubt my thinking would be dramatically different. That being said, I am not sure I will ever truly understand what makes this topic so contentious. At times, all I can really understand is the fact that it leaves me with such feelings of sadness, and wondering where is the hope?
I remember a time when birth control was banned by the church. I remember the days prior to Vatican II. I remember hearing someone tell me one time that young Christian boys were told that if they masturbated that they were potentially killing a thousand potential Christians and would surely burn in hell because of that. I remember the point at which I seriously questioned doctrine and dogma within the overall context of what I thought I perceived as the Christian message. I remember the angst that a number of my gay friends experienced when they were no longer able to hide from themselves, their families, and their communities the reality of who they were. I remember the gay patient who was admitted to the outpatient day treatment hospital where I was working due to the fact that he had had numerous suicide attempts in the absense of any major mental illness. I remember worrying as my friends from San Francisco drove across country with their two young children in order to visit family here on the east coast, as I was scared whether they, as a lesbian couple, would have difficulty along their journey...
I remember listening, listening listening to both believers and nonbelievers in terms of what they thought, had to say on this topic. In the end, all I could really conclude is that everything is relative; all people's thoughts and feelings need and deserve to be respected. I realized that in order for me to understand others opinions that differed from mine, that I needed to continue listening in a heartfelt desire to understand both sides of the issue. I desperately want to believe there is hope in terms of one day seeing two extremes gradually merge onto a more equal ground of understanding. Personally, I think that in order for that to happen, discussion has to take place within the context to mutual respect.
I apologize for being so long winded in my response...After typing all this, I realize I didn't specifically address the questions that were asked. I genuinelly want to be able to understand the inherent divisiveness of this whole topic; hopefully in a way where I don't lose sight of extending dignity and respect to both sides in attempting to do so. --Because we all, I believe, deserve that.
I totally agree with this portionof your post WCRob. Outside of religion there is no moral basis for opposition to homosexuality and I think the Catholic stance on sex is very un-biblical.
Well, you asked in a religious forum with religious connotations and so you know you have to expect a religious answer.
The issue isn't the sex or the kind of sex.
The issue is what does God say.
God says sex inside marriage. God says homosexuality is a sin. God says 'man' and 'wife' and it's all pretty clear.
It's not about how I have sex, it's about if the sex I have meets the intentions of the Creator of sex.
God blesses consensual sexual relations between husband and wife.
God calls ALL other sexual relations (homo or hetero) sin.<--that's a period right there.
Out come the barbs at the Catholics.
The Catholic stance on "sex for procreation" deals specifically with birth control. For instance, the Catholic Church has no problem with a married couple having sex when one is sterile. But even then, most Catholics don't look at their religion as "dogma", but more as moral guideposts. Some Christians apparently don't like and don't understand a religious democracy (vote with our feet). My wife and I personally disagree with the Catholic stance on birth control, but guess what, we're still very active in the church.
And the post about the body part that's function is "waste disposal", have you forgotten that the p*nis has two functions? One being waste disposal?
I think there is no difference as far as the OT goes.
And as I mentioned in the deleted topic, if not for religious reasons, but more for personal "grossness" and "hygeine" reasons you object to homosexuality, how can you then mentally sanction sex between most couples when 2/3's of Americans are overweight and 1/3 are considered "obese"? What kinds of germs do the obese carry around on parts of their body that they just cannot keep clean? 1 out of 3 people that you meet every day....
What I want to ask is this: Ignoring *normal sex* between a man and woman that is capable of getting her pregnant (I hope that isn't too graphic), are the other forms of sexual activity that take place between a man and woman really any more virtuous than gay sex??
IMO, no!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WCRob
Is there any real justification for any form of sexual activity outside of the kind that gets a woman pregnant? I'm talking about such activities as the kind that happens on the *reverse side*, masturbation (I'm truly sorry, I don't know a less graphic word than the actual technical term), and the kind of sex that involves the mouth.I mean, let's face it.....men and women are known to engage in those other kinds of sexual activity. Is that somehow more justified than when it takes place between two men??
Sex is not just for procreation, but also for enjoyment. So these other ways of, ahem, enjoying each other, are perfectly fine, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WCRob
Why would any of those forms of sex be less gross than when the same act takes place between two men, or two women? Isn't it basically just human skin against human skin??
It all boils down to friction, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WCRob
What about kissing? Does the touching of two male's lips together somehow make it "dirtier" or "sicker" than when a man and woman do it??
Opening yourself up to be BBQ'd here. To many, many people, the answer will be yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WCRob
I realize some of you will ask why this is in the Religion forum. Well, basically because outside of religion, I don't accept that there really is any moral basis for opposition to homosexuality. And not only that, but the Catholic position (I'm not sure about non-Catholic positions) is that no form of sexual activity is permitted if it doesn't allow for the possibility of procreation. So that naturally means those other forms I tried to mention (with terms that I'm attempting to use so as to not offend anyone by being too graphic) are forbidden. I would venture a guess that there are Christians who engage in those other forms. So do they feel it is acceptable to God?
Yes they do. I disagree with the Catholic "position'' (great pun, no?)
I say just do what brings you peace, seek God with a pure heart, and follow that still, small voice inside of you. If it's not telling you these things are inherently evil, and you are truly seeking to please God, then my friend, go where the peace is.
I did not mean it that way and I don't think I've ever 'barbed' the Catholic church. I simply don't think a 'procreative sex only' stance is biblical. Anymore than I think 'tee-totaler' stance on alcohol is biblical as Baptists believe. And I'm a Baptist.
I did not mean it that way and I don't think I've ever 'barbed' the Catholic church. I simply don't think a 'procreative sex only' stance is biblical. Anymore than I think 'tee-totaler' stance on alcohol is biblical as Baptists believe. And I'm a Baptist.
I did not mean it that way and I don't think I've ever 'barbed' the Catholic church. I simply don't think a 'procreative sex only' stance is biblical. Anymore than I think 'tee-totaler' stance on alcohol is biblical as Baptists believe. And I'm a Baptist.
Not to get OT, but you mean by tee-totaler that they are cool with drinking in moderation? No judgement from me either way...just curious because my Mom was raised Baptist (and her entire family still is) and none of them believe in drinking.
Not to get OT, but you mean by tee-totaler that they are cool with drinking in moderation? No judgement from me either way...just curious because my Mom was raised Baptist (and her entire family still is) and none of them believe in drinking.
I said I don't think a tee-totaler stand on alcohol is biblical, and that's what Baptists believe. Tee-totalers believe like you said you Mom does, that any and all alcohol is a sin. While I personally AM a tee-totaler and I don't drink, I don't think there's a biblical verse that teaches zero tolerance for alcohol, and thus, I don't think a prohibitive stance on the subject is biblical. It may be the smartest, safest and least likely thing to compromise your witness for Christ, which is why I don't drink, but to say it's biblical is a stretch. IMNSHBUO!! (In my not so humble Baptist upbringing opinion!!)
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.
I will never understand...
