The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, not unless by mutual consent. They are of course free to express their affection in
other ways.

There's the rub, what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults, or three or even four or more, is no ones business except the people involved.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There's the rub, what goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults, or three or even four or more, is no ones business except the people involved.

yes this i acknowledge, but this is not the issue, the issue is attempting to legitimise
what goes on behind closed doors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, not unless by mutual consent. They are of course free to express their affection in
other ways.

I really don't see that as a marriage. But if you think two people legally wed but refusing to ever engage in any sexual activity could be an intimate pair, then maybe you don't have an understanding of intimacy at all.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I really don't see that as a marriage. But if you think two people legally wed but refusing to ever engage in any sexual activity could be an intimate pair, then maybe you don't have an understanding of intimacy at all.

there are times in a marriage when intercourse is not possible, for example during
menstruation, will a couple simply stop demonstrating affection because of it, hardly, in
fact, its a time for demonstrating even more affection and understanding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes this i acknowledge, but this is not the issue, the issue is attempting to legitimise
what goes on behind closed doors.

We've been over this many times, where we disagree is that you think homosexuals 'choose' their orientation and i accept that they are born that way. Just like your children didn't choose to be mixed race, that's the way they are and that's the way gay people are. No choice. I know this from having many conversations with gay people in my time, heck, Conrau has even explained his position. He states he wanted to change, he did everything possible to try and make himself change, but ultimately he is attracted to males. That's the way he is and countless people around the world also.

I know what's coming next, it will be the standard - 'Well where's the gay gene?' or 'Where's the scientific evidence?', but ultimately those are disingenuous questions. When has scientific evidence ever changed your views on a subject? You're a creationist who admits to being 'closed-minded' about evolution, you're a 'kit-and-caboodle' believer in Adam & Eve, none of those positions are supported by scientific evidence and yet you still believe them. So i find it very hard to believe that scientific evidence for homosexuality would have any impact in your beliefs at all.

For what it's worth there has been no identified single cause for sexual orientation, research indicates it's a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences. But hey, that's not what the Bible (or a Bronze Age desert tribesman to be precise) says so i guess it doesn't matter. One more time, what did Jesus have to say about homosexuals?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We've been over this many times, where we disagree is that you think homosexuals 'choose' their orientation and i accept that they are born that way. Just like your children didn't choose to be mixed race, that's the way they are and that's the way gay people are. No choice. I know this from having many conversations with gay people in my time, heck, Con ...[text shortened]... n't matter. One more time, what did Jesus have to say about homosexuals?

yes we have been through this many times and as you know i strongly resent any
assertion that's its akin to race, indeed, i see the whole band wagon as a hijacking
of the civil liberties movement. Again attraction is not a legitimising factor, i see
attractive ladies every day, but i realise that its morally unacceptable for me to
pursue any romantic interest in them. As for the Christ, he even quotes directly
from the genesis account, where God himself directed the very first recorded
marraige and blessed that arrangement. How will a same sex couple hope to fulfil
that mandate, be fruitful and become many? Does not nature itself tell you that
men and women are compliments of one another, physically and emotionally,
spiritually and socially? why would you proffer to state that something which is
contrary to nature, that is morally unacceptable and physically dubious should be
legitimised? Marriage was shunned by many, seen as the sanctification by divine
institutions which had no relevance, and now, its those very same institutions which
are being utilised to sanctify an arrangement specifically condemned in the very
ordinances which they profess to cherish. Its nothing short of a kind of rottenness
to its very core, you dare not press it with your finger for fear the whole thing shall
cave in.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes we have been through this many times and as you know i strongly resent any
assertion that's its akin to race, indeed, i see the whole band wagon as a hijacking
of the civil liberties movement. Again attraction is not a legitimising factor, i see
attractive ladies every day, but i realise that its morally unacceptable for me to
pursue any ...[text shortened]... its very core, you dare not press it with your finger for fear the whole thing shall
cave in.

why would you proffer to state that something which is contrary to nature, that is morally unacceptable and physically dubious should be legitimised?

What exactly do you mean contrary to nature? Homosexual behavior is actually well documented in nature. It would actually be contrary to nature if there was NO homosexual behavior in humans.

It's only actually morally unacceptable to religious fundamentalists like yourself. The vast swath of humanity really couldn't give a hoot what people get up to behind closed doors. Incidentally did you know that 27 countries worldwide legalise homosexuality for women but not for men. That says it all doesn't. The thought of a couple of men 'getting it on' would make your skin crawl, but a couple of beautiful women 'getting it on' and we would start to see a rise in your kilt. 😉

As for physically dubious, why did your God create it possible for men and women to orgasm through penetrative anal sex alone? If it is such an abomination why would he do that?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]why would you proffer to state that something which is contrary to nature, that is morally unacceptable and physically dubious should be legitimised?

What exactly do you mean contrary to nature? Homosexual behavior is actually well documented in nature. It would actually be contrary to nature if there was NO homosexual behavior in human ...[text shortened]... sm through penetrative anal sex alone? If it is such an abomination why would he do that?[/b]

because god does all kinds of wacky things. make sex pleasurable but forbid you from doing it for pleasure. make pork delicious, forbid the eating of pork.

i guess he gets giggles out of watching people squirm

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]why would you proffer to state that something which is contrary to nature, that is morally unacceptable and physically dubious should be legitimised?

What exactly do you mean contrary to nature? Homosexual behavior is actually well documented in nature. It would actually be contrary to nature if there was NO homosexual behavior in human sm through penetrative anal sex alone? If it is such an abomination why would he do that?[/b]

because my friend the plumbing is all wrong. You cannot cite unreasoning animal
behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural. I have seen dogs trying to hump
the end of a couch, does that mean that adult consensual sex with a sofa set is
natural, hardly!

the second point, is also moot, there are 1.2 billion Muslims, to which homosexuality
may also be objectionable, although, rather surprisingly i readily admit that they
take , in some instances are rather liberal view of it, much less than illegitimate
relationships between heterosexuals. I do not differentiate between male
homosexuals and females, unlike bbar. Whether these countries choose to make it
legal or illegal is not the issue, the morality is anti biblical and that's all that matters
as far as we are concerned, for our position is one of upholding Gods sovereignty,
not of diminishing it or watering it down because of the shifting sands of secular
moral relativism.

this last point is also moot, simply stating because something is possible, does not
mean that it is in any sense proper, nor natural, nor rational nor morally acceptable
nor even healthy!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because god does all kinds of wacky things. make sex pleasurable but forbid you from doing it for pleasure. make pork delicious, forbid the eating of pork.

i guess he gets giggles out of watching people squirm

perhaps some science might convince you otherwise Zappy, we live in hope,

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because my friend the plumbing is all wrong. You cannot cite unreasoning animal
behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural. I have seen dogs trying to hump
the end of a couch, does that mean that adult consensual sex with a sofa set is
natural, hardly!

the second point, is also moot, there are 1.2 billion Muslims, to which homosexual it is in any sense proper, nor natural, nor rational nor morally acceptable
nor even healthy!

You cannot cite unreasoning animal behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural.

Well then what do you mean by 'contrary to nature'? Granted a child is not going to be conceived during homosexual sex, but us humans have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction.

for our position is one of upholding Gods sovereignty, not of diminishing it or watering it down because of the shifting sands of secular moral relativism.

It has nothing to do with the 'shifting sands', it's do with evidence based reasoning, the thing you shun away from. Because let's face it, when has 'evidence' made you change your mind, you admit to actively shielding yourself from anything which may conflict with your religious worldview. The 'evidence' tells us that gay people have no choice in their sexual orientation, just like your children had no choice about being mixed race. What some Bronze Age desert tribesman wrote down 3,000 years ago is irrelevant in this case. You may cling to your religious ideals, but as bbar has said, you are a dying breed and in a few hundred years your views will be obsolete.

does not mean that it is in any sense proper, nor natural, nor rational nor morally.

But the question still stands, if anal sex is such an abomination why can women and men gain such pleasure from the practice? You believe God created us, why did he put this mechanism in place? It's akin to the drug argument, if God thinks drugs are bad why did he give us the receptors in our brains for them to have an affect on us?

As if an omnipotent, omniscient God is really bothered about what men and women get up to in their private lives behind closed doors? It's laughable except that people are being routinely abused and murdered around the world everyday for the crime of......................being gay.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You cannot cite unreasoning animal behaviour as proof that homosexuality is natural.

Well then what do you mean by 'contrary to nature'? Granted a child is not going to be conceived during homosexual sex, but us humans have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction.

for our position is one of upholding Gods sovereignty, not of diminishing bad why did he give us the receptors in our brains for them to have an affect on us?

Well then what do you mean by 'contrary to nature'?

please see the link that i gave to Zapansy it details why homosexual behaviour is both
unnatural and unhealthy. I would reproduce it but robomod will not let me as it
apparently finds some terms objectionable.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

taking smack is pleasurable yet i doubt if you would state that intravenous drug use is
healthy.