14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have been specific about why I don't think homosexuality is wrong. But you have sidestepped it.
yet you cannot bring yourself to state why it might be reasonable to ask a person to
desist from transgressing the laws on sexual morality.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei already stated it is unreasonable to demand a person behave a certain way when it comes to their sexuality as long as they are not being predatory. there is no such thing as laws of sexual morality. no one has any right to tell anyone else what they may or may not do with their own bodies. such coercion is immoral.
yet you cannot bring yourself to state why it might be reasonable to ask a person to
desist from transgressing the laws on sexual morality. Citing other cultures and their
practices is irrelevant, the Law was specific towards the Nation of Israel.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpirityes but you have stated why, other than to say as long as they are not predatory. This
i already stated it is unreasonable to demand a person behave a certain way when it comes to their sexuality as long as they are not being predatory. there is no such thing as laws of sexual morality. no one has any right to tell anyone else what they may or may not do with their own bodies. such coercion is immoral.
is hardly a reason at all, is it. Your premise that its simply their own bodies has been
refuted, it affects more than themselves, i am sorry, its simply not good enough.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewe already know the biblical standpoint and hence, consider it using such terms such as "barbaric" as you cited in your OP. so our explanations of why is completely relevant to your OP.
its irrelevant, from a Biblical standpoint it stands condemned and that's it.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow can an atheist have an opinion as to what is "[reasonable or] unreasonable for God" when they do not believe in God? Although I am not an atheist, I think it was "barbaric" to execute people for homosexuality, adultery and bestiality. And I think it would "barbaric" to execute people for homosexuality, adultery and bestiality now. Is this "unreasonable" of me?
its irrelevant whether they subscribe to it or not, after all, i am not asking them to live
under its ordinances, am I. If they have an opinion that its barbaric, they should also
certainly form an opinion as to why its unreasonable for God to expect a person to live
by its tenets, regardless of whether they themselves ascribe to it or not.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think in these matters (adultery,homosexuality and other such transgression from the "normal" sexual practices-you know what I mean. One guy. One girl. Being married "under god". The normal r'ship stuff as portrayed in numerous films and sitcoms,etc.), that it is best to LEAD from example. Unless the sexual practices are infringing on the other party(s) freedom (ie they are fully consenting ADULTS, then I dont believe you can generalize about all r'ships. They are all unique.)
Dear friends, i have often wondered at your attitude towards the morality of the mosaic
law and its moral ordinances. You have cited such terms as barbaric and to be sure,
the penalties for transgression were severe, for example homosexuality, adultery,
bestiality, were capital crimes and carried the punishment of death by stoning.
Howeve ...[text shortened]... ble to ask persons to refrain from adultery,
homosexuality and bestiality? What do you think?
It seems a bit rich in my view to throw in homosexuality with bestiality and even adultery, but you have shown your true feelings on homosexuality, so it comes as no surprise. Even as a fully straight bloke, I still feel disgust at you for lumping these together in an OP.
To me it sounds like you dont fully understand the issues here. I dont think the majority of posters understand these issues properly.
It seems to me that homosexuality is one of the major stumbling blocks for your advancement in spirituality (or whatever you want to call it).
We dont stone people to death anymore. We are, by and large quite civilized , many of the changes coming in the 20th century, after the lessons learnt as a world during and after the 2 world Wars. Huge lessons for everyone, then and now still. And to top it off -Hiroshima. The ultimate lesson that ,imo, has placed firmly and squarely a fork in the road, for our species. -IE .EITHER YOU KEEP GOING THE WAY YOU'RE GOING AND NO ONE WILL WIN. THE COCKROACHES WILL INHERIT THE EARTH. OR YOU CHOOSE. CHOOSE LIFE FOR AT LEAST SOME. WE ALL HAVE A BIG CHOICE DEEP IN OUR CONCIENCES, BUT WE ALSO HAVE MANY CHOICES EVERYDAY THAT SHAPE THE WORLD. ADD IT UP.
Once you learn to accept the diversity of life and our continual connection with higher forces (god-like beings), that have been here , on this planet for ages,who have guided our evolution, then you can relax and drop the dogma, as everything fits into place.
The only negative stuff in your life is caused by you. There is no "him and I" , there is only the situation,the moment, which continues when you sign off, but will be there whenever you need it.
Peace
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit has not been refuted. the only possible crime is breach of contract and i already stated that each contract should have it's own exit clauses and penalties of violation listed. marriages can and do come to an end. there has to be reasonable ways to bypass difficulties that arise in the contractual agreement and that is to be worked out between the parties involved.
yes but you have stated why, other than to say as long as they are not predatory. This
is hardly a reason at all, is it. Your premise that its simply their own bodies has been
refuted, it affects more than themselves, i am sorry, its simply not good enough.
neither you nor anyone not involved should have any say in the matter.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFthey do not need to believe in God FMF, all they need to do is state why its reasonable
How can an atheist have an opinion as to what is "[reasonable or] unreasonable for God" when they do not believe in God? Although I am not an atheist, I think it was "barbaric" to execute people for homosexuality, adultery and bestiality. And I think it would "barbaric" to execute people for homosexuality, adultery and bestiality now. Is this "unreasonable" of me?
or otherwise, under the law (irrespective of whether they ascribe to its tenets or not,
irrespective of whether they are believer in God or not) for a person to be asked to
refrain from certain sexual practices, so far, all that has been proffered is,
its no one else's business. Now refuted and your attempts to obfuscate.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, I think it is unreasonable to ask persons to refrain from homosexuality.
However my question is this, is it unreasonable to ask persons to refrain from adultery, homosexuality and bestiality? What do you think?
Is this answer "irrelevant"?
14 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritthis is not a reason, its some kind of formulation of an alternative arrangement?????
it has not been refuted. the only possible crime is breach of contract and i already stated that each contract should have it's own exit clauses and penalties of violation listed. marriages can and do come to an end. there has to be reasonable ways to bypass difficulties that arise in the contractual agreement and that is to be worked out between the parties involved.
neither you nor anyone not involved should have any say in the matter.
relevance???? Why is it not reasonable for a person to be asked to desist from,
adultery.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have not said "its no one else's business". Where is it you think I said "its no one else's business"? I gave you a full if concise answer which went through the three "transgressions" you mentioned in the OP. How is this "obfuscation"?
they do not need to believe in God FMF, all they need to do is state why its reasonable
or otherwise, under the law (irrespective of whether they ascribe to its tenets or not,
irrespective of whether they are believer in God or not) for a person to be asked to
refrain from certain sexual practices, so far, all that has been proffered is,
its no one else's business. Now refuted and your attempts to obfuscate.
14 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFI have not said you did, void spirit said it, in essence.
I have not said "its no one else's business". Where is it you think I said "its no one else's business"? I gave you a full if concise answer which went through the three "transgressions" you mentioned in the OP. How is this "obfuscation"?