LGBT Rights

[Enver]

Should people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender be entitled to the same rights as straight men and women?

I chose the third option.

[ciaranxavier]

Should people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender be entitled to the same rights as straight men and women?

I chose the third option.

i dont see why not, if they choose to do so i cant see a reason they shouldnt be treated as every other citizen.

[Debater69]

They should have all the same rights.

[Viv]

I chose 3 also. Every citizen should have equality. That includes equal rights to marriage and adoption.

[Enver]

Why didn't the two posters who chose the last option leave a comment?

[Gareth]

I think I picked the first option actually.

[Viv]

I think I picked the first option actually.

Is that due to religious exclusion?

[Gareth]

Not due to exclusion at all. I'm not sure if marriage applies to homosexuals however I would encourage civil partnerships to an extent, if the couple were Christian and if the ceremony were carried out in a Church I would expect a pledge in there to keep by the laws of Christianity in relation to sexual relations.

However apart from that there is only so much I can do to bring people to follow God, I guess.

I welcome homosexuals to my Church, and to the faith.

[Al Fatiha]

Why didn't the two posters who chose the last option leave a comment?I chose the last option.

Sodomites should NEVER be allowed to marry or adopt children.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.


btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

You ask the question and I honestly answered.

[miriya]

I chose the last option.

Sodomites should NEVER be allowed to marry or adopt children.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.


btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

You ask the question and I honestly answered.


We should take it even futher, they should be stoned to dead.

we should start with anyone who have ever gotten a blow job, then moove on to anyone who have given one

[Don melQuiades]

Third option, obviously.

[Debater69]

I chose the last option.

Sodomites should NEVER be allowed to marry or adopt children.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.


btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

You ask the question and I honestly answered.

can you explain why it's so "vile and sick"? I certainly don't think it's worse than rape and child molestation. I'd much rather live in a neighbourhood where gay people do "vile and sick" things to each other than one where I or any children I have could have really vile and sick things done to them against their will by a rapist or child molestor.

[Enver]

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.

If I get my way you will be banned.

[quirk]

Al Fatiha,

On another thread you came out with similar comments about homosexuals. When challenged to provide any evidence that it was a mental illness you declined saying you didn't want to take the thread of topic.

Well that issue is on topic here so lets see the evidence you have to support this view from scientists. I have provided evidence on that other thread showing that genetics plays at least a part in homosexuality.

Also could you explain how it is comparable to rapists or child molesters as they carry their actions against the will of the victim and that is in essence where the problem is.

My third point is if it was a mental illness can people really then be held responsible for this? Is a depressed person responsible for his/her depression and why should homosexuals (if they where mentally ill) be the only category of mentally ill people to be imprisoned?

My final point is that can someone be considered a sinner if he/she is mentally ill and therefore cannot be held accountable for his/her actions?

[miriya]

Going to let this pictures speak for me
http://b.imagehost.org/0383/anal.jpg
http://b.imagehost.org/0383/6357510.jpg
http://b.imagehost.org/0383/1164232420164.jpg

[Gareth]

I disagree with your last picture for obvious reasons.

[Enver]

http://b.imagehost.org/0383/1164232420164.jpg

Legend!

[ciaranxavier]

I chose the last option.

Sodomites should NEVER be allowed to marry or adopt children.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.


btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

You ask the question and I honestly answered.



btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

the moderators decided to give you the warning not just enver.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

is it vile and sick because you disagree with it or is it vile and sick because you dont understand it?

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

wheres the proof that homosexuals are mentally ill?


Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.

people with your attitude should be round up and put into institutes where they can receive treatment. and repeat offenders shot.

[Viv]

btw Don't ban me Enver Hoxha like you threatened before .

the moderators decided to give you the warning not just enver.

They live a vile and sick degenerate lifestyle and are no better than a rapist or child molester.

is it vile and sick because you disagree with it or is it vile and sick because you dont understand it?

Homosexuals are mentally ill and society shouldn't pander to their sad mental state.

wheres the proof that homosexuals are mentally ill?


Gays should be rounded up and put into institutions where they can recieve treatment. And repeat offenders need to be locked up in prisons.

people with your attitude should be round up and put into institutes where they can receive treatment. and repeat offenders shot.

For me, shooting is a little extreme. I prefer to shun.

Al, those views are medieval.

What are they based on? You live in the US so presumably they do not emanate from the culture. Where did you acquire that perception of gay practices?

Is that the view supported in your religious background? Is this where it stems from?

[Gareth]

I'd like to tease it out with Al Fatiha. It's not a disease. I however think that sexual relations were made for a certain way, and that homosexual relations are unnatural. It's a concious act. However we are to welcome these people not to reject them. Why not teach people your views subtly instead of referring to them like dogs? That's what I'd like to hear from him anyway.

[miriya]

so who we fall in love with is a choose?

[Gareth]

Yes it is.

[Don melQuiades]

Yes it is.

I guess you've never fallen in love then.

Because it's not.

You can influence it with determination or stubborness, but it's not entirely voluntary at all, and even less voluntary to whom you are sexually attracted.

[Gareth]

I have in the past yes. However it is a choice to be gay or heterosexual. It is also a rational choice to finally choose who you wish to love or show your affection to. I believe that you are confusing love with lust.

[miriya]

SO I choose to fall for my best friend risking our friendship by telling her how I felt, because of lust.

maybe it is just me not reading you right, but I dont like you saying that I choose to be with lisa for the rest of my life out for fraking lust

[Al Fatiha]

Why is it permitted to debate Christianity, Islam, the War, race, basically anything on this forum. Except Homosexuality.

If I state my beliefs on this subject I am attacked even by the moderators and threatened with banning.

Why are gays a protected subject?

Is it because they are so effeminate that they can't defend theirselves?

This is what bothers me so much about so called gay rights and the radical gay agenda.

Enver Hoxha Pms me and calls me a homophobe among other things and threatens to ban me. Why?

There is "No" Psychiatric designation or word for a person who is against the homosexual lifestyle.

But Enver Hoxha can slander me with this name and it is acceptable to the Mods.

A "Phobia" is an irrational fear of something.

I don't fear homosexuals, so the name dosen't apply to me or my actions.

All I have done is try to debate the subject and state my veiws.

[miriya]

Why is it permitted to debate Christianity, Islam, the War, race, basically anything on this forum. Except Homosexuality.

If I state my beliefs on this subject I am attacked even by the moderators and threatened with banning.

Why are gays a protected subject?

Is it because they are so effeminate that they can't defend theirselves?

This is what bothers me so much about so called gay rights and the radical gay agenda.

Enver Hoxha Pms me and calls me a homophobe among other things and threatens to ban me. Why?

There is "No" Psychiatric designation or word for a person who is against the homosexual lifestyle.

But Enver Hoxha can slander me with this name and it is acceptable to the Mods.

A "Phobia" is an irrational fear of something.

I don't fear homosexuals, so the name dosen't apply to me or my actions.

All I have done is try to debate the subject and state my veiws.

Look here you fuck head, you are alredy to debate it, then fucking debate it. you just say I hate gays they are mentaly lill and should be shot

[quirk]

Look here you fuck head, you are alredy to debate it, then fucking debate it. you just say I hate gays they are mentaly lill and should be shot

He should at least back it up with something.

[Viv]

Why is it permitted to debate Christianity, Islam, the War, race, basically anything on this forum. Except Homosexuality.

If I state my beliefs on this subject I am attacked even by the moderators and threatened with banning.

Why are gays a protected subject?

Is it because they are so effeminate that they can't defend theirselves?

This is what bothers me so much about so called gay rights and the radical gay agenda.

Enver Hoxha Pms me and calls me a homophobe among other things and threatens to ban me. Why?

There is "No" Psychiatric designation or word for a person who is against the homosexual lifestyle.

But Enver Hoxha can slander me with this name and it is acceptable to the Mods.

A "Phobia" is an irrational fear of something.

I don't fear homosexuals, so the name dosen't apply to me or my actions.

All I have done is try to debate the subject and state my veiws.


Yes...why don't you answer some of the points put to you instead of making a smoke screen?

[Al Fatiha]

Look here you fuck head, you are alredy to debate it, then fucking debate it. you just say I hate gays they are mentaly lill and should be shotThank You for proving my point Miriya.

Homosexuals are allowed to call names and attack people on this board.

Oh! but if I say anything just the least bit derogatory about gays......................ban!!!

[Enver]

However it is a choice to be gay or heterosexual.

No it's not.

How do you know Jesus wasn't a raging homo?

If he was, would that matter to you?

[Viv]

Thank You for proving my point Miriya.

Homosexuals are allowed to call names and attack people on this board.

Oh! but if I say anything just the least bit derogatory about gays......................ban!!!

What you say is more than a little derogatory, it is wholly offensive.

There are many ways to express your views without insulting posters and comparing them to the basest criminals.

The views you express would be considered more than a little unbalanced to many people and could be taken as an indication of some form of mental illness, but most people have the social skills not to refer to that...

[miriya]

Thank You for proving my point Miriya.

Homosexuals are allowed to call names and attack people on this board.

Oh! but if I say anything just the least bit derogatory about gays......................ban!!!

You dont even read what I say sodomy head, you can debate al you want, but all your doing is attacking.

back the frak up, why it is you thikn we are mentaly ill, and should be shot

[Al Fatiha]

Look here you fuck head, Oh! but this wasn't an attack Viv?

Have I personally called anyone a name here on the forum?

No, I just attacked a lifestyle and agenda.

Big difference!

[Enver]

Oh! but this wasn't an attack Viv?

Have I personally called anyone a name here on the forum?

No, I just attacked a lifestyle and agenda.

Big difference!

No one cares.

I would encourage other posters to ignore this troll.

[miriya]

All then tll me why people got mad over this, when it was done just like you say

http://www.rackham.dk/anmeldelse/billeder/muhammed/muhammed2.jpg

[Al Fatiha]

How do you know Jesus wasn't a raging homo?



Enver Hoxha is not what you just said "Inappropiate Language"?

I get an infraction for saying something about gays.

But here you attack the leader of one of the worlds great religions and offend all of the Christians on the board.

Double standard?

[quirk]

Enver Hoxha is not what you just said "Inappropiate Language"?

I get an infraction for saying something about gays.

But here you attack the leader of one of the worlds great religions and offend all of the Christians on the board.

Double standard?

Offending is ok. Grouping a whole group of people together and aying they are mental and child molesters is completely unacceptable.

[Gareth]

It's okay Al Fatiha. Enver Hoxha, Jesus was celibate, therefore he wasn't a raging homo. However if He was He was keeping to God's law by not engaging in homosexual activity. I don't usually take that opinion into account. Jesus had a group of women followers as well as the 12 disciples (if that is where you seem to have got the motivation for that from).

Quirk: I disagree with the above image of Muhammad being shown as it groups all Muslims together as suicide bombers. I think Al Fatiha has a point in relation to somethings.

[Don melQuiades]

It's okay Al Fatiha. Enver Hoxha, Jesus was celibate, therefore he wasn't a raging homo. However if He was He was keeping to God's law by not engaging in homosexual activity. I don't usually take that opinion into account. Jesus had a group of women followers as well as the 12 disciples.
You aren't not gay just because you are celibate.

Just because I'm not currently, or recently, having sex with a woman does that make me not straight?

[Gareth]

Hang on, see that's the point. If you are gay, and if you are celibate, then that is perfectly acceptable. Many who have converted to Christianity have done this.

[Gareth]

Oh! but this wasn't an attack Viv?

Have I personally called anyone a name here on the forum?

No, I just attacked a lifestyle and agenda.

Big difference!

Again, Al Fatiha has a point here. People who have been cursing and who have been abusive to him should be taken into account also.

[Viv]

Again, Al Fatiha has a point here. People who have been cursing and who have been abusive to him should be taken into account also.

If Al can address the points raised, I think that will be fine.

Anything further regarding comments made by other posters can be addressed in pm.

[Enver]

Hang on, see that's the point. If you are gay, and if you are celibate, then that is perfectly acceptable. Many who have converted to Christianity have done this.

Oh spare us....

[quirk]

Quirk: I disagree with the above image of Muhammad being shown as it groups all Muslims together as suicide bombers. I think Al Fatiha has a point in relation to somethings.

I agree. I would hope Miyra would remove the cartoon as its single purpose was to provoke Muslims and its not even a slightly humorous cartoon at all.

I would ask everyone to start considering what they write and who may be reading it. You may not agree with people but it is no reason to be offensive. I would rather people beginning moderating what they write than us have to do it for them.

[Viv]

I agree. I would hope Miyra would remove the cartoon as its single purpose was to provoke Muslims and its not even a slightly humorous cartoon at all.

I would ask everyone to start considering what they write and who may be reading it. You may not agree with people but it is no reason to be offensive. I would rather people beginning moderating what they write than us have to do it for them.

It is no reason to be offensive, I agree. But it is retaliatory. Al should moderate his comments to avoid such response.

[ciaranxavier]

Enver Hoxha is not what you just said "Inappropiate Language"?

I get an infraction for saying something about gays.

But here you attack the leader of one of the worlds great religions and offend all of the Christians on the board.

Double standard?

But here you attack the leader of one of the worlds great religions and offend all of the Christians on the board.

she posted something printed in regular newspapers. though maybe offensive to your culture dont you believe yuor analysis of her sexual preference is offensive to her culture?

[ciaranxavier]

Hang on, see that's the point. If you are gay, and if you are celibate, then that is perfectly acceptable. Many who have converted to Christianity have done this.

so in order to go to heaven if your gay you have to deny your emotions and stay a virgin yuor whole life?

[Gareth]

Oh spare us....

As in you don't believe it's happened? There are pastors in America who have done this so they can find a place in the ministry. I find it amazing that people are so strongly willed.

so in order to go to heaven if your gay you have to deny your emotions and stay a virgin yuor whole life?

I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?

It is no reason to be offensive, I agree. But it is retaliatory. Al should moderate his comments to avoid such response.

Why was the Bible brought up then? I will debate with anyone who is willing to put forward a Biblical argument in a sensible manner, and consult what common Bible Commentaries and sources have to say on them if you wish. However if you put it in a way such as miriya has, I'm forbidden to speak on what is holy with someone who wishes to make what is holy into something profane for us. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=29130885)

[Enver]

As in you don't believe it's happened?

Spare us as in people should have as much sex as they can get. I suppose you're opposed to sex outside marriage then as well?

I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?

Did God also intend for people with severe developmental problems, both physically and intellectually to suffer as they do? Did he design cancer? AIDS?

[Enver]

As in you don't believe it's happened?

Spare us as in people should have as much sex as they can get. I suppose you're opposed to sex outside marriage then as well?

I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?

Did God also intend for people with severe developmental problems, both physically and intellectually to suffer as they do? Did he design cancer? AIDS?

[Gareth]

Of course not, actually God intended for them to be alleviated suffering in Torah as he said they should not approach the altar to sacrifice animals, and to operate as Levitical priests. This made life significantly easier for them. Hence the reason why the tradition still exists for priests to carry out the Eucharist (the modern day equivilent of sacrifice, except as a memory of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made) in the homes of the sick and elderly, the same applies for carrying out the Eucharist in church and bringing it to the pews.

So clearly God did not intend for there to be issues, and as you know many deformities or illnesses occur in children because of illegal waste dumping, chemicals, drinking and smoking during pregnancy the list is endless. Many of the reasons why this happens is down to human fault in a lot of regards and in the way we have come to apply our reason to the world which brings problems in some respects.

[Enver]

Of course not, actually God intended for them to be alleviated suffering in Torah as he said they should not approach the altar to sacrifice animals, and to operate as Levitical priests. This made life significantly easier for them. Hence the reason why the tradition still exists for priests to carry out the Eucharist (the modern day equivilent of sacrifice, except as a memory of the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made) in the homes of the sick and elderly, the same applies for carrying out the Eucharist in church and bringing it to the pews.

So clearly God did not intend for there to be issues, and as you know many deformities or illnesses occur in children because of illegal waste dumping, chemicals, drinking and smoking during pregnancy the list is endless. Many of the reasons why this happens is down to human fault in a lot of regards and in the way we have come to apply our reason to the world which brings problems in some respects.

That's quite an impressive cop out.

[Gareth]

How is it a cop out, it's using the Bible to explain exactly what you have said in regard to God. Too often these issues happen due to flaws in the way that humans have operated. I don't see why humans are unwilling to recognise their own faults and append them to God as a scapegoat? I was listening to an interesting thing lately, when John Humphreys an atheist was speaking to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on how to convince him to join Judaism, and a question came up on the Holocaust, and he rightfully questioned how people saw that the flaws of man were the will of God. People can reject God at any time in their lives.

I'd reccomend you all listen to it, he has a brilliant book out at the minute also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

[miriya]

IT was a offensive attack whic had no meaning, it wasnt backed up in anyway-

Gareth I will gladly take you up on the religies acpect of this, but in another thread

[Enver]

How is it a cop out, it's using the Bible to explain exactly what you have said in regard to God. Too often these issues happen due to flaws in the way that humans have operated. I don't see why humans are unwilling to recognise their own faults and append them to God as a scapegoat? I was listening to an interesting thing lately, when John Humphreys an atheist was speaking to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks on how to convince him to join Judaism, and a question came up on the Holocaust, and he rightfully questioned how people saw that the flaws of man were the will of God. People can reject God at any time in their lives.

I'd reccomend you all listen to it, he has a brilliant book out at the minute also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

The answer to all of this is quite simple: there is no God.

[Gareth]

To your there might be no God, I nearly even took that stance. For me now there is a God and He is clearer now to me than He has ever been before. The simple answer doesn't really cover a complex issue.

[Enver]

To your there might be no God, I nearly even took that stance. For me now there is a God and He is clearer now to me than He has ever been before. The simple answer doesn't really cover a complex issue.

I'm sorry to hear that, perhaps someday you'll overcome this particular delusion.

How can there be separate truths for the both of us?

God either exists or he doesn't.

[Gareth]

I hope you will overcome your decision :p

Yes, I also think that one thing is true. However I believe that He does exist, and hopefully will never lose my faith.

[Don melQuiades]

I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?



So what? It's also a lot of fun.

[Gareth]

So you're conceding it is biologically for reproduction?

[miriya]

A doctor with a egg can make my pregent as well, doesnt have anything to do with sex

[Enver]

So you're conceding it is biologically for reproduction?

Obviously it is.

[Gareth]

A doctor with a egg can make my pregent as well, doesnt have anything to do with sex

That isn't natural. I believe that due to the biological situations we have been given roles as fathers and mothers to raise a family. I would see this as the result of creation however people would disagree with me on that.

I just don't agree with it as I prefer to accept God's will in the creation of mankind in this manner. Of course this is basing this on my beliefs. I think of my faith and it is the basis of my moral code when I am thinking of what my stance should be on things in order to further God's will.

[miriya]

which one of Gods words do you follow?, Chatolics, jews, luthers oterdox, islam, jehova witeners

Why would God be agaisnt a lvoing relasionship?

[Gareth]

Luthers, Catholics? Same God, same faith.
Jews = same God same view of reproduction.
Jehovahs Witnesses = same view of reproduction, slightly different view of God.

However I think even biologically, if we deviate too far away from what is the natural norm it will create serious problems. We have been given a biological instinct to create a family, our children have been given a biological instinct to be given a male and a female role model throughout life, and this is the way they have progressed. I can foresee a lot of potential issues in changing the way that life has been ever since the earth and mankind were created.

[miriya]

Luthers, Catholics? Same God, same faith.
Jews = same God same view of reproduction.
Jehovahs Witnesses = same view of reproduction, slightly different view of God.

However I think even biologically, if we deviate too far away from what is the natural norm it will create serious problems. We have been given a biological instinct to create a family, our children have been given a biological instinct to be given a male and a female role model throughout life, and this is the way they have progressed. I can foresee a lot of potential issues in changing the way that life has been ever since the earth and mankind were created.


Dont think they are the same faith, if they were why are they spilt

I believe in the somple idea that we are all equal, an dI dont really see why the frak God cares if there are two people who love one and other, just happen to be of the same gender

[Gareth]

If two people love eachother indeed they can be together, irrespective of sexuality. However I believe that we must respect why sex is why it is both biologically and religiously. This is why I think that those who are attracted to the same sex should think about the teachings of the Church, and to consider if a life of celibacy while living with their partner might be a good idea.

[miriya]

It was to go both way, everyone should kep they hand apow the belt until they are married and then only touch when they are going to have kids

[Gareth]

I believe that it is worthwhile that we have marriage for that reason to bring man and woman together before God, by which sex is an expression of the connection made by God between the man and the woman who have come to be married. That is how I see it's purpose.

I'm willing to discuss the view of sexuality and Christianity, many people would be far more strict in relation to this topic. However I do believe that homosexuals should be welcomed to the Church as opposed to be turned away.

[miriya]

Were have jesus ever talked about this?

[Gareth]

He referred to the role of a man and a woman in relation to marriage (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74338365). The previous Jewish prophets also bear weight in Christianity, we have the Torah and the Tanakh as part of the Old Testament, however the Apostle St.Paul also spoke of homosexuality. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74338365)

I'm waiting until Lambeth 2008 (http://www.lambethconference.org/) to see what the result of the vote is on homosexuality and the Church, if they find a theological reason for how homosexuality and the Church should relate to eachother, I will be all ears.

[miriya]

As allready proclaimed what about the rest of the prohets there have been since our lord paul

[Gareth]

You clearly do not know how we define a prophet. The Bible has categories for identifying a prophet. However if someone is legitimately a prophet when they teach and prophesy it will be coherent to what has already been received.

Paul is a prophet, not Lord.

[An Céachta Dearg]

You clearly do not know how we define a prophet. The Bible has categories for identifying a prophet. However if someone is legitimately a prophet when they teach and prophesy it will be coherent to what has already been received.

Paul is a prophet, not Lord.


Are Saints not classed as semi- prophets?

[Gareth]

there are far more saints in Catholicism, than in Anglicanism. However I don't think they are. They are venerated for Christlike deeds and a major role in the furthering of Christianity. For example St.Patrick was the Apostle to Ireland. However St.Patrick also had visions so he could be considered a prophet in his own right.

However it is more difficult to tell if non-Biblical prophets fell into the categories required. Hence why it is far more beneficial to keep to Biblical teachings.

[miriya]

what about those precent day prohpets?

[Gareth]

I can't confirm them all but I'm sure there have been. I don't have the authority to speak for them all as I wouldn't be able to go through them all and check.

[ciaranxavier]

As in you don't believe it's happened? There are pastors in America who have done this so they can find a place in the ministry. I find it amazing that people are so strongly willed.



I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?



Why was the Bible brought up then? I will debate with anyone who is willing to put forward a Biblical argument in a sensible manner, and consult what common Bible Commentaries and sources have to say on them if you wish. However if you put it in a way such as miriya has, I'm forbidden to speak on what is holy with someone who wishes to make what is holy into something profane for us. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=29130885)

I don't think it is that. It is the recognition that sex as a purpose was created by God for the purpose of reproduction, and surely that is the main biological purpose for sex also? Am I right or am I wrong?

your wrong the result of unprotected sex is reproduction not the purpose. as people have learnt since the bible was written (and probably knew when it was written) is that sex is enjoyable. i love to have sex with my wife and have it as often as possible without the intent to have another kid. we mainly have sex because it feels good but reproduction is another reason to have sex but its no the only reason to have it. gay people enjoy having sex with the same sex does that make it wrong or are only straight people allowed to enjoy sex?

[miriya]

so why dont you folow they word?

[miriya]

so why dont you folow they word?

[Gareth]

The Apostles revealed the message that is now and forever to the various parts of the world. The prophets that exist today who speak God's word have to prove themselves coherent to the Gospels. This is what it says, they have to come in the name of Jesus Christ, and there are clear ways you can tell a prophet from someone who is trying to decieve many or an "anti-Christ" according to the letters of John.

I don't see how this impacts the teachings of the Church on how we should regard sexual activity of two of the same gender. The fact that we are giving ourselves the chance to explore the Bible once more this summer to see what the conclusion is is to be encouraged overall.

We welcome homosexuals to come to God's church, however we also expect them to hold a Biblical understanding of what purpose sex has.

Edit: Also heterosexual people are asked to have a lot of restraint in their sexual affairs except in the means of marriage, according to divinely revealed Scripture. All people fall short from God's standard, this is one thing that has to be accepted. I have fallen short many times. This is just the stance on it currently.

[ciaranxavier]

The Apostles revealed the message that is now and forever to the various parts of the world. The prophets that exist today who speak God's word have to prove themselves coherent to the Gospels. This is what it says, they have to come in the name of Jesus Christ, and there are clear ways you can tell a prophet from someone who is trying to decieve many or an "anti-Christ" according to the letters of John.

I don't see how this impacts the teachings of the Church on how we should regard sexual activity of two of the same gender. The fact that we are giving ourselves the chance to explore the Bible once more this summer to see what the conclusion is is to be encouraged overall.

We welcome homosexuals to come to God's church, however we also expect them to hold a Biblical understanding of what purpose sex has.

Edit: Also heterosexual people are asked to have a lot of restraint in their sexual affairs except in the means of marriage, according to divinely revealed Scripture. All people fall short from God's standard, this is one thing that has to be accepted. I have fallen short many times. This is just the stance on it currently.

We welcome homosexuals to come to God's church, however we also expect them to hold a Biblical understanding of what purpose sex has.

not really as a homosexual couple cant get married by the church and in order to have sex by church standards they have to be married. which would make it impossible for them to have sex which would lead to the question of how theyre accepted by the church?

[Gareth]

I support civil partnerships in a church as long as there is an agreement to keep to the teachings of the church. i.e a blessing of a civil partnership. However by no means should it be considered a marriage. Jesus defines marriage as the joining together of a man and a woman under God. I would hold a similar view.

However in Canada and the US they have taken this further in the Anglican Church, this is the reason why Lambeth is planning on clearing the situation. It nearly brought the Anglican Church to schism when openly gay bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in New Hampshire. In the UK, they avoided a similar issue.

[ciaranxavier]

I support civil partnerships in a church as long as there is an agreement to keep to the teachings of the church. i.e a blessing of a civil partnership. However by no means should it be considered a marriage. Jesus defines marriage as the joining together of a man and a woman under God. I would hold a similar view.

However in Canada and the US they have taken this further in the Anglican Church, this is the reason why Lambeth is planning on clearing the situation. It nearly brought the Anglican Church to schism when openly gay bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated in New Hampshire. In the UK, they avoided a similar issue.

so why cant gay people get married within your church, why must they settle for a "civil partnership" as if theyre second class citizens? and jesus doesnt define anything as jesus died hundreds of years ago and therefor nobody living today knows what his opinions were. we got interpretations of what people tell us he said.

[Gareth]

They aren't second class citizens. Marriage is for a given situation. For joining a man and a woman together under God as was the natural and biological purpose of marriage. Whereas a partnership would be more suitable for affection between two of the same sex as it doesn't come under the definition given for marriage.

The Gospels record His definition of marriage, and they are accurate enough for me. Also they are not interpretation, it is a clear quote when He is speaking of divorce to the Pharisees.

[miriya]

But paul wrote the rules, he didnt speard jesus word, he toke his own

In the bible there are 2 refence to gays, ones was in the book that also told people to burn witchs, and it was only about gays, not lesbians.

amd the 2nd is from paul, who was trying to speard the word of God to a place were prostation was commen, for both men and woman, his letters was made to make his flock stay firm and to see that all others was weird and evil

´btw last profhet I head said that gays and lesbians were the reason for all the worlds problems

[ciaranxavier]

They aren't second class citizens. Marriage is for a given situation. For joining a man and a woman together under God as was the natural and biological purpose of marriage. Whereas a partnership would be more suitable for affection between two of the same sex as it doesn't come under the definition given for marriage.

The Gospels record His definition of marriage, and they are accurate enough for me. Also they are not interpretation, it is a clear quote when He is speaking of divorce to the Pharisees.

marriage is a union between two people who pledge their lives to each other. its not sex specific as you seem to be suggesting.

Dictionary:
marriage
(măr'ĭj) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

[Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry1.]

notice how the definition of marriage is used for both same sex couples and straight couples. and im sorry to say this to you but the gospel is a book with large portions left out of it and which cant even be proven as truth. you must realize that not everyone wants to follow or feels the need to follow YOUR religion. and just because they dont doesnt mean they cant be married or be considered married. in your eyes it should just be a partnership yes you guessed just as if they were second class citizens.

[Gareth]

Perhaps in secular terms. I'm looking at it from the eyes of the Church as an institution. Remember we follow religious law as well as the State law. So yes, if profane things were the only things that existed, that would be true. However the Church regards marriage as sacred. I feel uneasy with the new will that seems to exist with altering divine revelation to suit people.

It should be the other way around, we seek to conform to God's standard not to our own. We submit to the commands of God. That's the idea of following a religion.

[ciaranxavier]

Perhaps in secular terms. I'm looking at it from the eyes of the Church as an institution. Remember we follow religious law as well as the State law. So yes, if profane things were the only things that existed, that would be true. However the Church regards marriage as sacred. I feel uneasy with the new will that seems to exist with altering divine revelation to suit people.

who cares what the church thinks. as is proven in the crusades, the inquisitions, the tickets to heaven, and so on the church can be and is wrong.

[Gareth]

My beliefs influence what I think. I'm not going to deny that. I personally do not agree with the rebranding of marriage. The Church does influence my thought on certain things.

"tickets to heaven" - You fail to realise I'm of a reformed tradition of Christianity?

Oh, and the state and the general public have also proven themselves to be wrong on numerous occasions. That is why we keep an eye on the Bible to see if the church is running accurately.

[miriya]

They aren't second class citizens. Marriage is for a given situation. For joining a man and a woman together under God as was the natural and biological purpose of marriage. Whereas a partnership would be more suitable for affection between two of the same sex as it doesn't come under the definition given for marriage.

The Gospels record His definition of marriage, and they are accurate enough for me. Also they are not interpretation, it is a clear quote when He is speaking of divorce to the Pharisees.

SO marrige is only for what???

"I promise to love honer and charish you for as long as I shall live"

[ciaranxavier]

My beliefs influence what I think. I'm not going to deny that. I personally do not agree with the rebranding of marriage. The Church does influence my thought on certain things.

"tickets to heaven" - You fail to realise I'm of a reformed tradition of Christianity?

Oh, and the state and the general public have also proven themselves to be wrong on numerous occasions. That is why we keep an eye on the Bible to see if the church is running accurately.

rebranding of marriage

you mean you dont agree with a definition of marriage which differs from yours.


"tickets to heaven" - You fail to realise I'm of a reformed tradition of Christianity?

oh so your form of bible worshiping is better then those who created it?


Oh, and the state and the general public have also proven themselves to be wrong on numerous occasions. That is why we keep an eye on the Bible to see if the church is running accurately

the bible was written hundreds of years ago and until proven isnt even reality. anyways the bible is ancient times have changed it is no longer relavent to these days and times.

[Gareth]

He referred to the role of a man and a woman in relation to marriage (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74338365). The previous Jewish prophets also bear weight in Christianity, we have the Torah and the Tanakh as part of the Old Testament, however the Apostle St.Paul also spoke of homosexuality. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74338365)

I'm waiting until Lambeth 2008 (http://www.lambethconference.org/) to see what the result of the vote is on homosexuality and the Church, if they find a theological reason for how homosexuality and the Church should relate to eachother, I will be all ears.

I've already explained this. Click on the first link.


oh so your form of bible worshiping is better then those who created it?


Actually see Acts 8, Peter opposed indulgences. So if you are arguing that the Catholic Church remained faithful to the Bible prior to the Reformation, that is absurd.

[ciaranxavier]

I've already explained this. Click on the first link.



Actually see Acts 8, Peter opposed indulgences. So if you are arguing that the Catholic Church remained faithful to the Bible prior to the Reformation, that is absurd.

the bible is fiction that is what im saying.

[Gareth]

Hm, you can think that. But I am not you and I believe otherwise, and I apply my morality when I am making key decisions so that God's will might be furthered on earth.

[ciaranxavier]

Hm, you can think that. But I am not you and I believe otherwise, and I apply my morality when I am making key decisions so that God's will might be furthered on earth.

well im glad you dont make the laws and people who think like you dont make the laws around where i am either because here gays can get married as they have the right to be. and i dont know how you can talk morality and being furthered when you believe you should have a right to be married well gays shouldnt have the right. just like a second class citizen would have less rights then a first class citizen.

[Gareth]

They aren't though. Marriage is fit for the purpose between a man and a woman getting joined together under God. By all means homosexual couples could ask to have a blessing if they are willing to follow God's law and to pledge that they will.

Marriage isn't marriage with two people of the same gender.

[Viv]

This is where religion gets me annoyed...

IMO it's fine for people to believe in whatever pie in the sky fiction they want, so long as it does not affect the right of others or hurt others. But the view that the fairy tale dictates the strict definition of marriage is offensive to me.

It is going too far. People can hold a view, but they have to respect that others have rights and those rights should be equal.

If one is gay, it is as much a "choice" as being heterosexual, ie it is not a choice. Therefore it must be incorporated into societal norms. It harms no one and is nobody's business. In civilised society people have equality.

[Gareth]

I disagree it is ones choice in many regards. It is my choice to pursue asking someone out or developing a relationship with someone, I can keep it at the correct pace or I can speed it up and do things that I shouldn't be doing. There is always a choice.

I'm not imposing my opinion on anyone. I've been asked if I agree with this or if I don't and I don't. People can go and do things on their own accord if they wish, I just think that things are best as they are.

[Viv]

I disagree it is ones choice in many regards. It is my choice to pursue asking someone out or developing a relationship with someone, I can keep it at the correct pace or I can speed it up and do things that I shouldn't be doing. There is always a choice.

Get off it. I am heterosexual and have never been attracted to another woman in my life. I have been approached and propositioned by other women, I have been kissed by other women, I have been pinned onto a bar and kissed passionately by another woman and some of these women were physically beautiful to me and loved as people, but never was it a consideration for me to kiss them back because I..am..heterosexual!

That is not a choice for me. It is built in. Men are gorgeous and sexy and looking into the eyes of the right one can make me hot, but women are just...nothing in that way, no response whatsoever.

Now I am willing to accept that a percentage of people will swing either way and that it is a sex-oriented issue in that they just want to have sex with anyone at all and will take it where they get it. Those people are not gay, they are desperate.

The gays I refer to are that real sector of society who are as gay as I am heterosexual and for whom nothing can ever possibly change. Why on earth should such people be deprived of the opportunity for happiness and for acceptance in society because of some fictional religious text?

[Gareth]

Get off it. I am heterosexual and have never been attracted to another woman in my life. I have been approached and propositioned by other women, I have been kissed by other women, I have been pinned onto a bar and kissed passionately by another woman and some of these women were physically beautiful to me and loved as people, but never was it a consideration for me to kiss them back because I..am..heterosexual!

That is not a choice for me. It is built in. Men are gorgeous and sexy and looking into the eyes of the right one can make me hot, but women are just...nothing in that way, no response whatsoever.

Now I am willing to accept that a percentage of people will swing either way and that it is a sex-oriented issue in that they just want to have sex with anyone at all and will take it where they get it. Those people are not gay, they are desperate.

The gays I refer to are that real sector of society who are as gay as I am heterosexual and for whom nothing can ever possibly change. Why on earth should such people be deprived of the opportunity for happiness and for acceptance in society because of some fictional religious text?

We're not talking about attraction. Is it or is it not the choice of the person to have sex with another? If I were gay, I would take my Christianity into account first and foremost. The same, I could have had sex before marriage already, but no I have not. I've made a conscious effort to look for love not for lust first. If I never get married, I will have to exercise the same restraint, I don't see this as a problem at all.

If I have kleptomania, would that mean that I should have the right to steal because I feel just as much that I want to steal, than someone who doesn't. I really don't understand the distinction.

As I say, looking to the Bible itself it does allow for room for same sex couples as long as they are willing to accept that sex has been created for the biological purpose for a man and woman. This is the way that it has been intended. If I do not get married, I'm also willing to recognize this. I don't think it revokes happiness at all. Sex does not equal happiness.

[Viv]

We're not talking about attraction. Is it or is it not the choice of the person to have sex with another? If I were gay, I would take my Christianity into account first and foremost. The same, I could have had sex before marriage already, but no I have not. I've made a conscious effort to look for love not for lust first. If I never get married, I will have to exercise the same restraint, I don't see this as a problem at all.

If I have kleptomania, would that mean that I should have the right to steal because I feel just as much that I want to steal, than someone who doesn't. I really don't understand the distinction.

As I say, looking to the Bible itself it does allow for room for same sex couples as long as they are willing to accept that sex has been created for the biological purpose for a man and woman. This is the way that it has been intended. If I do not get married, I'm also willing to recognize this. I don't think it revokes happiness at all. Sex does not equal happiness.

Gay people want to marry each other. They want to be accepted and not to be subject to the foul-mouthed abuse directed at them by homophobes.

Exclusion is horrible. Everyone has felt that at some point, rejection is cruel and hurtful and when it is inflicted for no valid reason, it is sinful.

What on earth difference does it make to anyone if two people who are in love want to bless that in a church and have it recognised in front of the community, both legally and in a religious ceremony?

As you point out, there is no question of procreation. It affects no one but that couple. What possible impact can it have on anyone else?

[miriya]

Before I get so mad that I nail someone to a wall with railroad spikes.

Sex is the think that happens when a MALE and FEMALE ORGAN meet right, so if a female organ meet a female one, then that couldnt be sex since it isnt in anyway (except for birgen birth, but that can happend with anything) could make a child, nither can a male on male, that isnt sex either since that cant make babis

What can make babies is makle meet female, and that acorting to you is what sex is, wearing condoms, stop this and is a sin.

If you dont agree with this, do you also belive that mastabation is a sin

[Debater69]

[...]
Now I am willing to accept that a percentage of people will swing either way and that it is a sex-oriented issue in that they just want to have sex with anyone at all and will take it where they get it. Those people are not gay, they are desperate.
[...]

Just because someone doesn't care about a potential partner's sex doesn't make them any more desperate than someone who doesn't care about a potential partner's race, hair colour/style, eye colour, slimness or curvyness, age, etcetc. It's just that they don't see it as a relevant factor.

[bay]

What on earth difference does it make to anyone if two people who are in love want to bless that in a church and have it recognised in front of the community, both legally and in a religious ceremony?


good point Viv

[miriya]

good point Viv

It was one of the happies days of my life, even though I aint Christian

[miriya]

Just because someone doesn't care about a potential partner's sex doesn't make them any more desperate than someone who doesn't care about a potential partner's race, hair colour/style, eye colour, slimness or curvyness, age, etcetc. It's just that they don't see it as a relevant factor.

Yes,

[Gareth]

Gay people want to marry each other. They want to be accepted and not to be subject to the foul-mouthed abuse directed at them by homophobes.

Exclusion is horrible. Everyone has felt that at some point, rejection is cruel and hurtful and when it is inflicted for no valid reason, it is sinful.

What on earth difference does it make to anyone if two people who are in love want to bless that in a church and have it recognised in front of the community, both legally and in a religious ceremony?

As you point out, there is no question of procreation. It affects no one but that couple. What possible impact can it have on anyone else?

Have you read my previous posts. I said that the Church can Biblically bless two of the same gender in the relationship, however in doing that they would have to agree to follow Biblical laws on sex. Marriage is different from a blessing.

[Viv]

Have you read my previous posts. I said that the Church can Biblically bless two of the same gender in the relationship, however in doing that they would have to agree to follow Biblical laws on sex. Marriage is different from a blessing.

That is as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike.

They want the same rights as anyone else. As they are gay, they need gay sex to be accepted as a norm. What you describe is not acceptance, it's allowing it on sufferance and still saying it's wrong. It is not wrong and has to be accepted or these people are being excluded for no good reason.

Also, they have the right to whatever kind of sex they want. Heterosexual adults get up to all kinds of weird stuff in the privacy of the bedroom, that is a right and a privilege. Again, it is absolutely nobody's business but theirs so long as no one else is affected and no one is being hurt.

[Viv]

Just because someone doesn't care about a potential partner's sex doesn't make them any more desperate than someone who doesn't care about a potential partner's race, hair colour/style, eye colour, slimness or curvyness, age, etcetc. It's just that they don't see it as a relevant factor.

Yeah, the point is in response to Gareth's assertion that being gay is a choice. I agree there are some people who do not discriminate regarding the sex of the person they sleep with, but that type of person does not fit the profile of gay that I am discussing here.

[Gareth]

That's the stance that the Church has, if anything comes up to suggest that it is Biblically acceptable for sex between two of the same gender at Lambeth 2008 I will consider it. However apart from that I personally only go as far as allowing partnerships in that light.

I don't see this as having any lesser rights than someone else, only that there is one situation where it is viable by the Church (if the majority in the State wish it, it will go ahead, however there really should be a referendum).

Yes, people can do as they wish. I'm not forcing them to do otherwise. I'm merely saying that I do not agree with it. However if it comes to vote, referendum or otherwise my views will be expressed in the vote.

You almost expect us to alter the Bible, for the sake of this. We should be conforming to God's view in our beliefs instead of asking God to conform to our beliefs.

[Viv]

That's the stance that the Church has, if anything comes up to suggest that it is Biblically acceptable for sex between two of the same gender at Lambeth 2008 I will consider it. However apart from that I personally only go as far as allowing partnerships in that light.

I don't see this as having any lesser rights than someone else, only that there is one situation where it is viable by the Church (if the majority in the State wish it, it will go ahead, however there really should be a referendum).

Yes, people can do as they wish. I'm not forcing them to do otherwise. I'm merely saying that I do not agree with it. However if it comes to vote, referendum or otherwise my views will be expressed in the vote.

You almost expect us to alter the Bible, for the sake of this. We should be conforming to God's view in our beliefs instead of asking God to conform to our beliefs.

What are they allowed to do or not do in your construct of the world? Bless a gay marriage and say what? Get your chastity belt on?

How would you enforce it?

What happens if they "break the law" of your construct? Stoning? (there is a joke in that somewhere...)

[Gareth]

I don't enforce it at all. This is just my view on it. I have no reason to enforce it. I don't enforce God's Law. Whatever one does is between man and God. I'm merely saying that if partnerships were to be blessed in churches there should be certain measures involved.

[Al Fatiha]

What happens if they "break the law" of your construct? Stoning?

Sounds good to me!

I would be First in line to cast a stone

[Viv]

Sounds good to me!

I would be First in line to cast a stone

Tell me something I don't know.:p

[Viv]

I don't enforce it at all. This is just my view on it. I have no reason to enforce it. I don't enforce God's Law. Whatever one does is between man and God. I'm merely saying that if partnerships were to be blessed in churches there should be certain measures involved.

What is the point of blessing them at all if you are still going to restrict them? What are you blessing? A really good friendship?

They want to be married and authorised to do the wild thing, not to be authorised to hang about like room-mates sharing a flat.

[Gareth]

I disagree Al, you do not have the authority to stone for iniquities. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74411409)

Viv: Are you suggesting that you cannot love someone without having sex with them?
Sex is there for a purpose. I've already outlined my thoughts on this. I'm not going to go around in circles.

[Al Fatiha]

I disagree Al, you do not have the authority to stone for iniquities. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74411409)


If hopefully, stoning homosexuals became the law of the land.

Then yes, I would have the authority.

[Gareth]

Do you insist that you have divine authority to carry out stonings?

[Al Fatiha]

Do you insist that you have divine authority to carry out stonings?I obey the law of the country that I live in.

If people voted in Old Testament Laws. Then sodomites could and should be stoned to death.

Same as if my country adopted Sharia Law

[Viv]

I disagree Al, you do not have the authority to stone for iniquities. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74411409)

Viv: Are you suggesting that you cannot love someone without having sex with them?
Sex is there for a purpose. I've already outlined my thoughts on this. I'm not going to go around in circles.

That would be Garethese for "I'm beat and I know it"?

Humans engage in sex within marriage pretty frequently. It is known as recreational sex. Of the thousands of times people have sex within married life, the act may be expected to produce 2.5 children.

By your construct and logic, your church can as easily be expected to dictate to heterosexuals that they will not have sex unless it is for the purpose of producing offspring.

It is of course possible to love without sex, but people choose a partner partly to fulfill that need. To live without it is to fight against nature. From personal experience, that is almost impossible for a normal person. Any red-blooded male who tries to live without sex in close proximity to the woman of his choice, the one he married because he could not live without her physical presence, the one he had the uncontrollable hots for to the degree that he had to marry her just to keep her close to him... will go ballistic within days.

Gay people are exactly the same, they don't just love a partner, they want them also, it is all part of the whole relationship thing. That physical desire must be expressed, it is natural and necessary to do so and completely unrealistic to suggest people can live without that release.

[Viv]

I obey the law of the country that I live in.

If people voted in Old Testament Laws. Then sodomites could and should be stoned to death.

Same as if my country adopted Sharia Law

There goes Al with his derail the thread routine...yawn...

[Al Fatiha]

There goes Al with his derail the thread routine...yawn...Viv how am I derailing the thread?

I was asked a question and answered it.

[Viv]

Viv how am I derailing the thread?

I was asked a question and answered it.

I am not engaging with you Al, unless you make reasonable, non-offensive comments.

You are well aware that saying you would like to stone innocent people is very offensive and likely to upset posters. That is self-explanatory.

Please do not address me again unless it is with a reasonable point. I will not respond.

[Al Fatiha]

You are well aware that saying you would like to stone innocent people is very offensive and likely to upset posters.

I "NEVER" said to stone "innocent" people Viv.

My post said "If" we passed laws against homosexuality.

Then stoning would be legal.

[Viv]

I "NEVER" said to stone "innocent" people Viv.

My post said "If" we passed laws against homosexuality.

Then stoning would be legal.

Semantics.

[Gareth]

It is of course possible to love without sex, but people choose a partner partly to fulfill that need. To live without it is to fight against nature. From personal experience, that is almost impossible for a normal person. Any red-blooded male who tries to live without sex in close proximity to the woman of his choice, the one he married because he could not live without her physical presence, the one he had the uncontrollable hots for to the degree that he had to marry her just to keep her close to him... will go ballistic within days.


Hang on. There is a reason why we do not engage ourselves in the fact of lusting and why we must control ourselves. 1) It causes the objectification of others, hence why the porn industry exists, 2) If we just went and did whatever we wanted in relation to lust, adultery would be rampant. We all have to exercise control against lust.

I'm like any man. However that doesn't absolve my responsibility to learn to love instead of lust. This is why ignoring feeling of lust, is more productive in finding a long term partner instead of just going for it if someone looks good.

See you are referring to lustful behaviour instead of loving behaviour. I don't consider lusting a need and it can indeed become an addiction.

I have to see what reasoning you have behind putting a law to stone others into the state law. If this person is sinning against God, it is not to do with other members of mankind who have their own sins and hence are being hypocrites. We must remove our own iniquities and help people to remove theirs. I had to do difficult things to make myself adherent to many religious laws. I'm not going to list them all, however yes I did have to do some very difficult things to move on in my walk with God. I think homosexuals can do this, and many have in the USA believe it or not.

[Al Fatiha]

Semantics.
If someone breaks the law of the land it is not semantics.

Try telling that to a Judge at a court if you are brought up on charges..

[miriya]

Before I get so mad that I nail someone to a wall with railroad spikes.

Sex is the think that happens when a MALE and FEMALE ORGAN meet right, so if a female organ meet a female one, then that couldnt be sex since it isnt in anyway (except for birgen birth, but that can happend with anything) could make a child, nither can a male on male, that isnt sex either since that cant make babis

What can make babies is makle meet female, and that acorting to you is what sex is, wearing condoms, stop this and is a sin.

If you dont agree with this, do you also belive that mastabation is a sin

poke poke


Al, you aint allowed to gas anyone in america are you?

[Gareth]

That would be Garethese for "I'm beat and I know it"?

Humans engage in sex within marriage pretty frequently. It is known as recreational sex. Of the thousands of times people have sex within married life, the act may be expected to produce 2.5 children.


Continuing on.

No it's not. I personally don't see the need to repeat myself. Look over the thread.

Secondly, who says that people in marriage cannot have sex for recreational purposes? This is the reason why God brings a man and a woman together spiritually, so that they might become one together physically and socially and in other relations.

[miriya]

SIns against god is his bussince, NOT YOURS, if he doesnt want muslims in his heaven doesnt give us a reason to stone them

[Gareth]

Before I get so mad that I nail someone to a wall with railroad spikes.

Sex is the think that happens when a MALE and FEMALE ORGAN meet right, so if a female organ meet a female one, then that couldnt be sex since it isnt in anyway (except for birgen birth, but that can happend with anything) could make a child, nither can a male on male, that isnt sex either since that cant make babis

What can make babies is makle meet female, and that acorting to you is what sex is, wearing condoms, stop this and is a sin.

If you dont agree with this, do you also belive that mastabation is a sin

Get mad if you wish, it will do you no good.

Secondly, the natural purpose of sex is between a man and a woman. However sexual relations can be abused, and have continually since the beginning of time. However sexual stimulation can occur in several ways, so I don't get your point.

As for masturbation I do believe that it is a sin due to the lusting involved as well as everything else.

However you are right in saying Al Fatiha has no right to stone someone as the sin lies between you and God, not between you and Al.

[Viv]

Continuing on.

No it's not. I personally don't see the need to repeat myself. Look over the thread.

Secondly, who says that people in marriage cannot have sex for recreational purposes? This is the reason why God brings a man and a woman together spiritually, so that they might become one together physically and socially and in other relations.

Your point was that the church may bless gay unions but these differ from heterosexual marriage in that gays must not consummate, as sex is for procreation.

If that is the case, logically heterosexuals should only engage in sex for procreation also.

Otherwise there is inequity...Why is it ok for heterosexuals to be at it like rabbits without procreating, but not gay people?

[miriya]

Get mad if you wish, it will do you no good.

Secondly, the natural purpose of sex is between a man and a woman. However sexual relations can be abused, and have continually since the beginning of time. However sexual stimulation can occur in several ways, so I don't get your point.

As for masturbation I do believe that it is a sin due to the lusting involved as well as everything else.

However you are right in saying Al Fatiha has no right to stone someone as the sin lies between you and God, not between you and Al.

I want you to show me were in the bible it says what sex is and what it isnt

Then go on to were jesus was against same gendered couples


and I will keep getting mad each time you and al attack my marrige with the most wonderful person in the world
and keep laighting at Al thinking he is gods devine weapon here on earth

[Gareth]

If you look at the anatomy of males and females, you can tell biologically why sexual organs were created the way they are. God has willed for sex to be an act to enjoyed between males and females as He brings them as one together in marriage. Yes it serves the act of reproduction, and it also serves as a means of recreation at the same time.

I don't understand how it is natural for homosexual relations to take place in the first place, even when in some cases there has been a need for anal tampons in some situations because of excessive use of sodomy.

[Gareth]

I want you to show me were in the bible it says what sex is and what it isnt

Then go on to were jesus was against same gendered couples


and I will keep getting mad each time you and al attack my marrige with the most wonderful person in the world
and keep laighting at Al thinking he is gods devine weapon here on earth

I've never said that Jesus was against same gendered couples or that God was against same gendered couples. I just don't think sex was created for the purpose which you insist that you have the right for using it for. What you do is up to you, however when I am asked for my opinion I will answer it simply. You can carry on doing what you wish.

The scriptures clearly forbid sexual activity when males lay with males and when females lay with females. From reading it this is my basis for this.

I have done plenty of things wrong, and it is possible to repent of them at any time. I don't see why this brings such aggravation.

[Viv]

Get mad if you wish, it will do you no good.

Secondly, the natural purpose of sex is between a man and a woman. However sexual relations can be abused, and have continually since the beginning of time. However sexual stimulation can occur in several ways, so I don't get your point.

As for masturbation I do believe that it is a sin due to the lusting involved as well as everything else.

However you are right in saying Al Fatiha has no right to stone someone as the sin lies between you and God, not between you and Al.

That is a sin also...man you are going to blow...:D...

Gareth, step into the real world. The real world where a normal woman can look into her man's eyes and make him crazy. Where to sit beside him and brush his thigh with her hand makes him shift in his seat. Where the whole world is quietly revolving around a silent physical attraction every second they are sharing a room and where the denial of physical release is as an act of aggression on the part of the woman.

Women use that to get what they want every day of the week. It is a need, especially for men. People cannot live without it and it is not confined to heterosexuals. Gay people are not one bit different in this respect, it is total nonsense to expect them to live together with the object of their desire and keep their needs to themselves, it cannot work.

[ciaranxavier]

They aren't though. Marriage is fit for the purpose between a man and a woman getting joined together under God. By all means homosexual couples could ask to have a blessing if they are willing to follow God's law and to pledge that they will.

Marriage isn't marriage with two people of the same gender.

it is marriage i posted you the definition are you so thick headed that you think your religion supercedes what the dictionary says? and marriage is fit for the union of two PEOPLE who pledge to give their lives for one another through thick or thin. not to STRAIGHT people just two PEOPLE. and why would homosexuals want a blessing from a church that doesnt even see fit to give it the same rights as straight people would have inside their church?

[Enver]

That is a sin also...man you are going to blow...:D...

Gareth, step into the real world. The real world where a normal woman can look into her man's eyes and make him crazy. Where to sit beside him and brush his thigh with her hand makes him shift in his seat. Where the whole world is quietly revolving around a silent physical attraction every second they are sharing a room and where the denial of physical release is as an act of aggression on the part of the woman.

Women use that to get what they want every day of the week. It is a need, especially for men. People cannot live without it and it is not confined to heterosexuals. Gay people are not one bit different in this respect, it is total nonsense to expect them to live together with the object of their desire and keep their needs to themselves, it cannot work.

Very well said Viv.

[Viv]

If you look at the anatomy of males and females, you can tell biologically why sexual organs were created the way they are. God has willed for sex to be an act to enjoyed between males and females as He brings them as one together in marriage. Yes it serves the act of reproduction, and it also serves as a means of recreation at the same time.

I don't understand how it is natural for homosexual relations to take place in the first place, even when in some cases there has been a need for anal tampons in some situations because of excessive use of sodomy.

That you do not understand it does not mean it is not natural. It is natural to some people and that is really all you need to know. Natural to them and a requirement to them, as being with a woman might feel to a heterosexual male.

Sexual organs were created that way for procreation, so what? It does physically work for gay people regardless. Many heterosexuals use any kind of battery-operated toy in the bedroom, none of that is "natural". People are creative, it is fun...entertaining...if you cannot be creative in the bedroom you are a pretty boring person. What is it now, missionary position and nothing else?

[ciaranxavier]

We're not talking about attraction. Is it or is it not the choice of the person to have sex with another? If I were gay, I would take my Christianity into account first and foremost. The same, I could have had sex before marriage already, but no I have not. I've made a conscious effort to look for love not for lust first. If I never get married, I will have to exercise the same restraint, I don't see this as a problem at all.

If I have kleptomania, would that mean that I should have the right to steal because I feel just as much that I want to steal, than someone who doesn't. I really don't understand the distinction.

As I say, looking to the Bible itself it does allow for room for same sex couples as long as they are willing to accept that sex has been created for the biological purpose for a man and woman. This is the way that it has been intended. If I do not get married, I'm also willing to recognize this. I don't think it revokes happiness at all. Sex does not equal happiness.

I could have had sex before marriage already, but no I have not. I've made a conscious effort to look for love not for lust first. If I never get married, I will have to exercise the same restraint, I don't see this as a problem at all.

and why must marriage be a prerequisite for love??? im not married but i have what i call my wife and a son. we love each other and we have a loving family. we are not married but does this mean we dont love each other according to your beliefs? is our 6 year relationship just lust and not love?

Sex does not equal happiness

tell the millions out there who have sex each day NOT to have a kid but because they enjoy it.

[Gareth]

Women use that to get what they want every day of the week.

I don't agree with this either. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74415675) There is more to life than sex, sure sometimes if there is a pretty girl I will look at her for a second, but one must realize that we have responsibilities and cannot be throwing ourselves around to get what we want. Sure it might be the "real world" as you refer to it, however I wish to live my life differently, and doing this has prompted a change in my life. I'm personally happy the way I am without having to do these things that people call "social norms".

[Viv]

I don't agree with this either. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74415675) There is more to life than sex, sure sometimes if there is a pretty girl I will look at her for a second, but one must realize that we have responsibilities and cannot be throwing ourselves around to get what we want. Sure it might be the "real world" as you refer to it, however I wish to live my life differently, and doing this has prompted a change in my life. I'm personally happy the way I am without having to do these things that people call "social norms".

I do not refer to adultery in this case, I refer to the human need for sex within a relationship and the impossibility of living with a partner you love but being expected to refrain from sex.

Of course there is much more to life than sex and the brain must engage with the other person before it is even a consideration, but as most people marry someone they are sexually attracted to it is a major player in how people work.

And there is nothing wrong in being strongly attracted to someone you are married to...oh wait, Doctor Who is on telly...big kid... bye:p

[Enver]

I don't agree with this either. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74415675) There is more to life than sex, sure sometimes if there is a pretty girl I will look at her for a second, but one must realize that we have responsibilities and cannot be throwing ourselves around to get what we want. Sure it might be the "real world" as you refer to it, however I wish to live my life differently, and doing this has prompted a change in my life. I'm personally happy the way I am without having to do these things that people call "social norms".

Chill out and have a wank mate.

[ciaranxavier]

gareth well your waiting for your church to comb through your bible to see if its "alright" for gay people to marry heres some other "holy" laws you should be getting them to change. (oh and the outcome of gays being allowed is bad as i will show you in the next line)

Leviticus 20:13 clearly states "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

NO ONE HAVE WET DREAMS OR YOU ARENT ALLOWED INTO HEAVEN.

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

gareth my brother converted to muslim should i kill him? the bible says too.

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

i wonder if this was the law they used to justify the crusades?

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

at least its not just gays who cant go to the altar eh gareth?

Anyone working on the Sabbath is to be killed. (Ex 35:2)

i was forced to do some OT on a sunday should i be killed now gareth?

i could keep going but these are an example of the dumb laws that your "holy" book sets forth. do you follow all these too? they are a part of your faith are they not?

[Debater69]

[...]

As for masturbation I do believe that it is a sin due to the lusting involved as well as everything else.

[...]

No masturbation and no sex until you're married? To live like that would take either incredible self-control or a low libido (or a very early marriage, but for homosexuals that option wouldn't be available)

[Gareth]

I do not refer to adultery in this case, I refer to the human need for sex within a relationship and the impossibility of living with a partner you love but being expected to refrain from sex.

Of course there is much more to life than sex and the brain must engage with the other person before it is even a consideration, but as most people marry someone they are sexually attracted to it is a major player in how people work.

And there is nothing wrong in being strongly attracted to someone you are married to...oh wait, Doctor Who is on telly...big kid... bye:p

Of course. Christians encourage people to be attracted to who they marry in both physical and in the inner beauty of the person they intend to marry. I never said that this was true. However being married solely for attraction will most likely end up in divorce.

Combing through the Bible? What are you referring to?

As for the death penalty it is common knowledge that the Torah is looked to in light of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Humans have proved themselves to be incapable of carrying out the death penalty. I see it fit to leave it to God Himself, as my teacher Yeshua ben Nazerat insisted upon. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74417066)

The simple reason. The altar was used to sacrifice animals. However the practice is there this day to faciliate people with disabilities, so that they would not have to go to the altar in the Church of Christ. Personally I wouldn't have someone with a broken spine carrying a calf to the altar.

Gays can come to the altar, may I add. I never said they couldn't :)

You are wrong on wet dreams. Look to the full Torah please.
(http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74418049)
Yes, I do follow these laws in respect to the New Testament. (http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14) (on this link consult point 7)

As for the town of different religions, this was in the conquest for Israel. It's rather different. If you wish to discuss this I will freely talk it out on PM or on the Religion forum. It's not in relation to the topic on the thread though.

No masturbation and no sex until you're married? To live like that would take either incredible self-control or a low libido (or a very early marriage, but for homosexuals that option wouldn't be available)

This is one of the acts that I put aside to take a full part in Christianity for myself. I've managed to rid it from my life.

[ciaranxavier]

still waiting for a response gareth.

[Gareth]

I've dealt with some of your points. I'm only in passing from studying German for my LC Oral exam. However I do believe that is the Law, however we have to take account the teachings of Jesus Christ, people had proved themselves inadequate and people could no longer carry out the death penalty as they too had sinned.

You are clearly wrong on wet dreams as they are referred to in Torah (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74418049). The passing of bodily fluids were considered unclean, not sinful. This teaching is in all Abrahamic faiths to an extent. This is why you see mikvehs in the Jewish faith. One was to be separated until they had become purified in mikveh.

[ciaranxavier]

I've dealt with some of your points. I'm only in passing from studying German for my LC Oral exam. However I do believe that is the Law, however we have to take account the teachings of Jesus Christ, people had proved themselves inadequate and people could no longer carry out the death penalty as they too had sinned.

You are clearly wrong on wet dreams as they are referred to in Torah (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74418049). The passing of bodily fluids were considered unclean, not sinful. This teaching is in all Abrahamic faiths to an extent. This is why you see mikvehs in the Jewish faith.

so you do support those laws? your kind of beating around the bush. do you believe those to be law as well?

[Gareth]

The laws in relation to sexuality do stand yes. The death penalty however does not due to mankind proving itself incapable of carrying this out, every look at previous prophesies takes into account the final revelation in Christianity. In a Jewish perspective you would need to look at the Babylonian Talmud.

[bay]

You are clearly wrong on wet dreams as they are referred to in Torah. The passing of bodily fluids were considered unclean, not sinful.

oh dear. if this was on the seven levels of hell test, we'd have all been sent to lower levels...

[Viv]

oh dear. if this was on the seven levels of hell test, we'd have all been sent to lower levels...

Oh good. Me for level two, that's where the lustful hang out.

Oops...stoning for sure...:p

[Enver]

Oh good. Me for level two, that's where the lustful hang out.

Oops...stoning for sure...:p

I was level seven. :eek:

[ciaranxavier]

The laws in relation to sexuality do stand yes. The death penalty however does not due to mankind proving itself incapable of carrying this out, every look at previous prophesies takes into account the final revelation in Christianity. In a Jewish perspective you would need to look at the Babylonian Talmud.

so you follow gods views but can tweak it when suitable?

[Viv]

I was level seven. :eek:

I know. You are one of those violent types though...for level two you have to be into aesthetic, beautiful romanticism and poetry and passion and all that...but hey, we can visit...:D

Edit: sorry...polluting the thread...

[miriya]

I've never said that Jesus was against same gendered couples or that God was against same gendered couples. I just don't think sex was created for the purpose which you insist that you have the right for using it for. What you do is up to you, however when I am asked for my opinion I will answer it simply. You can carry on doing what you wish.

The scriptures clearly forbid sexual activity when males lay with males and when females lay with females. From reading it this is my basis for this.

I have done plenty of things wrong, and it is possible to repent of them at any time. I don't see why this brings such aggravation.


No it is clearly against men lieing with men like they do with women, and since men doesnt have whome, that is imposible

And the way you say sex is, then it is about getting a woman pregent, that would say, balls and a whome, have nothing to do with a guys pee or girls pee hole.


I dont have sex with my wife, I make love to her, like any one who truely loves each others does

[Gareth]

I dont have sex with my wife, I make love to her, like any one who truely loves each others does

Rephrasing only does so much... it is what is is.

And it does mention women laying with women in the Bible. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74424628)

[miriya]

WERE.

Question is the God aganist Murder or killing?

Sex is something I can have with anyone, love is something I can only have with the one I love

[Gareth]

click the link. Also I'd like to stay on topic, if you wish to discuss God and violence there are plenty of other threads you can start.

[Al Fatiha]

Sex is something I can have with anyone, love is something I can only have with the one I loveYou could claim you are in love with a dog.

But if you are having sex that's perverted.

Claiming love doesn't make it normal or right.

[miriya]

I've never said that Jesus was against same gendered couples or that God was against same gendered couples. I just don't think sex was created for the purpose which you insist that you have the right for using it for. What you do is up to you, however when I am asked for my opinion I will answer it simply. You can carry on doing what you wish.

The scriptures clearly forbid sexual activity when males lay with males and when females lay with females. From reading it this is my basis for this.

I have done plenty of things wrong, and it is possible to repent of them at any time. I don't see why this brings such aggravation.

Rephrasing only does so much... it is what is is.

And it does mention women laying with women in the Bible. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74424628)


What anything other the sex in marrige, other kinds of sex the missionry???? what is unnatural

[miriya]

You could claim you are in love with a dog.

But if you are having sex that's perverted.

Claiming love doesn't make it normal or right.

And I could claim i loved a muslim, talk about giong to hell

[Al Fatiha]

And I could claim i loved a muslim, talk about giong to hell
You are correct.

A muslim man would go to hell if he married a person like you.

[Gareth]

How would he. He would be marrying her thus making her married to a man? This doesn't make sense Al.

[miriya]

I thought he would get 72 virgens in heaven

[Gareth]

Or 72 white dates, as in another translation of said Hadith. Be careful...

[Al Fatiha]

How would he. He would be marrying her thus making her married to a man? This doesn't make sense Al.
Muslim men are only allowed to marry Muslims or "People of the Book". Meaning Christians or Jews.

She has stated before she is an atheist, but also has alot of weird pagan beliefs.

[Debater69]

Rephrasing only does so much... it is what is is.

And it does mention women laying with women in the Bible. (http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=74424628)

The greek words translated as "natural" in that passage mean someone's natural disposition, what is instinctive or natural for them, which leaves it open to interpretation (http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7d_gac_clobber_passages_what_is_natural.htm)<--(link, please click)

[Gareth]

Oh I see, then that makes sense.

Christians are allowed to marry into any faith, because they might bring that person to the religion in the end. (1 Corinthians 7). However ideally I'd be going for a Christian.

[Al Fatiha]

Oh I see, then that makes sense.

Christians are allowed to marry into any faith, because they might bring that person to the religion in the end. (1 Corinthians 7). However ideally I'd be going for a Christian.I have to add that if a woman converts to Islam. Then a muslim man would be allowed to marry her no matter what her religious status was before..

[miriya]

The greek words translated as "natural" in that passage mean someone's natural disposition, what is instinctive or natural for them, which leaves it open to interpretation (http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7d_gac_clobber_passages_what_is_natural.htm)<--(link, please click)

yep :P and loving my lisa came natural to me, my longest relasionship outside her was 3weeks


and Al if anything then I am pagan

[Gareth]

Debater69: If you read the entire chapter it deals with human sinfulness, and it lists iniquities that mankind has done since the beginning of time. I don't think they have the right context. I'm glad they have come in faith through Jesus Christ however. Hopefully the Spirit will prompt them to move on from this position, the Spirit prompted me to take many new positions after praying to the Father through Jesus Christ.

[ciaranxavier]

gareth youve avoided answering my question again i will quote it for you can you please answer it.

so you follow gods views but can tweak it when suitable?

[Gareth]

I can deal with this in PM if you really wish. However I'd like to keep this thread on topic.

[ciaranxavier]

I can deal with this in PM if you really wish. However I'd like to keep this thread on topic.

this is about the lesbian and gay rights. you choose to use your religion as a reason to oppose lesbian and gay union. the question is 100% on topic. your religion says that such a "crime" as gay sex is punishable by death. but then you say it shouldnt be punishable by death but marriage by them is wrong. so why can you tweak your gods rules when you deem so?? and if you can tweak the rules when you deem so then maybe your opposition to their union is your own personal belief and your only using your religion as an excuse for your feelings? and no i dont want to deal with this in PM's i feel you should be able to answer it as its completely on topic.

[Gareth]

If you had read John 8, you would realise that I'm not altering any rules at all. Jesus deemed that we could not apply the death penalty since we ourselves had sinned, making us incapable of carrying it out. It isn't our tweaking of it at all. We read Torah while taking into account the New Testament. So if Jesus hadn't reformed the death penalty, due to us becoming incapable of doing it sure, I guess there would be still advocates of it.

[Segep]

This is why I think that those who are attracted to the same sex should think about the teachings of the Church, and to consider if a life of celibacy while living with their partner might be a good idea.

I believe that it is worthwhile that we have marriage for that reason to bring man and woman together before God, by which sex is an expression of the connection made by God between the man and the woman who have come to be married. That is how I see it's purpose.

So when a man and a woman have sex, it's an expression of the connection (love) made by God. But when gay people have sex, it's...

A celebration of evil? Animal lust? Faulty wiring?

What are you trying to say here? Gay people can't really love one another? Gay people are condemned by God?

[Gareth]

So when a man and a woman have sex, it's an expression of the connection (love) made by God. But when gay people have sex, it's...

A celebration of evil? Animal lust? Faulty wiring?

What are you