Homosexuality is not a sin

gfm7175 said:
0% of people are born homosexuals.


The person's behavior is abnormal.


Indeed, it is not necessarily a negative thing for something to be abnormal, but with regard to homosexuality, it is definitely a negative thing.

A main negative with regard to homosexuality is that it is a completely fruitless action (IOW, reproduction is impossible). It is also an entirely selfish act, as it yields nothing other than a temporary self-pleasure "high" (akin to one "getting high" via drugs). That sort of behavior is quite destructive.
Click to expand...

Are you saying infertile men and women are a negative thing?
 
Flash said:
You never had sex without trying to get your partner pregnant? If so, wasn't that a "fruitless" action because you didn't reproduce? It didn't give you temporary self pleasure?
Click to expand...

You idiots keep trying to equate something that is capable of producing children with something that is NOT capable of producing children. No matter how you try, you cannot produce children with homosexual behavior.
 
Into the Night said:
You idiots keep trying to equate something that is capable of producing children with something that is NOT capable of producing children. No matter how you try, you cannot produce children with homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

The insult is noted. But to the point - so what?

Most sex is not about producing children.
 
Into the Night said:
You idiots keep trying to equate something that is capable of producing children with something that is NOT capable of producing children. No matter how you try, you cannot produce children with homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

Infertile people are incapable of producing children.,
 
AProudLefty said:
Infertile people are incapable of producing children.,
Click to expand...
Agreed, but Sybil seems incapable of separating fact from fantasy.

He lives in some kind of fantasy world where he is the center of the Universe, at least among men. The most intelligent, the most far sighted, 1 in a Trillion. That sort of thing.

We all have egos and like to think we're special but the sane recognize the enormity of numbers. The insane not so much. Sybil is a not so much guy. :)
 
AProudLefty said:
Infertile people are incapable of producing children.,
Click to expand...

But that is NOT the point with the attempt to put homosexual "families" on par with heterosexual ones. ANYONE can be infertile....but two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex. The gay couple can ONLY "have kids" if the woman is artificially inseminated, or the couple use surrogacy or adoption. A matter of biology, a matter of fact.


This doesn't mean you go out and murder or banish or chemically castrate or "deprogram" or enact job bias against gay folk. But at the same time you don't try and change natural laws with propaganda. Social changes are arduous at best, and not everyone gets everything they want (depending on what they want). And the band played on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
But that is NOT the point with the attempt to put homosexual "families" on par with heterosexual ones. ANYONE can be infertile....but two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex. The gay couple can ONLY "have kids" if the woman is artificially inseminated, or the couple use surrogacy or adoption. A matter of biology, a matter of fact.


This doesn't mean you go out and murder or banish or chemically castrate or "deprogram" or enact job bias against gay folk. But at the same time you don't try and change natural laws with propaganda. Social changes are arduous at best, and not everyone gets everything they want (depending on what they want). And the band played on.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised that you are wrong. When homosexuality was illegal, shunned and/or posed a danger to the gay men, gay men pretended to be straight and married to women and had children. In other words, they CAN reproduce the natural way.
 
The question is what constitutes a sexual sin,in homosexuality and heterosexuality!
Is every homosexual experience a sin under all circumstances?
Is every heterosexual experience, not between a husband and wife to produce a child ,a sin in every circumstance?
Where is the sin,non-sin sexual line drawn?
 
AProudLefty said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
But that is NOT the point with the attempt to put homosexual "families" on par with heterosexual ones. ANYONE can be infertile....but two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex. The gay couple can ONLY "have kids" if the woman is artificially inseminated, or the couple use surrogacy or adoption. A matter of biology, a matter of fact.


This doesn't mean you go out and murder or banish or chemically castrate or "deprogram" or enact job bias against gay folk. But at the same time you don't try and change natural laws with propaganda. Social changes are arduous at best, and not everyone gets everything they want (depending on what they want). And the band played on.
Click to expand...



You'd be surprised that you are wrong. When homosexuality was illegal, shunned and/or posed a danger to the gay men, gay men pretended to be straight and married to women and had children. In other words, they CAN reproduce the natural way.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm surprised you misinterpreted what I wrote. Also, I'm surprised that you use a historic example to justify your misinterpretation. Let me explain:

I did not say that gay men could not father children or gay women could not become pregnant and give birth. That happens through HETEROSEXUAL sex naturally.

What I wrote was, ".... two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex." That means WITH EACH OTHER, as we are talking about gay marriages and the whole "trans" shebang. Your reference is 100% accurate, but that is heterosexual sex. As it has happened, there have been court cases where the closeted gay partner in a "traditional" marriage has successfully lobbied for the "adoption" of a child from a previous marriage with the new same sex partner....an alternative I generally referred to previously.


To put it more simply, you put 100 gay men on an island, reproduce every faucet of amenities an industrial society has to offer, come back in 80 years, and all you have is a either a diminished population of very old men, or some fantastic advances in geriatric medicine....but no off spring.

I agree with the subject title of this thread, but as I said, I'm not going to adhere to changing the laws of nature and reality for current gay propaganda.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What I wrote was, ".... two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex." That means WITH EACH OTHER, as we are talking about gay marriages and the whole "trans" shebang. To put it more simply, you put 100 gay men on an island, reproduce every faucet of amenities an industrial society has to offer, come back in 80 years, and all you have is a either a diminished population of very old men, or some fantastic advances in geriatric medicine....but no off spring.
Click to expand...

That's a no-brainer. It goes without saying. It doesn't change what I said. If you put 100 infertile men and women on an island, they won't ever have children.

I agree with the subject title of this thread, but as I said, I'm not going to adhere to changing the laws of nature and reality for current gay propaganda.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation so how can it be a sin? Leviticus spells out an action specifically for a reason. Nothing to do with homosexuality.

I suggest that you look up the fruit fly experiment.
 
Sock Sockinski said:
The question is what constitutes a sexual sin,in homosexuality and heterosexuality!
Is every homosexual experience a sin under all circumstances?
Is every heterosexual experience, not between a husband and wife to produce a child ,a sin in every circumstance?
Where is the sin,non-sin sexual line drawn?
Click to expand...

"sin" is a religious concept, best left to theologians. For me, the agnostic, sexual "sin" occurs when violence is used to obtain sex (rape) or a partner is forced/coerced to do things they are uncomfortable with. Other than that, what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is their business.
 
AProudLefty said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
What I wrote was, ".... two women having sex CANNOT produce a child, nor can two men having sex." That means WITH EACH OTHER, as we are talking about gay marriages and the whole "trans" shebang. To put it more simply, you put 100 gay men on an island, reproduce every faucet of amenities an industrial society has to offer, come back in 80 years, and all you have is a either a diminished population of very old men, or some fantastic advances in geriatric medicine....but no off spring.
Click to expand...

That's a no-brainer. It goes without saying. It doesn't change what I said. If you put 100 infertile men and women on an island, they won't ever have children.

I agree with the subject title of this thread, but as I said, I'm not going to adhere to changing the laws of nature and reality for current gay propaganda.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation so how can it be a sin? Leviticus spells out an action specifically for a reason. Nothing to do with homosexuality.

I suggest that you look up the fruit fly experiment.
Click to expand...

1. Actually my example does change your initial statement, where you think I was saying that gay men or women were incapable of conceiving/producing children. Again, I didn't say that, and pointed out in no uncertain terms that a man-man or woman-woman sexual relationship will NOT, can NOT produce children. That is a matter of biology, a "no brainer". Last time I checked, a gay couple (married or unmarried) consist of two people of the same sex. So my statement is valid. For some reason, you are resisting that reality and my statement despite clarification.

2. What part of I agree with the subject title of this thread do you not understand. You seem to display what I call "logic blindness/deafness" that happens to people who have 'all or nothing' attitude in political/social debates. By what you display here, any disagreement or contradiction is perceived as all out bigotry or prejudice. Logic be damned. Now you can comprehend what you read, so stop pretending otherwise. If you can't disprove what I state here, just concede that point and incorporate it into the discussion....otherwise you are no better in this respect that the numerous MAGA minions on this site.
 
Taichiliberal said:
"sin" is a religious concept, best left to theologians. For me, the agnostic, sexual "sin" occurs when violence is used to obtain sex (rape) or a partner is forced/coerced to do things they are uncomfortable with. Other than that, what happens in the bedroom between two consenting adults is their business.
Click to expand...

That's a good explanation, at what age would you say is a consenting adult?
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Actually my example does change your initial statement, where you think I was saying that gay men or women were incapable of conceiving/producing children. Again, I didn't say that, and pointed out in no uncertain terms that a man-man or woman-woman sexual relationship will NOT, can NOT produce children. That is a matter of biology, a "no brainer". Last time I checked, a gay couple (married or unmarried) consist of two people of the same sex. So my statement is valid. For some reason, you are resisting that reality and my statement despite clarification.
Click to expand...

Actually my response had to do with what certain posters said, like this.

Into the Night said:
You idiots keep trying to equate something that is capable of producing children with something that is NOT capable of producing children. No matter how you try, you cannot produce children with homosexual behavior.
Click to expand...

So if one cannot reproduce, it's a sin according to him/them.

BTW, the subject has nothing to do with marriage or relationships. It has to do with homosexuality as a sexual orientation.

2. What part of I agree with the subject title of this thread do you not understand. You seem to display what I call "logic blindness/deafness" that happens to people who have 'all or nothing' attitude in political/social debates. By what you display here, any disagreement or contradiction is perceived as all out bigotry or prejudice. Logic be damned. Now you can comprehend what you read, so stop pretending otherwise. If you can't disprove what I state here, just concede that point and incorporate it into the discussion....otherwise you are no better in this respect that the numerous MAGA minions on this site.
Click to expand...

See above. This is about homosexuality as a sexual orientation.

Maybe you need to define "homosexuality".

[Edit] - Oh forgive me. Yes you agree with the subject title and so do I. My apologies. Been drinking strong beer. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top