posted on October 22, 2001 11:49:51 PM new
Re: Gravid's post....
I guess this is as good a time as any to spread some odd trivia I read a couple years ago. Sorry, no link. I wish I could find the data to back this up.
I read that (excuse me) anal sex was the cause of almost 100% of sexual HIV transmission. Not just male to male, either, but it did say that there were basically no cases of transmission of HIV from your basic missionary position. (The study included HIV pos female prostitutes, by the way).
The article's point was that this information was not promoted because the powers that be didn't want kids to think that just by avoiding that form of sex they would be protected from AIDs.
If anyone can find out whether this true or not, go for it. I'm not in the mood to do a search on THAT topic!
posted on October 23, 2001 12:30:55 AM new
KRS....um, I just did a search on Google and did find some information to back up the above premise. I won't post any links here because the articles were rather scientifically explicit, although not pornographic by any means.
But one interesting thing I read, was that the practice of the above techniques in a female to male setting is considered very taboo and no one wants to talk about it. And the sad thing is, a lot of it relates to homophobia, which is what this thread seems to be about. So because of homophobia, the word isn't getting out about a serious health issue for men and women. Even the CDC skirts the issue.
I think that's enough of THAT! My taboos are kicking in! (blushing face)
posted on October 23, 2001 12:45:01 AM newnetfishYa'll certainly don't have to agree with Christians, or even like them, but being “tolerant” of their viewpoints, the same way you preach tolerance of everything else, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. The double standard is obvious.
I agree with your observation. The double standard is very obvious to me.
It's very un PC to say, "I don't like these homosexuals activist" and it will draw a outcry of bigotry and intolerance labels against the person making that statement.
Change that statement to "I don't like these Christian activist" and the cry of bigotry and intolerance would only be used against the Christian activist.
I'm not sure if I qualify as a Christian or not, it depends on who is interpreting the rules. I try and avoid religious debates, but I do feel for some that have started threads on something that is important to them and witness their roasting without mercy in this forum.
posted on October 23, 2001 12:55:16 AM new
Not to worry, ohandrea, Bunnicula already told us on page 4 of this thread that heterosexual couples do this as well as homosexual couples, and I think if Bunnicula is willing to comment on relative talent, you shouldn't ought to be embarassed to add your information also.
posted on October 23, 2001 01:00:57 AM new
UARU.........good point. But change the word "activist" to "fanatic".
It's difficult to get along with a fanatic of any sort, if you don't agree with their viewpoint. And I am guilty of becoming irritated with gay "fanatics" as well as religious ones.
Here's a vote for moderation! (no, no, I didn't say moderators).
posted on October 23, 2001 03:55:37 AM new
The human sexual instinct goes through a lengthy process of development, and so is vulnerable to a greater degree than, say, hunger. Also, the sexual instinct is more elastic. However, ultimately the sexual instinct serves procreation, not pleasure.
The revulsion that most people feel towards homosexuality can no more be controlled than homosexuals can control their own urges (an issue which gays are quick to point out). Thus accusations of "homophobe" are as inappropriate as accusations of gays being "queer."
Oral sex, anal sex, voyeurism and other perversions, when used as a prelude to or as part of a normal sexual act, are socially acceptable because ultimately they serve procreation. Child sex, fetishism, sado-masochism, homosexuality and other perversions which are an end in themselves and do not further procreation, are unacceptable.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:15:27 AM newspaz: First off, I hope you read my edited comments and clarification up above. You never responded, so I hope you don't still think I said that gays and lesbians couldn't be good parental role models.
Second, I'm rather mystified by your requirement that people "object to homosexuality without referring to God, the Bible or science". I mean, first you state that it's not a valid reason to feel that homosexuality is wrong because somebody doesn't like the way gays look or act, or feels that what they do is disgusting. But then you also state that it's not valid to look to science or religion for an answer, either. Aside from personal feelings, religious beliefs and science, what else is there upon which to base an opinion?
You've basically framed your question in such a way that no answer will satisfy you, which leads me to believe you're not honestly looking for an answer in the first place -- just an excuse to bash other people for their beliefs.
Oh, and for the record, I neither look down upon homosexuals nor think they should be treated as "second class citizens". I was being honest when I said I was disturbed at the thought of homosexuals raising children n[whether adopted or sharing some of their genetic code], but at the same time I do not get politically involved in the issue and neither tell homosexuals not to have children or try to push my point of view onto anybody else. I'd still like to think I'm entitled to my feelings and opinions, though, as long as I'm not harming anybody else with them.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 23, 2001 05:21:14 AM new
While searching on Fox News for an article involving another thread issue, I came across this.
He/She Harassment
A new ruling from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination classifies transsexualism as a handicap worthy of protection under the state's anti-discrimination and disability laws, reports the AP.
The ruling comes in a case, first filed in 1995, in which a transsexual woman named Rachel Jette claimed that her boss at a convenience store harassed her by forcing her to use her birth name, Raymond, and wear men's clothes to work. Later, she amended the complaint to say she was discriminated against because of a "handicap or perceived handicap."
The commission ruled that transsexuals are protected by law because they're often discriminated against for failing to conform with society's expectations for each sex.
posted on October 23, 2001 05:39:49 AM new
I can think of nothing more divisive in history than the belief by individuals or groups (or tribes ) that
I have the only Truth
and everyone not of the belief in that truth is evil, wrong, or to be condemned.
Since I believe everything is subjective, filtered through our perceptions, I go with conscience. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 23, 2001 06:27:49 AM new
I believe, as has been mentioned earlier, that when Christ came to earth, his teachings replaced those of the old Testament. Most of the old Testament laws served a very real purpose-to prevent food poisoning, promote reproduction in an age of high infant mortality, etc-that are no longer necessary for our survival.
We were taught by our mother, who was highly educated and liberal for her generation, that the only rule we needed to keep in mind in order to be Christian, was the Golden Rule. As long as we treated other people with kindness and respect, things would work out. She died before homosexuality became so public an issue, but I never saw her treat a homosexual any differently than she did anyone else-
I'm not a great Christian, I don't preach to anyone, or run to church every time the door opens. But I do practice the Golden Rule religiously, and I think it will cover just about any situation I run into. Nor do I actively search for sin in other people. If you do, you will find an excuse to condemn almost anyone-and miss knowing some really nice people with minor flaws.
posted on October 23, 2001 08:02:11 AM new
ohandrea,
Even though off point, I think that you're promoting a very dangerous misconception. There are volumes upon volumes of data which esablish that the AIDS virus may be spread through several methods of contact including heterosexual vaginal entry--your 'missionary style'. For a sample of that I give you this: http://www.canoe.ca/HealthReference/aids_9.html and assure you that there is a virtual mountain of data which disproves the premise you argue.
posted on October 23, 2001 08:11:33 AM newtwinsoft:The revulsion that most people feel towards homosexuality can no more be controlled than homosexuals can control their own urges
You are saying that "most people" are born pre-wired to feel revulsion about homosexuality. That is not the case. As with racial or religious prejudice, it is a learned behavior.
posted on October 23, 2001 08:15:56 AM newjust an excuse to bash other people for their beliefs.
I generally don't "bash people for their beliefs" unless I feel those beliefs are harmful, Barry. And even then, I don't condemn the person, but the view. luvbugg, who started me down this road by asking me to answer a question in the now-locked thread, wrote:
You also don't seem to insult people and give good solid reasons for why you hold whatever opinion you do
That's what I've tried to do here. Sorry you don't agree, but then we've never held much esteem for each other's opinions anyway.
I'm rather mystified by your requirement that people "object to homosexuality without referring to God, the Bible or science".
There was no requirement. I asked terri if she could. She's the only person who posts here every day proclaiming her Christianity and has been quite vocal about her objections in regard to this issue. She seemed the natural person to ask.
She didn't have to answer, and she chose not to. Did I attack her for it? No. Did I make a judgement call after that? No. The fact is, I've never criticized terri for being a Christian, or for preaching what she believes, nor have I disrupted her threads on various Christian-related topics. In this thread I have criticized some Christians but not all. I acknowledged up front that there are people whose opinions about homosexuality (not to mention abortion, divorce and remarriage, masturbation, women as priests, and other topics controversial even within the church itself) are based solely on Church teachings. But I also feel there are some who use church teachings to legitimize personal prejudices. It's the latter group that I'm critical of. But I wasn't suggesting that terri belonged to one group or another, and my criticism of some Christians was definitely not a blanket criticism of all.
,first you state that it's not a valid reason to feel that homosexuality is wrong because somebody doesn't like the way gays look or act, or feels that what they do is disgusting. But then you also state that it's not valid to look to science or religion for an answer, either.
Bingo, Barry. I personally feel that there's no good reason to dislike or to be intolerant of people who have never harmed you or done you wrong, or who are no threat to you (you in the general sense) Not in religion, science, or in personal prejudices. That's what I've been trying to get people to consider. Not agree with, necessarily. But to consider.
posted on October 23, 2001 08:51:00 AM newI personally feel that there's no good reason to dislike or to be intolerant of people who have never harmed you or done you wrong, or who are no threat to you (you in the general sense)
Well, in the first place, I happen to agree with you that there is no good reason to dislike or to be intolerant of people who have never harmed you or done you wrong, or who are no threat to you. And I think that Terri and everybody else who feels that homosexuality is a "sin" would agree as well. But it's possible to consider an act to be a "sin" or [in my case] "wrong" without disliking or being intolerant of the person commiting that act. And, while those who hold strong religious beliefs may not care one whit if people want to "sin" or not, at the same time they don't feel that they have to agree that it's not really a sin after all.
I fully realize that YOU don't personally believe that there is anything remotely "wrong" or "improper" with homosexuality. And as long as you don't try to impose those beliefs on others, or dislike or become intolerant towards those who don't share your beliefs on the subject, I have no problem with you -- or anybody else -- feeling the way you do.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 23, 2001 09:15:51 AM newand everyone not of the belief in that truth is evil, wrong, or to be condemned.
Snowy, It would be impossible to adhere to the Bible's NT teachings and accept that there is "alternative truth".
So a better statement, in my opinion, would be:
and everyone not of the belief in that truth "has not really heard the good news", "has rejected it", or "it has been hidden from them at this time"
(For clarification, the above would only apply to the truth of Christ/the Bible, and not of any other non-faith related "opinion".)
Matthew 10
26 "So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.
27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.
John 1
4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
End/Future Times:
Revelations 15
4 Who will not fear You, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For You alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed."
posted on October 23, 2001 09:16:58 AM new
And another thing....
I think a large part of the debate over whether or not homosexuality is [or can be considered to be] a "sin" revolves around the question of whether it is a matter of choice or of birth. If homosexuality is wholly a part of who somebody is, the same way somebody's race or gender is an essential part of their being and not a matter choice, then in my opinion it's both ridiculous and dangerous to treat it as a sin. Whether it should then be treated as a "defect" or not is another question, of course, but I digress...
Is it simply a matter of genetics, though? There certainly is recent scientific evidence that suggests that at least with males, there may be a genetic predisposition or tendency toward homosexuality based on statistical studies, and I believe scientists have even identified a particular gene cluster that may be linked to this [oh, wait -- I forgot that we're not supposed to bring "science" into this. Never mind. ] The evidence is not conclusive, however, and so far as I am aware, it only applies to males.
The fact remains, though, that gender preference is not on the same level as gender or race, at least not yet. I think that it's still perfectly valid for people to believe that choice and upbringing have as much, if not more, to do with homosexuality than pure genetics. And as long as homosexuality can be perceived as a matter of choice, then it's perfectly permissible, in my opinion, for some people to feel that it is an improper choice.
If the day ever comes, however, when science [oops, there I go again] is able to conclusively show that homosexuality is NOT a matter of choice, and that it is as much an essential part of somebody's being as is their race or gender, then I will gladly jump on the bandwagon to condemn those who feel that homosexuality is a "sin".
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 23, 2001 09:36:03 AM new
Spaz, I have never felt threatened or insulted by you. And if you look back, this is the first thread in which I have ever stated an opinion on the subject (when asked), and I think only the second thread that I have ever even participated in on this subject. I have never joined in the many many other threads on the topic until the previous one. In the previous thread, which led to this one, I did ask sincere questions but I never said one word about "sin" or "wrong" or stated an opinion at all aside from the medical issues that concerned me. (Go check.) So anyway in, what? three years now, I have not ever felt the need to state an opinion on the topic at all.
We don't hold the same view. I don't mind. So it's no big deal.
Now everybody leave Spaz alone on my account please.
I really appreciate those who TRULY support the right of every person to have and hold an individual belief. That's all that is important.
Peace.
P.S. Whatever Barry says...
[ edited by jt on Oct 23, 2001 09:43 AM ]
posted on October 23, 2001 10:21:14 AM new
A few thoughts on this subject.
First is homosexuality a sin? The short answer is No if one does not practice it.But the practice of Homosexuality is a sin based on scriptures contained within both the OT and NT.There is a difference.
An individual who maybe a homosexual but does not practice,indulge,suggest or follow that life style is acceptable to God.
But the Bible does clearly say that 1 Cor 6:9-10 that such will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Just like it says that about adultery and other things.But the reff is to people who practice them.
I also read here a lot that God or my God accepts everyone.But just as we have standards so does God.There are standards for living in this country and if you go against those you go to jail.So why should God not have standards for humans.
It also boils down to the fact that you either believe the Bible or you do not.If you do not then it does not matter to you what the Bible says or not.
Yes the Bible was written by man but it was inspired by God.
One of the first posters here made reff to the old Mosaic law that was Given to the Jews by God.This law no longer applies to us as it the Bible tells us it was fulfilled with the death of Jesus.
There are many good principals though that can still be used and applied to us within that law.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:54:33 AM new
I'm afraid I agree with spaz. Maybe I'm in left field, but what I think he's saying is:
Why do you think homosexuality is a sin?
But in asking that question, forget for one minute what you've read in the Bible or what you've been taught. Why do YOU think it's a sin?
I haven't heard anyone who thinks it's a sin say that their belief comes from somewhere other than the Bible. Do you have your own views, other than the Bible?
posted on October 23, 2001 11:14:58 AM new
Isn't your question "why do you think the Bible considers it a sin?"
If it is, there is a reason for it and it's not "homophobia", whether or not you thinnk their is any divinity to the Bible. The reason it's not homophobia is that "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" were not concepts that existed in the ancient world. There was no such recognized thing as "sexual orientation". The Bible isn't addressing a particular persuasion since no one thought of it in those terms until relatively modern times.
The entire Bible is a polemic against paganism and all the religious and social practices of pagan societies in the region of the Bible. Homosexual sex and many other kinds of sex were very linked to various pagan rituals of the time. There were "Temple prostitutes" the Bible specifically refers to in certain places called "kadesh" referring to a male homosexual prostitute and "kadesha" referring to a female one. This is the atmosphere in which the Bible condemns homosexual sex.
I will grant you that its context isn't important to many (most?) followers of the Bible, but only a pretty immature reading doesn't take into account context. Also, people don't consider what the entire theme of the Bible is; "God yes, gods no". That's the context in which shaving above the ears was forbidden. That was a priestly haircut among Canaante pagans [or mideval monks for that matter].
It would be like reading the Illiad and not being aware that ancient Hellene society did differ in substantial ways from modern America. It's just not correctly understood divorced from purpose and context.
posted on October 23, 2001 11:36:02 AM new
James, you always amaze me with your knowledge. I can see that the Bible was written not only for the times, but as a guide for the future.
Another example the Bible teaches, is that animals don't go to heaven. These little creatures that have nothing in their hearts except for love and devotion will not be in heaven when you arrive. Does that make ANY sense whatsoever? The totally innocent don't go to heaven while us sinners are allowed in. My God teaches me common sense, so which should I believe? Myself or the Bible?
posted on October 23, 2001 11:50:44 AM new
Well, another thing the Bible teaches is that man is not an animal. Actually we are part animal [body]/ part godly [soul]. We have physical and spiritual needs and often these can contradict.
And the purpose of life is essentially to transcend our animal "side" when these do contradict.
Humans, according to the Bible, have free will to act and that is where our earned reward or punishment comes in. Animals do not. For example, an animal could never have been told "Thou shall not murder" and can never be condmned when it does.
What then is the purpose of animals in the universe? Many things. They serve as food. They serve to aid us in work. They're fun to look at. They make great pets. They do a good job in teaching a 5 year old responsibility and compassion. They make us feel good (isn't that what you mean by the love and devotion a good pet shows? It makes you feel good).
If you're worried that I've offended animals by ascribing utilitarian purposes to them, don't worry. They aren't easily offended and they don't know what I've written.
In any case, "Heaven" for a dog may very well not be to continue to serve you. That's for this world and not the next. Perhaps that's why you won't be seeing your dog.
BTW, the Bible doesn't say there aren't any animals in Heaven.
posted on October 23, 2001 02:01:31 PM new
Well without God and the Bible, I suppose there could be no such thing as sin. Therefore we could all freely rape, steal, kill, indulge in immoral sex, worship our created things, be self-seeking, etc.....wait a minute...
This is the atmosphere in which the Bible condemns homosexual sex.
James, but what of sex outside of ordained marriage in general? What does the OT say about that? Did you mean homosexuality or homosexual SEX? ...Or what the heck did you mean to say, specifically?
P.S. Off topic, have you seen that oblisk in Central Park that was once in Alexanderia? Do you know it's proper name for a photo search?
And are you familiar with Akhenaton? (I am into Akhenaton at the moment.)
posted on October 23, 2001 02:25:02 PM newSpaz: Maybe you can give an example of the type of answer that would be acceptable to you as to why somebody might feel that something is a sin or is otherwise wrong.
Take smoking, say. Assuming you think smoking is wrong and that people shouldn't do it, could you explain why you feel that way without resorting to personal feelings ["I think smoking is disgusting"] or science? Or, if not smoking, perhaps some other activity that you disagree with and think shouldn't be practiced? Again, without appealing to personal feelings or science.
I guess what bothers me is that you seem to discount personal feelings, science and religion [for those who are religious] as valid bases for having an opinion, and I'm not sure what else is left. Pure logic, perhaps? Statistical evidence [assuming that statistics is not considered a form of science]? Just what is a valid basis to form an opinion as to the wrongness of something in your opinion? Tell us that, and then maybe we can answer your question the way you want it to be answered. Unless, of course, you simply mean that no possible answer will suffice, in which case why bother asking the question in the first place?
You stated earlier that you don't think there is any good reason to dislike or to be intolerant of people who have never harmed you or done you wrong, or who are no threat to you. But we're not talking about disliking or being intolerant of anybody, simply stating a belief that what they do is wrong. The same way that I can think that smoking and home schooling [sorry, Terri] are wrong without dislking or being intolerant of those who practice those activities.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
) that