Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Three's the charm for the Supreme Court

Originally posted by freakshow:

---

...If homosexuality was "O.K." and intended by nature 2 men having sex or 2 women having sex would result in reproduction of the species.

And no I'm not homophobic or a religious fanatic.

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Originally posted by freakshow:

---

...If homosexuality was "O.K." and intended by nature 2 men having sex or 2 women having sex would result in reproduction of the species.

And no I'm not homophobic or a religious fanatic.

---

Know what you are talking about before your respond to something.

There are many asexual species that exist on this planet and there are also some that can serve as either male or female, depending on circumstance. They most certainly were intended to exist in nature, as God put them there...

Care to classify them, given your above statements?

Not only this, but there has been documented evidence of homosexual behavior exhibited by many types of animals; bondings that last for long periods of time. Bisexuality as well. Feel free to read up on the topic and not just regurgitate what you heard in passing. Being homosexual isn't a different species within itself to where reproduction dictates survival of the species; it's an aberration of normal behavior exhibited by individual elements within a species. In short, it's just a different type of behavior that is exhibited in a MINORITY of the makeup of a species. Hence, the survival of the species in nature is still ensured by default.

Homophobic or religious fanatic? Perhaps not, but the word "ignorant" comes to mind. Read and research before making such wide-reaching statements.

I used to be on the Bible-beating side of the fence on this in that I thought gays were abhorrent in the sight of God. No longer, since I've done some moderate delving into the subject and explored the weak-a$$ed arguments that certain religious groups have blinded themselves and their followers with.

Again, there are few things that have been taken further out of context within the Bible than homosexuality, given the literal translations that many wrongly heap upon it. The same goes with many of the "nature" arguments as DIRECT evidence can be slapped upside any naysayers head in terms of witnessed behavior in birds, insects, equines, etc.

---

Excuse me Mr. I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you but ahem Asexual species STILL reproduce. It may not be in the same manner which humans and sexual speices do but their species continues. If they didn't they would die off which was exactly my point. Barring artificial insemination (which is not a naturally occurring phenomenom it was a method created by man) if every human decided one day that they were homosexual the human race would DIE...period. Humans were not created Asexual...we were created with sexual organs designed to allow us to reproduce.

Maybe YOU need to learn what YOU are talking about before you come on here trying to slam on and flame people and make yourself look like the so called "ignorant" one.
I am not religious in ANY way and I personally don't have a huge problem with homosexuality I was simply stating my opinion:that I do believe it is wrong and why.

Now I hate to repost someone else's stuff but in this case I just can't help it...it's too funny so......


P.S. Before you get your panties all in a bunch learn to laugh a little bit and not take stuff so serious.

Originally posted by freakshow:

---

Excuse me Mr. I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you but ahem Asexual species STILL reproduce. It may not be in the same manner which humans and sexual speices do but their species continues. If they didn't they would die off which was exactly my point. Barring artificial insemination (which is not a naturally occurring phenomenom it was a method created by man) if every human decided one day that they were homosexual the human race would DIE...period. Humans were not created Asexual...we were created with sexual organs designed to allow us to reproduce.

Maybe YOU need to learn what YOU are talking about before you come on here trying to slam on and flame people and make yourself look like the so called "ignorant" one.
I am not religious in ANY way and I personally don't have a huge problem with homosexuality I was simply stating my opinion:that I do believe it is wrong and why.

Now I hate to repost someone else's stuff but in this case I just can't help it...it's too funny so......


P.S. Before you get your panties all in a bunch learn to laugh a little bit and not take stuff so serious.

---

I was simply asking you to classify asexual and trans-sexual creatures, as I was curious to your answer. Your initial statement of just because the action doesn't lead to "reproduction" somehow makes it not "OK", is shortsighted and ignorant as they come, as it doesn't address anything but your own stupidity on the matter.

Not only that, but when does the sexual ability to reproduce dictate a moralistic view of what behavior is right or wrong? In many circles, this is the ultimate question that has to be answered about homosexuality.

Will the honorable duma$$ care to answer these questions?

If your intellect will allow, please note that we are talking about a minority of the population here in all species, so get with reality. Homosexuality is an ABBERATION, an exception to the rule in terms of a population across all species. Quit pulling this BS about "what if the WHOLE population...". It ISN'T going to happen, you twit.

In short, you've succeeded in misunderstanding one of my points, hung your moron-hat on it and proceeded to attack the validity of it without even addressing the question behind it. On top of that, you've TOTALLY glassed over the meat of my post and didn't attempt to try and touch it.

Pull down your sign, pal, because you've been given the proverbial




P.S. Believe me, I'm laughing quite hard right now.

OK, I'm finished with my flame war, as this sod has been properly barbecued. Apologies for the deviation in the topic.

Quote:

---

There are many asexual species that exist on this planet and there are also some that can serve as either male or female, depending on circumstance. They most certainly were intended to exist in nature, as God put them there...

---

Originally posted by The Ripper:

---

Or if a Mormon wants to live in a community where he is supported by other Mormons that share his values, what better place to live than Utah?

---

Strangely enough, Utah actually has a fairly large gay pride day. It actually touches the corner of the block that the Mormon temple sits on.

On a slightly different note. There is already a lawsuit against the state of Utah suing the state for the old laws to be removed, and some different laws as well. It is also asking for the laws to not be enforced (like that can happen anyway) while the lawsuit is in trial. The suit was brought upon by a single straight male saying that the current laws prohibit him from having sex out of wedlock (which they do). Clicky!

Originally posted by SVTNupe:

---

JaTo---

Weak arguments? I think not. First and for most, the scriptures are very clear in stating that woman was made for man (1 Cor 11:9).

---

True. The Bible has a habit of pounding the obvious and normal into the ground. You'll get no argument from me on this point.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:

---

Secondly, Romans 1:24-27 is very clear on how God feels about homosexuality.

---

No, my understanding is that this discusses Paul's (hence God's )feeling towards Roman fertility and sex cults at the time, which engaged in wanton orgies with drink and dope. It's not referring to singular, dedicated love and passion between partners, be they heterosexual or homosexual. Look at this through not only the Bible, but the light of history as well. One MUST consider the times, situations and circumstances that Paul's letters were written in to somewhat fully understand them. Otherwise, it's like listening to a one-sided telephone conversation...

Remember, Romans is Paul's doctrine written mainly for the Jews and Gentiles in the church of Rome. Don't dare forget that Jews themselves have been persecuted using Paul's own words in a twisted and dark fashion by a number of religious groups over time. If there's one lesson that should be learned from the Bible over just about any other is that it's scripture and message isn't one of persecution.

Again, Paul's main theme in most of his letters didn't concern tolerance or understanging on ANY level towards ANYBODY. He's no Isaiah, ranting about fire and damnation, but he's far from the message of hope and peace that often occurs in red text that a certain biblical figure taught about...

As an aside, how do you categorize hermaphrodites (those with both male and female reproductive organs), since the Bible doesn't address them, either? Are they just simply damned coming into this world and screwed with either choice they make sexually?

Originally posted by SVTNupe:

---

Thirdly, the only human relationship the scriptures speak on is one between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man or woman and a woman. Now why is that?

---

Same reason the Bible mentions NOTHING directly about abortion and all the aspects thereof.

An interpretation has to be made, though biblically and historically it's pretty easy to discern religious thoughts on the topic of abortion.

EDIT: Bad example. I'll have to think of another.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:

---

From any point on which I can stand, the act of homosexuality is unatural.

---

True, in that it makes up a minority of the population, like extreme intelligence, certain handicaps, abnormal atheletic ability, certain mental illnesses, etc., etc.

Originally posted by SVTNupe:

---

That is what I will teach my kids and that it is frowned upon in the sight of God. Now what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business. This is not a bigot attitude. The problem with our society is that as time carries on, those things that were at one time not acceptable have become acceptable. We have taken on this very liberal attitude that anything goes. At what point do you draw the line?

---

Popular attitudes in terms of sexual activity have relaxed greatly over the years, as well as morals in general. I would separate this argument from that as it is very different in it's fundamental makeup. The Bible is very clear on extra-marital affairs, stealing, greed, sex before marriage, etc., etc.; most of the moral quagmire that exists as a challenge for people today. Again, most of the passages that religious institutions have hung their hat on in terms of judging homosexuality don't fully hold water.

Homosexuality in the Bible isn't as nearly cut and dried a topic...