A too funny response..?
- Thread starter wet1
- Start date
Okay James R, you want me to get specific. I did not want to, but I guess you insist that I tell you why I believe, or why I have concluded that homosexuality is wrong. Okay...
Warning, this is graphic!!! I appologize in advance...
"anal sex", or inserting the penis into the rectum for the purpose of sexual gratification. This is the most common act among 99% of all gay men. This is clearly improper. The anus was not constructed to be a recepticle for a penis. During homosexual sex, it is quite common for the anus to bleed because of tissue damage. Also, introduction of semen into the anus can cause the recipient's immune system to temporarily break down due to the introduction of protien into the blood stream. As a result illnesses such as the common cold, bronchitis and other maladies is often more frequent and more difficult to shake among gay men. Urinary tract infections are also common due to the penis' contact with fecal matter. Also let's not forget that A.I.D.S. is epidemic in the male gay community, due to semen and saliva entering open wounds inside the rectum, or elsewhere.
"fallatio" following anal sex can cause ingestion of feces, which can cause serious illness.
"scat", or scatting, whereby fecal matter is smeared on the body, played with, etc. This can cause terrible illness, including eye infections.
"fisting", where hands (or sometimes the entire arm!) is inserted up the rectum. This practice can lead to many health problems such as: tearing of rectal tissue, anal bleeding, hemorrhoids, damaged or punctured bowel, and infections.
"rimming", where the anus is stimulated by the tongue. (This is sort of like gay cunnilingus). With it come all the attendant health problems detailed above.
"masturbation" where each partner stimulates the others genitals. The semen is often then used afterwards, for well, you get the idea...
"enemas" also called "brown showers". A liquid (you name it) is introduced into the rectum and the resulting bowel movement is released onto one's "partner". Similar to scatting.
"golden showers", where one "partner" urinates in the mouth, on the face or on body of the other.
These are some of the most common practices that many gay men enjoy. Because of this and the alarming statistical evidence that gay men live shorter lives, I can only conclude within my own mind, that this lifestyle is not an alternative one, but a perverse, and wrong one.
I won't even bring up the subject of N.A.M.B.L.A. (The National Man/Boy Love Association).
Hope this is clear enough.
-Mike
Warning, this is graphic!!! I appologize in advance...
"anal sex", or inserting the penis into the rectum for the purpose of sexual gratification. This is the most common act among 99% of all gay men. This is clearly improper. The anus was not constructed to be a recepticle for a penis. During homosexual sex, it is quite common for the anus to bleed because of tissue damage. Also, introduction of semen into the anus can cause the recipient's immune system to temporarily break down due to the introduction of protien into the blood stream. As a result illnesses such as the common cold, bronchitis and other maladies is often more frequent and more difficult to shake among gay men. Urinary tract infections are also common due to the penis' contact with fecal matter. Also let's not forget that A.I.D.S. is epidemic in the male gay community, due to semen and saliva entering open wounds inside the rectum, or elsewhere.
"fallatio" following anal sex can cause ingestion of feces, which can cause serious illness.
"scat", or scatting, whereby fecal matter is smeared on the body, played with, etc. This can cause terrible illness, including eye infections.
"fisting", where hands (or sometimes the entire arm!) is inserted up the rectum. This practice can lead to many health problems such as: tearing of rectal tissue, anal bleeding, hemorrhoids, damaged or punctured bowel, and infections.
"rimming", where the anus is stimulated by the tongue. (This is sort of like gay cunnilingus). With it come all the attendant health problems detailed above.
"masturbation" where each partner stimulates the others genitals. The semen is often then used afterwards, for well, you get the idea...
"enemas" also called "brown showers". A liquid (you name it) is introduced into the rectum and the resulting bowel movement is released onto one's "partner". Similar to scatting.
"golden showers", where one "partner" urinates in the mouth, on the face or on body of the other.
These are some of the most common practices that many gay men enjoy. Because of this and the alarming statistical evidence that gay men live shorter lives, I can only conclude within my own mind, that this lifestyle is not an alternative one, but a perverse, and wrong one.
I won't even bring up the subject of N.A.M.B.L.A. (The National Man/Boy Love Association).
Hope this is clear enough.
-Mike
Joeman:
Oh you have no idea what else lurks in my twisted little mind. Believe me, I didn't go into half of the strange fetishes that I know of.
Tyler:
I am unsure of your point. So fine, I'll stipulate that a rape fantasy is natural. If you want to argue rape, the subject deserves a thread of its own.
Does this invalidate my reasoning that "natural" and "unnatural" are arbitrary labels when applied to sex?
When one concedes a blowjob as natural, one really loses objectivity re: naturalness. Does the act of, er, hacer una cubana (to use the Spanish term) have any reproductive value?
Obviously impregnation is impossible, ja?
Labels serve as a convenient form of social control. But like most things used for social control, they do not have much of a rational basis behind them.
GB-GIL Trans-global:
I second Avatar.
Elkimlaw:
Gee, you do seem interested in what gay men do in bed.
It may shock you, but all the practices you described are common amoung heteros as well.
For instance, your "rimming" is Spain's "beso negro". It is a sign of good taste amoung the Spanish, French and Italian upper crust and has been for the past 300 years or so.
Oh you have no idea what else lurks in my twisted little mind. Believe me, I didn't go into half of the strange fetishes that I know of.
Tyler:
I am unsure of your point. So fine, I'll stipulate that a rape fantasy is natural. If you want to argue rape, the subject deserves a thread of its own.
Does this invalidate my reasoning that "natural" and "unnatural" are arbitrary labels when applied to sex?
When one concedes a blowjob as natural, one really loses objectivity re: naturalness. Does the act of, er, hacer una cubana (to use the Spanish term) have any reproductive value?
Obviously impregnation is impossible, ja?
Labels serve as a convenient form of social control. But like most things used for social control, they do not have much of a rational basis behind them.
GB-GIL Trans-global:
I second Avatar.
Elkimlaw:
Gee, you do seem interested in what gay men do in bed.
It may shock you, but all the practices you described are common amoung heteros as well.
For instance, your "rimming" is Spain's "beso negro". It is a sign of good taste amoung the Spanish, French and Italian upper crust and has been for the past 300 years or so.
Last edited:
Ekimklaw,
while these may not seem natural, they're all done by animals. Humans are animals. (yes, folks, in the order of Homo Sapiens...) That makes this natural.
While human genitalia and the anus may not be constructed solely for these purposes, who's not to say that if somehow the whole population ended up gay (but had sex with the other gender simply for the purpose of reproduction), that eventually human being would evolve so that the rectum could better accomodate the anus, or the vagina the tongue? Generally, those with weaker rectums would have harder lives and die at earlier ages because of infections, immense loss of blood or tissue damage, etc.
Imagine Homo Homosexual
while these may not seem natural, they're all done by animals. Humans are animals. (yes, folks, in the order of Homo Sapiens...) That makes this natural.
While human genitalia and the anus may not be constructed solely for these purposes, who's not to say that if somehow the whole population ended up gay (but had sex with the other gender simply for the purpose of reproduction), that eventually human being would evolve so that the rectum could better accomodate the anus, or the vagina the tongue? Generally, those with weaker rectums would have harder lives and die at earlier ages because of infections, immense loss of blood or tissue damage, etc.
Imagine Homo Homosexual
re Xev and Avatar: wouldn't that be RAPE? I think getting a snake to get hard with me, let alone have sex, would be very... difficult if I didn't force it.
Most of what you listed is no more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals.
"Because of this and the alarming statistical evidence that gay men live shorter lives, I can only conclude within my own mind, that this lifestyle is not an alternative one, but a perverse, and wrong one."
Basically what you've said is that because a lifestyle is not one you would choose it's wrong. I don't want to become a bleeding heart liberal so I won't use that as my basis. But, nonetheless you are suggesting that because homosexual acts (also practiced among heterosexuals, but let's forget that too, hm?) can lead to disease the lifestyle is wrong. So..... would you be okay with gays who just gave each other head? Or do you think that all homosexuals should not be allowed to have sex?
"When one concedes a blowjob as natural, one really loses objectivity re: naturalness. Does the act of, er, hacer una cubana (to use the Spanish term) have any reproductive value?"
Xev you're jumping to conclusions and, beyond that, you're putting a connotation on something that doesn't have a connotation. You seem to think that I would list a blowjob as a natural act. You are defining a natural sex act as one which nature intended to be done. Therefore a blowjob is unnatural for a sex act.
Here's where you make a poor statement. - "Labels serve as a convenient form of social control. But like most things used for social control, they do not have much of a rational basis behind them." - you seem to think that calling something unnatural makes it bad. Perhaps you're assuming that because I'm debating against you on a point that I will take the standard right-wing christian view 'IF IT'S NOT NATURAL IT'S BAD!' view. I will not. As a logical human being I can come to the conclusion that simply because something is not natural does not make it bad or morally evil. If it does, would I not have to say bye-bye to my computer?
"Because of this and the alarming statistical evidence that gay men live shorter lives, I can only conclude within my own mind, that this lifestyle is not an alternative one, but a perverse, and wrong one."
Basically what you've said is that because a lifestyle is not one you would choose it's wrong. I don't want to become a bleeding heart liberal so I won't use that as my basis. But, nonetheless you are suggesting that because homosexual acts (also practiced among heterosexuals, but let's forget that too, hm?) can lead to disease the lifestyle is wrong. So..... would you be okay with gays who just gave each other head? Or do you think that all homosexuals should not be allowed to have sex?
"When one concedes a blowjob as natural, one really loses objectivity re: naturalness. Does the act of, er, hacer una cubana (to use the Spanish term) have any reproductive value?"
Xev you're jumping to conclusions and, beyond that, you're putting a connotation on something that doesn't have a connotation. You seem to think that I would list a blowjob as a natural act. You are defining a natural sex act as one which nature intended to be done. Therefore a blowjob is unnatural for a sex act.
Here's where you make a poor statement. - "Labels serve as a convenient form of social control. But like most things used for social control, they do not have much of a rational basis behind them." - you seem to think that calling something unnatural makes it bad. Perhaps you're assuming that because I'm debating against you on a point that I will take the standard right-wing christian view 'IF IT'S NOT NATURAL IT'S BAD!' view. I will not. As a logical human being I can come to the conclusion that simply because something is not natural does not make it bad or morally evil. If it does, would I not have to say bye-bye to my computer?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But why is homosexuality considered a sin? And why do you consider it not normal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read my answer to James R. That's as plain as I can make it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
There is now considerable evidence that shows that homosexuality is partly genetic and partly due to hormonal imbalances during the early stages of life. The role of the sex hormones during those early stages define the final gender despite the X and Y chromosome counts. These imbalances can also result in hermaphrodites, those with both male and female genitalia, or in many cases incomplete genitalia of either type. These hormonal irregularities result in a wide range of sexual biases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not change my mind about homosexuality being wrong. Similar evidence can be shown to suggest hormonal or genetic proclivities toward alcoholism, obesity, and even violence. But no one would argue that these things are "normal".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Other early developmental irregularities can result in malformed bodies, blindness, left-handedness, etc. But all these aspects are biologically natural, i.e. they occur without any intelligent direction.
But most of those who survive any developmental variations are real people and should have every right to be considered ‘normal’. Where is it stated that a majority outcome must be considered the only normal outcome? Dwarfism, or little people as they like to be known, could almost be seen as a different race, but they have all the emotions and intellectual capabilities as everyone else. But they are different to the majority, and homosexuals are also different to the majority, and the same for left-handed people. The differences make for a society with wonderful diversity that should be encouraged, explored and welcomed. There should be no place for hate and discrimination of anyone because they are considered different in some way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will agree that good mutations are rare! By the way, attempting to equate homosexuality with physical traits or abnormalities that do not effect ones morals, is spurious. For instance no one considers dwarfism immoral. However, sexual intercourse with a man's rectum would be condemned by many as immoral.
Homosexuality is not a physical condition, but an behavioral practice. There is NO direct correlation between blindness (or any other things you mentioned) and sexual perversion.
These are physical traits, not "tendencies"!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
If you are going to consider homosexuals who practice their natural tendencies as abnormal then you should be consistent and consider those who are left-handed as abnormal. This might sound humorous but even into the 20th century left-handedness was considered wrong and many thousands of children have been forced to be right-handed and have suffered terribly because of discrimination born of ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical traits and characteristics are VERY different from behavioral tendencies Cris!
If you are going to say that homosexuality is "normal" why not other socially unacceptable "tendencies" as well.
The tendency toward incest for instance. Is that normal? What about bestiality? Are people who feel compelled to do this "normal" What about polygamy? Is it normal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Christianity has a significant pre-occupation with sex, and I have had great difficulty understanding why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many sins involve sex. And, religion focuses on avoiding sin. That is what religion is basically. Avoiding sin through holy conduct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The recent sex farce of Catholic priests and the revelation that a large percentage of Catholic priests are gay indicates a real problem for Christian perspectives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It indicates that the Catholic church probably needs to allow its priests to marry, and that some Gay men are drawn to the priesthood out of personal guilt and later fall into temptation. This is a VERY complicated issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But the reason why Christianity sees natural and normal biology resulting in homosexuality as abnormal is that the science of biology wasn’t known at the time the bible was written. In other words The Word of God was born of ignorance, and is another good indication that the Christian god doesn’t exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree in the strongest of terms to your assertion. That is simply your opinion. I have detailed elsewhere above that homosexuality is not "normal", and stand by the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The discrimination you practice is that you believe what an ancient outdated book says is true rather than evaluate the issues for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have mischaraterized me. You do not know me and therefore you are making false accusations about me strictly based on your preconcieved notions about religious people. Explaining why I believe that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is not proper is NOT discrimination. You have simply made a "straw man" argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
And yes you are practicing discrimination because as you state, you consider their activity is abnormal whereas you consider your activity normal. While you might not actively shun people who are ‘different’ many other Christians do actively persecute and make a considerable effort to hate and make the lives of homosexuals quite miserable. I consider that an intolerable attitude.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is classic "straw man".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
I suspect that as a Christian you consider yourself a sinner, as you do every person, correct? We can then consider sin as ‘normal’? I.e. practiced by the majority, or in the Christian view everyone. How then are you any different to the homosexual, who you consider as just another sinner? Shouldn’t you consider both yourself and the homosexual as normal as you both sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris, this "logic" explains why you are an atheist. Saying your views are mixed up is being polite so that is what I will be. It is up to others to decide who is wrong -- you or me. We will never convince each other.
Your "logical" assertion, about me as I understand it, runs thus:
1. Since I believe everyone is a sinner.
2. And since I believe whatever the majority does is "normal".
3. And since I believe that homosexuals are sinners.
4. Therefore I should conclude that homosexuals are "normal".
I cannot refute this oversimplification of a deep theological issue without seeming to "proselytize". Suffice it to say for now your logic breaks down with the assertion that I believe that whatever the majority does is "normal". I do not believe this. Here you are using "normal" in place of "common". Obviously morality is not strictly dictated by majority. While every human is a sinner, there are those who are repentant and those who are unrepentant. This is where it can slide into a sermon. Out of respect to you and your fellow anti-theists, I will not overtly prosylitize (or "preach") here if i can help it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But your words betray your real discriminatory indoctrination since you consider your sins as normal and homosexual sins as somehow abnormal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discriminatory indoctrination... hmmm... Pretty strong words there. I expressed earlier that homosexuality is A sin. Not THE sin. Did you see that list in my earlier post? There was more there than homosexuality wasn't there? Engaging in immorality without regret or remorse, or concience is wrong. So is making inflammatory remarks about whether someone discriminates.
-Mike
Cris wrote:
But why is homosexuality considered a sin? And why do you consider it not normal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read my answer to James R. That's as plain as I can make it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
There is now considerable evidence that shows that homosexuality is partly genetic and partly due to hormonal imbalances during the early stages of life. The role of the sex hormones during those early stages define the final gender despite the X and Y chromosome counts. These imbalances can also result in hermaphrodites, those with both male and female genitalia, or in many cases incomplete genitalia of either type. These hormonal irregularities result in a wide range of sexual biases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This does not change my mind about homosexuality being wrong. Similar evidence can be shown to suggest hormonal or genetic proclivities toward alcoholism, obesity, and even violence. But no one would argue that these things are "normal".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Other early developmental irregularities can result in malformed bodies, blindness, left-handedness, etc. But all these aspects are biologically natural, i.e. they occur without any intelligent direction.
But most of those who survive any developmental variations are real people and should have every right to be considered ‘normal’. Where is it stated that a majority outcome must be considered the only normal outcome? Dwarfism, or little people as they like to be known, could almost be seen as a different race, but they have all the emotions and intellectual capabilities as everyone else. But they are different to the majority, and homosexuals are also different to the majority, and the same for left-handed people. The differences make for a society with wonderful diversity that should be encouraged, explored and welcomed. There should be no place for hate and discrimination of anyone because they are considered different in some way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will agree that good mutations are rare! By the way, attempting to equate homosexuality with physical traits or abnormalities that do not effect ones morals, is spurious. For instance no one considers dwarfism immoral. However, sexual intercourse with a man's rectum would be condemned by many as immoral.
Homosexuality is not a physical condition, but an behavioral practice. There is NO direct correlation between blindness (or any other things you mentioned) and sexual perversion.
These are physical traits, not "tendencies"!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
If you are going to consider homosexuals who practice their natural tendencies as abnormal then you should be consistent and consider those who are left-handed as abnormal. This might sound humorous but even into the 20th century left-handedness was considered wrong and many thousands of children have been forced to be right-handed and have suffered terribly because of discrimination born of ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical traits and characteristics are VERY different from behavioral tendencies Cris!
If you are going to say that homosexuality is "normal" why not other socially unacceptable "tendencies" as well.
The tendency toward incest for instance. Is that normal? What about bestiality? Are people who feel compelled to do this "normal" What about polygamy? Is it normal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
Christianity has a significant pre-occupation with sex, and I have had great difficulty understanding why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many sins involve sex. And, religion focuses on avoiding sin. That is what religion is basically. Avoiding sin through holy conduct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The recent sex farce of Catholic priests and the revelation that a large percentage of Catholic priests are gay indicates a real problem for Christian perspectives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It indicates that the Catholic church probably needs to allow its priests to marry, and that some Gay men are drawn to the priesthood out of personal guilt and later fall into temptation. This is a VERY complicated issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But the reason why Christianity sees natural and normal biology resulting in homosexuality as abnormal is that the science of biology wasn’t known at the time the bible was written. In other words The Word of God was born of ignorance, and is another good indication that the Christian god doesn’t exist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree in the strongest of terms to your assertion. That is simply your opinion. I have detailed elsewhere above that homosexuality is not "normal", and stand by the statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
The discrimination you practice is that you believe what an ancient outdated book says is true rather than evaluate the issues for yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have mischaraterized me. You do not know me and therefore you are making false accusations about me strictly based on your preconcieved notions about religious people. Explaining why I believe that homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is not proper is NOT discrimination. You have simply made a "straw man" argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
And yes you are practicing discrimination because as you state, you consider their activity is abnormal whereas you consider your activity normal. While you might not actively shun people who are ‘different’ many other Christians do actively persecute and make a considerable effort to hate and make the lives of homosexuals quite miserable. I consider that an intolerable attitude.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is classic "straw man".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
I suspect that as a Christian you consider yourself a sinner, as you do every person, correct? We can then consider sin as ‘normal’? I.e. practiced by the majority, or in the Christian view everyone. How then are you any different to the homosexual, who you consider as just another sinner? Shouldn’t you consider both yourself and the homosexual as normal as you both sin?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris, this "logic" explains why you are an atheist. Saying your views are mixed up is being polite so that is what I will be. It is up to others to decide who is wrong -- you or me. We will never convince each other.
Your "logical" assertion, about me as I understand it, runs thus:
1. Since I believe everyone is a sinner.
2. And since I believe whatever the majority does is "normal".
3. And since I believe that homosexuals are sinners.
4. Therefore I should conclude that homosexuals are "normal".
I cannot refute this oversimplification of a deep theological issue without seeming to "proselytize". Suffice it to say for now your logic breaks down with the assertion that I believe that whatever the majority does is "normal". I do not believe this. Here you are using "normal" in place of "common". Obviously morality is not strictly dictated by majority. While every human is a sinner, there are those who are repentant and those who are unrepentant. This is where it can slide into a sermon. Out of respect to you and your fellow anti-theists, I will not overtly prosylitize (or "preach") here if i can help it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cris wrote:
But your words betray your real discriminatory indoctrination since you consider your sins as normal and homosexual sins as somehow abnormal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discriminatory indoctrination... hmmm... Pretty strong words there. I expressed earlier that homosexuality is A sin. Not THE sin. Did you see that list in my earlier post? There was more there than homosexuality wasn't there? Engaging in immorality without regret or remorse, or concience is wrong. So is making inflammatory remarks about whether someone discriminates.
-Mike
Well, given the babbling that's going on here, I go for a snake too! Hell, a whole snake pit, if necessarry...
Ekimclaw, you sound like a mutation. Homo sexuality is not a behavioral practise, it's just how someone feels. Inside, you know. Guess you are a neat little christian and such a "thing" surely could never happen to you or one of your loved ones...
Ekimclaw, you sound like a mutation. Homo sexuality is not a behavioral practise, it's just how someone feels. Inside, you know. Guess you are a neat little christian and such a "thing" surely could never happen to you or one of your loved ones...
Banshee, Cris:
There's no point to arguing with Elkimlaw. Most heteros make the mistake you two make, in assuming that homophobes will simply "see the light" and change.
In reality, few will. Sometimes they desire to change, sometimes they gain respect for a co-worker or acquaintance, or sometimes they end up with a gay child - and their love for their child trumps their dislike of homosexuals.
But really, few will change. Elkimlaw is content in his beliefs, and I suggest that you not waste your time trying to change those. So long as he is not violent, few gays actually care.
It's rather like when Tony1 starts going on about burning in a lake of fire. One may as well threaten to feed people to Cthulhu.
Tyler:
Ah, actually, I'm not exactly sure what you are debating me about. We seem to agree.
There's no point to arguing with Elkimlaw. Most heteros make the mistake you two make, in assuming that homophobes will simply "see the light" and change.
In reality, few will. Sometimes they desire to change, sometimes they gain respect for a co-worker or acquaintance, or sometimes they end up with a gay child - and their love for their child trumps their dislike of homosexuals.
But really, few will change. Elkimlaw is content in his beliefs, and I suggest that you not waste your time trying to change those. So long as he is not violent, few gays actually care.
It's rather like when Tony1 starts going on about burning in a lake of fire. One may as well threaten to feed people to Cthulhu.
Tyler:
Ah, actually, I'm not exactly sure what you are debating me about. We seem to agree.
Ekimklaw:
You mention a variety of sex acts, and point out health risks associated them. You link those acts to homosexuality and thereby conclude that homosexuality is wrong.
The problem with this reasoning is that the sex acts you mention are not exclusively or even primarily homosexual in nature. I suspect that far more heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, for example, than gay couples.
Secondly, a sexual preference does not depend on any particular sexual act. A person may be homosexual and never have any form of sex. If that was the case, would you still consider that person to be sinful? I wonder.
You mention a variety of sex acts, and point out health risks associated them. You link those acts to homosexuality and thereby conclude that homosexuality is wrong.
The problem with this reasoning is that the sex acts you mention are not exclusively or even primarily homosexual in nature. I suspect that far more heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, for example, than gay couples.
Secondly, a sexual preference does not depend on any particular sexual act. A person may be homosexual and never have any form of sex. If that was the case, would you still consider that person to be sinful? I wonder.
Yes, every sex act mentioned by Ekimklaw is in fact quite commonplace among straight couples. It should be obvious to even the most dim-witted individual, then, that straight sex is wrong.
(Commonplace in comparison to the percentage of gays that do it. In other words, it's actually pretty damn *uncommon*, but a similar percentage of straights participate in those acts as well as gays.)
And BTW, the definition of "enema" is incorrect. An enema refers to using liquid to clean the anus by inserting usually water into it and then releasing it. Hospitals use them all the time. In no way does it imply smearing the liquid, etc.
(Commonplace in comparison to the percentage of gays that do it. In other words, it's actually pretty damn *uncommon*, but a similar percentage of straights participate in those acts as well as gays.)
And BTW, the definition of "enema" is incorrect. An enema refers to using liquid to clean the anus by inserting usually water into it and then releasing it. Hospitals use them all the time. In no way does it imply smearing the liquid, etc.
You asked why I think homosexuality is wrong. I gave you my reasoning. Your response (I assume to prove that homosexuality is okay) is to say that heterosexual people do all of that too.
I personally do not think, for instance, that sex in the rectum is good. For anyone! If you do, then GO ahead!! Have I said anything about preventing people from smearing crap on their lover? Or fisting their partner bowlegged? Or pissing on each other? No. If that is your thing then rock on! Just don't try to get me to tell you it is "normal" because it isn't. It is abhorrant and perverse. I don't care WHO does it. If you want me to change my opinion then try to convince me that homosexuality is NORMAL without calling me a bunch of names.
I don't hate gays or anyone. I dislike militancy from any agendized group INCLUDING Christians! I am tolerant in a "live and let live" way. That doesn't mean I approve of every single thing you can devise to do. But what two consenting adults do in private is THEIR business.
You also continue to lob ad hominems at me:
"Gee, you do seem interested in what gay men do in bed."
"Ekimclaw, you sound like a mutation."
How childish. How nonconstructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev wrote:
"There's no point to arguing with Elkimlaw..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing? I thought we were debating. I state my view, you state your view. Undecided people choose which viewpoint to agree with. I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you is arguing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler wrote:
"Basically what you've said is that because a lifestyle is not one you would choose it's wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler there is no need for putting words in my mouth. That is NOT what I said. I was asked why I think homosexuality is wrong. I answered. Did you even read my posts? The topic here is homosexuality. If you are curious about my views on heterosexual sins, behavioral immorality in general, or anything else, start a new thread. This one deals specifically with homosexuality.
Nothing I have stated in my posts is meant to offend anyone. If they offended you, or you took it personally, I appologize. These are simply my personal beliefs. I am not here to offend people, but to debate topics. Sooner or later you will respect me for that.
-Mike
I personally do not think, for instance, that sex in the rectum is good. For anyone! If you do, then GO ahead!! Have I said anything about preventing people from smearing crap on their lover? Or fisting their partner bowlegged? Or pissing on each other? No. If that is your thing then rock on! Just don't try to get me to tell you it is "normal" because it isn't. It is abhorrant and perverse. I don't care WHO does it. If you want me to change my opinion then try to convince me that homosexuality is NORMAL without calling me a bunch of names.
I don't hate gays or anyone. I dislike militancy from any agendized group INCLUDING Christians! I am tolerant in a "live and let live" way. That doesn't mean I approve of every single thing you can devise to do. But what two consenting adults do in private is THEIR business.
You also continue to lob ad hominems at me:
"Gee, you do seem interested in what gay men do in bed."
"Ekimclaw, you sound like a mutation."
How childish. How nonconstructive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xev wrote:
"There's no point to arguing with Elkimlaw..."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguing? I thought we were debating. I state my view, you state your view. Undecided people choose which viewpoint to agree with. I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you is arguing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler wrote:
"Basically what you've said is that because a lifestyle is not one you would choose it's wrong."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler there is no need for putting words in my mouth. That is NOT what I said. I was asked why I think homosexuality is wrong. I answered. Did you even read my posts? The topic here is homosexuality. If you are curious about my views on heterosexual sins, behavioral immorality in general, or anything else, start a new thread. This one deals specifically with homosexuality.
Nothing I have stated in my posts is meant to offend anyone. If they offended you, or you took it personally, I appologize. These are simply my personal beliefs. I am not here to offend people, but to debate topics. Sooner or later you will respect me for that.
-Mike
Elkimlaw:
Dude, chill. It seemed more argument than debate. I really don't see how you can debate this sort of thing. I have nothing against argument, and I did not mean that to be derogetory.
As for my comment re:interest, yeah, that was low. But not an ad hominem attack. Merely a bit of teasing.
Sorry. I tease a lot of people that way. Guess I forgot that you are more disturbed by this sort of thing than my friends and acquaintances are.
Sorry.
Cris: Thanks.
Dude, chill. It seemed more argument than debate. I really don't see how you can debate this sort of thing. I have nothing against argument, and I did not mean that to be derogetory.
As for my comment re:interest, yeah, that was low. But not an ad hominem attack. Merely a bit of teasing.
Sorry. I tease a lot of people that way. Guess I forgot that you are more disturbed by this sort of thing than my friends and acquaintances are.
Sorry.
Cris: Thanks.
From the quote I used, that is actually what you came across as saying. However, it was just one quote in your whole debate.
Anyway. To me all you have shown is that gay sex is not natural. Then you continue to say it is immoral and wrong. Where I fail to see a link is with you thinking anything not natural is immoral. After all, as many people will be anxious to point out, our technology and plastic and such are not natural. Having sex with a condom is not natural.
Anyway. To me all you have shown is that gay sex is not natural. Then you continue to say it is immoral and wrong. Where I fail to see a link is with you thinking anything not natural is immoral. After all, as many people will be anxious to point out, our technology and plastic and such are not natural. Having sex with a condom is not natural.
~The_Chosen~
Registered Senior Member
You've beaten me Xev
Never tried that, sounds sick...
Never tried this either...
LoL! I'm not commenting on this...since some probably will get offended
You mean first hand education Haha
Some actually do fantasize. I can't show you but they fantasize the sexiest man raping them --or-- a man without a face but an extremely nice body...some women are indeed weird...
Sorry about interrupting the debate, but I don't want to get a part of it...and yes Tyler, gay sex is not natural.
Never tried that, sounds sick...
Never tried this either...
LoL! I'm not commenting on this...since some probably will get offended
See the value of a classical education?
You mean first hand education
HahaSome actually do fantasize. I can't show you but they fantasize the sexiest man raping them --or-- a man without a face but an extremely nice body...some women are indeed weird...
Sorry about interrupting the debate, but I don't want to get a part of it...and yes Tyler, gay sex is not natural.