Why do people think that God needs to explain himself to us. He doesn’t need our permission to tell us what to do. After all, he is GOD.
He’s your God, not mine. And as I don’t worship your deity, I shouldn’t be subject to the persecution of his followers.
But, that doesn’t stop a zealous group of Christians who think they must convert everyone and stomp out anything they don’t like.
It also doesn’t make your behavior any less disturbing to those of us who are having sex with the appropriate gender.
There are many who prefer to have sex with farm animals. So I will assume that you agree with this as well.
If being gay is normal then what do you have to say about those who desire to spend quality time with their favorite dog or goat?
Oddities you all are to me but you will create your own reality. Won’t you?
Sick individuals.
Thanks for your judgemental rant. Thanks also for equating homosexuality with bestality. I often think of heterosexuality in the same exact terms.
You obviously created your own reality. Why should I be any different?
Hastur:“I often think of heterosexuality in the same exact terms.”
Really? 
So, sex with the same sex is normal while sex with the opposite sex is perverse?
This logic implies that procreation is perversion, but gay sex is normal. Whatever floats your boat.
Justify your odd view on reality anyway that you choose but your opinion makes you no less a freak.
There is no difference between someone who wants to have sex with a farm animal and someone who wants to have sex with someone of the same sex. Either way it is non productive and a biological oddity. If heterosexual sex seems odd to you then you are an extraterrestrial.
Were you conceived by two men? Two women? Can two men create life? Two women?
So what is odd abut heterosexual sex? Where did you come up with that crap?
Will your ship come back for you soon?
How is ET doing anyway?
And you thought I was bad Hastur.
OK mx-6*. I sincerely hope you are trolling.
No I’m not trolling but did you read his reply to this post?
He said that he thinks that Heterosexuals are the ones who are perverse. As if being gay is the only to further our species. Were both of his parents men? Impossible.
So I ask this clown how the hell he is normal while we are perverted? I would like him to justify the position that he claimed to have. There is no way that he can but I will listen.
Are you going to suggest some other way to conceive? Are you going to suggest that there is a better way that only you know of?
I am chuckling, I mean waiting.
Well aside from the fact that bestiality is illegal, bestiality being non-consensual and no-one ever claiming that they were in a loving, caring, mutually supportive relationship with a duck, no, ther’s no difference at all.
So you only have sex if it is productive do you? Had sex three times, got three children? Of course you do because anything else would be sick and an oddity. You of course condemn people who use contraception just as strongly as homosexuals because they are also engaging in unproductive sex.
You are ignoring the fact that sex for humans is not just about reproduction and if you believe otherwise it is you who are the oddity.
Then how do you explain the occurence of homosexual sex in other mammals? Since animals are born without sin God must have made them as biological oddities. So He makes oddities and then you blindly follow his rules. That makes sense.
**
[/QUOTE]
Why mention just primates? Mammals of ALL kinds, birds, reptiles, you’d be amazed how wide-spread homosexuality (of either gender) and bisexuality is practiced in the wild, and you never hear about it.
Of special note here are the more intelligent sea-going mammals. On the high end of the scale, the average male dolphin would put even the amorous Esprix to shame…the really spectacular shows don’t make it into the center ring at Sea World. Some are strictly straight, some are strictly gay, but most don’t care in the least what gender they’re playing with…as I’ve heard, they often don’t even care about species. (with particular preference for humans…)
Guess that means dolphins are into bestiality too 
Seeing as how they’re arguably the most intelligent creature on this planet aside from (or, some would say, even including) humans, and that other habits in the animal world tend to follow along similar lines, you could make an interesting argument that sexuality is a side effect (or maybe a cause?) of intelligence. And if so, it begs the question: Why do so many human factions try to suppress it?
Beastiality is non-consensual? It is illegal because the level of accepted perversion hasn’t gone that far yet. But to assume that it is non-consensual is pretty dumb.
So if sex for humans isn’t only about reproduction then come up with some evidence that shows that this is false. Is there some other reason that our hormones do what they do? And if so then what is the reason there Doc?
And as for your claim that god created gay animals I’d like you to prove that those animals were in fact gay. And were opposed to normal heterosexual sex. Since animals are stupid and they even try to have sex with your leg, they can be given the benefit of the doubt. So are you saying that there are gay animals? And if there is then does that make them any less freaks?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by mx-6 *
**
I’d like to jump in here, even though admittedly, I’m not material for GD. mx-6*, if you say that animals are dumb, and that therefore you give them the benefit of the doubt, doesn’t that go against your original statements? If animals are dumb, than they act purely out of instinct don’t they? That means that they ride your leg or have sex with animals of the same gender out of insinct, i.e. according to fully natural behaviour. They don’t know better, God created them like this, so they aren’t sinful or freaks. I would think that you can only act in sin if you know the difference between good and bad. Or are you saying that all those animals that kill are sinful as well? That would rule out all predators then…
You also argue that sex is meant purely for reproductive purposes. If that is so, why did God not make us super fertile? There are lots of people who don’t get children after having sex only once. I think that is even the norm rather than the exception. But no, we need to have sex multiple times before there is a good chance for a woman getting pregnant. This is a bit paradoxal isn’t it? I would argue that sex is more than just furthering your species. It is a way for two humans to come closer together. To share a special, intimate bond with another. And the fact that from that bond another human being can grow is an added bonus. But you say that two men (or two women) can’t share that intimate bond, since no child can come of it. Judgemental…
Another thing. Say that in the future, human medicine can make that two men or two women can indeed have a child. Would you still stick to your point? I think you will, because ‘God never intended this to happen, otherwise he would have made sure of that in the first place’. But as a counterpoint, I would say then that God probably never intended us to be cured of cancer either. Only recently, human medicine made sure that this could be done… How would you react to that viewpoint?
By the way, as a sidepoint, would you please refrain from the term ‘freak’? That is without the proper respect that is usual on this board…
Yes I did. Hastur is not known for his soft touch or his debating skills, but I can’t see a problem with the reply.
You said you find homosexuality disturbing, he said he finds heterosexuality disturbing.
You made the assumption he supported rogering hedgehogs because he supported homosexuality, he said he assumed the same about you because you supported heterosexuality.
You asked if homosexuality was normal what was his opinion on rogering goats, he declined to answer asked you what your opinion on the same topic was given you support heterosexuality.
You called him and his oddities, sick individuals and said he was off in la-la land. He called you and yours oddities sick individuals and said you were off in la-la land.
I’m afraid I can’t see any logical flaw in his response. I’m afraid I can’t see much logic anywhere, just a lot of heat and bad manners.
WTF any of this has to do with the possibilty of same sex procreation is well beyond me. But like I’ve said, sex for normal humans is far more than procreation.
If Hastur chooses to find heterosexuality disturbing that’s his choice. If he chooses to find heterosexuals perverse then good. If you have any logical argument to the contrary then trot it out, but just be aware that any argument that non-productive sex = oddity, sicko, clown etc. will necessarily be including anyone who has ever used contraception.
Hastur doesn’t need to justify his position that he is normal and you perverse. You accused him of being a deviant, now the onus is on you to prove that he is. Having never met the man I suspect that you’re going to have a little problem here.
I assume by ‘So I ask this clown how the hell he is normal while we are perverted?’ that you mean we as in ‘me and the others who believe me’, not we as in you and I. I really don’t think Hastur has accused me of being perverted here (he has in other threads but that’s beside the point).
I don’t need to suggest other ways ‘to conceive’ as you put it. It’s irrelevant. You made a claim about the mental health of homosexuals, now back the claim up.
Oh goody, he’s come back while I was typing.
Now those are the kind of high grade debating skills I like to see.
Are you saying that you can come up with even one case of consensual sex occuring between a human and an animal. If you can then I’ll be happy to withdraw the statement. Until then it stands. Bestiality is non-consensual.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2000.
“Further, all humans have a deep need to be esteemed, wanted, and loved. Sexual activity with another is seen as proof that one is attractive, desired, valued, and possibly loved–a proof very necessary to self-esteem and happiness. Hence, even among the very inhibited or those with weak sex drive, there is this powerful motivation to engage in sociosexual activity.”
There are at least some of the other reasons.
Are you seriously so lacking in insight that you believe that each time you have sex you are doing so totally and entirely to produce children?
http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html
“Perhaps the bonobo’s most typical sexual pattern, undocumented in any other primate, is genito-genital rubbing (or GG rubbing) between adult females. One female facing another clings with arms and legs to a partner that, standing on both hands and feet, lifts her off the ground. The two females then rub their genital swellings laterally together, emitting grins and squeals that probably reflect orgasmic experiences. (Laboratory experiments on stump- tailed macaques have demonstrated that women are not the only female primates capable of physiological orgasm.)
Male bonobos, too, may engage in pseudocopulation but generally perform a variation. Standing back to back, one male briefly rubs his scrotum against the buttocks of another. They also practice so-called penis-fencing, in which two males hang face to face from a branch while rubbing their erect penises together.
The diversity of erotic contacts in bonobos includes sporadic oral sex, massage of another individual’s genitals and intense tongue-kissing. “
- The term ‘homosexual’ does not now nor has it ever to my knowledge precluded bisexuality and required an opposition to heterosexual sex. This is a non-argument unless you can come up with some independent definition that agrees with you.
- I don’t think that engaging in a sexual act multiple times a day with members of the same gender can be covered by ‘being stupid’. This is normal behaviour for the species’ concerned.
- Yes it does make them less freaks. Correct me if I’m wrong but you believe that man is ‘afflicted’ with homosexuality because he was born into sin. Animals aren’t born into sin and therefore all natural behaviour must be the result of God’s will. If you ignore this line of reasoning then there is no standard by which to regard anything as ‘natural’ or ‘freakish’. I could almost accept this if it was isolated individuals within a species that engaged in the behaviour, but when it is obviously normal behaviour for all individuals then it cannot be considered freakish.
**JerseyDiamond wrote:
Why do people think that God needs to explain himself to us. He doesn’t need our permission to tell us what to do. After all, he is GOD.**
Once more with feeling:
Since the Bible (New Testament and Torah) has been used as justification to pass laws that criminalize homosexual acts, I feel I have the right to question the logic of those Biblical verses.
Turn the situation around for a moment. Suppose the followes of The Invisible Pink Unicorn were in polical power and passed laws making it a crime to eat bread and drink wine as part of religious communion. Wouldn’t you voice prostest and question the logic of the law and the basis thereof?
With the way I see young straight men treat women, I’m amazed they don’t all go lesbian out of disgust. Not only do heterosexual women generally get stuck with the burden of worrying about contraception, they also have to deal with pressure from men to put out to begin with, and then have to deal with the general sexual ineptitude and selfishness of men.
Is it any wonder that a recent study found that sterilization is the most popular form of contraception with women?
http://library.northernlight.com/FA20000503270000011.html?cb=0&sc=0#doc
Did you realize that personally insulting someone in a Great Debate is against board policies? Do you pay attention to anything but your own poorly structured rants?
I never said that gay or straight sex was normal. I was just showing a contrast to your hateful and negative post.
You seem to have a lot of venom invested in slandering gay people… why do you care? It isn’t your business what we do in bed and with whom we do it.
Another insult… how mature of you.
As previously stated, homosexuality is seen in all mammals, as is exclusive homosexuality. The apes have it better than we do… when did you see a gay ape harassed by another ape that wanted them to be straight?
You have issues. Being verbally abusive and hostile in this forum is inappropriate. If you want a fight, take it to the pit. But, if you expect to go further on your anti gay rant , you’ll just be innundated with logic, reason, and citations that will make your posts look even weaker than they do in here.
mx-6: You think someone who finds hetero sex perverse is an extraterrestrial?
God FORBIDS sex between humans and aliens!!!
How could you even Mention that!
sicko.
My head hurts. 
Esprix
I think I’m going to pretend page 3 just didn’t happen. 
Freyr,
I understand what you’re saying with the logic.
- G-d wouldn’t make a law that doesn’t make sense.
- The law against homosexuality doesn’t make sense
therefore - The law didn’t come from G-d.
However, that could also be flipped on it’s head, if you assume G-d did make a law against homosexuality, which is what we’re assuming in the thread. Saying “Why is homosexuality considered a sin” implies that it is, indeed considered a sin, and the answer has to be, “I have no idea.” It’s possible that, if G-d told us, we wouldn’t be able to understand the answer. He knows a bunch of stuff we don’t. I hope you don’t think I’m blowing you off here, because I’m really not trying to. I’m just saying that there are things it might not be possible to know with our level of intellegence or knowledge. Of course, it’s a whole different issue if you ask “Should the U.S. pass laws against homosexuality?”, even though some people confuse the two questions.
**Captain Amazing wrote:
I think I’m going to pretend page 3 just didn’t happen.**
A-men brother!
It’s possible that, if G-d told us, we wouldn’t be able to understand the answer. He knows a bunch of stuff we don’t. I hope you don’t think I’m blowing you off here, because I’m really not trying to. I’m just saying that there are things it might not be possible to know with our level of intellegence or knowledge.
I agree with you that God knows things we can’t understand (at our currently level of technology and knowledge). However, if one assumes that God is also omniscient, the He would have the ability to explain things to us in a way we’d understand.
If we were messing about with electrical/magnetic fields, subatomic particles or some weird branch of physics, I’d agree with you. However, we’re talking about two people of the same sex copulating. What exactly is being “harmed” or otherwise “damaged” ?? What is so dangerous that the death penalty is called for?
Until someone can prove that homosexual acts cause real, verifiable physical or mental harm (between consensual adults) then you can only speculate with wild guesses about what the reason is for the prohibition.
Let me try one more track on this; let’s suppose that God really did make this law and gave it to the Tribes of Isreal. Anyone practicing homosexual acts is to be put to death. Since there’s no way the acts cause harm, the only reason you can conclude for this is that God is some sadistic tyrant; the Divine Weasel. Does that make any more sense to you?
*Originally posted by Freyr *
**I agree with you that God knows things we can’t understand (at our currently level of technology and knowledge). However, if one assumes that God is also omniscient, the He would have the ability to explain things to us in a way we’d understand.
If we were messing about with electrical/magnetic fields, subatomic particles or some weird branch of physics, I’d agree with you. However, we’re talking about two people of the same sex copulating. What exactly is being “harmed” or otherwise “damaged” ?? What is so dangerous that the death penalty is called for?**
Well, I have a master’s degree in Political Science (which doesn’t involve technological advancement), but there would be no way I could explain a theory of nationalism to my 2 year old cousin, nor, if by some chance I could, would I want to try.
Until someone can prove that homosexual acts cause real, verifiable physical or mental harm (between consensual adults) then you can only speculate with wild guesses about what the reason is for the prohibition.
**Let me try one more track on this; let’s suppose that God really did make this law and gave it to the Tribes of Isreal. Anyone practicing homosexual acts is to be put to death. Since there’s no way the acts cause harm, the only reason you can conclude for this is that God is some sadistic tyrant; the Divine Weasel. Does that make any more sense to you? **
Well, but you’re making the assumption that the only reason a law should exist is if it causes harm, which isn’t the assumption the Torah makes. Homosexuality doesn’t cause discernable harm to society, but neither does eating shrimp, or for that matter, not believing in G-d. I know it’s probably not a satisfying answer, and, I guess if you want, you can look at Him as the Divine Weasel, but I wouldn’t draw that conclusion. And, btw, it’s not easy to put someone to death under the standards that are required.
**Captain Amazing wrote:
Well, I have a master’s degree in Political Science (which doesn’t involve technological advancement), but there would be no way I could explain a theory of nationalism to my 2 year old cousin, nor, if by some chance I could, would I want to try.**
Agreed, but there’s a difference. A 2 y.o. doesn’t under the concept of action and consequences of those actions. As an adult of average intelligence, I do. Also, with being omniscient, God can draw on near infinite resources to explain His point. You as a mere mortal, can’t.
Well, but you’re making the assumption that the only reason a law should exist is if it causes harm, which isn’t the assumption the Torah makes. Homosexuality doesn’t cause discernable harm to society, but neither does eating shrimp, or for that matter, not believing in G-d.
This was brought up earlier, most recently by Zev; yes there are two types of laws, those that are plain in their understanding. We all know why murder, lying and adultery are forbidden. Those really don’t require an explaination.
The others are cultural/social rules. They were appropriate for the time and place of the Jews of some 3200 years ago, not so now. I feel this rule on homosexual acts is of the latter category. Can you prove me wrong here?
This is why I brought up the allusion to slavery before. It was a common and accepted practice back then. Now it’s something that morally reprehensible. Homosexuality was the same way, only reversed. There was no divine decree forbiding slavery, its practiced was simply recognized as wrong. I’m making the same point with homosexuality.