A person should not be defined by his/her sexual preference. Homosexuality isnt similar to pedophiles and murderers since they perform acts against other people wills. It is a mutual relationship/bond between two people of the same sex. Although your religion "may" oppose homosexuality, I am pretty sure deep inside, your moral tell you otherwise.
what about them people who give permission to be killed and eaten, it happened in Germany i think. would you say thats ok too cus it was not against anyone's will?
Honestly, if the person being eaten is conscious of his decision (the verion I've read was to sell his organs after his suicidal death, but who knows), I don't really see what is so wrong about it. At least it cannot be called "slaughter"... cannibalism, yes, but it's not slaughter. ETA> I have no idea what went on between you kids.
That's why this case put the German Law in a dilemma whether it was manslaughter or not as the victim did gave him his permission. I think the German judges made the right decision and Armin Weimes is convicted for murder because he encouraged the victim (they were chatting about this subject and he invited his victim to his sm dungeon) and the cannibal later used "helping the victim with illegal euthanesia" as defense. BUT being a homosexual and having homosexual sex isn't forbidden and isn't regarded as a disease in Germany and lots of other European countries. ...illegal euthanesia and cannibalism are both forbidden in Germany and even if the vitim had given his permission to get killed by the cannibal, he shouldn't have performed it. So it's not the same.
Homosexuality is valid provided those acts are committed between two willful parties and not against anyone's will. Those sexual acts are performed for both parties' enjoyment. I don't see how that can be related to the case of a person who agreed to be eaten, because that act itself is detrimental to the person, knowing that he is going to be killed. Besides, who's to know whether that person was brainwashed or coerced into that crazy act of being eaten by Meiwes? That victim might have been under a crazy delusion or sth, mentally unstable, because no one in their right mind would agree to be eaten alive.
^ Technically, if you read the case. Meiwes cut off Bernd Jürgen Armando Brandes's "member" and then ate it with him. and then after the ordeal, Meiwes killed Brandes (by stabbing him in the throat) and then ate pieces of his body. extremely disgusting. however, there is a parallel to homosexuality. "enjoyment" or "pleasure" is the word used most often with homosexuality, when it is refer to the act between two individual of the same sexual orientation. however, in a loose sense, "enjoyment" and "pleasure" was what Brandes and Meiwes shared. Therefore, "enjoyment" and "pleasure" is not longer a singular-bias term. It has a "right" and "wrong" to its definition. Therefore there can be "enjoyment" and "pleasure" that is right and there can be "enjoyment" and "pleasure" that is wrong. Obviously, "enjoyment" in murder and sadistic "pleasure" is wrong; but why isn't homosexuality? Simply b/c no one in a homosexual act would die? Is that what is define for a wrong "enjoyment" and "pleasure"? It has to result in or of death? I don't like discussing this so I'm restraining myself to be judgmental and rude. but, imo homosexuality is as clear as day and night.
Pleasure and enjoyment are often subjective judge for their righteousness. To many vegans/vegetarians, the "pleasure" and "enjoyment" of consumming meat can be wrong because the animal and crops are not harvested in a humane manner. Does that mean all meat-eater should change their way of eating? Just because the MAJORITY of this world is heterosexual does not mean it is the "right" way. And also, as I have said before, I am not familiar with the particular case specified. But I think a person has the right to die (or killed) in a conscious manner if he so chooses (without coercion of course). It is not the act of killing which is not righteous in the case, it is the coercion which made it wrong.
Well if he gives permission to be killed and eaten, it may be considered suicide. Its not against anyone's will, but I believe both aspects of religion and morality would agree that it shouldnt of been done.
I can't believe you actually group homosexuals and the sadistic cannibal Meiwes in the same category. First of all, what's so wrong about homosexuals? Other than that they are different? Please don't say 'Oh, because they (Meiwes and the victim) did the acts out of pleasure and enjoyment, those acts are similar to homosexuality acts of pleasure and enjoyment... ' Because I will ask you one question then, "When you have sex with your partner/wife/gf next time, do you feel pleasure and enjoyment?" They are both two persons in love with each other, except they are of the same gender. They perform those sexual acts out of love, and those acts give them pleasure and enjoyment. Not detrimental or hazardous to anyone's health, and they did it out of 'LOVE'. Isn't that the prerequisite to having morally righteous sex, provided that those homosexuals are not cheating on anyone else? I know some religious believers are going to say that, oh it's wrong to have sex before marriage... ! Nowadays, gay marriages are allowed in certain countries. So once these couples are married and they have sex, who are you to say that it's wrong? And don't even start quoting the Bible because I believe in the Bible, there are tonnes of incest and homosexual acts depicted, and yet none of you made a hoo-haa about that? Let me ask you a question, is incest permitted in Christianity? I think you already answered yourself there, "enjoyment" in murder and sadistic "pleasure" is wrong; but why isn't homosexuality? , the answer is simple. Because homosexuality ISN'T SADISTIC. Homosexuality is committed by two persons of the same gender in love with each other. So who's to say it's wrong and the same as sadistic acts like Meiwes'? In the same logic, those who in indulge in S&M are to me, morally wrong, because they are torturing their own bodies for pleasure. Have you watched or read Da Vinci Code? What about the acts of Silas torturing himself in the name of GOD? For penance? To me, those acts are wrong, wrong and wrong. No doubt about that. So in Meiwes case, eating a penis together is of course wrong, even a 5 yr-old-kid could tell you that, because at the end of the day, the penis is gone, and it's of course deemed NOT normal or healthy to lose your penis and let it be eaten. Common sense can easily tell you the difference between letting your penis be eaten and letting your penis indulge in sexual pleasure. <_< Good reply!! -clapclap
I was wondering...those gay people who walk in like gay way , is it natural are they born like that if their gay or do they chose to be like that to express their gayness
What do you mean? As in a gay guy would walk in the feminine kind of way and a femme would walk like a macho man? Well I think it's in their genes, that they have these masculinity and femininity genes that they can't help to show in the way they walk? Some gay men however, like to be extra feminine and swagger their hips when they walk, the way models do it, maybe because they want to express their femininity. Not all gay people walk differently, you wouldn't notice that they are gay from the way they walk.
Murder and cannibalism ISN'T the same as homosexuality and seeing a parallel to it is BS!!!!!!! How would you know "enjoyment" or "pleasure" are the words that's associated with homosexuality ONLY?" Unless you've been one yourself in the period when you've joined the gangs where they practice homosexuality on a daily basis in a secret clubhouse, you don't know what's happening between homosexuals as there are always different people, including sickos like Meiwes yeah. But there is even a larger amount of heterosexual sickos, murderers, rapers etc. So, if you condemn homosexual sex you should be consistent and admit that heterosex can be even "wrong" as straight couples also have the words "pleasure" and "enjoyment" in their relationships. Unless you're so strict in your beliefs that you only have sex with your wife to attempt to produce offsprings, and find absolutely no enjoyment or pleasure in making love to ur wife.. then that's sad. Don't blame the homosexuality only because it's something the religious people don't approve it. Married gay couples in The Netherlands who have been adopting kids proved they function perfectly as a 'normal' family and kids grow up straight without problems. And not every gay is behaving in the stereotype manner the media often wants us to believe; roughly more than half of the gays are the manly/macho types who for example like to drink beer and watch football like the stereotype straights. You won't even notice they are gay... Besides, I thought that it's not up to you to condemn/judge people that doesn't fit in your ideal world as your god will judge about it and not you.
well, to my understanding the meaning behind vegetarianism is that the vegetarians do not want to eat something that involves killing an animal. i don't think it has much to do with "pleasure" and "enjoyment" when eating meat; but their respect for nature and the animal kingdom tells them not to so. when you made that statement, it reminded me of Mormonism. Orthodox Mormons restrain themselves from indulging themselves in "pleasure" of the flesh - to the extreme levels of not eating fast food and drinking coca-cola; simply b/c they believe that the Bible and their religious books tell them so. right. just b/c the majority says it is right, does not mean that sth is righteous, or that sth is not righteous. however, my views on homosexuality isn't on the aspect of what the majority thinks. i bases it on a Christian's standard of holiness and morals. and that is of God's. i don't mean that i'm better than the gays or whatnot. no no no. but just that i view homosexuality as a sin, the same as lying, stealing, reading/watching pornographic materials, and etc. something that is wrong and will takes a lot of effort and a lifetime (in most cases) to overcome. so in that sense, i am pointing out that homosexual acts are morally wrong and is a sin. and i'm trying to help that individual battle against the urge to preform homosexual acts and sodomy. likewise that individual battling with homosexuality can help me with my sins as well. it is mutual and helpful relationship. you see, it is the sin that one must overcome. and when Christians sees the sins and not the person committing the sins to be hated and dealt with. then will the healing process begin for both parties. well, that was the point i was trying to make. "enjoyment" and "pleasure" no longer is just pertaining to what is good. there is a wrongful and "corrupted" side of "enjoyment" and "pleasure". I am not denying the fact that Love is an important attribute to any relationship. however, it is the act of sodomy that I am against. this aspect of Love is common and throughout history men were able to "love" another men without the action of sodomy and homosexuality. ie. men in war. they fought, lived, ate, and rested together. some even became deep, loving friends and would without a second thought, die for their male friend. is this Love in their relationship? yes. is this homosexuality? no, homosexuality is the act of sodomy. the actions of sexual engagement with another individual of the same sexual orientation. this Love (which homosexual individuals says they have) isn't divided into two division of right and wrong. however the actions of sexual engagement is divided. there are acts that are righteous and there are those that are not. ps. the Love that I'm talking about is that "deep, passionate, 'die for another'" type of love for one other. NOT the "I love to wrestle", or "I love watching movie" type of love. << that "love" is divided with two division. however, for homosexuals they would not classify their Love with that. i didn't quote the Bible, not yet at least. () yes, there are depiction of incest and homosexuality. but no where in the Bible does incest and homosexuality is concerned righteous. no, incest is not permitted. would you like some verses? well, in a sense homosexual men are also "torturing" their body for pleasure like the individuals that engage in S&M. is the anus made for insertion (ie. the male penis)? of course not. isn't that "torturing" their body for pleasure? I haven't read the book or seen the movie, Da Vinci Code. i was going to since it was the "rave" last year or so, b/c supposedly it was revealing some hidden truth about Christianity, etc. etc. however, when the author came out and told everyone it is fiction. i didn't really feel the need to read it anymore. it's like if someone said, Buddha was an alien that came to Earth. then later on, he admits the book that he wrote was indeed fiction. the need to indulge yourself or myself in this case, in this blasphemous works is no longer there. well, again. that was my point before. the action of Meiwes is obviously wrong. however, is that where we draw the line? that the amputation of the sexual organ is where it is morally wrong. and the action of "eating it" is morally wrong as well. how about placing the "sexual organ" inside someone's mouth (willing, of course)? is that wrong? sadly in this day and age, that isn't considered wrong anymore. blame it on the rise of pornographic material -blah-blah-blah. however, that doesn't underly the fact that it was and still is an action of sodomy. and by tradition and history, sodomy is condemn and sometimes payable by death. so, that is why i made the questions, "Simply b/c no one in a homosexual act would die? Is that what is define for a wrong "enjoyment" and "pleasure"? It has to result in or of death?" imo, no. the immediate risk of death or the result of death isn't an acceptable position to benchmark what is right and what is wrong. however, that is what is happening with homosexuality. it is ok for homosexual individuals to engage themselves in sodomy up to the point of not endangering the lives of each other. it just doesn't make sense to me. it is like saying, a child is playing with fire, "oh it is ok. as long as he/she doesn't burn him/herself. let him/her have fun." you see? there is a risk sodomy and homosexual acts. it is AIDS and/or STDs. and like the child having the risk of being burn. homosexual individuals also has the possibility of getting AIDS. again, i think hiake is the only one that understand my point. i'm not saying that "enjoyment" and "pleasure" in the act of sexual intercourse is morally wrong. no, however, my point is that there is two-sides to "enjoyment" and "pleasure". one side that is righteous and the other that isn't. so, in a sense, you can commit and do things that are "enjoyable" and "pleasureful" that are righteous and you should not do what is also consider "enjoyable" and "pleasureful" which is morally wrong. now, the main question is, what is right and what is wrong. to a Christian, the Bible defines what is morally righteous and what is morally wrong. so, of course my viewpoint is going to be a refection of i called to be my standard of morality. that supports my statements that homosexuality is simply a sin, like lying and stealing. do liars and thieves exhibit an "special" physical notice when they speak or act? not all of them. some of them do; however most of them and us (we are liars and thieves too >.<) act like "normal" people do. sometimes, i can be judgmental when i talk homosexuality. however, i try best not to and i think most of the people that i engage with on the topic of homosexuality are individuals that are not gay themselves. which to me is odd. i guess i don't know many gay people. i do know some. however, they are friends and when i talk about it; they don't seem to take it so personally. which (lol.) i guess isn't good. however, sometimes that is how life is. but you are right. as Christian, we are not to judge. however, to point out and help one another with each other's sins. not everyone suffers from the same sins. i may have a problem with lying and you have a problem with stealing. but i don't have a problem with stealing and you don't have a problem with lying. so, we can help one other in defeating and overcoming the sins that we are battling with. (of course assuming that in reality, our sins are much more complicated and intertwined than my analogy perceives.)
Sodomy is in western countries not forbidden and it's something between people themselves and no authority have a say in it. As long things like cannibalism and illegal euthanesia/manslaughter like in this case doesn't happen and no one is doing something against his/her own wish. Glad we don't live in the Middle Ages anymore in this part of the world otherwise people who look differently and have other cultures (like Jews and.... Asian people like you?) will get killed or tortured till they believe in christianity. Yes I think it's ok for homosexual people to engage themselves in sodomy up to the point of endangering each others live. Can you compare apple with pears? Adults and children are not the same as kids still have to learn the dangers in life and nowadays most homosexuals know what kind of dangers is involved...oh, same for the heterosexuals...Again, even gay couples can leave a 'normal' hetero couple that truly loves each other and are willingly to die for each other. What's wrong if they have sex as a couple? No danger of AIDS and STD's then if they know they both don't have that, just like the hetero couples. It's not like only homosexuals can get AIDS...even hetero's, kids or singles can get AIDS, like through a bloodtransfusion, contaminated needles, getting cut by a crazed and seropositive lunatic (also happened in Germany) etc. Or a man knows he has AIDS and marries a woman without telling her about it and the woman gets it too. Even sex within marriage is no guarantee if one of the partner cheats. Homosexuality is not wrong or forbidden in the Constitution of most western countries so whatever a text or a book from a religious group says about this subject it doesn't matter. At least these governments don't discriminate these people and don't place them in the same category as thieves and other criminals. I liked the sentence till the dot after the word 'judge'. If you think you have the right to point out and "help" the homosexuals to change their nature you are very arrogant. That would be the same as Muslims telling YOU to stop living your -in their view- sinful life (ever heard what Al-Quada terrorists accuse westerners of?) and "help" (read: convert) you into a Muslim. Or a Hindu telling you to stop eating beef and offering his help to help with your major sin because a cow is a holy animal and eating a cow is a huge sin in their religion. And not only as a christian, everyone shouldn't judge homosexuals.
But who's to decide whether the pleasure and enjoyment is wrongful/corrupted or not? You to decide? When even the common law doesn't make homosexuality illegal anymore? You seem to discriminate the 'love' of homosexuals and the 'love' of heterosexuals. Why? Is it because it is not possible for homosexuals to feel the love the way us heterosexuals do? Hah, for all I know, there's even less cheating committed by gay couples than by heterosexual couples! Homosexuals are known to be more faithful towards their partners than heterosexuals. So who are you to say that their 'love' is unclean? Not as worthy as ours? They can easily have the same kind of love for each other, the so-called sexual acts of sodomy and what not are their expression of love towards each other. I don't see anything wrong with that. Let's just say if God never meant for homosexuals to exist, He would not have made it possible for the penis to penetrate the anus or any type of holes except for vaginas. Oh, so incest is NOT permitted. Yet, according to my research, INCEST has been part of the history of mankind, even since Adam and Eve. Let me quote myself from a previous post to highlight the point to you: Okay, so if your argument is that Adam and Eve were indeed the first man and woman to be created on Earth, the only possible argument is that Cain committed incest by marrying his wife from the Land of Nod (since there were no other humans around, who gave birth to that woman and others, if not Adam & Eve?). And bear in mind, the above argument of INCEST did not come from me, but from a Christian's reply to that: So if the Bible itself contains the acts of incest depicted through the history of Adam and Eve, why then, it condemns the act later? Isn't that somehow hypocrisy? Or at least inconsistency? How can you claim for sure that those homosexuals are torturing themselves? In the same way as drugs and self-abuse, if homosexuals are actually 'torturing' themselves, those acts would have been declared ILLEGAL by the common law. There's no scientific proof that those homosexuals are harming their bodies in any way, is there any research that shows people who insert penises in their anus will live shorter? Or are they harming their bodies in anyway? How about those sex toys that they made for sexual pleasure then? If inserting stuff into vaginas and anus are hazardous, then those products would have been banned, and a law would have been passed to say that ONLY penises are allowed to be inserted into VAGINAS and nowhere else. AIDS? Even promiscuous heterosexuals get AIDS if they have multiple partners, that doesn't justify your argument that homosexual is a sin or wrongful. If homosexual is indeed PROVEN to be the CAUSE of AIDS, then I am sure the law itself would have declared homosexuality as ILLEGAL. And I think I have NEVER mentioned that it has to result in or of death to be termed wrongful. As long as it can be proven HARMFUL to you. In the same way that Silas punished himself for penance, although it is in a way, deemed to be a religious act, a way to ask forgivance from God, I see it as a wrongful act, because he is HURTING himself, lashing himself with a whip. Even though the motive may be good, but that act itself was harmful to his health and to his body (self-torture), so I see it as morally wrong. However, in the case of homosexuals, there is no proof that these sexual acts that they commit between themselves are harmful in anyway. If they are indeed harmful, then I am sure the clinics and hospitals would be filled up with homosexuals almost daily, but no. The law itself made it legal for gay couples to get married. Why is that so? Simply because there's nothing wrong with the acts. You may say it's a perversion of nature, but what IS nature? Nature is only known to us through our own upbringing and our own lifestyles. Let's say if you were brought up in a community of gays and no heterosexual couples around, you would have grown up thinking that that is natural. Anyway, ASSUMING that the Bible is the standard for judgment, even then, in the same way you declare that homosexuality is wrong according to the BIBLE, there are yet others who claim that it ISN'T WRONG. As I have said before, the Bible has practically LIMITLESS variations of interpretations of the verses. Some chose to interpret it literally, some interpret it metaphorically, some interpret it figuratively. Let me quote from Wiki: When something cannot be PROVEN with facts and still under dispute, when some issues are under DEBATES, no one can come to a conclusion to say that HOMOSEXUALITY is indeed wrong, and the Bible says so. Because that's ACCORDING TO YOU, and not the Bible itself. It's YOUR interpretation of the Bible. I have seen other articles written by Christians ARGUING that it isn't so. The fact that something can be argued on, tells you that you should not be judgmental and condemn these homosexuals because even your precious book doesn't have a solid conclusion of that. Here's a very touching and interesting article written on HOMOSEXUALS and CHRISTIANITY, which I think you, apollon, and any other judgmental Christians should read before condemning homosexuality as a sin. PLEASE PLEASE take a moment to read this article! This author has EIGHT PREMISES why homosexuality is NOT a sin according to the BIBLE! (even I, a non-Christian did, so I think you should, as a Christian, read it before you condemn, since the article is based on the Bible itself): http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian and this link below, provides you FURTHER links on articles of homosexuality and Christianity, and why it is NOT wrongful. http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/christ.htm You can of course, do your own research on the subject, and you'll be amazed by the tonnes of articles that you find as counter-argument(s) to the 'homosexuality is a sin' claim. You cannot just dismiss the arguments promptly according to YOUR own interpretation, because those are not God's rules. ***And in case any of you people are wondering why I am so enthusiastic on defending the homosexuals, no, I am NOT a homosexual, neither am I a Christian. I just find it wrongful for people to be judgmental and condemning others according to their own moral standards and interpretations then claim it to be that of a religious set of rules (whose 'rules'?).
For me, I find nothing wrong with homosexuality. There’s nothing wrong with two consultant adults loving each other whether they’re straight or not. There’s other stuff out there in the world to worry about than to question whether or not if homosexuality is a sin. I mean there are people killing, robbing, assaults, and etc that could be far more worst than person sexuality (which is no where close to any of those because it's not hurting anyone). We live life the way we want to, so why can’t they. They are just as human as we are. I’m not sure whether or not if it’s a person own prejudice that is using religion as an excuse to make judgment on homosexuality so I’m not going to bring that into this matter since I’m not aware/educated enough in that to know about what these religions holds.
@ BR... IMO the article twists the Word of God... the author indeed used quite a lot of verses from the Bible, but also left out passages that are used together with them. Somehow the interpretations leave a sense of bias in there as to the author being homosexual as well and uses the Bible as a justification to him or her being that... Dont get me wrong, i personally dont have issues with homosexuals...
Correction, Taxloss. Sodomy is outlaw in states in America. Like the historical case of Bower vs. Hardwick, the issues weren’t that sodomy is wrong; but whether individuals that practices sodomy has “privacy” in their own homes. So in a sense, history has shown that the practice of sodomy is frown upon and disown as “moral” actions. Am I saying that homosexuals are immoral being? Yes, but so is a liar, a thief, a coveter; actually all of us are immoral beings to the perfect standard of morality. Even the Roman Empire forbidden the practice of sodomy. And sodomy ran rampage through the sects and factions of their polytheistic rituals and offerings. So, an empire that is trademark with the lust of sodomy forbids it. Is the world today even worse to approve it? I agree with you. Love is NOT divided on two position of morally right and morally wrong. However, sexual desire and sexual attraction/practices are based on moralistic positions of what is right and what is considered wrong/immoral. I explained it a bit more below in “Is it because it is not possible for homosexuals to feel the love the way us heterosexuals do? …” by BabyRain. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t forbid homosexuality. That isn’t the purpose for the Constitution. Homosexuality, like abortion and other debatable topics, are supposed to be dealt with on the state level. So it is up the state to decide whether the act of sodomy is against the law or not. Which many of the states are against the practice of sodomy. Again, sorry Taxloss. But I need to correct you. In Islam homosexuality is also considered a sin and in some countries it punishable by death. So, in a sense, Christianity is a bit lay-back (to some extent) and is not willing to take it to that level of condemnation. So, for a Muslim, there isn’t a “oh, let’s discuss why homosexuality is a sin.” Whether "homosexuality should be punished", I am not here to decide on that. Each religion is different. And Christianity no longer accept the fact of punishment of death for the practice of homosexuality. But I do have the right to “help” someone out if they are go astray (especially if they are a Christian) and vice versa. This isn’t a one way street. But I also have the right to be quiet and simply ignore the sins of homosexuals and their sinful practice of sodomy. However, that is up to my discretion. I can choose to be vocal and speak my opinion, or I can be quiet and do nothing. It is my right to do so. What "common law" are you referring to? I am not discriminating the “love” that is within human beings. Being homosexual (IMO) isn’t the concept of “love” but the actions that precedes it. I “love” my male buddies; however, that isn’t homosexuality. B/c I do not practice the actions of sexual immorality in homosexuality; therefore I’m not a homosexual. Where do I say that their “love” is unclean? And “not as worthy as ours”? you are putting words in my mouth and twisting what I’m saying (or typing). Love cannot be divided (IMO). There can be the same love between a man with woman or man with a man or woman with a woman. However, sexual desire and sexual practice is divided with mortality (as in right and wrong). Sexual desires or sexual attraction is a problematic issues in today’s society. Let’s take an example that is obvious to both homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Bestiality. Bestiality is considered immoral; not b/c of the suppose “love” between the individual and the animals. No, but the sexual attraction and sexual desire, the individual has for the creature. That is what makes it immoral and wrong. A man/woman can “love” his/her pet, even up the position of protecting it by risking their own lives. That “love” I cannot deny and will not do so. However, the sexual desires and practices associated with bestiality is what make it wrong and immoral. So, once that individual steps over the line and partakes the actions (IMO, even thinks of practicing the act) of sexual activity with a creature/pet has committed an immoral act. Same with homosexuality. I do not deny the fact that two individuals of the same sexual orientation can have a “deep loving” relationship; however, the sexual desire, attractions, and/or practice is what is considered immoral. There are many forms of expression for “love”. And sexual practice is only one of these expressions. What? Those statements do not make sense. It is like saying if God never meant for people to kill one another; he wouldn’t give them the ability to create weapons. There is reason why something, like the “male reproductive organ” exists, and it is our own sins and iniquities that cause so many problems in this world. You are right, that the law against incest relationship was not written down until the time of Moses. However, it was not practice even the times of Abraham (which was before Moses). Therefore, it is not hypocrisy or inconsistency. It is the fundamental aspect of populating the world and once it was fulfilled it was not needed anymore. It would be consider still immoral of a practice to do incest back then. However, this is on the basis of what we know and what we are now. We don’t know how Adam and Eve could have reproduced or created off-springs before the “Fall of Man”, we can only speculate. Therefore, God allowed it to happen under the premise that it was needed at that time. That doesn’t mean that is wasn’t an immoral practice. But simply that it was needed for the moment and then disowned/not practiced afterwards. It is like if eating mercury is bad (which it is). However, (let’s assume) in order to recover from an illness; a child needs to take some mercury. Will the parent tell it be done (of course, under the premise that the mercury will only better the child and not harm him/her in any other fashion)? Yes, but only until the child is healthy again. so once the child is healed then continual eating of the mercury would not be needed but if the parent still let the child continue digesting the mercury; the parent will become irresponsible and therefore endangering the child’s existence and physical condition. So, in a sense, we are healthy now, population-wise. So, there isn’t a need to practice incest anymore; other than for improper sexual desire/attraction or lustfulness. Again you refer to this “common law”? What are you referring to? The United States legal precedents/laws? Or something else? And plus my rebuttal for the “torturing themselves” statement was paralleled with your S&M example, not with drugs (which is a completely different topic). Well, yes. If in the act of inserting one’s penis into another anus (male/female) there is a possibility of getting AIDS. The possibility of getting AIDS through vaginal intercourse is unheard of and rarely possible. So, in a sense, they are “harming” their bodies. Just that there isn’t an immediate danger whenever the practice is done. Again you refer to that conception of law pertaining from Christian morals. Are you talking about the US gov’t? b/c the US gov’t’s laws/precedents/statues passed are not examples of Christian morality. Some cases are and some are not. And furthermore, that is not the purpose of law being made in the United States. Actually the laws passed in America are more (IMO) based on relative morality; where morality changes through time. Whether or not that was the original intention; but it is what is happening in today’s legal society. The key word is “promiscuous”. Is that wrong? Yes. So, how can a wrongful act prove another wrongful act to be right? It can’t. So, I don’t see your point about “promiscuous” heterosexual that can transmit and produce AIDS to be okay with homosexual individuals. Actually, in a sense, you are insulting homosexuals who has long-term loving relationship comparatively to men/women that are sluts and harlots. The reason why homosexuality is debatable within the courts and legislative meetings, is whether outlawing it will up-heave the laws of civil rights. In order for the courts to pass that homosexuality is okay (again, I’m referring to the practice/desire of homosexuality, not the aspect of “love”). Which still in my opinion, it isn’t up to the federal government to make such a decision, but on the premise of Civil Rights the judges needs three standards to follow. 1) Is homosexuality a minority? Yes. 2) Is homosexuality discrete (namely that one is born as a homosexual and cannot change their preference)? Debatable. There are many homosexual that claim that they were once attracted to females/men during a certain time in their lives, but later on realize that “it wasn’t to their liking or what not”. 3) Is homosexuality insular? No. Race oppression in the 1960 was insular; but women rights were not and so isn't homosexuality. (Glendon; The Land of Rights; 1991) So, homosexuality is still up for debate. A law isn’t able to be passed simply b/c a majority thinks that it is wrong or immoral. No, at least not in the U.S. There is still a battle of what is considered to be civil rights and whether homosexuality falls upon those issues. Some say it does and some say it does. In my opinion, homosexuality is like the African-Americans were in the 1860’s-1960’s and women in the 1920’s. But do not mistake that I support the authenticity and morality of accepting homosexuality. No, it is just that homosexual individuals have the right not to be discriminated in public/private forums. When one takes their liberty to physically stop or harm a homosexual b/c of their chosen lifestyle. I totally disagree with that person/individual, even if he/she is a “Christian”. And would gladly stand next to the gay man or woman on that day. Violence is never a cause reason for change. And I do not endorse the movements in America that wants to support that cause. However, that is the main reason for the exponential growth of AIDS in the United States in the 1960-70’s. It was the practice of sodomy. Yes, in Africa where AIDS runs even thicker are not a result of homosexuality; however, AIDS in Africa is primarily based on their poor living surroundings and environment. Therefore, leading to a primarily cause of HIV/AIDS; the transmission of blood fusion. How would that be “natural”? With your example, if that child asks his/her homosexual parents, ‘Where do babies come from?’ How do the parents answer? With the truth. The natural method of producing off-springs is with and ONLY with the reproductive entity of a male and reproductive entity of a female. To me, that is sound pretty natural. But by your example, you are not explaining what is natural/nature. But what is the norm and environmental influence on our viewpoints on what is normal and acceptable? In the same way, the south during the 1800’s. White children were bought thinking that black children were inferior to them; physically and mentally. Is that natural? No. all men are the same, whether they be Asian, White, Black, Purple or Green. Likewise, women are all the same. Therefore, it would not be natural to think that way. Why would it be natural to think that the practice of homosexuality is okay? I find it funny that these Christians (which I noticed are mostly gay themselves) uses the scriptures that oppose homosexuality to be considered misinterpretation and misunderstood . These “misinterpreted” verses has been used and studied for centuries. Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity, Predestination, and/or other theological doctrines. The issue of homosexuality is considered dead in the theological circles, since the text and the context of the Biblical author’s opinion on the practice of homosexuality is quite clear. It does not leave much room for debate. So, either I disown the possibility of homosexuality not being a sin on the bases of a few “theological misinterpretation and mistakes” that were recently found (within these few decades) or should I believe the other theologians like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many more. Or did they “misinterpret” those verses as well? I will quote Apostle Paul on sexual immorality (since the author of the first article believe in the accuracy and authenticity of Paul’s statements) which I found to be appropriate, Roman 6:12, “ ‘Everything is permissible for me’ – but not everything is beneficial.’” If homosexuality is permissible and allowed (for the most part, in a biological sense), it isn’t beneficial. To a Christian lifestyle and especially to a homosexual Christian. Of course, I was sadden that discrimination and oppression still runs deep in the vein of unforgiving Christians and other individuals. And it would even result to the death of homosexual individual (now, how is that suppose to help that individual?) –sigh- To me that is just stupid. We would never do that to a liar or thief or adulterer, why are we doing that to homosexuals. I personally do not approve of that. But I do believe that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. God hates the sin; but He would never hate the sinner. So, only if we see in that view as Christians, it wouldn't be as difficult to step over and demonstrated that homosexuality is a sin. IMO, it is much easier to hate the individual that practices the sin, than hate the sin and still love the sin-ridden individual. (FYI that is what God does for us. We are all sinners, but God sees us as individuals and His perfect creation. But He loathes the sin that embodies us, so He gave us an exit out of this sinful world and lifestyle, ultimately demonstrating His triumphant love for our individualistic being over our sinful desires and practices. IMO, we need to see the world in that fashion, especially with issues like homosexuality and etc. and I'm not only talking about the "GOD HATE FAGS" Christians, but for the whole world as well) And I strive for that attitude and viewpoint. Paul writes on what is Love: Romans 13:4-7 (why am I quoting Romans so much? lol. Oddly enough, Roman is my book in the Bible, it is filled with so much powerful and encouraging messages) ”Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always trusts, always hopes, always preserves.” But by your standard the practice of S&M is an immoral act. So in a sense you are condemning individuals that practice the sexual acts of S&M. A bit of hypocrisy, I do taste. By your own “moral standards and interpretations/what not” certain acts are consider by your standards to be immoral as well. Just that you are not verbal about it. But is it rightful for you to demand me or any other Christians to be quiet or shut up when we express our opinions and viewpoints on homosexuality. When you, yourself, condemn and do not accept other “immoral” practices and acts. Again, I do not judge someone. Nor do I wish to condemn anyone. I am just explaining my viewpoints and reasoning behind it.
