Homosexuality is a sin. and Tattoos.

[Ixor Firebadger]

zz1000zz

Ixor-san

ew...>_<

This is the real reason people oppose homosexuality. The "Ew Factor."

I don't really find it any more disgusting than hearing about what anyone else is doing. I just don't want to visualize it. In the same way no one wants to visualize their parents or their grandparents.

(edited)  

[Galad Aglaron]

zz1000zz

Ixor-san

ew...>_<

This is the real reason people oppose homosexuality. The "Ew Factor."

Funny, because I feel "Ew" when I think about heterosexual sex.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

Ixor-san

ew...>_<

This is the real reason people oppose homosexuality. The "Ew Factor."

Funny, because I feel "Ew" when I think about heterosexual sex.

After writing budgets,breakdowns, and schedules for almost two years at slave labor wages..... You start thinking "meh" about all sex.....  

[Priestley]

Matt Pniewski

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

Ixor-san

ew...>_<

This is the real reason people oppose homosexuality. The "Ew Factor."

Funny, because I feel "Ew" when I think about heterosexual sex.

After writing budgets,breakdowns, and schedules for almost two years at slave labor wages..... You start thinking "meh" about all sex.....

Isn't that what people say about the effects of marriage? wink

As for Matt's view that there was a law against homosexual acts to protect the health of the population, the only legitimacy in it is that tearing of the a**s/rectum increases the chances of disease and infection spreading. This results not only from a**l/rectal tearing but from regular intercourse and other sexual acts as well.

However, this does make me wonder why the same act between heterosexual couples wasn't legislated "Do not lay with a woman as with a man" or something.  

[zz1000zz]

One of the many reasons I called it absurd...  

[Matt Pniewski]

Priestley

Matt Pniewski

Galad Damodred

zz1000zz

Ixor-san

ew...>_<

This is the real reason people oppose homosexuality. The "Ew Factor."

Funny, because I feel "Ew" when I think about heterosexual sex.

After writing budgets,breakdowns, and schedules for almost two years at slave labor wages..... You start thinking "meh" about all sex.....

Isn't that what people say about the effects of marriage? wink

As for Matt's view that there was a law against homosexual acts to protect the health of the population, the only legitimacy in it is that tearing of the a**s/rectum increases the chances of disease and infection spreading. This results not only from a**l/rectal tearing but from regular intercourse and other sexual acts as well.

However, this does make me wonder why the same act between heterosexual couples wasn't legislated "Do not lay with a woman as with a man" or something.

Sodomy was generally associated with male/male relations. That is all it referred to. Sex with a woman could at times cause the same problems, but this is needed.


Also, male/male couples could not reproduce. Kind of have to when your numbers are so low.....  

[zz1000zz]

The absurdity continues...  

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

The absurdity continues...

Give me your explanation. And keep in mind, it has to actually make sense. Mine actually does, you just shrug it off without thought. Your mind is in a her and now and doesn't want to analyze or interpret, and rather just go with what you know. Anything beyond that is absurdity.  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

The absurdity continues...

Give me your explanation. And keep in mind, it has to actually make sense. Mine actually does, you just shrug it off without thought. Your mind is in a her and now and doesn't want to analyze or interpret, and rather just go with what you know. Anything beyond that is absurdity.

My explanation? My explanation is your explanation is baseless, makes almost no sense, and contradicts "professional opinion."

The same things I have said in this topic before.  

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

The absurdity continues...

Give me your explanation. And keep in mind, it has to actually make sense. Mine actually does, you just shrug it off without thought. Your mind is in a her and now and doesn't want to analyze or interpret, and rather just go with what you know. Anything beyond that is absurdity.

My explanation? My explanation is your explanation is baseless, makes almost no sense, and contradicts "professional opinion."

The same things I have said in this topic before.

But what is your explanation for the law? Every law needs one, give me yours.  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

The absurdity continues...

Give me your explanation. And keep in mind, it has to actually make sense. Mine actually does, you just shrug it off without thought. Your mind is in a her and now and doesn't want to analyze or interpret, and rather just go with what you know. Anything beyond that is absurdity.

My explanation? My explanation is your explanation is baseless, makes almost no sense, and contradicts "professional opinion."

The same things I have said in this topic before.

But what is your explanation for the law? Every law needs one, give me yours.

I already said what a number biblical scholars have said. Beyond that, the restrictions of that part of the Bible were part of a code for ritualistic cleanliness. The passages about homosexuality could be viewed with the same explanation as the passages condemning denim.  

[Monergism]

zz1000zz

I already said what a number biblical scholars have said. Beyond that, the restrictions of that part of the Bible were part of a code for ritualistic cleanliness. The passages about homosexuality could be viewed with the same explanation as the passages condemning denim.

Explain to me why these passages about homosexuality require punishment by death to those who are guilty.  

[zz1000zz]

Monergism

zz1000zz

I already said what a number biblical scholars have said. Beyond that, the restrictions of that part of the Bible were part of a code for ritualistic cleanliness. The passages about homosexuality could be viewed with the same explanation as the passages condemning denim.

Explain to me why these passages about homosexuality require punishment by death to those who are guilty.

No. If you want me to give you information, have the decency to ask, rather than demand it.  

[Mein Kulturkampf]

*ahem* A summary of the reasoning behind the Levitical laws against ritual impurity:

In the time of the Israelites, there were many different, pagan religions in the area. One of these, a rather large one, practiced a form of gender-bending fertility worship. Their temples included male ritual prostitutes, the basic premise being that depositing one's seed in a well-blessed rear gave good fortune to the depositor.

God, obviously wanting to curb the number of Israelites worshipping other gods, decreed that certain pagan rituals were outlawed. This is evidenced by the fact that both Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are in passages that also deal with the pagan god molech, and further backed up by 1 Kings 14:23-24. This makes these passages referring to idolatry, not gay sex.

Done?  

[zz1000zz]

I had already mentioned that viewpoint Mein Kulturkampf, but I still do not think one can say with certainty it is true. It certainly is the most sensible explanation for the passage, but I do not know of anything that would make it certain.