Homosexuality

[Priestley]

Mental Self

Priestley

There are certain species of life which reproduce entirely by themselves. Sexual reproduction is another one of the methods by which species reproduce. In seahorses, the females deposit their eggs inside the males to be fertilized, rather than the males depositing their sperm inside the females. In humans and multitudes of other mammals, the opposite is true. Some species of animal are both sexes at once. That's the way it is. That's the way things work for each species.

Whether it does or does not happen bears no relevance to whether God does or does not want it to happen. I could punch you: God could have wanted that to have happened or could not have wanted that to have happened, but it still happened. You never got that interview for that job you wanted: God could have wanted that to have happened or could not have wanted that to have happened, but you still never got that interview.

That is a good point, but i disagree with comparing of human morals and animal instincts.

Do you you agree with my point or do you disagree with something unrelated that I have not done but that you think I have done? Please, make up your mind.

I was illustrating that there is no way to establish whether God wants or does not want something to happen from whether it can or cannot happen. Homosexual people are sexually attracted only to those of the same sex. It does not prevent them from reproducing with members of the opposite sex.

Also, just to let you know, sex and sexual reproduction are animal instincts and have nothing to do with human morals.  

[Priestley]

Zuleus

I 2nd that notion.

What notion is it that you second, exactly? That human morals and animal instincts are different? That you cannot compare human morals and animal instincts? I have to agree, but, as I said in my previous post, this has nothing to do with my point.

Zuleus

Angels have wings but that doesn't make human beings part bird.

I don't know what this has to do with anything but, while I'm on it, I need to clear things up for you. Angels are not made from the same substance that we are. They are spirit. We are matter. Whether they have wings or not is irrelevant. They are not even part of the taxonomy of life on this planet, so using them as an example in a comparison of forms of life is ridiculous, not to mention how you've used them in your comparison.

Zuleus

Animals are not designed the same similar fashion as human beings. Each animal has different instincts, but human beings think a lot more in a sophisticated pattern while only producing in one way (a man and a woman.) God made it this way or he would have made man asexual and there would have been no reason for females.

I point you to my previous post and I shall repeat it for you: whether something can or cannot happen bears no relevance to whether God wants or does not want it to happen.

Using your logic: A happens, therefore God wanted A to happen. God wants A to happen, therefore A happens. To give an example: I sin, therefore God wanted me to sin. God wants me to sin, therefore I sin. Except God doesn't want me to sin, right? So, if he doesn't want me to sin, surely that desire would be enough. Logic would follow that I don't sin. Except, I do sin. You see the flaw in the logic? It's nothing to do with free will, just that things can happen without God's desire being involved in it.

Also, you're confusing asexuality with the ability to reproduce. Wikipedia even has a disambiguation page about it for those who are confused. I suggest you read both articles.

Zuleus

What I find fascinating is that even though we come from two different human beings *hint* *hint*, we all have different characteristics that seperate us from one another forming the process of individualism.

Genetic variation is common in organisms that reproduce sexually, as it is a result of meiosis. It is not unique to humans.  

[zz1000zz]

I will never understand why people think the events at Sodom and Gomorrah somehow can be used to show God condemns homosexuality.

The people wanted to gang rape a couple angels. Why would gender matter for that being condemned?  

[Priestley]

Mental Self

First off, there is a differance between asexual and nonsexual, asexual implies that you are self reproductive.

She did not imply anything of the sort. Her use of the term was clear. Please read up on asexuality and the similarly named asexual reproduction. In future, I suggest you use the adjective 'asexual' when talking about someone's sexuality, and the verb 'reproduce' and the adverb 'asexually' when talking about reproduction.

Just because a person is asexual, homosexual or heterosexual has no bearing on their ability to reproduce.

Mental Self

On the other topic, you are right about your definitions of "know", but if the men weren't using it in a sexual way, then why did Lot offer his virgin daughters to the crowd in order to protect the men in his house.
In this situation the common definition of know doesn't make since.

brb, time machine

Seriously, where does it say in the Bible that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed specifically because their men wanted to have sex with the angels? If the men outside the house were gay, what use would virgin daughters be in sating the rowdy mob's sexual appetite? Is there even a link between their sexual appetites and the cities' destruction? Or does the story of Lot simply illustrate the nature of the cities? I'm sure their destruction had more to do with their disregard for God, their poor treatment of their fellow man and their selfish desires than simply their sexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah had a history of being wealthy places. It is commonly understood that wealthy places can be corruptable and often are corrupt. It is quite possible this corruption went beyond mere sexuality.

Anyway, Wikipedia has more information about differing points of view on this account.  

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

I will never understand why people think the events at Sodom and Gomorrah somehow can be used to show God condemns homosexuality.

The people wanted to gang rape a couple angels. Why would gender matter for that being condemned?

Because they were offered Daughters, and chose the men instead.... I really don't think that makes a difference...... But that's the argument I'm used to.  

[zz1000zz]

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

I will never understand why people think the events at Sodom and Gomorrah somehow can be used to show God condemns homosexuality.

The people wanted to gang rape a couple angels. Why would gender matter for that being condemned?

Because they were offered Daughters, and chose the men instead.... I really don't think that makes a difference...... But that's the argument I'm used to.

Lot tried to protect God's messengers by offering his daughters as a substitute. Nothing in the story says it would have been "okay" if the mob raped them instead.

If one decides the cities were destroyed because of that mob, there is still no reason to assume homosexuality had anything to do with it. Gang raping a couple angels is sufficient on its own.  

[Matt Pniewski]

zz1000zz

Matt Pniewski

zz1000zz

I will never understand why people think the events at Sodom and Gomorrah somehow can be used to show God condemns homosexuality.

The people wanted to gang rape a couple angels. Why would gender matter for that being condemned?

Because they were offered Daughters, and chose the men instead.... I really don't think that makes a difference...... But that's the argument I'm used to.

Lot tried to protect God's messengers by offering his daughters as a substitute. Nothing in the story says it would have been "okay" if the mob raped them instead.

If one decides the cities were destroyed because of that mob, there is still no reason to assume homosexuality had anything to do with it. Gang raping a couple angels is sufficient on its own.

Like I said, That's the argument I've heard. I'm not saying it's a good one, just that it is one.