Homosexuality and the Bible

Aug 15, 2011 Full story: www.smh.com.au 30,887

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Read more

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26740 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Kimare,
When you walk through a crowd of people, as you certainly must do from time to time,...
... do you engage in anal intercourse and find exciting, fun and pleasurable, as well as not causing them any particular health problems? If you do not, perhaps you should, even if that would further fuel your obsession with the act.
You may rest assured that these people, sexually liberated as they are, certainly do exist. Most of them ARE heterosexuals, married and with children. This is the statistical reality.
People who are the "receivers" in the anal sex act, if they find it hurtful and harmful, either choose to find a pleasurable and non-harmful way of doing this or they don't do it. It is nothing new. Humans have engaged in the act, pleasureably, for tens of thousands of years.
Obviously, the act of anal intercourse, just like the act of vaginal intercourse, can be harmful and can be a way to transmit sexual disease and infection. Perhaps more often one way than the other, as far as harm and disease. But, it certainly does not have to be so. The same goes for oral sex.
Generally, sex should be an act of mutual pleasure and gratification, given and received in trust and with exclusive intimacy. No other qualifications are really necessary, except that for the Christian couple, whether heterosexual or homosexual, sex should be kept and conducted within the bounds of marriage.
Sex, though vaginal sex is considered to be generally the most effective way of insemination, yet, it actually is not the most effective way, is much more than a matter of reproduction. For humans, it is a complex and varied behavior that involves trust, intimacy and the give and take of emotionally bonding pleasure. It completely involves the mind and the lowering of the barriers between conscious and subconscious, engulfing of all of the senses, personally and mutually, as well as the blending of the galaxy of symbiotic organisms that make up the individual human being together with the organisms of the other person. Truly, the couple does become "one."
Children are the reproductive product. But, the gift of children is not a requirement to the consummation of a true marriage "made in heaven." Some couples prefer to not have children. That is their choice and it need not be questioned by anyone. Other couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, prefer to have children and to raise a family. That too, is their choice and prerogative, including their right and choice to become parents by whatever legal and medical-genetic means are available to them.
One thing is surely true. Neither you, Kimare, nor I or anyone else, are capable of correctly judging the righteousness of any couple's choice to raise or not raise a family, except perhaps in the instance of incest. You may think you are capable of making such a moral choice for others. But, you are not. That realm of choice exists only between you and your chosen mate, to be made and kept with integrity. It is, between adults, nobody else's business.
In traditional forms of Christianity, same-sex marriage has not been an historical, generally recognized option. However, there are historical examples of marriages of same-sex couples within Christianity and specifically, the Roman Church. Though, these instances, as documented, are not openly recognized. The orthodoxy of the traditions of the Sacrament of Marriage is changing to accommodate same-sex marriage. The reasons for permitting these changes in tradition are justified, both morally and spiritually and as a result, will increasingly become recognized socially and legally.
It is a good thing.
Rev. Ken
rev,
Your twisted pontification is only a deceitful, futile attempt to disguise the truth. Anal sex is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It does not matter what orientation does it.
Why would you defend or worse, encourage something harmful?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26741 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ak, is anal sex harmful?
Broken record.

I could name what is harmful with every sexual act encorporating penetration.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26742 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
Won't same sex couples feel inferior next to diverse gendered couples, especially when the latter have children?
A cultural relationship is defined by specific details. There is significant differences between a diverse gendered couple and a duplicate gendered couple. There is also a profound difference between a relationship that bears fruit, and one that never does.
An example for just part of the question is the difficulty a heterosexual couple unable to bear children experiences.
Really? Care to sight studies?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26743 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are deliberately dishonest.
According to medical experts anal sex is the most dangerous sex act.
Natural intercourse is healthy.
Why is deception necessary?
Smoking is harmful, very dangerous as well as is second hand smoke.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26744 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Ak. It was a reiteration of the truth of your statement.
The Heart is the Chakra of intelligent Love.
Thanks

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#26745 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
rev,
Your twisted pontification is only a deceitful, futile attempt to disguise the truth. Anal sex is harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. It does not matter what orientation does it.
Why would you defend or worse, encourage something harmful?
Well,.... LOL!!!.... I am certainly appreciative of your acknowledgment that I am presenting the truth. Whether or not, in the presentation of the truth, I am employing twisting and disguise or futility is a matter of opinion - your opinion, which you are not feign to express.

But, yes, thanks, it is still the truth.

Anal intercourse is not necessarily harmful, unhealthful or demeaning in any way. Unless a couple does such anal intercourse in a harmful or unhealthful or demeaning manner, in which case it then becomes harmful or unhealthful or demeaning to one or both.

Otherwise, and probably most generally, whether by heterosexuals or same-sex couples, it is just a pleasurable form of intercourse, enjoyed by the participants.

Why are you so obsessed with anal intercourse?

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26746 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... LOL!!!.... I am certainly appreciative of your acknowledgment that I am presenting the truth. Whether or not, in the presentation of the truth, I am employing twisting and disguise or futility is a matter of opinion - your opinion, which you are not feign to express.
But, yes, thanks, it is still the truth.
Anal intercourse is not necessarily harmful, unhealthful or demeaning in any way. Unless a couple does such anal intercourse in a harmful or unhealthful or demeaning manner, in which case it then becomes harmful or unhealthful or demeaning to one or both.
Otherwise, and probably most generally, whether by heterosexuals or same-sex couples, it is just a pleasurable form of intercourse, enjoyed by the participants.
Why are you so obsessed with anal intercourse?
Great question!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26747 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare dwells on anal sex begin harmful because he can not or no longer can disagree with what the Scriptures really say about homosexuality, nothing.

That glass house is cracking.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26748 Apr 10, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... LOL!!!.... I am certainly appreciative of your acknowledgment that I am presenting the truth. Whether or not, in the presentation of the truth, I am employing twisting and disguise or futility is a matter of opinion - your opinion, which you are not feign to express.
But, yes, thanks, it is still the truth.
Anal intercourse is not necessarily harmful, unhealthful or demeaning in any way. Unless a couple does such anal intercourse in a harmful or unhealthful or demeaning manner, in which case it then becomes harmful or unhealthful or demeaning to one or both.
Otherwise, and probably most generally, whether by heterosexuals or same-sex couples, it is just a pleasurable form of intercourse, enjoyed by the participants.
Why are you so obsessed with anal intercourse?
Doubling down on diabolical twisting.

I'm not shocked rev.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26749 Apr 10, 2014
“As I see it, only God can be all-powerful without danger, because his wisdom and justice are always equal to his power. Thus there is no authority on earth so inherently worthy of respect, or invested with a right so sacred, that I would want to let it act without oversight or rule without impediment .”
&#8213; Alexis de Tocqueville

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26750 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubling down on diabolical twisting.
I'm not shocked rev.
Smirk.
Your the only one doing the twisting. Reiterating, that Christianity does not exist on the same page. Your personal interpretation, literal reading of the Bible is all about your personal god.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26751 Apr 10, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are deliberately dishonest.
According to medical experts anal sex is the most dangerous sex act.
Natural intercourse is healthy.
Why is deception necessary?
I'm 88 years old.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#26753 Apr 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
“As I see it, only God can be all-powerful without danger, because his wisdom and justice are always equal to his power. Thus there is no authority on earth so inherently worthy of respect, or invested with a right so sacred, that I would want to let it act without oversight or rule without impediment .”
&#8213; Alexis de Tocqueville
Mixing politics with religion often results in unintended losses of liberty.

Acknowledging God in one's daily life is a simple reality.

How do you relate your quote of de Tocqueville to the thread topic?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#26754 Apr 11, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mixing politics with religion often results in unintended losses of liberty.
Acknowledging God in one's daily life is a simple reality.
How do you relate your quote of de Tocqueville to the thread topic?
I agree, they should always be kept seperate. Government guarded restrained. and God's influence embraced on a personal basis.

I don't trust the arbitrary shift of morality the current mood of society is embracing.

I do trust the wisdom of the ages that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and condems sex outside of marriage

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#26755 Apr 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, they should always be kept seperate. Government guarded restrained. and God's influence embraced on a personal basis.
I don't trust the arbitrary shift of morality the current mood of society is embracing.
I do trust the wisdom of the ages that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and condems sex outside of marriage
How do you relate your quote of de Tocqueville to the thread topic?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26756 Apr 11, 2014
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, they should always be kept seperate. Government guarded restrained. and God's influence embraced on a personal basis.
I don't trust the arbitrary shift of morality the current mood of society is embracing.
I do trust the wisdom of the ages that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and condems sex outside of marriage
Prove that it is "arbitrary".

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26758 Apr 11, 2014
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_an...

What seems to be arbitrary or unseemly practiced law (Church Canon or secular courts), Church Canon took its queue from civil law at the time, establishing laws governing human sexuality beginning with the Council of Elvira (305-306), http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law... . This Council is a great example as it is the beginning of the Church's arbitrary and seemly practice, of Canon Law. Note Canon Law numbered 71 as it addresses pedophilia. Also, note that the above wiki link lays out how history establishes that homosexual activity is a grave "transgression against the social," order. As an example of the Church's documentation of her condemnation of homosexuality, the Council of Elvira, begins Canon Law with Law 71 addressing "those that sexually abuse boys." The concern then was the sexual abuse of boys, not homosexuality. What history demonstrates is how the crimes of sodomy became synonymous with identifying the Church's condemnation of homosexuality. Every historical confirmation of the Early Church had to do with the sexual abuse of boys. This was prevalant within the Church hierarchy as well as in various social, secular capacities.

This then begins to explain why homosexuality as we know it today is condemned within Christianity. For the most part, this condemnation has become a scapegoat of the Church covering up her gravest sin. The Church's sin is hiding sexual abuse of boys by priests essentially, the Hierarchy of the Church as a whole.

The Church no longer states that homosexuality is a sin but condemns all sexual acts outside of marriage. Is it no wonder that the Church or, any Christian denomination would struggle against SSM?

This wiki does a nice job to lay out the history of condemning homosexuality. What it convienently leaves out is that in the transition from sodomy to homosexuality is but only a contrived condemnation covering up the Church's sexual abuse of boys.

"In Western culture, homosexual activity was first categorized as a sin. With the rise of materialism and the decline of religion, it became a transgression against the social, not the moral order: a crime." Michael Bronski: Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility (South End Press 1984 ISBN 978-0-89608217-5), p. 8

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26759 Apr 11, 2014
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you relate your quote of de Tocqueville to the thread topic?
I can see how but can KiMare? Tocqueville brings up a one point that leads to another and it becomes pertinent to this discussion. It will be interesting to see if KiMare really gets it.

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#26760 Apr 11, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm 88 years old.
I take it you are strong and with a sound mind. I wish you many more years, snyper.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26762 Apr 11, 2014
akopen wrote:
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_an...
What seems to be arbitrary or unseemly practiced law (Church Canon or secular courts), Church Canon took its queue from civil law at the time, establishing laws governing human sexuality beginning with the Council of Elvira (305-306), http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Canon%20Law... . This Council is a great example as it is the beginning of the Church's arbitrary and seemly practice, of Canon Law. Note Canon Law numbered 71 as it addresses pedophilia. Also, note that the above wiki link lays out how history establishes that homosexual activity is a grave "transgression against the social," order. As an example of the Church's documentation of her condemnation of homosexuality, the Council of Elvira, begins Canon Law with Law 71 addressing "those that sexually abuse boys." The concern then was the sexual abuse of boys, not homosexuality. What history demonstrates is how the crimes of sodomy became synonymous with identifying the Church's condemnation of homosexuality. Every historical confirmation of the Early Church had to do with the sexual abuse of boys. This was prevalant within the Church hierarchy as well as in various social, secular capacities.
This then begins to explain why homosexuality as we know it today is condemned within Christianity. For the most part, this condemnation has become a scapegoat of the Church covering up her gravest sin. The Church's sin is hiding sexual abuse of boys by priests essentially, the Hierarchy of the Church as a whole.
The Church no longer states that homosexuality is a sin but condemns all sexual acts outside of marriage. Is it no wonder that the Church or, any Christian denomination would struggle against SSM?
This wiki does a nice job to lay out the history of condemning homosexuality. What it convienently leaves out is that in the transition from sodomy to homosexuality is but only a contrived condemnation covering up the Church's sexual abuse of boys.
"In Western culture, homosexual activity was first categorized as a sin. With the rise of materialism and the decline of religion, it became a transgression against the social, not the moral order: a crime." Michael Bronski: Culture Clash: The Making of Gay Sensibility (South End Press 1984 ISBN 978-0-89608217-5), p. 8
I thought that you might find this interesting. Please forgive me if I've linked to it for you before.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 8 min raider4life 1,698
News LTE: In Open Letter to Clearfield Community, Lo... 18 min Sturm Ruger 10
News Indiana lawmakers send religious objection bill... 24 min Anonymous of Indy 109
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 37 min Wondering 1,610
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 40 min Graham Cracker 51,881
News Indiana House OKs religious objection bill by w... 54 min doty 117
News Mississippi pastor trots out horse in wedding d... 57 min WasteWater 102
More from around the web