Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#546689 Jun 14, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
This makes no sense at all. If a man has sex with a woman, that's fine. But if the same man has sex with another man that's not OK. How does that work? Is the sex between the man and the woman OK because they call each other married? Marry two people of the same gender then. BAM! It's fine.
The emphasis on marriage is so the sex will be monogamous

In theory anyway

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#546690 Jun 14, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
This makes no sense at all. If a man has sex with a woman, that's fine. But if the same man has sex with another man that's not OK. How does that work? Is the sex between the man and the woman OK because they call each other married? Marry two people of the same gender then. BAM! It's fine.
Society can say BAM! it's fine to anything. Society can say [BAM!--marry your dog.] Society can't change what God calls evil, good. Every person in society will have to answer to YHWH. So just because society say you can do it you think it fine---go right on ahead writer.
Toby

Portland, OR

#546691 Jun 14, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
1 Corinthians 7:9
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
I think people have messed up this teaching but it has been what is taught for a long time. There were only two times in the Bible where people were told to "go out and multiply". One was after Adam and Eve when the world needed people. The other was after the flood where people needed to be replenished
It never says in the bible sex can only be to procreate.
Now there is a verse that says all things we do should honor God. I don't think two people making love dishonors God.
Sex for pure sex is considered something we should at least be married for. We are supposed more on spiritual joys than physical gratification. But to say it is forbidden is not the case IMO. Is getting a massage forbidden? I don't think so
So I think it would be more accurate to say if you want to have sex for the sake of having sex, it doesn't have to be to procreate but one should be married
JMO

(T) Peace
Sky -God obviously couldn't create many humans at once, he could create an entire Universe but he couldn't create more that two people in the beginning, which leaves me wondering about the immediate need for incest to procreate, and what in hell was the land of Nod?

I also take from your post that when I have sex in the future I should do it to honor God, it should be planting a flag on a mountain top in the name of a nation, " I perform this Cunnilingus in the name of Sky-God, all hail Sky-God !"

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#546692 Jun 14, 2013
Joy of The Lord wrote:
<quoted text>You could do something to help. My guess is you won't.
That sounds like a prayer to your god.

Is that what you say to him when you read about the 25,000 who die every day from starvation?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#546693 Jun 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Okee!
How'd you get the straight jacket off?
LOL

Mark sure is one confused dude, ain't he ?

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#546694 Jun 14, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
The emphasis on marriage is so the sex will be monogamous
In theory anyway
How would that exclude gay people?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#546695 Jun 14, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because something is natural and normal to someone..DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
.
<quoted text>
.. so, being born blind or deaf is wrong ??.
You made that leap not me

I was not even connecting the two

I am making the point it is specious reasoning to claim something is normal simply because the person doing so thinks it is normal

I saw a person born with no legs that learned to walk on his hands. Is it normal to walk on your hands instead of your feet?

I saw a guy with no hands that wrote with his feet. Is it normal to write with your feet?

You are the one equating everything that is abnormal with being wrong. Perhaps that is why you are making the argument that being normal and right to someone makes it normal and right in general

Whether something is right or wrong is judged on the action, not the perception of the one doing it. A pedophile thinks its natural to have sex with children. Does that make it right?

Abnormal in and of itself has no bearing on morality. If someone's body produces an abnormally low level of white-blood cells, do you think I am claiming that's wrong from a moral standpoint?

I think your pride won't let you concede what should be something very easy to agree with. Whatever standard society wants to use for what is moral, it should never be "well as long as the person doing it thinks it is"

And you are the one making it an insult to acknowledge someone is handicapped in some way. It started over feigned outrage to try to win some points in an argument and you have continued down that path and have now taken overly PC into the realm of absurdity

I think even you know it but you won't ever admit it

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#546696 Jun 14, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Society can say BAM! it's fine to anything. Society can say [BAM!--marry your dog.] Society can't change what God calls evil, good. Every person in society will have to answer to YHWH. So just because society say you can do it you think it fine---go right on ahead writer.
Why wouldn't God be just as OK marrying gay people as straight people?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#546697 Jun 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You damn right! I love your attitude, River!
Here:
What does a redneck say after sex?
...
...
...
...
"Git off me dad, yer crushin' ma smokes"
LMAO!
LOL

West Virginia foreplay:

"You awake sis ?
Toby

Portland, OR

#546698 Jun 14, 2013
Come on, two naked people who aren't conscience enough to know they are naked, a talking snake , and a forbidden fruit, if I am to interpret this as allegories then it can't be taken in a literal sense and is reduced to interesting myths, and even hen they aren't very interesting anymore.
Toby

Portland, OR

#546699 Jun 14, 2013
and even *then they aren't very interesting

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#546700 Jun 14, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew what you meant:)
But you can't expect me to let TWO 'get a room' type jokes go uncontested!
LOL
True dat.

Um......yo.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#546701 Jun 14, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>Society can say BAM! it's fine to anything. Society can say [BAM!--marry your dog.] Society can't change what God calls evil, good. Every person in society will have to answer to YHWH. So just because society say you can do it you think it fine---go right on ahead writer.
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text> Society can't change what God calls evil, good.
Of course it can. Hire an editor. It's just a book.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#546702 Jun 14, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because something is natural and normal to someone..DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
.
<quoted text>
.. so, being born blind or deaf is wrong ??.
Or even flawed?

I know I ranted about this before, but I gotta say it again.

Someone born blind is not flawed, they just experience the world differently that someone who can see. All of us have limited perceptions. There are many animals who have far better eyesight than humans do. Does that make humans flawed?

Likewise, someone born gay is no more flawed than a left-handed person is. They just experience the world differently.

People seem to mix up what is common vs. what is "normal". No one is in a majority in all things: we all belong to minorities by one definition or other. We all experience the world differently. No one has the right to judge another person's experience of the world as better or worse than theirs. It's just different. Judge not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#546703 Jun 14, 2013
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sky -God obviously couldn't create many humans at once, he could create an entire Universe but he couldn't create more that two people in the beginning, which leaves me wondering about the immediate need for incest to procreate, and what in hell was the land of Nod?
I also take from your post that when I have sex in the future I should do it to honor God, it should be planting a flag on a mountain top in the name of a nation, " I perform this Cunnilingus in the name of Sky-God, all hail Sky-God !"
I generally don't respond to posters I don't know

Especially when they ask questions that I don't know how anyone could have based on my post

But I am feeling friendly and will make an exception

I believe Genesis is metaphorical. Just like Revelations is about visions or Isaiah is about prophesy or Psalms is about prayers. Some books follow themes

And what I said is I don't think having sex with someone you love dishonors God. And if God joined the marriage I can't see any objection to two people making love. Just so long as the focus of our physical desires do not outweigh our spiritual obligations. When we stat focusing on our physical wants and needs more than God or put them ahead of God is when it is considered a problem. It is never said we can't do anything we take pleasure from

when the Bible talks about giving way to the flesh it means sinning

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#546704 Jun 14, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:

.. I don't a shit how you view my sex life ..
Tonto say you miss word.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#546705 Jun 14, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
True dat.
Um......yo.
S'up?

:)

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#546706 Jun 14, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Why wouldn't God be just as OK marrying gay people as straight people?
marriage is between a man and a woman.

“Credulity is not a virtue”

Since: Apr 09

San Francisco

#546707 Jun 14, 2013
Toby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sky -God obviously couldn't create many humans at once, he could create an entire Universe but he couldn't create more that two people in the beginning, which leaves me wondering about the immediate need for incest to procreate
That's an interesting point. Why did God only start with a single pair? Who would necessarily need to be incestuous?

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#546708 Jun 14, 2013
wilderide wrote:
<quoted text>
Moreover, let's go back to your previous comment about sex and love (which are two entirely different things). Do you really think that only straight people are capable of loving each other? Surely not.
Jesus says love thy neighbor. so obviously everyone should love. But just because a man love another they can't go lay down in bed with each other like a man and woman and think it right.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 3 min AN NFL FAN 119,216
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min June VanDerMark 554,816
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Catcher1 764,201
Holiday Wonderland 2 x 150 Lights Clear String ... 22 min anna 1
Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says (Jun '07) 26 min Grau 37,633
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 30 min black kyrptonian 641
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 35 min Classic 1,850
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr WildWeirdWillie 175,036
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 263,421
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 4 hr maikel 177

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE