|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:22 pm
Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction. Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:27 pm
Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction. Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:42 pm
Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction. Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:53 pm
Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan? You ignore the fact that God could have created humans to procreate asexually (just Eve-- who needs to add in the complication of fertilization?). The point that He created them male and female is still a valid one. This of course leads into a discussion of evolution and creation, which is way off-topic. I just wanted to point out that the male/female distinction is not necessary for reproduction. Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly. Well, that's a valid argument. If you had the female anatomy, would you suddenly have a different personality? I don't think gender has too much to do with personality and soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:00 pm
Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly. Well, that's a valid argument. If you had the female anatomy, would you suddenly have a different personality? I don't think gender has too much to do with personality and soul. You just acknowledged my point that there are differences (other than physical) between men and women. What would these be besides differences in personality or soul? I suppose you could say genders have different roles while having the same general personality and soul, but that would just support the argument against homosexuality which is claiming different roles for men and women. Do you see what I'm getting at? You can still believe that there are differences between men and women without those differences being relevant to homosexuality... it's just not as simple a position to argue from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:10 pm
Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Okay. So how does pointing out that reproduction can happen asexually support your point. Are you trying to say that females were made for males and that homosexuality is unnatural? I'd like to point out, unnatural doesn't equal bad. It supports my point because it shows that reproduction does not explain away why God created two genders... which implies that there must be more distinctions than just the physical. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it. Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly. Well, that's a valid argument. If you had the female anatomy, would you suddenly have a different personality? I don't think gender has too much to do with personality and soul. You just acknowledged my point that there are differences (other than physical) between men and women. What would these be besides differences in personality or soul? I suppose you could say genders have different roles while having the same general personality and soul, but that would just support the argument against homosexuality which is claiming different roles for men and women. Do you see what I'm getting at? You can still believe that there are differences between men and women without those differences being relevant to homosexuality... it's just not as simple a position to argue from. Gender roles are influenced by society not DNA. Personality is the the essential character of a person and I don't see how that has anything to do with gender. If two people are a good match for each other, good for them, I don't see why they can't be together. Whoops, my phrasing was slightly confusing! ^^ Before I wasn't saying how your point was valid, I was trying to say that the point you were trying to say wasn't, actually was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm
Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly. Well, that's a valid argument. If you had the female anatomy, would you suddenly have a different personality? I don't think gender has too much to do with personality and soul. You just acknowledged my point that there are differences (other than physical) between men and women. What would these be besides differences in personality or soul? I suppose you could say genders have different roles while having the same general personality and soul, but that would just support the argument against homosexuality which is claiming different roles for men and women. Do you see what I'm getting at? You can still believe that there are differences between men and women without those differences being relevant to homosexuality... it's just not as simple a position to argue from. Gender roles are influenced by society not DNA. Personality is the the essential character of a person and I don't see how that has anything to do with gender. If two people are a good match for each other, good for them, I don't see why they can't be together. Whoops, my phrasing was slightly confusing! ^^ Before I wasn't saying how your point was valid, I was trying to say that the point you were trying to say wasn't, actually was. So, back to square one... why wasn't it valid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:35 pm
Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Nebulance Riiko..Izawa Okay, that's fair. There are differences between men and women. I still don't see how that supports the argument that men should only be allowed to date women. Like I said, it doesn't prove it, and that's why I like to argue from Romans 1 instead. But it denies the main platform of many homosexuality advocates, which is that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. That platform is used to make disapproval of homosexuality seem just silly. Well, that's a valid argument. If you had the female anatomy, would you suddenly have a different personality? I don't think gender has too much to do with personality and soul. You just acknowledged my point that there are differences (other than physical) between men and women. What would these be besides differences in personality or soul? I suppose you could say genders have different roles while having the same general personality and soul, but that would just support the argument against homosexuality which is claiming different roles for men and women. Do you see what I'm getting at? You can still believe that there are differences between men and women without those differences being relevant to homosexuality... it's just not as simple a position to argue from. Gender roles are influenced by society not DNA. Personality is the the essential character of a person and I don't see how that has anything to do with gender. If two people are a good match for each other, good for them, I don't see why they can't be together. Whoops, my phrasing was slightly confusing! ^^ Before I wasn't saying how your point was valid, I was trying to say that the point you were trying to say wasn't, actually was. So, back to square one... why wasn't it valid? Well, I don't see why a man can not have essentially the same personality as a woman. Personality is composed of, as I said before, morals, scene of humor, likes, dislikes, how you think, how you behave, that sort of thing. Our society has a bit of a skewed perspective on this, we enforce gender roles on people and tell them what we think is proper "for a man" or "for a woman" Being a nurse is a more popular job for women than men. More often than not, if a boy expresses an interest in a career like this, he'll be discouraged by his parents or won't go into this field for fear of being ridiculed. The differences between men and women don't come from them being incapable of having the same personality types, they come from society discouraging it. When I just don't see how it matters. I see gender as something more physical, like eye color, height, or race. If I wanted to change my personality, I'm sure I could work on it and become a nicer person but I can't be come more or less of a woman just like I can't become taller or shorter than my DNA says. I don't see how it's morally right say one person can't date another person because of something they can't change (gender). I believe gender has less to do with "who" you are and more to do with "what" you are. Examples of what I am: Five foot six, Female, Caucasian, Blonde, etc... Examples of who I am: Nice, Funny, Shy, Lazy, etc... You see what I'm getting at? I do see your point. Men have different tendencies than women. But just because they are prone to personality types doesn't mean they will or have to be that way. I don't see how me having the male anatomy would would change my personality. I don't think I would suddenly develop different morals, likes or dislikes just because of it. Therefore, I believe gender is something physical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:16 pm
In Medias Res IV quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. You know... Ruth and Naomi had a little bit of lesbianism going on. I certainly missed that one. Where is it located?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:29 pm
Mei tsuki7 quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. If it appears anywhere on earth it was by his design because he designed the earth. Nothing on earth is not his design. He created everything and that includes homosexuality. EDIT: By saying he didn't design something on earth that makes him not omnipotent or omniscient. Where do you find instructions from GOD to indulge in the act of homosexuality. Be an angel and lead me to the instructions PLEASE?; direct me to the verses in his word. Now I found his words in opposition. He created the tree in the middle of the garden, and he also gave instructions. Just as the word spoke of man laying with man being an abomination, he detested the act. Trains and tracks were created but It don't mean you step in the pathway of a ongoing train without consequences to your body the train was created as a mode of transportation; It would be your decision to step in front of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:37 pm
Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. He made it that way so there could be more humans after the first ones. It seems to me, your problem with same-sex couples is that they can not produce children, correct? So are you also against infertile couples? Is it a sin that for a man who can never have children to be in love with a woman? Are they somehow not included in God's plan?[/qu I can't even think of a reason why anyone would be against infertile couples. The subject was homosexuals. As homosexuality is more widespread we won't really have to worry about overpopulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:40 pm
quietstorm 2 Mei tsuki7 quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. If it appears anywhere on earth it was by his design because he designed the earth. Nothing on earth is not his design. He created everything and that includes homosexuality. EDIT: By saying he didn't design something on earth that makes him not omnipotent or omniscient. Where do you find instructions from GOD to indulge in the act of homosexuality. Be an angel and lead me to the instructions PLEASE?; direct me to the verses in his word. Now I found his words in opposition. He created the tree in the middle of the garden, and he also gave instructions. Just as the word spoke of man laying with man being an abomination, he detested the act. Trains and tracks were created but It don't mean you step in the pathway of a ongoing train without consequences to your body the train was created as a mode of transportation. Alrighty then! Okay, the bible says for men not to lie with men. But the bible also says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:10) and very few people follow that anymore. I believe some things in the bible were written for healthy living at the time they were written. Can you prove to me that homosexuality is immoral? (unnatural =/= immoral) I am not asking you to quote the bible or tell me it's a sin. I'm asking you why it would be a sin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:42 pm
Riiko..Izawa quietstorm 2 Mei tsuki7 quietstorm 2 In Medias Res IV Since when is it a sin? Better yet, since when does a toevah have ANYTHING to do with Christians? Oh Leviticus, the most raped book on Earth. From the beginning GOD created the heaven and the earth. He also created humans male and female. He could have made he and he or she and she. I don't believe he had homsexuality in mind for his designed. If it appears anywhere on earth it was by his design because he designed the earth. Nothing on earth is not his design. He created everything and that includes homosexuality. EDIT: By saying he didn't design something on earth that makes him not omnipotent or omniscient. Where do you find instructions from GOD to indulge in the act of homosexuality. Be an angel and lead me to the instructions PLEASE?; direct me to the verses in his word. Now I found his words in opposition. He created the tree in the middle of the garden, and he also gave instructions. Just as the word spoke of man laying with man being an abomination, he detested the act. Trains and tracks were created but It don't mean you step in the pathway of a ongoing train without consequences to your body the train was created as a mode of transportation. Alrighty then! Okay, the bible says for men not to lie with men. But the bible also says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:10) and very few people follow that anymore. I believe some things in the bible were written for healthy living at the time they were written. Can you prove to me that homosexuality is immoral? (unnatural =/= immoral) I am not asking you to quote the bible or tell me it's a sin. I'm asking you why it would be a sin. Sin as defined in the new international bible dictionary: For sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:43 pm
I'm in a very fragile state of mind so I ask that if you must squash me do so without killing me.
I will tell you what I believe so please do not be upset. Since the beginning of time we have been filled with what is right and what was wrong by God. He has told us what is right and he has told us what is wrong. You ask why being a homosexual is a sin, and I answer look at the consensus. If most people think it's a sin it probably is, why?, because since the beginning of time we knew what was right and what was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 7:46 pm
Yuck-FOO I'm in a very fragile state of mind so I ask that if you must squash me do so without killing me. I will tell you what I believe so please do not be upset. Since the beginning of time we have been filled with what is right and what was wrong by God. He has told us what is right and he has told us what is wrong. You ask why being a homosexual is a sin, and I answer look at the consensus. If most people think it's a sin it probably is, why?, because since the beginning of time we knew what was right and what was wrong. AMEN/AMAN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
