Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Name_Taken]

Wow nametaken is shaping up to be a bona-fide believer and not a spooky troll
Worthy of the Iron legacy my fren

Haha, thanks Iron

 

[Indomitable]

Do you have any sense of morality at all?

Do you? You’re attempting to impede the happiness of people’s relationships in a way by classifying it as sinful. According to universal codes of morality impeding genuine, loving relationships is wrong. For your religious morality: homosexuality is wrong. And your entire argument comes down to: because God said so and therefore you must obey. Your entire argument is based on the unprovable, not logic and just smacks of intolerance.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that premarital sex is a sin. Until you can point to the chapter and verse where it does, explicitly, I will laugh in your face.

New testament: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:19-20, KJV)


In Bible translations and Bible commentaries and so on, when they talk about premarital sex they often refer to it as "fornication."

 

[Kwayera]

New testament: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:19-20, KJV)


In Bible translations and Bible commentaries and so on, when they talk about premarital sex they often refer to it as "fornication."

Key words here being "translations and commentaries".

 

[Iron]

hahaha youre just embarrasing kway

 

[Indomitable]

Key words here being "translations and commentaries".

Dictionary and encyclopedias instead? Ok.

"Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law )

"1. Noun - Unlawful sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery." (The People's Dictionary )

"1. voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other." (Dictionary.com Unabridged )

 

[Kwayera]

Dictionary and encyclopedias instead? Ok.

"Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other." (West's Encyclopedia of American Law )

"1. Noun - Unlawful sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person; the act of such illicit sexual intercourse between a man and a woman as does not by law amount to adultery." (The People's Dictionary )

"1. voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other." (Dictionary.com Unabridged )

I was more getting at the point that translations of words are always suspect - for example, the whole craze over Mary being a virgin mother to Jesus was a mistranslation of the word "maid" to "virgin"

 

[Name_Taken]

Do you? You’re attempting to impede the happiness of people’s relationships in a way by classifying it as sinful. According to universal codes of morality impeding genuine, loving relationships is wrong. For your religious morality: homosexuality is wrong. And your entire argument comes down to: because God said so and therefore you must obey. Your entire argument is based on the unprovable, not logic and just smacks of intolerance.

Please, at least read the last 40 pages or so of thread discussion before making a claim such as that, I really don't want to keep repeating myself over and over and over again for the benefit of new people.

As we have already established, sex is not required for human relationships to work. It is not required for a human to love another. Love is what gives happiness, sex is merely a physically pleasureable outlet (given as a gift by God for the use in very specific circumstances).

It is the abuse of this gift and disobeying of God's law to which my objection is aimed in regards to homosexuality, not the denial of happiness to certain people.

I'm not using religion as an excuse for homophobia, and I'm tired of being described as such.

 

[Kwayera]

As we have already established, sex is not required for human relationships to work. It is not required for a human to love another. Love is what gives happiness, sex is merely a physically pleasureable outlet (given as a gift by God for the use in very specific circumstances).

Except for the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, sex releases hormones associated with love and attachment.

 

[Iron]

I was more getting at the point that translations of words are always suspect - for example, the whole craze over Mary being a virgin mother to Jesus was a mistranslation of the word "maid" to "virgin"

Lol relativism at its finest. Why bother with this tiresome oppression of universal rules governing language? Let's just agree that there is no truth in anything, ever.

 

[Lentern]

Except for the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, sex releases hormones associated with love and attachment.

So do you believe that love is an entirely chemical thing? Are notions of love inexplicably being on some higher plain than other emotions delusional?

 

[Will Shakespear]

So do you believe that love is an entirely chemical thing? Are notions of love inexplicably being on some higher plain than other emotions delusional?

they're a product of everyone being babysat by disney films up to age 5 imo

 

[Name_Taken]

Except for the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, sex releases hormones associated with love and attachment.

But are happiness and true love actually impossible without them? They're not would you agree?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

But are happiness and true love actually impossible without them? They're not would you agree?

I disagree. Sex brings two individuals closer.

 

[Name_Taken]

I disagree. Sex brings two individuals closer.

Thats only if you take the immature and perverted approach of "If you truly loved me, then you would have sex with me".

True love goes beyond your own "needs", and even the desires of your partner. Its about doing what's right and not falling to temptation. Its about learning when to say "no" to your own demand for phsycial pleasure, in the pursuit of higher ideals.

All humans need love, both from each other and from God.

Sex is not required to live. Neither is it required to love or be loved.

True love is what gives happiness, not sex, stop confusing the two.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Thats only if you take the immature and perverted approach of "If you truly loved me, then you would have sex with me".

True love goes beyond your own "needs", and even the desires of your partner. Its about doing what's right and not falling to temptation. Its about learning when to say "no" to your own demand for phsycial pleasure, in the pursuit of higher ideals.

All humans need love, both from each other and from God.

Sex is not required to live. Neither is it required to love or be loved.

True love is what gives happiness, not sex, stop confusing the two.

it's so obvious that you don't masturbate

 

[Name_Taken]

it's so obvious that you don't masturbate

You could have just admitted you have nothing to say in response

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You could have just admitted you have nothing to say in response

that IS my response. only someone so conservative, somone who's nose is SOOOOOO deep in the bible would have such views about sex. and you've avoided my question. do you masturbate?

 

[Name_Taken]

that IS my response. only someone so conservative, somone who's nose is SOOOOOO deep in the bible would have such views about sex. and you've avoided my question. do you masturbate?

Only somoene so liberal, so engrossed in their own sinful lifestyle that they would fight to protect what they feel as their right to continue perverting Gods gifts to mankind and use them in ways he expressely forbade would hold views such as yours Toenails.

And your previous statement was not a question "it is so obvious that you don't masturbate" is not an inquiry.

Now I fail to see what relevence at all this has on this debate, but if you explain to me how it relates to your case, I will happily answer.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Only somoene so liberal, so engrossed in their own sinful lifestyle that they would fight to protect what they feel as their right to continue perverting Gods gifts to mankind and use them in ways he expressely forbade would hold views such as yours Toenails.

And your previous statement was not a question "it is so obvious that you don't masturbate" is not an inquiry.

Now I fail to see what relevence at all this has on this debate, but if you explain to me how it relates to your case, I will happily answer.

well if you don't require sex, then you probably don't require masturbation as well right? now answer!

 

[Name_Taken]

well if you don't require sex, then you probably don't require masturbation as well right? now answer!

I still don't get how that relates to your case?

I never said that people will necessarily be able to resist temptation all their lives, but that they should definately not abandon the chaste life because it seems difficult or would require self control. It would be impossible to live an entire life without being tempted by sexual urges for a normal human without the gift of faith.

Simply because something is impossible to acheive does not mean we should not endeavour or aspire to achieve it. We can never be perfect as Christ is, but our love for God inspires us to try to live up to His perfection. We will inevitably fail throughout life and fall to temptation, but will be forgiven for our failures through the acceptance of Christ as our saviour. What is it you don't understand?