secondeve Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,276 Content Per Day: 0.19 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/02/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/21/1986 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 As for sex outside of marraige, to me, this isn't an issue, because as a non-Christian, I see nothing inherently important in the idea of extra-marital sex, particularly in a day and age where contraception is readily available to all. Originally, yes, I can see why the idea might've appealed - so women, who weren't allowed or able to earn money to support themselves, might not end up with bastard children. That's just practical. But today? Nope. Its sad to see someone write this. I guess you really must see sex as just nothing more than a game, or a pass-time or something, like watching a movie, and it doesn't matter who you're with. WhySoBlind, you're conflating casual sex with any other kind of sex outside of marriage. My partner and I love each other and sleep togther, but aren't married. If you're trying to be insulting, you succeeded. All I was pointing out is that, without a belief in God, there's nothing inherently sinful in sleeping with someone you care about without being married to them. Personally and from experience, I don't think casual sex works, and I also think most people know that. It'd be an extreme minority of people who prefer continuous random encounters to something special with a partner. Please don't assume that because my morality is different to yours, it must be proxy be the antithesis of it in every single respect. I'm far from being an advocate of casual sex; I was just saying that there's no reason, if you aren't religious, that a couple who care for one another should be married before sleeping together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2006 (edited) Gay marriage is not sodomy. No one ever said the two guys were going to handcuff one another to the bed and be spanking each other. Sodomizing one another and getting married to each other are very different. Also these men are gay chemically. I know gay men personally, and this is how they put it. "Do you think I want to be attracted to boys? You think I wanted to have my *ss kicked at school everyday? You think I liked being laughed at, and not being able to do so much as go to the movies without wanting to shoot myself? I didn't choose this, God did, so ask him why he would make homosexuality wrong yet let children be born who will grow up liking boys. You think I choose to be gay? Do you choose to be straight? If it came down to it you could never be attracted to a male even if you tried! It is the same for me. I can't bring myself to be attracted to women. Though I may be with one if only to have a kid." This is paraphrased from my friend Dano, and other gay people I have encountered in my life. They are people, that when they found out they were gay they thought to themselves, "Oh no!" Because you don't start out knowing your gay it's the same for kids that end up liking women. What do they do when their young? "EEWWW! Girls are gross!" When puberty hits a gay man they catch themselves slowly start to like to be around boys more than girls, eventually they question their sexuality, and then experiment. I could go on but you get the picture. Secondly yes it is possible for two gay men to love each other without sodomy. I believe sodomy should be banned, not gay rights. WhySoBlind Biblical law is not subject to the laws of individual nations. The word of God is supposed to trump everything esle for the believer, so I find it strange that any believer can be "for" seperation of church and state, at least as it is promoted today. Why so blind if real life was like this the world would truly be a better place . seperation of church and state in my opinion is unconstitutional, it's not even written in it. Edited December 6, 2006 by Observer of dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted December 6, 2006 All I was pointing out is that, without a belief in God, there's nothing inherently sinful in sleeping with someone you care about without being married to them. Seriously speaking.....that is untrue. All extra- or pre-marital sex is adultery or fornication..sin. there are no extra dispensations for those who actually have gone ahead and decided to love one another too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Secondly yes it is possible for two gay men to love each other without sodomy. I believe sodomy should be banned, not gay rights. Isn't gay sex between men mostly sodomy? Come on! Have you bought the hype? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer of dreams Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 39 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 314 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2006 (edited) yes gay sex is wrong in my view, but let me repeat you do not have to have sex to love someone and marry them by the literal sense, gay men can never be married in Gods' eye anyways because to have sex is to marry. Seriously speaking.....that is untrue. All extra- or pre-marital sex is adultery or fornication..sin. there are no extra dispensations for those who actually have gone ahead and decided to love one another too. The one you lay with is the one you marry, it says this in Genesis though it is paraphrased. It never says, "thou shalt have a ceremony by thy priest, and shalt exchange vows of commitment." Married by definition of God for gays, no, marriage by legal law, yes. See? adultry is leaving the one you "married, and being with another." nowadays they call it being promiscuity. Edited December 6, 2006 by Observer of dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetycakes Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 162 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 7,858 Content Per Day: 1.13 Reputation: 2,113 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/21/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/23/1964 Share Posted December 6, 2006 In my opinion, just because someone has a certain tendency, it doesn't make it right. I firmly believe homosexuality is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong, and an abomination. Just because a man has a desire for another man, doesn't make it right. We have to judge what is right by what God says. If you defend the argument that both are willing partners, and should be left alone to get on with it, I don't see that as right, either. Some of my work colleagues shown me recently videos on their mobile phones of women having sex with animals. Now.....both parties seemed to be enjoying the experience. Does that make it right? I think not. We have got to judge by God's standards, not ours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 961 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2006 Why can't two men or two women ever get truely marriage? Marriage is inherently connected to procreation, and two men having sexual liaisons with each other will never produce children. Even if a couple who cannot have children due to age or a medical circustance (not contraception) are still in a valid marriage because they are open to procreation and this expresses and actulizes their marriage. The traditional doctrine that sexual intercourse consummates marriage means that marriage is a bodily, as well as an emotional and spiritual, unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biblicist Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 to everyone, I say. . . Let them legalize same-sex marriages. It would not affect my belief in any way, nor would it affect what I teach my children about marriage. Secular Americans are not ready for the changes that would come about as a result of it though. Of that I am certain. Go ahead and get upset at my view. However, if you are going to do that, please first ask me why I feel that way. I do have a reason. How far can we go to legalize morality? In His Grip, Biblicist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 961 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2006 Why can't two men or two women ever get truely marriage? Marriage is inherently connected to procreation, and two men having sexual liaisons with each other will never produce children. Even if a couple who cannot have children due to age or a medical circustance (not contraception) are still in a valid marriage because they are open to procreation and this expresses and actulizes their marriage. The traditional doctrine that sexual intercourse consummates marriage means that marriage is a bodily, as well as an emotional and spiritual, unity. Therefore, sterile and elderly couples cannot be married either, because there is no chance of them producing children. I'd also like to as Observer of Dreams a question, because he favors banning sodomy: How would you enforce that law? AAA, Go back and read my earlier post, I clearly stated that a couple who can not conceive due to a advanced age or medical reason are still in a valid marriage because they are open to procreation which expresses and actualizes their marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax Posted December 6, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 14 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 961 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/30/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 6, 2006 The claim that sex is for procreation only is clearly not Biblical. Sex isn't only for procreation and this isn't what I am claiming. Marriage is a multi-leveled unity with the cornerstone being procreation. When a married couple, man and women have sexual relations they become one organism open to producing life. Homesexual marriage cannot do this, thus cannot be in a valid marriage. Our recent culture tends to view relationships as arising only from our own consent or arbitrary decision, and having only what structure we arbitrarily deem to bestow on them. Thats why we have the debate of same sex marriage, or for that matter it could be polygamy. Ironic things is that throughout the histroy of the world we as a people havn't had to define what marriage is. It was automatically known to involve one man and one women. Within the last 15 years and really the last 5 years we have had this ground swell of people who now are trying to redefine marriage. If we could go back in time and tell St. Peter, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther that we would be trying to convience people that marriage could also include two men, they would be thouroughly disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts