Why Unwed Christians should not have sex?

Why would I be upset or vindictive duce? I see it from the
norm, the majority, and based on that Homosexuality
is a lifestyle.

I agree it should be left out of religion and politics completely, however this is wishful thinking.

0 Replies

Sorry Clam: That was not directed at you, just those who can't accept that we think it's a lifestyle.

I guess I did not make that clear. IMHO All sex is a choice except rape & that is and s/b punishable by law.

0 Replies

Oh sorry duce, since you quoted my paragraph, I thought
you're addressing me Wink

I agree 100 % with you!

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

I see it from the norm, the majority, and based on that Homosexuality is a lifestyle.

LMAO. By that logic so is schizophrenia Wink

Anyway, as I said earlier, the term "lifestyle" doesn't bother me personally though I wouldn't use it as I find it mildly inaccurate (as a writer I tend to get anal-retentive about "le mot juste"). I'm just pointing out to whoever the hell it was that I was saying it to, that it's a term that provokes angry discussion. It appears that I somehow managed to provoke angry discussion with it myself.

Whoops.

tenoch wrote:

Why isn't lifestyles a good word. Is it because that implies that's it's a choice or preference when it's really how you were born. Or is it because a lifestyle is more than just your sexual orientation?

I think most gay activists find it objectionable from the implication of choice. I personally don't much object to it but find that it isn't a particularly accurate term, "lifestyle element", would be fine with me though since a person's sexuality is an element of their lifestyle.

For the same reason I object to gay people being refered to as homosexuals... not because the term is offensive in any way, but because homosexual is an adjective. It's also an adjective that means "entirely comprised of a single gender" thus making everyone (excepting hermaphrodites) homosexual. Homosexual can only be correctly used as "a homosexual relationship" or "homosexual sex". Describing an individual as being homosexual is poor grammar.

Again, I'm just anal-retentive about linguistics though.

"You can't undo a can't undo spell. It's a triple negative, it's magically ungrammatical" - Aunt Zelda, Sabrina the teenage witch.

0 Replies

Quote:

"You can't undo a can't undo spell. It's a triple negative, it's magically ungrammatical" - Aunt Zelda, Sabrina the teenage witch.

Hahahaha!

0 Replies

Quote:

For the same reason I object to gay people being refered to as homosexuals... not because the term is offensive in any way, but because homosexual is an adjective. It's also an adjective that means "entirely comprised of a single gender" thus making everyone (excepting hermaphrodites) homosexual. Homosexual can only be correctly used as "a homosexual relationship" or "homosexual sex". Describing an individual as being homosexual is poor grammar.

Not according to Merriam-Webster

Quote:

Main Entry: 2homosexual
Function: noun
: a homosexual person and especially a male

This is in addition to homosexual being an adjective.
I just thought, since you're such an anal-retentive linguistic
expert, you want to know Wink

0 Replies

language is whatever the most recent coopting has made it.
Look at all the perfectly good words that the computer society has taken and turned around.

0 Replies

Get-r-done!!!!

0 Replies

Quote:

This is in addition to homosexual being an adjective. I just thought, since you're such an anal-retentive linguistic expert, you would want to know

Let me cling to my 17th century delusions Wink

Lol, fair enough. My point is still applicable, it's just that because the word has been used (in what I consider an inaccurate way) so long it's entered modern vocabulary in its alternate usage. I still object. It may be in popular usage but it completely defies the way that the word should be used. It's very confusing when words don't mean what they should from their component syllables. Any other words evolving I'm fine with, but fused words should reflect the meaning of their component parts otherwise language becomes disorderly. Particularly seeeing as most of these fused words are scientific their meaning really should be preserved with some degree of accuracy.

Anyway... I don't even know what this debate thread actually is, but I doubt it's a linguistics one and it certainly isn't about my personal prejudices in the development of english. We're getting a bit off track here, which I suspect is my fault. So let's return to the original point... Whatever the hell that is.

0 Replies

Homosexuality is a lifestyle? Perhaps, but was it chosen?

There is increasing evidence to show that homosexuality has both genetic and environmental causes. (Mind you, it hasn't increased by that much, but there is some evidence out there). Unfortunately, most of the stuff I've read concentrates on male homosexuality, as if female homosexuality was not worth understanding.

May I point out these two articles?

http://www3.azwestern.edu/psy/dgershaw/lol/Catholic.Sex.htm
http://www3.azwestern.edu/psy/dgershaw/lol/Jewish.sex.htm

Surely, as long as its consensual, sex is sex and is a part of God's divine plan (as long as it results in conception and birth, of course)?

And if homosexuality was caused by genetic and environmental factors, surely that means that God may have intended for homosexuality to be a part of his divine plan too?

0 Replies

Quote:

And if homosexuality was caused by genetic and environmental factors, surely that means that God may have intended for homosexuality to be a part of his divine plan too?

Like I've discussed before, maybe we are meant to raise the children heterosexual folk reject or can't raise themselves for whatever reason. Also there's overpopulation, maybe we are a safeguard against situations like those we are currently facing.
Of course, as long as there are institutions like the Catholic church telling their followers to go breed like rabbits (Without enjoying the process) and condemning people like me, we can't really do our job properly, can we?

Though I don't think there are enough fags and dykes in the world to meet the current demands, specially when most of us are married and spawning babies themselves.

Of course this is just a wild theory from a tired mind, and a body that's had way too much coffee today.

0 Replies

Paraphrasing TD JAKES, et al here:

One of the reasons for the amount of homosexual activity today, is the generational gaps left by men in family life. "Many Women never grew up w/active fathers and do not know how to realte to men in the natrual way. Many men grew up w/o active fathers are seeking any type bonding with males on some level."

Jakes blames the demise of the "Family Unit" for the breakdown in roles over generation after generation. We know this is not the ONLY cause.

Does it make homosexuals feel better to say they were born that way. Why is it a negative to say it's a choice, IF there is nothing wrong with it?

0 Replies

The antipathy by some in this forum to Christianity astounds me. In one way I am saddened, but on the other hand it pleases me. After all, it is part of the lot of the Church, like Christ, to be persecuted. Also, I figure that anti-religionists must see the Church as a powerful force; otherwise why do they have such an emotional reaction towards her?

Christians believe that God created sex for a specific purpose to be done in a specific context--that of holy matrimony. Is that hard to understand? God meant for man and woman to cleave to one another. This is His system, according to Christians. Man didn't invent it. Sex is a very powerful force, like a fire. A fire can be a very lovely thing to have in one's house, but only in the protection of a fireplace. You wouldn't have a fire in the middle of your bedroom, would you?

And disregarding the theological and moral aspects of the problem, there are good social reasons as well for placing restrictions on passions like sex. Society needs structure and order. A society in which everyone is allowed to do whatever they feel like--a "live and let live" society--is no safe society to raise a family in. It is chaos. What are the fruits of the sexual revolution? Widespread STDs, single parent families, divorce, out-of-wedlock births and abortion, and on and on. The proof is in the pudding.

0 Replies

Duce and Marsh,

One of the reasons I chose to join this forum is because there are so many here that have taken the time to think about the world we live in. Most here are people with an mind of their own.

If you think about sex, you'd realize it is not more than two bodies touching, body parts coming together. Beyond that, whatever significance it is given,
it's all in the individuals mind, therefore said significance is important only to that person.
You choose to believe that it is more than that because it suits you, and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have no right to bind me to your beliefs. Just because you like to think that sex is only the way you believe it should be, doesn't mean you have to right to dictate how I should think about it.

Christianity, is not more than many of these beliefs that people have accepted as truth over the centuries, just because there are so many of you that believe the same thing, it doesn't give you the right to decide how I live my life.

I will not try to change what you belive, because I could care less about how you think life should be lived, about what you do, or who you are. When I am walking about, and some nutcase comes up to me and asks if I've found Jesus I just ignore him and walk away.

You say that homosexuality is a choice, and that sex is just for reproductive purposes. You have the right to say that, but don't think for a second that just because you think that way, that's the way it is.

The day someone actually shows me proof that things are your way, I'll still ignore you and walk away since I don't care about your ways, or your way of thinking.

And I have the right to do that.

0 Replies

Quote:

so many here that have taken the time to think about the world we live in.

Something tells me you don't include anybody whose views differ significantly from yours into that category.

Quote:

If you think about sex, you'd realize it is not more than two bodies touching, body parts coming together.

I'm amazed, not that this is how you think about sex, but that you further seem to believe it is self-evident fact. It's not so self-evident to most people, Eryemil. Even most social liberals believe that sex--while it may not be necessary to restrict it to marriage--is nonetheless a very powerful experiance. We are not mere beast or mere chunks of meat that bang together. We are human beings imbued with emotion and reason. Our physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual (assuming you believe in a spiritual dimension of existence) states are interconnected. Sex is the most intimate physical experience one can have with another human being. As such it is also a very powerful emotional and spiritual experience. Have you really even read my post? Why don't you respond to some of the specific claims I make?

Quote:

You choose to believe that it is more than that because it suits you

Why do you believe what you believe about sex? I think it is because it suits you, Eryemil. I think that by divorcing and isolating the physical pleasure from everything that is inevitably connected with it, you feel free to do whatever you want to do without guilt and shame. You will probably deny this, but I'd lay money that it is an aspect of your psyche, however unconscious. In any case, don't claim that I merely believe what I do because it makes me feel better, while you are a paragon of unbiased Logic.

Quote:

you have no right to bind me to your beliefs....have no right to dictate how I should think about it....it doesn't give you the right to decide how I live my life.

No offense, but are you sure you're not a paranoic? It's a free country; no one's going to break down your door and take you to a reeducation camp. This is a discussion on why Christians hold the beliefs they do regarding sex. Why do do you seem to fear that Christians are out to force you into something? If anyone is trying to force you to think a certain way or live a certain way, call the police.

Quote:

The day someone actually shows me proof that things are your way, I'll still ignore you and walk away since I don't care about your ways, or your way of thinking.

So if someone showed you conclusive proof of something you'd still reject it? Why? Out of spite? Out of fear that you might have to change your own ways of thinking? Please examine how much your own beliefs are based on reason and how much they're based on emotion and unexamined presumptions.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm amazed, not that this is how you think about sex, but that you further seem to believe it is self-evident fact. It's not so self-evident to most people, Eryemil. Even most social liberals believe that sex--while it may not be necessary to restrict it to marriage--is nonetheless a very powerful experiance. We are not mere beast or mere chunks of meat that bang together. We are human beings imbued with emotion and reason. Our physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual (assuming you believe in a spiritual dimension of existence) states are interconnected. Sex is the most intimate physical experience one can have with another human being. As such it is also a very powerful emotional and spiritual experience. Have you really even read my post? Why don't you respond to some of the specific claims I make?

You've mistaken my approach, in no way did I say I believed that sex was just "mere chunks of meat that bang together". What I did say was that if some didn't think otherwise, this is what sex would be.
I think sex can be a wonderful experience, but not everyone believes the same, to some it is just a way to relieve tension, or a very pleasurable act, but no more.

Quote:

Why do you believe what you believe about sex? I think it is because it suits you, Eryemil. I think that by divorcing and isolating the physical pleasure from everything that is inevitably connected with it, you feel free to do whatever you want to do without guilt and shame. You will probably deny this, but I'd lay money that it is an aspect of your psyche, however unconscious. In any case, don't claim that I merely believe what I do because it makes me feel better, while you are a paragon of unbiased Logic.

Yes, it suits me, as it suits you to believe as you wish. You've just agreed to my point above, sex is what we make of it.

In no way have I said that I value the physical aspects of sex above the emotional ones. I didn't even state my personal opinion on my former post. I merely stated the fact that sex is just a physical connection, and any meaning beyond that is given by each individual.

Quote:

No offense, but are you sure you're not a paranoic? It's a free country; no one's going to break down your door and take you to a reeducation camp. This is a discussion on why Christians hold the beliefs they do regarding sex. Why do do you seem to fear that Christians are out to force you into something? If anyone is trying to force you to think a certain way or live a certain way, call the police.

I am not a paranoiac, I am however, a bit cross regarding the way Christians seem to think that they have the right to make laws that directly affect me, and no one else.
Your views on sex should not affect the way you deal with other people. You think that no one should have sex before marriage, and I am sure many Christians would go to great lengths in order to make that into law, yet I am not allowed to marry, so where exactly does that leave me?

Quote:

So if someone showed you conclusive proof of something you'd still reject it? Why? Out of spite? Out of fear that you might have to change your own ways of thinking? Please examine how much your own beliefs are based on reason and how much they're based on emotion and unexamined presumptions.

Once again you seem to misinterpret my words, this was just my way of saying that even if homosexuality was indeed a choice, as Duce said, I would still have the right to do as I pleased.

0 Replies

Eryemil wrote:

in no way did I say I believed that sex was just "mere chunks of meat that bang together". What I did say was that if some didn't think otherwise, this is what sex would be. To some it is just a way to relieve tension, or a very pleasurable act, but no more....I merely stated the fact that sex is just a physical connection, and any meaning beyond that is given by each individual.

If it is the that sex is "what we make it", then thank God most people (including you perhaps) think of it as more than physical. But does sex mean objectively? I'm not a subjectivist; to me there is an objective truth. And to me sex between human beings should not be interpreted as only physical (even though it often is) anymore than birth or death should be interpreted as merely a physical interaction. All these things are physical functions of life. For animals they mean nothing more. But for humans, they have psychological emotional social and spiritual baggage attached to them, that CANNOT be severed no matter how someone interprets it. It is objective reality.

Quote:

You've just agreed to my point above, sex is what we make of it.

If I did say that (though I don't see it) I recant. For I do not believe that, as you see above.

Quote:

I am not a paranoiac, I am...bit cross regarding the way Christians seem to think that they have the right to make laws that directly affect me....You think that no one should have sex before marriage....many Christians would go to great lengths in order to make that into law, yet I am not allowed to marry

Most Christians could not hope to illegalize all fornication (or all sin generally) even if they wanted to do so. I'm not to debate same-sex marriage with you; you can debate it with Duce. But I will say that most Christians, regarding same-sex marriage, divorce, prayer in schools, and other issues, do not feel that the are forcing anything on anyone. They feel that they are defending the traditions and structures of our society. And as I said in my first post, we are social beings. Our choices do affect society. Therefore, I believe society does have the right to regulate--in law or in social condemnation--the actions of individuals to a certain extent. The extent to which we can do this in law is codified, in this country, in the Constitution, which is open to interpretation, and that is where the conflict lies.

Quote:

this was just my way of saying that even if homosexuality was indeed a choice...I would still have the right to do as I pleased.

If this is specifically what you meant, then I did misinterpret it. Sorry.

0 Replies

marsh_of_mists

Quote:

The antipathy by some in this forum to Christianity astounds me. In one way I am saddened, but on the other hand it pleases me. After all, it is part of the lot of the Church, like Christ, to be persecuted. Also, I figure that anti-religionists must see the Church as a powerful force; otherwise why do they have such an emotional reaction towards her?

How anyone can make such a statement is beyond comprehension. Even religious Christian religious fanatics must be aware of the persecution Christianity has visited upon the rest of the world throughout it's history. The wars, persecutions, forced conversions, massacres and etc. it has been a party to and indeed perpetrated in the name of and fostering of it's idea of religion. If anything Christianity is head and shoulders ahead in the race for being the world leading persecutor
As far as sex is concerned what people choose to do is a personal choice that they and they alone should make.

0 Replies

I agree Au.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Quote:
The antipathy by some in this forum to Christianity astounds me....why do they have such an emotional reaction towards her?

How anyone can make such a statement is beyond comprehension....If anything Christianity is head and shoulders ahead in the race for being the world leading persecutor

You claim to that "Christianity is head and shoulders ahead in the race for being the world's leading persecutor." and yet you find it "beyond comprehesion" that I, as a Christian, would be offended by that notion? In what state do you think society would be without the Christian Church? Do you think modern western culture would have arisen? Would we have colleges and hospitals since these institutions were begun by the Church?

What if I said "anti-Christianity is the world's leading persecutor"? I would have plenty of evidence to back up my thesis: the pagan Romans, the Reign of Terror, Stalin and the Bolsheviks.

0 Replies

Why Unwed Christians should not have sex?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know