homosexuality is not 'unnatural'

Set,

I started using the emoticons because I was having problems getting my tone across in some posts. I thought perhaps using the emoticons would point out the tone a bit better. You would have me stop using the emoticons because they annoy or maybe offend you?

I will make you a deal ~ I will stop using the emoticons if you will stop attacking my God and my beliefs.

I'm willing. Are you?

0 Replies

Whew, this reponse is getting longer by the second....

Momma Angel wrote:

I completely understand. Was just trying to get some specifics. I tried to explain what I meant in that post to Set. If that didn't completely explain it for you Bella, let me know so I can clarify it, ok?

Just wanted to make sure you understood me too. I don't draw the line anywhere before the conscent ends.

Momma Angel wrote:

So, my question is this. In this Biblical reference is man misinterpreting or should this be taken literally?
[/quote]

I think that the bible is a collection of stories, not to be taken literally. I think man misinterpreted and interpreted based on his specific needs and beliefs at that time. The bible wasn't originally in english so you have translation issues. I just think that the true meaning behind the stories in the bible are lost behind all the rightousness people feel when they think they can prove you a sinner.

Momma Angel wrote:
Ok, deliving into a bit of an uncomfortable thing for me to voice Embarrassed

but will do it out of respect for you being so honest. I believe that between a man and a wife, oral sex, anal sex, toys Embarrassed

, etc. would be okay by God. Now, bringing in others, animals (extreme case there), etc., I don't believe He would say is ok.[/quote]

Thank you for stepping out of your comfort zone to talk about this. There isn't anything to be embarrassed about. I agree with you, finally! The animal thing falls under conscent. An animal can't conscent therefore the sex would not be "right". The other person, I can be ok with that, even though I know that 99% of the time it becomes a "situation" .

Momma Angel wrote:
Ok I agree with the first statement, but I disagree with the second statement. I believe that I have a personal relationship with God. I believe I do know Him personally. So, we can agree to disagree here?[/quote]

Sure.

Momma Angel wrote:
Ahhhh, so you believe all my beliefs are religiously based? Not so, Bella. Many of my beliefs I held before I became a Christian. Now, some of those beliefs I had before I became a Christian are now reinforced by my religious beliefs. [/quote]

This threw me a bit. Yes, I did think that this issue was religiously based. Not all but this one. Isn't this one religiously based?

Momma Angel wrote:

Yes, in some instances things need to be brought into the open. In the case of pornography, I don't think it needs to be brought anymore into the open than it is. And yes, I understand about what was once pornography is now art. Remember the Guyana Tragedy? Things like that don't have the same effect on the world today as it did when it happened. Same thing with Hurricane Katrina. All of a sudden, it's virtually disappeared from the public eye, replaced by some other tragedy or spectacular event. I believe society is becoming rather immune to too many things.[/quote]

But it isn't. It's becoming more closed off from sexuality. We hide it. It becomes a "sin" and a "bad thing to do". We can't look at a naked woman without seeing sex. We can't because we are so repressed sexually that all that bottled up sexual energy has to go somewhere. And so it becomes the obsession. Or the addiction. I think we really need to mainstream nudity again. Allow the David to be shown without a freakin' leaf covering his penis. Bring "clean sexuality" back to society. Porn will
never go away. It's peoples way of experimenting without doing or learning new things. Or finding similarity. You do it, they do it, hey you're not a freak type thing. But I think people would look at nudity and porn in a whole other light. All porn is not dirty and raunchy.

Momma Angel wrote:

Quote:

We all have our beliefs. We all have our no no's in life. Unfortunately, they don't ever seem to be the same. But, I will say that civil discussions about these things are so very important in each point of view being brought to the surface so we can all understand each other better.

I will look at that link because I appreciate your sharing with me and I won't discount anything out of hand.
[/quote]

Let me know what you think of the art. Honest, raw answers.

0 Replies

Not in the least. What kind of ludicrous rhetoric would arise if one never disagreed with the beliefs of others? I note that you persist in describing any criticism of your imaginary friend as an attack. That sort of tendentious characterization is the cheapest of rhetorical tricks.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Get over yourself. If being a "big kid" means being an internet geek like you, then no thanks. BTW, you didn't prove anything, you just spouted off your opinions and insulted me for disagreeing with you. There is no proof to this issue, only opinions.

No I didn't. I challeneged you and of course, you cried and couldn't handle it.

0 Replies

WOW, i really f*cked up that reply post, didn't I?? Laughing

Sorry, was in a hurry.

0 Replies

Bella Dea,

Be right back with you on our discussion.

Set,

Oh, I see. You can call my beliefs, my God, names and I should not call it an attack? Am I understanding you correctly?

You can disagree all you want, Set. I don't have a problem with that. I just have a problem with some of your characterizations.

Set, if I called you names or your ideas or beliefs names, wouldn't you feel slighted? I kind of believe you would. You seemed to have taken quite a bit of offense at John Creasy's post, even to the point of reporting it to the moderators. And no, I am not agreeing with John Creasy's characterizations either. I don't think any of us should do this.

I have no tricks, Setanta. I am being open and honest. I can do that without (hopefully) belittling anything about anyone else.

http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/heart.gif

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

John Creasy wrote:

Get over yourself. If being a "big kid" means being an internet geek like you, then no thanks. BTW, you didn't prove anything, you just spouted off your opinions and insulted me for disagreeing with you. There is no proof to this issue, only opinions.

No I didn't. I challeneged you and of course, you cried and couldn't handle it.

Wow!!! YOU REALLY SHOWED ME!!! You go girl!!!!!!! Rolling Eyes

You are starting to annoy me with your arrogance. I challenged you back but you are apparently too good to answer me.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

You are starting to annoy me with your arrogance. I challenged you back but you are apparently too good to answer me.

0 Replies

TIME OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, let's not get off on a tangent, please. We were having a very good discussion. Can we all sit back, relax for a minute, take a deep breath and refresh?

Let's show the love people!

0 Replies

Please, PLEASE stop with the little hearts!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I'm reading a frikkin Valentine card!!

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

John Creasy wrote:
Bella Dea wrote:
John Creasy wrote:
Prove to me that it IS only a religious issue.

I have. Go back and read my post. And if you want to run with the "big

Where did you "prove" anything???

MA, these people have no love, and I certainly have no love for them.

0 Replies

Snood Wrote:

Quote:

Please, PLEASE stop with the little hearts!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I'm reading a frikkin Valentine card!!

<<<<now has hurt feelings>>>>

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Please, PLEASE stop with the little hearts!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I'm reading a frikkin Valentine card!!

If it's any consolation, you look nothing like a Valentine card.

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

snood wrote:
Please, PLEASE stop with the little hearts!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel like I'm reading a frikkin Valentine card!!

If it's any consolation, you look nothing like a Valentine card.

Noted. Nonsensical, but noted.

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Where did you "prove" anything???

MA, these people have no love, and I certainly have no love for them.

Please go back and read my post where I back up my reasons for my opinions. All you seem to have is "it's my opinion!" and nothing else. You want to argue, then argue. But debating is more than you're wrong and I'm right.

We have no love? No love for immature, hate spewing cry babies maybe. I have plently of love for those who deserve it.

0 Replies

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

This threw me a bit. Yes, I did think that this issue was religiously based. Not all but this one. Isn't this one religiously based?

Actually, no, for me this was not originally religiously based. There are just some things in life that you have a feeling/leaning, etc. toward. I have always felt homosexuality was not natural. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that. Of course, it is also a belief that was reinforced by my beliefs.

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

But it isn't. It's becoming more closed off from sexuality. We hide it. It becomes a "sin" and a "bad thing to do". We can't look at a naked woman without seeing sex. We can't because we are so repressed sexually that all that bottled up sexual energy has to go somewhere. And so it becomes the obsession. Or the addiction. I think we really need to mainstream nudity again. Allow the David to be shown without a freakin' leaf covering his penis. Bring "clean sexuality" back to society. Porn will
never go away. It's peoples way of experimenting without doing or learning new things. Or finding similarity. You do it, they do it, hey you're not a freak type thing. But I think people would look at nudity and porn in a whole other light. All porn is not dirty and raunchy.

Ok, here we disagree quite a bit. I am not saying sex is the sin. I am saying what I would call the perversion of sex is the sin. The pornography, etc., is the sin. Repressed sexually? Hmmm. May be the case for some but not for all. I don't think I am repressed sexually and I know my husband doesn't believe I am. But, he does know that I have things I believe in and things I do not. Porn will never go away? Probably not, unfortunately in my opinion. But I worry about the ones where this becomes like an addiction. All porn is not dirty and raunchy? I think the delineating point here is maybe not the product itself, but what it is used for. Just an example: I'm sure you watched or hear something about the Michael Jackson molestation trial recently? Well, remember that book with pictures of naked children? Well, in some's view that book could be called art because they had no intent of using it as anything else. But, in the case of child molesters, it would be pornography (IMO)

Oh, and when you say mainstream nudity, you don't mean like we all run around naked, do you? The first thought that came into my head was nudist colonies so that's why I am asking. Or are you referring to something other?

Bella Dea Wrote:

Quote:

Let me know what you think of the art. Honest, raw answers.

I am going to go look at it now and I promise, only honest raw answers.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Ok, here we disagree quite a bit. I am not saying sex is the sin. I am saying what I would call the perversion of sex is the sin. The pornography, etc., is the sin. Repressed sexually? Hmmm. May be the case for some but not for all. I don't think I am repressed sexually and I know my husband doesn't believe I am. But, he does know that I have things I believe in and things I do not. Porn will never go away? Probably not, unfortunately in my opinion. But I worry about the ones where this becomes like an addiction. All porn is not dirty and raunchy? I think the delineating point here is maybe not the product itself, but what it is used for. Just an example: I'm sure you watched or hear something about the Michael Jackson molestation trial recently? Well, remember that book with pictures of naked children? Well, in some's view that book could be called art because they had no intent of using it as anything else. But, in the case of child molesters, it would be pornography (IMO)

Oh, and when you say mainstream nudity, you don't mean like we all run around naked, do you? The first thought that came into my head was nudist colonies so that's why I am asking. Or are you referring to something other?

I am in a really rough place tonight so my answers will be short. Sorry.

Perversion? Why is it "perverted" and who decided? I don't think any form of conscentual sex is perverted. Refer back to my definitions of conscentual sex.

Making kids pose in suggestive ways is wrong. Allowing an adult to pose is sensual and can be beautiful. The difference is in the mental maturity of the person. To kids, naked it great. To adults, it can be stimulating. Kids don't get that and that's where nude children can be harmeful. Conscentual sex harms no one.

By mainstream I mean, get it out there. Like the david or nude paintings. Not nudists.

I am curious to know what you think of the art.

0 Replies

Well, with all the ranting and raving of late, i've completely lost track of what's been said. So instead of reading back, I'll just blindly plunge ahead as always.

In terms of homosexual tendancies, I rather doubt that it's genetic so much as situational. It all boils down to the individual and their desires.

There are also some rather obvious indicators that homosexuality isn't necessarily a natural tendancy. The posterior being made primarily as a one-way path being one.

None of this necessarily points to it being 'wrong', just not likely genetic.

homosexuality is not 'unnatural'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know