Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Homosexuals 'Born That Way' and Erotic Sex Taught to 8th and 10th Graders Challenged by TMLC
thomasmore.org ^

Posted on 01/25/2008 1:09:10 PM PST by tpanther

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last
To: tpanther
The judge appears to have been raised a Catholic. It's not a guarantee these days, but let's hope he is still a moral man.
101 posted on 01/28/2008 7:10:10 PM PST by Albion Wilde ("How [Obama] stumbled onto Walter Mondale's political philosophy is beyond me." —Tony Blankley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beejaa; tpanther; Mrs. Don-o; Tax-chick
“Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and hepatitis A. Numerous reports document high rates of STDs among MSM that appear to be associated with a resurgence in unsafe sexual practices.”

They forgot MRSA.

Prayers up, btw.

Cheers!

102 posted on 01/28/2008 7:13:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
The satanic theory that "Homosexuals 'Born That Way'", which sends them straight to hell.
103 posted on 01/28/2008 9:20:45 PM PST by Yosemitest (It's simple, fight or die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I hadn’t noticed the trees thing. I’m always driving, except when Anoreth is driving, and then I’m watching for semi-trucks and praying very hard!


104 posted on 01/29/2008 4:28:54 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Albion Wilde

I see - thanks for the additional information. Funny that the *law* doesn’t consider normal man-woman sexual activity to be “erotic”!


105 posted on 01/29/2008 4:30:38 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Here's a perceptive quote from Jennifer Roback Morse. (Slightly relevant to the thread :-)

There is something seriously strange when society can't bring itself to tell kids to postpone sex until marriage but insists that women postpone marriage until they are nearly menopausal.

106 posted on 01/29/2008 5:23:52 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
Is it really homosexual men driving this agenda? I seem to notice the primary and secondary teaching profession has been taken over by women. I also seem to see a lot of lesbians taking the lead in complaining about the white male power structure. When the "fisting" crowd of teachers got caught in Newton High School, Massachusetts, it was a lesbian leading the charge

Of course it's the lesbians. More sodomites means fewer real men to compete for the young ladies. Lesbians hate men, I think not so much because they were mistreated, but more that men are the competition and we can give the young ladies something that the lesbians can never give them.

107 posted on 01/29/2008 6:04:08 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
"There is something seriously strange when society can't bring itself to tell kids to postpone sex until marriage but insists that women postpone marriage until they are nearly menopausal."

Good quote. I'm stealin' it.

108 posted on 01/29/2008 6:25:53 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (As a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Both these things (Onanism and Sodomy) are condemned by God in the Bible, and both of them involve choosing some perversion of intercourse, and not the real, straight, honest thing.

If by onanism you mean masturbation, then you are wrong. Onan's sin was not that he spilled his seed but that he disobeyed God by not raising up children to his brother. (He could have spilled all the seed he wanted AFTER he impregnated his brothers widow. )

Here is a discussion from another site on the issue..
(http://www.dtl.org/ethics/e-mails/masturbation/follow-ups.htm)

Masturbation is not mentioned by name (maybe they didn't have a word for it), but I did find a part of the Mosaic Law that applies to it. Bear with me for a few moments.

Leviticus 15:16-18 reads:

If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and [there is] an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening (NKJV).

This is normally explained as being a "nocturnal emission" but if you look under the hood at the Hebrew, a different picture evolves. The word "emission" is alah, which means (among other things), "(cause to, make to) come (up)." The word translated "semen" is a compound of shkabah ("a laying down for") and zeroa ("something sown"..."seed"). So, this word choice seems to indicate a deliberate action of producing the seed.

I'm afraid the "passive" sound of the verses in question is a result of religious sensibilities and not the most honest possible translation of the underlying language. The woman's presence is obviously optional (not present in verses 15 or 16) but present in 17. So I put it to you that masturbation is definitely implied by the verses. Even sticking with just the English translation, were it a nocturnal emission, would the phrase "be unclean until evening" make a lot of sense?

Let me take this just a touch farther. In chapter 15, there are two situations that require sin offerings and one that doesn't. This emission from semen is the one that does not require a sin offering. They do become ceremonially unclean, and they do need to wash up afterwards, but that's the beginning and ending of the requirement under the Law. If there is no sin offering required, then no sin has been committed.

Note that any sexual thoughts that may accompany the act are still sinful. (Lust is condemned in the bible)

109 posted on 01/29/2008 6:39:21 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: John O
"Onan's sin was not that he spilled his seed but that he disobeyed God by not raising up children to his brother. (He could have spilled all the seed he wanted AFTER he impregnated his brothers widow.)"

Not so. Violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn't fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother's widow, she was to "go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, 'This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother's family!'" (Deut. 25:9).

Yet Onan received, not a humiliating public rebuke, but a death sentence. Why? Because he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act --- a kind of parody of real sex --- but deliberately altered it so that natural fertility was evaded by an unnatural act, one with no life-giving significance.

Incidentally, Protestants like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Melancthon Jacobus, Matthew Henry and many others saw the act of "wasting the seed" as being morally abhorrent in the eyes of God, as you can see at the link.

Lust itself, as you point out, is condemned in the Bible, but I'm sure you will agree that this is not a condemnation of sexual desire per se. The Song of Solomon is clearly a celebration of the sexual desire of the betrothed lovers for each other, and the New Testament upholds the "honor" of the marriage bed, even going so far as to say that the husband's cherishing of his wife's flesh, and his care for her, is a "Mysterium Tremendum" which is an image of Christ's love for the Church.

I think you'd have to say that a desire that leads to blessed natural marital union is approved by God; while on the other hand the desire that leads to defective acts, whether by yourelf, with your spouse, or with somebody else, is not blessed, and is even offensive in the eyes of God.

110 posted on 01/29/2008 8:16:38 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (As a matter of fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Relevance? Ick is ick.

Anal is ick. Oral on the other hand...

111 posted on 01/29/2008 8:32:49 AM PST by JackDanielsOldNo7 (On guard until the seal is broken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JackDanielsOldNo7

Is ick. It’s funny that we don’t see men volunteering to perform fellatio, as a rule, since they seem to think it’s so erotic ...

Double standards, and all that.

UGH. I think I’ll go have a Guinness and hug a kitten to get this off my mind.


112 posted on 01/29/2008 8:35:08 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
It’s funny that we don’t see men volunteering to perform fellatio

Ahh.... No comment

Go have a Guiness and chase it with Jamesons Irish whiskey. Yum. LOL!!

113 posted on 01/29/2008 8:45:00 AM PST by JackDanielsOldNo7 (On guard until the seal is broken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; tpanther; Slapshot68

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Notice how Obama is running on the “Change” buzzword.

The notion that “change” is a good thing has been pounded into our heads for as long as I can recall. Our parents bought into it, since technology produced a cure for polio and smallpox.

And let’s not forget the t.v. dinner!


114 posted on 01/29/2008 8:50:14 AM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JackDanielsOldNo7

Actually, it was a symbolic Guinness, since it’s only early afternoon. But the kitten is real!


115 posted on 01/29/2008 11:13:52 AM PST by Tax-chick ("Gently alluding to the indisputably obvious is not gloating." ~Richard John Neuhaus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
"Onan's sin was not that he spilled his seed but that he disobeyed God by not raising up children to his brother. (He could have spilled all the seed he wanted AFTER he impregnated his brothers widow.)"

Not so. Violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense.

It is in some places (homosexuality for example). But the point I was making is that masturbation is not a sin in and of itself. Also what Onan did is not masturbation. He had sex with his brother's widow but refused to impregnate her. He disobeyed his father.

(And of course Tamar later gave birth to Phares who is in Christ's line)

Yet Onan received, not a humiliating public rebuke, but a death sentence. Why? Because he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so.

Disagree. Onan was not killed for any sexual sin. He was killed for disobedience

The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

Again, I disagree. As we see from Leviticus 15:16 and 17, and Levitucus 15:18 it doesn't matter if he is with a woman or not. Spilling the seed is not sinful. If it was a death sentence it would have stated it here. Since Lev15:18 doesn't even call it a sin (no sin offering) we can also state that it's not an offense worthy of death

Incidentally, Protestants like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Melancthon Jacobus, Matthew Henry and many others saw the act of "wasting the seed" as being morally abhorrent in the eyes of God, as you can see at the link.

And yet Heb 13:4 tells us that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. What a man and his wife choose to do with just themselves is fine as long as they are married and it doens't violate any other law of God, it does not defile the bed.

while on the other hand the desire that leads to defective acts, whether by yourelf, with your spouse,

interesting concept. I can't find "defective acts" or any scripture that can be translate that way, in the bible. What are you referring to?

But then nevermind as we are getting way off topic. It remains that there is no biblical injunction against the spilling of seed. which was the only point I wanted to make. have a great day.

116 posted on 01/29/2008 2:06:23 PM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: John O
I think perhaps you didn't read the article I linked, because it refutes the idea that God killed Onan only because of his disobedience, and without reference to his specific perverse act.

In a study of Genesis 38, "The Sin of Onan," Brian Harrison looked into the Jewish understanding of this passage. "The classical Jewish commentators - who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres - certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation as such.

A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: "Onan misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving death."

Harrison is quoting The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.4,p.1054, article "Birth Control"), which also states: "Jewish tradition ascribed the practice of birth control to the depraved humanity before Noah (Gen. R. 23:2,4; Rashi to Gen. 4:19,23)."

The Encyclopedia article adds that on the basis of Gen. 38:9-10, "the Talmud sternly inveighs against 'bringing forth the seed in vain', considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a). . . .Strictly Orthodox [Jews, . . . . for religious reasons, refuse to resort to birth control."

In the same Encyclopedia, under "Onanism" (Vol. 12, p.1495), it is stated that the act of Onan "is taken . . . by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or to masturbation. The Zohar [a traditional Jewish commentary] expands on the evil of onanism in the second sense."

Thus, not only do we have a united Christianity seeing Onan as being condemned for bringing forth seed in vain (whether as masturbation of birth control), but the historical Jewish outlook concurs with this view.

In 3500 years of Judaism+Christianity, nobody --- not Jews nor Protestants nor Catholics nor Orthodox--- ever condoned deliberately sterile forms of intercourse or said that it was OK in the marriage bed. And this, even though it would have been a handy thing to OK because it would be an always-available and low-tech form of contraception, wouldn't it?

Yet openly counseling anal intercourse as a way to limit childbirth, or approving it as a way to connect with your spouse, didn't occur to anybody, anywhere, ever, until maybe the late 20th century. Hmm.

At the same time that exactly the same acts were being mainstreamed by the gays and blessed by the successful sexual revolutionaries.

And you think it's OK by Biblical morality? Chapter and verse, please.

Good day to you.

117 posted on 01/29/2008 2:52:21 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Credo ut intelligam. -- Anselm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I think perhaps you didn't read the article I linked, because it refutes the idea that God killed Onan only because of his disobedience, and without reference to his specific perverse act.

I read the bible. What more do I need? Lev 15:16-18 clearly does not consider spilling of seed to be sinful. So what did Onan do that was sinful? He disobeyed.

A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: "Onan misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving death."

Even if he had obeyed he would have just been satisying his own lust. Surely you don't think he loved Tamar do you? Any coupling resulting in orgasm would only have been from lust, not from love. So whether he impregnated her or not he would have satisfied his lust. How can it be not sinful to finish inside her but sinful to finish outside her when it's the same lust? The only thing he did sinful was disobey.

The Encyclopedia article adds that on the basis of Gen. 38:9-10, "the Talmud sternly inveighs against 'bringing forth the seed in vain',

That's all well and good but there is no explicit condemnation of it in the Bible. Talmud is only history and commentary. It is not the word of God.

In the same Encyclopedia, . . . by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) .... The Zohar [a traditional Jewish commentary]

Again, extra-biblical. Show me in the bible.

Thus, not only do we have a united Christianity seeing Onan as being condemned for bringing forth seed in vain (whether as masturbation of birth control),

Since I'm Christian and presumably you're Christian then this statement is in fact false. The vast majority of Christian people I know agree with my stance. But then you probably move within a Catholic community while I move in Protestant communities. And you think it's OK by Biblical morality? Chapter and verse, please.

My point remains that Onan was not punished for spilling his seed. He was punished for disobedience. Any discussion of normal or perverse sexual practices has no bearing on that point. (Let me add that the act of spilling the seed is not condemned as sinful in the Bible. However lustful thoughts that may or may not accompany that act remain sinful)

118 posted on 01/30/2008 5:34:27 AM PST by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

>>that homosexuality is innate—meaning they are born that way. The schools also show how to use condoms in anal and oral sex.<<

1. I agree with Thomas Moore that the science does not seem to be settled on nurture versus nature so it should not be taught as settled science.

2. I think they are wrong trying to stop sex ed from learning about condom usage - if schools are teach sex ed at all they need to teach kids that types of sex generally thought by kids to be safe have their own risks and that barriers should be used for any kind of sex. If you are not going to teach kids about risk from sex you might as well leave sex ed to somebody else.


119 posted on 01/30/2008 5:39:37 AM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I think sex ed should be taught at home, if there’s not a parent or there are ignorant parents, then perhaps a qualfied medical person can do it. I think the point made about NEA types that are failing to teach kids math and are hellbent on socializing kids, aren’t to be trusted with sex ed for especially young kids!


120 posted on 01/30/2008 6:28:31 AM PST by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson