Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
The Velvet mafia is gonna gitcha....(chuckle)
And therein is the original lie...."Hast God said?" When will people wake up and realize that their decision to selectively determine what God meant means that they have made for themselves a new god. One that looks like them. In fact, it is them. Hence, their god is too small.
This guy is of his father, the devil....so he should not wonder why his daughter follows along on the same wide path - which leads to destruction.
How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?
Well done. This is fabulous. You truly are a Libertarian.
The examination of the language of this entire issue deserved examination, and you provided such a reasoned analysis of it. All I can say is thank you for this contribution, and its a huge reason I value this forum so.
Using your new definition of "sex" I would suppose that a man who had a vasectomy or a woman who had a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy or even wasn't close enough to ovulation to result in pregnancy wouldn't be able to have sex either.
You are using your redefinition of words much as a squid uses its ink: to cloud the water and make capturing the issue much more difficult.
I think you need to respect the perspective for what it is - non-religious. In that light, this gentleman has provided you with a cogent, completely logical argument to support your cause within your own religious experience. “Marriage requires consummation,” being the operative observation of an obvious but overlooked fact.
Given the activity in question isn’t really sexual, meaning it is non-progenitive, what business does a Christian clergy of any sect or order have in blessing sexual play? There is certainly nothing Biblical that supports it, correct?
The whole QUESTION of this being MARRIAGE is out. As such, where does that put you within the perspective of church policy? Christian marriage, an institution that came from Christ Himself, is explicit in its Biblical definition.
So what would the Church like to call this, whatever it is - union, fraternity, partnership . . .
I for one BRISTLE at the term PARTNER, or PARTNERSHIP. I have a business partner, whose male, and in describing our relationship, wedding band affixed to my finger, it makes me cringe as soon as the word ‘partner’ escapes my lips. I feel like I have to further explain the context of the term.
Anyway, you ought to thank this gent in my opinion. He may not agree with your view of God and the Universe, but his observations on the language of the issue is, in my opinion, highly valuable to anyone debating it within their own church.
May God bless you richly.
Interesting perspective, but changing the definitions of sexual to only those encounters where the pairing of gametes is possible is just a bunch of linguistic gymnastics. I suppose by your definition that anyone who has had a vasectomy doesn’t have sex anymore but just exchanges bodily fluids since there are no gametes in the transmission.
The queers will straighten up once they burn my church down.
I am simply discerning truth from a lie in his statement. Forgetting the political argumentation - which is vain discussion in light of eternity anyway! And, no - I don’t thank him for this potty-mouthed tripe.
>>There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens. <<
I think positions like this along with claiming there are not very many homosexuals or bisexuals undercut the debate.
Claiming they don’t exist or are rare just makes to person making the argument less believable, whatever else they are saying.
He hasn’t changed the definition. If anything he’s identified how lazy others have been in applying ‘sexual’ with any activity involving genitalia that doesn’t involve elimination.
Procreation is the VERY REASON for sex. There is no other biological reason for sex, at all. As such, everything else isn’t sex, but play, assault, or domination.
The Hebrews thought Jesus was of the devil, too.
Sorry to see there are Pharisees on this board.
anniegetyourgun wrote: “I don’t thank him for this potty-mouthed tripe.”
I posted a warning that the content was sexually explicit — as it must be in any adult discussion of the issues. If you proceeded to read the content after the warning, you self-selected yourself as an adult.
gondramB quoted me: “There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens.” then commented: “I think positions like this along with claiming there are not very many homosexuals or bisexuals undercut the debate. Claiming they don’t exist or are rare just makes to person making the argument less believable, whatever else they are saying.”
You’re attacking a straw man. I wrote that the behavior called “homosexuality” was not a valid biological description because the human species is not apart from the rest of mammals and primates in requiring paired gametes to continue existing. I didn’t attempt to trivialize the number of people engaging in non-sexual practices which have been misdefined as sexual. Though a minority, they are politically potent in the extreme.
Mr. Schulman,
While I appreciate the logical coherence of your argument, I wish to make a suggestion to you.
Read Genesis chapter 19 carefully and compare it to the current situation. There is something about the “andromen” that exceeds a simple desire to live an “alternative lifestyle”.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%20;&version=47;
PetroniusMaximus wrote: “Read Genesis chapter 19 carefully and compare it to the current situation. There is something about the “andromen” that exceeds a simple desire to live an ‘alternative lifestyle.’”
Since Genesis is my favorite book of the Bible, I’ve re-read it many times.
The problem Lot was having is not that the Sodomites were andromen. If that was his problem he would have offered them young males, rather than his daughter, to get them to leave the angels alone. That he offered his daughter is scriptural proof that the crime of sodomy is not same-sex pairing but rape.
However, when you demand I approve of you, when you use force to intimidate those who disagree with you, when you use the legal system by stealth to create the world you desire and erase the one that has existed for thousands of years, and do the same with the way my country has existed for two hundred thirty plus, when you use the legal system to force the reeducation of my children to embrace ideas I find abhorrent, and when your plan is to actively recruit them no matter how you lie about doing so, I have to say, "enough!" It is enough that I, by the Grace of God, tolerate these actions; will not stand down and let them overcome my culture or my country.
The very people who want me to be ever more "tolerant" are the people sending death threats to the churches who fully and legally got a majority of Californians to vote for what they saw as right. And if the shoe were on the other foot, these threatening people would be called bigots and worse.
Annie's behavior is much more readily likened to that of Jesus or one of the apostles than a Pharisee.
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.