Is gay sex wrong?

Fair enough, but what about all the other Old Testament laws that weren't done away with? Touching a woman on her period? Wearing clothes woven of 2 different materials? Murdering women who pretend that they were virgins before marriage? I'm sure you understand my point - Jesus may have contradicted a few of these things, but what about all of the rules he didn't contradict? Do you hold those as sacred moral laws?

I have to ask the obvious question: Why would the word of Timothy, a guy who never met Jesus, and in fact only met Paul, mean anything at all? You're quoting the word of one guy who never met Jesus to support the word of another guy who never met Jesus.

I didn't imply what you should base your morals on. I asked if you are able to witness something, and, without consulting the Bible, and know that it's immoral.

Well, "forbidden by law" doesn't equal "my ancestors thought it was immoral" - but who cares what they thought? 1000 years ago some people thought that other "races" of people were subhuman and that it was right to own them as slaves, or sacrifice them. Is that true, scientifically speaking? Obviously not!

The examples you're giving are based on a lack of scientific understanding. Sure, people from 70 years ago might have frowned on gay people - but only because they lack a fundamental lack of understanding that it's simply who they are, not a perversion.

My morals are based on treating others with empathy, supporting the downtrodden, loving my neighbor, and not judging. Oddly enough, that reminds me of a certain New Testament person...

 

Personally I do think it is wrong, but I won't sit here and throw you bible verses. I think it's wrong because it stops the reproduction of human beings. Think about it this way, if 50% of the human race were gay that's far less statistically that the population as a planet would reproduce.
My question to you is, do you really want that to happen?

Edit: come to think about it, you could inseminate women and still reproduce. But, what if a large number of men became unable to reproduce because of low sperm count or whatever. As well as a smaller or higher number of men that could reproduce engaged in homosexual acts? Then what?

Now you have teachers teaching children in elementary school that drag queens and pedophiles are okay in the United States.

I hate to get political, but think about the repercussions that will have propagandizing all those young children in the years to come.

 

Obvious troll is obvious, but just in case you're not, and for the sake of the gullible reading your post, it doesn't "stop" reproduction. A man having sex with another man doesn't cause a woman to become infertile.

I don't know. Then what, yourself?

Okay OBVIOUSLY you're a troll, and I'm mixed on my feelings on allowing troll posts in SFA, but again, just for the sake of the gullible reading this post: Teachers in the U.S. don't teach that pedophiles are okay, or even touch upon drag queens.

 

Not trolling at all, are you up to date with current news?

From a simple Google search:

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) or Drag Queen Storytime are events first started in 2015 by author and activist Michelle Tea in San Francisco with the goals to “inspire a love of reading, while teaching deeper lessons on diversity, self-love and an appreciation of others.”

By searching "Drag queen story time" on Google brings up a mass amount of links and videos.

https://www.dragqueenstoryhour.org/

Not to be a dick, but by saying something doesn't exist without doing any research is considered spreading fake information and I personally hate that.

Also, obviously it doesn't stop women from being fertal that is common sense. There are no straight men left to impregnate women is what I clearly meant.

 

Most of these questions have to do with ceremonial laws that were also done away with after Jesus paid the penalty for sin. If you are sincerely interested in discovering the answers for all your objections, you could probably search a place such as GotQuestions which provides a better explanation than I ever could. But my main point remains: If it's not in the New Testament, then it no longer applies.

May I counter that question? Why are the verses in Leviticus which is a book written by Moses who never met Jesus, mean anything to you? How does it make sense for you to claim that I can't use New Testament writers to defend my views because "they never met Jesus" but then you turn right around and treat Leviticus as a viable option to call me out as a hypocrite simply because I don't follow some Old Testament law. Either you apply the same standard to all writers who never met Jesus or don't and drop them all together.

Without God, morality is a subjective term. Anyone could have their say on what they believe to be moral or immoral for a variety of reasons but nothing can be justified.

So, are you going to tell me where you get your morals from?

Explain to me how your understanding is based on science and not your personal opinion?

Good to know you can at least sub-consciously acknowledge where your own morals came from.

 

I am not trying to start a religion war or throw insults out. I do believe in god, but oddly enough if you ever dive into the Sum

I personally believe in God and I don't want to start some kind of religious insult war with you. I know people are entitled to their opinions, but I feel I must ask you a question. Have you ever delved into the emerald tablets of thoth? Or maybe the sumerian clay tablets? However, I personally believe the emerald tablets outdate the clay tablets. Regardless, the emerald tablets are ancient Egyptian literally carved on emerald tablets, but the remaining missing tablets are believed to be hidden away under the Vatican. You should check ether one of them because they predate the bible or any other mainstream religion by a long shot.

 

Having a drag queen read a story to children is "teaching children in elementary school that drag queens and pedophiles are okay in the United States"? I'm sorry, but you've completely lost me.

I don't know what world you're imagining where homosexuality is so rampant that there are no straight men left. Can you describe that world so that I can get a better sense of it?

I could quote Matthew 5:18 to you, but I'm happier to ignore it. The Old Testament is horrifying.

How do you feel about the New Testament saying that women may not speak in church?

You absolutely may counter my question.

The verses in Leviticus mean nothing to me. I was using them as a way to examine your worldview, and I apply the same standard to everybody in the Bible. I was under the impression that you followed some views expressed in the Old Testament, and I was incorrect. I apologise.

If you don't believe in the Old Testament, that's fine, but why? Why the New and not the Old?

Sure. But you didn't answer my question.

I've already answered that question. I apologise for looking like a dick while quoting myself, but:

"My morals are based on treating others with empathy, supporting the downtrodden, loving my neighbor, and not judging. Oddly enough, that reminds me of a certain New Testament person..."

I'm sorry, I'm a little unclear. Are you asking me to explain how I know the difference between a scientific fact and my own feelings?

 

What's funny is that your rationale for why homosexuality is wrong is the same reason why I think it's amazing: it reduces human population. There's too many of us. We're fucking up the planet.

 

Never said that bud. I think population control is stupid. But, since we are on the same subject I also think the people that cry climate control are stupid too.

 

Ok. Let's see what you said... "I think it's wrong because it stops the reproduction of human beings." So, you think gay sex is wrong because it stops human reproduction. I think it's great because it stops human reproduction. Thus, the reason you think it's wrong is the same reason that I think it's right. More importantly, I think gay sex is especially great when it's a mutual expression of love. Also, although it's not quite the same subject like you said it is ... since you brought it up, I think that population control is a wonderful idea. Specifically, I think that population control has merit due to its factor in climate control. Thanks for expressing your confusion and allowing me to clarify my position, bud.

 

I am assuming since you enjoy population control, you would also support killing off a majority of the species too right? Gretta or whatever that marionettes name is cried on television "oh these countries need to stop polluting!" Yet, of all the countries she named she did not name the country that pollutes the most, china. Hmm question is was that error by design?

 

Aight so... tbh I was looking forward to engaging with a humorous troll in a manner consistent with this thread and forum. However, you're not making sense. And ... you're not being funny. So don't wait for a response .. My idea of population control is having no children, or 1 child instead of multiple, or adopting. No killing here. Have a nice evening, sir!

 

Funny. I have conflicting view points so that automatically makes me a troll and you must silence my speech. Very socialist thing of you to do.
Maybe not you but the last guy wanted me banned!

 

Na, I don't care to silence you. Why ban you? Would an inclination to silence make me socialist? To me, socialism is more of an economic philosophy and not, a priori, in contradiction with free expression. But what about limiting expression as a means of increasing expression? What about silencing those who demean the voice of others? Is that, indirectly, increasing free expression?

 

Isn't sex just another form of expression?
People express their beliefs in faith by going to church every sunday or quoting the bible to give others advice, people aren't really all that opinionated about that though.
Sex is the same wether its homosexual or not.

I've hunted my whole life and i can't even count on both hands how many trail cams i have of female deer humping male deer, male deer humping male deer etc etc