A perspective on why man must not sleep with man and why God hates that

You People? Very good and you accuse me of having a bias.

Personally, I associate the sex that homosexuals can only have with one another as a homosexual act and anal sex is of that nature. What can I say? If you want say it’s not a homosexual act because some heterosexual people do it as well, fine but that doesn’t make it any less a homosexual act when homosexuals do it. Also if you want to say the risks are blown out of proportion, that’s fine too but the risks are still there. And all together saying otherwise, is as you say, making you look a little silly.

So you think God would change his mind? I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by saying it was a joke but you actually believe it?

Do what ever you want.

 

I like "You People". It's great. People read it to mean whatever they want it to mean. I mean, I was meaning "you heterosexuals", but you could've read it as "you Christians" or "you old people" or just about anything else.

You can say "oh wait, what I personally believe isn't true, because anal sex isn't the only sex that homosexuals can have with each other, nor is anal sex exclusively practiced by homosexuals. I should probably concede that what I might personally associate is in this instance just a product of culturally imparted prejudices, and resolve not to make such baseless associations in future". That's one thing you can say.

I don't recall saying that it did.

Look, this really isn't complicated:

A sex act which is practiced fairly commonly by homosexuals and heterosexuals is being labelled a "homosexual act" at the same time that it is being stated to be harmful.

This is deceptive if, as is the case in terms of say anal sex and tissue damage, the act is not significantly more risky nor significantly more practiced by homosexuals than by heterosexuals.

Please understand this. It is not really open for debate.

The risks are blown out of proportion. The risks are still there, just as the risks are still there when you cross the street, put on your socks, or sit on the toilet. The presence of risk is not in itself evidence of immorality, no matter what corruptible idiots may have asserted.

I don't believe in God. But since you appear to believe in a god with remarkably human-like motives, I don't understand why it's so hard to you to think that what God thought 2000 years ago might not still be true, especially since he's not reaffirmed his position at any point in the interim.

OK.

At best, your religion can have the same accusations of quackery leveled at it that psychology can. But in practice, psychology is a constantly developing field, encouraging inquisitiveness, innovation and the slaughtering and revivification of sacred cows. This, contrary to what some zealots would have you believe, is a strength rather than a weakness. In that light, psychology has a lot more legitimacy than any religion, purely by virtue of admitting its own faults and weaknesses and seeking to correct them, rather than trapping them in amber.

So now you know.

 

Yeah, Some of your best friends are….,I figured that was next.

 

And you might try actually reading what has been said. Where did I say that anal sex is the only sex homosexuals can have with each other or that only homosexuals practice it? It seems your bias is again affecting your reading skills.

So you’re saying homosexuals never engage in anal intercourse and if they ever did, because some heterosexuals also engage in it that means that the homosexuals that might engage in it are now engaging in heterosexual sex?
Yeah right.

Yeah, great but the question is really what is the difference between the risk between penile/vaginal sex and penile/anal sex not anal sex versus anal sex. And the fact is the risk is higher in anal sex.

Oh, I see why you think it’s not open for debate.

I’m sorry but not many people die as a result of putting their socks on, in fact I can’t think of what risk you might even be thinking of but when it comes to the risks of the types of sex we’ve been talking about death is a very real possibility. You saying this just seems to cry out that you have a vested interest in minimizing the risks.

 

Human-like motives? And what motives might those be?

God has had billions upon billions of years to think on this matter, why do you think that 2000 years are going to make a big difference in how he thinks about it? This the God who designed and made man do you really think in 2000 years he’s learned a whole lot more about what makes man tick?

 

Accusations are what they are accusations and really in the long run are meaningless unless proven.

The reason I personally believe psychology is quackery is that you can use it to prove almost anything, because on almost any subject you can find experts that will defend almost any point of view.

For me the big problem isn’t admitting its own faults, it would fine if it did but doesn’t always do, the big problem in the lives destroyed by it.

I have a friend who at one time was delightful and out going and is now a recluse and has Anthropophobia, all because some idiot thought he knew how her mind worked and how to help her. She now has recovered memories of something that never happened. Her mother, father, brother and sister all say it never happened but now for her it happened and she is far from helped but her life is now shattered.

So you can cheer on wonderful psychology all you want but it’s things like this that make me take anything it says with a large dose of salt.

 

This ^ goes a long way towards explaining why Christianity and politics go so well together.

 

The heart of the matter is that if you find something disgusting, it isn't because it is disgusting, but because you think it's disgusting.
And why do we think things disgusting...
But oh well, I've always thought reserved self-reflection was better than judgement. The world would have many less problems if people were willing to account for themselves first.

 

Old post, I know, but didn't God change his mind about incest to populate the earth?

 

That's not true.

When you say Christianity and politics, what exactly do you mean?

Christians aren't supposed to get in the way. They are supposed to be laid back. So whenever you see 'Christians' arguing up a storm why gay people should 'go to hell' then you have to wonder... are they Christians?

 

We were just discussing whether or not anal sex is harmful.

I don't get the PDA responses myself. Maybe I am not old enough to understand or maybe there are some issues, or maybe there is a time and place for it. I dunno.

But you're right, just because it seems disgusting, doesn't mean that it is.

 

Also, it's true. Psychological diagnosis can actually cause the diagnosis itself.

Look up paradoxical intention. How is something like this possible?

If you want something to debunk Freudian way of thinking (sometimes a cigar is just a cigar), I really recommend reading: "Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning". It breaks down the many assumptions made by pretty much all of psychology. It reduces it all to a huge misunderstanding, which it is.

When we look at people as a thing, we turn ourselves into something else. We become what we ask to become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EIxGrIc_6g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNpx8mFKas

 

No.

 

That just isn’t true. Maybe sometimes but not always. Sometimes something is disgusting because it is disgusting.

 

In regards to Christianity and politics, I felt that the correlation between Christianity and how it has been used and manipulated by politicans and governments for so long was summed up by Hoatzin. How they use people's biases and prejudices to unite them to a common goal or agenda.

Things often move far away from what was originally intended or what they started as.
I'm not going to pretend that I'm qualified to decide what a Christian is "supposed" to be, but I'm also not going to discount someone who says they are a Christian simply because they do not contantly embody those qualities 100% during all times of their waking life. I don't really think it's up to me to decide if someone is a Christian or not. If they claim to be, then I suppose they believe themselves to be, and that is good enough for me. Why do you think Christians are supposed to be laid back?

 

I disagree. If it is inherently disgusting, and is disgusting without someone to interpret it as disguting, then why do not ALL people interpret it as disgusting?
If it truly is disgusting, they would have to, on some level of their beings, recognize it as such, even if they don't admit it to others, and that just isn't true.

 

You know better, you know that there things that are inherently disgusting and have nothing to do with personal viewpoint.

 

No, actually, my sentiments regarding this were expressed in my previous post.
There is nothing inherently disgusting. "Disgusting" is a judgement that something may or may not pass through while entering the mind.

 

two girls one cup disgusting? or is it just me?

 

just your perception of it.