lazygal wrote: » Do you think gay couples with children, however they have been conceived, deserve the same protection as heterosexual couples? If couples don't have children because they can't have or don't want them, why should children be a central part of whether they can be married or only have a civil partnership? How can you live according to biblical principles when many areas of life are entirely untouched by what scripture says?
NuMarvel wrote: » You're making this up as you go along. You were originally unable to provide anything to back up your "different structures" claim. Then you stated men and women "complement each other" (something else you were unable to explain). Then you claimed it said so in the Bible. Then you claimed it's because of the "biological issues around childbearing" (your words). And now you're changing that again. Is there any reason in trying to have a discussion with you when you keep changing your points to suit yourself?
philologos wrote: » I've been clear on the first point already. Where I am this right already exists as part of a civil partnership. I think your second point is extremely weak. I've pointed out already that there is a case for surrogate parenthood in Scripture. Moreover there idms nothing to claim that it is prohibited. It looks like you're clutching at straws. Your point is wholly irrelevant to anything I've said so far.
philologos wrote: » Bannasidhe seems to treat sperm donors with scorn despite the fact that she would have never been able to have a family without them.
philologos wrote: » Focus on the points rather than any claimed strategy and the discussion will progress naturally. If you want to make the discussion about the discussion rather than the topic there's no point in discussing any longer.
lazygal wrote: » It's gone fierce quiet around these parts.
Links234 wrote: » I'm fed up and frustrated. it's almost impossible to debate with Phil, it's like he tries to win debates via attrition
digger58 wrote: » OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.
digger58 wrote: » No Koth, I think you are very very stupid to read that into my post, I am merely stating a fact, IT IS NOT NATURAL, if it were they would reproduce!!!!!!!!!
philologos wrote: » If the intention of the debate is to convince me why I'm wrong on this issue its futile. Much as I think that it is futile in the other respect. The major hope of this thread should be to promote understanding particularly about how most expressions of Christianity view sexuality and the objections that LGBT activists have against that position. I agree wholeheartedly that the discussion we're currently having is a waste of space on boards.ie's MYSQL database.
NuMarvel wrote: » Which you should know, because that point has been repeated over and over and over again.
OK, Hands up who thinks homosexual behavior is "Natural", IT IS NOT NATURAL QED, It may be natural to some but it is NOT what nature intended, if so we would not have been successful as a species. OK AI is not a natural process but it is a means of replicating the natural process, the end result being (hopefully) a birth, not possible from homosexual behavior. Please don't try and glamorize an unnatural act, what consenting adults do to each other is none of my business and I don't particularly care what they do but I do object to marches and other public displays advertising their lifestyle, Why do it, the "straight" community don't march to prove their sexuality. Having said all the above, I am glad to see that the law pertaining to homosexual acts has been changed and that the greatest hypocritical institution, the RC church, has at least quietened about homosexuality, pretty rich considering all the abuse their deviant priests metered out.
NuMarvel wrote: » More importantly, most people aren't objecting to Christianity's views on sexuality, or homosexuality. The main topic is more focussed on why civil and legal rights for Christians and non-Christians alike should be based on this view. Which you should know, because that point has been repeated over and over and over again.
philologos wrote: » 1) Most people are very much objecting to the mainline Christian view on sexuality. 2) This thread was explicitly started for the purpose of discussing Christian attitudes to homosexuality (although I wish it was for sexuality as a whole so a broader discussion could be had). 3) This thread isn't just about politics. If it were it would have its rightful place on the politics forum. Or indeed, if one wants to have a discussion from an atheistic perspective, here probably is not the best place to look.
tommy2bad wrote: » 1) No most people are objecting to Christian attitudes being enshrined in law. 2) I wish it was too but for now we are stuck with discussing how the Christian attitude to homosexual sex is no sex. Not consensual sex in a committed relationship but no sex, ever at all, off the table for discussion. 3) it's a bit about politics and linguistics and cultural change and the slow changes in Christian viewpoints. If you want to restrict the thread to discussing 'Christian attitudes' to homosexuality, boards isn't the place for that, maybe some synod forum or bible class but not a public discussion forum that is designed to flow free discussion of issues and topics. Saying it's our ball and we get to set the rules is just stifling debate and creates the impression that you lack a response other than some variation of 'the bible said so'.
philologos wrote: » So discussing Christian views on this subject isn't the point of this thread? Look to the first few pages of this thread. I think its highly unreasonable to say that Christian points of view on marriage and sexuality shouldn't be discussed here. Some people flip flop around both. I think there's not much to say other than extra wastage on the database concerning the law. I've been clear, others have been clear we just disagree. What's left to discuss is how churches should regard it.
Benny_Cake wrote: » For someone who thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is "the greatest hypocritical institution", some of your views on human sexuality appear to be a perfect match with those of the church. Very little about life in a modern, developed country is completely natural (if it was, the average life expectancy would be a lot lower) but everything seems to indicate that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is an innate part of someone's identity, which they are either born with or develop so early in life that it's almost the same thing. Natural, in other words. Now if you have a moral disagreement with same-sex relationships then you're entitled to your opinion but don't expect people to accept that it is unnatural just because you say so.
SoulandForm wrote: » If its is natural than why did God condemn it to the point that it carried the death penalty under the Old Law (and not just the Old Law but also in the Code of Justinian- and no Im not advocating the death penalty for it)? If it is natural than Christianity must be a false Religion.
SoulandForm wrote: » If it is natural than Christianity must be a false Religion.
28064212 wrote: » What about a woman's menstrual cycle? Pretty natural, I would have said. Yet when she's having her period, she's "unclean", and no-one should touch her, and anything she touches is also "unclean"
