If you are under the assumption that each time you have sex you are guaranteed a child then you are mistaken. Under normal circumstances also most women will only have one child per pregnancy. The times you have multiple children per pregnancy is usually due to invitro which is not the natural way to have children.
What? Multiple children per pregnancy is due to in vitro? Sir, if that was not mistake on your behalf, I humbly request that you educate yourself.
I do not condemn other methods of having a child even though Catholics are very specific about the methods. I also know that you can have a gay women go to a sperm bank and get pregnant and you can have gay men acquire a child with the DNA of one of the men as well. I did not say it was impossible for children to be made but it is impossible for two men alone to create life as it is impossible for two women alone to create life.
I think it is pretty clear that we are not in the dark ages as you have said yourself. So let's try to dissociate ourselves from the restrictions of those times, shall we? Especially if you do not condemn those methods.
Also the only stipulation to sex is that you always welcome the chance of having a child, not that you must have a child each time you have sex. Science has allowed other way for people to have children and pass on their genetic code but it(science) does not condone homosexual relationships in the process.
I never said you had to have children each time you had sex. Merely that it was hypocritical to say that's the primary goal of sex. Because it is not.
@Mac
You did not get my point. I believe I have already mentioned the limitations of our society- how we are required to be politically correct- most of us simply cannot afford to go on a religious crusade today. We discard the unsavory parts of our religious texts because it is more convenient to live in modern society this way and we cherry-pick the favorable parts so we can still call ourselves a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc...
The best way to gauge the situation is actually evaluating what is happening. Here is a video that is a good summary of that.
To note that this is not an attack against Islam. I'm only highlighting the danger of endorsing the philosophies of holy books.
Nekro, regardless of the translations, attacking civilians is prohibited find me a passage that says otherwise, because every passage Ive read, or heard talked about by Islamic law experts, explicitly state that attacking civilians is prohibited under Islamic law.
Then they are lying to you or refusing to acknowledge some of the fastest growing interpretations of the Qur'an through Wahabbi schools.
And prol, a vision quest is part of a normal stage of shamanism, killing gays and flying planes into buildings is not a stage that even 0.000001% of those religions experience.
Shamanism is more extreme overall, because that's how the religion is, you're not condemned by your own religion by going on a vision quest. Ask 100 Christians if killing is allowed, 95 will cite 10 commandments, you will have 1-2 smart asses that will cite stoning people to death etc. or killing of gays and not believe it, then you have the 3-4 weirdos in the crowd that believe that shit. Trust, I went to a catholic school as an atheist, along with Jews and Muslims. This debate has already been had over and over and over.
You'll forgive me if I don't take your statistics at face value. I don't doubt there is an ongoing debate about this because it is necessary. Religious documents explicitly say to kill people, those religious leaders must convince every new generation that they are actually NOT supposed to do what the book says. That's a difficult thing to do at times. espcially in an atmosphere (like in Islam) where the book is "the unalterable word of god, without interpretation."
Visionary Type - such murderers kill in response to the commands of voices or visions usually emanating from the forces of good or evil. These offenders are often believe to be suffering from some sort of psychosis.
And yet, hearing the word of god is not something we are allowed to term psychosis. This gets a pass.
Mission Type- these offenders believe in it is their missions in life to rid the community or society of certain groups of people. Some killers may target the elderly, whereas others may seek out prostitutes, children, or a particular racial/ethnic group
And yet, the holy scripture tell them it is their mission to kill gays or nonbelievers, etc.
Hedonistic Type - offenders in this category are usually stereotyped as "thrill seekers," those who derive some form of satisfaction from the murders. Also under this category are the subcategories of "creature comforts" or "pleasure of life"... or "lust murderers"...
I think you can safely rule out the religious offenders here, unless they are not genuine believers and are using the ruse of scripture to justify their killings, but i'll grant you this is not something easily proven.
Power/Control-Oriented Type - is this typology Holmes and DeBurger content that the primary source of pleasure is not sexual but the killer's ability to control and exert power over his helpless victim. Some offenders enjoy watching their victims cower, cringe and beg for mercy...
The religious fundamentalist desires to extend their power and influence (that of their faith) over all of those who are living in defiance of it. Given their willingness to kill even the helpless in the name of that faith, I think it is safe to put them under this heading too.
Anyone who kills using any religious text and cares for their own life is classified as a serial killer (if 3+ victims) and would be visionary or mission typed. Serial killers are extreme outliers, we need not concern ourselves with them unless the discussion is solely about serial killers.
Why need we not concern ourselves? As I said, when a popularized traditional scirpture literally demands it and the clergy has the sole responsibility of convincing them otherwise, I think it is a concern that is ongoing.
Suicide bombers would be considered Mass Murderers since they have no planes for living after the attack, no thought of mortal survival. They would be classified as either
..."Disciple-Type Killer- a person who commits murder at the behest of a charismatic leader such as Charles Manson
Ideological Mass Murderer - a person, especially a cult leader, who is able to persuade others to kill themselves or each other...
And yet their ideology and discipline are off limits to us, by your own admission. You think they're outliers and you don't want us to examine the traditions behind it. But there we plainly see the source of the violence printed in black ink.
Institutional Mass Murderer- a person who commits mass murder as a crime of obedience when ordered to by his or her leader. This often is manifested in some form of genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and religious bigotry as occurred in the Kosovo region, the Stalim farm collectivization, Armenian and Nazi Holocausts, and the Crusades"
"... some mass murderers so deeply depressed, become schizophrenic or psychotic. Others suffer with severe anxiety and personality disorders. These are not rational people at the time of the murders, even when their behaviours are calculated and decisive. Many of them are not insane, but suffer from severe psychological dysfunctioning as a result of both chronic and acute stress."
"...mass murderers, in relation to other crimes-even other forms of homicide--are relatively rare, and they do appear to occur as randomly as serial killings do
I didn't even want to bring this up again, but while we are here:
1. I don't think you can argue no rational people took part in mass murder, otherwise you're assuming nearly 75% of the German, Austrian, Polish, Czech, etc. populations during the 1930s-40s was sociopathic, insane, etc. That just isn't a plausible excuse.
2. Stress is obviously a factor, but stress funneled through what? In the example of the second world war, it was stress funneled into antisemitism. It was the stress of a collapsed economy scapegoated onto the Jews by a long-established Catholic tradition of blaming the Jews for the death of christ and by-extension, just about everything else in history that was able to be pinned on them (check the number of times the Jews were blamed for the Black Plague, for instance - it will shock you).
3. Mass murders do not occur randomly. The cultures that have produced genocide and mass murder had source ideologies that brought these terrible crimes into fruition.
By talking about murder using religion as the "why" It happened, you're talking about such a small, small percentage of people, I'd have a better chance getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery, then an act being committed by an individual that is under the typologies above.
By refusing to talk about why a murder happens, you're being absolutely dishonest. I am not here to suppose that all murder is caused by religion, nor have I said as much. What I am supposing are that there exist specific, literal, ideologies that call for murder in the religions we discussed. We rule out those causes at our own peril.
Essentially all you do when you mention them is encourage fighting, it's not logical to bring them up, at all. These people commit these acts, they do so citing their religious texts, but they are also severely mentally unstable.
No, I really don't think so. I think the religious and I both agree that murder is deplorable. I think we would both rather these people not commit these acts. I think we have grounds upon which to discuss why they are doing it and including the religious dogma that the murders quote verbatim is not a incitement. It is a discussion of the facts. They might be mentally unstable, but we cannot use that assumption to rule out every other stumulus that might have caused the tragedy.
"What? Multiple children per pregnancy is due to in vitro? Sir, if that was not mistake on your behalf, I humbly request that you educate yourself."
Under normal circumstances a woman only releases one egg during each cycle. This in almost all cases(not every one of them since you can not seem to understand that I do not put everything together into one pot) results in only one possible child as tehre is only one egg to fertilize. Invitro due to its expensive nature and wanting to get it right the first time, uses multiple fertilized eggs and implants them into the female. This gives a very high chance of a multiple child birth were natural means only give(in most cases) one child.
"I never said you had to have children each time you had sex. Merely that it was hypocritical to say that's the primary goal of sex. Because it is not."
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Why is that not a purpose? It is the purpose (I assume) you want to play D3 like the rest of us.
Furthermore, why can there not be more than one purpose for it? Is it not plausible that it can be both pleasure and potential reproduction? I don't see why that is not the case because frankly, that is the reality I understand we live in. People enjoy sex and some of those same people have children. Even a couple of gay men can do that, they just have to adopt the child. And since there is a great need for parents who are willing to adopt children, I don't see why we need to produce our own.
I get tired of seeing that passage from Leviticus used as a basis for persecuting other people, when the vast majority of the laws in the book are aimed at setting Israel apart from other peoples. The prevailing message of the book is "You're God's people. You don't need to fit in with other people, you have God and He has you. Don't go wandering off."
I guarantee that no parent ever allowed their child to be stoned over words said during a moment of heat. The same with adultery. A moment's indiscretion doesn't deserve a loss of life, but such things need to be dealt with regardless, because they are serious issues.
As for homosexuality, I want to think that it was included for health reasons, as a great many things were. I can list them if you'd like but I'd prefer to not have to go through all of them.......
Crazies who don't use their brain about these things tend to wander off the trail of logic and love.
im gone out for smokes, be back in a bit to respond to responses
Although Christianity does seem to oppose a gay lifestlye I do not oppose it due solely to that purpose. I oppose a gay lifestyle because it does not make sense. What is the purpose of a relationship in religion? It is to create new life. What is the purpose of relationships in science? It is to create another lifeform. As humans we are incapable of creating a new life without a male and a female. No matter what even science says that two males can not create a child on their own and two females can not create a child on their own. This is just science.
Clearly all of us are that way. Science now understands that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a genetic predisposition. So it really is not fair to say that science tells us that we are all structured specifically to procreate. That is not a reality that science presents us with. You may believe that the gay lifestyle doesn't make sense to you, sure, but you cannot justify that with science. That view is either personal or religiously based.
Homosexuality is not a choice? It is a genetic predisposition? I guess I would have to say I disagree with science and before you start it can not prove me wrong. I don't disagree that one may be born with homosexual desires but when they act upon those desires they are making a choice to do so. Another way to put this is that I can understand if a person is born with a sexual desire to be with young children, but they too have the choice to act on these desires or not to. Nothing can cause us to make choices without our own will. Even genetics do not control how we act. There is always a choice.
I get tired of seeing that passage from Leviticus used as a basis for persecuting other people, when the vast majority of the laws in the book are aimed at setting Israel apart from other peoples.
I too, hate seeing that passage used to persecute me.
I guarantee that no parent ever allowed their child to be stoned over words said during a moment of heat. The same with adultery. A moment's indiscretion doesn't deserve a loss of life, but such things need to be dealt with regardless, because they are serious issues.
The bible disagrees with you and in-fact both of those took place in the bible and one can only assume took place for a great long while until liberal interpretors like you convinced most people to stop.
As for homosexuality, I want to think that it was included for health reasons, as a great many things were. I can list them if you'd like but I'd prefer to not have to go through all of them.......
What health reasons? If you're referring to HIV (which is insulting, by the way), it didn't exist in human beings until the mid 20th century.
Crazies who don't use their brain about these things tend to wander off the trail of logic and love.
Unfortunately, as I have said, you can't really argue with their logic. They read the book and they do what it says. If you agree that they are reading the word of god, then they are acting logically. I don't know how love figures into that, but presumably, god will love them for doing what he says (or at least, they will say as much).
Homosexuality is not a choice? It is a genetic predisposition? I guess I would have to say I disagree with science and before you start it can not prove me wrong.
Here you go. One of many other articles disussing the genetic and evolutionary nature of homosexual tendencies. They are most certainly not choices and I can tell you without any doubt that I never "chose," to be gay.
I don't disagree that one may be born with homosexual desires but when they act upon those desires they are making a choice to do so. Another way to put this is that I can understand if a person is born with a sexual desire to be with young children, but they too have the choice to act on these desires or not to. Nothing can cause us to make choices without our own will. Even genetics do not control how we act. There is always a choice.
So you're saying everyone born gay should be abstinent? You're free to have sex with the people you want to, why shouldn't we? We're genetically and evolutionarily predisposed to our traits. Try having 20/20 vision if you require reading glasses. Impossible? Yes. Same for me and finding a woman physically attractive. I do not have that capacity. I am physically incapable of it. That isn't a choice, and I don't know why you're inferring it to be a choice. Did you choose to be what color or gender you are?
I don't really understand how you can argue, since this isn't a choice, that we should choose not to act on our sexual desires. That seems arbitrary. I was pretty certain you said a few posts up, that your judgement of gays was not based on anything religious, but here you are telling me for no good reason I should just not have sex with other men. For what purpose am I to contain my sexual urges (which is unhealthy for anyone, hetero or not)?
What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Why is that not a purpose? It is the purpose (I assume) you want to play D3 like the rest of us.
Furthermore, why can there not be more than one purpose for it? Is it not plausible that it can be both pleasure and potential reproduction? I don't see why that is not the case because frankly, that is the reality I understand we live in. People enjoy sex and some of those same people have children. Even a couple of gay men can do that, they just have to adopt the child. And since there is a great need for parents who are willing to adopt children, I don't see why we need to produce our own.
It is not whether they need to produce children, it is simply that they can not. Sex was meant to be pleasureable as a way to make people want to procreate. But the initial purpose of sex is procreation.
D3 is a video game which was create for the purpose to make money for the developing company. The game can be enjoyable and the developers really want you to enjoy the game not solely just so they can make money. But the purpose of the game is to make money.
If you see sex as just a way to acquire pleasure then what keeps people from having sex with animals or children. If they find pleasure in it and the other party does not object then what is the problem? You can not procreate with an animal or children prior to their puberty.
It is not whether they need to produce children, it is simply that they can not. Sex was meant to be pleasureable as a way to make people want to procreate. But the initial purpose of sex is procreation.
You're assuming that every possible member of the species is meant to procreate, I don't think that is justifiable based on what we know of continued representation of homosexuality across human populations. While pleasure was certainly a way to ensure that reproduction occured, it is not something you can isolate out of the equation. Sex is both.
D3 is a video game which was create for the purpose to make money for the developing company. The game can be enjoyable and the developers really want you to enjoy the game not solely just so they can make money. But the purpose of the game is to make money.
The game doesn't make you any money. How are you justified in buying it? You're going to enjoy it, that's why. The sole purpose of the game, for you, for me, and for any other consumer, is pleasure. Pure and simple.
If you see sex as just a way to acquire pleasure then what keeps people from having sex with animals or children. If they find pleasure in it and the other party does not object then what is the problem? You can not procreate with an animal or children prior to their puberty.
Children and animals cannot consent to sex, but thanks for being absolutely insulting for no reason. Sex that isn't consentual is called "rape," and I'm pleased to inform you that I have consenting sex with other men. No rape necessary.
If you're pondering some kind of moral dilemma, it's already been solved: sex is allowed between consenting adults (that is our secular law).
Under normal circumstances a woman only releases one egg during each cycle. This in almost all cases(not every one of them since you can not seem to understand that I do not put everything together into one pot) results in only one possible child as tehre is only one egg to fertilize. Invitro due to its expensive nature and wanting to get it right the first time, uses multiple fertilized eggs and implants them into the female. This gives a very high chance of a multiple child birth were natural means only give(in most cases) one child
Here's a wikipedia article for you. You would be surprised how it's all one egg that does the trick (naturally).
Your original claim was that multiple children per pregnancy is usually due to in vitro.
More than half of multiple births occur through natural means of conceiving against in vitro, ovulation-inducing drugs and artificial insemination. So there goes your 'usually'.
Anyway, that's besides the point. You were under the impression it would need multiple birth to reach the number I stated in my former post. Even with one child per pregnancy, with the number of times a woman will engage in sex (and if it was for the purpose of conceiving, that is avoidance of any contraceptive methods- natural or artificial), she can easily make it to 30.
Again, showing that sex is not primarily for reproduction. Additionally women keep on having sex after menopause if that's not enough of a proof.
Or maybe 'good' religious folks don't.
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
Homosexuality is not a choice? It is a genetic predisposition? I guess I would have to say I disagree with science and before you start it can not prove me wrong.
Here you go. One of many other articles disussing the genetic and evolutionary nature of homosexual tendencies. They are most certainly not choices and I can tell you without any doubt that I never "chose," to be gay.
I don't disagree that one may be born with homosexual desires but when they act upon those desires they are making a choice to do so. Another way to put this is that I can understand if a person is born with a sexual desire to be with young children, but they too have the choice to act on these desires or not to. Nothing can cause us to make choices without our own will. Even genetics do not control how we act. There is always a choice.
So you're saying everyone born gay should be abstinent? You're free to have sex with the people you want to, why shouldn't we? We're genetically and evolutionarily predisposed to our traits. Try having 20/20 vision if you require reading glasses. Impossible? Yes. Same for me and finding a woman physically attractive. I do not have that capacity. I am physically incapable of it. That isn't a choice, and I don't know why you're inferring it to be a choice. Did you choose to be what color or gender you are?
I don't really understand how you can argue, since this isn't a choice, that we should choose not to act on our sexual desires. That seems arbitrary. I was pretty certain you said a few posts up, that your judgement of gays was not based on anything religious, but here you are telling me for no good reason I should just not have sex with other men. For what purpose am I to contain my sexual urges (which is unhealthy for anyone, hetero or not)?
The reason is procreation is impossible for you and another man, therefore the purpose of sex between you is void. I don't condemn or damn you for your choices but I do stand by the fact that they are wrong. A physical trait is different from a mental issue(not saying it as a mental defect). Our physical make up is chosen for us but our mental actions are our own.
I did not say it would be easy for you to have sex with a women and I do not say that you should have sex with a woman but I see no purpose you should have sex with a man. It of course is your choice and I will not attempt to stop you in what you wish to do as long as it does not directly endanger myself or my family(though I see no way that it would). There have been gay people that end up living with someone of the opposite sex and having children as well. Perhaps they are not 100% happy and would rather feel the touch of someone from the same sex. Again the desire can be there but it is our choice to act on it. And due to my beliefs we shoudl refrain from it.
Also I did not say that heterosexuals can have sex with whomever they want to either. The desire of most heterosexual males is to have sex with multiple women. But I do not take the choice to do this and I do not condone that choice either. For myself the only woman I have ever been intimate with is my wife and there was never anyone before and there will never be anyone after.
Yes, and those same religious texts call for forgiveness, and prohibit murder.
As it was explained to me, Christians do not follow those theocratic laws such as "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) because we no longer live in a theocratic society, but they follow Gods laws which are the 10 commandments. The Catholic religion is complicated, and unless you have the right teachers, it can be used to teach hate and evil.
My Christian friend sent this to me when I asked
We saw that Jesus, Himself, tells us to live by every word out of the mouth of God in Matthew 4:4. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Directly out of the mouth of God came the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3-17. These are the ONLY verses in the Bible that God, Himself, wrote. And God, Himself, wrote them to make us realize their importance and to make us realize that they would forever be in effect. That is why He wrote them on tables of stone — to show their permanence.
What is in the 10 commandments? Not Kill.
As explained to me by someone who has been devoted to Christianity their whole life, and who studied religion in university "only simple minded, misguided, or ignorant people, use Christian or Islamic scripture for violence and evil, a clear understanding of the whole of both christian and islamic canon actually teach the opposite"
Like i said, the murder does NOT happen without mental instability
Individual who is mentally disturbed + ANY CATALYST (and i do mean any) = chance for spree/mass/serial killer.
I've read over 150+ serial killer profiles in depth, and they are ALL unique in their own right, you see some similarities when hatred is put towards a group of people, but everyone falls into groups (whites, elderly, females, Jews, Catholics, etc etc.)
There was a case about an atheist who used to assume power and control over roman Catholics (i think? this was years ago, could of been protestants) and he would assert control and dominance over them and would torture them until they would admit god didn't exist (reverse inquisition anyone?) so IS ATHEISM EVIL?!?!?! no.
As levels of religion decrease in NA, does serial murder rates decrease? no, do they increase no? no.
You will learn over time studying murder, that the reasons why it occurs, is motherfucking endless. You can have a whole university class on WHY it happens, hell, you could probly have 3! Intro to why people murder, Advanced to why people murder, IS to why people murder.
There was 2-3 books I read in University as to why serial murderers commit acts of homicide, yes, serial murderers. People that consist of less than 1% of all homicides.
That does not cover in depth spree murders, or mass murders which are extremely rare as well.
Like i said, and anyone who studies murder will say. Religion is not an alarming factor in serial murder or mass murder, or spree murders.
All it takes is a disturbed individual (reasons why they are disturbed is endless) and a Catalyst (endless list as well)
Infact you could probly make a random murderer generator and if you clicked it over 100000000 times you would still not reach all the possible combinations.
The reasons also change over culture, and over time. It would almost be an endless exhaustive list.
So excuse me while I don't give a shit about religious murders, more than I do any other type. I don't care what the fuel is, taking a life is taking a life. The only times it is morally justifiable to take a life is in self defense of oneself or ones family, and in the defense of those who cannot defend themselves against evil (see ww1, ww2, multiple conflicts in hundred years war etc.) and not for the gain of a country (with the exception of independence or liberation).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"...We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
How is tehre true trust and love if you are nto willing to give yourself 100% to the other person, this means to welcome the chance of having a child. I see sex as a very serious matter as something only two people should ever do with eachotehr when they decide to spend the rest of their lives together to have children and raise them under the proper teachings of God. Sex outside of this serves no purpose in the grand scheme of life.
You don't need orgasms to stay healthy. Any exercise will do so sex for that purpose is invalid. Though I don't deny the pleasure in the action, it is not the purpose of the action.
The bible disagrees with you and in-fact both of those took place in the bible and one can only assume took place for a great long while until liberal interpretors like you convinced most people to stop.
...
What health reasons? If you're referring to HIV (which is insulting, by the way), it didn't exist in human beings until the mid 20th century.
...
Unfortunately, as I have said, you can't really argue with their logic. They read the book and they do what it says. If you agree that they are reading the word of god, then they are acting logically. I don't know how love figures into that, but presumably, god will love them for doing what he says (or at least, they will say as much).
Sure they took place, because people like the pharisees were extremists gunning for a literal interpretation without looking at context and examining the deeper messages like "what characteristics should the people that pride themselves as God's chosen people portray?"
Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
The reason is procreation is impossible for you and another man, therefore the purpose of sex between you is void. I don't condemn or damn you for your choices but I do stand by the fact that they are wrong. A physical trait is different from a mental issue(not saying it as a mental defect). Our physical make up is chosen for us but our mental actions are our own.
You realize that right and wrong are not valid terms here? We aren't discussing what is right or wrong and you said you aren't using religious justifications (the only kind that would assert right and wrong over such an arbitrary case) to make your case. You are standing by the fact that I cannot reproduce with another man, great. But how does that make me "wrong?" Regardless of wether you term a genetic pre-disposition as physical or mental, it is inherent in that person. I could mentally force myself to try and have sex with a woman, but why? I wouldn't be able to perform. The thought sickens me. Have you ever thought about forcing yourself to have sex with a man? Do you think that is possible for you?
I did not say it would be easy for you to have sex with a women and I do not say that you should have sex with a woman but I see no purpose you should have sex with a man.
The purpose is pleasure. Just the same reason hetero couples have sex with birthcontrol or condoms. Because they can and they like it. That is one purpose, like it or not.
What beliefs are those? You told me that there was simply "no purpose," and that was false, pleasure is a purpose. You never told me about any beliefs (you continued to say it wasn't religious) that you held about this. Please explain.
Also I did not say that heterosexuals can have sex with whomever they want to either. The desire of most heterosexual males is to have sex with multiple women. But I do not take the choice to do this and I do not condone that choice either. For myself the only woman I have ever been intimate with is my wife and there was never anyone before and there will never be anyone after.
Ah, but you chose your wife. You are attracted to women. I cannot choose a husband, though I am attracted to men. That isn't saying anything about how monogamous I am. For all you know I've had the same partner all my life too.
To call murder a mental problem is to say it is beyond the control of the individual. This would make them innocent of teh crime they committed. That is why I disagree that people are born to make certain choices, if that were the case then anyone could say it is not really their fault for their actions. This would(if it does not come to this eventually) destroy the world. Also if we as a people go to that level I think the annihilation of the race would be for the best.
Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Sure they took place, because people like the pharisees were extremists gunning for a literal interpretation without looking at context and examining the deeper messages like "what characteristics should the people that pride themselves as God's chosen people portray?"
And how exactly do you examine the context when the text is literal? It's not a parable where a gay man is killed. It's a line of text that says "if a man lies with another man... kill him," that simple. You're right not to like literalist interpretations, but you still ahvent explained to me how you escape literalism when you have text that is EXPLICIT in its instructions.
Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
Then you're talking about VD's that could have been passed by hetero sex. I see no moratorium on heterosexual activity, so I don't see the point. Gay is not a slang word for promiscuity. We're just as monogamous as anyone else.
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
How is tehre true trust and love if you are nto willing to give yourself 100% to the other person, this means to welcome the chance of having a child. I see sex as a very serious matter as something only two people should ever do with eachotehr when they decide to spend the rest of their lives together to have children and raise them under the proper teachings of God. Sex outside of this serves no purpose in the grand scheme of life.
You don't need orgasms to stay healthy. Any exercise will do so sex for that purpose is invalid. Though I don't deny the pleasure in the action, it is not the purpose of the action.
Did I say you NEED orgasms to stay healthy? Please point it out to me. You are grasping at straws bud.
You don't get to decide when sex is valid or invalid when it doesn't concern you and is fully consensual.
How do you equate 'giving yourself 100% to the other person' with 'welcoming the chance of having a child'? This is deeply illogical.
What happens after menopause? Will you stop having sex with your wife because you could not possibly be giving yourself a 100% when there is no chance of having a child.
Also I did not say that heterosexuals can have sex with whomever they want to either. The desire of most heterosexual males is to have sex with multiple women. But I do not take the choice to do this and I do not condone that choice either. For myself the only woman I have ever been intimate with is my wife and there was never anyone before and there will never be anyone after.
Ah, but you chose your wife. You are attracted to women. I cannot choose a husband, though I am attracted to men. That isn't saying anything about how monogamous I am. For all you know I've had the same partner all my life too.
I did not say you were not monogamous, I just dont think anyone can have sex with whomever they choose. I am giving you my views which are backed by what I believe is right. My wife and I chose eachother and you have the right to choose another man. It is the right given to all people. It does nto mean that everyone will agree with you but what does it matter what they think? You should do what you want and what you think it good or right or true or scientifically proven to you. As for me I will serve God to the best of my very limited ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you don't like it, then don't do it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think it is pretty clear that we are not in the dark ages as you have said yourself. So let's try to dissociate ourselves from the restrictions of those times, shall we? Especially if you do not condemn those methods.
I never said you had to have children each time you had sex. Merely that it was hypocritical to say that's the primary goal of sex. Because it is not.
@Mac
You did not get my point. I believe I have already mentioned the limitations of our society- how we are required to be politically correct- most of us simply cannot afford to go on a religious crusade today. We discard the unsavory parts of our religious texts because it is more convenient to live in modern society this way and we cherry-pick the favorable parts so we can still call ourselves a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc...
The best way to gauge the situation is actually evaluating what is happening. Here is a video that is a good summary of that.
To note that this is not an attack against Islam. I'm only highlighting the danger of endorsing the philosophies of holy books.
Then they are lying to you or refusing to acknowledge some of the fastest growing interpretations of the Qur'an through Wahabbi schools.
Then why don't you present them for us?
Again, you called the shaman extreme, not me.
You'll forgive me if I don't take your statistics at face value. I don't doubt there is an ongoing debate about this because it is necessary. Religious documents explicitly say to kill people, those religious leaders must convince every new generation that they are actually NOT supposed to do what the book says. That's a difficult thing to do at times. espcially in an atmosphere (like in Islam) where the book is "the unalterable word of god, without interpretation."
Like I said, you have no grounds to call them ignorant when they can quote the verse saying to do EXACTLY what they are doing.
And yet, hearing the word of god is not something we are allowed to term psychosis. This gets a pass.
And yet, the holy scripture tell them it is their mission to kill gays or nonbelievers, etc.
I think you can safely rule out the religious offenders here, unless they are not genuine believers and are using the ruse of scripture to justify their killings, but i'll grant you this is not something easily proven.
The religious fundamentalist desires to extend their power and influence (that of their faith) over all of those who are living in defiance of it. Given their willingness to kill even the helpless in the name of that faith, I think it is safe to put them under this heading too.
Why need we not concern ourselves? As I said, when a popularized traditional scirpture literally demands it and the clergy has the sole responsibility of convincing them otherwise, I think it is a concern that is ongoing.
And yet their ideology and discipline are off limits to us, by your own admission. You think they're outliers and you don't want us to examine the traditions behind it. But there we plainly see the source of the violence printed in black ink.
I didn't even want to bring this up again, but while we are here:
1. I don't think you can argue no rational people took part in mass murder, otherwise you're assuming nearly 75% of the German, Austrian, Polish, Czech, etc. populations during the 1930s-40s was sociopathic, insane, etc. That just isn't a plausible excuse.
2. Stress is obviously a factor, but stress funneled through what? In the example of the second world war, it was stress funneled into antisemitism. It was the stress of a collapsed economy scapegoated onto the Jews by a long-established Catholic tradition of blaming the Jews for the death of christ and by-extension, just about everything else in history that was able to be pinned on them (check the number of times the Jews were blamed for the Black Plague, for instance - it will shock you).
3. Mass murders do not occur randomly. The cultures that have produced genocide and mass murder had source ideologies that brought these terrible crimes into fruition.
By refusing to talk about why a murder happens, you're being absolutely dishonest. I am not here to suppose that all murder is caused by religion, nor have I said as much. What I am supposing are that there exist specific, literal, ideologies that call for murder in the religions we discussed. We rule out those causes at our own peril.
No, I really don't think so. I think the religious and I both agree that murder is deplorable. I think we would both rather these people not commit these acts. I think we have grounds upon which to discuss why they are doing it and including the religious dogma that the murders quote verbatim is not a incitement. It is a discussion of the facts. They might be mentally unstable, but we cannot use that assumption to rule out every other stumulus that might have caused the tragedy.
Under normal circumstances a woman only releases one egg during each cycle. This in almost all cases(not every one of them since you can not seem to understand that I do not put everything together into one pot) results in only one possible child as tehre is only one egg to fertilize. Invitro due to its expensive nature and wanting to get it right the first time, uses multiple fertilized eggs and implants them into the female. This gives a very high chance of a multiple child birth were natural means only give(in most cases) one child.
"I never said you had to have children each time you had sex. Merely that it was hypocritical to say that's the primary goal of sex. Because it is not."
Then please enlighten me as to what the purpose of sex is if it is not two reproductive organs atempting to take an egg and a seed and fertalize that seed to bring forth a new life. What purpose is there to sex then that does nto just simply lie in "I wanna do it cause it feels good"?
Why is that not a purpose? It is the purpose (I assume) you want to play D3 like the rest of us.
Furthermore, why can there not be more than one purpose for it? Is it not plausible that it can be both pleasure and potential reproduction? I don't see why that is not the case because frankly, that is the reality I understand we live in. People enjoy sex and some of those same people have children. Even a couple of gay men can do that, they just have to adopt the child. And since there is a great need for parents who are willing to adopt children, I don't see why we need to produce our own.
I guarantee that no parent ever allowed their child to be stoned over words said during a moment of heat. The same with adultery. A moment's indiscretion doesn't deserve a loss of life, but such things need to be dealt with regardless, because they are serious issues.
As for homosexuality, I want to think that it was included for health reasons, as a great many things were. I can list them if you'd like but I'd prefer to not have to go through all of them.......
Crazies who don't use their brain about these things tend to wander off the trail of logic and love.
im gone out for smokes, be back in a bit to respond to responses
Homosexuality is not a choice? It is a genetic predisposition? I guess I would have to say I disagree with science and before you start it can not prove me wrong. I don't disagree that one may be born with homosexual desires but when they act upon those desires they are making a choice to do so. Another way to put this is that I can understand if a person is born with a sexual desire to be with young children, but they too have the choice to act on these desires or not to. Nothing can cause us to make choices without our own will. Even genetics do not control how we act. There is always a choice.
I too, hate seeing that passage used to persecute me.
The bible disagrees with you and in-fact both of those took place in the bible and one can only assume took place for a great long while until liberal interpretors like you convinced most people to stop.
What health reasons? If you're referring to HIV (which is insulting, by the way), it didn't exist in human beings until the mid 20th century.
Unfortunately, as I have said, you can't really argue with their logic. They read the book and they do what it says. If you agree that they are reading the word of god, then they are acting logically. I don't know how love figures into that, but presumably, god will love them for doing what he says (or at least, they will say as much).
Here you go. One of many other articles disussing the genetic and evolutionary nature of homosexual tendencies. They are most certainly not choices and I can tell you without any doubt that I never "chose," to be gay.
So you're saying everyone born gay should be abstinent? You're free to have sex with the people you want to, why shouldn't we? We're genetically and evolutionarily predisposed to our traits. Try having 20/20 vision if you require reading glasses. Impossible? Yes. Same for me and finding a woman physically attractive. I do not have that capacity. I am physically incapable of it. That isn't a choice, and I don't know why you're inferring it to be a choice. Did you choose to be what color or gender you are?
I don't really understand how you can argue, since this isn't a choice, that we should choose not to act on our sexual desires. That seems arbitrary. I was pretty certain you said a few posts up, that your judgement of gays was not based on anything religious, but here you are telling me for no good reason I should just not have sex with other men. For what purpose am I to contain my sexual urges (which is unhealthy for anyone, hetero or not)?
It is not whether they need to produce children, it is simply that they can not. Sex was meant to be pleasureable as a way to make people want to procreate. But the initial purpose of sex is procreation.
D3 is a video game which was create for the purpose to make money for the developing company. The game can be enjoyable and the developers really want you to enjoy the game not solely just so they can make money. But the purpose of the game is to make money.
If you see sex as just a way to acquire pleasure then what keeps people from having sex with animals or children. If they find pleasure in it and the other party does not object then what is the problem? You can not procreate with an animal or children prior to their puberty.
You're assuming that every possible member of the species is meant to procreate, I don't think that is justifiable based on what we know of continued representation of homosexuality across human populations. While pleasure was certainly a way to ensure that reproduction occured, it is not something you can isolate out of the equation. Sex is both.
The game doesn't make you any money. How are you justified in buying it? You're going to enjoy it, that's why. The sole purpose of the game, for you, for me, and for any other consumer, is pleasure. Pure and simple.
Children and animals cannot consent to sex, but thanks for being absolutely insulting for no reason. Sex that isn't consentual is called "rape," and I'm pleased to inform you that I have consenting sex with other men. No rape necessary.
If you're pondering some kind of moral dilemma, it's already been solved: sex is allowed between consenting adults (that is our secular law).
Your original claim was that multiple children per pregnancy is usually due to in vitro.
More than half of multiple births occur through natural means of conceiving against in vitro, ovulation-inducing drugs and artificial insemination. So there goes your 'usually'.
Anyway, that's besides the point. You were under the impression it would need multiple birth to reach the number I stated in my former post. Even with one child per pregnancy, with the number of times a woman will engage in sex (and if it was for the purpose of conceiving, that is avoidance of any contraceptive methods- natural or artificial), she can easily make it to 30.
Again, showing that sex is not primarily for reproduction. Additionally women keep on having sex after menopause if that's not enough of a proof.
Or maybe 'good' religious folks don't.
Didn't I already address that in my former post? Ok, just for you-
1.Sex as an act of intimacy symbolizing the bonding, trust and love in the relationship.
2.For zee orgasm(there are so many actual health benefits for this one, some disadvantages too to be fair).
3.For children
I would say number 2 should be the top one but since we are talking about 'relationship'...
The reason is procreation is impossible for you and another man, therefore the purpose of sex between you is void. I don't condemn or damn you for your choices but I do stand by the fact that they are wrong. A physical trait is different from a mental issue(not saying it as a mental defect). Our physical make up is chosen for us but our mental actions are our own.
I did not say it would be easy for you to have sex with a women and I do not say that you should have sex with a woman but I see no purpose you should have sex with a man. It of course is your choice and I will not attempt to stop you in what you wish to do as long as it does not directly endanger myself or my family(though I see no way that it would). There have been gay people that end up living with someone of the opposite sex and having children as well. Perhaps they are not 100% happy and would rather feel the touch of someone from the same sex. Again the desire can be there but it is our choice to act on it. And due to my beliefs we shoudl refrain from it.
Also I did not say that heterosexuals can have sex with whomever they want to either. The desire of most heterosexual males is to have sex with multiple women. But I do not take the choice to do this and I do not condone that choice either. For myself the only woman I have ever been intimate with is my wife and there was never anyone before and there will never be anyone after.
As it was explained to me, Christians do not follow those theocratic laws such as "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) because we no longer live in a theocratic society, but they follow Gods laws which are the 10 commandments. The Catholic religion is complicated, and unless you have the right teachers, it can be used to teach hate and evil.
My Christian friend sent this to me when I asked
We saw that Jesus, Himself, tells us to live by every word out of the mouth of God in Matthew 4:4. “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” Directly out of the mouth of God came the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3-17. These are the ONLY verses in the Bible that God, Himself, wrote. And God, Himself, wrote them to make us realize their importance and to make us realize that they would forever be in effect. That is why He wrote them on tables of stone — to show their permanence.
What is in the 10 commandments? Not Kill.
As explained to me by someone who has been devoted to Christianity their whole life, and who studied religion in university "only simple minded, misguided, or ignorant people, use Christian or Islamic scripture for violence and evil, a clear understanding of the whole of both christian and islamic canon actually teach the opposite"
Like i said, the murder does NOT happen without mental instability
Individual who is mentally disturbed + ANY CATALYST (and i do mean any) = chance for spree/mass/serial killer.
I've read over 150+ serial killer profiles in depth, and they are ALL unique in their own right, you see some similarities when hatred is put towards a group of people, but everyone falls into groups (whites, elderly, females, Jews, Catholics, etc etc.)
There was a case about an atheist who used to assume power and control over roman Catholics (i think? this was years ago, could of been protestants) and he would assert control and dominance over them and would torture them until they would admit god didn't exist (reverse inquisition anyone?) so IS ATHEISM EVIL?!?!?! no.
As levels of religion decrease in NA, does serial murder rates decrease? no, do they increase no? no.
You will learn over time studying murder, that the reasons why it occurs, is motherfucking endless. You can have a whole university class on WHY it happens, hell, you could probly have 3! Intro to why people murder, Advanced to why people murder, IS to why people murder.
There was 2-3 books I read in University as to why serial murderers commit acts of homicide, yes, serial murderers. People that consist of less than 1% of all homicides.
That does not cover in depth spree murders, or mass murders which are extremely rare as well.
Like i said, and anyone who studies murder will say. Religion is not an alarming factor in serial murder or mass murder, or spree murders.
All it takes is a disturbed individual (reasons why they are disturbed is endless) and a Catalyst (endless list as well)
Infact you could probly make a random murderer generator and if you clicked it over 100000000 times you would still not reach all the possible combinations.
The reasons also change over culture, and over time. It would almost be an endless exhaustive list.
So excuse me while I don't give a shit about religious murders, more than I do any other type. I don't care what the fuel is, taking a life is taking a life. The only times it is morally justifiable to take a life is in self defense of oneself or ones family, and in the defense of those who cannot defend themselves against evil (see ww1, ww2, multiple conflicts in hundred years war etc.) and not for the gain of a country (with the exception of independence or liberation).
for he to-day that sheds his blood with me
shall be my brother..."
How is tehre true trust and love if you are nto willing to give yourself 100% to the other person, this means to welcome the chance of having a child. I see sex as a very serious matter as something only two people should ever do with eachotehr when they decide to spend the rest of their lives together to have children and raise them under the proper teachings of God. Sex outside of this serves no purpose in the grand scheme of life.
You don't need orgasms to stay healthy. Any exercise will do so sex for that purpose is invalid. Though I don't deny the pleasure in the action, it is not the purpose of the action.
Sure they took place, because people like the pharisees were extremists gunning for a literal interpretation without looking at context and examining the deeper messages like "what characteristics should the people that pride themselves as God's chosen people portray?"
Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
You realize that right and wrong are not valid terms here? We aren't discussing what is right or wrong and you said you aren't using religious justifications (the only kind that would assert right and wrong over such an arbitrary case) to make your case. You are standing by the fact that I cannot reproduce with another man, great. But how does that make me "wrong?" Regardless of wether you term a genetic pre-disposition as physical or mental, it is inherent in that person. I could mentally force myself to try and have sex with a woman, but why? I wouldn't be able to perform. The thought sickens me. Have you ever thought about forcing yourself to have sex with a man? Do you think that is possible for you?
The purpose is pleasure. Just the same reason hetero couples have sex with birthcontrol or condoms. Because they can and they like it. That is one purpose, like it or not.
What beliefs are those? You told me that there was simply "no purpose," and that was false, pleasure is a purpose. You never told me about any beliefs (you continued to say it wasn't religious) that you held about this. Please explain.
Ah, but you chose your wife. You are attracted to women. I cannot choose a husband, though I am attracted to men. That isn't saying anything about how monogamous I am. For all you know I've had the same partner all my life too.
Such gloom and doom how horrible of me to say. But I weep for those that do not understand that we all have choices and we should all have to deal with the consequences. Life is not fair and God weeps for us all in our struggles. May the Lord have mercy on our souls.
And how exactly do you examine the context when the text is literal? It's not a parable where a gay man is killed. It's a line of text that says "if a man lies with another man... kill him," that simple. You're right not to like literalist interpretations, but you still ahvent explained to me how you escape literalism when you have text that is EXPLICIT in its instructions.
Then you're talking about VD's that could have been passed by hetero sex. I see no moratorium on heterosexual activity, so I don't see the point. Gay is not a slang word for promiscuity. We're just as monogamous as anyone else.
You don't get to decide when sex is valid or invalid when it doesn't concern you and is fully consensual.
How do you equate 'giving yourself 100% to the other person' with 'welcoming the chance of having a child'? This is deeply illogical.
What happens after menopause? Will you stop having sex with your wife because you could not possibly be giving yourself a 100% when there is no chance of having a child.
I did not say you were not monogamous, I just dont think anyone can have sex with whomever they choose. I am giving you my views which are backed by what I believe is right. My wife and I chose eachother and you have the right to choose another man. It is the right given to all people. It does nto mean that everyone will agree with you but what does it matter what they think? You should do what you want and what you think it good or right or true or scientifically proven to you. As for me I will serve God to the best of my very limited ability.