Thread: Nearly one Male in every two - Homosexuality and BiSexuality

Originally posted by kbm8795
I don't think you have to subscribe to a particular organized religion to accept the spirit, rock - just because that is necessary for you doesn't mean it has to be the path for John. And it does seem rather odd that passages that don't affect most of us personally are being dragged out and declared as sins. . .as if those were essential understanding passages to learn about for heterosexuals.

One point I will give John is that there is a difference between inspiration and transcription - and that organized religions make many adaptations to social changes. Interpretations over time have also changed - for example, when sodomy laws were first developed, they related to sexual conduct involving any kind of intimate relationship. In those states which eventually limited it to homosexual contact, the laws for many years were limited to male expressions only, and usually only enforced against the one discharging "babies," not the recepient.

In this same way, images of Jesus were created to accommodate the need to fill church pews. In the late 19th century, for example, Jesus was portrayed as softer and pale, almost effeminate, since the majority of people attending services at the time were women. It was during Teddy Roosevelt's time that the images became more buffed as the churches tried to attract more men. There are more recent examples of this in depictions of the "hippie" Jesus, etc.

There's nothing wrong with you viewing homosexuality as sinful, as long as you apply that only to your own behavior. That tends to be a rather easy thing to believe if you aren't one of them.

KBM,

The point I keep trying to make to John is that these are my beliefs. John doesn't have to believe the same thing that I believe, and he also won't change what I believe.

John keeps saying what he believes are facts, undisputable and unquestionable. We are all misguided and ignorant and if only we read his books we would see the light.

I am sorry, but I have already seen the light. In my opinion Jesus is the Light.

I am done

Originally posted by craig777
KBM,

The point I keep trying to make to John is that these are my beliefs. John doesn't have to believe the same thing that I believe, and he also won't change what I believe.

John keeps saying what he believes are facts, undisputable and unquestionable. We are all misguided and ignorant and if only we read his books we would see the light.

I am sorry, but I have already seen the light. In my opinion Jesus is the Light.

I am done

He isn't declaring your sexuality as "sinful"....you are declaring his as so. . .if that is your personal belief, then it applies only to your behavior whether you frame it under a religious text or not.

I can't blame him for refuting that contention, just as much as you would reject someone telling you that your private expression of intimacy is "sinful."

It seems to me that John feels like he has seen the "light" too - and it isn't any less true for him than you believe yours is for you.

Originally posted by kbm8795
I don't think you have to subscribe to a particular organized religion to accept the spirit, rock - just because that is necessary for you doesn't mean it has to be the path for John. And it does seem rather odd that passages that don't affect most of us personally are being dragged out and declared as sins. . .as if those were essential understanding passages to learn about for heterosexuals.

One point I will give John is that there is a difference between inspiration and transcription - and that organized religions make many adaptations to social changes. Interpretations over time have also changed - for example, when sodomy laws were first developed, they related to sexual conduct involving any kind of intimate relationship. In those states which eventually limited it to homosexual contact, the laws for many years were limited to male expressions only, and usually only enforced against the one discharging "babies," not the recepient.

In this same way, images of Jesus were created to accommodate the need to fill church pews. In the late 19th century, for example, Jesus was portrayed as softer and pale, almost effeminate, since the majority of people attending services at the time were women. It was during Teddy Roosevelt's time that the images became more buffed as the churches tried to attract more men. There are more recent examples of this in depictions of the "hippie" Jesus, etc.

There's nothing wrong with you viewing homosexuality as sinful, as long as you apply that only to your own behavior. That tends to be a rather easy thing to believe if you aren't one of them.

Hi Kbm. There is a book I have seen THE INVENTION OF SODOMY IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, by Mark Jordan (University of Chicago Press)...

In another book I was reading about the humor of Christ (most people are led to believe He did not have a sense of humor and was very serious, etc.), it talked about the fact that the Gospels for example were not written until about 250 years after the death of Christ. Given how people have limited memory with just about anything after a time and that usually after a generation or two at most most is not remembered well or even forgotten... It makes you wonder just how accurate things written actually are... If there can be proved sources there is much less of a problem but when no actual proof exists... In one of the books I listed above on this thread at the beginning FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press) the sources are given and we can check them for ourselves if we do not believe what is written in that book - source information has been saved especially with regard to legal proceedings apparently in Italy. I always like checking out sources of information for whatever even if I am spot-checking... Take Care, John H.

Originally posted by craig777
KBM,

The point I keep trying to make to John is that these are my beliefs. John doesn't have to believe the same thing that I believe, and he also won't change what I believe.

John keeps saying what he believes are facts, undisputable and unquestionable. We are all misguided and ignorant and if only we read his books we would see the light.

I am sorry, but I have already seen the light. In my opinion Jesus is the Light.

I am done

Hi Craig. I understand what you are saying. But that does not prohibit (you - meaning anyone here - thinking or your viewpoint does not prohibit) your reading all kinds of things about a subject and seeing other viewpoints even if you do not agree with them before - or after - that research into any subject. We all have our viewpoints and opinions but they should always be based on all the information available and/or possible with as open a mind and as objective as is humanly possible IF we are to accurately (to whatever extent is humanly possible) get an all-encompassing understanding of that subject.

I am NOT saying at all that the books I have suggested people read - and there are many others anyone is free to read - are the end of the subject and that that is all the information available about that subject. What I am trying to do is have a discussion about this subject which will encompass ALL viewpoints and ALL information. People will believe what they wish - or not. But being your best is considering ALL information from ALL sources ALL the time... To do otherwise invites error.

Take care, John H.

Originally posted by kbm8795
He isn't declaring your sexuality as "sinful"....you are declaring his as so. . .if that is your personal belief, then it applies only to your behavior whether you frame it under a religious text or not.

I can't blame him for refuting that contention, just as much as you would reject someone telling you that your private expression of intimacy is "sinful."

It seems to me that John feels like he has seen the "light" too - and it isn't any less true for him than you believe yours is for you.

Hi Kbm. Thank you. AND, if people would go beyond just one source and consider ALL INFORMATION FROM ALL SOURCES with an open mind and objectively they will see all sides to a discussion. They will form their opinions yes but it will more than not be based on the best and the most information possible NOT just one source. When someone says that BiSexuality or Homosexuality is "not natural" for example I have asked people to look at this book: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press), as just one source, as an example, that refutes that thinking but there are probably others as well. Other research that equally proves this to be true.

There really is only one way to find answers and answers that are accurate. Research, learn, etc. all a person can everything about a subject and keep researching until the answers are found that can be accurately shown to be honest, complete, etc.

When I say that the various Sexualities are natural (Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality) and that they all exist in Nature and the Natural World (of which human beings are a part) that is accurate and honest and complete because it has been proven to be the case and we have known that to be true for quite some time now. So I made a statement of fact.

Take Care, John H.

Bump....for bio-chem

lol

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Bump....for bio-chem

you bumped a thread thats almost 5 years old that i've never posted in until now? dude, you need to get a hobby

Originally Posted by John H.

Read this book - see for yourself what has happened in the past. FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press).

Nearly one man in every two was involved Sexually with another Man in Florence, Italy, circa 1350 - 1450 A.D. (which is basically the period discussed in this book)(certainly it existed long before and long after as well and in other towns and areas of the world). This is just one town in Italy - one town in Europe, one town in the world. If it happened in Florence (for which source material exists to document this) then what about the rest of the world and the cities in it and the country as well? Surely there is documentation as well in other areas that this was done and happened elsewhere where records were allowed to survive.

How is it that so many Men can find it right and proper to engage in sexual activity (even loving relationships) with one another and yet we are led to believe it is so very wrong? Certainly these Men felt it was right or they would not have engaged in this actiivity. Some could be "classified (by today's terminology)" as either BiSexual or Homosexual.

Christ, who was on this earth for 32 years, NEVER SAID one word about these relationships being wrong ever. Neither did God.

Read this book also: BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE, by Bruce Bagemihl (St. Martin's Press). It discusses BiSexuality and Homosexuality in the animal kingdom (of which we all are a part).

Well, we know it goes on in Jersey also. I'd like to hear Sanesloot's thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

you bumped a thread thats almost 5 years old that i've never posted in until now? dude, you need to get a hobby

My hobby is man on man action, that's why I called you in to this thread.

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

Bump....for bio-chem

Originally Posted by bio-chem

you bumped a thread thats almost 5 years old that i've never posted in until now? dude, you need to get a hobby

Is there something you need to tell us Bio?

surely it comes down to the un-wholesome sexual practises that male homosexuals seem to ingage in . extreme promiscuity , anal sex , unprotected sex with strangers , sex while mashed on drugs . what two adults decide to do to one another behind closed doors is all good as long as they both want it . if two men really love each other why shouldnt they be able to be a couple and live a life together ? i think the bible warns against un wholesum sexual practises , many of which are now practised by " straight " people . just look at main stream porn . anal sex is rife , ass to mouth , all sorts of sick stuff . the more we watch it the more we think its the norm . the less we keep our minds on love and start to look at women as nothing but sperm resipticles . these images erod our soul . we take the images in and subconsciously it works nothing but harm inside of us . bit like junk food . my personal opinoin is that homosexuallty is not wrong . how can somebody help how their brain has developed ?. what is wrong is immoral sexual practise . that stands for staight peeps as well as gay peeps .

good post if you read it through. we should all respect our health and that of our partner.

i will say though, that gays are no more promiscuous than straights nor more likely to engage in the other behaviors.

Nowadays, it's just the opposite. Nearly 2.8 out of every 3 females like to munch carpet from time to time.

And, gay men are 1,000,000,000x more promiscuous and hedonistic than heteros. It's not so much that they desire sex more than str8 men, but that there's no one to say no. Imagine the population explosion we'd have on earth if suddenly women became just as innately promiscuous as men.

Dykes, on the other hand, probably aren't anymore promiscuous than str8 women.

I love it when people quote God.

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

I love it when people quote God.

God? God actually said something?

Originally Posted by benjani1

surely it comes down to the un-wholesome sexual practises that male homosexuals seem to ingage in . extreme promiscuity , anal sex , unprotected sex with strangers , sex while mashed on drugs . what two adults decide to do to one another behind closed doors is all good as long as they both want it . if two men really love each other why shouldnt they be able to be a couple and live a life together ? i think the bible warns against un wholesum sexual practises , many of which are now practised by " straight " people . just look at main stream porn . anal sex is rife , ass to mouth , all sorts of sick stuff . the more we watch it the more we think its the norm . the less we keep our minds on love and start to look at women as nothing but sperm resipticles . these images erod our soul . we take the images in and subconsciously it works nothing but harm inside of us . bit like junk food . my personal opinoin is that homosexuallty is not wrong . how can somebody help how their brain has developed ?. what is wrong is immoral sexual practise . that stands for staight peeps as well as gay peeps .

I wanna know which reg you are here

Youre using dashes and different font to throw off the dogs but im on to you buddy!

You obviously have gay tendencies...or youre VERY liberal. Possibly both since most liberals are gay.

"Certainly these Men felt it was right or they would not have engaged in this actiivity"

This is retarded.

I engage in plenty of activity that I know isn't right.

Where is that big gay bastard, John H. anyways?

Originally Posted by benjani1

surely it comes down to the un-wholesome sexual practises that male homosexuals seem to ingage in . extreme promiscuity , anal sex , unprotected sex with strangers , sex while mashed on drugs . what two adults decide to do to one another behind closed doors is all good as long as they both want it . if two men really love each other why shouldnt they be able to be a couple and live a life together ? i think the bible warns against un wholesum sexual practises , many of which are now practised by " straight " people . just look at main stream porn . anal sex is rife , ass to mouth , all sorts of sick stuff . the more we watch it the more we think its the norm . the less we keep our minds on love and start to look at women as nothing but sperm resipticles . these images erod our soul . we take the images in and subconsciously it works nothing but harm inside of us . bit like junk food . my personal opinoin is that homosexuallty is not wrong . how can somebody help how their brain has developed ?. what is wrong is immoral sexual practise . that stands for staight peeps as well as gay peeps .

Originally Posted by benjani1

surely it comes down to the un-wholesome sexual practises that male homosexuals seem to ingage in . extreme promiscuity , anal sex , unprotected sex with strangers , sex while mashed on drugs . what two adults decide to do to one another behind closed doors is all good as long as they both want it . if two men really love each other why shouldnt they be able to be a couple and live a life together ? i think the bible warns against un wholesum sexual practises , many of which are now practised by " straight " people . just look at main stream porn . anal sex is rife , ass to mouth , all sorts of sick stuff . the more we watch it the more we think its the norm . the less we keep our minds on love and start to look at women as nothing but sperm resipticles . these images erod our soul . we take the images in and subconsciously it works nothing but harm inside of us . bit like junk food . my personal opinoin is that homosexuallty is not wrong . how can somebody help how their brain has developed ?. what is wrong is immoral sexual practise . that stands for staight peeps as well as gay peeps .

this guy. lol.

also, John H. Thread ftw.

chain link ! why " for fucks sake " ? ....explain . in reply to mr fantastico , yep im very liberal if , but dats not gay , just open minded . in my experience the people who accuse others of being homosexual or take strong stances against it cos it really irritates them normally are the first to jump on the bare back band wagon . but its ok , its nothing to be ashamed about . you are who you are . peace