[
Replying to post 9 by onewithhim]
Thrusting an erect penis into the rectum, even after using a lubricant, can devastate the cellular layer, opening enough tears to allow easy passage of a virus in ejaculated semen to enter the blood stream." It goes on, but I think you can see from what I've quoted here that the body was not designed to have penises in the rectum. It's painful, it's damaging, and the action can facilitate the transmission of diseases. Is God really cruel for prohibiting that practice? It looks to me like He is looking out for the health and well-fare of people.
Two questions
1) What does this have to do with gay
marriage?
2) Are you aware that virii can be transmitted between heterosexual partners? If you want to be consistent, you would have to be campaigning against heterosexual marriage because heterosexual partners may damage each other's private areas and transmit a virus.
You are suggesting that God is not loving, that he's not fair.
In modern society, those who are married enjoy certain rights. A man who is married to a woman in hospital has the right to visit her, or to inherit her estate, for instance.
If a government does not recognise homosexual marriage, a homosexual couple can cohabit for decades but not be allowed to visit each other in hospital, or have inheritances challenged.
Surely, an all knowing and all loving God would realise that demanding heterosexual marriage only would harm these homosexuals.
I believe that God has made laws and principles for us to follow, and they are for our own well-being.
What about those of us who do not believe as you do? Should your religious beliefs trump the freedom of homosexuals to marry those whom they love?
Think about the shoe on the other foot. Imagine living in a society that had homosexual marriages only, where heterosexual marriages were illegal, and people said that these laws and principles were for our own well being. Imagine not being allowed to marry the man you love.
Whatever his reasons, it is vital that we respect his commands. Why not try to understand his point of view?
So you don't even care about the reasons. If you don't know the reasons, how can you or anyone else understand his 'point of view'?
To act out of love for your fellow man,
What about my two fellow men over there, who are in love with each other?
you should really be trying to help your fellow man to see God's view on things and warn your fellow man that they are in an extremely precarious position if they ignore Him.
We don't see it as God's view. We see it as the views of mortal men trumped up in divine clothing.
I, nor my fellow JWs, do not hate gays.
Telling someone they can't and shouldn't be having sex with someone they love and who loves them (as long as they're adults, of course)...is pretty hateful, from where I'm standing.
Would it make sense to you if I said "Onewithhim shouldn't have sex with her husband. Oh no, I don't hate heterosexuals, just so you know"?
We just know that the Bible says that practicing homosexuals will not inherit God's Kingdom.
You do realise, I hope, that the Bible is just a book (or volume of books) that says a lot of things?
There are some gays who choose to be celebate, and this is fine with God. Whatever negative tendencies a person might have, if they control them, God is pleased.
From where I'm standing, this calling homosexuality 'negative' looks completely arbitrary.
Homosexual activity is not natural.
Be careful about calling something natural. Natural means, it occurs in nature. There are plenty of examples of homosexuality occurring in nature. I've seen it happen with dogs (I once saw a doggy threesome as a child...boy did that surprise me!)
It goes against what the body was designed for. A Discover magazine from 1985 (you wouldn't find an article like this today because of weakened morals and political correctness), has an article about Aids and transmission of the disease.
Maybe because the data in it is woefully out of date? Should I, when teaching someone about evolution, cite
only Darwin's On the Origin of Species and completely ignore everything discovered about genetics and DNA?
Do you not see how ridiculous you sound by saying you're wilfully citing an article 31 years out of date that talks about science?
Do you know what else that article says? It says that " “Heterosexuals are virtually risk free,�" which isn't true. In fact, it wasn't until
a year later at the International AIDS Conference in Paris that heterosexual transmission of AIDS was recognised.
See what I mean by deliberately looking at out of date information?
So...when are you going to campaign against heterosexual marriage?
Is God really cruel for prohibiting that practice? It looks to me like He is looking out for the health and well-fare of people.
Answer me this then. Why would God put a prostate gland that gives pleasure when stimulated via anal sex if he designs the human body such that having anal sex is so dangerous? Why not have no prostate or have it not be able to stimulated or have it somewhere else?
You said that gays should be able to love whomever they wish, but why would you say that it should stop there?
There has to be a mutual attraction, and we supporters of homosexual marriage tend to frown on bestiality.
Just because a person has unnatural tendencies---toward whatever---and he says loudly that he should have the right to "love" that sheep or dog or whatever, then he should have that right?
Notice what you're leaving out here. The sheep or dog supposedly saying back "I want to love him too". That is because they can't.
With two humans though, they can say that.
It's not written anywhere that people MUST have sex, anyway. We are not animals. We can control our urges if we so wish. I commend the people that have desires toward the same sex for NOT following through on it.
Then I look forward to your declaration that you as a heterosexual who has the ability to transmit virii via intercourse that you are now celibate.
Or is it one rule for me, and one rule for thee?
So...is God mean?
The God in your holy book comes across the meanest entity I have ever heard about.
I see Him as caring about our physical and mental health.
Yeah, it's awesome not being able to have sex with the man I love, and not having our marriage recognised by the state, not being able to visit him in the hospital when he's sick, not inheriting from him when he dies, among other things. That does
wonders for my physical and mental health. Why, I'm sure the stress of not being allowed to visit him won't wreak havoc with my body.
He designed things a certain way, and to go against what is natural is asking for trouble,
So why are you wearing clothes then? I am not aware of any other species that wears the furs or skins of other animals.
Having said that, no one has a right to harm a person because they are gay, and gays should not be treated as less of a human being.
Then allow them to marry.