|
Post by exit only on Dec 14, 2006 22:49:43 GMT -5
Another point: fecal matter comes from the rectum.
You really think God produced a susceptible organ (the p----s) to be continually pushed into waste product, susceptible to bacteria and disease?
That is medically considered unsanitary. There is no way to clear the rectum from waste product, for anal intercourse, so arguing with other analogies will not convince any of us.
The anus is designed as an "exit only."
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Dec 15, 2006 0:03:33 GMT -5
Ever hear of an enema, or is that a sin too? Now if only there was a remedy for mental constipation...
|
|
|
Post by justamom on Dec 15, 2006 0:14:24 GMT -5
I am in a same sex relationship and I have produced children....... course they were produced when I was married and still in the closet... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 0:46:25 GMT -5
I am in a same sex relationship and I have produced children....... course they were produced when I was married and still in the closet... ;D
Can we assume it was a walk-in closet? I am not sure I could produce a child in one of our closets! However, there was that time in the Volkswagen - but that's another story!
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 1:04:55 GMT -5
Point: Homosexual relationships do not produce life. The majority of heterosexual couplings do not produce children either. You seem to be a little hung up on the sexual act rather than the relationship between people. Are you saying that because a couple cannot produce children that their relationship is wrong? From a biological point of view - no you are not. The discussion of ID is a topic for another thread. Not all animals are human beings but all human beings are animals. As genetic research moves forward more and more will be learned. Right now it looks like there is a genetic marker for homosexuality. Do you think God had Down syndrome? In your line of thinking this is a design from God. Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Marfan syndrome, Huntington's disease, and hemochromatosis are all caused by caused by an abnormality in an individual's genome. Do you condemn people with Huntingtin's disease? We do. Humans are humans - warts and all. It might be suffering from translation. After all - the earth does not have 4 corners either. Stars cannot fall. From what can be seen, the firmament is no between vast expanses of water.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 1:25:02 GMT -5
Another point: fecal matter comes from the rectum. Urine comes from the pen isMenstrual flow comes from the uterus/vag inaAir goes in and out of the nose. What is your point? Well, I don't usually think of the vag ina in those terms but in general the bacterial flora of the vag ina does not present a problem. Or perhaps you were talking about an opening that has more bacteria than any other. But even then, oral sex does not cause a lot of bacterial infections. And as far as anal intercourse goes - like any other sexual activity, care should be taken to prevent the spread of disease. Compared to the bacteria in the mouth, the rectum is rather sparsely populated. You too could benefit from a session with a good physiology text. Or perhaps keep your eyes open and directed at the screen during your next colonoscopy. One could argue that the rectum/colon is as clean as other openings. You keep saying this and I wonder what the point is? Are you saying that a homosexual couple that does not have anal sex is not a problem for you? You seem very hung up on anal sex. There is more to a relationship than sex. But looking at this - what about the man and woman who enjoy anal intercourse? Are they also off to hell in a hand basket? And oral intercourse? Can't make babies that way. A sin as well? Quick show of hands - Who does not enjoy oral sex? OK - thanks.
|
|
|
Post by justamom on Dec 15, 2006 8:12:09 GMT -5
Hello Observing,
Very good posts, btw.....
Nah it wasn't a walk in closet....so I am still kinna confused how them babies did happen... LOL
I agree with you 100 plus % that a relationship is more then sex....If a relationship is only based on the sex .. that isn't a relationship to me...and it won't last very long..... at least not the way I define a relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 8:35:39 GMT -5
Observer wrote : "Breasts were designed to provide a newborn. I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And from these reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were desigened for."
The above statements reveal an ignorance of how scripture views male/female relationships (within the confines of marriage) plus an admission of "no" experience with the opposite sex (assuming Observer is a male !). No problem with either of these, unless Observer is a "homosexual !"
It is interesting to consider Proverbs 5:18-21
18. "Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19. Let he be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger ? 21. For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings."
Clearly God did not just create female breasts for suckling a newborn ! Clearly a man and woman are meant to fully enjoy each others bodies in loving and faithful harmony. However I do accept some practices go beyond the boundaries for many couples such as oral and anal sex. A loving and faithful partner will be content to enjoy what their partner enjoys, providing at least the basics are met.
Mr Observer, I am very impressed with your medical knowledge. Make no mistake about that, but like so many who have acquired above average knowledge in certain spheres, it has become a snare to you. Instead of considering these matters with 21st Centuru thinking, we need to go back to before the 1700's thinking you refer to, to about 4,000 BC to learn what our Creator intended when he fashioned us from the dust of the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 8:39:22 GMT -5
Observer wrote : "Breasts were designed to provide a newborn. I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And from these reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were desigened for."
The above statements reveal an ignorance of how scripture views male/female relationships (within the confines of marriage) plus an admission of "no" experience with the opposite sex (assuming Observer is a male !). No problem with either of these, unless Observer is a "homosexual !"
It is interesting to consider Proverbs 5:18-21
18. "Let thy fountain be blessed; and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19. Let he be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. 20. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger ? 21. For the ways of man are before the eyes of the Lord, and he pondereth all his goings."
Clearly God did not just create female breasts for suckling a newborn ! Clearly a man and woman are meant to fully enjoy each others bodies in loving and faithful harmony. However I do accept some practices go beyond the boundaries for many couples such as oral and anal sex. A loving and faithful partner will be content to enjoy what their partner enjoys, providing at least the basics are met.
Mr Observer, I am very impressed with your medical knowledge. Make no mistake about that, but like so many who have acquired above average knowledge in certain spheres, it has become a snare to you. Instead of considering these matters with 21st Centuru thinking, we need to go back to before the 1700's thinking you refer to, to about 4,000 BC to learn what our Creator intended when he fashioned us from the dust of the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 8:44:20 GMT -5
Observer. It appears that "you do" enjoy "anal sex" judging by your show of hands remark.
I for one don't, or more importantly, I have never tried it with either male or female. In my view (being a male) it is clearly wrong with a man, and unnecessary with a woman (wife).
Furthermore, I do have little medical knowledge, BUT in the line of my work I have had to consult medical practitioners on a fairly regular basis regarding problems relating to homosexuals. Every one that I have consulted with would agree with the sentiments I have proclaimed on this subject so far, because they are the source of my information.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 15, 2006 10:07:10 GMT -5
Urine comes from the male organ...What is your point? I think the point is fairly obvious. The male organ is designed for two functions - it contains the urethra through which urine is excreted from the bladder, and its spongy erectile tissue is capable of tumescent activity suitable for intercourse, through which semen may pass. Therefore, the sexual act is still open to the possibility of conception, even if conception does not occur. The rectum's function is solely for the reception and storage of fecal waste matter until such time it is socially appropriate to defecate.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 10:28:54 GMT -5
Observer wrote : "Breasts were designed to provide a newborn. I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And from these reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were desigened for." First of all, if you are going to quote please do so accurately. What I wrote was: Breasts were designed to provide nourishment for a newborn. I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And, from other reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were designed for. Some women like to ...
Well you get the point.
No, the above statement shows how a part of the body that is designed for one thing can also be used for something else. It is interesting indeed. The writer tells the male to behave as the female deer. And then as the male deer. Do you take this to mean that the man should always mount the woman from behind? To go back to the deer. Have you ever seen deer mate? Do you think this if the model the writer really had in mind? WAM, bam - thank you, Ma'am! Not a lot of breast play among deer (or any other mammal!) I mean it says a lot of the same things in the Song of Solomon. Speaking of the SoS, what do you make of this: Song of Solomon 2:3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
An allegory if I ever read one! His fruit?? Song of Solomon 4:16 Come ... blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.The spices may flow out?? Sounds like metaphors for fellatio and cunnilingus. We can debate who made the bodies in another thread. But the mammary gland was developed for nourishment. Sexual use would be secondary. I wonder what the basic needs might be. Perhaps the woman can only have her basic needs met through cunnilingus. What to do in that case? Thank you - I guess paying attention in High School has finally paid off. I think you missed some points. The reference to the 17th century (which would be the 1600s) was to point out that Redi proved, in the 17th century, the error in the idea of spontaneous generation, the idea you espoused when you claimed anal intercourse caused genital warts. In another post, perhaps in response to Juliette, I did look a little further back in the history of humans. About 2.4 million years before the basic design had been modified by various aspects of society. That is where you need to look to discover what the basic body parts were designed to do.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 10:33:02 GMT -5
Urine comes from the male organ...What is your point? I think the point is fairly obvious. The male organ is designed for two functions - it contains the urethra through which urine is excreted from the bladder, and its spongy erectile tissue is capable of tumescent activity suitable for intercourse, through which semen may pass. Therefore, the sexual act is still open to the possibility of conception, even if conception does not occur. The rectum's function is solely for the reception and storage of fecal waste matter until such time it is socially appropriate to defecate. You are, of course, 100% correct. But does this mean that the rectum cannot be used for sexual pleasure? If a married couple both agree this is an act they wish to engage in, is it forbidden because the rectum was designed for waste elimination? You could say the same of oral sex - the mouth was designed for eating food. Is oral sex wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 10:37:29 GMT -5
Thank you Clay. "Real" Doctors can sum up in one sentence (your last one) that which I could spend hours trying to impart.
What you have just said speaks volumes and may I say, supports scripture. Often in our debates we look for scripture to support our case. It is refreshing when proper learning arrives at conclusions which justifies the written word, even though this should not be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 15, 2006 10:40:39 GMT -5
You are, of course, 100% correct. But does this mean that the rectum cannot be used for sexual pleasure? If a married couple both agree this is an act they wish to engage in, is it forbidden because the rectum was designed for waste elimination? You could say the same of oral sex - the mouth was designed for eating food. Is oral sex wrong? You also know that the mouth is used for more than one purpose. It is used for processing food in preparation for digestion as well as communication - both verbal and nonverbal. The fact remains that the homosexual sex act is nothing more than mutually consensual masturbation that will never lead to procreation, whereas heterosexual intercourse can (obviously). P.S. If you really want me to blow your mind, I'll share with you the full Catholic view on sexual relations between husband and wife! :-)
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 10:45:10 GMT -5
Observer. It appears that "you do" enjoy "anal sex" judging by your show of hands remark. You really need to read more carefully. The show of hands concerned oral sex. I will assume you are still laboring under the misunderstanding stemming from your incorrect reading of my post. Lets just look at the unnecessary part. If this is something that the woman (wife) would be interested in experiencing why is it unnecessary? As far as whether or not it is pleasurable or not - you are not really one to judge. You did comment about the muscles in a woman's vag ina making intercourse possible. It can also increase the sensation by tightening. The same can be said of the anal sphincters. If the professionals that you have talked to believe that genital warts are caused by anal intercourse you need to seek some other professionals. If you think the virus cares if the host if a homosexual or not you need to learn more about viruses. Or course, there is the new research that has shown that circumcised men have a much lower chance of getting HIV. There are specific cells in the foreskin that are especially susceptible to that virus. Removing these lowers the chance. By as much as 70% (if I remember correctly) in female to male transmission. I guess you could incorrectly state that the HIV cares if the host is Jewish!
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 10:54:40 GMT -5
You also know that the mouth is used for more than one purpose. It is used for processing food in preparation for digestion as well as communication - both verbal and nonverbal. The fact remains that the homosexual sex act is nothing more than mutually consensual masturbation that will never lead to procreation, whereas heterosexual intercourse can (obviously). Of course there are a number of heterosexual activities that are also nothing more than mutually consensual masturbation that will never lead to procreation. The problem I am wrestling with is that homosexual relationships are always reduced to anal intercourse. Anal intercourse is simply one sexual activity that both homosexual and heterosexual males and females can engage in. It does not define a homosexual. There are many male homosexuals who do not engage in anal sex. There are heterosexual couples who do engage in anal sex. There are heterosexual couples that do not engage in vaginal intercourse. The specific type of sexual activity is incidental to the type of relationship. Clay, thanks for the offer but I am all set with that. Christian answers addresses some of this www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sex-oral.htmlBut for humor: www.sexinchrist.com/Actually I am not certain if this is humor orf someone's belief. I judged it as humor.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 11:14:50 GMT -5
I apologize for not quoting you accurately. However, I'm sure you will agree that the minor discrepancies do not in any way alter your statement. Further, I will apologize in advance for any future tardiness on my part, which I will endeavour to keep to a minimum.
Observer's quote " No, the above statement shows how a part of the body that is designed for one thing can also be used for something else."
Answer. Does that make that "something" else right ? My hands are designed for lifting. Does that make theft okay. Or what about murder, etc, etc, etc. Clearly there are many things that our hands (and other parts of the body) can be used for, but are wrong !
Observer's quote "Not a lot of breast play among deer (or any other mammal).
Answer. From "your own" observation, it is clear that you DO NOT think the writer was in fact referring to the sexual act itself with this part of his statement. Have you considered that this may have been his analogy for love, preceding the sexual act ?
Observer's quote. "But the mammary gland was developed for nourishment. Sexual use would be secondary."
Answer. Are you serious ? I ask this understanding your position to be that "female breasts" were primarily designed for nourishing a child and that sexual use is secondary ? Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right "aren't you putting the cart before the horse ?"
What comes first, sexual arousal leading to copulation, or nourishing a child ? Please understand my position. I am not suggesting that nourishing a child is less important than sexual foreplay, but merely placing things in their proper order, in which case how can sexual use be "secondary" to nourishment. In the correct order of things, sexual use is the "primary" event which leads to the "secondary" event of nourishment !
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 15, 2006 11:38:15 GMT -5
The problem I am wrestling with is that homosexual relationships are always reduced to anal intercourse. That's a valid concern. The specific type of sexual activity is incidental to the type of relationship. Except to the point when it comes to male-female intragirl thingyl intercourse which can be procreative. Homosexual sexual activity is never procreative. Clay, thanks for the offer but I am all set with that. My office's firewall wouldn't let me see the last link...
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 15, 2006 11:39:36 GMT -5
"girl thingy" ? Gimme a freakin' break! I mean "intra-va g in al"
|
|
jude
Senior Member
Christ Follower
Posts: 588
|
Post by jude on Dec 15, 2006 11:56:21 GMT -5
My office's firewall wouldn't let me see the last link... Don't worry. Your really not missing anything. It is grotesque humor-at best.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Dec 15, 2006 12:07:19 GMT -5
I have heard it said that some men find it pleasurable to caress women's breasts. And, from other reports, women at times find it pleasurable. Some men like to caress a woman's buttocks. Not hardly what they were designed for. Some women like to ... [glow=red,2,300]Can't take any more[/glow] What difference does it really make where you stick it or lick it? If you like it, don't advertise it or else someone will have a problem with it. Enough of the intellectual over-analysis.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 12:15:23 GMT -5
Observer's quote " No, the above statement shows how a part of the body that is designed for one thing can also be used for something else." Answer. Does that make that "something" else right ? My hands are designed for lifting. Does that make theft okay. Or what about murder, etc, etc, etc. Clearly there are many things that our hands (and other parts of the body) can be used for, but are wrong ! Well, in general, yo take something your hands would have to lift the object so they would be doing what they were designed to do. Your claim was that anal intercourse was wrong because it was not what the rectum has been designed to do. My example was to show that using a body part for something other than what it might have been originally designed to do is not, in itself, wrong. Oh, but I do think the writer was referring to the sexual act. People have been having sex for years! I was suggesting that the writer was telling the man to try different sexual positions, like those of the male and female deer. You are wrong. I take it you have not had a lot of experience seeing other mammals mating. Breast play is not a big part of it. Female breasts have been objectified by western civilization into sexual objects. This has been done to such an extent that a nursing mother, in most places, cannot nurse her child in public. Remember that even today there are many places where the female breast is no more of a sexual object than the male breast. You need to look at sex and reproduction without the overlay of modern society. The scent of the female was the primary stimulus that drew the male to the female. Secondary was the look of the vulva. The breasts were never part of it. Copulation was most likely from the rear and was usually accomplished by the dominate male. You have to move to the recent past, i.e.,the last 10,000 years to see the kind of behavior you are talking about. Caressing is wonderful and hopefully pleasing for both but this a recent development.
|
|
|
Post by Dr R Shoal on Dec 15, 2006 12:35:43 GMT -5
Observer, I said before that you were in a snare and I firmly believe that. Furthermore, I suggest it is a self-locking one, rather than a free running snare, i.e. one which gets tighter the more a trapped animal struggles.
I will thank you for your discourse and to use your own words "I'm all set" with what I believe, as you are clearly with your own beliefs.
If Nate doesn't object, I'll plagiarise his oft used phrase "we'll let the reader decide !"
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 12:44:41 GMT -5
My office's firewall wouldn't let me see the last link... Don't worry. Your really not missing anything. It is grotesque humor-at best. I am not sure what was grotesque - the site offered biblical text to support various sexual activities. While the meaning of some of the verses might be questionable, they were at least somewhat plausible. I still don't know if it s an edgy humor site or, even worse, a sincere site trying to justify behavior. Jude, what in particular did you find grotesque?
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 12:49:37 GMT -5
Observer, I said before that you were in a snare and I firmly believe that. Furthermore, I suggest it is a self-locking one, rather than a free running snare, i.e. one which gets tighter the more a trapped animal struggles. I will thank you for your discourse and to use your own words "I'm all set" with what I believe, as you are clearly with your own beliefs. If Nate doesn't object, I'll plagiarise his oft used phrase "we'll let the reader decide !" You mentioned the snare before but it was in relation to only looking at things in the 21st or (as you said) the 1700s. I thought I had referred you to the post with the clock that looked back 2.4 million years and left human's recent past in the last 3 minutes of the time table. Or course, there could well be other snares. Thanks for your input.
|
|
|
Post by VETS8QZ on Dec 15, 2006 12:50:40 GMT -5
a joke (sort of along the lines of this discussion)
An architect, artist and civil engineer where discussing what kind of profession God was.
The artist said, “Well clearly God was an artist. Look at the beautiful human body. Only an artist would create that”.
The architect said, “No no, I must disagree. Clearly God was an architect. When you take the beauty of the human body and combine with the functional design that can only be the work of the architect”!
The civil engineer just laughed and said, “Silly silly silly. God was obviously a civil engineer. Who else would put a sewer through a playground”?
but back to the discussion on hand.. pple here have brought up the point that since jesus did not directly address homosexuality it must be ok. interesting claim.. that would mean anything jesus didnt directly address must be ok.. that would include beastiality and pedophilia.
basically, we can justify anything we want. that is why lawyers exist you know.
|
|
|
Post by Observing on Dec 15, 2006 12:55:30 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300]Can't take any more[/glow] What difference does it really make where you stick it or lick it? If you like it, don't advertise it or else someone will have a problem with it. Enough of the intellectual over-analysis. I agree. But how can you explain that to someone who thinks that it does matter? In reflecting I am guessing it is the fault of a Montessori school education. Everything has a place. Everything in its place. And don't you dare use those sandpaper tactile blocks for building!!! We will guide your creative efforts along the correct path.
|
|