Reply to Indiana's Religious Freedom law

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indiana's Religious Freedom law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.[/quote]

So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?

Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?

The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!

Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.

Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.

(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)[/quote]

We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.

I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. [b]But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection[/b]. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs? 
[/quote]

This is sad. Some of you folks are so fixated on other peoples' sex lives!

PP, how does your husband "predominately show you affection"-- on all fours, or while you're on your back? Does that question sound a little intrusive? If so, ask yourself how do you feel when your relationship is denigrated and your love for another person is described as no more than a sex act? You need to butt out and mind your own business. Jesus doesn't like people who think about sex all the time, just as [b]He despises those who judge their fellow men[/b].[/quote]

My money's on that PP comes back and gives the ol' line about how she's actually "judging the sin not the sinner" and piles on some more anal chat...just to get the point across.[/quote]

Pp here. He sure as hell doesn't need to do an excrement check on his private area to make sure he didn't get any on him. And DH & I can have children, another indication how we do it is natural and intended. [/quote]

When you put it that way, how's life as a pilgrim?[/quote]

If I'm a pilgrim, then I guess I should ask you -- what was the last animal you had sex with? What a ridiculous assumption that because I oppose homosexuality and unnatural acts, that I'm 'a pilgrim.'[/quote]

Opposing it for yourself is fine and completely your right, but why do you get to dictate what others can do in their own private intimate encounters as long as it doesn't violate consent?

Also, the animal thing is massively offensive. Animals cannot communicate their competent, aware, informed, adult consent to any sex act -- so engaging in ANY sex with an animal is the highest level of immoral. Two consenting adults having whatever sex they both enjoy is completely different. Everyone who has ever had either anal or oral sex is in no way morally equivalent to anyone who would violate an animal. In fact, I would think someone who exhibits that little care for morality and consent is pretty rare. But good job most likely insulting a majority of the readers of this thread -- those acts aren't exactly rare among couples comprised of any gender combination.[/quote]

I am sure you can find two disabled humans unable to communicate but still able to enjoy sex with one another. Lack of ability to consent via words isn't the determinative factor. What you find highly objectionable is similar to what many practicing religious folks find objectionable too, but you want to be the one to identify what the objectionable criteria is. Anal sex and anal sex betw men is unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths. So is sex w a child. So is sex with animals. That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics