Thread: gay sheep in bible times: didn't they notice?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Sometimes it's hard to put simple truths through. *.*

Do you care to expand on that at all if its so simple then?

Originally Posted by G-O-D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1100903.stm

According to this article, a cougar killed some skier in Canada.


Wow what a releif now i can come out of the closet as a serial killer, i know its alright because an animal did it so it must be ok for me to do it too?

... you actually have a point.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1100903.stm

According to this article, a cougar killed some skier in Canada.


Wow what a releif now i can come out of the closet as a serial killer, i know its alright because an animal did it so it must be ok for me to do it too?

I don't get it. The way you're talking, it sounds like you're against homosexualty but you are a transvestite... I'm not saying that transvestites are gay or anything but shouldn't you understand gay people more than heterosexuals do? Transvestites say they feel as they are women, but then if you are a woman, then, except if you feel like a lesbian woman, you should like guys. I'm not saying you do, just that you should be the first one to understand people that do. (i'm not saying heterosexuals are healthy and gays are amputees)

Seriously, I don't know why I'm defending homosexualty since myself, I think that its not natural and that I think that homosexualty might all be a personnal misunderstanding or something but I still think that its injust to speek out this way of thinking since heterosexuals shouldn't be alowed to judge homosexuals 'cause we don't know how they feel. Who am I to say that its a personal missunderstooding when I never felt homosexualty to be even able to know that it was just a personal missunderstanding. Who am I to say that homosexualty is not natural since I never was gay to see if they are natural gay impulse or something else? It's like a healthy person saying that it must not feel that bad to be an amputee.

Actually I am a male not a transvestite, that was a mistake during Registeration that i didnt notice until you pointed it out, thanks.

I think it's unnatural aswell obviously.

Originally Posted by helloihello

... you actually have a point.

Ofcourse i do.

No, he doesn't have a point.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1100903.stm

According to this article, a cougar killed some skier in Canada.


Wow what a releif now i can come out of the closet as a serial killer, i know its alright because an animal did it so it must be ok for me to do it too?

Where does it say that it was alright that the cougar killed that woman? No where. Killing isn't right, but it's not wrong either. Kill to survive. Natural Selection.

There are many reasons to kill. Food, warmth, shelter, survival basically. It all depends on the given circumstances. If no one killed each other, then the earth would have been overpopulated years ago. What would we do then? Send them out to space? Oh wait, if we did that, they'd die sooner or later. So basically we would be killing them too, and that's wrong.

Just because an animal does it doesn't mean yo-

Oh wait...Humans ARE animals. We're just a highly intelligent race. Everything we do is natural. Having sex with one another, man on man, girl on girl. It's all natural. Just because they can't reproduce with each other doesn't mean it's not natural. And hell, that might even be a good thing that they can't reproduce.

Originally Posted by hellohihello

I would just like to add Leviticus has a lot do with cleanliness, obviously anal sex is dirty. I cannot say the same for the woman, did they have gay woman in the Bible?

Just because it wasn't in the Bible doesn't mean it never happened.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

Homosexaulity isn't natural.

You're joking right? How isn't it natural?

Originally Posted by slayer

No, he doesn't have a point.



Where does it say that it was alright that the cougar killed that woman? No where. Killing isn't right, but it's not wrong either. Kill to survive. Natural Selection.

Did i say it was alright that the cougar killed the women? No i did not.

If you read the OP at all, which i somehow doubt, he pointed out the alleged hypocrosy between the bible condeming homosexaulity and that sheeps which were common livestock during bible times practicing it. I pointed out that whats natural for an animal to do, doesnt translate to it being right for a human to do it. Hence i posted that spiel about it being ok to kill people because an animal did it. In case you didnt get it, i was being sarcastic. Oh my god, i can't beleive im explaining this to you.

Originally Posted by slayer

You're joking right? How isn't it natural?

I will give you a basic lesson in human anatonomy. Human males have a penis and Human Femals a vagina. Both serve to dispel waste (urine), which is sterile and they are also sex organs meant for reproduction.

Now butpirates, take it up the back door, the anus which is Shit canal, where evoloution put the shit canal, which is where we are supposed to get rid of shit.

People fucking eachother up the ass, excuse my blutness, serves no natural function and rather causes alot of damage to people who practice it because the anus was not meant to have things shoved up it. It is unclean, unhealthy to the person being Bumfucked, which is why anal sex is more likely to transmit AIDS and other STD's then heterosexaul sex. As an aspiring doctor you should know this, Kromoh.


That is why it is UnNatural. It serves no purpouse in nature at all, atleast not in the human race.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1100903.stm

According to this article, a cougar killed some skier in Canada.


Wow what a releif now i can come out of the closet as a serial killer, i know its alright because an animal did it so it must be ok for me to do it too?

And also, is that Kareem abdul jabar on your avatar?

Originally Posted by G-O-D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1100903.stm

According to this article, a cougar killed some skier in Canada.


Wow what a releif now i can come out of the closet as a serial killer, i know its alright because an animal did it so it must be ok for me to do it too?

cougar victim: Canadian skier

homosexuality victim: ???????????????????????????????????????????

The point is that homosexuality is natural, like killing, but killing is BAD. That is the difference.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

cougar victim: Canadian skier

homosexuality victim: ???????????????????????????????????????????

The point is that homosexuality is natural, like killing, but killing is BAD. That is the difference.

No, that is not the point, now go back to my reply to slayer and read that since you obviously haven't. I explained why i beleive that it is unatural, i wasn't equating it with murder however or saying that it was bad. If you haven't read the thread then you wont understand why i made that post with the cougar news story.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

No, that is not the point, now go back to my reply to slayer and read that since you obviously haven't. I explained why i beleive that it is unatural, i wasn't equating it with murder however or saying that it was bad. If you haven't read the thread then you wont understand why i made that post with the cougar news story.

Why are you being rude? Act like a Christian instead.

I read your points. If you think I missed something, tell me about it. You said the fact that an animal does something does not prove that what it does is okay. So, my point was that people were not using animal behavior to prove that homosexuality is "okay". They were talking about it to prove that it is natural. As for the "okay" part, I argued that homosexuality is victimless and therefore okay. You also said that homosexuality is "unnatural" because it "serves no purpose". For that matter, riding a stationary bike serves no purpose because the person on it does not go anywhere. Homosexuality does serve the purpose of fulfilling the desires of the people who have them and did not choose them. Now, if you disagree with my points, explain why.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

For that matter, riding a stationary bike serves no purpose because the person on it does not go anywhere.

It has the purpose of making you fit.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Homosexuality does serve the purpose of fulfilling the desires of the people who have them and did not choose them.

Are you saying that the only purpose of homosexualty is sex? Then, when they become old and will no more be sexualy attractive, they will break up and try to hook with a younger guy. That's desgusting, just as much as putting your dick in someone's ass with all their shit. Not something am wanting to do.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why are you being rude? Act like a Christian instead.

Sorry if i came off that way, i was being blunt not trying to be rude though. I'm not a Christian.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I read your points. If you think I missed something, tell me about it. You said the fact that an animal does something does not prove that what it does is okay. So, my point was that people were not using animal behavior to prove that homosexuality is "okay". They were talking about it to prove that it is natural.

And i was rebuking them by saying that what is a natural behavior for one animal is not for another (humans). I used the Cannibalistic Tendencies of Crocodiles to illustrate my point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

As for the "okay" part, I argued that homosexuality is victimless and therefore okay. You also said that homosexuality is "unnatural" because it "serves no purpose". For that matter, riding a stationary bike serves no purpose because the person on it does not go anywhere. Homosexuality does serve the purpose of fulfilling the desires of the people who have them and did not choose them. Now, if you disagree with my points, explain why.

I'm not saying Homosexaulity is wrong, If people want to live that kind of lifestyle that's none of my business but i am on the other hand arguing that it is essentially unnatural. I went into plenty of detail in this thread and explained why. I beelive it is unnatural because it serves no purpouse biologically in the human race. Here is me going into greater detail:

PS. Please pardon my use of crude words.
Here is my arguement

I will give you a basic lesson in human anatonomy. Human males have a penis and Human Femals a vagina. Both serve to dispel waste (urine), which is sterile and they are also sex organs meant for reproduction.

Now butpirates, take it up the back door, the anus which is Shit canal, where evoloution put the shit canal, which is where we are supposed to get rid of shit.

People fucking eachother up the ass, excuse my blutness, serves no natural function and rather causes alot of damage to people who practice it because the anus was not meant to have things shoved up it. It is unclean, unhealthy to the person being Bumfucked, which is why anal sex is more likely to transmit AIDS and other STD's then heterosexaul sex. As an aspiring doctor you should know this, Kromoh.


That is why it is UnNatural. It serves no purpouse in nature at all, atleast not in the human race.

I guess homosexualty is unatural but is a natural impulse from the homosexual?

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

I guess homosexualty is unatural but is a natural impulse from the homosexual?

Is it a natural impulse from the homosexaul? Well i guess you'll have to ask a homosexaul that. .

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

It has the purpose of making you fit.

And homosexuality has the purpose of getting homosexuals off.

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

Are you saying that the only purpose of homosexualty is sex? Then, when they become old and will no more be sexualy attractive, they will break up and try to hook with a younger guy. That's desgusting, just as much as putting your dick in someone's ass with all their shit. Not something am wanting to do.

It is one of the purposes, not the only purpose in all cases. A lot of homosexuals have relationships. Homosexuality parallels heterosexuality that does not result in reproduction.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

Sorry if i came off that way, i was being blunt not trying to be rude though. I'm not a Christian.

Cool deal. I guess I assumed you are a Christian because of your screen name, avatar, and opinions.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

And i was rebuking them by saying that what is a natural behavior for one animal is not for another (humans). I used the Cannibalistic Tendencies of Crocodiles to illustrate my point.

Cannibalism for humans is not unnatural. It is just evil.

Originally Posted by G-O-D

I'm not saying Homosexaulity is wrong, If people want to live that kind of lifestyle that's none of my business but i am on the other hand arguing that it is essentially unnatural. I went into plenty of detail in this thread and explained why. I beelive it is unnatural because it serves no purpouse biologically in the human race. Here is me going into greater detail:

What biological purpose does heterosexual sex serve when one of the people is sterile? What about heterosexual sex with condoms?

Originally Posted by G-O-D

PS. Please pardon my use of crude words.
Here is my arguement

What does the danger element have to do with this?

Is masturbation unnatural? What about oral sex?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Cool deal. I guess I assumed you are a Christian because of your screen name, avatar, and opinions.

Read what my occupation and interests are in my personal profile and i think you will see i'm actually mocking christians....Anyway, i'm pretty sure it would be blasphemous for a christian to use the username GOD? Anyway don't judge my beleif system from this one topic. I dont see why me not being christian equates to me having to have politically correct beleifs.

EDIT. I just remembered where my username comes from, it was inspired by a rap album called "all fates have changed"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Cannibalism for humans is not unnatural. It is just evil.

Well its a relatively normal part of Crocodile society but in most human societies it is not natural except for maybe for some Polynesian and Native American societies but that was a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What biological purpose does heterosexual sex serve when one of the people is sterile? What about heterosexual sex with condoms?

The Human Brain is essentially a bio-computer. Humans are programed from birth to have certain reproductive instincts, this is where lust and horniness and all that comes from. Humans also have pleasure from intercourse so i dont see why someone being sterile would stop them from the act. Humans unlike most animals are driven towards sex by pleasure and affection not for procreation....atleast in the western world that is.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What does the danger element have to do with this?

Because it is unnatural,the Shit canal did not evolve to have dicks stuck up them. Since it is an unnatural function to have things prodded up your shit canal(ass) it is dangerous and can cause injury which results in bleeding which results invariably in a higher prevalence of AIDS and other STD's.

Originally Posted by SleepyCookieDough

I guess homosexualty is unatural but is a natural impulse from the homosexual?

...


Jeez... If you don't know the answer to that, you suck. Do some research before forming opinion.

Also, get off the computer, and go live life a bit. So homosexuality is purposeless? With that mindset, I don't see a purpose for making children either. Survival of the species? Survival is not what's "right", it's just what is induced to live over time. It doesn't mean that things that don't survive are wrong.

Finally, stop equalling homosexuality with paedophilia or rape. I have no idea where you got that from. In fact, most rapists and paedos are heterosexuals.



Is homosexuality unnatural? The concept 'natural' is subjective. Is it immoral? It doesn't do bad to anyone. Is it wrong? Sexuality isn't a maths exercise for there to be right and wrong. Is it purposeless? Only if you think masturbation is purposeless, too. Is it sinful? It depends on your definition of sin, but I couldn't care less about what religious extremists from 2000 years ago thought.

I don't care if being gay is right or wong, because it's weird and disgusting. That's enough for me.

Originally Posted by Michael

I don't care if being gay is right or wong, because it's weird and disgusting. That's enough for me.

Sure. But does you disliking it justify it being illegal? Because religious marriage also disgusts me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Sure. But does you disliking it justify it being illegal? Because religious marriage also disgusts me.

Nope. It should be legal. I don't care at all. My opinion is that it's nasty, but I wouldn't vote against gay marriage. I would skip the Q

Originally Posted by Kromoh

...

Finally, stop equalling homosexuality with paedophilia or rape. I have no idea where you got that from. In fact, most rapists and paedos are heterosexuals.

No one was equating Homosexaulity with Pedophilia or Rape Kromoh...No one even mentioned it at all.

Funny you should mention it out of the blue like that though...Kind of suspicious really.....guilty conscious?

Originally Posted by Michael

I don't care if being gay is right or wong, because it's weird and disgusting. That's enough for me.

This ^^

Originally Posted by G-O-D

The Human Brain is essentially a bio-computer. Humans are programed from birth to have certain reproductive instincts, this is where lust and horniness and all that comes from. Humans also have pleasure from intercourse so i dont see why someone being sterile would stop them from the act. Humans unlike most animals are driven towards sex by pleasure and affection not for procreation....atleast in the western world that is.

I am not sure what your point is there. The tendency toward sexual pleasure evolved because it drives reproduction, but it results in masturbation, oral sex, and internet porn viewership, none of which cause reproduction. Why do you not consider those things unnatural?

Originally Posted by G-O-D

This ^^

With all due respect, I think that is what was driving your other arguments. Homosexuality seems disgusting to you, and that gives it the appearance of being unnatural.

By the way, do you like the idea of two female supermodels having sex?

Originally Posted by rottingteeth

back in bible times they didn't have television, movies, internet, texting, etc. they depended a lot more on animals and sheperds were common. did they not notice homosexual relations in animals, especially sheep? why then would they say it is unnatural? I'm talking about the verse in leviticus, 20:13:





I noticed it doesn't actually say "unnatural" in either KJV or NIV, but that is what was said in a movie I saw last night that took place in bible times, which is why I wanted to make this thread...so I'm not sure what version they were using :\

still, with all the sheperds, they must have noticed there were some "gay" sheep. did they put these animals to death for commiting this terrible sinful act? :\

or did they notice and no one gave a damn about any of it except for the people with power who picked and chose what books to include in the bible and how exactly it should be translated? I can't say I know what the actual hebrew is or what the most accurate translation would be, but it can't be "unnatural" because any sensible person in that time would realize it occurs in nature and therefore cannot be considered against nature.

furthermore why would anyone take the laws laid down in leviticus seriously? it calls for people to be put to death for petty offenses. why would a christian/bible believer who is against homosexuality think it is ok to use this verse in an argument? for one thing they likely don't even know the REASON it's in there (there is a book written by bishop John Shelby Spong- in which he claims to have studied this subject in depth, and in the original language- that provides the real reason behind these verses, at least according to him) and another thing, if they are going to use this verse, why not take all the others just as seriously? why pick just one verse, one law, and reject all the others as outdated or otherwise unacceptable?

I just don't get it :\

In "bible times" the weren't naturalists. Animals were vastly inferior to humans, so their being abominations stands just to show their inferior bearing in the world.

They'd argue that in fact human homosexuality would be an abomination because it is more like animal practice than man.

@ Universal Mind

I have given clear arguements through out this thread to support my opinion. Now i would like you to present your side of the arguement in a thesis statement if you would like.