Most people tend to - ignore lesbians when discussing homosexuality. Just like some guys doesn't believe lesbians exist, they just haven't met the right man... -_-
Just haven't found the right man XD I've heard it said that there is no such thing a gay woman and all woman are bisexual. Two points I'd love to disagree with.
Also, I checked a couple of bibles, and I couldn't find the part where it says it's wrong for two women to be together. Will a Christian please tell me where it does? If it does?
It doesn't. I do believe that the whole man lying down with man thing is supposed to cover all homosexuality. That's what I've heard at least.
... I wonder if Gaybashers have some kind of sixth sense to find out if someone is gay...
I'm pretty sure prejudice is their fuel.
Just haven't found the right man XD I've heard it said that there is no such thing a gay woman and all woman are bisexual. Two points I'd love to disagree with.
Oh yes. Funny how some guys find it hard to believe... Well, funny might not be the right word...
It doesn't. I do believe that the whole man lying down with man thing is supposed to cover all homosexuality. That's what I've heard at least.
Same here, but that just does not make sense. Since, well, it's pretty far from being the same thing. And the wording is clearly about men. Just as some of the other wordings are clearly about women...
Well it would probably work much better (at all) with two women, as a egg is required.
Egg doners... But yes, also because then one of the woman can give birth to the child. Just saying it is simple and possible, when they find the right tecnics.
I'm pretty sure prejudice is their fuel.
The very macho men (the ones liking football with all their hearts) sometimes seem to be the greatest bashers, but still they are able to hug in happiness... *confused*
Really? I'm sure it does. Most people just don't find it in Leviticus and conclude it doesn't exist.
Please find it? I would really like to know where they have it from, since I don't recall anyone quoting anything other than Leviticus - and not just in this thread. But my memory fails me sometimes, so... I dunno, I'd just like to read it.
The very macho men (the ones liking football with all their hearts) sometimes seem to be the greatest bashers, but still they are able to hug in happiness... *confused*
Hugs are a different kind of affection... But yes, those who bash guys for being gay when displaying affectionate emotions towards other guys should think about what they do themselves sometimes...
Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (1:26-27)
Romans. Totally called it. Now can we stop all of this "The Bible only condemns homosexual men" nonsense? Good.
Okay, it calls it shameful lusts? Though it actually doesn't specify it to be attraction towards each other, it could be the usual "don't have sex with animals". Just saying, it's not as specific as in the other.
I would like to make the point that the bible condemns sodomy (bum sex) and so many straight people would be treated the same as gays in the eyes of god. This doesn't make sense by many people here as they seem to include gays exclusively in the whole sin thing.
Sodomy is a term used today predominantly in law (derived from traditional Christian usage) to describe the act of anal intercourse, oral intercourse, as well as bestiality.
So oral sex is a sin too... We have a whole lot of sinners...
I thought oral was invented by the french quite recently
Nope, the Greeks. Figures.
Okay, it calls it shameful lusts? Though it actually doesn't specify it to be attraction towards each other, it could be the usual "don't have sex with animals". Just saying, it's not as specific as in the other.
My theory is that you know and I know that you're really reaching. I personally find that intellectually dishonest.
Romans. Totally called it. Now can we stop all of this "The Bible only condemns homosexual men" nonsense? Good.
In the end, who really cares? The bible says a lot of things. The bible condemns one thing but worse are fine. Marriage in the bible was between a man and woman. Unless the woman couldn't conceive. Then it was between a man and two women. Or a man, a woman, and her slaves. Because slavery is cool. And selling your daughters into it was fine.
And remember the story of Lot? A mob comes to get the angels but apparently Lot offering up his two virgin daughters to be raped instead was not only perfectly fine but gets him saved when flaming balls of fire rain down on the city.
Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Unnatural relations could very well mean a reverse cowgirl or something. Though it does not make it clear I'm sure it includes girl on girl action but I personally don't think it's a reach for the bible to refer to a woman on top during sex as unnatural.
Are we really allowed to talk about the Bible on AG? Isn't talking of religious impacts on people's ideas sorta... like, soliciting or something? Anyways, I believe homosexuality is weird, but oh well. If they are homosexual, let them be. You can be supportive, but you don't have to be supportive either. PERSONALLY, I don't really care about this matter.
