Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

Oh yeah, it just looked like your position was that people can choose their sexual orientation, which is generally not entirely accurate. I disagree with the bill and everything.

[Sergarr]

Odd, I thought sodomy referred to just male-on-male anal, mainly since that in the Bible the city of Sodom's male population was mostly supposedly gay - actually they tried to do it to an angel, and the city got meteor'd as a result, except for Lot, his wife(who was turned to salt when she turned around to watch the fireworks), and his daughters. Then Lot was date-raped by his daughters. Nobody seems to have noticed the date-rape part, they're too focused on the city of butt-sex.

So, Bible supports incestual relationships? *intentionally missing the point*

[Comrade P.]

Odd, I thought sodomy referred to just male-on-male anal, mainly since that in the Bible the city of Sodom's male population was mostly supposedly gay - actually they tried to do it to an angel, and the city got meteor'd as a result, except for Lot, his wife(who was turned to salt when she turned around to watch the fireworks), and his daughters. Then Lot was date-raped by his daughters. Nobody seems to have noticed the date-rape part, they're too focused on the city of butt-sex.

So, Bible supports incestual relationships? *intentionally missing the point*

Isn't that, like, all over it? Okay, not all over it, but several acts of that are most definitely present and not shunned.

[Tack]

In a word, Yes.

[Arx]

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.
13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.
14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

I'm entirely open to discussion on this, but please direct any further discussion to the religion thread.

[Comrade P.]

I'm not actually a Christian, so I'll leave it up to those concerned to discuss it.

[Sergarr]

I'm not actually a Christian, so I'll leave it up to those concerned to discuss it.

[wierd]

choosing to be whatever (lgbt)

Observation: there's strong evidence it's genetic.

No, epigenetic.  The statistical incidence of male homosexuality goes up, the more male child births preceeded the male in question's birth (from the same mother).

Meaning, if you are an only child, and male-- not likely to be gay.
If you are the 17th child of all boys, you are quite likely to be gay.

[Sergarr]

Incidentally, I've recently read an article about epigenetics that has said that one compound in some plastics causes an increase in homosexuality and in males exhibiting un-male-ish behaviour by doing something with estrogen.

I'm pretty sure that's complete bullshit, though.

[Tack]

It's very hard to distinguish between what is and isn't bullshit now in the realm of science, with people sponsoring rials who want X answers.


Also another non-Christian, trying to avoid ptw in the latest religion thread- but Arx I heard around the place that Leciticus could be considered... A "bad chapter".
What with the shellfish and mixed colors and whatnot.
Uh... Maybe PM's for this one...

[wierd]

bisphenol-a

No, it causes problems with fish, and related compounds are also implicated in making polar bear penises be too small.

It has been implicated in causing hormonally related developmental problems in a wide variety of animal models, though to my knowledge, has not been directly implicated in making people gay. It stands to reason that it probably would have some affect however.



The levitical laws have NOTHING on the code of hammurabi though. (It's mostly secular in nature, but is one of the oldest bodies of social legislation in existence. It has portions that make leviticus seem tame.)

[GiglameshDespair]

Please move on to the relevant threads.

[Neonivek]

Please move on to the relevant threads.

Yeah, if you want to criticize religion go to the religion thread.

Ohh wait they aren't. Yep appropriate thread

[Sergarr]

related compounds are also implicated in making polar bear penises be too small.

...What has science done?!

[Comrade P.]

related compounds are also implicated in making polar bear penises be too small.

...What has science done?!

Somewhat relevant

Spoiler: A picture relevant for a link (click to show/hide)