GeoTheo

A corpse can give written consent in a will.
As far as children goes what is "real consent" and what is there to prevent power relationships in adult sex? Also why would you think animals could not agree to sex? My dog seems really excited about having sex with my leg at times. I am the one who won't consent.

GeoTheo

People like to swing the pedulum too far.
On the one hand people want religious freedom and seperation of church and state. But many think Fundamentalists are trying to violate it so they think they should be run off the land or prevented from using free speech or having the right to vote or lobby.
Their are actually laws in some European countries, which don't have our freedoms, that prevent people from speaking out against homosexuality.

brighid

Talk about a fly in your ointment … First of all the sexual behavior (hetero OR homo) of two consenting adults is worlds different from that of a father forcing or manipulating his daughter to have sex with him, a priest using his power and authority and abusing the faith a young child has in God in order to engage in sexual activity this grown man KNOWS is wrong, and necrophilia … well I think it’s just plain nasty but a dead person can’t really be considered a party to this act, and the same can be said for those who partake in bestiality … it’s disgusting but because animals aren’t MORAL agents no moral contract can be violated even if we find it distasteful. One CANNOT logically or ethically lump homosexual men and women together with pedophiles, incestuous relatives, etc. with adult people engaging in natural behavior that is done with consent and often times accompanied by a deep commitment and love for one another.

The Church’s stance on homosexuality wouldn’t be quite so hypocritical if it handled other “sexual” sins with equal voracity as it treats homosexuality. Especially given the only handful of times this behavior is mentioned and the nearly 150 times adultery is mentioned in the Bible. There is no major Christian, political organization calling for the unequal treatment and the denial of the civil rights (such as the civil right to marriage NOT holy matrimony) for adulterers. They aren’t seeking to deny them health care, tax benefits, partnership rights such as being present when their partner is denying, deciding on health treatment, funeral arrangements or estate issues, the ability to adopt, the removal of their children from their homes, the loss of their jobs, benefits, etc.. They aren’t attempting to prevent those who have been divorced or who have committed adultery from holding office, or denying them membership to clubs or other wise treating them as in human. And they CERTAINLY aren’t treating those MANY pedophiles amongst their ranks with any sort of equitable moral outrage, or again the denial of any of their civil rights as HUMAN BEINGS. I find it morally repugnant that grown men, with the alleged authority of their God commit such heinous acts against the CHILDREN in their care and for decades they have been allowed to get away with it by their community, the civil authorities and the Churches of Christendom. Although recent pressure has been more significant in the past these men are treated far better and afforded more rights then consenting adults, who have harmed NO ONE but are treated as scum of the earth because of sexual acts between CONSENTING ADULTS. How does this NOT disgust you?

So they whole sexual sin clap-trap that Christian use to discriminate against and treat homosexuals as the evilest and most despicable of all sinners is just BULL SHIT, completely hypocritical and utterly devoid of any ethical foundation what so ever. Can Christians NOT see that?

Christians who don’t feel that the inequitable treatment of the sin of homosexuality in comparison to the other sexual sins of the Bible is moral or even Biblical should be standing up in support of gay men and women. Unfortunately that usually means excommunication, but you know how Jesus feels about hypocrites! It is wrong in every sense of the word to deny basic human rights (not “special” rights as they are so fallaciously described by the Right Wing) to any human being because of their race, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, physical or other handicap, etc.

Brighid

GeoTheo

Incest poses no problems with consent. No one has refuted any of my other points successfully. I will drop the necrophilia as an example if somone can explain why animals and children can't consent. And even if they can't why would it be wrong for custodial parents to commit pedophilia?

GeoTheo

I would like somone to define "bigotry"?

GeoTheo

I am a Christian. I think pre-marital sex is immoral and after becoming a Christian I became celibate and did not consumate my relationship with my wife until after marriage. I also have never engaged in homosexual sex. How am I a hypocrite?

GeoTheo

Logical inconsistencies big time.
I can't believe you actually said "still slave owners"
You don't think the 700 hundred club is not just as against pre-marital sex as it is against homosexuality? You must not watch it. Of course I don't much myself, but conservative Christian organizations as a whole promote abstinance much more than anti-homosexual sex.
You also seem to imply that "If you are not for me you are against me" mentality here. You are and atheist and you say all Christian churches are bigots because you think they should be gay rights activists?!?!?
Why don't you just say they are all bigots if they don't hold to and promote all your particular liberal, pet social agendas?
Who says they have to promote anything you believe?
Granted some Bishop Spong type Christians don't go far enough, to your taste, in their zeal to overturn all foundations of the faith of their fathers. So of course you think they are bigots too. So in effect everyone who is not a gay activist is a bigot?

Bree

Hey Geo - did you know that one of the up-and-coming Barbra Streisand-types came from your very own city? Yep that's right - Linda Eder is from your city and she is rapidly becoming the epitome of flaming gay men everywhere .

Sorry - just had to add that.

At any rate - since when does having sex with your partner equal having sex with farm animals? Since when does it equate with having illegal sex with children? With corpses?

I'm always amazed that, with Christians such as GeoTheo, homosexuality is equal to these acts because the Bible says homosexuality is "deviant" - therefore this "deviance" must be equal to other "deviant" acts.

Geez, pull your head out!

Bree

Looks kind of bad, don't it?

Someone tell me again how "True Christians" can ignore these parts of the Bible - isn't it something about how these parts no longer apply to modern society (i.e. "we can't go around killing fags anymore, so let's picket their funerals instead")? I forget.

<scratches head>

More from <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay.htm" target="_blank">The Skeptic's Annotated Bible</a>.

Also, check out <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm" target="_blank">Homosexuality in the Bible</a> from ReligiousTolerance.org.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>

GeoTheo

I would like to know where all this outrage comes from?
It is easier to me to realate to how people can become outraged by the world around them changing faster than they can control. I think that would explain the outrage felt by conservatives.
But how can one be outraged that things are not like they would like them to be in the present and the future?
I mean it is no mystery that homosexuality has been a social taboo in our culture for a long time and that it still is in many circles.
Where does the outrage come from?
I could understand why people have their own beliefs of how things should be and may want to change them.
But while contemplating how one would like the world to be, a way I may add they have never seen, how does one become outraged?
Does an inventor become outraged that no one is using his unpatented invention yet?
What if he patented it and began to market it and it was not widely accepted?
Would he be justified in being outraged?
Is he really outraged or just mad at not getting his way?