First, I am happy that you are happy.
It is just not "natural".
When you can make sperm then it will be natural.

Originally Posted by Fahad1
There are several people in the West who unfortunately have sex with donkeys and horses and they are also married. Now the question arises are human being also designed to have sex with animals?
If this is true than why the sexual desires in human being are such that they are used both for pleasure and for reproduction unlike in animals the desire for sex is only limited to reproduction.

Firstly, get the stereotype right, it's sheep!

Also you don't watch the discovery channel or read National Geographic much do you? (If you happen to not have access to these two examples there is no excuse because you obviously have internet access and can research this)

For example: It is well known that primates have sex just to have sex. Chimps have also been known to have HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.....yup I said it! Whacha gonna do?

As for your question in regards to genital design. Humans are no better than cats and bunnies, we are all mammals. we all have the same parts aside from ruminants and their 4 stomachs and some hooves.

-----------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by shaw-n
First, I am happy that you are happy.
It is just not "natural".
When you can make sperm then it will be natural.

So that would make invitro fertilization unnatural, which means you would rather deny a heterosexual couple the joy of their own biological children because it isn't natural and there fore it's bad because 'god' said so.

If this is your belief, I would recommend you stop wearing clothing of synthetic fabrics, eat only non-processed organic foods, stop taking all medications and supplements, stop driving, move into a grass and mud hut, and rid yourself of all plastic. Because it's not what was provided by your god for you to live here on earth.

And how dare you say that god would not want a person to procreate in any manner necessary? It's it well known that god so go forth and multiply.

---------------------------

As for homosexuality being a sin - the original question of this thread.

Sins are bad things subjected on us by medieval thinking. Let me start by saying that sins and morals are completely different animals.

It may be a sin to have extramarital intercourse of any kind, and in previous decades it may have been widely morally unacceptable (still today to some groups) to have sex without marriage. But I would like to think that we live in a slightly more advantageous time in that people are allowed to do more of what they want because they are adults and can therefore make informed decisions for them selves. But then again, my husband and I are technically sinners because we have sex for pleasure and not procreation.

That may be the root of sodomy being a sin. It is not for procreation. It is for (heaven forbid!!) PLEASURE! However, if sex makes you a happier person (scientifically proven! - google it if you want proof) I would think that your god would want you to have as much sex as possible in anyway you preferred it. Now I am definitely not condoning pedophilia, I am saying that if two grown, sane, lucid, conscious, breathing, adult Homo sapiens want to fornicate then rock on!

__________________
- Wisdom comes when you stop looking for it. -
"If God were alive today, he'd be an atheist" - Kurt Vonnegut

Please visit my foster dog blog: The Colbert Report.

LOL You go girl!!!

__________________
RevKathyV

http://www.myspace.com/divinelightinterfaith



www.divinelightinterfaithministry.com

How would it be natural for a woman to make sperm? That makes no sense to me.

__________________
Advaita Vedanta information

Just a couple of points:

When we assign a condition that seems not the volitional choice of the person to the status of sin, it seems we run into difficulties with God. We must then conclude that God creates either faulty humans deliberately or that he creates them as unfaulted but expects a good deal more of them than other human beings.

The RCC teaches that the fact of homosexuality is not sinful but the acting out of the condition is so. Thus, the homosexual is called to a life of celibacy against their will, unless they are willing to be in mortal sin for a lifetime. Clearly this would seem unjust of God.

If we pose that God does not "cause" homosexuality, but that it is a general genetic difference that occurs normally in all animal societies, then again, we are claiming that God simply requires such persons to refrain from the normal loving relationships the rest of us can have at will.

In either case, it seems more efficacious to look more carefully at the scripture to see if God indeed does condemn the status and the act. Many scholars would argue that it does not. Many argue that of course scripture is the statement of humankind down over a long period of their perceived interaction with God. Inspired to speak truthfully as best they discerned that truth to be sure. But perhaps not sufficiently clear to assign full responsibility to God alone.

I am convinced at least that there is grave issue with claiming that God through the scriptures names homosexuality as a sin. Rather I see it in Leviticus as being but a normal practical means to alleviate discord and to encourage the growth of the community in the face of powerful and larger ethnic groups surrounding them. Sodom and Gomorrah has largely been argued to be more about power and hospitality than homosexuality. Moreover the strange offerings of one's daughters for rape, the later incestuous relationship between father and daughters and the harsh treatment of the mother all give caution to hasty interpretations.

When we look at the NT, we are left with only a couple of passages, and even Paul suggests that we are neither male nor female, slave nor free, etc. And of course, Paul and Timothy are both products too of their environment and the literalness that they probably attached to the OT remarks.

In the end I think it not a good thing to base one's decision on this issue on the bible. It seems at best questionable as a source. Better to examine the real world and see that we see evidence of homosexuality in virtually all animals to one degree or another. It seems a natural albeit minority occurance.

Should we not embrace love where we find it?

__________________
http://afeatheradrift.wordpress.com

Two eggs can create a female offspring.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

What a ridiculous strawman. Nobody is saying that just because it's not a natural function of a human being that it is bad. Sexual reproduction, the union of a sperm and ova, are how humans reproduce. It is a natural process of life.

Homosexuality does not allow for sexual reproduction between the couple, therefore it is not a procreative relationship. In order for a homosexual couple to have a child, they need to adopt a child or unite a sperm and egg by artificial means. The sperm or egg does not come from the partner, therefore the relationship itself is not procreative.

That is not saying it's bad, just not a natural function of reproductivity.

Didn't you see LK's post just before your last one.....

__________________
RevKathyV

http://www.myspace.com/divinelightinterfaith



www.divinelightinterfaithministry.com

Show me where this is the norm with procreative humans and you'll have a point.

but it is not maladaptive behavior...it is adaptive...and will probably very much become the norm...

__________________
RevKathyV

http://www.myspace.com/divinelightinterfaith



www.divinelightinterfaithministry.com