Total Posts:156|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Aberrant Sexual Behavior

rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time. Same thing oral sex. Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:28:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time. Same thing oral sex. Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

One thing they can not do together is go half on a baby (the natural, organic way.)
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:30:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time.

Anal sex for anyone or with anyone is aberrant, including in heterosexual marriage.

Same thing oral sex.

Oral sex, so long as the act is not finished outside the vagina, is not ruled out in a marriage, but there is also nothing in the Bible saying it's ok, either.

Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Man and wife are given more freedom as it is morally acceptable to be willing to please your spouse. As I said though, anal sex is aberrant in any situation.

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

What is not aberrant about putting your thing in the same place where people poop from?? If that's not aberrant, then there is no such thing. For a normal person, that is both aberrant and abhorrent.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:30:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time.

Anal sex for anyone or with anyone is aberrant, including in heterosexual marriage.

Same thing oral sex.

Oral sex, so long as the act is not finished outside the vagina, is not ruled out in a marriage, but there is also nothing in the Bible saying it's ok, either.

Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Man and wife are given more freedom as it is morally acceptable to be willing to please your spouse. As I said though, anal sex is aberrant in any situation.

Wait, what is this "freedom"? Oral sex is okay? HJ?

Is finishing anywhere but directly inside a vagina immoral?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

What is not aberrant about putting your thing in the same place where people poop from?? If that's not aberrant, then there is no such thing. For a normal person, that is both aberrant and abhorrent.

There's a problem here with terminology. Technically, homosexuals could be called "abnormal"; at 10% of the population, they are not the norm. But that word has baggage, connotative subtext. Aberrant does as well, despite having a similar technical meaning ("Diverging from the normal type.").

So let's drop the aberrant. Why is it abhorrent?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:33:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Says the person debating on the internet.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

So then BJs, HJs, and TFing are all just as immoral?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:33:50 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

So then BJs, HJs, and TFing are all just as immoral?

What about ZJs?
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 3:23:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:30:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time.

Anal sex for anyone or with anyone is aberrant, including in heterosexual marriage.

Same thing oral sex.

Oral sex, so long as the act is not finished outside the vagina, is not ruled out in a marriage, but there is also nothing in the Bible saying it's ok, either.

Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Man and wife are given more freedom as it is morally acceptable to be willing to please your spouse. As I said though, anal sex is aberrant in any situation.

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

What is not aberrant about putting your thing in the same place where people poop from?? If that's not aberrant, then there is no such thing. For a normal person, that is both aberrant and abhorrent.

Ok - so you believe all ejaculations have to occur without protection in the vagina, although some other things (but not anal sex) can precede it. That is basically what is said by the leadership if the Roman Catholic Church. Note that this means that masturbating to orgasm by oneself is immoral. (Side note: I am not aware of any Roman Catholic prohibitions on anal sex (with a condom, presumably) preceding unprotected ejaculation into the vagina.)

I do not understand why anal sex is singled out as immoral even for heterosexual couples. If you wash up afterwards it is no more unsanitary than vaginal or oral sex (both if which are areas with lots of germs and can result in non-STD infections if you do not wash up afterwards). The anal area is full of nerve endings, just like the general regions are. And the best way to stimulate the prostate, which is essentially the male G-spot, is from inside the rectum. And anal sex often involves fingers, sex toys, and no penises at all. Some people like it, some do not, but the same can be said for any kind of sex.

Unprotected anal intercourse does have a high rate of HIV transmission when the penis of someone with HIV penetrates the anus of someone without HIV, whether the penetrates partner is male or female. Condoms when used properly do greatly reduce this risk, and if everyone stayed a virgin until marriage (including gay marriage) and stayed monogamous afterwards, the risk of catching HIV from anal sex would be almost zero (the only way it could happen is if one partner had caught HIV from an infusion or some other way and did not know about it).

What is it about anal sex that is so perverse? Penises are used for waste excretion, too, so it can't be that the anus is. Aside from cultural taboo, I do not see why anal sex has some special abhorrence about it.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:05:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:47:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:30:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time.

Anal sex for anyone or with anyone is aberrant, including in heterosexual marriage.

Same thing oral sex.

Oral sex, so long as the act is not finished outside the vagina, is not ruled out in a marriage, but there is also nothing in the Bible saying it's ok, either.

Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Man and wife are given more freedom as it is morally acceptable to be willing to please your spouse. As I said though, anal sex is aberrant in any situation.

Wait, what is this "freedom"? Oral sex is okay? HJ?

To my knowledge, the Bible is silent on those issues, so long as the job is finished in the right place.

Is finishing anywhere but directly inside a vagina immoral?

Yes.

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

What is not aberrant about putting your thing in the same place where people poop from?? If that's not aberrant, then there is no such thing. For a normal person, that is both aberrant and abhorrent.

There's a problem here with terminology. Technically, homosexuals could be called "abnormal"; at 10% of the population, they are not the norm. But that word has baggage, connotative subtext. Aberrant does as well, despite having a similar technical meaning ("Diverging from the normal type.").

So let's drop the aberrant. Why is it abhorrent?

Really?? I guess it's not abhorrent to those who get off sticking their weiner in a pile of warm dung.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I : At 7/17/2013 2:33:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Says the person debating on the internet.

I should add, because I like your face, that Anal is different from oral because of this:Anal can be a substitution to vaginal intercourse, oral cannot, this is why the anal is more immoral than any other sexual practice, the couple who practice anal may feel satisfied for long, and completely neglect vaginal intercourse. Oral is not enough and doesn't procure the same satisfaction to a couple.For being both un-productive, and a substitution to the right way, Anal sex is immoral.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 5:46:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:23:12 PM, rockwater wrote:
At 7/17/2013 1:30:57 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time.

Anal sex for anyone or with anyone is aberrant, including in heterosexual marriage.

Same thing oral sex.

Oral sex, so long as the act is not finished outside the vagina, is not ruled out in a marriage, but there is also nothing in the Bible saying it's ok, either.

Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Man and wife are given more freedom as it is morally acceptable to be willing to please your spouse. As I said though, anal sex is aberrant in any situation.

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

What is not aberrant about putting your thing in the same place where people poop from?? If that's not aberrant, then there is no such thing. For a normal person, that is both aberrant and abhorrent.

Ok - so you believe all ejaculations have to occur without protection in the vagina, although some other things (but not anal sex) can precede it. That is basically what is said by the leadership if the Roman Catholic Church. Note that this means that masturbating to orgasm by oneself is immoral. (Side note: I am not aware of any Roman Catholic prohibitions on anal sex (with a condom, presumably) preceding unprotected ejaculation into the vagina.)

I'm not sure about the Catholic standard, but if it's wrong for homosexuals then I can't imagine it being ok for straight people.

I do not understand why anal sex is singled out as immoral even for heterosexual couples. If you wash up afterwards it is no more unsanitary than vaginal or oral sex (both if which are areas with lots of germs and can result in non-STD infections if you do not wash up afterwards). The anal area is full of nerve endings, just like the general regions are. And the best way to stimulate the prostate, which is essentially the male G-spot, is from inside the rectum. And anal sex often involves fingers, sex toys, and no penises at all. Some people like it, some do not, but the same can be said for any kind of sex.

Unprotected anal intercourse does have a high rate of HIV transmission when the penis of someone with HIV penetrates the anus of someone without HIV, whether the penetrates partner is male or female. Condoms when used properly do greatly reduce this risk, and if everyone stayed a virgin until marriage (including gay marriage) and stayed monogamous afterwards, the risk of catching HIV from anal sex would be almost zero (the only way it could happen is if one partner had caught HIV from an infusion or some other way and did not know about it).

What is it about anal sex that is so perverse? Penises are used for waste excretion, too, so it can't be that the anus is. Aside from cultural taboo, I do not see why anal sex has some special abhorrence about it.

It's about the importance that is being placed on desires of the flesh. If someone is willing to go to that length for sexual gratification, rather than having sex the way the body was designed to have sex, then too much emphasis is being placed on sex.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:34:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 1:28:44 PM, question4u wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time. Same thing oral sex. Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

One thing they can not do together is go half on a baby (the natural, organic way.)

Go half on a baby? Wtf?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 8:43:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 5:35:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I : At 7/17/2013 2:33:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Says the person debating on the internet.

I should add, because I like your face, that Anal is different from oral because of this:Anal can be a substitution to vaginal intercourse, oral cannot, this is why the anal is more immoral than any other sexual practice, the couple who practice anal may feel satisfied for long, and completely neglect vaginal intercourse. Oral is not enough and doesn't procure the same satisfaction to a couple.For being both un-productive, and a substitution to the right way, Anal sex is immoral.

Is it immoral if you "Love having sex, but would rather get some head"?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:41:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 8:43:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/17/2013 5:35:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I : At 7/17/2013 2:33:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Says the person debating on the internet.

I should add, because I like your face, that Anal is different from oral because of this:Anal can be a substitution to vaginal intercourse, oral cannot, this is why the anal is more immoral than any other sexual practice, the couple who practice anal may feel satisfied for long, and completely neglect vaginal intercourse. Oral is not enough and doesn't procure the same satisfaction to a couple.For being both un-productive, and a substitution to the right way, Anal sex is immoral.



Is it immoral if you "Love having sex, but would rather get some head"?

First I need to point that Morality doesn't care of what you love, it cares for productivity, for benefit. Cause I notice a lot of people are being subjective about this.Second, if the head you're talking about becomes a substitute to the natural way, and both people in the couple enjoy it more than vaginal intercourse and leave the natural way for it, then this head is immoral as well.
YYW
Posts: 36,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:42:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Your posting on DDO is unproductive, therefore it is immoral.

Think about all the other things you could be doing... which you are not.

You must be a depraved individual.
Tsar of DDO
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:44:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time. Same thing oral sex. Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

Another troble maker you are rockwhatever.
Go away. Read this first then og awasy and repent.
And Torah/Law points out sin, like do not eat bacon and squid. Don't worship on Sunday and not Shabbat, Saturday. Don't pull weeds on the Shabbat (Sat.) Don't be foolish and hate YHWH? by saying His Law is not to be followed. Soi turn from these sins. That's the way Meechie. You keep preaching that the Law is to be followed and souls will turn to the Living Torah (Jesus). That is what you are doing, right? It better be, You don;t want to turn people from the commands. The book of Matthew
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:56:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 10:44:38 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
At 7/17/2013 12:48:01 PM, rockwater wrote:
I do not understand why anal sex is used as an example of why male homosexuality is so wrong when straight people do the same thing all the time. Same thing oral sex. Just about anything that two man or two women can do together, men and women do together (or do something very similar). Also, does the fact that much of these "aberrant" sex acts are non-procreative (which just about every sex act is other than vaginal intercourse) make them equally aberrant for heterosexual couples to perform?

Either all sex needs to be unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse (or at least end in unprotected heterosexual vaginal intercourse) among women and men who have nothing preventing then from conceiving, or I see no reason to call anal sex, oral sex, etc., aberrant, whether it is between two men, two women, a man and a woman, or multiple partners. A better definition of aberrant (as in immoral) sex would be sex that is between an adult human and any partner who is not a consenting unrelated adult human.

So what is it that is so aberrant about gay sex?

Another troble maker you are rockwhatever.
Go away. Read this first then og awasy and repent.
And Torah/Law points out sin, like do not eat bacon and squid. Don't worship on Sunday and not Shabbat, Saturday. Don't pull weeds on the Shabbat (Sat.) Don't be foolish and hate YHWH? by saying His Law is not to be followed. Soi turn from these sins. That's the way Meechie. You keep preaching that the Law is to be followed and souls will turn to the Living Torah (Jesus). That is what you are doing, right? It better be, You don;t want to turn people from the commands. The book of Matthew
Do you call both of your hands vagina? LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:00:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 10:41:06 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/17/2013 8:43:02 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/17/2013 5:35:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
I : At 7/17/2013 2:33:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/17/2013 2:06:03 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
Anal is wrong all the time.

Gay is wrong all the time.

Both are Immoral for they are un-productive.

Says the person debating on the internet.

I should add, because I like your face, that Anal is different from oral because of this:Anal can be a substitution to vaginal intercourse, oral cannot, this is why the anal is more immoral than any other sexual practice, the couple who practice anal may feel satisfied for long, and completely neglect vaginal intercourse. Oral is not enough and doesn't procure the same satisfaction to a couple.For being both un-productive, and a substitution to the right way, Anal sex is immoral.



Is it immoral if you "Love having sex, but would rather get some head"?

First I need to point that Morality doesn't care of what you love, it cares for productivity, for benefit.

No, it doesn't. And certainly not in the way you claim. Further, it seems to ignore emotionally productive/beneficial activities. So, what, reading is immoral?

Cause I notice a lot of people are being subjective about this.Second, if the head you're talking about becomes a substitute to the natural way, and both people in the couple enjoy it more than vaginal intercourse and leave the natural way for it, then this head is immoral as well.

Because it doesn't produce children; why does that have any relevance on its morality?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Another troble maker you are rockwhatever.
Go away. Read this first then og awasy and repent.
And Torah/Law points out sin, like do not eat bacon and squid. Don't worship on Sunday and not Shabbat, Saturday. Don't pull weeds on the Shabbat (Sat.) Don't be foolish and hate YHWH? by saying His Law is not to be followed. Soi turn from these sins. That's the way Meechie. You keep preaching that the Law is to be followed and souls will turn to the Living Torah (Jesus). That is what you are doing, right? It better be, You don;t want to turn people from the commands. The book of Matthew
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:12:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many lulz are to be had when the religious instruct on the morals of human sexuality.

I wonder what they have to say about homosexual necrophilia in mallards.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:17:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 11:12:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Many lulz are to be had when the religious instruct on the morals of human sexuality.

I wonder what they have to say about homosexual necrophilia in mallards.

I duno, but with sicko's like you I bet the nature ranger's are on high alert. Where do you live, I gotta call Peta fast!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:44:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 10:41:06 PM, Fruitytree wrote:

First I need to point that Morality doesn't care of what you love, it cares for productivity, for benefit.

No, it doesn't. And certainly not in the way you claim. Further, it seems to ignore emotionally productive/beneficial activities. So, what, reading is immoral? Reading benefits beyond emotion, we don't read to feel good initially, we read to learn, to know, but if reading becomes an accessory, and one starts using this tool un-productively, then sure.
Cause I notice a lot of people are being subjective about this.Second, if the head you're talking about becomes a substitute to the natural way, and both people in the couple enjoy it more than vaginal intercourse and leave the natural way for it, then this head is immoral as well.

Because it doesn't produce children; why does that have any relevance on its morality?

Because sex is for that purpose, it's a tool, people miss-use, and the way people are using it is taking the tool out of its initial purpose, this is what perversion is!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 11:49:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 11:44:33 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 10:41:06 PM, Fruitytree wrote:

First I need to point that Morality doesn't care of what you love, it cares for productivity, for benefit.

No, it doesn't. And certainly not in the way you claim. Further, it seems to ignore emotionally productive/beneficial activities. So, what, reading is immoral?

Reading benefits beyond emotion, we don't read to feel good initially, we read to learn, to know, but if reading becomes an accessory, and one starts using this tool un-productively, then sure.

Seriously, would you like to make an experimental thread in the Misc section and play with formatting? You and I have had this discussion before... I don't know why you have such a hard time with it, and it seems derail-y to try overmuch here to help ya, but seriously, I don't mind doing so if it'll help you make your posts clearer.

Cause I notice a lot of people are being subjective about this.Second, if the head you're talking about becomes a substitute to the natural way, and both people in the couple enjoy it more than vaginal intercourse and leave the natural way for it, then this head is immoral as well.

Because it doesn't produce children; why does that have any relevance on its morality?

Because sex is for that purpose, it's a tool, people miss-use, and the way people are using it is taking the tool out of its initial purpose, this is what perversion is!

Well, first, that's an inherently religious argument. You can go on all day about an argument from your religion, but it will remain utterly unconvincing to someone who isn't of your religion.

Second, tools can have more than one use, you know that, right?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:01:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 11:49:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 11:44:33 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/17/2013 11:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/17/2013 10:41:06 PM, Fruitytree wrote:

First I need to point that Morality doesn't care of what you love, it cares for productivity, for benefit.

No, it doesn't. And certainly not in the way you claim. Further, it seems to ignore emotionally productive/beneficial activities. So, what, reading is immoral?



Reading benefits beyond emotion, we don't read to feel good initially, we read to learn, to know, but if reading becomes an accessory, and one starts using this tool un-productively, then sure.

Seriously, would you like to make an experimental thread in the Misc section and play with formatting? You and I have had this discussion before... I don't know why you have such a hard time with it, and it seems derail-y to try overmuch here to help ya, but seriously, I don't mind doing so if it'll help you make your posts clearer.

Cause I notice a lot of people are being subjective about this.Second, if the head you're talking about becomes a substitute to the natural way, and both people in the couple enjoy it more than vaginal intercourse and leave the natural way for it, then this head is immoral as well.

Because it doesn't produce children; why does that have any relevance on its morality?

Because sex is for that purpose, it's a tool, people miss-use, and the way people are using it is taking the tool out of its initial purpose, this is what perversion is!

Well, first, that's an inherently religious argument. You can go on all day about an argument from your religion, but it will remain utterly unconvincing to someone who isn't of your religion.

Second, tools can have more than one use, you know that, right?

The non-religious argument would be convincing enough for normal people. It's poop dude, poopie, crap, dung, butt fudge. How many uses does it have??
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:08:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to St. Augustine, all sex that doesn't impregnate a woman and cause her to bare a child at the end of nine months is evil. This would include masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and vaginal sex that doesn't impregnate the female partner.

However, does that mean artificial insemination is good and vaginal intercourse that doesn't impregnate is evil?
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 8:17:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:08:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
According to St. Augustine, all sex that doesn't impregnate a woman and cause her to bare a child at the end of nine months is evil. This would include masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and vaginal sex that doesn't impregnate the female partner.

However, does that mean artificial insemination is good and vaginal intercourse that doesn't impregnate is evil?
I have to ask you a serious Question, Do youA279; Love YHWH's LAW/Torah that the Messiah showed us and asked us to obey??
If not why would you want to break so many Scriptures and not Love the Messiah. He said If you love me keep my commands. Please do tell.
Please read some of my recent posts this morning on the forum. They areA279; very important, thanks!
YHWH wants you know what you want to do, follow Him or die in your own belief's.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 9:25:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:01:19 AM, medic0506 wrote:

The non-religious argument would be convincing enough for normal people. It's poop dude, poopie, crap, dung, butt fudge. How many uses does it have??

We are not talking about the uses of feces. Sexual use of feces is called scat, and that is totally different from anal sex. I am arguing that the anus has more than one possible function, just like many other parts of the body. Lips, tongues and mouths are primarily for eating, just like the anus is primarily for defecating. But does that mean that kissing is immoral and abhorrent?

Does using a penis to have sex have anything necessarily to do with urine? Of course not. Sex with a penis and watersports are two different things. The same reasoning applies to the anus.

And heterosexual vaginal intercourse is only "productive" if no contraception is used, the couple is fertile, etc. Should married heterosexual couples where the wife is past menopause stop having sex? Should a married couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy (with removal of the ovaries to treat cancer stop having sex? A pregnancy in a woman with no womb or ovaries is just as miraculous as a pregnancy in a man. Sex has more than one function, not just reproduction, and not all functions need to be present for sex to be moral.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2013 12:09:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/18/2013 8:17:43 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
At 7/18/2013 8:08:33 AM, s-anthony wrote:
According to St. Augustine, all sex that doesn't impregnate a woman and cause her to bare a child at the end of nine months is evil. This would include masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and vaginal sex that doesn't impregnate the female partner.

However, does that mean artificial insemination is good and vaginal intercourse that doesn't impregnate is evil?

I have to ask you a serious Question, Do youA279; Love YHWH's LAW/Torah that the Messiah showed us and asked us to obey??

No. I'm not Jewish.

If not why would you want to break so many Scriptures and not Love the Messiah. He said If you love me keep my commands. Please do tell.

Because, I don't believe in murdering people over such silly crimes as eating shellfish, picking up sticks, or touching some holy mountain or treasure chest; selling my daughter into slavery to pay off my debt; or, stoning my children because they're lazy.

Do you do these things?

Please read some of my recent posts this morning on the forum. They areA279; very important, thanks!
YHWH wants you know what you want to do, follow Him or die in your own belief's.

Let's see; I want to die in my own beliefs.... Whose beliefs do you want to die in?