Yes, and to be blunt
Homosexuality and new creation By: Andrew (54 replies) 4 April, 2005 - 12:40
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: drew27 (10/08/2009 - 08:13)
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: Andrew (10/08/2009 - 10:18)
- Re: Homosexuality and new creation By: Jacob (17/05/2007 - 16:01)
- What's the deal? By: sbryan (07/05/2005 - 03:51)
- what grounds a sexual ethic? By: (10/07/2005 - 09:12)
- By way of an apology By: Ivan Latham (05/05/2005 - 02:33)
- Another apology By: paulhartigan (05/05/2005 - 03:01)
- But isn't the message of the Gospel that we CAN change? By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 10:15)
- Where there's smoke there's fire By: erlenmeyer71 (06/05/2005 - 16:39)
- Smoking was just an example By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:21)
- The gospel and gay people By: peter wilkinson (06/05/2005 - 12:42)
- Breaking the bonds of sin is hard By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:12)
- On breaking the bonds of sin By: paulhartigan (06/05/2005 - 21:59)
- Breaking the bonds of sin is hard By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 19:12)
- Where there's smoke there's fire By: erlenmeyer71 (06/05/2005 - 16:39)
- But isn't the message of the Gospel that we CAN change? By: grifgraf (06/05/2005 - 10:15)
- Another apology By: paulhartigan (05/05/2005 - 03:01)
- A Corruption of real love By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 02:27)
- Unnatural sexual fulfillment By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:33)
- Problematic By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 19:37)
- Yes, and to be blunt By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 20:08)
- Problematic By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 19:37)
- Love By: sbryan (19/04/2005 - 03:35)
- Born that way = Original Sin By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 07:08)
- Ivan Latham's statements about homosexuals By: (20/04/2005 - 21:04)
- Regarding Ivan. By: Alario (27/04/2005 - 00:30)
- Regarding Ivan By: paulhartigan (27/04/2005 - 03:05)
- Has anyone seen . . . ? By: peter wilkinson (27/04/2005 - 12:02)
- Regarding Ivan By: paulhartigan (27/04/2005 - 03:05)
- Let's tolerate the intolerant, too By: Chris (21/04/2005 - 14:00)
- You bring up a point I mentioned earlier to Ivan By: (20/04/2005 - 22:26)
- Treating other human beings with respect. By: paulhartigan (21/04/2005 - 04:00)
- Reason, Scripture, and Church Tradition By: sbryan (21/04/2005 - 00:49)
- Hence my suggestion By: erlenmeyer71 (21/04/2005 - 02:53)
- Regarding Ivan. By: Alario (27/04/2005 - 00:30)
- Ivan Latham's statements about homosexuals By: (20/04/2005 - 21:04)
- Born that way = Original Sin By: Ivan Latham (19/04/2005 - 07:08)
- Unnatural sexual fulfillment By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:33)
- Keep up the good work, Rob By: Ivan Latham (18/04/2005 - 20:31)
- Two Things By: 1beggar (11/04/2005 - 14:48)
- When you get right down to By: (15/04/2005 - 04:15)
- 1 Cor.10:13 By: (15/04/2005 - 10:54)
- not so much a question of degree By: Rob J. Caskey (16/04/2005 - 05:13)
- God-substitutes By: erlenmeyer71 (18/04/2005 - 18:45)
- Addressing the questions By: paulhartigan (16/04/2005 - 09:40)
-
1-1. I believe scripture i By: Rob J. Caskey (19/04/2005 - 00:35)
- Marriage as service By: erlenmeyer71 (19/04/2005 - 16:29)
- Still not sure what you're getting at here By: andrew (19/04/2005 - 01:05)
-
1-1. I believe scripture i By: Rob J. Caskey (19/04/2005 - 00:35)
- not so much a question of degree By: Rob J. Caskey (16/04/2005 - 05:13)
- 1 Cor.10:13 By: (15/04/2005 - 10:54)
- Humility on Both Sides By: sbryan (11/04/2005 - 16:57)
- overstatement By: 1beggar (11/04/2005 - 17:45)
- When you get right down to By: (15/04/2005 - 04:15)
- Inneresting tid-bit ... possible implications... By: Whitewave (08/04/2005 - 20:17)
- Homosexuality and the authority of the bible By: paulhartigan (05/04/2005 - 02:16)
- Shame, scripture and sex in heaven By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:32)
- Revisonist insights By: peter wilkinson (04/04/2005 - 19:46)
- Sin and semantics By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:21)
- Why always men? By: sbryan (06/04/2005 - 14:39)
- Why men? By: andrew (06/04/2005 - 15:46)
- Why men (continued)? By: peter wilkinson (06/04/2005 - 16:46)
- What were the women up to? By: (06/04/2005 - 18:27)
- This is exactly what I mean By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 01:12)
- Immoderate indulgence? By: andrew (07/04/2005 - 10:34)
- Act and Attitude By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 19:04)
- Genesis 38:9 By: erlenmeyer71 (07/04/2005 - 04:14)
- Thanks for the reminder. I wa By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 04:53)
- Immoderate indulgence? By: andrew (07/04/2005 - 10:34)
- This is exactly what I mean By: sbryan (07/04/2005 - 01:12)
- What were the women up to? By: (06/04/2005 - 18:27)
- Why men (continued)? By: peter wilkinson (06/04/2005 - 16:46)
- Why men? By: andrew (06/04/2005 - 15:46)
- Why always men? By: sbryan (06/04/2005 - 14:39)
- Sin and semantics By: andrew (05/04/2005 - 15:21)
Yes, and to be blunt
If I were God and I wanted people to be very clear about what is and is not sexually acceptable based on anatomy, I would have provided for women a sexual organ that did not double as the urinary pathway. But that’s just me.
I guess this argument sortof piggybacks on the reproductive argument. Sperm only belongs where the eggs are. I suppose ancient civilizations could put this together by noting that when they put their sperm in this place, a baby comes out, but when they put their sperm in other places, babies don’t come out.
Must have been an ugly trial-and-error phase to reach that conclusion!
Sorry, I’m digressing rapidly. Time to go do something else.