Larry agonistes

fbc,

"I'm just responding to your querie"

Which querie?

That homosexuality is unnatural is not just my definition, it's God's."

Then why did God make so many of us?

"6,000 years of Judeo-Christian theology upholds this truth."

Um, you'd better take a look at what both the Reformed (Liberal) branch AND the Conservative branches of Judaism have decided. Seems even they have changed their minds. As for the Christian side, many mainstream denominations disagree with you. Heck, even the Quakers marry us. Keep up.

"biology will confirm the same analysis."

MY biology "confirms" no such thing.

"It is obvious that the purpose of the male sexual organ is complementary to the female."

Um, it's pretty "complementary to the male anatomy too. I oughta know.

"It is equally obvious that it is designed for procreation."

That wasn't the intention of Mr. Craig. Nor of Mr. Allen. Nor of Mr. Foley. Nor of Mr. Vitter. This discussion is not about procreation, it is about SEX - hot, steamy, lurid, dirty, nasty sex - in ALL of its wondrous splendour.

"Attempting to use them in other ways is obviously contrary to their intended "natural" design. QED."

You mean heterosexuals don't have oral sex or anal sex? You too funnee. QED.

"I should probably also make a distinction made between one who has the urge for sexual congress with members of the same sex, and the fulfillment of those urges through the actual act. The Church makes this distinction..."

Um, I think this getting all 'churchy' is why this problem has arisen. You on the 'right' want us to follow the tenets of YOUR Church. I am not a member of your Church. And here all along, I thought you would have supported freedomof religion. Please leave your religious beliefs out of a discussion on hypocrisy and steamy, hot dirty, nasty sex.

"Swinging is one such perversion"

Yes, but heterosexual swingers still have the option to get married.

I just love how this discussion has devolved into a 'Which vices are "worse' than others' debate:

"these vices [porn, adultery, and fornication ] are not as perverse as swinging or paying someone to have sexual relations with you"

Mr. Craig's actions, had he been successful in doing them, would have constituted adultery and fornication. That rr thinks that's "not as perverse" as paying for sex (as the heterosexual Mr. Vitter did, and as the heterosexual Mr. Allen offered to do) is moot, not to mention absurd.

America needs better sex education desperately it seems.

Catholic means "universal". My Church is the Church and my God is the God. Same God who made and loves you and me, despite all of our sins. Truth is not subjective; there is not one truth for you and a different truth for me.

Evidently there is, because all I read in your post is a bunch of mythology that you choose to call truth.

Recovering,

I can not agree with you more, though I am sorry that you are an ex-pentecostal. I can only pray that you did not become an ex-Christian too.

Anyway, the responses you have been getting are clearly from those that have been erroneously taught that sex=love and 1 man+1 woman = marriage only. But they fail to be able to explain how God did not condemn all the polygamy and in fact, encouraged it in several cases. But that is another Issue.

Anyone that does even a cursory study about biblical sexual issues, would know that they Bible rarely even mentions sexual subjects in the context that many of today's "believers' use the scriptures. Taking a look at the ancient Greek and the hebrew in the proper context reveals that what we know today as homosexuality was never even mentioned in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah was about inhospitablity, man laying with man was about pediastry, and most other references used by the opponents of homosexual relationships were about idol worship not sex.

I regret that I shared those mistaken attitudes for many years after I became a Christian and that it took me so many years to truly understand the scriptures in those areas. I have found that too many Christians (my brother and sisters in Christ) are deep into Pharasaicalism because they know nothing else. Having been taught only in-tolerance of differing biblical interpretations, they do not ever get grounded in the scriptures themselves, but have come to rely only on the bible that their "pastor" dishes out on Sundays.

I have found several very good websites that clearly and concisely explain the erroneous theology of the anti-homosexual side of the church. A simple google on christian, homosexual, lesbian, and/or gay will bring up many of them. A little research by individuals with an open mind to the fact that they may have been misled by church tradition instead of led by scriptures could open their eyes.

Once you go back through the church history and see where and by whom many of the sex-negative doctrines and theology came from, a person has no choice but to re-evaluate their previous hard0line stands on many subjects.

God bless,
Tom