how does one lie with a man as one does with a woman

[SpheresOfBalance]

our youth bible study group has a new member

apparently his parents just got themselves born again after spending many years being normal people

he said he promised his parents to give the whole religion thing a fair shake so he is going to be coming to church and bible study classes for a bit

anyway

he wanted clarification about that verse in leviticus requiring that if someone lies with a man as one does with a woman that both parties be stoned to death

in particular he wanted to know if a woman doing a guy anally with a strapon counts as 'lying with a man as one does with a woman' (the term for that is 'pegging' apparently)

last i heard the elders were going to have a stern word with him although the prevailing view among the youth group is that he is cool except for a couple of seriously uptight people whose views do not count anyway

so any thoughts here?

Well in truth I see either type of homosexuality as a flaw in someones nature, a disease if you will, as to the role that nature originally intended, or a god, so I don't hold them accountable at all. In addition I see that today in some cases, it can be a choice, a fad, or thing to do to be hip, either way it doesn't matter to me. I see that the author of any book that says that someone should be stoned to death for simply doing something that has no victims, is in fact playing the role of a God, as surely in my first assertion that of someone being born defective surely wouldn't be held accountable by a loving god. The people that wrote the bible were just flawed men, such that if I found something that they had said that I couldn't see a loving god doing, I'd simply ignore it, passing it off as a moment when the flawed author took liberties to serve his own limitations. And the reason I'd justify this is because in the end it would be I alone standing before God so as to answer for my decisions, and I truly can't see why a loving god would think ill of me for showing mercy, as I should: "judge not lest ye be judged" in that it is each ones destiny to stand before god alone to answer for their sins and not those of another.

At least that's how I make nonsense of such issues.

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Nature has no flaws. It is what it is. It might not comply with your personal sense of morality - but then when did it ever?
Apes fuck same sex partners, so do a long list of other species.
Get over yourself!!
You are just a homophobic p**** who is probably in the closet.

You're an idiot, because you attempt to condemn me before you understand. You jump to conclusion, so as you can pounce, as the coward you portray!

[chaz wyman]

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Nature has no flaws. It is what it is. It might not comply with your personal sense of morality - but then when did it ever?
Apes fuck same sex partners, so do a long list of other species.

You're an idiot, because you attempt to condemn me before you understand. You jump to conclusion, so as you can pounce, as the coward you portray!

You spewed the naturalist fallacy.

"At least that's how I make nonsense of such issues."

Why not defend it? Is that all you are capable of- insults without basis?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Nature has no flaws. It is what it is. It might not comply with your personal sense of morality - but then when did it ever?
Apes fuck same sex partners, so do a long list of other species.

You're an idiot, because you attempt to condemn me before you understand. You jump to conclusion, so as you can pounce, as the coward you portray!

You spewed the naturalist fallacy.

"At least that's how I make nonsense of such issues."

Why not defend it? Is that all you are capable of- insults without basis?

OK, I'll be nice about it even though you were a p****.

Nature does err, Try snakes with two heads; Siamese twins; being born deaf, dumb, blind, no arms, no legs, both sets of sex organs otherwise known as a hermaphrodite and so we come to homosexuality, but first something to first consider from wikipedia:

"It is considered that sexual reproduction first appeared about a billion years ago, evolved within ancestral single-celled eukaryotes.[1] The reason for the initial evolution of sex, and the reason(s) it has survived to the present, are still matters of debate. Some of the many plausible theories include: that sex creates variation among offspring, sex helps in the spread of advantageous traits, and that sex helps in the removal of disadvantageous traits."

"The evolution of sexual reproduction is currently described by several competing scientific hypotheses. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species.[1][2][3] Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants. The evolution of sex contains two related, yet distinct, themes: its origin and its maintenance. However, since the hypotheses for the origins of sex are difficult to test experimentally, most current work has been focused on the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

It seems that a sexual cycle is maintained because it improves the quality of progeny (fitness), despite reducing the overall number of offspring (the two-fold cost of sex). In order for sex to be evolutionarily advantageous, it must be associated with a significant increase in the fitness of offspring. One of the most widely accepted explanations for the advantage of sex lies in the creation of genetic variation. Another explanation is based on two molecular advantages. First is the advantage of recombinational DNA repair (promoted during meiosis because homologous chromosomes pair at that time), and second is the advantage of complementation (also known as hybrid vigor, heterosis or masking of mutations)."

So my argument is that humans are animals that evolved for the reasons mentioned above, long before you and Bob wanted to shuck each others clams in order to be fanciful, and that if nature wanted otherwise humans would reproduce asexually like we once did as pre-eukaryotes, which would then validate your primary use of your double jointed back, namely, self clam shucking. Evolution dictated otherwise, such that anytime their is a 'real' uncontrollable attraction of one sex for the same sex such as you and your sisters lesbianism, it's because there is a flaw in that particular organism as it is not in keeping with the biological maintenance of the sexual reproduction paradigm, which I'm sure predates any fanciful deviation.

[chaz wyman]

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Nature has no flaws. It is what it is. It might not comply with your personal sense of morality - but then when did it ever?
Apes fuck same sex partners, so do a long list of other species.


You spewed the naturalist fallacy.
Why not defend it? Is that all you are capable of- insults without basis?

OK, I'll be nice about it even though you were a p****.

Calling a person a p**** is NOT being nice, so I have not bothered to read your lengthy response.
If you want to be nice, try it sometime, otherwise keep schtum.

Listen to John - You have no idea what Natural Selection means or implies.
Evolution does not 'dictate' - it is a EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

[John]

So my argument is that humans are animals that evolved for the reasons mentioned above

There are reasons why some traits are passed on but there is no reason to evolution because nothing evolves for a reason. Organisms survive because they evolve, they do not evolve to survive.

Evolution dictated otherwise

I assume you're using poetic license but as it's one of my personal hobby-horses I'd like to point out that evolution doesn't dictate anything.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Nature has no flaws. It is what it is. It might not comply with your personal sense of morality - but then when did it ever?
Apes fuck same sex partners, so do a long list of other species.


You spewed the naturalist fallacy.
Why not defend it? Is that all you are capable of- insults without basis?

OK, I'll be nice about it even though you were a p****.

Calling a person a p**** is NOT being nice, so I have not bothered to read your lengthy response.
If you want to be nice, try it sometime, otherwise keep schtum.
You're such a pansy sometimes, you started it in your first to me, may I remind:

You are just a homophobic p**** who is probably in the closet.

So fark you, you pussy of double standards, such a little whiny bitch, you can be.

Listen to John - You have no idea what Natural Selection means or implies.
Evolution does not 'dictate' - it is a EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

[SpheresOfBalance]

So my argument is that humans are animals that evolved for the reasons mentioned above

There are reasons why some traits are passed on but there is no reason to evolution because nothing evolves for a reason. Organisms survive because they evolve, they do not evolve to survive.

Evolution dictated otherwise

I assume you're using poetic license but as it's one of my personal hobby-horses I'd like to point out that evolution doesn't dictate anything.

Obviously I disagree john, those organisms lived millions of years ago, while you may find fossils of their structure there is no such thing as a fossil of their having or not having some sort of primitive consciousness, do not animals including humans run from fire? If I punch a Makiwara multiple times everyday, does my body not create callous to protect my knuckles? The localized cells sense damage and they add additional cells so as to protect. I say that if I did this, everyday of my life having progeny late in life, and they do the same, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually they could stop, as I see that eventually a progeny would be born with additional skin cells on it's knuckles. Look to the plethora of variations of dogs all coming from wolves as your example. I believe that your belief is mistaken, this is not to say that it's not popular belief.

[John]

If I punch a Makiwara multiple times everyday, does my body not create callous to protect my knuckles? The localized cells sense damage and they add additional cells so as to protect. I say that if I did this, everyday of my life having progeny late in life, and they do the same, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually they could stop, as I see that eventually a progeny would be born with additional skin cells on it's knuckles.

They would do so because they had similar traits (and cultural imperatives) to you that encourage them to punch a Makiwara every day but they get no credit from your callouses. And their children would have no tougher knuckles than anyone else unless someone with an extra skin layer on their fist somehow managed to gain some reproductive advantage and such a trait was hereditary.

You're not seriously advocating Lamarckism are you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

If I punch a Makiwara multiple times everyday, does my body not create callous to protect my knuckles? The localized cells sense damage and they add additional cells so as to protect. I say that if I did this, everyday of my life having progeny late in life, and they do the same, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually they could stop, as I see that eventually a progeny would be born with additional skin cells on it's knuckles.

They would do so because they had similar traits (and cultural imperatives) to you that encourage them to punch a Makiwara every day but they get no credit from your callouses. And their children would have no tougher knuckles than anyone else unless someone with an extra skin layer on their fist somehow managed to gain some reproductive advantage and such a trait was hereditary.

You're not seriously advocating Lamarckism are you?

You see I don't do things that way, I don't learn of something and then either believe in it 100% or pitch it, I see that from 0 to 100% of it can be either correct or incorrect, and that some of it may require revision as it's partially correct. Anyway I'd never heard of the term Lamarckism before, thanks for the tip, but I see that the Baldwin Effect also shows promise, because we are talking about single celled organisms.

You also have to realize that I really don't believe that in our time of modern science we have seen the required amount of time which would allow for such things as I reference to be tested, as I see it taking tens of thousands of years. Of course mine is just theory, but it is somewhat informed. One of my sources is the book titled "The Biology of Belief" by Bruce H. Lipton Ph.D. I see that they could get credit for my callouses, after a prolonged period of time, under the circumstances I've outlined.

Actually we're not talking about callouses anyway, that was just a hypothetical so as to convey an idea, we are talking about sexual as opposed to asexual reproduction, which was initiated a million years ago. As I read the wikipedia articles, that I quoted above, I sense that sexual reproduction was created and is maintained purposefully, by the organism, that's how it reads to me, which fits right along with other indicators, including the book that I referenced.

[Arising_uk]

err.... what? I thought usually both parties tend to 'get an orgasm'. I don't see a difference here!

Thats because you are a kind and considerate man to your woman. Many still aren't but I admit I was having a slight bubble here.

[Arising_uk]

... If I punch a Makiwara multiple times everyday, does my body not create callous to protect my knuckles? ...

Nope, its just the product of your skin organ regenerating the continual damage you are doing to it. It has no clue about the knuckles. Keep that-up and in your old age you will probably have terrible arthritis.

[Arising_uk]

... I say that if I did this, everyday of my life having progeny late in life, and they do the same, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually they could stop, as I see that eventually a progeny would be born with additional skin cells on it's knuckles. ...

If you say this then you do not believe nor pretty much understand Darwins Theory of Evolution as underpinned by the discovery of DNA and the Genes.

[chaz wyman]

Typical naturalist fallacy.

Listen to John - You have no idea what Natural Selection means or implies.
Evolution does not 'dictate' - it is a EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

[The Jesus Head]

I'm continually puzzled why a bright young woman like yourself maintains any kind of interests in all this.

its a bit like asking a british person why do you go to the local pub

this is semi-rural texas

people go to church

thats what we do

Exactly my point. It would otherwise seem that you are smart enough to live your own life.Not follow the crowd. I don't go to the pub.

The central theme of her environment is church and she raises a question about
what the bible has to say about homosexuality.
To say that her involvement is a herd instinct is a misplaced
concept.
Also whether you go to the pub or not is completely irrelevant to the girls point
which was to emphasize regional custom.
It is also strange that you question what she happens to value as if you
have a rule book of values that everyone should follow.
Basically you are saying that debating sexuality and the bible is something a bright person
should not be concerned with.
Do you also think that a bright person should not watch Star Trek
or how about stamp collecting ?
Totally amazing to say the least.

[chaz wyman]

So my argument is that humans are animals that evolved for the reasons mentioned above

There are reasons why some traits are passed on but there is no reason to evolution because nothing evolves for a reason. Organisms survive because they evolve, they do not evolve to survive.

Evolution dictated otherwise

I assume you're using poetic license but as it's one of my personal hobby-horses I'd like to point out that evolution doesn't dictate anything.

Obviously I disagree john, those organisms lived millions of years ago, while you may find fossils of their structure there is no such thing as a fossil of their having or not having some sort of primitive consciousness, do not animals including humans run from fire? If I punch a Makiwara multiple times everyday, does my body not create callous to protect my knuckles? The localized cells sense damage and they add additional cells so as to protect. I say that if I did this, everyday of my life having progeny late in life, and they do the same, etc, etc, etc, etc, eventually they could stop, as I see that eventually a progeny would be born with additional skin cells on it's knuckles. Look to the plethora of variations of dogs all coming from wolves as your example. I believe that your belief is mistaken, this is not to say that it's not popular belief.

The genes you are born with are exactly the same as the genes you die with. The activities of your life are not transmitted to your progeny. Individuals do not learn for their genome. Evolution works by either living or dieing, and either passing your genes or not. It has fuck all to do with 'punching a Makiwara" everyday.

QED you do not understand Natural Selection.