I am homosexual, what the Bible says

227 posts / 0 new
Last post
Whitefire13's picture
Tin Man

Tin Man
OMfuxkingG
I haven’t laughed soooo hard in a long time. Holy Jesus fuckin Christ. You have a way with words!

Whitefire13's picture
Joy said simply “ I’m not in

Joy said simply “ I’m not in charge. Nature is.” (Post 84)

Joy has her opinion.

My dog has humped pillows, legs and whatever else may be in range when he was frisky (he’s old now). One of George Carlin’s comedy shows ended with him lovingly showing his dog humping his cat via slideshow (not a live demonstration). Ducks have set up 3-somes (2 males, 1 female) and the males have sexual relations with each other. ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_be...

“No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

Edited to add...I am now taking my vagina to the shower ... seems I get a moral pass since I don’t spit out semen...

Joy--'s picture
“My dog has humped pillows,

“My dog has humped pillows, legs and whatever else may be in range when he was frisky (he’s old now). One of George Carlin’s comedy shows ended with him lovingly showing his dog humping his cat via slideshow (not a live demonstration). Ducks have set up 3-somes (2 males, 1 female) and the males have sexual relations with each other. ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_be...

“No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.”

another person who doesn’t understand what is meant by natural law/the natural moral order. It is NOT simply that which we see in nature. First, a person could be born without arms and legs – that doesn’t mean it’s good that man doesn’t have arms or legs. It means something somewhere got messed up. Also, it is always silly to compare other animal species with man. The same laws don’t apply. Some animals eat their young. Uumm . . . doesn’t mean it’s ok then if humans do.

Natural law means man can know what is right/good and in his best interest based on acknowledgement of the order/shape/form/function of things, reason, logic, and observation of this world and our relationship with it.

David Killens's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

"acknowledgement of the order"

Please define "order". And who determines this "order"?

Sheldon's picture
Joy "another person who

Joy "another person who doesn’t understand what is meant by natural law/the natural moral order. It is NOT simply that which we see in nature. First, a person could be born without arms and legs – that doesn’t mean it’s good that man doesn’t have arms or legs. It means something somewhere got messed up. Also, it is always silly to compare other animal species with man. The same laws don’t apply. Some animals eat their young. Uumm . . . doesn’t mean it’s ok then if humans do."

Natural

adjective
1.existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

Why don't theists ever read dictionaries?

Joy "Also, it is always silly to compare other animal species with man. The same laws don’t apply."

Let me get this straight, when you say natural laws, you don't mean natural laws at all, just a string of behaviours the bronze age male dominated societies your religious beliefs originated from found objectionable. I'm glad we cleared that up, could you please stop using the term unnatural then, as it's very misleading.

Joy "Natural law means man can know what is right/good and in his best interest based on acknowledgement of the order/shape/form/function of things, reason, logic, and observation of this world and our relationship with it."

You mean religious doctrine, not natural law. This idiocy aside, why should anyone's actions or behaviours in the 21st century have to mesh with the moral pronouncements of the bronze age superstitions of patriarchal middle eastern Bedouin cultures?

Joy "Natural law means man can know what is right/good and in his best interest based on acknowledgement of the order/shape/form/function of things,"

like a penis fitting naturally into someone's anus, or the pleasure they derive from it? You are funny...

David Killens's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

"Natural law means man can know what is right/good and in his best interest based on acknowledgement of the order/shape/form/function of things, reason, logic, and observation of this world and our relationship with it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ADk_4dTXt8

Then please explain why the hairy male chimp fondled the scrotum of the hairless male chimp, who did not object?

Kevin Levites's picture
(Directed at Joy, but also

(Directed at Joy, but also everyone else)

Hi Joy:

As a medical person, I understand the points about human anatomy, and what is or is not compatible when it comes to "putting things together" during intimacy, if I can avoid being scatological for the sake of good taste.

Stil . . . I wonder how this gets us to a sense of objective morality?

The human body wasn't made for flying, yet we put people on the moon.

Also, I question if there can even be an absolute definition of right and wrong.

I believe that cannibalism is wrong . . . yet I wouldn't accuse those people who crashed in an airplane in the Andes in the early 70s of wrongdoing for eating their dead friends in order to stay alive. I would like to believe that I would willfully starve to death before eating a human being, but I've never been in that situation.

The paradox of absolute right and wrong with regards to homosexuality concerns gay men vs. lesbian women.

Gay men may have higher disease rates, but I imagine that gay women have lower disease rates than straight women. For mechanical reasons that I need not go into, lesbian sex is less likely to spread disease than straight sex.

As far as whether or not gay sex is "natural", I question whether driving in cars, flying in planes, hunting whales to the brink of extinction for lipstick and dog food, and parachuting out of planes is "natural".

If we decide that these things are natural for humans to do (because of our nature), then why the inordinate amount of attention placed on gay sex?

These questions are important to me in a practical sense, as issues like these have interfered with me doing my job as a paramedic when it came to treating gay people (see earlier posts in other threads).

Joy--'s picture
“As a medical person, I

“As a medical person, I understand the points about human anatomy, and what is or is not compatible when it comes to "putting things together" during intimacy, if I can avoid being scatological for the sake of good taste.
Stil . . . I wonder how this gets us to a sense of objective morality?
The human body wasn't made for flying, yet we put people on the moon.”

Sure, but again contrary to nature does not simply mean that which is artificial or not “natural”. It means is something in man’s best interest. Is it right or good for man? Does it makes sense from what we can know based on what we observe about how things were designed/ordered and their function and consequences of behavior.

If a man can’t see, he can wear contact lenses. This wouldn’t be considered immoral, even though contact lenses aren’t natural because the object is to restore the man’s sight. It is ordered toward a good. If a man could see, but wanted to be blind. It would be immoral to cut out his eyes. That would be contrary to nature.

“Also, I question if there can even be an absolute definition of right and wrong.”

So, rape can sometimes be right? When?

“I believe that cannibalism is wrong . . . yet I wouldn't accuse those people who crashed in an airplane in the Andes in the early 70s of wrongdoing for eating their dead friends in order to stay alive. I would like to believe that I would willfully starve to death before eating a human being, but I've never been in that situation.”

Isn’t that the point? The point is we all know it is wrong to eat other human beings. It’s also wrong to kill other human beings, but sometimes we have to do that in self defense. It doesn’t change the truth that it’s wrong to eat humans. Also, I might argue the wrongness of cannibalism is not that human flesh is being eaten, rather that cannibals purposely sought other human beings, killed them, and then ate them. The person during the plane crash did not kill his victim in order to eat him.

“The paradox of absolute right and wrong with regards to homosexuality concerns gay men vs. lesbian women.”

So, does the paradox of right and wrong with regards to incest concern the particular family members?

“Gay men may have higher disease rates, but I imagine that gay women have lower disease rates than straight women. For mechanical reasons that I need not go into, lesbian sex is less likely to spread disease than straight sex.”

Believe it or not there are some bacterial strains more common in lesbians than heterosexual women, but again, that is one of those examples like saying I smoked cigarettes my whole life and never got lung cancer, therefore cigarettes aren’t bad for you. The one does not negate the other. Also, there are other inherent negative consequences of lesbian relationships (not that that is the only way to know something is right/wrong). But statistically speaking lesbians are at higher risk for depression and anxiety, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc.

However regardless of demonstrated negative consequences, we can argue lesbian sex is still immoral because we can reason that two women were not intended to engage in sex together because their sexual genitalia are not compatible. Shape/form says something about a thing’s purpose/function.

David Killens's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

"However regardless of demonstrated negative consequences, we can argue lesbian sex is still immoral because we can reason that two women were not intended to engage in sex together because their sexual genitalia are not compatible. Shape/form says something about a thing’s purpose/function."

Wow, just ... wow.

But what if two lesbians find happiness and love with each other?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ David

@ David

Last time I watched a "show" way back in my youth the girls seemed to have no problem in making their sexual organs "compatible"....just sayin'

Sheldon's picture
Joy "“Also, I question if

Joy "“Also, I question if there can even be an absolute definition of right and wrong.”

So, rape can sometimes be right? When?"

Well the bible certainly claims so, however would please tell me why you think rape is immoral? Also since you keep equating unnatural with immoral, and rape is most definitely natural, how is it now arbitrarily being declared immoral by you? You don't seem very consistent with your assertions about what is moral, almost as if you have abandoned reason in favour of rigid adherence to doctrine.

Joy "However regardless of demonstrated negative consequences, we can argue lesbian sex is still immoral because we can reason that two women were not intended to engage in sex together because their sexual genitalia are not compatible."

I can reason no such thing, it is just another unevidenced assumption you have made based on religious bigotry as far as I can see, unless you can demonstrate some objective evidence to support it, and please spare me your bare appeals to what you deem to be "natural".

Joy "their sexual genitalia are not compatible"

Which is why they never seem to enjoy sex with each other you mean? The hilarity just reached a whole new level.

Joy "statistically speaking lesbians are at higher risk for depression and anxiety, domestic violence, substance abuse, etc."

Hardly surprising given how long evil religious bigots have been persecuting them, I think you may be putting your clapped out wheezy asthmatic donkey behind your cart again.

Sheldon's picture
Joy "However regardless of

Joy "However regardless of demonstrated negative consequences, we can argue lesbian sex is still immoral because we can reason that two women were not intended to engage in sex together because their sexual genitalia are not compatible."

Is that why Lesbians never achieve orgasm? You are funny Joy.

Whitefire13's picture
Joy... your use of “contrary”

Joy... your use of “contrary” - do you mean “opposite”? You have me confused, in that you said “I am not in charge, nature is”, but when given examples of the natural world...and observations within nature” you tell me that I “don’t understand” and jump to not being born with limbs. This observation is in all of nature. Being born without limbs is not.

In nature, offspring born without limbs will most likely die. As humans, we can “afford” (resource wise) to care more for offspring that were born disadvantaged ... not so in all areas of the world or in all time periods in our human past. Empathy is also a trait shared in nature, as is communication, sense of fairness, etc. However not in all nature but a good portion, and it serves the purpose of specie advantage.

You used the term “designed”, so perhaps it’s your unspoken belief that the designer is in “charge” and not nature. From that point of view it would be the designer’s creations and not a progressive, natural evolution that includes societal evolutions.

The Designer of His Creations should them have the right to give them loving instructions on how to engage as moral beings.

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands (Quran 5:38).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female (Quran 24:13).
• A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.
• A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death (see "Islamophobia").
• A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (see Taharrush).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Quran 4:34 and Religion of Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal."
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.

You’re right and I see your point clearly. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You may have just saved my life.

Joy--'s picture
“Joy... your use of “contrary

“Joy... your use of “contrary” - do you mean “opposite”? You have me confused, in that you said “I am not in charge, nature is”, but when given examples of the natural world...and observations within nature” you tell me that I “don’t understand” and jump to not being born with limbs. This observation is in all of nature. Being born without limbs is not.”

Huh? Sure it is. Sometimes a human can be born deformed – yes, without limbs. It’s rare, but it happens. According to you this would be right and good because well, we observed this to have happened in nature so that must mean it’s in accordance with nature. Again, NOT what in accordance with nature means. Basically, from nature we can know that man was meant to have working arms and legs. If someone is born not having this that would be a perversion of nature. We can safely say it is good to be born with arms and legs and bad to not be born with arms and legs. The not having arms and legs is actually contrary to the natural order of things.

“In nature, offspring born without limbs will most likely die.”

Not human beings. Humans can live without arms and legs. See, how you make my point the danger of comparing human beings with other animal species?

“You used the term “designed”, so perhaps it’s your unspoken belief that the designer is in “charge” and not nature.”

You don’t have to use the word “designed” if you don’t want to, but you can’t deny there is an order to the world we live in.

“The Designer of His Creations should them have the right to give them loving instructions on how to engage as moral beings.”

No designer necessary to know what is right and good vs. wrong and bad. One need only acknowledge the world we live in and live in accordance with the world.
“• Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands (Quran 5:38).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female (Quran 24:13).
• A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.
• A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death (see "Islamophobia").
• A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (see Taharrush).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Quran 4:34 and Religion of Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal."
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.”

Not sure why you quoted a bunch of things from the Koran. I’m not Muslim nor do I find it a compelling belief system.

Tin-Man's picture
@The Joy of Painting Re:

@The Joy of Painting Re: "Not sure why you quoted a bunch of things from the Koran. I’m not Muslim nor do I find it a compelling belief system."

That's right! You tell 'em, girlfriend! The bible is SO much better than that nasty ol' Koran. Because all the genocide, misogyny, human sacrifices, rape laws, tribal warfare, and slave trading in the bible are WAAAAAAY more moral and humane than those in the Koran.

Joy--'s picture
“That's right! You tell 'em,

“That's right! You tell 'em, girlfriend! The bible is SO much better than that nasty ol' Koran. Because all the genocide, misogyny, human sacrifices, rape laws, tribal warfare, and slave trading in the bible are WAAAAAAY more moral and humane than those in the Koran”

If properly understood, the Bible is more humane than the Koran and it does not advocate misogyny, rape, slavery, etc. It also meets more standards of historicity than the Koran. If you want to rise above your false stereotypes regarding your interpretation of the Bible, perhaps you could read some books or take some classes on the subject. However, I’m pretty sure you prefer to cling to your anti-Christian bigotry.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joyless

@ Joyless

"If properly understood, the Bible is more humane than the Koran and it does not advocate misogyny, rape, slavery, etc. It also meets more standards of historicity than the Koran"

Now I know you're fucking kidding me.....want me to quote verses about your books love of misgogyny, racism, genocide, murder, infanticide?

Please find for me historically accurate events described in the bible?
Lets have a look at some: World Wide flood? Nope...someone forgot to tell the Chinese and the Egyptians
Walls of Jericho? Nope...there just were not any at that time.
Man swallowed by Fish and lives...err I think not
2 million people trekking for 40 years in Sinia but leave no trace..(laughter)

But please tell me more about historical accuracy.

Oh, but there it is; the perfect, ineffable "word of God" written by an omniscient omnipotent being has to be "properly understood". And of course , it is "Joy" who has the key top understanding that ripping babies from the womb and dashing them against a rock is an act of love...wow just wish I had that kind of brain.

Whitefire13's picture
Again I ask “ Joy... your use

Again I ask “ Joy... your use of “contrary” - do you mean “opposite”?”. Please define.

Yes, being born without limbs is rare. Homosexuality is not. Humans, if they abandon the baby, will die. Did you not read the whole of my text? Thus my statement that today in most parts of the world those born with a disadvantage, any disadvantage, are usually provided for.

...” someone is born not having this that would be a perversion of nature...” No. There are all types of reasons one may be born with advantages or disadvantages... and how can it be categorized as bad or good? You use those terms as though they are definite. According to your thinking, Steven Hawking was a real perversion of nature (physically disadvantaged and mentally advantaged).

Do you believe in a designer?
“No designer necessary to know what is right and good vs. wrong and bad. One need only acknowledge the world we live in and live in accordance with the world.” You need to add “...according to Joy...” Maybe write a book.

Over a billion humans live in countries that practice the law system “that you do not find compelling”. They believe this moral system is from the Creator of man as revealed through his prophets. As with all holy books, it determines good and bad.

Joy--'s picture
“Did you not read the whole

“Did you not read the whole of my text?”

Yes. I still think you misunderstood what is meant by natural law. What we mean by natural law is that which is right/good/in man’s best interest based on what we know from the world we live in and man’s relationship with this world. So, the reason I used the born without limbs analogy is because everyone can know arms and legs are good. So, if a human being does not have working arms and legs that would be bad, even if the person were born that way. Just because there might exist a certain percentage of the population born that way, does not negate the truth that having arms and legs is proper human development and order. Not having arms and legs is a disadvantage.

We can tell via science/biology what is right/good/makes sense/normal/properly ordered. We can know via observation of something’s form/shape what its function/purpose/role is.

Sme sex relations are not immoral because they are unnatural. Heck, it is natural for human beings to have sexual desires. Does that mean adultery is moral? Or even promiscuity? Marijuana is natural. Does that mean man should get stoned every day? It isn’t about natural/unnatural in the way you describe it.

“Over a billion humans live in countries that practice the law system “that you do not find compelling”.”

Aaaand? I would suggest those billion humans are wrong. I also think you were making some attempt to suggest I only believe something because the Bible tells them so. LOL!

My entire argument is no belief in the bible is necessary to know same sex relations are wrong. All men can know this using reason, logic, science, observation and acknowledgment of the way the world works.

Sheldon's picture
Joy "My entire argument is

Joy "My entire argument is no belief in the bible is necessary to know same sex relations are wrong. All men can know this using reason, logic, science, observation and acknowledgment (sic) of the way the world works."

You're claim is nonsense though, and your motivation is religious bigotry, no matter how you dress it up.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Joy

@ Joy

Understanding Homosexuality, by Pastor David Glesne.

It seems you may well have read this nasty little tome to reinforce your erroneous views on the natural state of homosexuality.

You are aware that it is largely and widely criticised by most of the experts in the field...lets take a look at what they say shall we?

The recently published book, Understanding Homosexuality, by
Pastor David Glesne, is a good example of another misrepresentation of the consensus scientific understanding of homosexuality. Glesne does this primarily by presenting only the scientific stance of a small and dissident minority of medical and behavioral scientists without a fair representation of the consensus view. This bias gives the impression that among scientists the dissident view is equivalent in substance and credibility to the consensus view, which it is not.
CR Peterson and DA Hedlund,

I think the first line of that review (in fact the whole excerpt) can be fairly levelled at you and your hysterical search for justification of your antediluvian and ignorant viewpoint.

I other words your ignorance of the subject is only matched by your bigotry.

Joy--'s picture
“Understanding Homosexuality,

“Understanding Homosexuality, by Pastor David Glesne.
It seems you may well have read this nasty little tome to reinforce your erroneous views on the natural state of homosexuality.”

I have absolutely no idea who Pastor David Glesne is or whatever article it is you are citing.

Tin-Man's picture
Note: Another duplicate post

Note: Another duplicate post moved from the middle to here at the (current) end of the thread. Done so primarily to allow Joy to maintain her current unsavory opinion of me without having to feel like she is being unfairly and piously judgmental. Because God knows we would not want her to get labeled as being a holier-than-thou nosy busy-body who feels the need to dictate what is good/bad for men and society in general.

@Joy (to the world...) Re: "There is a degree of oral stimulation that can be perfectly fine as foreplay within a marital relationship, but when we deny the fulfillment of the sexual act to its natural end ordered to procreation we end up hurting ourselves and others."

Ah-ha! Okay, I think I am now starting to see the light! So, by that statement, one can surmise that you believe the ONLY reason to have sex is for the SOLE purpose of attempting to get the female pregnant to have a child. Cool. Got it. And, of course, from THAT we can deduce that the ONLY times it is appropriate to have intercourse is during the prime period when the female is ovulating. Check. And, naturally, that would mean having sex at ANY OTHER time is morally WRONG. From that, obviously, we must certainly determine that women and/or men who are medically sterile should NEVER have sex, because it would not serve the natural order of procreation, thus causing GREAT HARM to themselves and others. Oh, wow! That makes perfect sense now! Phew! I am so glad I finally got that through my thick skull. Sometimes I'm not as dumb as I think I am.... *grinning with pride*...

Oh, but wait! It gets better! (And, I must say, this next part has given me a whole new respect for our darling Jumping-With-Joy.) It was in a later post of hers that I found this little gem...

Joy - "I actually would take a bet I probably have more sex than any of the people responding in this thread."

Well, obviously, she must be one helluva Supermom! One can only marvel as to how she manages possibly well over a dozen children or so. (Depending on her age, of course.) For she has shown herself to be such an outstanding model of self-rightous personal integrity, that we ALL can be absolutely certain that dear Joy has NEVER had sex without the intention of getting pregnant. Because for her to do so would have caused harm to herself and to others. Ladies and gentlemen of the AR, I submit to you that we are unworthy of being in the presence of such a blinding beacon of pious moral conduct.

(Edited to omit the post number, because they apparently do not maintain the initial assigned number as the thread grows.)

Tin-Man's picture
Oh, by the way Almond Joy,

Oh, by the way Almond Joy, have you started packing yet and making moving plans to go live in one of those wonderful theocratic countries that require a rape victim to marry her rapist by order of their governing holy book? Just curious, as you have yet to address my question to you about that in one of my earlier posts.

Joy--'s picture
“Ah-ha! Okay, I think I am

“Ah-ha! Okay, I think I am now starting to see the light! So, by that statement, one can surmise that you believe the ONLY reason to have sex is for the SOLE purpose of attempting to get the female pregnant to have a child.”

Nope. The sexual act is unitive in nature. It contains both an inherent procreative nature and a pleasurable nature. The point is to allow both and not separate this unitive nature.

“Cool. Got it. And, of course, from THAT we can deduce that the ONLY times it is appropriate to have intercourse is during the prime period when the female is ovulating. “

Nope. Since it is natural that a woman only ovulates once a month during child bearing years, that would indicate according to nature she is actually not expected to conceive during every sexual act.

“And, naturally, that would mean having sex at ANY OTHER time is morally WRONG.”

Nope. See above.

“From that, obviously, we must certainly determine that women and/or men who are medically sterile should NEVER have sex, because it would not serve the natural order of procreation”

Nope. Also, many a couple has been told they are unable to conceive only to discover they eventually conceive.

“Oh, but wait! It gets better! (And, I must say, this next part has given me a whole new respect for our darling Jumping-With-Joy.) It was in a later post of hers that I found this little gem...

Joy - "I actually would take a bet I probably have more sex than any of the people responding in this thread."

Well, obviously, she must be one helluva Supermom! One can only marvel as to how she manages possibly well over a dozen children or so. (Depending on her age, of course.) “

I have 8 children and had 3 miscarriages and did not get married until the age of 26. I have never practiced contraception in any attempt to separate the unitive nature of the marital act. In our case, this did not result in dozens of children. It actually makes me laugh a little when people actually think that. That simply isn’t how nature or the body works. Ecological breastfeeding also has a great deal to do with it. Ecologically breastfeeding naturally suppresses ovulation. Many women, like myself are unable to get pregnant until they stop breastfeeding. Kind of fascinating how nature works in this way. It’s like the body saying, “I’m still nursing this one, so probably not a good idea for me to get pregnant again right now.”

And as is evident from nature, babies come when babies come. It is by design that not every sexual act results in pregnancy.

“we ALL can be absolutely certain that dear Joy has NEVER had sex without the intention of getting pregnant.”

Well, pretty much. I mean I certainly never attempted to block any natural consequence that might occur and am always open to whatever might happen, but I also realize every marital act resulting in pregnancy is just not how the world works, regardless of what they might have tried to scare you into believing in Sex Ed class.

“Oh, by the way Almond Joy, have you started packing yet and making moving plans to go live in one of those wonderful theocratic countries that require a rape victim to marry her rapist by order of their governing holy book? Just curious, as you have yet to address my question to you about that in one of my earlier posts.”

I did address this. This is not a moral obligation for human beings so why would I abide by it?

Grinseed's picture
I'm really old, sexual

I'm really old, sexual activity is still as robust as ever, but not as frequent. But, I actually would take a bet I have certainly HAD more sex than most of the people responding in this thread. I started earlier. Age has its benefits.

Whitefire13's picture
God Grinseed! Even if you

God Grinseed! Even if you didn’t start early, you’ve got a 45 year start over me!!!!

Grinseed's picture
And the last 45 years were

And the last 45 years were the best!

Nyarlathotep's picture
Joy - The point is we all

Joy - The point is we all know it is wrong to eat other human beings.

Uh, that is false.

Joy--'s picture
“Joy - The point is we all

“Joy - The point is we all know it is wrong to eat other human beings.
Uh, that is false.”

Remind me never to come to your house for dinner.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.