Does a woman have a right to insist that only one man hold her virginity exclusively to himself and he not engage in sexual acts that treat her as excreta? Is that also a human right because it is a value she believes right for her. It she believes violates her dignity and purity as a person.

All human rights are judged on a value system. That CJ believes we are not more than a mass of undesigned protein might be his value of his neighbour but it is not mine.

There are double standards being applied to anus sexual acts here. If it is done by people calling themselves Christian then in both our value systems it is wrong. If it is done by atheists then it is OK in some value systems. In mine and Davids values we are consistent and hold it in violation of the Creators design.

Dear CJ.... ur whining :) I set a little trap for you and now, having fallen into it.. you are munching on very sour grapes.. awwww.

The 'salient' point about the Green case..was not whether he spent time in the slammer or not..but that the gay lobby TRIED to get him there.
If Sweden was a political Island.. he would have been incarcerated.

The issue at stake is the 'motives/methods' of the gay lobby...not the fact that their scurrelous attempt at religious persecution failed under the heavier hammer of the EU human rights court.

The issues pointed out by the EUHRC showed clearly how evil and how disgraceful was the attempt by the homosexual lobby to criminalize valid religious freedom of expression. It also revealed that homosexuals will goto extreme lengths of political manipulation to silence their critics.. JUST as you yourself are doing with this persistant clinging to your 'you lied'mantra.

The statement "Green was sentenced to Jail" is entirely accurate and factual. His appeal and subesequent acquital is an entirely accurate additional fact. The 2nd simply underlines the reality of the first.
It does nothing to negate what the gay lobby tried to achieve.

Dear BUSHBASHER.. I'm not aware of any Biblical teaching against what you mentioned. The only thing specifically forbidden is 'same sex' sex. Work out your foreplay with your partner.

Porky: << The 'salient' point about the Green case..was not whether he spent time in the slammer or not..but that the gay lobby TRIED to get him there.
If Sweden was a political Island.. he would have been incarcerated. >>

Now we're getting somewhere, despite Porky's prevarication. Finally he acknowledges that the homophobic preacher's right to freedom of speech trumps that of homosexuals not to be offended, and this is enforceable in an international court.

While I don't think that the homophobic Swede should have been convicted (nor the Melbourne Islamophobes), I think that both cases are useful in working out what are the acceptable limits of the expression of hateful ideologies in free societies. I'm quite sure that homophobic godbotherers in Sweden are now a little more circumspect in the ways that they vilify gays, and that Islamophobic godbotherers in Melbourne are a little more judicious in the ways that they spread fear and loathing of Muslims in Melbourne.

This, of course, evidently rankles with those hate-mongers among us who regard human rights as constituting little more than the ability to vilify publicly those of whom they disapprove.

Tough titties to them.

Philo: << In mine and Davids values we are consistent and hold it in violation of the Creators design. >>

And of course you and "David" are entitled to believe whatever fanciful nonsense you like. However, when you extend those quaint beliefs to active vilification of people because of their sexuality, religion or whatever, then you're treading on dangerous ground and you may well be held to account for it.

poly-boaz, oral sex need not be "foreplay". it needn't have anything to do with "human reproduction" which was the core of your first answer to me. if it is not foreplay, do you condemn it? or do you condemn it only if it is homosexual?

do you merely "condemn" homosexual acts, or would you wish to see homosexuality illegal?

In all those who condemn homosexuality one of the big guns brought in to shoot down the opposition is the "uncleanliness" of the act: anal intercourse is represented as being unatural, spreading disease etc.

It seems as though some posters are infering that, even if one doesn't use a religious basis for condemning homosexuality, surely a pragmatic approach would point to the dangers of such acts?

Not one person on this or most threads concerning gay people, however, enter into discussion on how female homosexuality can pragmatically be condemned.

At first I thought this was because people were getting their Greek and Latin mixed up and interpreting "homo" as meaning man rather than, as it does in this instance, meaning "same sex". But then I realised that etymology doesn't play a part at all.

It seems that most of the condemnation is because people just get the "heeby-jeebies" thinking about two men engaging in sexual acts. The corollory is that, deep down, the idea of two women engaging in sexual acts is, for most men, somewhat titillating.

It would surely do the nay-sayers cause a lot more good if they were to thunder equally about he "unaturalness" "sickness" "uncleanliness" of homosexuality under all circumstances?

The only Bible reference most quote is that which codemns one man lying with another. No reference is given to a stricture regarding women lying with women.

Does this mean then, that female homosexuality is ok while it is only male homosexuality that isn't?

Are some people, perhaps, merely publicising their aversion to anal sex per se?

Though Paul in Romans 1 identifies homosexual acts between women as unnatural however in context it refers to a state of society condusive to all types of sexual abuse. In Biblical history prior to the NT period because of the majority of women in the society men could marry multiple wives. It would appear that within the marriage the women enjoyed mutual sex. However Baal worship and women having sexual objects resembling the penis were anathma.