Dear Romany (& Bushbasher).... for me, while the 'thought' of obtaining sexual gratification via the place from which people defacate is hmm well to be blunt..rather repulsive.. we both know that sexual activity can and does go further to even the licking of those anatomical parts. I guess that's one stage further on the 'repulsion' scale.

The point of course is that while this is true.. (perhaps for some and not others?) the issue is not those things....the problem with homosexual activity is pure and simple that it's with the same gender.
i.e.. the Biblical position says nothing about the 'disgust' aspect, but only the 'gender' aspect.

It's simply that we were created male and female.. one for the other, complementing, fulfilling, -that's the Creation pattern.

To restrict the discussion to the 'disgust' aspect in order to justify heterosexual sex, is like the "King James Only" mob who claim that the KJV Bible is 'the' one which God preserved for mankind..and their justification is "Well...look at how God has USED it to bless mankind" .... it's pure subjective rubbish.

Assessing sexual conduct should not be 'subjective' but very much objective and connected to the permissions and exclusions/prohibitions of the Almighty.

Yes, I believe homosexual acts should be illegal. (on the basis of democratic processes)-I don't believe that the punishment should be severe or based on the Levitical punishments, I believe God will judge us all. For this world, the important thing is to send a message of social dissapproval about some things,(sexual misconduct) and severely punish others (such as murder)

Porkycrap: << I believe homosexual acts should be illegal >>

So, on the basis of Porky's interpretation of his religious text, he wants to make homosexual acts illegal. How exactly does this differ from Sharia law?

This is, of course, why we need secular definitions of human rights that override the designs of religionists to incorporate their screwy values in the laws of the land.

Porky and the other Christian Taliban are currently smelling somewhat worse than the orifice with which they seem to be obsessed.

Good People,

Proscribing laws against consenting sexual acts by adults is far beyond bigotry. It is deep seated arrogance supported only by narrow prejudice. When religions and this includes most of them, gain control of political systems, such intolerance does become law.

This faith-based obsession with same sex activity is only undermining any moral high ground religions thought they had. Is it any wonder that the pews are emptying of young people?

As for anal sex, it is a common practice amongst heterosexual couples. It does not involve ‘making babies’ and neither does masturbation or night emissions.

There is so much sperm filling spaces and places not vaginal, that to use the non-reproductive intention argument is well to be frank, just bloody stupidity of the highest order.

Have any of the religious folk on this thread never masturbated or had a nightly emission or had their penis or fingers near or in a partner’s anus? If none of these things is true, then it is they who are the ‘abnormal’ ones, and maybe they should rethink their own sex lives and stop telling others how to live theirs.

David

poly-boaz, i'm genuinely astonished by your answers. and appalled. i wasn't trying to do a gotcha or anything, but you have come out with some truly hateful responses. i'm sure you don't regard it as hateful. but trust me: anybody whose behaviour you wish to re-criminalize would regard it as hateful.

let's first be clear that your first reply to me was nonsense, that your condemnation of homosexuality is *not* because sex has to do with human reproduction. of course, as a number of people of pointed out, the premise is false, that sex is not necessarily about reproduction. if that was the source of your condemnation, it was absurd.

but as your later responses indicate, your condemnation is purely and simply a product of biblical condemnation. i'm appalled, but i admire your honesty.

but your stance raises obvious questions.

1) as cj asks, why is your desire to re-criminalize homosexuality different in principle from a muslim's desire to impose koran-based law?

2) what do you regard as the appropriate criminal penalty for homosexuality? why not levitical-style punishments? how do you choose to ignore clear biblical direction?

3) would you seek to criminalize other biblically proscribed behaviour? should it be a crime to eat shellfish? why not?

Most of Levitical law is based in social health and little has changed despite our advances in medicine. AIDS is still a socially transmitted disease mostly among homosexual males. Criminal law still covers the deliberate spread of diseases. To claim the young generation reject social health is based in their ignorance and still results in the rise of the incidence of lifelong VD infections.

The analysis of sperm indicates it is designed to convey zyote for fertilisation of ovum. It is a living protein designed for human reproduction. It is true that we have an overt suppy greater than any possible fertilisation, similarly with ovum. Please tell me what purpose ovum have in the total scheme of sexuality! One is the complement of the other, when two flesh become one.

Exit Porky, stage right.

So Philo, the "Levitical law" that forbids eating shellfish is about "social health"? Should oysters be banned?

Please don't include any "design" crap in your answer.