313 replies to this topic

[wakelim]

I wondered what people feel about this? I personally believe that it's wrong and wouldn't mind chatting to others who believe otherwise to see what they think.

[Milovoriel]

wakelim, on Jul 21 2005, 08:21 AM, said:

I wondered what people feel about this? I personally believe that it's wrong and wouldn't mind chatting to others who believe otherwise to see what they think.

you're question is redundant .... homosexuality isn't right or wrong .... it just IS ....

it may not be your sexual orientation, in which case it's not for you .... but that doesn't mean it's wrong for anyone else .... it's like most things in life, it's just personal preference, like being a vegetarian or having a different faith .... as I've said before, life is full of diversity .... embrace it, 'cause that's what makes us all unique and interesting ....

Oh, I've just noticed that you only joined us yesterday .... BIG WELCOME!

[mizako]

Homosexuality will be considered like a normal sexual orientation in some years. There has been a lot of big changes in mentality in countries like Spain where homosexual marriages are legal now.

[icemarle]

Legal doesn't make things right or wrong. It's just a law.

But for me, it's wrong. Don't flame me, but this is just what I think. Well, humans aren't made to reproduce in the same sex. That's what makes it wrong. You can't get too far with that, because our bodies aren't made that way. They just aren't. It's like trying to get a cat have a baby with a dog. Their bodies are just not designed for each other.

[moonwitch]

Well I believe this thread has been made her before. I replied there.

I am bisexual. Is that wrong? To me, no. TO others, perhaps. Some will feel it is perfectly ok, some will not. That's how human minds work.

I don't see any reason to go about trying to have homosexuals deny what they feel, the gods only know how many killed themselves because they had to live against their feelings, how many are depressed etc. Is that right then?

Is it right, that people get fired of their jobs, get shunned by societies, get assaulted on the streets, get beaten up for who they love? No, I feel that is wrong.

icemarle,

So you'"re saying that only those who'se bodies are "designed" for each other can be to together, that the rest is wrong. Well, how about the sizes of parts of the human body, they are not always compatible. Or the creation of new breeds of cats or dogs. That's having breeds reporduce with another breed. Yes, a cat and dog can not have babies, but the CAN fall in love. And homosexuality has very little to do with the longing to have babies (yes, it does happen), it has to do with falling in love.

[wakelim]

Quote

I don't see any reason to go about trying to have homosexuals deny what they feel, the gods only know how many killed themselves because they had to live against their feelings, how many are depressed etc. Is that right then?

I don't think its really fair to blame "the gods". I certainly wasn't, and i don't think most other people were, implying that gay people should be insulted and bullied, merely discussing the theory of whether its right or not.

I may be wrong here, and if I am so then I apologise, but I think that the MAGORITY, not all, of gay relationships are not orionated towards love. They are merely directed towards a physical nature in their own sex that they find appealing. This is hardly suprising in a world where indecent male bodies are thrown at us almost as much as female ones. A few gays may be genuinely in love but, as I say, i believe that most gay relationships are directed towards a physical attraction rather than a love for the person. As I also say, I may be wrong, but that's what I think.

[Danieluchis]

i think that it's Ok if you are gay from birth, you know those kids wh o are, well you know feminine, girly, but there's a difference between being a gay since birth AND the ones who are maded you know straight man who experiment gay experiences and then you are gay. I got nothing wrong with gay people, my best friend is gay but i'm agree with my religiion (catholic) that it's ok if you're gay but you need abstinence ><

[biscuitrat]

Please don't start another political topic. There are so many more that are already open. The more you start, the more people are going to respond. You're never going to get the answers you want because you'll get the same amount from all sides, and it'll only go on forever. For one, I'm extremely liberal about certain things, and while I like hearing other sides argue, I don't like seeing them crush certain options and escapes for people.

Politics = *sigh*

[boyCradle]

Most people are now open about their views about homosexuality. They do not care about other people's prefernces as long as they do not get to step on other people's business.

Some base their views about it on their religion, culture and even family background.

Here in the Philippines, We have high respects on Gay men (most of them the girly-like) because they are earning way higher that those real men. but still they get discriminated on some stuff, like entering military and the police.

But for me they are fine, I do not get bothered by having gay friends, they do not harass me anyways. I have some classmates since high school and even in college and they actually have balls than most of us straight men.

But still, most people don't agree about thier (the gay peole's) way of life.

Moral does not neccessarily means legal, but legal does not necessarily means moral. These is the rule in this world, so let us just allow people to do what they all want.

[FLaKes]

I dont see anything wrong with homosexuality as long as they dont bother me everything is ok, although I find lesbians or bisexual girls as sexy or somthing. The thing I really find gross and sickening are the transvestites, the guys that look like girls and have operations and stuff.

Here in Guadalajara (city where I live), this city is considered the gay capitol of mexico, and since there is so many homosexuals here it is said that there is 7 girls for every man.

[ashiezai]

i do think that homosexuality is nothing wrong ... they are no commiting a crime or anything that will hurt others .. it's just that they are borned that way ... as long as they do not cause any trouble to the society .. i do not see any reason for banning them ...

[Saint_Michael]

me personally it doesn't matter what you are, its what inside that counts, but the fact that it has been a big issue since who knows when, tells us that people have nothing else better to do with thier life except to instigate problems and then throw feul in the fire by making it worse.

it may be wrong to some people it maybe right to other but guess what you have deal with it until the day you die some make good use of it and talk to people that are gay bi straight and you will see that they are agood person.


i do have a funny joke though but since i will be the good person i will not post it.

[rvovk]

Hmm, is being a live a crime?? Or is making love or to love somebody a crime?? I guess no. So what do you think (author of this topic) if homosexual person asks you or tell that your heterosexual life is wrong. There is no wrong, there only IS. Like I can't resist to be in love with women, homosexual people can't resist to love person of same gender. It is simple as it IS.
Kinda hate question like this, cause this kind of things were "actual" few decades before our time. Everyone has right to live and love somebody.

[icemarle]

Quote

So you'"re saying that only those who'se bodies are "designed" for each other can be to together, that the rest is wrong. Well, how about the sizes of parts of the human body, they are not always compatible. Or the creation of new breeds of cats or dogs. That's having breeds reporduce with another breed. Yes, a cat and dog can not have babies, but the CAN fall in love. And homosexuality has very little to do with the longing to have babies (yes, it does happen), it has to do with falling in love.

OK, let me explain. It's wrong in the sense that we weren't made that way in the first place. For me it's only wrong for the BODY part. That's all I'm saying. As for that affection part. I'm not saying it's wrong. So, OK, I can't really define things that well. But anyway, that's what I think.

[Peaktao]

wakelim, on Jul 21 2005, 09:21 AM, said:

I wondered what people feel about this? I personally believe that it's wrong and wouldn't mind chatting to others who believe otherwise to see what they think.

I think there is nothing wrong with homosexual....and I don't mind gay people.
Has the cause of being homosexual been proved? If it's because of people's genes and something which that person definitely has got no control, then you shouldn't blame him/her. In other words, if they cannot choose whether they like someone of the same sex or of the different one, then you cannot blame them.

Of course, if can be argued that even if they feel that deep down inside they like people of the same sex, but they don't have to express it. In other words, some people reasonably argue that homosexual should just lead normal life as if they are normal guy or girl. But why should they pretend? They have the right to express and be themselves as long as it doesn't harm other people, don't they?

[Joshua]

Umm... I say it's just because we are all slaves to our lusts and sins. You could also say a murderer can't help being one, he just is. Even if he is able to physically refrain from murdering someone in his mind he's already committed the crime and thus is guilty. Even if you don't commit adultery/premarital sex with someone in your mind you've most likely already done it, making you guilty.

Until you're saved and given a new mind, a new heart, and a new Spirit you are not freed from the bondage of sin so that you are free instead to serve God.

So I suppose you can make that argument for anyone other then a Christian. And of course until that heart transaction occurs whereby you get in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross you are not freed from that sin bondage, nor do you have eternal life. A person living rebelliously in known sin is almost certainly not a Christian is what I am saying. And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality like hating others, adultery, lying (whether they're little and white or whatever their characteristics), stealing, coveting (wanting what other people have), etc... is a sin. Just check the first chapter of Romans if you don't believe me.

God views sodomy pretty seriously... where do you think the word comes from? Sodom and Gomorrah... Before the angels pulled Lot and his family out of the city before it got burned up, a bunch of homosexuals wanted to rape the angels who they thought were men... It's right there in Genesis 19 btw.

[canpolitics]

jzyehoshua, on Aug 11 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

Umm...  I say it's just because we are all slaves to our lusts and sins.  You could also say a murderer can't help being one, he just is.  Even if he is able to physically refrain from murdering someone in his mind he's already committed the crime and thus is guilty.  Even if you don't commit adultery/premarital sex with someone in your mind you've most likely already done it, making you guilty. 

Until you're saved and given a new mind, a new heart, and a new Spirit you are not freed from the bondage of sin so that you are free instead to serve God.

So I suppose you can make that argument for anyone other then a Christian.  And of course until that heart transaction occurs whereby you get in a right relationship with God through Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross you are not freed from that sin bondage, nor do you have eternal life.  A person living rebelliously in known sin is almost certainly not a Christian is what I am saying.  And the Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality like hating others, adultery, lying (whether they're little and white or whatever their characteristics), stealing, coveting (wanting what other people have), etc...  is a sin.  Just check the first chapter of Romans if you don't believe me.

I am going to have to call you on that one... while Romans Chapter 1 does condemn fornicators, it does not single out homosexuality in any way, in other words homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex in the eyes of god. Of course Romans Chapter one calls pretty much everything a sin, even ignorance is a sin according to Romans 1:31.

Quote

God views sodomy pretty seriously...  where do you think the word comes from?  Sodom and Gomorrah...  Before the angels pulled Lot and his family out of the city before it got burned up, a bunch of homosexuals wanted to rape the angels who they thought were men...  It's right there in Genesis 19 btw.

Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, it could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality. Actually it doesn't even say the men of Sodam were attempting to rape the guests of Lot, just that they want to "know them", and in fact Lot offers them two of his virgin daughters as bait to keep them away from his guests. Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah.

[biscuitrat]

The Bible is full of such things, but why look at it from a religious aspect when you can see it from a social aspect? To love within your gender is not such a bad thing to a lot of people, myself included. To walk up to a homosexual and say "Your love is a sin - you guys shouldn't be together because the Bible vaguely mentions that it's a horrible act." is a terrible thing to do. Some of my best friends are homosexuals and they're incredibly sweet.

A relationship does not always mean lust and sex - it can mean companionship and if it's a fact of science that you cannot control whom you will love, who are we to stop them? Personally, I think a lot of people, orthodox Christians in politics, mainly, are taking this way too seriously. I approve of it right along with selective abortion, and stem cell research.

Call me liberal, but our nation was founded on certain liberties. We're hypocrites if we deny people the right to love whom they will and marry whom they will. If I were homosexual, I would detest being forced out of a church on my wedding day (although I probably wouldn't get married in a church anyways). Put yourself in their shoes for a minute and look at the world then. You might be surprised.

[Florisjuh]

I dont think there is anything rong about homosexuality. It might not be the way nature wanted humans to live, but does it make a real big difference in your daily life? I mean, would you care if you would know some people on this world are different if its about sexual attraction and that stuff? I aint religious but I think homosexuality is just a twist of nature... Not some sort of disease. When you have it you have it, it might be just as out of control as a girl loving a boy and vica versa.

[Joshua]

canpolitics, on Aug 11 2005, 01:32 PM, said:

I am going to have to call you on that one... while Romans Chapter 1 does condemn fornicators, it does not single out homosexuality in any way, in other words homosexual sex is no worse than heterosexual sex in the eyes of god. Of course Romans Chapter one calls pretty much everything a sin, even ignorance is a sin according to Romans 1:31.
Actually Genesis chapter 19 never really meantions why Sodam was destroyed specifically, it could be that the angels were angry that this mob did not respect thier host's (Lot) hospitality. Actually it doesn't even say the men of Sodam were attempting to rape the guests of Lot, just that they want to "know them", and in fact Lot offers them two of his virgin daughters as bait to keep them away from his guests. Not to mention Lot sins afterwards by having sex with his two surviving daughters after the fall of Sodam and Gomorrah.

Doesn't single out homosexuality in any way?!?!?

Quote

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Sounds like a pretty clearcut condemnation of homosexuality if you ask me. Romans 1:31 says being without understanding is a trait of those whom God has given over to a reprobate mind, it does NOT say it's a sin:

Quote

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

As for why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it is even spoken of their homosexuality here:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

All through the OT and even in the NT that phrase of someone "knowing" someone else refers to sexual intercourse. (i.e. Ge. 4:1, Ge. 4:17, Ge. 4:25, Jg. 11:39, Jg.19:25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, Mt. 1:25)

Lot naturally was horrified by what they wanted to do so much even that he did end up offering his daughters instead. Also, if you'd read Genesis 19:33 you would know that Lot didn't participate willingly, his daughters had to get him so drunk he didn't even know they were in the room for them to be able to do it.

Quote

I dont think there is anything rong about homosexuality. It might not be the way nature wanted humans to live, but does it make a real big difference in your daily life? I mean, would you care if you would know some people on this world are different if its about sexual attraction and that stuff? I aint religious but I think homosexuality is just a twist of nature... Not some sort of disease. When you have it you have it, it might be just as out of control as a girl loving a boy and vica versa.

While not all sin may affect anyone other then the sinners personally, it is still sinning against God. And sin is a disease. Christ came not only to forgive us of our sins but to make us new people that would turn from their sins and thus He will destroy the works of the devil, including sin (1 John 3:8).

[Frayed]

I strongly believe that homosexuality is perfectly normal. I have no problem what so ever with people being gay, lesbian or bisexual. I am a proud and active member of GSA: Gay Straight Alliance. I believe that someone should have someone to love whether it be that of the opposite or same sex. I am not gay or lesbian, but I do have a strong belief that it is right and there is nothing wrong with it what so ever.

I also believe in others different opinions as well, I am not one to try change what they think. I will indeed say something if I hear any prejudice remarks to those who are gay/lesbian. I don't believe in bashing anyones life style, but I do believe in having your own opinions just not stating it to make those feel bad that happen to be gay/lesbian.

[Joshua]

Frayed, on Aug 11 2005, 07:55 PM, said:

I don't believe in bashing anyones life style, but I do believe in having your own opinions just not stating it to make those feel bad that happen to be gay/lesbian.

In other words, you're proclaiming tolerance for all as long as they don't disagree with you. Once they do you feel it's alright to use charachter assassination and bashing to put them down until they no longer are allowed to disagree with you?

[canpolitics]

jzyehoshua, on Aug 11 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

Doesn't single out homosexuality in any way?!?!? 

Quote

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Sounds like a pretty clearcut condemnation of homosexuality if you ask me. Romans 1:31 says being without understanding is a trait of those whom God has given over to a reprobate mind, it does NOT say it's a sin:

Darn, forgot that passage... or rather put it in the wrong book, your right.... sorry my error. Regardless though this is a pretty weak condemnation. First of all it only condemens homosexual sex, not homosexual love, wich considering the bibles view on sex in general is no great shock, since all sex short of sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation is a sin, also this does not condemn lesbianism at all, just male homosexuality. As you have pointed out in other threads the bible has been translated from various other languages, I have heard (since I am not sure what language Romans was originally written in I can't verify it) that the phrase men with men was a translation of the greek word for "pederasty" wich was the common practice of men having sex with their male child slaves. Romans 1:27 could well just be condemning child sexual abuse. Romans 1:26 merely forbids woman to engage is sex outside nature, which could be taken a number of ways, the most likely (given the times) is any sex that does not produce offspring.

Also the wording of this passage damns sex between two men that is not agreeable to nature. If this is the case, then if it is possible that homosexuality could be inborn and not just a choice then Paul is actually in favour of homosexuality, just not bisexuality, or infidelity. All of this hinges on what you consider to be sex that is "agreeable to nature" since the original word used was phooskos, wich is translated to agreeable to nature.

Quote

As for why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, it is even spoken of their homosexuality here:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically.

Quote

All through the OT and even in the NT that phrase of someone "knowing" someone else refers to sexual intercourse.  (i.e. Ge. 4:1, Ge. 4:17, Ge. 4:25, Jg. 11:39, Jg.19:25, 1 Sa. 1:19, 1 Ki. 1:4, Mt. 1:25)

Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean.

Quote

Lot naturally was horrified by what they wanted to do so much even that he did end up offering his daughters instead.  Also, if you'd read Genesis 19:33 you would know that Lot didn't participate willingly, his daughters had to get him so drunk he didn't even know they were in the room for them to be able to do it.
While not all sin may affect anyone other then the sinners personally, it is still sinning against God.  And sin is a disease.  Christ came not only to forgive us of our sins but to make us new people that would turn from their sins and thus He will destroy the works of the devil, including sin (1 John 3:8).

Several points here.
1) Doesn't matter if Lot knew what had been done, he and his daughters still committed a sin, true his daughters did so willingly and he did so while inebriated, but come on, do you really think you can perform sexually while so drunk that you are unaware you are even having sex?

2) As for 1 John 3:8, so it is your belief that Jesus Christ was put on earth to destroy sin? More than 2000 years after he was put to death on the cross sin still exists, at least as rampant as in his lifetime, doesn't seem like it worked.

3) Back to the issue of incest, Adam and Eve's childeren had to commit insest in order to create the human race (if you believe in creationism as I assume you do)

4) Noah's children must also have engaged in incest in order to rebuild the human race (assuming you believe in the story that a planet wide flood occured which wiped out everything.

[Joshua]

Quote

Darn, forgot that passage... or rather put it in the wrong book, your right.... sorry my error. Regardless though this is a pretty weak condemnation. First of all it only condemens homosexual sex, not homosexual love, wich considering the bibles view on sex in general is no great shock, since all sex short of sex between a married couple for the sole purpose of procreation is a sin, also this does not condemn lesbianism at all, just male homosexuality. As you have pointed out in other threads the bible has been translated from various other languages, I have heard (since I am not sure what language Romans was originally written in I can't verify it) that the phrase men with men was a translation of the greek word for "pederasty" wich was the common practice of men having sex with their male child slaves. Romans 1:27 could well just be condemning child sexual abuse. Romans 1:26 merely forbids woman to engage is sex outside nature, which could be taken a number of ways, the most likely (given the times) is any sex that does not produce offspring.

So do you know of any homosexuals then which love without having sex? (since we've verified the sex part is wrong)

Also, Christ said that simply lusting in your heart can be adultery which would then mean even if they want to do it and don't they're guilty (Mt. 5:28). Just like if you hate someone in your heart you're guilty of murder (1 Jn. 3:15).

I just gave those verses and you still don't think they're against being female homosexuality? Here's just one of the verses now...

Quote

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

As for the original text of 1:27, here it is:

Romans 1:27 And <te> likewise <homoios> also <kai> the men <arrhen>, leaving <aphiemi> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> of the woman <thelus>, burned <ekkaio> in <en> their <autos> lust <orexis> one toward another <eis> <allelon>; men <arrhen> with <en> men <arrhen> working <katergazomai> that which is unseemly <aschemosune>, and <kai> receiving <apolambano> in <en> themselves <heautou> that recompence <antimisthia> of their <autos> error <plane> which <hos> was meet <dei>.

I don't see the word "pederasty" anywhere but I can give you the Greek definitions for any of the words from the Strong's Greek Dictionary, widely considered the best Greek dictionary available.

As long as we're into the original Greek, the original for 1:26 is:

Romans 1:26 For <dia> this <touto> cause God <theos> gave <paradidomi> them <autos> up <paradidomi> unto <eis> vile <atimia> affections <pathos>: for <gar> even <te> their <autos> women <thelus> did change <metallasso> the natural <phusikos> use <chresis> into <eis> that which is against <para> nature <phusis>:

That word affections is the Greek "pathos", which means:

3806.  payov  pathos,  path'-os 
Search for 3806 in KJV
 
from the alternate of 3958; properly, suffering ("pathos"), i.e. (subjectively) a passion (especially concupiscence):-- (inordinate) affection, lust. 

So just the lusts themselves are condemned, regardless of whether children procede or not. As I mentioned before, they sin just within their hearts by doing such things.

The final nail in the coffin is that in 1:27 it goes on to say the men left the natural use of the women, meaning it should be a man and a woman, the reverse of that is a woman and a man, but it should be clear there should be no 2 of one kind.

However, since we're getting deeper into the subject I might as well throw some other verses at you as well:

Quote

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Quote

Also the wording of this passage damns sex between two men that is not agreeable to nature. If this is the case, then if it is possible that homosexuality could be inborn and not just a choice then Paul is actually in favour of homosexuality, just not bisexuality, or infidelity. All of this hinges on what you consider to be sex that is "agreeable to nature" since the original word used was phooskos, wich is translated to agreeable to nature.
As I said it does not state that Sodam and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality, but rather fornication, and adultry specifically.  Knowing someone generally is [bold]assumed[/bold] to mean sexual intercourse you mean.

Not really, since Paul doesn't just say "not agreeable to nature" but goes on to say "the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Paul elsewhere goes on to say even the effeminate will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven, as the verses I gave above say. And I was saying that the Bible often uses that term of knowing someone to mean sexually.

Quote

Several points here.
1) Doesn't matter if Lot knew what had been done, he and his daughters still committed a sin, true his daughters did so willingly and he did so while inebriated, but come on, do you really think you can perform sexually while so drunk that you are unaware you are even having sex?

2) As for 1 John 3:8, so it is your belief that Jesus Christ was put on earth to destroy sin? More than 2000 years after he was put to death on the cross sin still exists, at least as rampant as in his lifetime, doesn't seem like it worked.

3) Back to the issue of incest, Adam and Eve's childeren had to commit insest in order to create the human race (if you believe in creationism as I assume you do)

4) Noah's children must also have engaged in incest in order to rebuild the human race (assuming you believe in the story that a planet wide flood occured which wiped out everything.

1) Irregardless, the Bible certainly doesn't condone his actions and the children which proceded from that sin fathered the nations that were Israel's greatest enemies for perhaps thousands of years.

2) Christ constantly spoke of a day in which He would judge the world and gave this parable of how He would let the evil and good exist until that day when the world would be judged. Then those who had been born again would be allowed to enter Heaven for they have been born with a Spirit that will seek to destroy all sin in them, and thus sin will be destroyed.

Quote

Matthew 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

3) Because of that God had not yet given the Law or its commandments, and where the Law is not given sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13). His main commandment then was to be fruitful and multiply if I recall correctly.

4) Same issue, but again, you must realize that Noah was 600 years old at the time. So it wasn't exactly brothers and cousins being 20 years apart for example. You could have a girl and her cousin that could have an age difference of 150 years for example. My point is, it kind of changes the views with which we think of the immediate family. The longevity of that time surely must have affected what we consider the immediate family.

[biscuitrat]

600? Pfft. How is that even physically possible, especially in the day when you were considered elderly towards your 30's and 40's? Scientifically, that would be impossible.

Also, you keep saying "in the eyes of Christ, it is wrong". What about from your eyes? Would you honestly walk up to a homosexual couple and tell them that their love is unholy, wrong, and ought to be purged? Consider this if they were your best friends. I don't like a lot of people, but I don't like homophobes very much at all. Also people who think abortion and stem cell research is bad.