Why did God make homosexuality a sin?

[PLAYER57832]

if you're going to speak for the cause of Christ, you need to keep your discourse Christ-like in language and attitude. You're not helping. It doesn’t matter if they get snotty and insulting. You serve a different Lord. Show it

I have come pretty close to passing the boundaries of tact in this thread, I admit. The thing is these are not esoteric and remote issues for me or for any other woman, for that matter.

Too many people.. Pope Ben XVI, others want to break this down into the most simplest of terms, as they see it, but completely ignore too many very real-life ramifications of what they say.

The word used might be "polite", but suggesting that taking the pill makes women guilty for future miscarriages is not only scientifically invalid, it WAS a very unthinking and plain stupid comment. And, yes, while I might have been the one to respond, I DO speak for many others in my ire.. many, many other CHRISTIAN women. So, while I may have skirted a bit too close to the boundaries, the truth is that anger is not always an unChristian emotion. There are times when the only proper response IS to stand up and say "NO! DO NOT go there.. do not do that!"


I appreciate DaddyGringo, that you have not stooped to those depths. And I appreciate that, even if we don't agree on all things, we do follow the same God, the same leader. (I am not suggesting anyone else doesn't).

[PLAYER57832]

I was merely stating it to show it's not God's fault if you have a miscarriage.

Using "fault" is the wrong term. God is no more, but is just as responsible for miscarriages as for death of others, for evil and disease in this world. That is, they are a part of the world God created, but not what God would "wish" for us. But what you really suggested is that they are often the result of woman's actions. Only, science says very much the opposite. Science says that 1 in 4 pregnancies will miscarry in the first month. A leading cause is lack of progesterone. (not related to taking estrogen, sorry) A good many others come becuase the baby just had some kind of serious problem. And, a good many others occur for no reason science can really yet identify.

And, I think a lot of women really are harmed by assertions such as yours. Really and truly harmed.

[Snorri1234]

I was merely stating it to show it's not God's fault if you have a miscarriage.

Using "fault" is the wrong term. God is no more, but is just as responsible for miscarriages as for death of others, for evil and disease in this world. That is, they are a part of the world God created, but not what God would "wish" for us. But what you really suggested is that they are often the result of woman's actions. Only, science says very much the opposite. Science says that 1 in 4 pregnancies will miscarry in the first month. A leading cause is lack of progesterone. (not related to taking estrogen, sorry) A good many others come becuase the baby just had some kind of serious problem. And, a good many others occur for no reason science can really yet identify.

And, I think a lot of women really are harmed by assertions such as yours. Really and truly harmed.

Indeed. It's pretty fucking horrible to suggest that women are responsible for miscarriages. If there is a God, then miscarriages are what he wanted. (Or at least, what he knew would happen.)

Now it's possible he's allowing it because he has his reasons, I'm not gonna make any value judgement on it here, but to say it's something the women are to blame for is just absurd.

[AAFitz]

Next: Ben 16, if you're going to speak for the cause of Christ, you need to keep your discourse Christ-like in language and attitude. You're not helping. It doesn’t matter if they get snotty and insulting. You serve a different Lord. Show it.

You just called people snotty and insulting, while telling an entire group of people that they are wrong and sinful. I hope you arent expecting a thank you card from Christ too soon.

Ben didn't write that; I did. I didn't call anybody anything. The wording "if they get" indicates a conditional situation where someone writes something that is snotty or insulting, in order to discuss one's response to it. If you haven't written anything that was indisputably snotty or insulting then this doesn't even refer to anything you wrote, and certainly doesn't profess to look into your heart. If you have done so, it still refers to the writing and not to your personality, since I don't even know you. What's your shoe size?

Have you looked over my posts in this thread? I deal pretty directly with the idea which you verbalized, that God would be blaming people for being what He made them, and players# helped me sharpen it up. I'd like to know your thoughts.

Well, i took some liberty there no doubt, and the quoting the wrong name was just a mistake.

My thoughts however are this. No one, I mean No one is absolutely sure there is a God. No one, I mean no one is sure there
isnt. So, to even take the chance of calling a group of people who may very well just be biologically different and just leading the lifestyle that makes them happy, where you simply just don't know if there is a God, is sinful. Its ok to believe it, its ok to have an opinion, but to profess that homosexuality is a sin, is a lie. Its a lie, because you, and every other non-insane person, knows, that however strong a belief a person has, it can not always be trusted. So, by calling homosexuals sinful, you are yourself sinful.

Christ certainly did not preach, "go out and persecute the sinners." Not once. He only preached forgiveness. His goal was to get all to love one another, and created the world that He thought God intended. I have no idea if that God exists, but its irrelevant, because while the Old testament has some very questionable teachings, the new testament does not. I dont believe even the most staunch atheist would argue that Christ, whether the embodiment of God on earth, or just someone who spent his life trying to make the world a better place, and had God status thrown upon him, did not have a reasonable, noble, and purely Good message. That message holds true, like many other ideals in religion, with or without the existence of God.

The problem with religion typically is in the details, and its fairly obvious the details are man made. It doesnt take much reason to see how many rules, and practices of religions were for the sole benefit of providing power to those making and enforcing them. Christ on the other hand was not focused on removing evil. He was focused on bringing Good. The difference is massive, because fighting evil, is evil. Certainly, without God himself coming down personally, with proof of His pressence and being, to persecute, and call another group of people sinners, is against the very ideas of the Christ you are trying to emulate. The principles he taught were very basic, and take no effort to decipher. Most are self-evident. And again, they hold true, whether He is God, or not. So, I suggest to every person, who is deluding him or herself into thinking they are the sword of God, and doing His work in His name to really think about what a Good God, a God of pure Good would want, expect, and demand from His followers.

You believe he went through the trouble to send his only son to earth to be killed, and by calling a group sinners, where there is doubt, and always will be doubt, will always be wrong. Its wrong on a basic level. Certainly there are worse sins, but dont play innocent, and pious, while you cast an opinion, that simply cant be fully educated. If there is even the slightest chance that there is no God, and that people have no choice in how they were born, and you are causing even one of them pain, then you have gone against your Gods wishes and teachings, despite the fact that he doesnt exist. If he does exist, well, then youll even have to answer for it. If he doesnt, then youve not only wasted your time worshiping him, youve incorrectly done so, and done so in vain.

So, my point is this. If people are happy, and are causing no harm, then you should let them be. You simply cant know whats right and wrong. Tell your kids, discuss it all you want, but when you impact thier lives, you sin. Its as simple as that.

[PopeBenXVI]

Yes, well, sorry, but I tend to give those who have actually done research in the field, as well as my much greater personnal experience in the matter (most women I know do take it -- married or not, mostly because it DOES increase our overall health.)

The cancer connection is more later in life. Some women use Estrogen supplementation after menopause or leading up to menopause. That continues a woman's normal hormone cycle longer. That is, yes, tied to breast cancer, but it is not so much an increased risk as a lack of reduction in risk. Also, those effects have little to do with younger women.

There also IS a definite link to smoking and heart problems. The pill can absolutely add to the risk, however a better answer is to NOT SMOKE. The negative effects of smoking are themselves pretty well documented to be terrible.

Is the bill wholly positive? No. There are risks to anything. However, your "facts" come from people who have no intention of considering any other possibility. That is just not how real, credible science is conducted. REAL, credible science starts with an open ended question, not a "let's look for this answer" agenda. (and yes, I put anything put out by drug companies in that exact category!)

AS for AIDS, etc ... again, you confuse cooncurrent data with causational data. Yes, the risk of AIDS does go up with women who use the pill. BUT, it is because sexually active women tend to be on the pill AND a number of them don't even bother to use protection beyond the pill. If you are with multiple partners, then absolutely the risk of AIDs and all sorts of other STDs goes up. However, it is not becuase of the pill. A more true assertion, and to my mind much more pertinent, is that the pill reduces abortions SIGNIFICANTLY. THAT is a very positive effect by any measure.

So let me understand this. You claim “(the pill) it mostly does increase our overall health”???? You then proceed to admit every health risk I mentioned as factual? I did not even get into the other health risks. First you admit the “cancer thing”...as you put it, is later in life, as if then it does not matter as much. Breast Cancer last time I heard was either the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death for women. What are you talking about when you say “it’s not so much an increased risk but a lack of reduction in risk? WHAT??? Do women as they age naturally become less susceptible to cells turning cancerous but then the pill only stunts this imaginary age regeneration of cancerous cells you have discovered? HRT as you are referring to also has been linked to cancer as you mentioned but that has nothing to do with the pills connection to cancer. You then admit the pill adds to heart trouble as well and your response is to quit smoking. This is a joke right? What about women who don’t smoke but use the pill and increase there heart problems down the road because of it? Your telling women who don’t smoke to stop smoking when they don’t smoke because the pill they are taking can hurt their heart. Thats Brilliant! The increased rate of Aids contraction is also the result of the pill as you admitted. It is however because of the pill that women are more sexually active with more partners not the other way around as you suggest. The facts I have come from organizations that do not sell the pill and profit from it. Those are people that care about women’s health by bringing to the forefront all the dangers of the pill.

Gee, aren't you the sensitive person. This is all about women becoming "objects for sex" now? The problem is that women have minds of their own and make their own decisions.

I will take this as a complement. It’s funny how I am concerned about women being objectified and your response is “women have minds of there own”.......well many are often choosing to be used for sex by men who care nothing for commitment and only care that they wont get them pregnant. Decisions are being made alright.

I am not saying that I like seeing all these young women using the pill. The woman who invented it specifically stated over and over that she intended it for married women. Married women who had absolutely no right to refuse sex on ANY grounds (well.. "sickness" & monthlies), per the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of the day (as put forward by priests, whether that was technically what the Vatican mandated or not), as well as many other churches and just plain societal beliefs at the time. Women were having child after child that they simply could not support, often to the great detriment of BOTH the woman and her children (future and existing). The idea that it could be used by single women came later, though not too long after.

It’s funny how you always claim to know so much more and you give credit to a women for inventing the pill when it was Carl Djerassi...A MAN who is credited with the invention and leading the team. A woman helped raise $150K for the project though......nice try. Good thing we stopped having more than a 2.1 replacement rate that way social security can go bankrupt in 20 years.

What I DO say is that the time and place to correct a girl's morals is before she reaches the point of wanting sex. If she is brought up to have respect for herself and to value real relationships, then she will make much better choices.

Most of the women I know using the pill are not teenagers or even young twenty-somethings. Those that are, are married. (I am not saying I know everyone who is using it, though, either). Those that are not, well... are quite old enough to be aware of what they are doing and to make their own choices, whether they agree with my or your moral stances or not.

And THAT is the real critical issue. You have a right to your beliefs. You have a right to set standards for yourself and our family. HOWEVER, you just do NOT have the right to mandate how everyone else in this country lives. That is plain NOT YOUR BUSINESS. You wish to make it so, but won't even evaluate any other opinion but your own objectively. That you flatly dismiss so many outright facts about everything from how the pill works, to how the morning after pill works, to even laws regarding miscarriages puts and absolute asterisk on that point!

I am not even talking about morals here.....I am talking about the pills radical side effects. You also (yet again) accuse me falsely of mandating something. Even if I were president I would not try to outlaw the pill but would further studies on it and mandate more warnings like cigarets have. Even though you claim to think you know otherwise....I have evaluated other opinions on this and found them to be wrong. One could draw the same inaccurate assumption you state that just because you disagree you have not considered the other side but that would be wrong hence so is your assumption. Unless you are admitting you have not considered my side?

I see, I tell you to that Christ tells us to treat others as we would be treated and you come back with "Christ tell us we will be hated for his sake" THAT, not the Bible, not Christ, but people like you who think being a Christian gives you the full and complete knowledge and the right to sit in judgement on other people THAT ATTITUDE is why the rest of us have to keep reminding people what Christ REALLY teaches, which is NOT to sit in judgement of anyone who does not happen to live the way YOU like. And your continual attempts to justify such outright hatred, because that is EXACTLY what it is are blasphemouse, which IS a very great sin per the Bible!

RSV Mark 13:13 - and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. Maybe thats not in your Bible then because I know you would not claim it’s not and then call me blasphemous for quoting Christ directly. For shame

confused me? Not at all, you just confirm to anyone reading that you not only know nothing, you care nothing about really understanding women or what we go through. THAT is what you made quite clear!

You continue to twist my words to your own destruction. Bearing False witness after my clarification.

And it somehow never occurs to you that getting your information from conservative and conservative Christian sources might give you a biased picture! Some gays are quite permiscuous, yes. BUT, those are not the ones out there adopting kids. The ones who do are stable. The OTHER side of those statistics is that while there is a group of highly promiscuous gay males, there is also a large group of very stable, one-partner relationships. I am not suggesting tha every homosexual couple or single is suited. Not every heterosexual couple or single is suitable for having kids. I am saying that excluding those people simply because of what they do in their bedroom is stupid.

So you know all parents of kids who are adopted by same sex households are not promiscuous......Amazing how you know that.

If you really and truly think it is better for a child, any child, to be housed in juvenile detention than it is to place them in a homosexual household, well... you just need to get your head out of the sand! Look at the reality, not what you imagine might be the case.

Putting words in my mouth......again. It is not one being better than the other, they are both unacceptable.

[mpjh]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

[PLAYER57832]

So let me understand this. You claim “(the pill) it mostly does increase our overall health”????

It has absolute benefits OTHER THAN prevention of pregnancy for many women, yes. Does that mean there is no risk associated also? No.

You then proceed to admit every health risk I mentioned as factual?

I "agree" only if you think a major impact and a very small risk are identical.

Any medication you can take has some risks. The point is that the benefits far outweight the risks. If you REALLY did your research you would find that Tylenol and aspirin actually carry more risks for most people. If health is your real concern, the why aren't you on THAT bandwagon?

I did not even get into the other health risks. First you admit the “cancer thing”...as you put it, is later in life, as if then it does not matter as much. Breast Cancer last time I heard was either the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death for women.

Breast cancer, yes, but NOT breast cancer caused by the pill.. a distinction you wish to gloss over. As for your "it does not matter much" comment.. come off it already! I said no such thing. What I said is that the tie to estrogen is in estrogen use after menopause, not pill use early in life.

What are you talking about when you say “it’s not so much an increased risk but a lack of reduction in risk? WHAT??? Do women as they age naturally become less susceptible to cells turning cancerous but then the pill only stunts this imaginary age regeneration of cancerous cells you have discovered?

Normally one's risk of breast cancer drops after menopause. If estrogen replacement therapy is used, it goes back up.

HRT as you are referring to also has been linked to cancer as you mentioned but that has nothing to do with the pills connection to cancer. You then admit the pill adds to heart trouble as well and your response is to quit smoking. This is a joke right? What about women who don’t smoke but use the pill and increase there heart problems down the road because of it? Your telling women who don’t smoke to stop smoking when they don’t smoke because the pill they are taking can hurt their heart. Thats Brilliant!

Apparently you are not.

No, there is no significant risk of increased heart disease in just using the pill. There IS a significant increased risk if you smoke. That risk, attributed to smoking is made worse if you take the pill while smoking. But, had you read even one iota of real information on the pill, you would have known that.

The increased rate of AIDs contraction is also the result of the pill as you admitted.

No, I admitted no such thing. That was purely your claim and a ridiculous one at that! The pill does NOT increase one's risk of getting AIDs.

It is however because of the pill that women are more sexually active with more partners not the other way around as you suggest.

Gee, and here I thought this was all about health concerns, not morality!

People's morals vary. Women have been having sex with men without wanting to have kids by them throughout time. It was often used as a "weapon" or way of keeping women "in their place". The answer is education, not blaming the pill because some people don't share your moral values and definitely NOT putting more women at risk of unwanted pregnancies.

My grandmother, by-the-way was a nurse prior to the pill. The horror stories she told, that women of here generation saw, is WHY the pill came about.

The facts I have come from organizations that do not sell the pill and profit from it. Those are people that care about women’s health by bringing to the forefront all the dangers of the pill.

Your completely inaccurate information comes from people who have only 1 agenda, to push forward THEIR values and THEIR agenda onto the rest of the world. People like you who seem to think that it is your right to decide these things for women, even though you cannot be bothered to read anything that might possibly disagree with your personal religious beliefs.

Gee, aren't you the sensitive person. This is all about women becoming "objects for sex" now? The problem is that women have minds of their own and make their own decisions.

I will take this as a complement.

Yes, you probably would. Some day, maybe you might learn better.

It’s funny how I am concerned about women being objectified and your response is “women have minds of there own”.......well many are often choosing to be used for sex by men who care nothing for commitment and only care that they wont get them pregnant. Decisions are being made alright.

What a sanctamonious line of crap! Women choosing to do as they will does not automatically make them "objects" Grow up and leave the 50's already!

I am not saying that I like seeing all these young women using the pill. The woman who invented it specifically stated over and over that she intended it for married women. Married women who had absolutely no right to refuse sex on ANY grounds (well.. "sickness" & monthlies), per the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of the day (as put forward by priests, whether that was technically what the Vatican mandated or not), as well as many other churches and just plain societal beliefs at the time. Women were having child after child that they simply could not support, often to the great detriment of BOTH the woman and her children (future and existing). The idea that it could be used by single women came later, though not too long after.

It’s funny how you always claim to know so much more and you give credit to a women for inventing the pill when it was Carl Djerassi...A MAN who is credited with the invention and leading the team. A woman helped raise $150K for the project though......nice try. Good thing we stopped having more than a 2.1 replacement rate that way social security can go bankrupt in 20 years.

Well, I should have said is credited with bringing it about. Since few women were even allowed to study science back then, its no surprise a man invented it! I don't get into who holds the patent. There were several people who invented it together. Pincus and Rock are the two generally cited, but it was Margaret Sanger and Katharine Dexter McCormick who pushed for the research and worked to get it approved. And, they pushed it because married women were dying in childbirth and risking beatings both for getting pregnant AND/OR for "refusing" their men (sometimes both) ... even under doctor's orders, etc. (not that a lot of male doctors would suggest such back then). They might not hold the patent, but it is them we can thank for bringing it about.

I am not even talking about morals here.....I am talking about the pills radical side effects. You also (yet again) accuse me falsely of mandating something. Even if I were president I would not try to outlaw the pill but would further studies on it and mandate more warnings like cigarets have. Even though you claim to think you know otherwise....I have evaluated other opinions on this and found them to be wrong. One could draw the same inaccurate assumption you state that just because you disagree you have not considered the other side but that would be wrong hence so is your assumption. Unless you are admitting you have not considered my side?

Oh, I have considered "your side" alright.... and so has the medical profession. As for the warnings.. they ARE there. You get warnings any time you take any medication. For the pill, its roughly 6-7 pages of fine print.

And assertions like that of yours ... that "warnings ought to be mandated" when, in fact they ARE ... shows how little you DO know of the subject!

I see, I tell you to that Christ tells us to treat others as we would be treated and you come back with "Christ tell us we will be hated for his sake" THAT, not the Bible, not Christ, but people like you who think being a Christian gives you the full and complete knowledge and the right to sit in judgement on other people THAT ATTITUDE is why the rest of us have to keep reminding people what Christ REALLY teaches, which is NOT to sit in judgement of anyone who does not happen to live the way YOU like. And your continual attempts to justify such outright hatred, because that is EXACTLY what it is are blasphemouse, which IS a very great sin per the Bible!

RSV Mark 13:13 - and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. Maybe thats not in your Bible then because I know you would not claim it’s not and then call me blasphemous for quoting Christ directly. For shame.

Interesting, see, I don't think that's much of a condemnation of ME. See, I am not putting forward falsehoods in Christ's name.

I don't have to lie. The truth speaks for itself.

This is NOT about people being against Christianity or Christ. It is about a few Christians who think its OK to give out completely false information and present it as science because it justifies their personal beliefs. As a point of fact, I pretty much agree on most of the religious/moral issues. I disagree on whether I have the right to demand others live the way I see fit and I absolutely disagree on the correct way to get people to consider my views.

confused me? Not at all, you just confirm to anyone reading that you not only know nothing, you care nothing about really understanding women or what we go through. THAT is what you made quite clear!

You continue to twist my words to your own destruction. Bearing False witness after my clarification.

I quote you EXACTLY and you claim I am "bearing false witness" .. rich!

And it somehow never occurs to you that getting your information from conservative and conservative Christian sources might give you a biased picture! Some gays are quite permiscuous, yes. BUT, those are not the ones out there adopting kids. The ones who do are stable. The OTHER side of those statistics is that while there is a group of highly promiscuous gay males, there is also a large group of very stable, one-partner relationships. I am not suggesting tha every homosexual couple or single is suited. Not every heterosexual couple or single is suitable for having kids. I am saying that excluding those people simply because of what they do in their bedroom is stupid.

So you know all parents of kids who are adopted by same sex households are not promiscuous......Amazing how you know that.

and you accuse me of twisting words

What I know is that ANYONE who wants to adopt has to go through pretty rigorous screenings and interviews. What I know is those "examples" you try to put forward have nothing to do with the men who are out adopting kids.

If you really and truly think it is better for a child, any child, to be housed in juvenile detention than it is to place them in a homosexual household, well... you just need to get your head out of the sand! Look at the reality, not what you imagine might be the case.

Putting words in my mouth......again. It is not one being better than the other, they are both unacceptable.

[/quote] Not putting words into your mouth, just telling you AGAIN to think about more than just the ideals you like to think of as reality. If you think there is ANY comparison to between being in juvenile detention and being with loving people who happen to be homsexual ..

SICK does not even begin to describe you! You let your hatred and lack of understanding taint your view of the world. That is not Christ.

[PLAYER57832]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[jonesthecurl]

if you're going to speak for the cause of Christ, you need to keep your discourse Christ-like in language and attitude. You're not helping. It doesn’t matter if they get snotty and insulting. You serve a different Lord. Show it

I have come pretty close to passing the boundaries of tact in this thread, I admit. The thing is these are not esoteric and remote issues for me or for any other woman, for that matter.

Too many people.. Pope Ben XVI, others want to break this down into the most simplest of terms, as they see it, but completely ignore too many very real-life ramifications of what they say.

The word used might be "polite", but suggesting that taking the pill makes women guilty for future miscarriages is not only scientifically invalid, it WAS a very unthinking and plain stupid comment. And, yes, while I might have been the one to respond, I DO speak for many others in my ire.. many, many other CHRISTIAN women. So, while I may have skirted a bit too close to the boundaries, the truth is that anger is not always an unChristian emotion. There are times when the only proper response IS to stand up and say "NO! DO NOT go there.. do not do that!"


I appreciate DaddyGringo, that you have not stooped to those depths. And I appreciate that, even if we don't agree on all things, we do follow the same God, the same leader. (I am not suggesting anyone else doesn't).

You know that I have fundamental disagreements whith your world view, Player - most especially that I am emphatically not a Christian.
I don't know if it helps your case to say that, forgiving you only this foible, I respect your opinions and bow to your superior knowledge in many topics, whereas "Ben", though you sometimes make sense, even on occasions when I expected the usual unthinking bile from you, either spend about 50% of your time trolling, and fishing for outrage - or have such a deep and utter lack of empathy for others that you should be ashamed to call yourself Christian.

[mpjh]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

[daddy1gringo]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

First, the opening question of this thread was "Why did God make homosexuality a sin?" The OP was asking for an answer from the point of view presupposing the existence of God, and more specifically of God who did indeed "make homosexuality a sin". Therefore, all the posts asserting that it was just the ideas (fears, prejudices, etc.) of men are irrelevant. They are for another thread, and believe me, there are plenty of threads where the question of whether God exists is relevant.

Click image to enlarge.

[mpjh]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

First, the opening question of this thread was "Why did God make homosexuality a sin?" The OP was asking for an answer from the point of view presupposing the existence of God, and more specifically of God who did indeed "make homosexuality a sin". Therefore, all the posts asserting that it was just the ideas (fears, prejudices, etc.) of men are irrelevant. They are for another thread, and believe me, there are plenty of threads where the question of whether God exists is relevant.

Click image to enlarge.

Sorry the op does not presuppose anything. It simple asks whether god made homosexuality a sin. If god doesn't exist then she could not have made homosexuality a sin. So the correct answer is she could not have done it.

[PLAYER57832]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

Well, that is a debate in other threads.

That said, how can you assign a gender to an entity that does not exist

[mpjh]

Well "it" works just as well.

[jonesthecurl]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

Well, that is a debate in other threads.

That said, how can you assign a gender to an entity that does not exist

Many of the people who post on cc have an entire sex life based on imaginary entities of decided gender.

[PopeBenXVI]

So let me understand this. You claim “(the pill) it mostly does increase our overall health”????

It has absolute benefits OTHER THAN prevention of pregnancy for many women, yes. Does that mean there is no risk associated also? No.

It can't increase your overall health if it helps lead to breast cancer, heart problems, & BLOOD CLOTS! It seems you think there is no problem if your strong as an ox til your 45 and then you die from a blood clot because the pill at least "increased your overall health" until that point.

You then proceed to admit every health risk I mentioned as factual?

I "agree" only if you think a major impact and a very small risk are identical.

Any medication you can take has some risks. The point is that the benefits far outweight the risks. If you REALLY did your research you would find that Tylenol and aspirin actually carry more risks for most people. If health is your real concern, the why aren't you on THAT bandwagon?

Your temporary benefits don't outweigh permanent death and disabilities when your older. That is a fact you fail to see or acknowledge As for Tylenol and Aspirin.....why do you assume I'm not on that band wagon? Did you ever ask? NO...because you always assume things. We are talking about the pill here but if you want to debate Aspirin then start a new thread but you will have no arguments from me because I don't take any of that crap. I take 1 Ibuprofen a year if that.

I did not even get into the other health risks. First you admit the “cancer thing”...as you put it, is later in life, as if then it does not matter as much. Breast Cancer last time I heard was either the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death for women.

Breast cancer, yes, but NOT breast cancer caused by the pill.. a distinction you wish to gloss over. As for your "it does not matter much" comment.. come off it already! I said no such thing. What I said is that the tie to estrogen is in estrogen use after menopause, not pill use early in life.

What are you talking about when you say “it’s not so much an increased risk but a lack of reduction in risk? WHAT??? Do women as they age naturally become less susceptible to cells turning cancerous but then the pill only stunts this imaginary age regeneration of cancerous cells you have discovered?

Normally one's risk of breast cancer drops after menopause. If estrogen replacement therapy is used, it goes back up.

Wrong again. You continue to show how little you know. You can look up on any breast cancer site and they will show you how your risk increases with age and AFTER MENOPAUSE! I don't know many woman in there 20's that have had cancer but 45 and up I do....interesting. Just admit your wrong and save face.

HRT as you are referring to also has been linked to cancer as you mentioned but that has nothing to do with the pills connection to cancer. You then admit the pill adds to heart trouble as well and your response is to quit smoking. This is a joke right? What about women who don’t smoke but use the pill and increase there heart problems down the road because of it? Your telling women who don’t smoke to stop smoking when they don’t smoke because the pill they are taking can hurt their heart. Thats Brilliant!

Apparently you are not.

No, there is no significant risk of increased heart disease in just using the pill. There IS a significant increased risk if you smoke. That risk, attributed to smoking is made worse if you take the pill while smoking. But, had you read even one iota of real information on the pill, you would have known that.

Good - you just admitted again the pill increases heart disease risk.

The increased rate of AIDs contraction is also the result of the pill as you admitted.

No, I admitted no such thing. That was purely your claim and a ridiculous one at that! The pill does NOT increase one's risk of getting AIDs.

It is however because of the pill that women are more sexually active with more partners not the other way around as you suggest.

Gee, and here I thought this was all about health concerns, not morality!

People's morals vary. Women have been having sex with men without wanting to have kids by them throughout time. It was often used as a "weapon" or way of keeping women "in their place". The answer is education, not blaming the pill because some people don't share your moral values and definitely NOT putting more women at risk of unwanted pregnancies.

My grandmother, by-the-way was a nurse prior to the pill. The horror stories she told, that women of here generation saw, is WHY the pill came about.

Stories about your Grandmother are great but the fact of the pill allowing women to sleep with more people with little worries of getting pregnant have led to more STD's, infidelity, kids without 2 parents,(your main cause) & broken homes. My Grandmother was a nurse too and started in the 30's. She was appalled by the pill so I guess we are 1 for 1. Men used to be primarily the dogs and women saying NO (mostly because of fear of pregnancy) started to not have to worry about it after the Pill came out in the 60's. Then we had dramatic increases in divorce rates a few short years after the fact and the rest you can just look around and see in addition to what I mentioned above. Save me the horror stories because our country is living in one right now.

The facts I have come from organizations that do not sell the pill and profit from it. Those are people that care about women’s health by bringing to the forefront all the dangers of the pill.

Your completely inaccurate information comes from people who have only 1 agenda, to push forward THEIR values and THEIR agenda onto the rest of the world. People like you who seem to think that it is your right to decide these things for women, even though you cannot be bothered to read anything that might possibly disagree with your personal religious beliefs.

Gee, aren't you the sensitive person. This is all about women becoming "objects for sex" now? The problem is that women have minds of their own and make their own decisions.

I will take this as a complement.

Yes, you probably would. Some day, maybe you might learn better.

It’s funny how I am concerned about women being objectified and your response is “women have minds of there own”.......well many are often choosing to be used for sex by men who care nothing for commitment and only care that they wont get them pregnant. Decisions are being made alright.

What a sanctamonious line of crap! Women choosing to do as they will does not automatically make them "objects" Grow up and leave the 50's already!

I'm not imposing anything. You continue to call me insensitive for trying to inform people of the health risks of the pill. People arn't hearing it. Choosing to do what women want does not automaticly make them objects but often they become that o the men they sleep with having no real commitment from them. Call it freedom if you want but many young men are just out to score and before the pill came along women were much more likely to guard themselves from that type of behavior.

I am not saying that I like seeing all these young women using the pill. The woman who invented it specifically stated over and over that she intended it for married women. Married women who had absolutely no right to refuse sex on ANY grounds (well.. "sickness" & monthlies), per the Roman Catholic Church doctrine of the day (as put forward by priests, whether that was technically what the Vatican mandated or not), as well as many other churches and just plain societal beliefs at the time. Women were having child after child that they simply could not support, often to the great detriment of BOTH the woman and her children (future and existing). The idea that it could be used by single women came later, though not too long after.

It’s funny how you always claim to know so much more and you give credit to a women for inventing the pill when it was Carl Djerassi...A MAN who is credited with the invention and leading the team. A woman helped raise $150K for the project though......nice try. Good thing we stopped having more than a 2.1 replacement rate that way social security can go bankrupt in 20 years.

Well, I should have said is credited with bringing it about. Since few women were even allowed to study science back then, its no surprise a man invented it! I don't get into who holds the patent. There were several people who invented it together. Pincus and Rock are the two generally cited, but it was Margaret Sanger and Katharine Dexter McCormick who pushed for the research and worked to get it approved. And, they pushed it because married women were dying in childbirth and risking beatings both for getting pregnant AND/OR for "refusing" their men (sometimes both) ... even under doctor's orders, etc. (not that a lot of male doctors would suggest such back then). They might not hold the patent, but it is them we can thank for bringing it about.

Sure, forget about admitting you were wrong here and blame your misinformation on "few women were allowed to study science back then"

I am not even talking about morals here.....I am talking about the pills radical side effects. You also (yet again) accuse me falsely of mandating something. Even if I were president I would not try to outlaw the pill but would further studies on it and mandate more warnings like cigarets have. Even though you claim to think you know otherwise....I have evaluated other opinions on this and found them to be wrong. One could draw the same inaccurate assumption you state that just because you disagree you have not considered the other side but that would be wrong hence so is your assumption. Unless you are admitting you have not considered my side?

Oh, I have considered "your side" alright.... and so has the medical profession. As for the warnings.. they ARE there. You get warnings any time you take any medication. For the pill, its roughly 6-7 pages of fine print.

And assertions like that of yours ... that "warnings ought to be mandated" when, in fact they ARE ... shows how little you DO know of the subject!

I know they get a packet with info but many don't read it and many doctors tell them very little about risks because it's such a common place pill now. There is still much info not being given in print and verbally. If you tell the average woman about these factors they have no idea just like you have proved

I see, I tell you to that Christ tells us to treat others as we would be treated and you come back with "Christ tell us we will be hated for his sake" THAT, not the Bible, not Christ, but people like you who think being a Christian gives you the full and complete knowledge and the right to sit in judgement on other people THAT ATTITUDE is why the rest of us have to keep reminding people what Christ REALLY teaches, which is NOT to sit in judgement of anyone who does not happen to live the way YOU like. And your continual attempts to justify such outright hatred, because that is EXACTLY what it is are blasphemouse, which IS a very great sin per the Bible!

RSV Mark 13:13 - and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. Maybe thats not in your Bible then because I know you would not claim it’s not and then call me blasphemous for quoting Christ directly. For shame.

Interesting, see, I don't think that's much of a condemnation of ME. See, I am not putting forward falsehoods in Christ's name.

I don't have to lie. The truth speaks for itself.

This is NOT about people being against Christianity or Christ. It is about a few Christians who think its OK to give out completely false information and present it as science because it justifies their personal beliefs. As a point of fact, I pretty much agree on most of the religious/moral issues. I disagree on whether I have the right to demand others live the way I see fit and I absolutely disagree on the correct way to get people to consider my views.

Again - ADMIT YOUR WRONG ALREADY! You said "no not in the Bible" I then showed you the verse which flatly says what I stated. We are going to be hated for his name sake for preaching the truth but you then deny Christ's own words!

confused me? Not at all, you just confirm to anyone reading that you not only know nothing, you care nothing about really understanding women or what we go through. THAT is what you made quite clear!

You continue to twist my words to your own destruction. Bearing False witness after my clarification.

I quote you EXACTLY and you claim I am "bearing false witness" .. rich!

And it somehow never occurs to you that getting your information from conservative and conservative Christian sources might give you a biased picture! Some gays are quite permiscuous, yes. BUT, those are not the ones out there adopting kids. The ones who do are stable. The OTHER side of those statistics is that while there is a group of highly promiscuous gay males, there is also a large group of very stable, one-partner relationships. I am not suggesting tha every homosexual couple or single is suited. Not every heterosexual couple or single is suitable for having kids. I am saying that excluding those people simply because of what they do in their bedroom is stupid.

So you know all parents of kids who are adopted by same sex households are not promiscuous......Amazing how you know that.

and you accuse me of twisting words

What I know is that ANYONE who wants to adopt has to go through pretty rigorous screenings and interviews. What I know is those "examples" you try to put forward have nothing to do with the men who are out adopting kids.

If you really and truly think it is better for a child, any child, to be housed in juvenile detention than it is to place them in a homosexual household, well... you just need to get your head out of the sand! Look at the reality, not what you imagine might be the case.

Putting words in my mouth......again. It is not one being better than the other, they are both unacceptable.

Not putting words into your mouth, just telling you AGAIN to think about more than just the ideals you like to think of as reality. If you think there is ANY comparison to between being in juvenile detention and being with loving people who happen to be homsexual ..

SICK does not even begin to describe you! You let your hatred and lack of understanding taint your view of the world. That is not Christ.[/quote]

Yes sick, you think that one bad situation deserves another. Just put them in the house with the two gay guys who unnaturally kiss each other where everyone can see and have sex with each other in the room next door to the kids when they know what going on. Saying something is ok purely because others want to do it and calling that acceptance and in Christ's name is twisted. What else will you allow in Christ's name for your own self worth so you can feel good telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth which sets them free?

[mpjh]

My, my, looks like your keyboard got diarrhea. Amazing how a non-existent entity can cause so much inane text.

[PLAYER57832]

[It can't increase your overall health if it helps lead to breast cancer, heart problems, & BLOOD CLOTS! It seems you think there is no problem if your strong as an ox til your 45 and then you die from a blood clot because the pill at least "increased your overall health" until that point.

Try reading the risks associated with Tylenol lately? Or, for that matter even taking vitamins, excercising, etc?
Nothing in life is risk free. Life is, in fact a fatal illness.

You then proceed to admit every health risk I mentioned as factual?

I "agree" only if you think a major impact and a very small risk are identical.

Your temporary benefits don't outweigh permanent death and disabilities when your older. That is a fact you fail to see or acknowledge

No, I say it is absolutely NOT a fact.. after seeing the evidence.

As for Tylenol and Aspirin.....why do you assume I'm not on that band wagon? Did you ever ask? NO...because you always assume things. We are talking about the pill here but if you want to debate Aspirin then start a new thread but you will have no arguments from me because I don't take any of that crap. I take 1 Ibuprofen a year if that.

Fine, I actually expected you to say that, but you have not leaped on it here. And, my basic point is that no medicine is without risk.

I did not even get into the other health risks. First you admit the “cancer thing”...as you put it, is later in life, as if then it does not matter as much. Breast Cancer last time I heard was either the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death for women.

Breast cancer, yes, but NOT breast cancer caused by the pill.. a distinction you wish to gloss over. As for your "it does not matter much" comment.. come off it already! I said no such thing. What I said is that the tie to estrogen is in estrogen use after menopause, not pill use early in life.

Wrong again. You continue to show how little you know. You can look up on any breast cancer site and they will show you how your risk increases with age and AFTER MENOPAUSE! I don't know many woman in there 20's that have had cancer but 45 and up I do....interesting. Just admit your wrong and save face.

Taking the pill does not contribute significantly to breast cancer later in life. .. and DO note that word "significant" .. you like to gloss over as if everything were one extreme or another.
Taking estrogen later in life, when all kinds of other things are happening, too. DOES.

Good - you just admitted again the pill increases heart disease risk.

ONLY if you smoke ... a fact you keep trying to deny.

The increased rate of AIDs contraction is also the result of the pill as you admitted.

No, I admitted no such thing. That was purely your claim and a ridiculous one at that! The pill does NOT increase one's risk of getting AIDs.

Stories about your Grandmother are great but the fact of the pill allowing women to sleep with more people with little worries of getting pregnant have led to more STD's, infidelity, kids without 2 parents,(your main cause) & broken homes. My Grandmother was a nurse too and started in the 30's. She was appalled by the pill so I guess we are 1 for 1. Men used to be primarily the dogs and women saying NO (mostly because of fear of pregnancy) started to not have to worry about it after the Pill came out in the 60's. Then we had dramatic increases in divorce rates a few short years after the fact and the rest you can just look around and see in addition to what I mentioned above. Save me the horror stories because our country is living in one right now.

Yes, such horrors... women no longer have to stay with a man who beats them, women don't die in back room abortion "clinics" or find themselves sheparded off to "Aunt Mary" for 8 months. Gasp! Women actually choose to have ...(gasp) sex! OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!

Is life today perfect? No. Is everything the pill brought wonderful and perfect.. of course not. BUT .. and this is a pretty big but, To blame the pill for all those ills is to claim only the negative impacts and to completely deny the many, many positive impacts of the pill. No free lunches.

AND... my main point, we still get back to what you prove over and over and over again.. this is NOT about science or facts, it is about your personal moral beliefs and how you think other people should live. BUT you CLAIM it is "science". THAT makes it a lie and to do it in the name of Christ is blasphemy.

You have a right to your beliefs and even judgements (God will say a few things, no doubt, but not I). BUT you do not have the right to claim science is justifying your beliefs and that everybody else really should go along because of it.

I'm not imposing anything. You continue to call me insensitive for trying to inform people of the health risks of the pill.

Because you are only PRETENDING to give people facts about the pill. In truth, you are just grabbing data put out by people who have plain agendas to put forward their morals on everyone else and who only use science when it justifies their "cause".

People arn't hearing it.

You mistake "not hearing" with "know better". But, sadly, your type is now effectively removing any real knowledge of these issues from schools across the nation.

And guess what? Increased pregnancies and STDs are the results. (Texas, etc.) THAT is what science and statistics REALLY tell us.

Choosing to do what women want does not automaticly make them objects but often they become that o the men they sleep with having no real commitment from them. Call it freedom if you want but many young men are just out to score and before the pill came along women were much more likely to guard themselves from that type of behavior.

Fine. Women and men are making choices you don't happen to like. GET OVER IT!
And unless it is YOUR daughter, that just plain is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. THAT is the point you keep trying to deny. This just plain is NOT your business. Women, adults are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. It is not up to you to "gaurd their morals" or "educate them" about how terrible men are. That is their PARENT's job..and, guess what? NOT ALL PARENTS SHARE YOUR VALUES. But they have just as much right to teach their kids how they will as you do.

YOu want to infringe upon the rights of individuals under the guise of somehow "protecting women's health". It is deceptive, it is dispicable and it is WRONG!

Do I want to see fewer promiscuous women, fewer diseases and pregnancies? YES! (most people do!) But the way to do it is NOT by passing out false and erroneous information because it happens to superficially support my goals.

Stick to the truth. The REAL truth, not the propped up phonyism that some Christian Conservatives, you included, keep trying to pass off as "truth".

Sure, forget about admitting you were wrong here and blame your misinformation on "few women were allowed to study science back then"

Way to miss the point entirely!

I am not even talking about morals here.....I am talking about the pills radical side effects. You also (yet again) accuse me falsely of mandating something. Even if I were president I would not try to outlaw the pill but would further studies on it and mandate more warnings like cigarets have. Even though you claim to think you know otherwise....I have evaluated other opinions on this and found them to be wrong. One could draw the same inaccurate assumption you state that just because you disagree you have not considered the other side but that would be wrong hence so is your assumption. Unless you are admitting you have not considered my side?

Oh, I have considered "your side" alright.... and so has the medical profession. As for the warnings.. they ARE there. You get warnings any time you take any medication. For the pill, its roughly 6-7 pages of fine print.

And assertions like that of yours ... that "warnings ought to be mandated" when, in fact they ARE ... shows how little you DO know of the subject!

I know they get a packet with info but many don't read it and many doctors tell them very little about risks because it's such a common place pill now.

Seems as if I just might know a bit more about what gynecologists do and do not tell women. You are wrong. Most women don't really NEED to be told about the risks in the office because they already have heard them.. many times.

There is still much info not being given in print and verbally. If you tell the average woman about these factors they have no idea just like you have proved

No. What you have proved is that you cannot really be bothered to check on your information outside of the conservative sources that -- big surprise-- agree with you.

Again - ADMIT YOUR WRONG ALREADY! You said "no not in the Bible" I then showed you the verse which flatly says what I stated. We are going to be hated for his name sake for preaching the truth but you then deny Christ's own words!

You quoted me nothing that I said was not there, at least not in this thread. And "being hated for his name sake" has nothing to do with giving false scientific information, as YOU are doing, under the guise of "Christian caring".

You are not being condemned for being Christian. You are being condemned for not living up to Christ's principles.

confused me? Not at all, you just confirm to anyone reading that you not only know nothing, you care nothing about really understanding women or what we go through. THAT is what you made quite clear!

You continue to twist my words to your own destruction. Bearing False witness after my clarification.

I quote you EXACTLY and you claim I am "bearing false witness" .. rich!

And it somehow never occurs to you that getting your information from conservative and conservative Christian sources might give you a biased picture! Some gays are quite permiscuous, yes. BUT, those are not the ones out there adopting kids. The ones who do are stable. The OTHER side of those statistics is that while there is a group of highly promiscuous gay males, there is also a large group of very stable, one-partner relationships. I am not suggesting tha every homosexual couple or single is suited. Not every heterosexual couple or single is suitable for having kids. I am saying that excluding those people simply because of what they do in their bedroom is stupid.

So you know all parents of kids who are adopted by same sex households are not promiscuous......Amazing how you know that.

and you accuse me of twisting words

What I know is that ANYONE who wants to adopt has to go through pretty rigorous screenings and interviews. What I know is those "examples" you try to put forward have nothing to do with the men who are out adopting kids.

If you really and truly think it is better for a child, any child, to be housed in juvenile detention than it is to place them in a homosexual household, well... you just need to get your head out of the sand! Look at the reality, not what you imagine might be the case.

Putting words in my mouth......again. It is not one being better than the other, they are both unacceptable.

[/quote] Not putting words into your mouth, just telling you AGAIN to think about more than just the ideals you like to think of as reality. If you think there is ANY comparison to between being in juvenile detention and being with loving people who happen to be homsexual ..

SICK does not even begin to describe you! You let your hatred and lack of understanding taint your view of the world. That is not Christ.[/quote]

Yes sick, you think that one bad situation deserves another. Just put them in the house with the two gay guys who unnaturally kiss each other where everyone can see and have sex with each other in the room next door to the kids when they know what going on. Saying something is ok purely because others want to do it and calling that acceptance and in Christ's name is twisted. What else will you allow in Christ's name for your own self worth so you can feel good telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth which sets them free?

OH, cute, now its "this is what Christ wants"..

Newflash. The people that Christ condemned, that made Christ ANGRY were the supposed clergy, the leaders the SAdducees and Pharasees. He EMBRACED and FORGAVE the sinners.

The REAL truth is that a child who does not experience love early in life never learns love. A child who does not learn love has only the slimmest of chances of ever finding Christ. We don't refuse to place kids with people who are Hindu or Buddhist or Rhostafarian.

Several people not just I have stated again and again that studies show kids who are raised in homosexual homes suffer no more, actually have fewer problems than in heterosexual homes (though that "fewer" bit IS because the homosexuals who are allowed to adopt or foster kids are more stable, have higher incomes, etc.) The kids who get shuffled from home to home and other travesties that happen because there just are NOT ENOUGH "perfect" homes is similarly documented ... our prisons (the adult kind) and drug treatment centers are filled with them.

So, if you think that watching 2 homosexuals kiss is so much more harmful than being in juvenile detention or shuffled from home to home.. you know nothing about kids at all!

[mpjh]

I think two lesbians kissing is hot.

[owheelj]

God could not make homosexuality as sin.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

She doesn't exist.

Well, that is a debate in other threads.

That said, how can you assign a gender to an entity that does not exist

I find it fairly difficult to think of entities that do not exist that also do not have genders. Santa Claus, Wolverine, Batman, Frodo Baggins, Catherine Earnshaw, Oliver Twist etc. all have genders. Perhaps the Easter Bunny has no gender although logic would suggest female - but does the Easter Bunny lay eggs, or just deliver them?

It's obviously only meaningful to answer the question of this topic if you first accept the assumption that God exists, and since she clearly doesn't, I won't attempt to address such speculative frivolities.

[mpjh]

Hell, even chess pieces have gender.

[MeDeFe]

Hell, even chess pieces have gender.

The rooks don't.

[xelabale]

Hell, even chess pieces have gender.

The rooks don't.

I just checked - if you look really closely you can definitely see a small penis. It's hard to see but it's there, go check.

I think two lesbians kissing is hot.

Real lesbians or playboy lesbians?

[AAFitz]

Hell, even chess pieces have gender.

But the bishops still seem to favor hitting the pawns

[PLAYER57832]

Hell, even chess pieces have gender.

Pawns don't.