Bible verse by verse

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Humans can never produce babies through mere homosexuality. They MUST ALWAYS enlist someone of the opposite sex.

In other words, they do the same thing that many infertile heterosexual couples do. Or are you suggesting that infertile heterosexual couples also be denied the right to marry?

Or perhaps you're suggesting that turkey basters only be sold to individuals who are in a monogamous heterosexual relationship?

I approve of marriage only as a means to reproduce and raise a child/children/heir.

You can approve of anything your little heart desires as long as you don't try to impose your beliefs on others.

I believe that all heterosexual couples have a God given possibility of producing a child through their marriage act.

This only applies if you're a fundamentalist Christian, otherwise it's irrelevant.

No homosexual limited to homosexuality can make such a claim.

I don't know any homosexual fundamentalist Christians, do you?

[_Gunnar]

I would like to step up and say a couple of words in praise of the human experience of guilt. People are so often caught up in there own concerns that they miss when they a stepping all over their neighbors toes. But we do have a sort of internal guilt warning system which can be activated by a clue from the neighbor. With a little beep beep from our guilt detector we step back and try to be more thoughtful about those around us. In a way loosing one sense of guilt would be a little like loosing sensitivity to pain in our extremities. Without pain injuries can continue without needed restorative actions being sought in a timely manner.Limbs may be lost as in advanced diabetes.

I was thinking of the observation that with Bible related religions guilt plays a large role. If I consider the Bible I cannot miss that the subject does pervade the book from beginning to end. The Bible does have other themes but it does not seem to get very far away from that subject before returning to guilt. I am able to wonder whether it is too much of the one matter. I remain thinking that the bitter flavor of that subject is central to what I find valuable in the Book. It is encouragment to keep our guilt alarm healthy.

As much as I truly believe that guilt is a precious organ of alarm, quick to give guidance to clumsy humans I know it is not so simple. Any of us can think of examples when guilt tangles up the mind creating fear and loss of self respect.As Gunner has pointed out their always seem to be people quick to use this sort of guilt for manipulation to gain power and money.

I am not sure which is more alarming though, this overdone destructive guilt or the other extreme. I can be amazed at the situations where an onlooker would expect a person with ugly acts to have a guilt alarm going off like an air raid siren yet they sit calmly as though enjoying dessert. (Stones Brown Sugar would tell such a story)

Thanks, huckleberry! I don't deny that there are things people ought to feel guilty about, and that feelings of guilt can motivate people to improve their behavior and make honest attempts to compensate for wrongs they may have caused. I'm glad you also agree that guilt is too often used by devious individuals to manipulate others for selfish gain.

[_Gunnar]

Little Nipper, if a same sex couple is happy and productive while in a committed, monogamous relationship, whom are they hurting? How does that in any way harm, endanger or even inconvenience anyone else? How can it be reasonable to insist that they are committing sin when no one else is being hurt by their relationship?

I would question your use of the word "productive." Same sex unions cannot "produce" offspring. And the seems to be the primary reason for marriage to produce an heir. There is no king or queen that has ever existed who produced a legitimate heir through same sex "marriage."

Producing offspring is not the only way a committed, married couple, whether homosexual or heterosexual, can be productive and useful. In either case, choosing to have sex with each other, whether children are produced or not, does not in any way harm or endanger or inconvenience anyone else. Thus there is no legitimate reason for either God or anyone else to condemn them merely for having mutually consensual sex with each other.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Only sex between a male and female can produce a child...

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on that point. I certainly don't.

...uniting that couple and making them one flesh.

Not if the child is put up for adoption, and not if the mother used an anonymous sperm donor. Or are you suggesting an adopted child cannot also metaphorically become "one flesh" with his or her parents?

[Guest]

Humans can never produce babies through mere homosexuality. They MUST ALWAYS enlist someone of the opposite sex. Only sex between a male and female can produce a child --- uniting that couple and making them one flesh. I approve of marriage only as a means to reproduce and raise a child/children/heir. I believe that all heterosexual couples have a God given possibility of producing a child through their marriage act. No homosexual limited to homosexuality can make such a claim.

Don't be too sure of that! Check this out!

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5684748/scientists-closer-to-turning-human-skin-cells-into-sperm-cells

If human skin cells can be converted into sperm cells, as seems very likely, there is no reason to suppose that only a man's skin cells can be thus converted. Thus, it is quite possible that either member of a lesbian couple could use converted skin cells from her partner to impregnate her and produce a child who is the biological offspring of both of them. Of course all children thus produced would necessarily have two X chromosomes, and thus be genetically female.

Not only that, it would be theoretically possible for a woman to impregnate herself with sperm cells created from her own skin cells, though this might not be a very good idea. It would not be quite the same as cloning, and could present some of the same inherent genetic dangers as incest.

[_Bazooka]

Only sex between a male and female can produce a child...

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you on that point. I certainly don't.

Sperm donors and inseminators beg to differ.....

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Sperm donors and inseminators beg to differ.....

[_The Erotic Apologist]

If human skin cells can be converted into sperm cells...

I have, somewhere in my attic, a lock of Elvis Presley's hair. Think of the possibilities...

[_Gunnar]

If human skin cells can be converted into sperm cells...

I have, somewhere in my attic, a lock of Elvis Presley's hair. Think of the possibilities...

Sorry, it is my understanding that they have to be live skin cells. As you surely know, hair cells are not live--especially the cells in a lock of hair from someone who is long dead. Though, of course, if you are talking about merely extracting the DNA from Elvis' hair cells, I suppose one could do that. Cells don't necessarily have to be alive to merely extract DNA from them.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Sorry, it is my understanding that they have to be live skin cells. As you surely know, hair cells are not live--especially the cells in a lock of hair from someone who is long dead. Though, of course, if you are talking about merely extracting the DNA from Elvis' hair cells, I suppose one could do that. Cells don't necessarily have to be alive to merely extract DNA from them.

That's okay, because I'd really rather have a female pleasure robot instead of an Elvis clone.