Is being bisexual a sin?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you don't have to respect ignorant and harmful opinions just because you can't prove them wrong.

And him disagreeing with your opinion is an opinion as well, isn't it? How about respecting that for a change. Since it's also an opinion created through logic, not through a piece of paper that was written by multiple (only) human authors a long time ago....

Ok maybe I got a little over-heated with this oen, your right he doesn't ahve to respect it. Its cool if he disagrees with me, first he made comments abotu stuff nothing to do with what i was talkign about , then said what he ahd to say in an inappropriate manner, which you seemed to agree with. Now i don't think he has actaully voiced is opinion officially on my topic and view, however, it is clear he would prefer the latter.

wait thats not correct, for soem reason i thought shaky responded instead of bardock, so you may not agree that i thoguht it was inappropriate, but everythign else i stadnby as of now with that last post

...

Right... well...

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Ok I did not say that was the purpose of a relationship, you put words in my mouth. Many people have relationships with no intention of having kids. My view is that if they have a relationship then sex cannot be involved because it is not for procreation. For the second part, once again you make a wrong conjecture abotu what i said. I never said anywhere that gays coudlnt be in a relationship and that you are supposed to procreate. Its simple, if your not goign to ahve sex to procreate its not considered to be a good thing, not pickign on gays or straight people, one rule for everyone.

But that is the reason why they shouldn't be together? You said your Church doesn't frown on homosexuals in general, just that they shouldn't be together, as your Church also believes in procreation...

Ok I did not say that (procreation) was the purpose of a relationship, you put words in my mouth.

My view is that if they have a relationship then sex cannot be involved because it is not for procreation.

Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Ok I don't see your point with this first statement because once again, i didn't say homosexuals coudln't adopt or even that it was a bad thing

But you said that an infertile couple can adopt, correct? And that makes them ok, as their relationship can not produce children, and that any sex they have can only be for the purpose of pleasure. Thus, you have homosexuals, who for the sake of the argument, can not have children either, and whose sex is only for pleasure - but they to can adopt. Do you see the parallel?

Cmon now Storm!, if your tryign to procreate and it doesnt hapen becuase your infertile or cant conceive, then its not held agaisnt you obviously.

Being infertile is vastly different from not just being able to conceive. So how, fundementally, is a homosexual couple different from an infertile couple? Neither can conceive...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But that is the reason why they shouldn't be together? You said your Church doesn't frown on homosexuals in general, just that they shouldn't be together, as your Church also believes in procreation...

But you said that an infertile couple can adopt, correct? And that makes them ok, as their relationship can not produce children, and that any sex they have can only be for the purpose of pleasure. Thus, you have homosexuals, who for the sake of the argument, can not have children either, and whose sex is only for pleasure - but they to can adopt. Do you see the parallel?

Being infertile is vastly different from not just being able to conceive. So how, fundementally, is a homosexual couple different from an infertile couple? Neither can conceive...

Together as in how? A relationship is fine as long as it doesn't involve sex because it is our belief that you should only have sex if your married and have the intent to procreate. Homosexuals are not allowed to get married in my church (please leave that for a different thread if anyoen wishes to discuss this) and their intent cannot be to procreate. I hope this answers your question I thought it seemed clear that relationships are not frowned upon, however, i may be giving you a wrong response.

If the intent is purely procreation, then it is not viewed as wrong, assuming the couple is married.

Not really all that different as far as sex is concerned. They are both in a similar situation

Sex is viewed kind of like a job, you are there to do your job, not to mess around or do anything else beside your job. So if your not there to do work, then don't go there. Its not a matter of punishing people for the sake of makign people suffer, just to keep people inline so that they have sex for its only purpose. Now having said that, i plan on being abstinent until marriage, but after that, I am certain that I will most likely not stick to that rule. I wouldn't hold it against a gay person for havign sex as well, homosexuality has been shown in soem scientific research results to be genetic. Kudos to those who could abstain, but I know I wouldn't be that good.