Bahmaboy:

Has your girl ever had sex with you while you were asleep?? Mine has.

Vicky:

Did you see what happened to the city of Sodom?? That should answer your question.



why would she do that, isnt that rape?

You ask really stupid questions. I suppose you are confused and you think you can confuse others. Sorry, try again.

Angels are "asexual". They don't *WANT* sex with anybody.



So far you are arguing against yourself.

1. You say that there's a "glory hole" where its possible for a man not to be aware that he is with a male or female.

2. Now you suggest, that the man *HAS* to be conscious of who he is having sex with for the engagement to be legitimized.

Those are contradictory statements. My point is, my attraction is a mental configuration due to socialization. If my girl is having sex with me, I am aroused because I have a mental picture of the stimuli. Same with all sexual encounters. The arousal is based on a mental configuration of stimuli. Just like hunger pains, when you smell a certain type of food. Even if you are hungry, if you smell spinach and you hate the taste of spinach -- you won't be enticed to eat the food. Regardless of what it looks like. Same thing with sex. There are women that look manly, no matter how much they try to prove that they are female -- my attraction won't kick in. There are men that look feminine, a lot of straight men fall in love with what they believe to be female.

doesnt that prove my point. a true hetro is not turned on by the same sex or people with same sex features. no matter how you spin it, if a person (an average and normal person) is having sex with someone something about that person or that persons physical make up or maybe their smell turns them on. as for the sleep thing. like vicky said men get aroused in their sleep with out any stimuli, it just proves mechanics.

You ask really stupid questions. I suppose you are confused and you think you can confuse others. Sorry, try again.

Angels are "asexual". They don't *WANT* sex with anybody.
Ok so then you are saying the people around Lots house wanted to have sex with the 2 strangers inside but the 2 strangers inside did not want to have sex with them. HHHhhhhmmmm are you saying the men out side would have forced their desire on the 2 strangers inside. Sounds like rape
not consensual sex.
[QUOTE=MikkiForbes]
So far you are arguing against yourself.

1. You say that there's a "glory hole" where its possible for a man not to be aware that he is with a male or female.
You have been in a closed world for to long. I suggest you do a bit of research. on the term glory hole try the search engines and image or photo section.
2. Now you suggest, that the man *HAS* to be conscious of who he is having sex with for the engagement to be legitimized.
see just above. After you have done some reaserch respond.
Those are contradictory statements. My point is, my attraction is a mental configuration due to socialization. If my girl is having sex with me, I am aroused because I have a mental picture of the stimuli. Same with all sexual encounters. The arousal is based on a mental configuration of stimuli. Just like hunger pains, when you smell a certain type of food. Even if you are hungry, if you smell spinach and you hate the taste of spinach -- you won't be enticed to eat the food. Regardless of what it looks like. Same thing with sex. There are women that look manly, no matter how much they try to prove that they are female -- my attraction won't kick inwhy? . There are men that look feminine, a lot of straight men fall in love with what they believe to be female.
you been watching to much Jerry Springer.

why would she do that, isnt that rape?

YES

I am so lost I don't even know that the point of this post is anymore. I think we are just debating semantics right now. Why doesn't someone just start and new thread so we can discuss and hopefully come to some understanding of what we mean by gay, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

I am so lost I don't even know that the point of this post is anymore. I think we are just debating semantics right now. Why doesn't someone just start and new thread so we can discuss and hopefully come to some understanding of what we mean by gay, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, etc.


whats there to understand:

gay- slang term understood to mean having sex exclusivly with the same sex

bisexual-having sex with both sexes

hetrosexual-having sex exclusivley with the opposite sex

homosexual-proper term; understood to mean having sex exclusivly with the same sex

all that blurriness that someone brought up about emotional attraction and sexual attraction is just a way of blurring the lines. when you say the words above my definations is what comes to the minds of 99.99999% of people.

Rape is sex against the a person's will.

whats there to understand:

gay- slang term understood to mean having sex exclusivly with the same sex

bisexual-having sex with both sexes

hetrosexual-having sex exclusivley with the opposite sex

homosexual-proper term; understood to mean having sex exclusivly with the same sex

all that blurriness that someone brought up about emotional attraction and sexual attraction is just a way of blurring the lines. when you say the words above my definations is what comes to the minds of 99.99999% of people.


This is why I said we should talk about the definitions we use. A person can be homosexual and not necessarily fall into the category of being "gay". That is why the acronym is GLBTQIA. The Q would stand for Queer, since "gay" incorporates the cultural aspect of the life as well and many homosexual people do not associate with the culture. So there is a big difference between someone simply being homosexual (being attracted to the same sex) and someone being gay. If we are going to use the terms here and have a discussion let us have it be a meaningful discussion.

Rape is sex against the a person's will.

Finally
Rape will never = consensual homosexual sex. Thus the city of Sodom was not destroyed because of consensual homosexual sex. It was destroyed because of inhospitality.

Finally
Rape will never = consensual homosexual sex. Thus the city of Sodom was not destroyed because of consensual homosexual sex. It was destroyed because of inhospitality.


I must admit I was confused for some time as to where this was going. Now I finally understand the point you were trying to make. I must admit that I never thought of this story in this manner at all. You truly have a very deep and interesting mind Vicky...very interesting indeed.

1. My girl didn't rape me because rape is forced or against my will, I didn't consent because I was unconscious. The angels didn't have the will for sex or against it. You're comparing birds and bees and coming up with antelopes.

2. Unfortunately, the men came to Sodom to destroy the city. Not for a vacation. The city embraced Lot. That seems very hospitable of them to embrace a bedouin sheperd who prayed to a desert God and refused to accept their customs. While the Isrealites were enslaved or slaughtered wherever else they went. Kinda confusing don't you think?? Stop reading into the Bible what's not in the Bible.

This is all getting too deep for me...all this Bible talk gat me so confused...but I must admit the antelope part is funny....LOL...

1. My girl didn't rape me because rape is forced or against my will, I didn't consent because I was unconscious. The angels didn't have the will for sex or against it. You're comparing birds and bees and coming up with antelopes.
So what is it when someone has sex with somone who is comotose??? They are unconscious. How about when the person is drunk or druged they can't consent?? Its all rape. If you did not consent it is rape end of conversation.
2. Unfortunately, the men came to Sodom to destroy the city. Wow another great point the destruction was planed before the men even entered the city. Before Lots house was surounded. It would not have mattered if Lot was out of town visiting one of his friends. The City was doomed. Not for a vacation. The city embraced Lot. That seems very hospitable of them to embrace a bedouin sheperd who prayed to a desert God and refused to accept their customs. While the Isrealites were enslaved or slaughtered wherever else they went. Kinda confusing don't you think?? Stop reading into the Bible what's not in the Bible.

Again you really need to research before you type. I think you should "Stop reading into the Bible what's not in the Bible." Abram and Lot were on good terms with the King on Sodom.
Genesis 14:8-24 (King James Version)
8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;
9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.
10And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
21And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
24Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

If Lot was on good terms with the King of Sodom doesn't that say something about the city being hospitable??

1. Comatose is different from asleep. A comatose man can't have sex. People can't respond to stimuli while comatosed. While asleep I can. I have. Yes, you can consent to sex even if you are drugged or drunk. Its rape if you are drugged against your will. But drunk people have sex all the time. How else do we explain your presence.

2. God told Lot that if there were ten righteous people found there that he would not destroy the city. So the angels came to find the righteous people living in Sodom to justify not destroying it. If Lot was out of town and they found 8, then the city would've been destroyed. They got there and the men of the city didn't taunt them or throw stones at them or show them any kind of hostility. They wanted to welcome them to the town by having a big ole gay orgy. Shocked and dismayed that homos were so prevalent, the angels were disgusted and decided that it didn't matter how many righteous lived in Sodom. Because the men engaged in such behavior it blackened the whole city. So they burnt it to the ground.

All of the warping of context and definitions in the world can't change that fact. Nowhere in the Bible did God ever say "Thou shalt not be inhospitable". If he did, he never said it to the Egyptians who enslaved Jews for 400 years. He never said it to Canaanites or Menonites who constantly fought the Jews. He never said it to Rome, and it was the Romans who killed his son. Where you got this ridiculous argument is beyond me. Homosexuality is the only *SIN* that God calls an abomination. Not murder, not suicide, not rape, not even disbelief in God. Oh and to add, Lot's daughters got their father drunk and had sex with them.

Genesis 19:31-32

"And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

If we follow your idiocy, then they were just like the men of Sodom. They raped their father, just like the men of Sodom, as you so retardly suggest, wanted to rape Lot's guests. Did anything happen to them for such an act that Sodom was destroyed for?? No.

wow! vicky what do you do for a living? this is some interesting stuff...think i need to read from the beginning, but i also get lost in the bible quoting!