I have been reading through your site. I really can tell you know what your talking about. I have a question, but it might seem a little crude. I hope you want be offended. I have several friends that are gay and they tell me that being gay is no big deal. They sent me this site and it confused me. I just want to know why God would let men feel pleasure from gay sex through the prostate if it's a sin. Sorry to ask such a graphic question and thanks if you answer.
I know a lot of people who don't think lying, profanity, fornication, or disbelief in God are big deals either. But the problem is that the standard being used is a personal judgment. We understand that society cannot function based on individuals' personal judgments -- we call it anarchy. Standards have to be greater than the individual.
The prostate gland is involved in normal sexual relations to bring pleasure during intercourse. Just because it can be misused and pleasure is felt, it doesn't mean it is right. The body has pleasure feedback to encourage its needs. We get pleasure from eating, but it doesn't mean we should become gluttons. We get pleasure from sex, but it doesn't mean we should commit fornication or adultery. We should not allow ourselves to be driven by pleasure. Instead we act in accordance to righteousness and gain pleasure as a result of doing what it good. The standard you are considering is backward and more often than not leads to failure.
Regarding the site you referenced (not included here because I avoid promoting false teaching even indirectly), the author claims:
"It is a long held tradition that gay sex is not natural as straight sex"
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:25-26).
By calling it a "tradition" the author is trying to turn the standard of judgment to a mere opinion, but the author is doing so only by her assertion. The quote from the Bible above states that this isn't individual opinions but God's judgment. Homosexuality isn't how God designed the body to work.
The author claims that because pleasure can be gained from anal sex, therefore, the male body is designed for anal sex. The assertion is false. According to numerous medical sources, anal sex is particularly risky because it causes bleeding. The anus is not normally large enough to accommodate an erect penis. As a result, the skin surface tears as the penis is forced in. The lining of the rectum is not designed to be poked and prodded, and so during sex, it too is damaged and tears. It doesn't take a genius to realize that bacteria present in the rectum does not belong in a person's blood stream. This is why sexually transmitted diseases are rapidly transmitted in the homosexual community. The wounds caused by anal sex gives various diseases easy access to internal systems of the body. In addition injury to the sphincter muscles of the anus are all too common. The human body isn't designed for anal sex; it isn't natural.
"Research proves that thousands of species in the animal kingdom have engaged in homosexual sex"
The statement is misleading. Animals will engage in homosexual behavior when a mate is not available; however, once a mate is present, animals will immediately return to heterosexual behavior. For example, in "Same-Sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals, Review Finds," a Science Daily article, qualifies its assertion by warning that what is called "homosexual behavior" isn't always as it appears nor is it expressed in the same way as human homosexual behavior. Thus, to balance the information, consider the points made in "The Animal Homosexuality Myth." An interesting example is what happened last summer. San Francisco has long proclaimed it had a pair of homosexual penguins. What wasn't mentioned is that the zoo kept more male penguins than females. When a female penguin lost its mate in death, people were "shocked" to find out that one of the so-called homosexual males left for the female. (No adjustment period was needed here by the way.) Therefore there wasn't real homosexuality involved, but an artificial environment produced unnatural pressure.
There are animals which behave bisexually; that is, the drive to mate is so strong that they do so with either gender or even with other species. The cases of claimed homosexuality are better labeled as bisexual behavior. Yet, always the preference is mating with the opposite gender of the same species.
"How can the attempted gang rape of angels be considered homosexuality?"
In a poor attempt to disarm the case of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example against homosexuality, the author tries to claim that it was only wrong because it was attempted gang rape. She also tries to dismiss it because the attempt was against angels instead of humans.
The last assertion is false because those involved did not understand these two men were actually angels until the angels displayed their power. "And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally"" (Genesis 19:5). God refers back to this event in Jude and says, "As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
Albert Barnes said in his commentary on Jude 7 regarding the phrase "strange flesh":
"The reference seems to be to the peculiar sin which, from the name Sodom, has been called sodomy. Compare to Romans 1:27. The meaning of the phrase going after is, that they were greatly addicted to this vice. The word strange, or other, refers to that which is contrary to nature." Romans 1:26-27 says, "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown stated:
"Going after strange flesh -- departing from the course of nature, and going after that which is unnatural. In later times the most enlightened heathen nations indulged in the sin of Sodom without compunction or shame."
From Matthew Poole's Commentary we find:
"Strange flesh; margin, other flesh; he means male flesh, which is other than what God appointed for that use they made of it; or, as we render it, strange flesh, i.e. that which is strange, improper, and unfit for such an end. It is the description of the unnatural filthiness of the Sodomites, Genesis 19:5: see Romans 1:26-27."
From A. T. Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:
"Strange flesh (sarkos heteras). Horrible licentiousness, not simply with women not their wives or in other nations, but even unnatural uses (Romans 1:27) for which the very word "sodomy" is used (Genesis 19:4-11)."
Jude is not saying that the men of Sodom had a habit of pursuing sex with every angel they could find. As we pointed out, none knew that they were dealing with angels, including Lot. And when Lot tried to distract them with his own daughters, they attacked Lot, who was human. ""Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door" (Genesis 19:9).
"This would be like taking a passage against heterosexual adultery and condemning all of heterosexual unions. This simply doesn’t fit"
The claim is that just because some homosexual acts are condemned, it doesn't mean all homosexuality is condemned. I have a list of every passage mentioning homosexuality in the Bible: Homosexuality. Where is the passage that gives approval to homosexual acts in any form?
The major flaw in the argument is that adultery is a subclass of all heterosexual unions, by definition. Adultery is always condemned. Homosexuality is a subclass of all possible sexual unions, by definition. Homosexuality is always condemned.
"In Hebrew, the word for “to lie with” (shakab) in this verse does not simply mean sex. If one reads every single verse in the Old Testament with the word shakab in it, you will find that this is always associated with rape or coerced unwanted sex."
"Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening" (Leviticus 15:18).
An absolute is a dangerous argument. One counterexample destroys the assertion. This verse is discussing normal sexual relations between a husband and wife -- not unwanted sex.
Also the author glosses over the fact that shakab means to lie down. She tries to claim the meaning is narrower than just sex but it is actually broader than just sex. "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Deuteronomy 6:7). Here no rape or unwanted coerced sex is implied; yet, she claimed that every single verse implies this.
The conclusion is that the author doesn't understand the Bible and merely attempts to twist what she can to fit her preconceived notions of what she wants the Bible to say in support of her sins.
Thanks for replying. That really helped and made a lot of sense.