>>35495716
>Whether you believe in Christianity or not, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the fact that anal sex is forbidden in the culture that literally shaped the entire Western hemisphere.
christianity isn't a european religion
it shaped the western hemisphere in a bad way.

If they don't believe in Christianity why would they care or consider it a sin are you retarded anon

I enjoy sinning and hope to sin as much as possible before my life ends. I won't live in fear of standards and practices.

>>35495716
Have you really taken a hard look at everything else that's considered a sin and how much of it even makes any sense, let alone is taken seriously by people professing to be Christians?

I do pity the people wracked with religious guilt, must be a real mindfuck on top of everything else.

>>35495727
They still possess the knowledge that it's a sin. You don't just switch that part of your brain off. Doubly so for the gays raised by religious parents.
>>35495784
The Commandments are literally just good manners, they aren't a binding contract. Some of it is common sense, like don't idolize the wrong person or cheat and expect to get away with it. Fucking duh.

>>35495716
I know this will come across as low-effort bait but... clothiers DO still acknowledge that wearing clothes of multiple fabrics is a sin, right? Whether you believe in Christianity or not, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the fact that multi-textured clothes are forbidden in the culture that literally shaped the entire Western hemisphere.

>>35495834
Yes because the Ten Commandments completely define what sin is. There's really no other stuff in the Bible or Christianity as a whole that says you should and shouldn't do things we consider inappropriate, ludicrous or outright immoral today.

C'mon now. I may not be a Christian but you can ask the nearest priest if that's the right take. I hope he'll tell you it's not.

>>35495716
Have you considered that we aren't Christian?

>>35495716
How many times have you watch anal sex porn OP?

>“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
[Matthew 7:1-3]

>>35495835
Rise Peter kill and eat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI

>>35495913
So you know what sin is, what it means to sin and what traditionally the consequences of sin have been. Then, logically, you should know that it's wrong. I'm not saying you can't sin, because I'm not an authority (and neither is the priest in your hypothetical) In fact, if we're being real pedantic, the Big Ten only apply to Jews, and only those Jews living during Jesus' time, and only a certain sect of said Jews. But over time, they still carry a certain weight, because like I said, they're just good mannerisms to have. Islam has a similar grouping, Daoism is literally built upon this idea, etc.
>>35495956
I don't care what you are, that's why I'm on /lgbt/ asking for a sincere conversation. My point is that you still live in a world which exists primarily due to a faith-based religion. You can ascribe to it or not, but you can't decouple sin from your existence, because that is a fundamental aspect of Western culture. If humans are incapable of sin, or if they ignore it as a concept, then anything goes. And no, that's not "muh slippery slope" it's just the reality of replacing faith or even pure demagogy with hedonism.

>>35496032
>If humans are incapable of sin, or if they ignore it as a concept, then anything goes. And no, that's not "muh slippery slope" it's just the reality of replacing faith or even pure demagogy with hedonism.
how do christians know not to do bad things?
is it really just because they're under threat of divine punishment?
That doesn't sound like morality, just law.

>>35495716
ok but so did king Arthur but I don't tell everyone they should plan their crops in a way to avoid dragons burning their crops

>>35495716
You mean the *Semitic* culture that implanted itself on Europe? Don't you /pol/tards hate everything Semitic? The mental gymnastics you have to pull to thump Christianity but hate Judaism and Islam must be astounding. Homosexuality was largely accepted in Europe before they were converted to worship the carpenter on a stick.

>>35496032
it's always such a huge self report when Christians admit that the only reason they dont rape or murder or whatever is because their magic law book says it's a sin.

>>35496032
I know what *Christians* consider sin, that's a different thing. I do not personally ascribe anything meaningful to the concept. What's morally right and wrong is of course a big can of worms everyone has to sort out for themselves.

There's a really good reason that the Western culture that you think revolves around Christianity evolved into law-based ones where the ideas of "sin" that you atone for in the eyes of God, and crimes that you atone for in the eyes of men, became clearly separated. It was a hard-won effort too.

Are there gay men who are religious, who think that being gay (or rather acting gay) is sinful, and who have big moral quandaries about this? Absolutely, lots of documented drama there. Is this something all gay men should "acknowledge"? Not really. Not even, or perhaps especially not, if they're from a Western society. It's a shame that lots of them are actually backsliding into religious extremism again, or at least giving it way more leeway than they should.

>>35496139
also that society would collapse and nobody would breed if they could be gay instead...

>>35496074
Homosexuality was accepted in the context of sexually violating an inferior (and usually much younger) male, either as a form of punishment or as a vice for the rich to exercise their power on others. Really not the smartest thing to point to in the context of saying fags are cool

>>35495716

It's objectively "wrong" in that it is, in a sense, unnatural. Against the grain. Not what the thing's true function is. The hole evolved as an exit hole only. The transgression involved is a large part of the appeal, and also the hole is right there so naturally animals will start poking around in the same area. Pointing out prostate stimulation is a kind of lazy and unserious cope to swat away the above observation, which is plainly correct on its face.

On the other hand, if the notion of sin simply refers to god, then it is of course a meaningless term.

>>35496142
The separation of church and state is not a real thing, anon, it's a vague concept attributed to some random Baptists and hinted at in like two amendments. It's otherwise completely up in the air and is mostly just a baseline for broader conversations about how the state should function in regard to equally large entities. America was founded on disestablishment as a core ideal and prioritized the individual's ability to think for themselves; and yet, paradoxically, most of the original settlers, many of the greatest thinkers and pretty much all of the statesmen were Christian.

>Backsliding into religious extremism
I don't think it's wise to conflate people who think anal sex is a sin with actual Jihadi terrorists who strap bombs to their chests.

>>35496228
>It's objectively "wrong" in that it is, in a sense, unnatural
but tons of mammals exhibit homosexual behavior in nature
how is it unnatural?

why are trannies so homophobic?

>>35496237
Because "mounting" in the animal kingdom is purely about domination and is mostly seen when there is a lack of female presence. Hence why male dogs hump each other when there isn't a bitch nearby, and why so many veterinarians recommend neutering / spaying your pets.

>>35496249
there are lots of animals that exhibit exclusive homosexuality even in the presence of females

>>35496228
Nobody cares. Human society is more unnatural. Animals fuck both ways.

>>35496232
I truly have no idea what you're trying to say. Mentioning America is especially befuddling since, as you mention, the Founding Fathers where overwhelmingly Christian, and yet they also clearly saw the need for a society that *wasn't* based on codifying their own religious preferences into law.

And when I say "backsliding", I mean "backsliding", not that we're there yet, fortunately. Going back to religion (which one?) as the great lawgiver is a backwards motion any way you slice it. You want to think anal sex is a sin? Fine. You want to codify it into law? Not fine.

>>35495716
Christfag copium; the thread.

>>35495716
Of course, anything that can't result in reproduction is a sin. Sin is an archery term meaning to miss the mark, hitting the mark would be to reproduce which is the point of life. It's not that sinning is bad, makes you a bad person, or you should be judged for it. It simply means that if you ONLY sin, then you always miss the mark and never reproduce. That's bad - for you. And the one who suffers as a result is you. It's like shooting yourself in the foot, you're free to do it and doing it doesn't make you a bad person. You'll just end up with a self inflicted bullet wound, which was your choice.

>>35496289
>They also clearly saw the need for a society that *wasn't* based on codifying their own religious preferences into law.
Yeah, because of the Enlightenment. That's uh, kinda why we had the Revolutionary War. Not because they were just jonesing for a secular state, but because European thinkers at the time had idea which the Founders wanted to not only expand upon but put into practical usage.

>>35496368
this seems circular
not reproducing doesn't give you a self inflicted bullet wound, it just means you don't reproduce. Why is that bad if that's what you want?

>>35496378
Yes? Did I deny this anywhere? I feel like you're arguing with what you *think* I said rather than what I said. I also never used the words "separation of church and state", for example.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but none of this seems to have any relevance to whether gay men should care that religious people have a stick up their ass about anal sex (pun intended) because some ancient desert dwellers also didn't care much for it and wrote that in their Holy Book. Who cares, let them?

>>35495716
i hate to sound like a cringey atheist but if you are not christian yourself why the fuck would you care what the bible says is sin. imagine being so unaware of reality that you think the values espoused by your religion have that much power over people

>>35496432
Sodom was just a location where everyone was being promiscuous as fuck, possibly even committing rape and other acts. It had to be smitten because the passage's symbolic meaning - don't be arrogant and full of pride - took precedence. So I don't appreciate your reductivism. That's from Genesis, by the way, the Christian Bible then extracts the meaning from that passage to condemn (not prohibit, mind you) anal sex, sleeping with other men, etc.

>Who cares, let them?
No one will stop them. But it's STILL a sinful act.

>>35495716
Sodomy is anything that isn't missionary, fuck off, queer.

>>35496568
>But it's STILL a sinful act.
why should they care? the only reason anyone gives is "because the god/bible said so" but if you don't believe in that god then there's no reason to care right?

>>35495716
Sin isn't real.

>>35496617
I'm just gonna repost this from the OP since you're being dense on purpose now.
>Whether you believe in Christianity or not, that doesn't suddenly invalidate the fact that anal sex is forbidden in the culture that literally shaped the entire Western hemisphere.
Remember, 'prohibit' and 'forbid' are not synonyms. Understand now?

>>35496568
Yes you see the problem with that story is that it's rather meaningless if you're not already a believer. I don't necessarily doubt that Sodom existed and people got up to some kinky shit, but pretty obviously I don't believe there is a God who did something about it. The only thing the story demonstrates is how strongly the authors felt about it. Again, it all really comes back to "it's a sin and that's important if you believe in these particular religious notions of sin, and otherwise it's not".

I'm not gonna dispute that many people over the course of history, down to today, feel particularly icky about homosexuality. It's hard to miss. Certainly we can acknowledge the influence this mindset has had on society, past and presnt. It STILL doesn't mean religious people get to force anyone who DOESN'T ascribe to that mindset to care about it. And you don't get to add "whether you believe in Christianity or not", because that really is the whole matter of the thing.

>>35496643
if we based our morality on what foundational cultures did then slavery would be illegal just because the romans did it, this argument doesn't even make sense. something being done in the past does not mean it's morally justified for some reason LOL

>>35496385
Not reproducing means your genetics die out along with all of you and your family's personalized little ways. Faded from the earth forever. It also means you will have less of a support system as you grow old. Most people would find these things undesirable. Most beings like themselves and want there to be more of them self in the world. But you're right, these things aren't objectively good per se, a person might not want them. More likely a person just doesn't want to make the associated sacrifices for them. Probably almost everyone would reproduce if they didn't actually have to birth or raise the child.

>>35496660
Stop waffling. Do you think sin still exists if someone lives an entirely secular life? Not in terms of strict commandments, just the inherent concept of sinning?

>>35496727
No, I don't. Simple as. To me "sinning" just means "doing things religious people consider wrong", which mostly does not overlap with what I consider wrong, and especially not with what I think society should outlaw. To me "sin" exists in the same way that "God" exists to those who believe.

>>35496727
'sin' as a religious concept is different from 'sin' as a colloquial term just used to mean something that's bad
I believe bad things exist, and you could call them sinful using that colloquial term, but that doesn't mean I believe in the Christian concept of sin.

>>35496762
So you acknowledge sodomy is a sin, just not under your own terms that invalidate you ever having the capacity for sin. Got it.

File: 20230730_094140.jpg (22 KB, 524x505)

22 KB JPG

>>35496825
me when im in a circular logic competition and my opponent is a christian

>>35496825
I acknowledge Christianity and lots of other religions consider sodomy a sin, yes. And my "own terms" on this are that I happen to not believe any of those religions are true (though not in particular because they condemn anal sex, mind you).

I realize that declaring myself free of religious sin by virtue of not being religious might sound particularly audacious to a believer, but, uh, them's the breaks. It doesn't mean I think I can do no bad.

This entire discussion feels like it could be boiled down to you asking "but don't you AGREE that putting your PENIS up a BUTT is UNIVERSALLY WRONG, ANON?" and me going "uh, no".

File: IMG_3375.gif (2.29 MB, 498x361)

2.29 MB GIF

>>35495716
Pounding my bf's butt while I've got him folded up like a human pretzel, mauling his neck and shoulders, teasing him and praising him is extremely sinful. Sleeping over and cuddling him afterwards is a good deed and it cancels out the sin overnight, and by morning I'm actually up a few points

>>35496963
holy based

>>35496963
Wrong, that's not at all how it works. You need to talk at length about what you've done with a priest to receive absolution. Do make it a little saucy, they like that.

>>35496963
Sleeping with men at all is a sin, though? Do any of you even know what you're talking about?

>>35497021
I'm going to go ahead and assume the guy talking about how much he loves making love to his boyfriend does not actually know or care much about the specifics of sin

>>35496988
>>35497021
I know what I'm talking about. Sins are like calories. You can do a bunch of sins and then just burn 'em off by doing good stuff

File: 1701124853869.jpg (693 KB, 1103x1104)

693 KB JPG

>>35495716
>Here have this pleasure spot up your anus.
>BUT DON'T YOU DARE FUCKING STICK ANYTHING UP THERE TO TOUCH IT.
>Otherwise I'll have to send you to hell with the other murderers, pedophiles, rapists, whores, children with cancer, and people who killed themselves.

>>35497117
>children with cancer
Can you explain that one to me? Worst I've read is that the unbaptized or morally oblivious go to purgatory instead of heaven, is there any religion that sends sick kids to hell?

>>35496032
The truth in what you're saying is that sodomy was taboo in an ancient culture (your bailey), which is a pretty uninteresting and easily verifiable claim. What you're trying to say (your motte) is that because sodomy was taboo in an ancient culture that it should also be considered so in our modern one... and you aren't really doing much to defend that. You'd also have to defend all the other things that definitely don't apply. I don't see how you win this one. Definitely shitty bait, yawn.

>>35497291
Why are you saying 'ancient culture' like it was only seen as bad in B.C. times? The fuck?

>>35495716
It didn't shape the western hemisphere - Greece and Rome did that. Christianity simply spent 2000 years trying to steal credit for work done by homos by burning anyone who spoke up alive.

It's a cult of stolen valour and always has been. They literally don't even know what a fucking Nazarene is or why they're worshipping one. It's hilarious.

>>35497398
Yeah you aren't even operating under the pretense of good faith anymore.

>>35495716
some do and revel in the idea of sinning
>>35495784
>how much of it even makes any sense
after the coming of Christ (and the fulfillment of the law) there isn't a single sinful thing that seems unreasonable

>>35497094
committing even a single sin marks you for death actually
if you're without Christ you're going to hell

>>35497467
What kind of Christian are you? Everyone is a sinner. Christ died for our sins

Christianity is basically chosen ignorance. You accept one delusion (that God is real despite there being no verifiable evidence) in exchange for a lifetime of comfort and security in how you view life. Honestly I can see why people go for it

>>35495716
> anal sex is forbidden in the culture that literally shaped the entire Western hemisphere.

Does that mean it’s okay for Asians to have buttsex?

>>35496237

There are multiple senses of what it means for something to be "unnatural". I actually took a college philosophy course on concepts of nature which was very helpful on this. Our simplest and most reductive sense of the "natural" is "what actually takes place in the physical world, what actually occurs. "Nature", the trees, the world and all that. On the other hand, if a certain technique, thing, behavior, etc, seems more difficult, "against the grain", manifestly harder, then it is "unnatural" in the sense that it doesn't work as smoothly, because it just plain doesn't by the very nature of what it is. This is what is going on with gay buttsex. Straight people can generally just mount and be mounted when the mood strikes. Gay anal sex requires more prep.

It turns out that retorting that "animals have gay sex too!" is a kind of lazy cope. It's still a kind of mal-adapted behavior.

>>35495716
I am gay but find anal sex disgusting and will never partake in it. Honestly hate how it has become seen as the 'default' for gay lovemaking.
>>35497117
Retard, you know the purpose of that pleasure spot is to make pooping feel good. It's not for sticking stuff up there. Enjoy your adult diapers though.

And? Christoids belief in a lot of dumb shit, because they're demons The barbarous beliefs of a monotheistic blood cult have no influence on my moral compass.

>>35495716
>anal sex is forbidden in the culture that literally shaped the entire Western hemisphere.
What culture? The hellenes? The romans? The germanic tribes? Certainly wasn't forbidden for any of them. Christianity didn't create the west, you don't cry about people not following the rules of Zeus and pouring enough libations to the gods so why care about christianity, a religion that's already so compromised with pagan thought that it isn't even recognizeable from those jewish roots from where the anal sex taboo is derived. It's theology is platonist, it's holidays are germanic, it's prayers are latin. The modern westoid will care more about the pagan egg laying easter bunny than he ever will about christian jesus. He will care more about santa claus dressed up as a pagan germanic gnome engaging in germanic giftgiving tradition than he ever will about the birth of jesus supposedly on christmas. The anal sex rule can be thrown out as easily as the rest of the other near eastern garbage, because it wasn't even important to begin with.

>>35497706
Nils popping off

>>35495716
But sodomy means no consent in the context of torture via asshole punishment lol

>>35496592
Sodomy is specifically torture vis rape of the asshole and is banned cuz they didn’t have douching or vaccines or soap or anything back then really so shit dick, disease, and death lol

>>35497487
you have to accept his gift, otherwise you go to hell
it's that simple

>>35495716
Do you acknowledge that eating pork or not fasting during Ramadan is a sin even though you aren't Muslim?

File: Sally-Anne_test.jpg (36 KB, 300x428)

36 KB JPG

>>35495716
Can you solve this OP?

>>35498996
box

>>35495716
oral sex is also sodomy btw. also the bible outlaws any sex without the purpose of reproduction, as shown with Onan

>>35496184
>all homosexual interaction anywhere ever before 1900 was rape
Least deranged semite lover.
That's like, one step away from the retarded notion that that one particula Leviticus passage was about raping underage boys.

I'm a Christian with SSA and yeah I do know it is a sin, it just makes perfect logical sense too, even before I became a believer I knew it was unnatural, there's no reproductive purpose behind homosexual intercourse at all and the rectum is an exit not an entrance, it quite obviously wasn't designed to take cocks up the ass. There's a reason most cultures and religions were historically against it. And quite honestly both the religious and secular arguments in favour of it are really stupid and often dishonest, just excuses for us all to give in to hedonism and degeneracy
but FUCK does it feel good wouldn't recommend others to do it for obvious reasons but DAMN

>>35495716
A sin in the eyes of a monstrously evil (though thankfully fictional) god. I don't see why anyone should care about this.