I am not "tolerant" of any belief which is contrary to what I hold true. I will hear peopl out, but will not accept their belief or encourage them in it, and I will speak out against what I believe to be wrong, and if it offends some people, then so be it. I am not one for appeasment, never have been and never will be. Will I force my beliefs down people's throats, no, I will only say/write what God places on my heart to do so.[b said:
Is Banning Gay Marriage Christian?
- Thread starter MichaelLogos
- Start date
Jango
New Member
I do. And if you're a US citizen, so should you.[b said:
Although I am glad you use Bible verses in your argument, you fail to realize that there are verses in the New Testament commenting on it.[b said:
[b said:
About breaking the law. Britain was being very cruel and dictorial to us, so it was a righteous war. ( Not like a Jihad, but a war that is right. )
Ermm...well..actually..homosexuality is most likely not a choice..as you seem so sure of at the moment.. Almost all homosexuals are, in fact, born that way, and there definitely is a genetic factor influencing that. Not entirely genetic, as environment has to do with it as well. Think of it this way...some people are born with greater probabilities of becoming gay...but not all 'succumb' to their dormant desires, due to their environment. And why think that is? It's becuase that environment that they are forced to live in has enormous animosity towards homosexuals, and so of course he or she will try to repress his or her sexual urges towards those of the same sex. You say that homosexuality is a choice..how can you even begin to think that? Please, think about this. Why would someone make a concious decision to go entirely against the will of society, immediately and perpetually outcasting him or herself from it in the process, and inflicting upon him or herself the antagonization of gay haters and homophobics and the like. The logic just isn't there. True, it is not impossible for homosexuality to be a 'choice,' say, becuase of a failed relationship that ended particularly badly, but such cases are very, very rare. But you speak of it as though it is a fact...which seriously worries me. If nothing else has tickled your whistle...how bout the fact that over 450 species of animals have been discovered with homosexuality...some species are even exlusively so...and I'm not talking extremely low and primitive creatures either.. None of these animals possess the enormous cognitive ability to 'choose' something as drastic as altering their sexual orientation. There have always been homosexuals, and there always will be...becuase there is somethine very NATURAL to being that way. Homosexual's brainwave patterns are different, as are their brain structures. Scientists can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by altering a single aspect of its DNA. Homosexuality is NOT a choice, and if we are all created in god's image, it is nonsensical and 'immoral' to discriminate on those grounds. I think you should do some more research before making such rash assumptions...[b said:
And anyway, even if homosexuals are that way by choice--that's their perogative! No government, no religion, no one should be able to decide whom a person can and cannot love. These people should not be persecuted for having affection for someone, even if it does go against what the bible says. That's like forcing someone to become a christian. Besides, it's completely unfair that married couples get benefits which civil union 'applicants' do not...this is America after all.. Yes, those benefits are given due to the pro-creational nature of marriage..but is that really all marriage is--citizen factories? Of course not...and anyway, sterile couples are still able to marry and still are given the benefits, so that arguement is moot. It is ludicrous to base governmental functions on such an obsolete social paradigm. When someone chooses a life partner, their love should not be confined by one arbitrary belief system. Yes, the definition of the word ‘marriage’ has traditionally symbolized the loving bond between a man and a woman, but then only 100 years ago it meant the loving bond between a man and a woman of the same race. Just because the meaning of the word is changing doesn’t mean that anyone’s affection is going to be lessened. On the contrary; this new change in our society can only bring about more happy faces. Is that really such a bad thing?
Agh..enough for now..
Kidan
Moderator
not just traditionally but universally that marriage is between a man and a woman.
As well, all those wonderful studies that concluded that homosexuals was genetic, was performed by a biased researcher, who doctored the results.
Sexual "preference" is always a choice. Whether you choose to have sex with a dog, a member of the same sex or the way it's actually designed.
as well you are right, the government shouldn't tell them they can't do what they wish, but at the same time, we should not destroy an ages old tradition just because some people wish to break it. but the government does have the ability to protect the institution of marriage for man/woman because that particular union can produce children. And it's not for it to be a 'citizen factory' but rather it's to protect the children.
The to top it all off, America is a rule by majority. If the majority of Americans wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman, we should not bow to a minority interest and cater to them in that way.
now your example of animals, I used to have a dog. It was an inside dog, and we never mated it. it had sex with the couch. was that a choice, genetic or just frustration?
As well, all those wonderful studies that concluded that homosexuals was genetic, was performed by a biased researcher, who doctored the results.
Sexual "preference" is always a choice. Whether you choose to have sex with a dog, a member of the same sex or the way it's actually designed.
as well you are right, the government shouldn't tell them they can't do what they wish, but at the same time, we should not destroy an ages old tradition just because some people wish to break it. but the government does have the ability to protect the institution of marriage for man/woman because that particular union can produce children. And it's not for it to be a 'citizen factory' but rather it's to protect the children.
The to top it all off, America is a rule by majority. If the majority of Americans wish to define marriage as between a man and a woman, we should not bow to a minority interest and cater to them in that way.
now your example of animals, I used to have a dog. It was an inside dog, and we never mated it. it had sex with the couch. was that a choice, genetic or just frustration?
Oh come on...don't be such a textbook case of belief preservation and confirmation bias. Think about what you're saying...biased scientists doctoring the results of their experiments? Scientists aren't some bunch of malicious individuals out to get christians you know... Besides, the scientific community would never allow something like that to happen, especially not on a large scale as you are implying. Like it or not, believe it or not, homosexuality is largely not a choice. It's just something you're going to have to accept... Just becuase something goes against everything you've been brought up to believe doesn't mean it's wrong. Sure, you can go ahead and neglect it, but don't say that it's some sort of conspiracy...that's crazy talk. Sexual 'preference' is not necessarily a choice either though...most times it is caused by mental disorders.. Of course, that does not make pedophilia and such things morally right..I'm just saying.. But anyway..I wasn't talking about preference...don't misconstrue my meaning.[b said:
You speak of 'tradition'...but really...does that matter? Of course there have never been legal homosexual marriages before now...when else have civil liberties and freedom been greater in the world? So what if marriage has meant the same thing for hundreds of years...that fact shouldn't be significant in the least. Ok, I can see why you would want to protect the 'sanctity of marriage' for the sake of those passed away...but then...nearly half all marriages end in divorce as is..and turning marriage into a political and cultural war zone certainly isn't helping to 'sanctify' anything.
Actually, the majority doesn't necessarily agree with you...it's about 50/50 I think.. But even if it does, 100 years ago most people thought afraican americans were lesser life forms and inherently evil...but that didn't make it right, now did it? 100 years from now, I'm fairly sure our children will be saying the same things about how we treat homosexuals today. Think about that.
I already went through the whole pro-creation arguement...it just doesn't add up. Yes, homosexual couples cannot have children, but then neither can sterile couples, and yet they can marry. Plus, there are thousands of children who are in need of adoption that never get it...what of them? You speak of 'protecting the children'...is it really better for them to be without heterosexual parents than with homosexual parents? I should hope not...that's a depressing mentallity.. If you're worried about children of homosexuals becoming homosexual themselves, take comfort in the fact that only about 1 in 10 children of homosexuals become homosexuals. But really...that shouldn't matter. Even if homosexual parents turned out homosexual children most of the time...it's not our place to decide how they raise their children, nor is it our place to decide how the children turn out. Not in this instance anyway.
As for your couch loving dog...I fail to see a feasible point, but your dog was most likely just 'humping' the couch...which is the dog equivalent to masterbation...
Kidan
Moderator
http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000024.asp
What i'm referring to is the 1995 study led by Dr. Hamer. In which he claimed that a 6 year study of homosexuals identified a genetic component. But in 1999 Dr. George Rice ran finished another study, with an even larger study group, and was unable to replicate Hamer's work. Hamer is the one that was performing belief comfirmation bias. He, as a homosexual, wanted his lifestyle choice to be genetic, so that's what he reported.
It seems to me, that you are the one that does not want homosexuality to be a choice as much as I believe it to be a choice. Homosexuality, is no different than any other form of sexual deviance, whether its pedophilia, bestiality or incest.
on the majority support, here's a qoute from freerepublic.com
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">A new Time/CNN poll found that support for gay marriage is still very low. When asked "Do you think marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law?", 60% said NO, while only 33% said YES.
This is a stronger disapproval of gay marriage than shown by the most recent Gallup Poll which showed American adults disapproving it by 55%-39% - though even this was by a convincing margin.
Another recent poll worth considering is the Fox News Poll that showed that, by a margin of 44%-40%, American voters DISAPPROVED of the recent US Supreme Court decision that invalidated the Texas sodomy law. (And don't forget that Quinnipiac University poll that found that Americans regard homosexual behavior as morally wrong by a margin of 58%-31)
[/QUOTE]
onto the children. I'm saying that the ideal environment for children is in a heterosexual married home. and that is why heterosexual marriage should be protected. Yet still, think of this, you are claiming that homosexuality is genetic, but then you come here and claim that only about 1 in 10 children of homosexuals turn out to be homosexual. Which if you think about, is way lower for a genetic trait (it should be 1 in 4 at a minimum, and that's if homosexuality would be a recessive trait, and both partners had the recessive gene(s)).
No it's not my place to teach homosexuals how to raise their children, but at the same time, if the government recognizes homosexual marriages, that means homosexuality will be taught as a valid lifestyle choice in our public schools, which will interfere with me raising MY child.
A hundred years from now, if homosexual marriages are allowed, our children could be pointing at the point in time, when we really started screwing them up.
my feasible point of the dog, is that animals are just that animals. they don't control their sexual urges, they just do their business. and if there's not a female around, they'll go and do it to whatever's around, whether thats another male, a human's legs or the couch.
What i'm referring to is the 1995 study led by Dr. Hamer. In which he claimed that a 6 year study of homosexuals identified a genetic component. But in 1999 Dr. George Rice ran finished another study, with an even larger study group, and was unable to replicate Hamer's work. Hamer is the one that was performing belief comfirmation bias. He, as a homosexual, wanted his lifestyle choice to be genetic, so that's what he reported.
It seems to me, that you are the one that does not want homosexuality to be a choice as much as I believe it to be a choice. Homosexuality, is no different than any other form of sexual deviance, whether its pedophilia, bestiality or incest.
on the majority support, here's a qoute from freerepublic.com
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">A new Time/CNN poll found that support for gay marriage is still very low. When asked "Do you think marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law?", 60% said NO, while only 33% said YES.
This is a stronger disapproval of gay marriage than shown by the most recent Gallup Poll which showed American adults disapproving it by 55%-39% - though even this was by a convincing margin.
Another recent poll worth considering is the Fox News Poll that showed that, by a margin of 44%-40%, American voters DISAPPROVED of the recent US Supreme Court decision that invalidated the Texas sodomy law. (And don't forget that Quinnipiac University poll that found that Americans regard homosexual behavior as morally wrong by a margin of 58%-31)
[/QUOTE]
onto the children. I'm saying that the ideal environment for children is in a heterosexual married home. and that is why heterosexual marriage should be protected. Yet still, think of this, you are claiming that homosexuality is genetic, but then you come here and claim that only about 1 in 10 children of homosexuals turn out to be homosexual. Which if you think about, is way lower for a genetic trait (it should be 1 in 4 at a minimum, and that's if homosexuality would be a recessive trait, and both partners had the recessive gene(s)).
No it's not my place to teach homosexuals how to raise their children, but at the same time, if the government recognizes homosexual marriages, that means homosexuality will be taught as a valid lifestyle choice in our public schools, which will interfere with me raising MY child.
A hundred years from now, if homosexual marriages are allowed, our children could be pointing at the point in time, when we really started screwing them up.
my feasible point of the dog, is that animals are just that animals. they don't control their sexual urges, they just do their business. and if there's not a female around, they'll go and do it to whatever's around, whether thats another male, a human's legs or the couch.
Jango
New Member
New plan, nobody have children.[b said:
CCGR
Member
what about bi-sexuals? that's clearly a choice
Jango
New Member
Aren't Bi-sexuals the same as homosexuals? Or are those the people that "change" their gender?
CCGR
Member
bi-sexuals have sex with males or females.
Jango
New Member
Oh..I see. Well, it's half right, I guess.
A mixed bag of comments...
1. Kidan, I went to a fair amount of trouble to research a rather dry point of law from someone elses country! Could you answer me whether you think my limited study bore any fruit or not?
2. Jango, In the book Shogun by James Clavell, the english pilot John Blackthorne excuses Hollands revolt and overthrow of the Spanish installed government to Daimyo Toranaga by saying that the one circumstance that forgave rebellion was "If you won". Thanks to the help of an enemy proclaimed (France, no less) and despite having your rear ends booted in every major land battle - EXCEPT the one that took place after the signing of the armistice - you won. Therefore the rebellion becomes instead a war of independence. Those are the bald facts of the matter, but don't ever pretend that there was some moral or legal justification for what was, after all, merely a power grab.
1. Kidan, I went to a fair amount of trouble to research a rather dry point of law from someone elses country! Could you answer me whether you think my limited study bore any fruit or not?
2. Jango, In the book Shogun by James Clavell, the english pilot John Blackthorne excuses Hollands revolt and overthrow of the Spanish installed government to Daimyo Toranaga by saying that the one circumstance that forgave rebellion was "If you won". Thanks to the help of an enemy proclaimed (France, no less) and despite having your rear ends booted in every major land battle - EXCEPT the one that took place after the signing of the armistice - you won. Therefore the rebellion becomes instead a war of independence. Those are the bald facts of the matter, but don't ever pretend that there was some moral or legal justification for what was, after all, merely a power grab.
[b said:
onto the children. I'm saying that the ideal environment for children is in a heterosexual married home. and that is why heterosexual marriage should be protected. Yet still, think of this, you are claiming that homosexuality is genetic, but then you come here and claim that only about 1 in 10 children of homosexuals turn out to be homosexual. Which if you think about, is way lower for a genetic trait (it should be 1 in 4 at a minimum, and that's if homosexuality would be a recessive trait, and both partners had the recessive gene(s)).
No it's not my place to teach homosexuals how to raise their children, but at the same time, if the government recognizes homosexual marriages, that means homosexuality will be taught as a valid lifestyle choice in our public schools, which will interfere with me raising MY child.
A hundred years from now, if homosexual marriages are allowed, our children could be pointing at the point in time, when we really started screwing them up.
my feasible point of the dog, is that animals are just that animals. they don't control their sexual urges, they just do their business. and if there's not a female around, they'll go and do it to whatever's around, whether thats another male, a human's legs or the couch.[/QUOTE]
Alrighty then...
First of all, you cannot retort a point that I made with a single peice of evidence--especially not on such a controversial topic as this. Of course there are going to be scientific studies that go against what I'm saying..I'm saying that the scientific community in general accepts the the notion of homosexuality being at least in part genetic. You cannot throw one study at me and expect me to be immediately swayed...I've done extensive research on the topic..and there's more to support my side than yours. Go ahead and reseach yourself if you don't believe me...but it'll be a waste of time. The problem with doing that nowadays is that you have to sift through a whole lot of bile that has been precipitated by this ridiculous fiasco...but the substance is out there, I assure you. It kind of annoys me that you seem to think that I'm the one making up things here...when all I've said has been well rooted on a berock platform of logic, whereas you seem to think that genetic scientists twist their mostaches and laugh maliciously as they doctor up their own results... You still say that homosexuality is a choice...well...ok, but please back up what you're saying. As is, your arguement it basically nonexistant..
Onto the children. Ok, you say that the ideal environment for children is in a heterosexually married home--based on what? Give me something I can grab onto...this seems to be your main point, and it's pretty nebulous at the moment. As for my 1 in 10 thing..I'm sorry to confuse you--I meant 1 in 10 children RAISED by homosexuals (you tactfully chose not to respond to my point about adoption by the way...) turn out homosexual...which...is a big boost to my genetic arguement actually, since one's parents have a strong influence on how you turn out in the end. And anyway, a person's peers have argueably the most influence on how that person turns out...and as I said before, there is much animosity against homosexuals in society. I'll ask you all again..why on earth would someone make the concious decision to change his or her sexual orientation? If it is a choice...then all homosexuals are fools...since by acting thusly they are outcasting themselves from everything they previously enjoyed. And homosexuals are not stupid...they are just as capable as heterosexuals. In fact, it has been my experience that homosexuals are genrally more kindly than heterosexuals...going directly against your idea of them being inherently evil and immoral... Have you ever gotten to know a gay person?
You say that it's not your place to say how a person raises their children...but then you go on to say that it is... That's just plain sublimation.. And anyway...if your child 'chooses' to become a homosexual...who are you to stop them? Yes, you are their parent...but that does not mean you can change their sexual orientation. Yes, you can give them extensive therapy and force them to repress their urges, but from then on they would be living a half life...always in fear of expressing their true self..for fear of being shunned by society. Would you really want to do that to your own kin? And really...if schools were to teach that homosexuality was a valid lifestyle choice--which it definitely is--it's not like their going to cram it down their students' throats and force them all to become homosexuals. There isn't going to be any homosexual propoganda or subliminal messages. Homosexual marriages aren't going to 'screw up' any children either...studies show that children raised by homosexual parents grown up to become just as successful and well-rounded as any other child.
As for the majority thing, take a look here: http://www.usatoday.com/news....ues.htm Of course, we could just keep on throwing polls at each other for inffinite amounts of time...becuase polls are unreliable. They can be easily manipulated by the way they are phrased and by giving the polls to certain groups of people. My point with giving you this particular page is to show you the trend of people's mind sets, which actually IS significant. As you can see, people are over time accepting homosexuals..and I don't see any reason for that trend to deviate in the least. This is what I mean by saying that in 100 years we will look upon today as we look upon how we treated the japanese during WWII...we won't be looking back and saying how we started 'screwing up' our children... If you really believe that, please back it up...
You feasible point of the dog is still fundamentally flawed becuase a dog humping something is the same as a human masterbating...it means nothing. What does mean something is what that dog is fantasizing about while he's doing it...but we'll never know, now will we?
CCGR--your point on being bisexual is a good one...I have thought about that much. I personally don't believe that there are any 'true' bisexuals...more like homosexuals who don't want to go out and admit they are homosexuals..maybe subconciously..maybe they just want 'the best of both worlds'...maybe they're just players and want as much sex as possible. There's very little applicable data on the nature of bisexualism..so it's hard to say with certainty how the toothpicks fall. But personally, I do not believe that it is a choice--not entirely anyway. I believe that in order to become a bisexual you must also have those aspects that predispose homosexuality...and then pair them with outside influences. But anyway, I'd rather not get into that...it's a difficult topic for us to argue.
Kidan
Moderator
Sorry Eon, here's my thoughts.[b said:
If Marriage was solely a Christian thing, then it would in effect fail the lemon test as described by the courts.
But it's not solely Christian. Marriage being between male/femail is a universally human institution, even in those cultures where/when homosexuality was accepted as a norm (I'm talking Roman here btw). We're not imposing Christian Religious Law (ie. we're not saying hey this is how it is because the Bible says so) we're trying to protect a ages-old family tradition, that crosses cultural boundaries.
Kidan
Moderator
Mr Bill
No. If you want to PROVE that behaviour is decided by genetics, you have to PROVE the gene(s) exists. Burden of proof is on those who believe homosexuality is genetic. If they can't prove it, then its chosen behaviour. As well, the substance you're reporting, is only if you look at CNN, which covered the Hamer story numerous times, yet made only 1 report of the study disproving it. You are buying into a liberal bias that the media facilitates.
Now, my child will not be homosexual. I can tell you that now. For I will raise my child right. He will know that homosexual behaviour is deviant behaviour and not acceptable. As well, just telling children that homosexual lifestyle is an appropriate lifestyle (which is akin to saying being alchoholic is an appropriate lifestyle) is homosexual proproganda.
Now, how can I say that a heterosexual home with two parents is best? Because they've studied it. Here's a quote from a school district's web site (http://sh012.k12.sd.us/Reading/Parents.htm)
Also I fail to see anything in your post about adoption.
Yes I have gotten to know a gay person and I know a couple of them. And yes they know my opinion about their lifestyle, but we are still friends. Yet just because they may be nice, does not mean that they aren't sinning. Often sin hurts noone, that doesnt stop it from being sin though. As well, the instances of domestic abuse between homosexual partners is higher than between heterosexual partners. So your theory doesn't hold true. Sexual orientation does not have any bearing on how nice you are.
No, I said that I can't tell homosexuals how to raise thier children, but that their lifestyle should not be treated as a respectable alternative in the school system, where such teachings would interfere with me raising mine.
As you yourself noted, the polls could be twisted to just give the data. If the first poll down in 87 (or whenever) was taken in the middle of Alabama, and the last poll was taken in San Fransisco, of course that shift in cultural acceptance would show. If you don't beleive the polls, then trending data based on polls is out as well. The reason I listed a poll, is because you questioned my statement about a majority not supporting gay marriages, so I was telling you where I got my information. You information is still within the margin of error on whether the majority would approve/disapprove of gay marriages (though the difference between approval/disapproval is much greater iin the gallup poll I listed.)
No. If you want to PROVE that behaviour is decided by genetics, you have to PROVE the gene(s) exists. Burden of proof is on those who believe homosexuality is genetic. If they can't prove it, then its chosen behaviour. As well, the substance you're reporting, is only if you look at CNN, which covered the Hamer story numerous times, yet made only 1 report of the study disproving it. You are buying into a liberal bias that the media facilitates.
Now, my child will not be homosexual. I can tell you that now. For I will raise my child right. He will know that homosexual behaviour is deviant behaviour and not acceptable. As well, just telling children that homosexual lifestyle is an appropriate lifestyle (which is akin to saying being alchoholic is an appropriate lifestyle) is homosexual proproganda.
Now, how can I say that a heterosexual home with two parents is best? Because they've studied it. Here's a quote from a school district's web site (http://sh012.k12.sd.us/Reading/Parents.htm)
So let's see your studies about children raised by homosexuals. Because I have never seen such a study, nor heard about it, and if such a thing had been produced, it would have made the media.[b said:
Also I fail to see anything in your post about adoption.
Yes I have gotten to know a gay person and I know a couple of them. And yes they know my opinion about their lifestyle, but we are still friends. Yet just because they may be nice, does not mean that they aren't sinning. Often sin hurts noone, that doesnt stop it from being sin though. As well, the instances of domestic abuse between homosexual partners is higher than between heterosexual partners. So your theory doesn't hold true. Sexual orientation does not have any bearing on how nice you are.
No, I said that I can't tell homosexuals how to raise thier children, but that their lifestyle should not be treated as a respectable alternative in the school system, where such teachings would interfere with me raising mine.
As you yourself noted, the polls could be twisted to just give the data. If the first poll down in 87 (or whenever) was taken in the middle of Alabama, and the last poll was taken in San Fransisco, of course that shift in cultural acceptance would show. If you don't beleive the polls, then trending data based on polls is out as well. The reason I listed a poll, is because you questioned my statement about a majority not supporting gay marriages, so I was telling you where I got my information. You information is still within the margin of error on whether the majority would approve/disapprove of gay marriages (though the difference between approval/disapproval is much greater iin the gallup poll I listed.)
minotesvardet
New Member
The issue here can be viewed a number of ways, but I would request that we view it as such--the issue is not whether a homosexual couple can love each other or not. It is not whether they can love children. It is not whether they can raise capable children.
The true issue is that homosexuality is Biblically wrong. God made men and women for each other, not men for men and women for women.
Pertaining to "homosexual tendencies"--it's called "lust." It isn't any different than heterosexual lust--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it. But we as Christians are called to turn away from acts of immorality--lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.
~Jordyn
The true issue is that homosexuality is Biblically wrong. God made men and women for each other, not men for men and women for women.
Pertaining to "homosexual tendencies"--it's called "lust." It isn't any different than heterosexual lust--it's natural, it happens, and it's sin if we indulge in it. But we as Christians are called to turn away from acts of immorality--lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.
~Jordyn
minotesvardet
New Member
Timor, if I may point something out.
Every one of your examples was from the Old Testament Law. We are no longer under the Old Testament Law, or the Law of Moses. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses with His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.
(By the way though, on a slightly sarcastic note as a teenage girl, I would strongly recommend for your own wellbeing that you do stay away from girls while they have their period--PMS can be lethal!!)
~Jordyn
Every one of your examples was from the Old Testament Law. We are no longer under the Old Testament Law, or the Law of Moses. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses with His finished work on the Cross of Calvary.
(By the way though, on a slightly sarcastic note as a teenage girl, I would strongly recommend for your own wellbeing that you do stay away from girls while they have their period--PMS can be lethal!!)
~Jordyn