The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[The Iceman]

Thanks Ian.

But....

On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.

But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.

It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.

Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.

Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too  ).

The Church has every right to preach. The Church has every right to provide instructions, guidance and teaching to it's members.

Your use of words is artful to say the least Muppet. An expression of love.... Frank Kameny who received a standing ovation at the White House for his work for Gay Rights admitted to having over 7000 different sexual partners - all men. Thats a lot of love

[J70]

I'm not trying to kid anyone - I mean what I say. I have detest nor hatred for any person. I detest and hate sin. Adultery, domestic violence, sodomy.... and lots more.

I would argue that your intolerance is a bigger sin, but there you go.

Also, apparently the word 'sodomy' didn't appear in any original Jewish or Christian texts. Your deliberate and persistent use of the word, in place of gay sex, allows other meanings to be derived from the word. For example sodomy also has been used to describe sex with an animal and the Sodomites in the Bible were also believed to have been pedophiles.

Sorry Iceman

You do know Sodomy refers to Oral sex too? Where does sodomy fit in between married hetro couples??
Even under ur definition of sodomy, which I'm presuming is anal sex, what do u say about a heterosexual couple who have anal sex?

Wrong from what standpoint Mayo4Sam? I've been told that religion shouldn't be part of the conversation. So I presented the scientific/biological dangers of sodomy. I challenged the other side of the discussion to address it but they have not.  It has been discussed that Science cannot prove either way whether someone is conceived/born gay or murture has a bigger part to play. Yet most people are adamant gay people are born that way. Homosexuality was listed as a psychological disorder until the end of the last century but you'll find no scientific evidence as to why it was removed. Tell me when has the scientific community ever "bent over" to a lobby?

From a religious/catholic teaching perspective if you are genuinely interested the teaching is the same as it's always been. Sex is for procreation - It must be open to life. It must be faithful - between a husband and wife. It must be consensual - it cannot be forced upon one party or the other.

So where do oral sex and hand jobs and all the rest fall in the catholic good sex/bad sex divide?

what does it matter J70 if you aren't Catholic?

Well, given that sodomy as a sin and non-procreative sexual activity appears to be one of your personal arguments against homosexuality, I think its germane to the discussion.

Part of debate and discussion is looking at inconsistencies and logical flaws.

So are blowjobs and handjobs ok?

ask your priest
and I didnt say non-procreative sex was wrong  I said the church teaches that sex should be open to life. contraception is not open to life and unless you have some intelligent swimmers up the ass or anywhere else isn't either.

Ok, that's clear. Blowjobs, hand jobs, heterosexual sodomy etc are don't meet church teachings because the sperm don't end up where they are supposed to.

Which means, presumably,  that if one were to save or retrieve said sperm and relocate them to the vagina, then it's ok. So anal sex, with a condom, is doubly offensive,  but save the sperm from the condom and place them in the vagina, and you've taken the sin off it?

[muppet]

Thanks Ian.

But....

On one hand you deny homosexuals were persecuted by the church. On the other hand you claim the Church has been preaching sodomy is a filthy sin for 2,000 years.

But then on one hand you suggest homosexuality is a psychological disorder, while on the other you insist it is a choice.

It's a sin. It's always been a sin. It always will be a sin. You call it persecution, The Church treats it the same as all sin. The man with the mistress, the woman abusing her kids, the muppet spreading lies - the Church hates all sin. The Church loves all sinners and welcomes them back with open arms to seek God.
'
We all have choices. We can act out on our instincts or thoughts or whatever they are. We can cut off our dicks and become "women" or decide vagina's are not built for dicks and try arseholes instead, or 'black up' and be the president of the NCAAP or whatever you want to do. All choices. All completely normal in your world...completely alien in mine. And thats fine with me.

Who said it is a sin? I will ignore the other irrelevent comments as they are not about this topic.

Preaching that homosexual expressions of love is a 'sin' is persecution, no matter how you look at it. You can't have it both ways (presumably that would be a sin too  ).

The Church has every right to preach. The Church has every right to provide instructions, guidance and teaching to it's members.

Your use of words is artful to say the least Muppet. An expression of love.... Frank Kameny who received a standing ovation at the White House for his work for Gay Rights admitted to having over 7000 different sexual partners - all men. Thats a lot of love

No one said it didn't. It doesn't, however, have every right to persecute people that it sees as different.

As for Frank Kameny, so what?

The basis of this persecution seems to be is your insistence that a) it is a sin, and b) that sin must be stopped even if it means imposing YOUR will on others.

Here is the real world.

We are a tiny dot, on a minuscule planet, in a really small system, travelling around a sun, which is small compared to the hundreds of millions of other stars in the Milky Way, which of course is just one of hundreds of millions of galaxies, which if course is the limit of our knowledge of the universe, if indeed there is only one universe. But you reckon that the being that created all of this is worried that you might participate in sodomy and is holding out, fingers crossed that you won't?

[armaghniac]

marriage devaluation coming near you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/

[muppet]

marriage devaluation coming near you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/

How will it devalue your marriage?

[J70]

marriage devaluation coming near you.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-can-marry-in-all-50-states/

Excellent news!

[Oraisteach]

Just thinking.  Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?

[muppet]

Just thinking.  Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?

True.

My money is on the NRA marrying the Westboro Baptist Church.

[Eamonnca1]

Just thinking.  Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?

I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.

[armaghniac]

Just thinking.  Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?

I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.

The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".

[J70]

[muppet]

Just thinking.  Since the US Supreme Court ruled earlier that corporations are people, does that mean that gay corporations can marry now?

I heard somewhere that the court never actually made such a ruling, it was just some staffer who made a clerical error when recording what was said.

The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".

You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.

[armaghniac]

The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".

You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.

Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[muppet]

The concept of corporations "marrying" makes as much sense as two people of the same sex "marrying".

You are barely keeping a lid on it. We can see it boiling away inside you.

Perhaps a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

In my world the pot and the kettle can marry.

Yours? 

[Oraisteach]

I was joking, of course, Armaghniac. Just trying to point out the absurdity of treating corporations as people, and, no, the concept of corporations marrying is not an equivalency of people marrying.  Though, I suppose, conglomerates are forever merging.   Still, delighted at the Supreme Court's advancing civil rights.  Pity, in light of the S Carolina shooting, that they can't do something about our lax gun laws.