New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[muppet]

I don't understand what's hard to understand Christian people not wishing to facilitate sin under their roofs,especially not in return for money

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. 

[armaghniac]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

[muppet]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

But by the logic Tony is seeking, the reverse could also apply.

For example if Tony was religiously against parking violators, he could refuse them in preference to Gary Glitter. He thinks it is up to his beliefs and nothing to do with the law.

[easytiger95]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Haven't felt the need to reply to tony's trolley, which is obviously done for his own amusement. But the above is far more offensive. The conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, favoured by bigot,  it is the lie at the very centre of homophobia. A phenomenon that has persecuted countless good, moral people down through the years - that is dog whistle stuff armarmaghniac. At least the other eejit puts his name to his idiocy.

[muppet]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Haven't felt the need to reply to tony's trolley, which is obviously done for his own amusement. But the above is far more offensive. The conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia is not only a cheap rhetorical trick, favoured by bigot, it is the lie at the very centre of homophobia. A phenomenon that has persecuted countless good, moral people down through the years - that is dog whistle stuff armarmaghniac. At least the other eejit puts his name to his idiocy.

A more devious and manipulative Godwin's?

[armaghniac]

The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.

My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.

[heganboy]

LCohen sin is easily definable,they are actually written on tablets of stone.

"Actually", really? "Actually", well in that I'm sure that a few people have had the 10 commandments inscribed on tablets of stone in the last 6000 years. But if I write something on a tablet of stone (or more realistically find a mason that could do it for me) does that make it a sin?

[T Fearon]

Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.

[Maguire01]

But you really only seem concerned with one "sin". You don't seem to be too concerned with what single occupants get up to, what heterosexual unmarried couples get up to, that heterosexual couples may be using contraception under your roof... massive potential for "sinning".

This kind of thing is immature, but expected. By your "logic" if someone wants to ban Gary Glitter from training the U-12 team they must also logically prohibit people who have had parking tickets.

Nonsense. None of these "sins" are illegal. Unless you can show me where in Catholic teaching homosexuality is ranked a more serious sin than the others I mentioned...

[Maguire01]

The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.

My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.

There IS quivalence in all the examples I used. All relate to sexual activity involving consenting adults, all are perfectly legal, and all are "sins" in the eyes of the Church.

[easytiger95]

The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.

My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.

Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.

[armaghniac]

The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.

My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.

Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.

You made this connection, not I. I could have said Jack the Ripper, but Glitter happened to be in the news of late.

[screenexile]

Things written on tablets of stone are fixed for time immemorial.As I say there is no diminution of morality with the passage of time.What was wrong and sinful in the first century is still wrong and sinful in the 21st century.

Contraception then... it didn't exist in the first Century yet it is sinful now??

[easytiger95]

The usual playing of the man, a sign of an inability to refute the argument.

My contention was that in order to justify a course of action against one thing you do not necessarily have to justify that course of action against another thing, unless there is some equivalence in the examples used.

Not playing the man, playing your words. I'm not disputing your contention (though i don't agree with it, as I don't consider homosexuality to be a sin) what i'm disputing is your use of paedophillia as an example. As Muppet pointed out above, it as a more devious, manipulative version of Godwins, and its use by the religious hard right on both sides of the Atlantice to reinforce homophobia has been well documented over the past thirty years. And please, spare us your mock outrage - at least Fearon is completely transparent in his bigotry.

You made this connection, not I. I could have said Jack the Ripper, but Glitter happened to be in the news of late.

But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.

[armaghniac]

But you didn't say Jack the Ripper. You could have said it's like having a venture capitalist handle the church collection money. But you didn't. Very, very weak stuff Armaghniac. As I said before, at least Fearon owns up. And blaming the reader for making the connection after you wrote the statement is a trick as old as Nixon. Very weak.

I'd say that you are more familiar with Nixon's tricks than I.
You are  someone "who is not playing the man", and who then directly equates someone with a person who orders napalm dropped on people.