Are sins like homosexuality still condemned in the New Covenant of Christ?

[Udayana]

(my italics)

This and the other 'request' to have this board closed (how is that going by the way), reminds me of the Traveller women who used to come to our doors offering 'lucky' heather and then always and I do mean always, offering a 'curse' when the purchase was not concluded!
 

What happened to these Traveller women? I haven't seen one in years except when abroad, eg. Greece or Spain. That lucky heather used to work a treat

[Sebastian Toe]

What happened to these Traveller women? I haven't seen one in years except when abroad, eg. Greece or Spain. That lucky heather used to work a treat

We had one visit here a couple of years ago, same sales pitch, same polite thanks but no thanks, same curse on exit!

[Sassy]

Reply #360 shows you up as a liar in that respect.

post 360

Shows you are a liar.

You are missing the boat...

The fact we are discussing is one made by SPUD...
ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN NATURALLY PROCREATE DURING SEX.
Is that clear enough?
If you had only two men left in the world or only two women they could not exchange the bodily genetic materials to make a baby naturally. A man and a woman could. Infertility as nothing to do with the natural way of conceiving a child.
Because when fertile the only two people to exchange the genetic material during natural intercourse/sex is a male and female.
Hence the beginning and end of the point made by Spud. Glad you are back...

You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.

Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...

[Spud]

post 360

Shows you are a liar.


You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.

Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...

Hi Sass,

It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!

[jeremyp]

post 360

Shows you are a liar.


You got caught out again. This is what I wrote in reply to Horsethorn who was quoted in that post.

Liar, Liar your tongues on fire...

The bit in bold shows that I am correct and you are a liar.

[Brownie]

I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.

It is doubtful that anyone here does the above.  Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.

[Nearly Sane]

I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used  here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.

It is doubtful that anyone here does the above.  Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.

Mmm I agree the idea that people are lying is often questionable but I have seen too many posts where people have said 'I have done this' when they haven't to think that it is that easy. If you want to accept that for example Hope isn't lying, then you would have to accept that nothing they say is of any value in discussion, since truth is made worthless.

[Sassy]

Hi Sass,

It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!

Spud, Has someone hacked your account?

Marriage, can take place at any time during a womans' menstrual cycle.
There is NO argument because what I was talking about is what you stated about the only way procreation can take place naturally during sexual intercourse is with a man and a woman.

Please do not drag me into such crazy stupid thinking of when a woman can marry.

I am all for truth and I am not for adding or taking anything away from the bible.

[Sassy]

I hate the way the word, ''Liar'' is so frequently used here.
In order to tell a lie, someone has to really know what they are talking about and make a conscious decision to say something which they know to be untrue.

It is doubtful that anyone here does the above.  Some of us make mistakes. misinterpret stuff, etc, but not deliberately say something they know to be untrue.

Look at the posts then make the comment.
This time your white washing the coal cellar does not work. It is still the coal cellar however white you want to paint it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Look at the posts then make the comment.
This time your white washing the coal cellar does not work. It is still the coal cellar however white you want to paint it.

Why don't you look at your own posts?

You still owe an apology and a retraction for saying that I discriminate against Christians.

[floo]

Hi Sass,

It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!

Spud what a daft comment!

[Rhiannon]

Hi Sass,

It's an absurd argument, because by the same logic, a woman who is in the infertile stage of her period would not be able to be married. She would only be married when she was fertile!

Obviously all your arguments have made perfect sense however.

[Spud]

Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.

Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.

The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.

[Shaker]

Quite a lot of gay people do indeed have children by one means or another, so I really don't see what your point is supposed to be.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Spud has a point!! Yes, God says it is bad, all other points, arguments, are null and void, even bloody stupid.

Trouble is God did not say it was bad, a wee man thousands of years ago for reasons known only to himself, cleanliness, to protect his wee clan, his neighbour ( who he hated, probably coveted his latest model of camel, two humps rather than one ) was gay.

Gonnagle.

[Sebastian Toe]

Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.

Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.

The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.

Replace 'infertile' with 'unable to produce offspring solely by having sex with each other' and see how that pans out?

[jeremyp]

Apologies - post 428 is not very clever.

Jeremy's argument is that if an infertile heterosexual couple can qualify for marriage, then, since fertility is not required for marriage, a same-sex couple, who are also "infertile", can qualify for marriage.

The problem with this argument is that you cannot really call a homosexual couple 'infertile' because they could still individually be fertile.

No, it has nothing to do with fertility or not, it is whether the couple together can have children.  A heterosexual couple may not be able to have children for any number of reasons. In fact, if both are technically fertile they may still not be able to have children, for example, if one has a genetic defect that prevents the baby from being carried to term. We place no restrictions on such couples getting married (excepting incest of course). Therefore, the "gay couples can't have children" argument is equally false.

[Spud]

Quite a lot of gay people do indeed have children by one means or another, so I really don't see what your point is supposed to be.

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.

[Gordon]

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.

Says who?

[floo]

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.

What is wrong with having sex for pleasure between two consenting adults, gay or straight? There is NOTHING wrong with that at all, it is sad that you can't see it.

[Stranger]

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.

Why is "openness to producing children" the only moral justification for a sexual act?

On that basis, you have (yet again) excluded heterosexual couples who don't want, and never want, children, and who use contraception...

[Shaker]

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right?

Mental capacity, emotional maturity and informed consent, I would say.

Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose

Which would apply equally to heterosexual people who are infertile for one reason or another. A case in point being some old friends of mine, the female half of the couple having had a hysterectomy at an early age after years of what are technically known in medical speak as lady's problems down there. It hasn't stopped the couple having a sex life, yet you reckon that that sex life isn't justified.

I don't know for sure and don't claim it as a fact because nobody really knows the gay percentage of the population with any certainty, but given that gay people are outnumbered by heterosexuals by a very large margin I would suspect that there are considerably many more heterosexual couples who literally can't (or simply don't want to) have children than there are gay couples. Why is it then that it's gay couples who receive all the attention from the like of you, do you think?

Having freed ourselves pretty comprehensively of an inevitable link between sex and pregnancy, the purpose of sex is whatever you wish to make of it. For most people most of the time it's an exercise in intimacy. It's a binding thing - sex with no expectation of pregnancy was defined by Alex Comfort as the adult version of play, good and enjoyable for its own sake with no ulterior motive. Amongst people in enduring relationships, done skilfully it strengthens said relationships. Even if it's on a more transient basis, it still gives people pleasure. I don't have a problem with pleasure - do you?

Why are you such a slave to biology?

[Spud]

Why is "openness to producing children" the only moral justification for a sexual act?

On that basis, you have (yet again) excluded heterosexual couples who don't want, and never want, children, and who use contraception...

They might change their minds, though, so are, to an extent, open to the possibility.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ok. What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself. A gay couple cannot use the sexual function for its intended biological purpose, therefore sexual acts between them are not justified.

What rubbish.

So what about a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy?

[Shaker]

What rubbish.

So what about a heterosexual couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy?

See #446. I can confidently state that precisely zero offspring will result in such a situation. To quote Life of Brian, where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?