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

[Spud]

Mental capacity and informed consent, I would say.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.

Why are you such a slave to biology, do you think?

They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.

[Shaker]

They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.

You're dodging. You asserted (on no evidence whatever, needless to say): "What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself."

How open to producing children do you think a woman who has had a hysterectomy can be? Do you know what the term means?

If childbirth is an optional extra of sexual intercourse, what makes certain forms of sex "the right way"? Right according to what standard?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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?

I beg your pardon sir.

I will read more carefully in future.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

They are still using it the right way, whether or not it results in childbirth.

Using it the right way!

Are other forms of sexual activity e.g. an*l and or*l activities immoral according to you then? (It won't let my post go through if I don't use an asterisk.

For your benefit Spud I'm sure you can work out which letter replaces the asterisk, but if in doubt it is an "a"

If these activities are not OK for homosexual couples are they OK for heterosexual couples?

[Stranger]

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

They might have had irreversible surgery.

Can't you see how utterly silly your argument is?

[Shaker]

I beg your pardon sir.

I will read more carefully in future.

I wasn't telling you off

[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.

My sister never wanted kids so was sterilised to ensure she didn't. She has not regretted it.

[Udayana]

What would she have done before anesthetics and antibiotics or reliable contraceptives?

[floo]

What would she have done before anesthetics and antibiotics or reliable contraceptives?

Well how would I know, she was fortunately born at a time when she had a choice.

[Udayana]

Oh sorry, I thought you knew everything !

[Spud]

You're dodging. You asserted (on no evidence whatever, needless to say): "What justifies a sexual act, or makes it morally right? Openness to producing children, ie openness to the purpose of sex itself."

How open to producing children do you think a woman who has had a hysterectomy can be? Do you know what the term means?

If childbirth is an optional extra of sexual intercourse, what makes certain forms of sex "the right way"? Right according to what standard?

The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)

[Gordon]

The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)

Says who - where is your authority for this statement?

[Stranger]

The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)

The problem being that 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion.

[floo]

The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)

Sez you, but that is just your rather nasty opinion.

[Stranger]

The only 'right' form of sex is the form that would enable conception to take place, should both partners be fertile (ie ejaculation into the vagina)

PS to #462

You have also, in your laughable attempts to justify your homophobia, now condemned good Christian couples who have children and remain faithful but enjoy other sex acts.

[Hope]

The problem being that 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion.

Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.

[Shaker]

Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.

What's unpleasant about it and how is he/who is he discriminating against?

[Sassy]

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.

No you are NOT getting away with that...

You know perfectly well the point spud originally made.

That during sexual relations the only people who can successfully swap genetic material to conceive is a man and a woman.

Now you do look every bit as devious as they come. You know perfectly well his point. Is it worth it to pretend and lose any respect anyone had for your posts?

[Shaker]

No you are NOT getting away with that...

You know perfectly well the point spud originally made.

That during sexual relations the only people who can successfully swop genetic material to conceive is a man and a woman.

And this, according to Mr Potato Head, is the only "right" way of having sex (see #460), thus making everybody who has any other sort of sex - penetrative sex in infertile straight couples; gay couples - automatically wrong. This is a foul and noxious opinion.

Now you do look every bit as devious as they come. You know perfectly well his point. Is it worth it to pretend and lose any respect anyone had for your posts?

I couldn't give two shiny shits about "respect."

[Stranger]

Whereas your 'right' is nothing but your own, rather unpleasant and discriminatory, opinion, SKoS.

While I am happy to accept that my (actually, anybody's) concept of 'right', in the moral sense, is (ultimately) an opinion, I'm interested to know what part of what I regard as 'right' you are referring to, who I'm discriminating against, and why you regard it as unpleasant?

[Sassy]

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.

Eat tickler...people pleaser....


13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Explain these two verses from Genesis 19. I and other believers need to hear what your type of truth really is...

[Sassy]

Says who - where is your authority for this statement?

How else does a man and woman swap the necessary genetic material without aids or science naturally?

Don't be so facetious and deliberately stupid.  It has been done that way for thousands of years well before IVF etc.
What more authority and evidence can you get than that?

Sit down Gordon before you fall down under the weight of your own silliness...

[Sassy]

Sez you, but that is just your rather nasty opinion.

So you didn't have your children by the means of his nasty opinion or is that the fact he was stating of a penis and vagina being only natural method to conceive?

You look even more silly than ever before Floo. I guess you just cannot help yourself. Read the thread replies.

[Shaker]

So you didn't have your children by the means of his nasty opinion or is that the fact he was stating of a penis and vagina being only natural method to conceive?

You look even more silly than ever before Floo. I guess you just cannot help yourself. Read the thread replies.

You should take your own advice with regard to reading the thread.

Nobody is disputing the means by which conception occurs.

What is being challenged is the opinion of King Edward of Maris Piper that the only legitimate, permissible form of sexual intercourse is that in which conception is possible and can result in offspring.

[Sassy]

PS to #462

You have also, in your laughable attempts to justify your homophobia, now condemned good Christian couples who have children and remain faithful but enjoy other sex acts.

Nah! Your wrong and inexcusable twisting is what is wrong.


What has homophobia to do with a man and woman genetically producing a baby? Are you saying because a man and a woman can produce a baby naturally through genetic swapping of necessary material that being heterosexual is not normal?

You are making a rod for your own back. You see you are not listening to the purpose of Spud explaining.

Spud was asked to provide evidence that Heterosexuality is the natural way not about the right and wrongs. But actual evidence for it being the natural way of things. He provided evidence an evidence which is clear and concise which would prove that natural way. A man and a woman are the ONLY natural way of being able to swap the genetic materials during sexual intercourse to procreate.

That is the beginning and end of the matter. Unless anyone can show that is not the case and the natural evidence that man and woman are suppose to be together then please do.
The obvious answer is that without science that the natural course of things would cease to be if all men went with men and all women went with women. No babies...

God wanted to populate the world. Hence he created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

But we know now we have populated we do have an Adam and Steve somewhere in the world. Actually we probably have many....