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

[Sassy]

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

In the the 1950's was sodomy illegal?
Tell me wasn't having sex with dead bodies also illegal?
Is having sex with Children illegal?

What changed?  I am asking you to tell me what changed and why sex with dead bodies or children are still illegal?

What changed is the way people now looked at these things?  Do you believe the law should change allowing sex with dead bodes and children?
No! Why is that? Why do we believe we can change one and not another. There are people who believe the latter still against the law to be what they want. Does the minority make them right. Is it really natural or nature to want sex with dead bodies and even worst Children.

Whilst I do not believe that homosexuality harms anyone. I do believe the other two which still illegal to be really really sick.

So don't preach about people believing one type of sex to be wrong.
The truth is we all believe some type of sex to be wrong. Furthermore, having never had homosexual sex myself, neither you, how do we know exactly what harm it may or may not do? But we all take risks even with heterosexual sex.
Because there are things like STD's which harm people.

He was giving the evidence which would make heterosexual sexual relations the natural way.
He did that... whether he disagrees or agrees with others about what is right for him and others is called freedom to choose.
Would you choose to have sex with another man? We both know you are married and heterosexual. How can you speak against Spud when you choose to refrain from homosexual intercourse yourself.

Keep to the point Spud made... Providing evidence that heterosexual sex is NATURES true way and order of things.
But it doesn't mean man has to stick to that or will stick to that we history has shown.

We all agree some intercourse is not and never can be right.. Intercourse with dead bodies etc.

[Sassy]

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.

No Shaker,

You are not getting away with it. See last post before this.
You either challenge the point Spud makes or accept the fact that it is the only evidence of Nature that shows heterosexual intercourse is the natural way of Nature because it produces off-spring.
The argument is not whether other forms of intercourse exist but evidence that the way of NATURE is for a man and a woman to have intercourse.

What is more to the point has all homosexual men had intercourse with a woman? Same for the woman and a man?
Did they find it enjoyable if they did? Maybe sex is /can be down to choice and experience.
Some men and women like both. But we know that the evidence that Spud was asked to produce he did.

Now either prove Nature is wrong or shut up!

[Shaker]

In the the 1950's was sodomy illegal?

Yes. We have seen that that was a silly and unjust law and scrapped it.

Tell me wasn't having sex with dead bodies also illegal?

Yes.

Is having sex with Children illegal?

Yes, for very good reasons.

What changed?  I am asking you to tell me what changed and why sex with dead bodies or children are still illegal?

Having sex with dead bodies is considered an outrage to public decency as well as indicative of a very serious psychological abnormality, and children lack mental competence and can't give informed consent to sexual activity.

Two people of the same sex and above the age of consent however do have mental competence and can give informed consent to sexual behaviour (other things being equal, i.e. assuming they're not suffering from some form of mental disability) exactly the same as two people of opposite sexes can - there's exact parity between the two groups, therefore it was recognised to be unjust to make one form of sexual behaviour legal and the other illegal, and so the law was changed.

What changed is the way people now looked at these things?  Do you believe the law should change allowing sex with dead bodes and children?
No! Why is that? Why do we believe we can change one and not another.

Because some people understand the concept of sexual behaviour between equal parties based on mental competence and informed consent.

The hard of thinking don't, unfortunately.

There are people who believe the latter still against the law to be what they want. Does the minority make them right. Is it really natural or nature to want sex with dead bodies and even worst Children.

In the case of children, yes, it seems that it's perfectly natural - sexual behaviour between adult and infant bonobos is widespread, for example.

Whilst I do not believe that homosexuality harms anyone. I do believe the other two which still illegal to be really really sick.

So don't preach about people believing one type of sex to be wrong.

I don't preach about anything. I do however reserve the right to criticise obnoxious beliefs.

He was giving the evidence which would make heterosexual sexual relations the natural way.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

We both know you are married and heterosexual.

Do we?

Given that online I keep my private life exactly that, how do we know?

How can you speak against Spud when you choose to refrain from homosexual intercourse yourself.

Because Mr Jersey Royal deems any form of perfectly consensual sex between two adult parties which is incapable of conception to be impermissible.

Keep to the point Spud made... Providing evidence that heterosexual sex is NATURES true way and order of things.

Appeal to nature fallacy.

[Shaker]

No Shaker,

You are not getting away with it. See last post before this.
You either challenge the point Spud makes or accept the fact that it is the only evidence of Nature that shows heterosexual intercourse is the natural way of Nature because it produces off-spring.
The argument is not whether other forms of intercourse exist but evidence that the way of NATURE is for a man and a woman to have intercourse.

What is more to the point has all homosexual men has intercourse with a woman? Same for the woman and a man?
Did they find it enjoyable if they did? Maybe sex is can be down to choice and experience.
Some men and women like both. But we know that the evidence that Spud was asked to produce he did.

Now either prove Nature is wrong or shut up!

Ah. I see that you are incapable not only of writing comprehensible English but of understanding the point being made.

Figures.

[Gordon]

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...

Leaving aside that I know where babies come from (I've seen the opening scenes of Dumbo y'know), I take it you didn't actually read the quote from Spud that I was responding to and that, therefore, you've missed the context.  Spud said this:

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)

I asked him where his authority for the 'right' element of this claim lies. 

[Rhiannon]

Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good. And if something is both natural and good that does not mean that that other things can't also be both natural and good.

[Shaker]

Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good.

You're trying to explain to Sassy an elementary logical fallacy, one made by Spud.

Don't. Seriously. Just don't.

[Sassy]

Ah. I see that you are incapable not only of writing comprehensible English but of understanding the point being made.

Figures.

It won't matter how I write it, what excuse you make we both know you read and understood it, the same.
Just as everyone else.. Want a rock to crawl under....

Oh sinnerman, where you gonna run to?
Sinnerman, where you gonna run to?
Where you gonna run to?
All along dem day
Well I run to the rock, please hide me
I run to the rock, please hide me
I run to the rock, please hide me, lord
All along dem day
But the rock cried out, I can't hide you

Truth is the number of posts you answered showed clearly and consistently you understood the conversation between us and it's contents. To now come up with this demonstrates a sad side to your nature which shows no openness of mind or ability to admit when you do something deliberate and misleading in what you write.

The rock you need is Jesus Christ, but he won't allow you hide behind him and neither would a normal rock.
You live with the embarrassment of hiding behind your fictitious rock. We can all see you.

[Sassy]

Leaving aside that I know where babies come from (I've seen the opening scenes of Dumbo y'know), I take it you didn't actually read the quote from Spud that I was responding to and that, therefore, you've missed the context.  Spud said this:

I asked him where his authority for the 'right' element of this claim lies.

AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.
That is the authority of the 'right' element. So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against
that law of nature.  So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.

You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?

Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?

[Sebastian Toe]

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)

What do you mean by 'right'?

[Shaker]

AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.

We know this. So what?

Do you understand what the appeal to nature fallacy is?

That is the authority of the 'right' element.

No, obviously you do not.

So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against
that law of nature.  So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.

Further proof that you do not.

You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?

Yet more confirmation.

Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?

Spud hasn't produced any evidence whatsoever that what is natural is right simply by virtue of being natural. That's a logical fallacy.

[Sassy]

Sass, just because something is 'natural' that doesn't make it right or good.

Show me how heterosexual couples having intercourse and conceiving a baby is not right or good for them.
That reply was stupid in every aspect and below your intelligence. You cannot argue a right wrong because it does not fit in with your philosophy about other things. In this case the reasoning is clear.
Spud showing heterosexual intercourse being the natural way of Nature by stating that this type of intercourse is the only NATURAL way of swapping the genetic material to make a baby.
There is no right or wrong to the natural course as far as Nature is concerned and the evidence.

And if something is both natural and good that does not mean that that other things can't also be both natural and good.

You deliberate IGNORE the reason for Spuds statement., It is NOT ABOUT GOOD is it about evidence of it being NATURAL.
But to deny that conceiving a child is good and natural is to frankly to be so engrossed in a belief you will at all costs of  integrity deny and make less of it, to your own purpose and end.

In this case... it is NATURAL evidence that Natures way is for a man and woman to be the people to procreate naturally together.

There is nothing personal in it. No natural not being good. It is as they say " A FACT OF LIFE".

You will get this if you read the rest of the posts. Nothing personal to atheist, pagans or agnostic's, Rhi, just stating the facts

[Sassy]

You're trying to explain to Sassy an elementary logical fallacy, one made by Spud.

Don't. Seriously. Just don't.

How deep can you dig your own hole?
Australia quite nice this time of year....

You don't get it, do you. Shaker?

Those days are over...  You have no credibility it just went caput... came to a head no longer viable.
And all that matters and will matter is that you know that we both know it.
Lay down your credibility just died.

[Gordon]

AGAIN! The whole point of his statement was evidence that heterosexual sex the way of nature the natural way.
He used the fact that heterosexual intercourse was the ONLY WAY to naturally pass the genetic material to make a baby.

If a baby is to made: but not all people wish to, or can, make babies when having sex. Some have the potential to but take measures to avoid said babies, and for others the baby element isn't relevant. The biology bit is understood though: nobody is confused on that.
 

That is the authority of the 'right' element. So far not even you have been able to comprehend or make an argument against that law of nature.

Which isn't the point re. Spud's statement. Spud said:

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)

I'm asking him where his authority for the 'right' claim comes from.

So it is you who is either ignoring the facts or in this case having to admit and bow to the law of nature you cannot deny as evidence of the 'natural order' of sexual intercourse being heterosexual by natures way. The evidence being the way genetics material passed naturally to make babies.

You are not going to make the largest error in human history of denying a man and a woman having intercourse is the only way of nature to procreate naturally, are you?

Thought not. Now we have it cleared up are you going to admit that Spud provided the necessary evidence he was asked to produce or be seen to be so far back in the closet of denial you are indeed in Narnia?

As I've said, you are assuming my question to Spud is about natural biology, and it isn't: it is about the source of the prescriptive moral authority he implies.

[Shaker]

Show me how heterosexual couples having intercourse and conceiving a baby is not right or good for them.

One fairly obvious reason would be because they didn't want and never intended to initiate a pregnancy - a contraceptive failure, for example.

Spud showing heterosexual intercourse being the natural way of Nature by stating that this type of intercourse is the only NATURAL way of swapping the genetic material to make a baby.

We know this.

Nobody is saying otherwise.

There is no right or wrong to the natural course as far as Nature is concerned and the evidence.

Except that Spud has said otherwise.

You deliberate IGNORE the reason for Spuds statement., It is NOT ABOUT GOOD is it about evidence of it being NATURAL.

Every time you throw the word natural around you confirm that (a) you haven't a clue what the appeal to nature fallacy is and therefore (b) what this discussion is actually about.

But to deny that conceiving a child is good and natural

It isn't always good - see first response above.

In this case... it is NATURAL evidence that Natures way is for a man and woman to be the people to procreate naturally together.

But what is natural is not necessarily good. One example of this has already been given. Here's another: rectal cancer.

Spud claims that it is. It isn't and he is wrong. He is wrong because he's committing the same elementary fallacy that you are.

[Sassy]

If a baby is to made: but not all people wish to, or can, make babies when having sex. Some have the potential to but take measures to avoid said babies, and for others the baby element isn't relevant. The biology bit is understood though: nobody is confused on that.

It takes absolutely NOTHING away from the point that the NATURAL evidence that by way of Nature that Heterosexual intercourse is the ONLY way to swap the genetic material necessary to make a baby.
You are rambling - WHAT you say does not take away from the truth that Natures way and the FACT OF LIFE is that only men and women can together swap the genetic material to make a baby. It is not about the individuals fertility because even gay couples can be fertile and infertile. But the fact is their fertility alone is worth nothing in the force of NATURE.
Nature only allows fertile heterosexual couples to swap the necessary genetic material during intercourse.
You know that... I know that.... the world knows that... as evidence you cannot change it.


 

Which isn't the point re. Spud's statement. Spud said:

I'm asking him where his authority for the 'right' claim comes from.

As I've said, you are assuming my question to Spud is about natural biology, and it isn't: it is about the source of the prescriptive moral authority he implies.

The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is  where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.

[Shaker]

The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is  where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.

Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).

You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't. Nature also gives babies spina bifida - do you consider that to be right, good or desirable?

If your answer is no there might just be a chance of getting you to the point of being able to see the fallacy both you and Spud are committing here - the yoking of natural with right/good/true/desirable; the illegitimate derivation of an ought (a moral prescription) from an is (some particular state of affairs about the world).

[Sassy]

Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).

You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't. Nature also gives babies spina bifida - do you consider that to be right, good or desirable?

If your answer is no there might just be a chance of getting you to the point of being able to see the fallacy you're committing here.

You must have reached Australia by now...

[Shaker]

You can't write, you can't reason, you can't even answer a simple question.

Pitiful.

[Sebastian Toe]

You must have reached Australia by now...

He won't have got there before you did though!
 

[Gordon]

It takes absolutely NOTHING away from the point that the NATURAL evidence that by way of Nature that Heterosexual intercourse is the ONLY way to swap the genetic material necessary to make a baby.
You are rambling - WHAT you say does not take away from the truth that Natures way and the FACT OF LIFE is that only men and women can together swap the genetic material to make a baby. It is not about the individuals fertility because even gay couples can be fertile and infertile. But the fact is their fertility alone is worth nothing in the force of NATURE.
Nature only allows fertile heterosexual couples to swap the necessary genetic material during intercourse.
You know that... I know that.... the world knows that... as evidence you cannot change it.


 
The world must be laughing at you and that statement. Mother Nature is  where the Authority comes from.
The facts of life is where his authority comes from. And the authority of Nature itself as this is not man made or scientifically engineered. NATURE deemed that the natural way for man to procreate was by a man and a woman having intercourse.
And to he honest the fact that you and others simply ignore the basic truths of what you cannot change as a fact throughout all history because of your own beliefs, frankly makes your beliefs worth even less.

Sheer waffle: the point I have with Spud is the difference between 'is' and 'ought', since he is fallaciously assuming the latter from the former. You seem to have missed this critical aspect of the discussion.   

[SqueakyVoice]

So, if Gavin and Barry are going at it, then Barry "transfers his genetic material" into his wife's nunny, that's fine?

But if Barry gets a bit over excited and jizzes on Gavin, then that's a bad thing?

Obviously it's an important question that I... I mean we...I mean Barry. And Gavin. And Mrs Barry...um...

[Shaker]

Nunny? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you incapable of rational thought? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way).

You are committing a monumental logical fallacy by stating that nature has any authority. It doesn't.

Interesting..... what then would your answer be to those who would argue that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in nature or that epicurean shagfests are justified because Bonobos indulge in it?
Would you tell them that nature has no ''authority'' or nod your head sagely in agreement?

[Shaker]

Interesting..... what then would your answer be to those who would argue that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in nature or that epicurean shagfests are justified because Bonobos indulge in it?
Would you tell them that nature has no ''authority'' or nod your head sagely in agreement?

I've never heard anybody say that homosexuality is justified because it occurs in (non-human) nature. It clearly does so, and in being a fact that's an is, not an ought. It's the because that's always the problem in fallacies such as these - the illegitimate linkage between what is the case and what ought to be the case. That's the mistake that Spuddychops keeps making; that some particular feature of the way the world is is the only right one because it's natural.

The only time that people raise the subject of homosexual behaviour in non-human animals is to refute the patently false assertions either that homosexuality is unnatural or that non-human animals (such as bonobos) don't exhibit it, which we still see sometimes.