So, Homosexuals To Get Married

[Clydeside_Sheep]

One up for Catholicism right there.

 

One up (+1) for Bluto too!

[Bluto10]

The clear moral of the story here is don't be gay.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Also against Women and gays and is accepts Slavery.

 

Yes, and we are also building a new Death Star in secret

[tommo1903]

Just for clarity, are you trying to say that Africans using condoms has no impact in the spread of HIV?

[Bluto10]

Just for clarity, are you trying to say that Africans using condoms has no impact in the spread of HIV?

Problem is their Jonnys are made if banana leaves and vegetitation and not the latest high tensile rubber found in western models

[daytripping]

Problem is their Jonnys are made if banana leaves and vegetitation and not the latest high tensile rubber found in western models

 

Top posting bloots, I never knew that but can imagine anything related to bananas would just slip off, darkies have big todgers as well so I've heard (gods way of saying sorry for fucking up their hair), need big leaves.

 

We should air drop proper one's.

[Poodler]

Well, this in fact means we have two issues - one is abuse of adolescents minors and the second is the failure to address this abuse properly.

 

The first is, as the stats show, overwhelmingly an issue of gay men abusing teen boys.

 

The second issue is not a Catholic issue, as you suggest, but rather a human issue - as we can see by observing very similar failings and cover-ups when it came to (eg) the BBC and abuse, the NHS and abuse, and the UK Police / Social services and abuse and the Rochdale cases, just to give a few recent examples.

 

I dont think there is a single explanation for these either - certainly incompetence, desire to cover-up, fear etc would all play a part, but so undoubtedly would homosexual men in the clergy protecting each other.

 

How very little we hear of these same failings elsewhere, eh? And indeeed, how little we hear about the predatory homosexuality which caused the bulk of abuse in the first place.

 

Strangely I dont ever recall you commenting on these, despite raising the topic often. Odd.

 

You can arrange arguments to suit your own prejudices, but you will always get caught out in the end.

 

You cant suppress the truth - as certain Bishops and others have found to their cost.

So do you actively tell your kids that homosexuality is wrong? Like, do you encourage them treat the gays as second class? Does that confuse them when they go to school and hear everything to suggest equality?

 

 

Edit, that can apply to anyone, catholic or not, what do you tell your kids?

[fatjim]

 

Well, this in fact means we have two issues - one is abuse of adolescents minors and the second is the failure to address this abuse properly.

 

The first is, as the stats show, overwhelmingly an issue of gay men abusing teen boys.

 

The second issue is not a Catholic issue, as you suggest, but rather a human issue - as we can see by observing very similar failings and cover-ups when it came to (eg) the BBC and abuse, the NHS and abuse, and the UK Police / Social services and abuse and the Rochdale cases, just to give a few recent examples.

 

I dont think there is a single explanation for these either - certainly incompetence, desire to cover-up, fear etc would all play a part, but so undoubtedly would homosexual men in the clergy protecting each other.

 

How very little we hear of these same failings elsewhere, eh? And indeeed, how little we hear about the predatory homosexuality which caused the bulk of abuse in the first place.

 

Strangely I dont ever recall you commenting on these, despite raising the topic often. Odd.

 

You can arrange arguments to suit your own prejudices, but you will always get caught out in the end.

 

You cant suppress the truth - as certain Bishops and others have found to their cost.

 

 

Clearly the Catholic church tried to cover it up as it would hit them in the pocket. Any business would be effected by bad stories like this.

The Catholic church is a business of course. It's main product being lies and snake oil in copious amounts for the brain dead.

No offence like.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Just for clarity, are you trying to say that Africans using condoms has no impact in the spread of HIV?

 

To stop the spread of HIV, it is better that people enjoy sex only within a monogamous marriage, than it is to have promiscious sex using condoms as "protection".

 

This is the opinion of public health experts and it is what the empirical data shows.

 

Think about it - sex is a good thing, is not meant to be dangerous or risky: so why the need for "protection"?

 

If someone needs protection, they are obviously doing it wrong!

[The Boofon]

To stop the spread of HIV, it is better that people enjoy sex only within a monogamous marriage, than it is to have promiscious sex using condoms as "protection".

 

This is the opinion of public health experts and it is what the empirical data shows.

 

Think about it - sex is a good thing, is not meant to be dangerous or risky: so why the need for "protection"?

 

If someone needs protection, they are obviously doing it wrong!

[The Boofon]

Speechless.^^^^^^^

[Clydeside_Sheep]

So do you actively tell your kids that homosexuality is wrong? Like, do you encourage them treat the gays as second class? Does that confuse them when they go to school and hear everything to suggest equality?

 

 

Edit, that can apply to anyone, catholic or not, what do you tell your kids?

 

 

I dont have any kids at present.

 

Gay people are not second class citizens - everyone is of equal worth, regardless of who they are.

 

And people should treat others as they wish to be treated themselves - with kindness and respect.

 

But all behaviours are not equal - heterosexual sex represents the supreme fulfillment of the human body, physically and biologically, whereas homosexual acts represent a misue of the body, one which renders its form and function meaningless.

 

Just the same as noone would suggest that crashing a car is just as a good as driving it. Its not.

 

Its a simple deduction using reason - western philosophy has, since the time of the ancient greeks, held that nature is reasonable and so we must view things via the prism of reason.

 

But the acceptance of homosexuality today shows that society has abandoned the primacy of reason and now bows to the primacy of the will of the individual.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Here is gay UKIP MEP David Coburn, in the papers today, on gay "marriage":

 

"false bollocks" that only matter to "some queen who wants to dress up in a bridal frock and dance up the aisle to the Village People".

 

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/gay-ukip-mep-same-sex-marriage-supporters-are-equality-nazis.1414681531

[fatjim]

 

 

I dont have any kids at present.

 

Gay people are not second class citizens - everyone is of equal worth, regardless of who they are.

 

And people should treat others as they wish to be treated themselves - with kindness and respect.

 

But all behaviours are not equal - heterosexual sex represents the supreme fulfillment of the human body, physically and biologically, whereas homosexual acts represent a misue of the body, one which renders its form and function meaningless.

 

Just the same as noone would suggest that crashing a car is just as a good as driving it. Its not.

 

Its a simple deduction using reason - western philosophy has, since the time of the ancient greeks, held that nature is reasonable and so we must view things via the prism of reason.

 

But the acceptance of homosexuality today shows that society has abandoned the primacy of reason and now bows to the primacy of the will of the individual.

 

Nature created homosexuality.

Sadly it also created idiots like yourself.

[Ke1t]

 

 

I dont have any kids at present.

 

Gay people are not second class citizens - everyone is of equal worth, regardless of who they are.

 

And people should treat others as they wish to be treated themselves - with kindness and respect.

 

But all behaviours are not equal - heterosexual sex represents the supreme fulfillment of the human body, physically and biologically, whereas homosexual acts represent a misue of the body, one which renders its form and function meaningless.

 

Just the same as noone would suggest that crashing a car is just as a good as driving it. Its not.

 

Its a simple deduction using reason - western philosophy has, since the time of the ancient greeks, held that nature is reasonable and so we must view things via the prism of reason.

 

But the acceptance of homosexuality today shows that society has abandoned the primacy of reason and now bows to the primacy of the will of the individual.

 

Your argument is based upon a supposition that all human activity is, or should be, driven by necessity.

 

Since the first fenced community sprang up we've had leisure time that allows humans to set aside time for non-essential recreational activities.

 

It could be argued that there's no need for invention... fish never invented anything, and they've done absolutely brilliantly. But if necessity were our only driving force then we'd still be living in jungles, using our bare hands to fight leopards.

 

Humans have advanced beyond basic primal necessity, which is why there are people in space but no fish.

 

Citing 'nature' as some mandate against homosexuality immediately runs into the basic logic that humans are no longer dictated to by necessity.

[dave_min]

Think about it - sex is a good thing, is not meant to be dangerous or risky: so why the need for "protection"?

 

You're doing it wrong.

[Oregon Red]

 

Your argument is based upon a supposition that all human activity is, or should be, driven by necessity.

 

Since the first fenced community sprang up we've had leisure time that allows humans to set aside time for non-essential recreational activities.

 

It could be argued that there's no need for invention... fish never invented anything, and they've done absolutely brilliantly. But if necessity were our only driving force then we'd still be living in jungles, using our bare hands to fight leopards.

 

Humans have advanced beyond basic primal necessity, which is why there are people in space but no fish.

 

Citing 'nature' as some mandate against homosexuality immediately runs into the basic logic that humans are no longer dictated to by necessity.

And any way there is poofery i many other mammals also so quite natural.

And who the f%%k has sex nowadays just to have kids? Insane

[fatjim]

And any way there is poofery i many other mammals also so quite natural.

And who the f%%k has sex nowadays just to have kids? Insane

 

CS has also stated that he doesn't have any kids.

He also seems to be totally against contraception.

 

What can we deduce from this?

 

One or more of the following.

 

Coitus interruptus is common in his household.

Nature has made him impotent.

Nature has made his wife barren.

He has never had sex with his wife.

He is a big gay poof who doesn't want to have sex with his wife.

His wife is a lesbian and doesn't want to have sex with him.

He has no wife.

[caledonia]

 

CS has also stated that he doesn't have any kids.

He also seems to be totally against contraception.

 

What can we deduce from this?

 

One or more of the following.

 

Coitus interruptus is common in his household.

Nature has made him impotent.

Nature has made his wife barren.

He has never had sex with his wife.

He is a big gay poof who doesn't want to have sex with his wife.

His wife is a lesbian and doesn't want to have sex with him.

He has no wife.

 

Maybe he is the wife in a civil partnership

[ChutneyLove]

 

Your argument is based upon a supposition that all human activity is, or should be, driven by necessity.

 

Since the first fenced community sprang up we've had leisure time that allows humans to set aside time for non-essential recreational activities.

 

It could be argued that there's no need for invention... fish never invented anything, and they've done absolutely brilliantly. But if necessity were our only driving force then we'd still be living in jungles, using our bare hands to fight leopards.

 

Humans have advanced beyond basic primal necessity, which is why there are people in space but no fish.

 

Citing 'nature' as some mandate against homosexuality immediately runs into the basic logic that humans are no longer dictated to by necessity.

 

It's the fish I feel sorry for. What about the gay fish? Must be really shit for them.

 

[Henry]

 

Apple chief executive Tim Cook has publicly acknowledged his sexuality, saying that he is "proud to be gay".

Mr Cook made his announcement to try to help people struggling with their identity, he wrote in a Bloomberg Businessweek article.

He has been open about his sexuality, but has also tried to maintain a basic level of privacy until now, he said.

This week Mr Cook challenged his home state of Alabama to ensure the rights of gay and transgender people.

"While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven't publicly acknowledged it either, until now," he wrote.

"So let me be clear: I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me," he added.

He said he didn't consider himself an activist, but that he realised he had "benefited from the sacrifice of others."

"So if hearing that the CEO [chief executive] of Apple is gay can help someone struggling to come to terms with who he or she is, or bring comfort to anyone who feels alone, or inspire people to insist on their equality, then it's worth the trade-off with my own privacy," he added.

Mr Cook said that he had been open about his sexuality with many people, including colleagues at Apple, but that it still "wasn't an easy choice" to publicly announce his sexual orientation.

He quoted civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King, saying: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?' "

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Nature created homosexuality.

Sadly it also created idiots like yourself.

 

And it also created poor comedians - the worst of the lot.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Your argument is based upon a supposition that all human activity is, or should be, driven by necessity.

I am arguing that human behaviour is (should be) driven by reason and logic.

 

fish never invented anything

Reports recently suggested that Scottish fish invented sex:

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/scottish-fish-invented-sexual-intercourse-1-3577608

 

Citing 'nature' as some mandate against homosexuality immediately runs into the basic logic that humans are no longer dictated to by necessity.

It is more than just "nature" though - its reality. If something is used in a way which is at loggerheads with its form and function, its clearly "not right".

 

The form and function reflect the purpose inherit in these.

 

It isnt logical to argue that failing to meet a purpose is just the same as meeting a purpose. If that were true, then the very concept of 'purposes' would be erroneous and so everything would be meaningless.

[Clydeside_Sheep]

And any way there is poofery i many other mammals also so quite natural.

No-one denies homosexual attraction occurs naturally, but that doesnt justify homsoexual acts.

 

Dogs also lick their own balls and hump objects (strangers legs etc) - does that justify the same in humans?

 

Animals are driven by their passions (hence the glib humping objects etc), whereas humans are (should be) drivne by reason. Humans are (should be) masters of their passions, no vice versa.

 

So called "gay animals" are just further examples of animalistic behaviour, not homosexuality as understood in humans. Eg dogs will hump anything. Humping someones leg doesnt mean the dog has a leg fetish - they are simply animals being animals.

 

The famous "gay penguins" story was a media hoax - portraying the natural gender roles of penguins (males look after the eggs, the females hunt) as a "gay penguin family". Insidious lies.

 

Additionally, animals simply cannot have what is called "gay sex" -for humans to do this is takes various preparations (flushing out the anus etc) and artificial intervention (application of lubricants) and "protection" to try to mitigate resultant harm (condoms).

 

All of this is beyond the capacity of animals.

 

And who the f%%k has sex nowadays just to have kids? Insane

No-one said that, while procreation is the main end of sex, its not the only end.

 

But what is really insane is the modern perception that sex has been succesfully divorced from its natural result - it hasnt.

 

But the perception that it has is one reason why secular society struggles to understand objections to homosexuality.

 

EDIT - i just had a good laugh at the concept of a "gay penguin family" Its amazing the intellectual level society has arrived at, through these social changes

[rumpus]

You must be some sort of childish simpleton if the thought of a gay penguin is a 'good laugh'

[Ke1t]

1. I am arguing that human behaviour is (should be) driven by reason and logic.

 

 

2. Reports recently suggested that Scottish fish invented sex:

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/scottish-fish-invented-sexual-intercourse-1-3577608

 

 

3. It is more than just "nature" though - its reality. If something is used in a way which is at loggerheads with its form and function, its clearly "not right".

 

The form and function reflect the purpose inherit in these.

 

It isnt logical to argue that failing to meet a purpose is just the same as meeting a purpose. If that were true, then the very concept of 'purposes' would be erroneous and so everything would be meaningless.

 

1. If reason and logic were the driving force behind humankind we wouldn't have or need 'Faith', the suspension of disbelief when offered an unlikely or unsupported explanation for being. I belief 'Faith' factors quite heavily in your own lifestyle choice?

 

2. I don't think a biological process qualifies as an 'invention'.

 

3. And there's where you quite naturally throw a fallacious argument into the mix in the hope it'll slide by without notice. It's only 'not right' to stick our dick in something if our sole intention is procreation and the thing we're sticking our dicks into isn't capable of procreation. Our cocks serve more than one purpose, however. We piss out of our cocks. That won't get anyone pregnant, but it isn't 'wrong'. We weep puss out of our cocks when we catch some horrid African disease, I'm thinking about Cheesepipes in particular here, and cock puss can't be considered 'wrong'. We also get pleasure from our cocks, and that brings me to the sticking of dicks into things that can't get pregnant. If our purpose is gratification, then sticking our cock in a sheep, corpse... I'm thinking specifically of Fatjim here... watermelon, waste disposal, or dude's arsehole... then that's precisely the RIGHT thing to do depending on your sexual proclivities.

 

As I've said, we're NOT driven soley by necessity... we're not monkeys swinging from the branches any more... we as a species have created an environment where recreation is at least as important any of the base emotions, needs, or drives... and that IS a fact. There's nothing natural about building an iPod and playing Angry Birds, there's nothing natural about getting in a car and driving to a supermarket or a cinema or a dog fight, but we do it because our species has moved on (mostly) from being scared of the dark because the wolves might come into our cave.

 

Even the 'we could go extinct' argument holds little water. "If we were all queer we'd go extinct!" Seems unlikey to me. There's always a proportion of the population with what you would consider 'aberrant' sexual behaviour, so if homosexuality was the norm then we can extrapolate that there will be a breeding population of heterosexual deviants keeping the species alive. If anything you'd then enter a natural selection scenario where the gay population crashes and the deviant heterosexual population increases.

 

If, however, you're speaking from a teleological standpoint regarding the 'Right' and 'Wrong' way to utilise your cock then that's an entirely different matter, and more a case of you trying to foist your own personal quirks onto the rest of us.

[fatjim]

Exactly Kelt it is not natural to believe in a mythical omnipotent being based on zero evidence. It is a man made idea that yes you guessed it is based upon bronze age mythology.

Yep bronze age goat herders made up a concept of God and some idiots still believe it.

[Ohjimmyjimmy]

I am arguing that human behaviour is (should be) driven by reason and logic.

 

It is more than just "nature" though - its reality. If something is used in a way which is at loggerheads with its form and function, its clearly "not right".

 

The form and function reflect the purpose inherit in these.

 

It isnt logical to argue that failing to meet a purpose is just the same as meeting a purpose. If that were true, then the very concept of 'purposes' would be erroneous and so everything would be meaningless.

Who are you and your church to decide or explain what our purpose is? Bunch of omnicunts.

[robbojunior]

Here Clydeside,

 

Do you object to Atheists getting married?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Nature created homosexuality.

 

What kind of argument is that anyway?

 

Because some types of perversion may occur naturally does not mean that it is acceptable.