It says there should be no gay sex whatsoever. Sex - allowed for straight married couples; not allowed for gay married couples. Anti-gay, just like a large section of that particular cult's followers.
No it says NO sex outside of wedlock sex ok between married couples same sex cannot be married Therefore the issue of no sex is across the board therefore gay lobby looking for a back way in (no pun intended) Ps there is a big difference between being anti homosexuality and anti gay I would argue that straight atheists are anti homosexuality if not they would be having sex with the same sex
The above has nothing to do with wedlock. "'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Please explain how the above is not anti-gay. Looking forward to how you attempt to Houdini your way out of that one.
A lot of the messages about sex come from Pauls letters to the Corinthians. Corinth was a harbour town where lots of trade took place. As everyone knows, where there are sailors, there is lots of ****ing. Paul thought the second coming of Jesus was imminent so everyone should behave their asses and be extra specially good. A lot of his first letter was to tell them what to do and what not to do. It was pretty much anti everything. In fact, he told non married people not to try and find a wife at all.
I have no idea, and that isn't referenced in the above passage, explicitly or implicitly. You're making a non-existent link to suit your ends. If it said 'if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman outside wedlock', you might be right. The Bible never sanctions gay sex within marriage. It never says homosexuality is morally acceptable. It says gay men should be murdered if they get physical. Just to confirm, you genuinely think the writers of the Bible believed that if two gay guys married each other, sex would be just fine and they'd roll up in Heaven?
didnt know that specific bit, however i think paul was as bad for christianity as he was good. Subsequent attempts to make it appear 'up to date' are based aound more what paul said and subsequently ''killed'' christianity imo. As far as I am concerned if you accept a ''higher authourity'' has given you rules by which you shall live then fook public opinion of the time In terms of homosexuality, the church should have maintained its position now and when it was classed as a mental illness. basically as someone said before hate the sin not the sinner
TBh I havent a clue wht you are on about. but here goes The notion I am putting forward is that sex outside of wedlock is a 'sin' and punishable by death whether it be same sex or not. You quoted me a passage about the man on man bit so I was wondering if you knew what it said about unmarried male/female couples. You clearly dont know and it doesnt suit your argument to find out Now to marriage. The bible sanctions marrriage between man and woman. Once married they can then have sex as it becomes ok. Anal sex is not allowed regardless of male/female or male/male and the punishment is there so to say its specifically 'homophoboc' is simply wrong as for the last quip you made. My argument is that gays want the word marriage sanctioned so they can roll up to churches and say marry us or we will take you to court
Church men tried to make rules around what were essentially contemporary lessons for their social problems of the day. As far as I am concerned, theologically the letter addressed the need for those people at that time. That is what the letter was for. I can't accept it as a blueprint for how people should behave in 2012, especially as he contradicts a lot of those messages in what we now call his 2nd letter to the Corinthians. Simply, it was a letter for the people of Corinth that got shared around amongst folk it wasn't intended for.
If the Bible just disagreed with anal sex and unmarried sex, why the specific gay jibes from Leviticus? Makes no sense to me. But banging our tits together's not going to get us anywhere. Circular argument. I agree with your last sentence anyway - a private collective like a church should be able to make its own rules and enforce them. If they don't want gays marrying there, they're primitive, thick ****s, but it's even worse to physically force them to do something they don't want to. My point on this thread is about the referendum... which was the original posters' intention in starting the thread. Clergymen advocating violent political solutions by way of direct democracy leaves a really sour taste in the mouth, like he no doubt gave to his numerous altarboys.
noi different to the gay lobby wanting marriage or getting gay rights etc on the political agenda. If the head of a gay organisation can propose something as a representative then so can this man. As for the altarboys comment that would be laying with a male no? are you now being homophobic?
Problem for me is they try to make the 'right' decisions according to what is seen as ''right'' at the time rather than what they believe is right. women priests for example. If god says no then iyts simply no, end of story. I think its weird how the church gave up its ''beliefs'' on that one yet the people pushing have not made equal pay the norm. As for Paul. his letters need to be seen as that 'his' letters nothing more
Whatever. It doesn't add up as far as I can see, but this argument has run its course. Because modern enlightenment has led us to the virtues of reason and logic, and there's no reasonable, logical argument for consenting gay men not being able to marry each other or have sex, whether they're in a relationship or not. To say otherwise is illogical and unreasonable, and is therefore primitive. No, because gays wanting to get married aren't asking to bum the minister, so your analogy is off-kilter. As human beings, they should cede to morality and reason. Politicians have nothing to do with it. If you read my posts properly, you'd see I want this outside of government control. Not legalizing like the gay lobby pitifully want, not criminalizing like some would want, and like this Cardinal is angling for a referendum on. Straw man argument, in other words. No, I'm being flippant and anti-*****phile, based on the numerous crimes committed in that area, as I'm sure you well know.
How the **** is that relevant? You've chosen not to get the qualifications you need to fly a plane, if you were not allowed to fly a plane because you were irish then it'd be discrimination. It's pathetic how low you're ready to stoop to defend such a morally corrupt institution
All you ****s are missing the take home points. The Catholic Church doesn't need to perform marriage even if the law is passed. It just allows those churches that wish to marry to do so. Folk can argue all they want about whether or not the bible says one thing or another but no one is being forced to conduct gay weddings. Gays will be only be married in churches that both welcome them and wish to marry them. Catholic Church doesn't want the law passed and is throwing money at a campaign to stop it. This will prevent Churches that wish to perform gay marriage conducting the ceremony. These auld ****s need to take their fairy stories and twisted sense of duty to a former member of the Hitler youth's wishes and wind their neck in. They've never had a relationship, never will and so have no right to preach to others how to conduct their own.
