Marriage Equality Defended in Massachusetts - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-20-2007, 05:41 PM   #101
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,739
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


My belief comes from (get ready) the Bible, folks. The Bible says marriage is a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Read Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5...

And my position on homosexuals? Yes, also from the Bible. The Bible condemns such relations and condemns sexual immorality (which includes many things). The body is a temple, a gift from God, meant only for creating life, something which homosexuals cannot do.
Holy dark ages!
__________________

Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 05:55 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


Narrow minded? I have an opinion, and because it disagrees with your opinion, I'm narrow minded?

I dont think opposing marriage being anything other than a man and a woman is narrow minded or intolerant. I adhere to a strict set of principles which I follow, but I consider myself open minded on many things.
**sigh**

Did you read the article?

Would you just read the article and give me your response to that.

Please.
__________________

maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 05:55 PM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,268
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So your parents only had sex when they had you and whatever siblings you have?
Huh? You lost me. I never said that. I have no idea what their sex life is/was like. Dont make me think about it, please.

Quote:
This is a pile of rubbish and has no Biblical backing. Your knowledge of the Bible is abysmal, but care to show anything backing this up?
I'm no scholar, but I wouldnt call it abysmal. Many places in the Bible is the body referred to as a temple.

Quote:
What denominaion did you grow up?
I am a Methodist.
2861U2 is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 06:06 PM   #104
Acrobat
 
Dusty Bottoms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the veranda
Posts: 443
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So your parents only had sex when they had you and whatever siblings you have?

This is a pile of rubbish and has no Biblical backing. Your knowledge of the Bible is abysmal, but care to show anything backing this up?

What denominaion did you grow up?
To be fair to him, this is what I was taught at my Catholic high school. Whenever you have sexual relations you should be open to the possibility of procreations, which is why birth control, masturbation, homosexuality, etc... is seen as a sin.

Natural family planning was taught as to how to avoid having children during sexual intercourse, but is not a sin because you are still open to the possibilty of procreation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
Dusty Bottoms is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 06:07 PM   #105
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


Huh? You lost me. I never said that. I have no idea what their sex life is/was like. Dont make me think about it, please.
You said:

"Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin. And if I ever do something like that, then yes, I will have sinned."

So that would include sex for pleasure even between married couples.

Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

I'm no scholar, but I wouldnt call it abysmal. Many places in the Bible is the body referred to as a temple.
Scholar, that's apparent. Yes I know the temple part, people have used it to justify no tattoos to not drinking alcohol; yet they never use it to talk about the obese

But I'll stick with abysmal, for your definition of sex has no biblical basis whatsoever.

You've been shown the original text and context of all these passages that apparently speak of homosexuality here in FYM, yet you've ignored them.



Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2

I am a Methodist.
Your view of sex is definately not a Methodist belief.
BVS is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 06:09 PM   #106
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Bottoms


To be fair to him, this is what I was taught at my Catholic high school.
Well it's why I asked him his denomination? I knew he was protestant.
BVS is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 06:31 PM   #107
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin.
I'm gonna ask, although I know you won't answer, but here goes:

I have had a variety of reproductive organs removed. Therefore, I cannot have children. If I continue to have sex with my male husband of 18 years, are we sinning?
martha is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 06:33 PM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White
I assume that because 2861U2's position is so repulsive,

everyone piling on in this forum could never cast a vote for Hillary, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Al Gore for president. All bigoted religious zealots. Dangerous even.
They're chicken, but surely less repulsive than the Republicans who've been married more than once, frequently as a result of extramarital affairs.
martha is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 07:31 PM   #109
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:11 AM
But they are all to old to have been raised with the Junior Anti-Sex League, they made mistakes so that the young don't have to.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 07:44 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But they are all to old to have been raised with the Junior Anti-Sex League, they made mistakes so that the young don't have to.
They're givers.
martha is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 07:54 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,776
Local Time: 02:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2


Oral sex absolutely is a sin, IMO. Any sexual act, either with one's self or with others, that is not for the purpose of creating life is a sin. And if I ever do something like that, then yes, I will have sinned.
But what a way to go out!
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 08:13 PM   #112
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,715
Local Time: 01:11 PM
i'm still waiting to hear all about this "gay lifestyle" i wish i were living.

if it's so sinful, i'm so sorry i seem to be missing out on all the fun!
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:17 PM   #113
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Bottoms
Natural family planning was taught as to how to avoid having children during sexual intercourse, but is not a sin because you are still open to the possibilty of procreation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
This, of course, is an example of 20th century "modernist" (as in the religious definition, not the philosophical movement) revisionism. It should be known that, for close to a millennium beforehand, not only was the "rhythm method" a mortal sin, but any conscious decision with the intention of avoiding pregnancy was a mortal sin. You were, essentially, to have sex as often as the man had the urge, and that's why the stereotype of Irish Catholic families involved having about 12+ children. Anything less than that was contrary to "natural law."

Earlier incarnations of "natural law" went even further to prohibit lusting after one's spouse and for having any pleasure during sex. Women were explicitly banned from looking like she was enjoying it, and the "missionary position" was developed so the man wouldn't look at any of the "lady parts." Men, likewise, were prohibited from looking at sex as anything less than a "necessary evil" for purposes of having more children. But, as I said before, even if the man was tired of having children, it would have been a mortal sin for him to consciously decide to never have sex again with his wife. It would have been contrary to "natural law."

I make mention of this in detail, because this is the nonsense theology behind the Roman Catholic Church's institutionalized homophobia. The fact that, in the 21st century, we have people both in the real world and in this thread (not referring to you specially, mind you) spouting off variations of this bizarre medieval (il)logic makes me utterly sick.

And "religious" people wonder why they have a reputation for being intolerant, irrational, and prone to extremism around the world!
Ormus is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:41 PM   #114
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 05:11 PM
What are the general public stats like in the US?

Just head on the radio - literally 15 minutes ago - 57% of Australians support gay marriage, 76% support gay couples receiving all equal rights in all regards as straight couples.

So, obviously, that means there's about 20% who support getting all the same rights, yet not an actual marriage certificate (however that would work), and only about 20% who outright disagree with it all together (or gave a "Don't know/don't care" answer)
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:44 PM   #115
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


**sigh**

Did you read the article?

Would you just read the article and give me your response to that.

Please.
He's going to continue to avoid it.

Why?

Because he won't be able to cite something in the Bible about it.

2861U2, although your citations so far have failed in comparison to those by Ormus. He has proven time and again that homosexuality as defined in the Bible does not equal modern homosexuality.

Thus, you cannot cite the Bible as a source of information on modern homosexuality. It can't work. It doesn't work.

But, because you are NARROW MINDED, you will continue to ignore the best arguments and go for the ones where you can twist Biblical passages into just barely the right form to get by (well, in your mind, anyway).
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:47 PM   #116
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
What are the general public stats like in the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se..._opinion#Polls
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:47 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26


He's going to continue to avoid it.
It appears that way. . .

I just can't understand why. What's he afraid of?
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 10:54 PM   #118
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I just can't understand why. What's he afraid of?


It's laughable, to me, because I couldn't be an atheist even if I tried, but I tend to think that this old 1922 cartoon is what "Christian fundamentalists" fear in themselves if they allow themselves to question their ingrained traditional beliefs. As such, they would rather hate the entire world than accept the mountain of logical arguments, historical evidence, modern linguistics, etc. that prove them wrong.

I'm reminded of something I was told in my own Catholic high school religious education: the difference between an "immature" faith--one that is superficial, unquestioning, and the equivalent of rote memorization with no deeper understanding--and a "mature" faith--one that often comes after long personal struggles, periods of questioning, lots of research, prayer, and contemplation, where you emerge differently, but stronger than before. An "immature" faith, in my opinion (not looking to judge anyone here, by the way), just looks at what's in front of them and/or what someone tells them and assumes that's the way it's always been since the beginning of time.

A "mature" faith would understand that the history of Christianity involved vigorous intellectual discussions, and, sometimes, whole shifts in philosophical movements. St. Augustine of Hippo, even though I greatly disagree with much of his philosophical reasonings, basically broke the mold of early Christianity and started over. The Middle Ages later saw a movement to Scholasticism, which was then later succeeded by Thomism...which later saw Aristotelian Thomism and a resurgence of neo-scholasticism in the 19th century. The present day philosophy would probably be best described as "neo-Thomist," but I'm not sure if that's what others would say.
Ormus is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 11:00 PM   #119
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus




It's laughable, to me, because I couldn't be an atheist even if I tried, but I tend to think that this old 1922 cartoon is what "Christian fundamentalists" fear in themselves if they allow themselves to question their ingrained traditional beliefs. As such, they would rather hate the entire world than accept the mountain of logical arguments, historical evidence, modern linguistics, etc. that prove them wrong.
The cartoon is actually very accurate, just look at the first step. They won't take that step.

Of course, something like homosexuality as we know, having developed within the last few centuries, MUST have been forseen by these writers who were not God but must have been writing EXACTLY as he told them to.

So, not only was there no political bias, there was also the capability of seeing into the future! Those guys were something else.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-20-2007, 11:01 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,715
Local Time: 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


They're chicken, but surely less repulsive than the Republicans who've been married more than once, frequently as a result of extramarital affairs.

no one likes affairs, but at least in every single one of those fairs the penis found it's righteous, god-given home inside a vagina, and not some godless donut bumpin' performed by two nubile, 20-something lesbians who's secret deisre for each other just cannot be contained any longer, or two lithe young men in the prime of their lives overcome by sweaty passion for the other's rippling, glistening bodies who ... nevermind.
__________________

Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×