Can Anyone Explain 'Why gay marriage?'

[glassjester]

Yeah..... and yet, when asked for their reasoning, all they can do is bluster those dogmatic words like abomination and perversion, which they then cannot or willnot explain or define. And they won't quote from their New Covenant.

I must point out that I have used neither the word "abomination" nor "perversion," and I have quoted from the New Testament.

The above-quoted post is a bit dishonest, then.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I must point out that I have used neither the word "abomination" nor "perversion," and I have quoted from the New Testament.

The above-quoted post is a bit dishonest, then.

Why is it 'immoral' for a married couple to take steps not to conceive children?

Do you honestly think that every single time a heterosexual couple 'make love' it should be with the aim of producing offspring?

You are a zealot if that's the case. Marriage is nothing more to you than a production factory.

 

[MrDante]

Immaterial ,He makes the rules NOT perverts.

True, you don't make the rules.

 

[MrDante]

I provided that a few posts back.

you mean the definition that even you don't believe in?

 

[MrDante]

Again, the marital act itself, is not contraceptive. A gay "marital" act is, necessarily. This accounts for the moral difference between the two. A homosexual act is, by its very nature, not procreative. It is immoral in the same way that contraception is immoral.

It's amazing how your rationalization for discrimination only applies to the people you want to discriminate against.

 

[eider]

Again, the marital act itself, is not contraceptive. A gay "marital" act is, necessarily. This accounts for the moral difference between the two. A homosexual act is, by its very nature, not procreative. It is immoral in the same way that contraception is immoral.

Do you not see a moral difference between a couple that willingly uses contraception, and one that engages in the marital act, and simply fails to conceive?

Yes. If we're talking about what makes homosexuality a sin, then we're discussing faith and morals. If we're discussing the legality of homosexual marriage, then we need to consider the state's interest in marriage.

I am willing to discuss both. Are you not?

Then you deny the authority of the Apostle, Paul?

None of that contradicts Paul's words. And none of Paul's words contradict those verses from Mark. What's your point?

Indeed.

Then you deny Paul's authority as an apostle.
On what basis do you do so?

So you'd be alright with, let's say, homosexual incestuous marriage?

Oh.... all that writing and spinning...!

Now... what have we got....
At first your only definition was that marriage is for the 'production' of children.
When I explained that my marriage could never have produced children any more than a gay marriage you wandered off into ramblings about contraception.
Neither our marriage nor any gay marriage needs contraception!
Then you quote Paul's list of actions which will condemn, which included homosexuality.
When I quoted Jesus Christ's list of commandments and showed that only unions which cause sickness are banned, you wanted to divert by questioning my attituide to Paul!
Now you want to know if it's moral for Gay relatives can marry....!

And so my reply is that Jesus stopped the stoning execution of an adulteress by demanding that only those without sin carry out the execution. You see, you have absolutely no right to judge gay marriage, do you? None whatsoever.

 

[eider]

I must point out that I have used neither the word "abomination" nor "perversion," and I have quoted from the New Testament.

The above-quoted post is a bit dishonest, then.

Fair enough........ I should have written 'they use words like abomination and perversion, but not Glassjester'.

Well, at least that's something. You don't class Gay Marriage as a perversion or abomination..... things are looking up.

 

[eider]

Why is it 'immoral' for a married couple to take steps not to conceive children?

Do you honestly think that every single time a heterosexual couple 'make love' it should be with the aim of producing offspring?

You are a zealot if that's the case. Marriage is nothing more to you than a production factory.

These folks must have scores of kids, or be very miserable......

On the side, what do you think about our PM having to bend knee to ten Democratic Unionists for power, who are mostly (more or less) fundamentalist, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-contraception, right wingers?
This stuff is thrreatening to come to our doorsteps, after decades of progression.
And how long would you give her government before it wobbles and crashes? Three months?

 

[eider]

It's amazing how your rationalization for discrimination only applies to the people you want to discriminate against.

It's amazing how mindsets so steeped in indoctrinated dogma can be so hard-set for all time.
From 'cherry-picking' their doctrine and ideology, to running contentions in circles, in some cases to physical confrontation (I hear).

Akll I can do is debate in order to seek for any possible avenues for humanity, sanity, love and understanding to be passed through.

 

[glassjester]

Why is it 'immoral' for a married couple to take steps not to conceive children?

Do you honestly think that every single time a heterosexual couple 'make love' it should be with the aim of producing offspring?

Or at least open to the possibility.

You are a zealot if that's the case.

Then you believe I am a zealot, simply for being Catholic.

 

[glassjester]

From 'cherry-picking' their doctrine and ideology

Please demonstrate how I have cherry-picked Catholic doctrine.

Feel free to cite a specific Catholic teaching I've ignored, or dismissed - here's all of it:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[MrDante]

Oh.... all that writing and spinning...!

This is pretty typical behavior for galssjester, the misdirection and the shifting goalposts and entire topics all to avoid actually addressing any points made. Soon he will become indignant and start posturing about some preceived insult and try to turn the topic to himself.

Please demonstrate how I have cherry-picked Catholic doctrine.

Feel free to cite a specific Catholic teaching I've ignored, or dismissed - here's all of it:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

and there it is right on schedule.

 

[glassjester]

and there it is right on schedule.

Eider said I "cherry-pick" doctrine. I responded by asking how I did so. A reasonable response.

 

[ok doser]

Wrong! Moses' laws were needed for Moses' times.

laws like "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery"?

 

[ok doser]

You're starting to sound like chrysostom. Plenty of people get married without intending to have children.

Indeed they do. But why should the state or the Church have any interest in such unions?

 

[ok doser]

And so my reply is that Jesus stopped the stoning execution of an adulteress by demanding that only those without sin carry out the execution. You see, you have absolutely no right to judge gay marriage, do you? None whatsoever.

:doh:


i believe i-durrr just jumped the shark of retardedness :dizzy:

 

[Arthur Brain]

These folks must have scores of kids, or be very miserable......

On the side, what do you think about our PM having to bend knee to ten Democratic Unionists for power, who are mostly (more or less) fundamentalist, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-contraception, right wingers?
This stuff is thrreatening to come to our doorsteps, after decades of progression.
And how long would you give her government before it wobbles and crashes? Three months?

I don't think I'd even give it that long and I wouldn't worry about the unionists having any power of note. They'll be a distinct second fiddle like Clegg was with Cameron. The conservatives might have misjudged the climate but they're not in the business of committing political suicide itself with policies that would turn back the clock...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Or at least open to the possibility.

Why?

Then you believe I am a zealot, simply for being Catholic.

No, I think you're a zealot based on what you opine.

 

[ok doser]

On the side, what do you think about our PM having to bend knee to ten Democratic Unionists for power, who are mostly (more or less) fundamentalist, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-contraception, right wingers?

God is anti-abortion

God is anti-gay


looks like britain has the opportunity to turn back to God :idunno:

 

[eider]

Please demonstrate how I have cherry-picked Catholic doctrine.

Feel free to cite a specific Catholic teaching I've ignored, or dismissed - here's all of it:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

It might be helpful if you keep my paragraphs whole and intact.
Or you can place several Stops at either end to show that the words have been 'cut-out'

Here is what I wrote....:
It's amazing how mindsets so steeped in indoctrinated dogma can be so hard-set for all time.
From 'cherry-picking' their doctrine and ideology, to running contentions in circles, in some cases to physical confrontation (I hear).

So you're a Catholic, then?
So, at least you've not challenged the 'running contentions in circles'etc...!
Well, in your case you selected a letter from Paul before the words of Jesus, presumably because Paul included 'homosexuals' and Jesus did not.
Happy?

Look..... even your Popes have broken serious commandments. You might remember some examples?
...and yet, further, you ignore Jesus's actions and words when he demanded that only persons free from sin should take part in the execution-stoning of an adulteress...?

The Catholic Faith has a rather troubled history when it comes to busting commandments..... Jesus's commandments. Oh dear.

I never thought that you are a Catholic.