Gay marriage : who cares?

[Seeker2010]

Sodomy is wrong. It is disordered, unnatural and against the moral basis for human right living.

Neither you, nor anyone on this thread has established that, merely declared it as fact, with the implication that anyone with a functioning brain knows it without evening being told. Which, when push comes to shove, is really exactly what you believe.

Except people with actual functioning brains have questioned it and come to the conclusion that your declarations are without foundation. Because they are.

And I would remind you that not all homosexuals are men, and not only do lesbians NOT partake in sodomy*, they’re physically incapable of.

• Sodomy is actually defined as anal or oral sex, but it seems the proponents of natural law prohibitions of it mean anal only.

Normal men, who respect themselves and their wives think as Karoleck does.

That’s assuming facts that are very much not in evidence, to the contrary anecdotal observations would indicate the exact opposite.

Now, we have a perversion that was historically associated with disordered men now entering the sexaul relations between man and woman.

Besides just making stuff up as you go, care to share with us where you came up with this particular data point?

 

[CradleCath]

Uh-oh, now we are back to defining pleasure for everyone else.

No, I was defining PAIN. You are on a Catholic message board trying SO HARD to prove that the Catholic Church approves of a practice that is filthy & disease-ridden, so that somehow you can convolute that into…“Well if the Church approves sodomy for heterosexuals, they should for homosexuals”. (The Church doesn’t approve it for anyone, but you’ve never let the truth get in the way.)

You are taking too long, get on with it…get past this issue & on to your agenda. You’re getting boring. CHOP! CHOP!!..get with it!!!

 

[John21652]

Apologize for the “conjecture” that I admitted I was making? Hardly. I am actually glad to hear that you have a family. I also hope that it is happy and healthy. But I seem to have really hit a nerve with you. Notice how saying that you were a virgin angered you so (it was a silly remark of mine, and I wonder why you did not just chuckle at it), but how you have in return called me an “idiot” but I am not angered by this because it is such a silly and vindictive thing to say.

HAHAHA. I love this response. It is a keeper! the Kama Sutra from the wife as research into the history of moral sexual history! I don’t think that she meant the gift as a research document, do you? You are “well-versed” indeed, as you say so yourself, even!

I never claimed that societies did not frown on this. You have totally changed the terms of the discussion. Your disengenuiness is rather common for a righteous defender of sexual purity. Defend “sexual honor” at all costs! Even to honesty!

NO. Not at all here. I was making a very different point. But you are angry now, and trying to hit me for other reasons. Calm down, and be honest.

. In the process, you ignore the objective reasons as to why what you assert is morally disordered. Hence, your own arguments collapse in on themselves and when you resort to conjecture to make a point, you make yourself look very, very silly indeed.

I have answered this fully and explicitly. You are exhibiting a weird obsessive fixation over this. Why don’t you let it go already? You are not going to convince me of your point of view. Not ever. And now you are just calling me names. Which really won’t work, either.

I’ll take that as a yes, we do have to tell you. Consult that present from your wife, again.

Again you have made yourself look very foolish, Larkin. You just proved you do not read properly the responses you supposedly answer. I specifically wrote that the book was a gift from my sister.

You may now apologise at this point, Larkin, for being carelessly negligent.

Again you have made yourself look even sillier by projecting ‘anger’ into my post. You are in serious need of help.

You shot from the hip, using ‘conjecture’ and when called on this, you try and make light of it by suggesting you were just making a ‘silly remark’. Like a little kid caught stealing from the candy store. Thing is, Larkin, most of your ideas are nonsensical and illogical
.
Again, Larkin, your lack of moral fibre shows itself when you attempt to deny not answering previous questions. No where have you addressed the basis of this discussion, that Natural Law is based on objectively discernable, universal truths. You originally stated that such laws did not exist, but then ‘discovered’ gravity. Since then you have used every evasive tactic you can dream up to avoid the issue. You now state that you answered this explicitly. Show me where, Larkin. Show me and the other posters where you answered this “explicitly”.

Why don’t I let it go? That’s easy, Larkin, it is because you are a prevaricator whose equivocations not only make you look silly, but are in effect deliberately misleading.

Here’s proof - you explicitly wrote *“You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure.” *I showed you that firstly, you made yourself look foolish by using conjecture. Secondly, your suggestion that I didn’t know anything about “its”, (referring to history) outlook to various forms of erotic pleasure has been demolished by me yet you now assert that you didn’t even ask such a question. You wrote *“I never claimed that societies did not frown on this”. *Excuse me Larkin, but the obvious inference from your posts where you aren’t being explicit, is that other people do these things and that they have been doing these things for generations, hence your suggestion that I have no clue about history’s outlook. I provide proof that I do know about history and about history’s outlook on these things and you wiggle like a pathetic little worm on a hook, screaming “I never said that”. You are exhibiting schoolyard bully behaviour. When caught by the teacher, just say “I didn’t do it”.

Your very last sentence shows you to be not only extremely careless, but very, very sarcastically dishonest.

Larkin, I have a strong sense that you are in a state of moral panic. Little wonder. I suggest you tally up the apologies you owe me and deliver them. You will feel a little better about yourself once you deliver them.

 

[John21652]

Neither you, nor anyone on this thread has established that, merely declared it as fact, with the implication that anyone with a functioning brain knows it without evening being told. Which, when push comes to shove, is really exactly what you believe.

Except people with actual functioning brains have questioned it and come to the conclusion that your declarations are without foundation. Because they are.

And I would remind you that not all homosexuals are men, and not only do lesbians NOT partake in sodomy*, they’re physically incapable of.

• Sodomy is actually defined as anal or oral sex, but it seems the proponents of natural law prohibitions of it mean anal only.

That’s assuming facts that are very much not in evidence, to the contrary anecdotal observations would indicate the exact opposite.

Besides just making stuff up as you go, care to share with us where you came up with this particular data point?

Well well well, the swinger is back. What happened Seeker, run out of parties?
Come back to lavish upon us more of your moral vaccuity?
You are obviously not well read in the history of sodomy and homosexuality. Go take a little while to research the ancient Roman edicts against Homosexuality. Better still, do some research on the Byzantine Emporer Justinian1 and how he really gave homosexuals merry what for. Way back before that period, the old germanic kingdoms frowned on same sex activities and fried the culprits at the stake. Look up the German word nith. The ancient Scandinavians also took a hard line aginst same sex disorders. Look up the concept of *Frostothing, *which the old Scandinavians viewed as unmanly, weak and effeminate.

As for the objectivity of the Natural Law, you are in the same league as Larkin. I tend to think you are his coach and that makes me smile in irony as I regard his posts. Larkin and others have deliberately provaricated when the topic of the objecivity of Natural Law comes up. Then, like you, after having sidestepped the debate, they claim that we just say it is so. Pathetic, Seeker. Oh, by the way, I even gave Larkin some historical information. Don’t tell me a person of your moral pursuasion hasn’t even read that. I thought you’d carry it in your hand bag and reference it at your parties.

And as for what Sodomy is,
sod·om·y (shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-mhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)n. Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Where I come from, we use the term buggery. Which means -
buggery ˈbʌgərɪ]
n anal intercourse between a man and another man, a woman, or an animal.

Frowned upon down through the ages, Seeker, and now embraced by the morally bankrupt, which probably means nothing much has changed.

 

[PassingThru]

No, I was defining PAIN.

 

[PassingThru]

I’m just quickly going to duck in here and add my two cents on something you said real quick.

Anal sex DOES NOT HURT if done correctly. Even the first time it does not hurt as long as precautions are taken. A woman does not need to endure the pain of anal sex. A woman who has anal sex the first time is sometimes less likely to experience pain and/or discomfort then she did the first time she had vaginal sex. Again that is only if it is done the right way.

SOURCE : I’m gay lol.

Thank you Adam for posting this.

I fail to understand how other decide this for you. I also have no idea, but I just take the word of people who do. The entire concept of others telling you this info is frankly baffling.

Again, thank you posting your experience.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

john

*Frowned upon down through the ages, Seeker, and now embraced by the morally bankrupt, which probably means nothing much has changed. *

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

 

[larkin31]

Again you have made yourself look very foolish, Larkin. You just proved you do not read properly the responses you supposedly answer. I specifically wrote that the book was a gift from my sister.

You may now apologise at this point, Larkin, for being carelessly negligent.

Again you have made yourself look even sillier by projecting ‘anger’ into my post. You are in serious need of help.

You shot from the hip, using ‘conjecture’ and when called on this, you try and make light of it by suggesting you were just making a ‘silly remark’. Like a little kid caught stealing from the candy store. Thing is, Larkin, most of your ideas are nonsensical and illogical
.
Again, Larkin, your lack of moral fibre shows itself when you attempt to deny not answering previous questions. No where have you addressed the basis of this discussion, that Natural Law is based on objectively discernable, universal truths. You originally stated that such laws did not exist, but then ‘discovered’ gravity. Since then you have used every evasive tactic you can dream up to avoid the issue. You now state that you answered this explicitly. Show me where, Larkin. Show me and the other posters where you answered this “explicitly”.

Why don’t I let it go? That’s easy, Larkin, it is because you are a prevaricator whose equivocations not only make you look silly, but are in effect deliberately misleading.

Here’s proof - you explicitly wrote "You have no idea what you are talking about in terms of the history of human sexuality, nor its outlook toward various forms of erotic pleasure." I showed you that firstly, you made yourself look foolish by using conjecture. Secondly, your suggestion that I didn’t know anything about “its”, (referring to history) outlook to various forms of erotic pleasure has been demolished by me yet you now assert that you didn’t even ask such a question. You wrote *“I never claimed that societies did not frown on this”. *Excuse me Larkin, but the obvious inference from your posts where you aren’t being explicit, is that other people do these things and that they have been doing these things for generations, hence your suggestion that I have no clue about history’s outlook. I provide proof that I do know about history and about history’s outlook on these things and you wiggle like a pathetic little worm on a hook, screaming “I never said that”. You are exhibiting schoolyard bully behaviour. When caught by the teacher, just say “I didn’t do it”.

Your very last sentence shows you to be not only extremely careless, but very, very sarcastically dishonest.

Larkin, I have a strong sense that you are in a state of moral panic. Little wonder. I suggest you tally up the apologies you owe me and deliver them. You will feel a little better about yourself once you deliver them.

I think that you are in love with me. I love you, too, by the way.

Thirdly, you think that I am a “bully”? Are you kidding me?

Chances are that humans have indeed been performing and enjoying these acts for thousands of years. Why else would moralists disparage it? You have been missing my point all along. Just so you know, I don’t enjoy them. Well, ok, some of them. But only the ones that my wife also enjoys. We are very respectable and loving and open that way. We become one, don’t you know. And in lots of different ways. Check those pictures out!

 

[CradleCath]

I’m just quickly going to duck in here and add my two cents on something you said real quick.

Anal sex DOES NOT HURT if done correctly. Even the first time it does not hurt as long as precautions are taken. A woman does not need to endure the pain of anal sex. A woman who has anal sex the first time is sometimes less likely to experience pain and/or discomfort then she did the first time she had vaginal sex. Again that is only if it is done the right way.

SOURCE : I’m gay lol.

#1. Are you a woman?
#2. I am 5/3" & weighed 103 lbs. when I married. I am a small person.
#3. I’m Catholic & my Church teaches chastity within marriage.
#4. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse.[8] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, & may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues. It can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse. It is also due to the high concentration of disease-causing organisms in the anus and the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself, exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases. Some authorities judge that all anal sex is unsafe, due to the high rates of condom failure, including those brands that claim to be specially strengthened.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks

#4. Why would a man who loves me, who chose me to be the Mother of his children, who took vows to love, to honor, to cherish me… ask me to do something that would cause me great pain, degradation at the filth inherent in such an act & expose me to disease?

I know that you answered my post in a kind way & I appreciate that. However, my husband & myself have found each other sexually attractive without the need for perversion for 51 yrs. & still do. So thanks, but no thanks.

 

[John21652]

I think that you are in love with me. I love you, too, by the way.

Thirdly, you think that I am a “bully”? Are you kidding me?

Chances are that humans have indeed been performing and enjoying these acts for thousands of years. Why else would moralists disparage it? You have been missing my point all along. Just so you know, I don’t enjoy them. Well, ok, some of them. But only the ones that my wife also enjoys. We are very respectable and loving and open that way. We become one, don’t you know. And in lots of different ways. Check those pictures out!

Well, I’ll give you one thing Larkin. You are nothing if not consistent! Another diversion from you. Anything to avoid answering the questions; no matter how rediculous it makes you look. Have you no pride?

I’m afraid that I must once again point out how illogical you can be. You see, how can anyone love what they do not know? In your case all I know about you is that you are morally bankrupt, a provaricator, negligent, a poor reader, lacking in the ability to concentrate, often disengenuous, and something of a moral and intellectual coward. Now honestly, Larkin, how could anyone fall in love with such a poor display of character? Therefore, on the available evidence, I must decline your advances. Now I know you will be feeling dejected at being rejected, but don’t lose all hope. The way you have been portraying yourself, I’m sure there will be some disordered moral bankrupt who will come along and give you succour. That’s my judgement based upon the currently available evidence, by the way.

Next point: One of the hallmarks of a bully is their obvious intellectual and moral weakness when challenged. So, on all the available evidence…

Your last point: Just because people have engaged in aberrant sexual behaviours down through the ages does not give those behaviours any legiimacy. They were considered to be abnormal back then and they are abnormal today. Remember the early part of this debate, which was about “the proper ends of things according to their natures”. Well, historically, the vast majority of human populations have been so disgusted with the aberrant behaviour of certain classes of people that they passed laws to confirm their disgust. They even went as far as hanging the moral bankrupts, or burning them, or even chopping them into little bits. Today’s world may be a little more forgiving, but that doesn’t make wrong right, does it?

You again have failed to read properly Larkin. That book, as I wrote earlier, doesn’t have the pretty pictures you are probably slavering over in your mind. It is an old copy of Burton’s work and the early works had no pretty pictures. It requires a literary focus to gain anything from its contents and , well, sorry Larkin, but I think you’d get bored with it. You know, on the available evidence…

Anyway, I am glad to hear you have a wife. And I’m equally glad you have certain limits to your behaviour. Provided you are being honest, there may be a shred of hope for you yet…

 

[John21652]

#1. Are you a woman?
#2. I am 5/3" & weighed 103 lbs. when I married. I am a small person.
#3. I’m Catholic & my Church teaches chastity within marriage.
#4. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse.[8] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, & may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues. It can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse. It is also due to the high concentration of disease-causing organisms in the anus and the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself, exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases. Some authorities judge that all anal sex is unsafe, due to the high rates of condom failure, including those brands that claim to be specially strengthened.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks

#4. Why would a man who loves me, who chose me to be the Mother of his children, who took vows to love, to honor, to cherish me… ask me to do something that would cause me great pain, degradation at the filth inherent in such an act & expose me to disease?

I know that you answered my post in a kind way & I appreciate that. However, my husband & myself have found each other sexually attractive without the need for perversion for 51 yrs. & still do. So thanks, but no thanks.

CradleCath, I take my hat off to you and your good husband. You said all that needs to be said and what you said represents what all men of good character would say if given the chance.

 

[RobbyS]

(your statement “is the result of children being sexually abused” may be one factor-reading your link gives others as well,I am sure that it is only a wrong choice of words.)

That is a good link and a good overall quick statement of the present known factors of what drives people to same sex attractions–nothing has really changed here is what John R.Cavanagh & McGoldrick wrote on this subject in Fundamental Psychiatry
"Homosexuality(Lesbianism or sapphic love when females are concerned) or inversion may be defined as a **PERVERSION **CHARACTERIZED BY A DESIRE FOR SEXUAL RETATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE SAME SEX"p.552

“Moore’s conclusions on this point may be summed up as follows:It is doubtful that homosexuals are anatomically distinct;even granted that they are,the question remains–is it a normal deviation or a pathological type?Apart from the hypothesis,evidence does not differentiate homosexuals as a class separated from men or women as clearly as men are separated from women,and vise versa.Moreover,the idea of homosexuality as due to some unfathomable force in nature compelling one to act as he does is a creation of the homosexual mind,a parataxis of defence.”

“From an empirical,scientific point of view,the major factors in the occurance of homosexuality are phychic in their nature rather than organic.From the philosophical and biological point of view,any displacement of the sex drive that makes impossible the attainment of the proper end of the sexual function **must of it’s nature be abnormal.**Accordingly,homosexuality and its fruitless acts must be pathological condition,whether the underlying pathology is of a psychic or an organic character.”

No evidence sustains the notion that gays are in any way different physically from others of the same gender. Their perversity is but another example of man’s tendencies to persist in error despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[CradleCath]

CradleCath, I take my hat off to you and your good husband. You said all that needs to be said and what you said represents what all men of good character would say if given the chance.

Thank you so much & I’m a woman blessed. My husband amazed me again today. He had to cut down a HUGE sycamore tree (with the help of some friends his own age) &, when I looked out the door, he’d climbed the 15 ft. trunk to tie some ropes to help it fall the way he wanted it to. He’d actually **shinnied **up, since there were no limbs below that height. He is 71 yrs. old & he’s still very attractive to me & I to him. We’ve been blessed & have never felt the need to practice immoral, degrading & dangerous acts to “aid” our love life.

 

[PassingThru]

#1. Are you a woman?
#2. I am 5/3" & weighed 103 lbs. when I married. I am a small person.
#3. I’m Catholic & my Church teaches chastity within marriage.
#4. Anal sex is considered a high-risk sexual practice, and unprotected anal sex is the riskiest of all forms of sexual intercourse.[8] The hazards are due to the vulnerability of the tissues, & may cause tearing and bleeding of the soft tissues. It can damage the sphincter muscles, causing incontinence and anal prolapse. It is also due to the high concentration of disease-causing organisms in the anus and the introduction of pathogens during the sex act itself, exposing the participants to a spectrum of contagious diseases. Some authorities judge that all anal sex is unsafe, due to the high rates of condom failure, including those brands that claim to be specially strengthened.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks

#4. Why would a man who loves me, who chose me to be the Mother of his children, who took vows to love, to honor, to cherish me… ask me to do something that would cause me great pain, degradation at the filth inherent in such an act & expose me to disease?

I know that you answered my post in a kind way & I appreciate that. However, my husband & myself have found each other sexually attractive without the need for perversion for 51 yrs. & still do. So thanks, but no thanks.

He answered your specific assertion. No more, no less. How are you getting so confused?

Its as if you said “Cheesecake tastes awful. Never had it, but its awful.” Then someone comes in and says “I have had cheesecake, it tastes good”. You then jump back and counter with “Its fattening, bad for your heart, hurts digestion and raises your cholesterol”. Guess what? HE DIDNT SAY IT WAS HEALTHY, AND YOU DIDN’T REFUTE THAT CHEESECAKE IS GOOD!

Its like you drift into different conversations. Adam was very, very specific and carefully refuted your account. You don’t have one single point to raise, so you bring in others as if they were part of his post. Maybe your points are spot on. But, its NOT WHAT HE SAID. He disagrees with you, and you don’t have the guts to just let it go. You know he is right. It is HIS OPINION. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove him wrong.

Its just so frustrating to see your convictions again gays/gay sex/whatever completely whitewash your comprehension. Its not just you. Seems like a common occurrence. If someone makes one logical point that can’t be refuted, people jump in with ancillary points and just blast away.

 

[John21652]

He answered your specific assertion. No more, no less. How are you getting so confused?

Its as if you said “Cheesecake tastes awful. Never had it, but its awful.” Then someone comes in and says “I have had cheesecake, it tastes good”. You then jump back and counter with “Its fattening, bad for your heart, hurts digestion and raises your cholesterol”. Guess what? HE DIDNT SAY IT WAS HEALTHY, AND YOU DIDN’T REFUTE THAT CHEESECAKE IS GOOD!

Its like you drift into different conversations. Adam was very, very specific and carefully refuted your account. You don’t have one single point to raise, so you bring in others as if they were part of his post. Maybe your points are spot on. But, its NOT WHAT HE SAID. He disagrees with you, and you don’t have the guts to just let it go. You know he is right. It is HIS OPINION. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove him wrong.

Its just so frustrating to see your convictions again gays/gay sex/whatever completely whitewash your comprehension. Its not just you. Seems like a common occurrence. If someone makes one logical point that can’t be refuted, people jump in with ancillary points and just blast away.

PassingThru, your needless attack on CradleCath is illogical, relativistic and just plain gutless. A woman who is 71 years old and of strong moral character explains what a wonderful relationship she has with her husband and you crucify her for her honesty, her moral strength and her intellectual courage in posting here.

She specifically acknowledged that Adam1986 had answered her question and she was even gracious enough to thank him. Then she restated her own opinion. Obviously her opinion is not negotiable. But you, in a fit of pique, come along and deride her for giving it, despite her grace. That makes you a bully. And a crude one at that.

Your cheesecake analogy is pathetic. There are many things in life we do not have to try in order to know that it is wrong, or dangerous, or, in this case, disordered and unnatural. If other people stuck their head in a gas oven, would you do it? Would you do something just because someone else has done it, or would you exercise some restraint with regard to your own personal safety? If some people get a kick out of jumping off rooves, would you do it? They might tell you it’s a proof of bravery, or of manhood. Would you be so stupid as to do it? I doubt, after reading this response to CradleCath, ou’d have the guts.

As CradleCath has pointed out, sodomy is highly dangerous and even the homosexual lobby recognises that. God knows, they keep telling one another to be careful. Worse, every gay site you dare look at has whole sections of how to go about anal penetration without causing pain. Use lots of lube, they all say. Well, I do beleive there must be some weird psychological need to inflict such painful, unnnatural and disordered use of the human body. After all, a sphincter muscle that is designed to keep waste from spilling from the body and foreign matter from penetrating the intestinal tract, must be stretched and abused for what some call pleasure, or even love. How sick.

As for Cradle Cath not being able to prove Adam wrong, well I’m sorry to tell you, but the Internet is awash with the things that go wrong because of anal sex. You haven’t the guts to acknowledge it.

I think you owe CradleCath an apology.

 

[larkin31]

Well, I’ll give you one thing Larkin. You are nothing if not consistent! Another diversion from you. Anything to avoid answering the questions; no matter how rediculous it makes you look. Have you no pride?

I just watched StAnastasia get criticized for pride. What gives around here?

I’m afraid that I must once again point out how illogical you can be. You see, how can anyone love what they do not know? In your case all I know about you is that you are morally bankrupt, a provaricator, negligent, a poor reader, lacking in the ability to concentrate, often disengenuous, and something of a moral and intellectual coward. Now honestly, Larkin, how could anyone fall in love with such a poor display of character?

Aw, you’re just flirting. I knew you loved me. Your charity makes me blush, too.

Therefore, on the available evidence, I must decline your advances. Now I know you will be feeling dejected at being rejected, but don’t lose all hope. The way you have been portraying yourself, I’m sure there will be some disordered moral bankrupt who will come along and give you succour.

Is “succor” something you learned from the Kama Sutra?

Your last point: Just because people have engaged in aberrant sexual behaviours down through the ages does not give those behaviours any legiimacy. They were considered to be abnormal back then and they are abnormal today.

Thanks. This exactly makes my point.

You again have failed to read properly Larkin. That book, as I wrote earlier, doesn’t have the pretty pictures you are probably slavering over in your mind. It is an old copy of Burton’s work and the early works had no pretty pictures. It requires a literary focus to gain anything from its contents and , well, sorry Larkin, but I think you’d get bored with it. You know, on the available evidence…

Hey, now that hurts. I am a literature teacher. Actually, the version of Macbeth I am teaching now has a few pictures in it…hmmm…maybe you have a point here. I will have to have a thunk on this one…

 

[karoleck]

Hey, would you mind addressing me? All this seems to do here–couched in this long ranting diatribe–is call me evil for not agreeing with you. Oh, yes. This also smears me as a likely “sodomite.”

You AREN’T married. I can see that now. So, you TELL me to get on board with catholicism in order to discuss it, but I can’t tell you to get on board with marriage before claiming to know how “normal” husbands and wives address each other intimately?

Others on this thread,indeed have given you their personal details,I for one have not–even in my personal details on myself when I joined Catholic Answers.The reason being is that there are sexual perverts on the internet,so why should I give my personal details and that of my family to these sick people##.Even in this thread,people like yourself would be the type that I refer to here.**Cradle Catholic **gave us a beautiful witness on what a Catholic Marriage is like–and your grubby,filthy friend attacks her for it,shame!!( ##I do this on Skype,Facebook etc-against identity theft and sick persons)

I never invited you “to get on board with catholicism” what I said is that I am praying for you and your same sex attraction SSA friends who promote a “gay lifestyle” to be converted from their evil ways–repent of their sins and to accept The Son Of God,Jesus;into your lives.This needs the gift of grace,hence the prayers of the Rosary.

You Larkin,said that you are “married” in your posting to John-is that to a man or a woman?I personally do not give any belief what ever of personal “details” that you give of yourself ;except when some of your SSA supporters say they are “gay” and practise Sodomy!!Jesus told us to judge people–not------
--------------------------------------------------------------on what they say;but on what they do!!According to you,you practise sodomy!

As to your remarks that since I am single according to you ;then I know nothing about marriage.That statement just proves again what John has been saying about your lack of intellect and your weak character.A doctor does not need to have HIV,Herpes,Papaloma virus,Clamedia and all the common sexually illnesses that “gay lifestyle” spreads;in order to treat it or in fact know about it.

You still persist in making outlandish statements of what The Catholic Church teaches as regards what is allowed in a sexual act between A MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN.You said a little while back that it allows a man to sodomize his wife,then into oral sex ;as long as it ends with a discharge of seed into a womans reproductive tract.You are so far off the mark–are you for real?(I would say no.)

AND YOUR GREAT CONCLUSION-

-using your twisted and false statement of course–to back it up–you say it so it must be true—as I said in your great victory using your wicked and depraved facts–

therefore–YOUR WONDERFULLY SILLY CONCLUSION was----

It will not be long before “gay” sex will be accepted as well!!-

-What you do not understand is that The Church even cannot change Gods’Laws as regards morality.The Catholic Church is founded on Christ;It teaches in His Name–The Holy Name of Jesus .That same Jesus firstly offers you Larkin His Mercy ;before He will Judge you.According to St.Paul men who do and promote evil like you do, will never get to Heaven–unless you repent!

O my Jesus,Save us from the **fires of Hell,**lead all souls to Heaven,especially those most in need of your Mercy.Amen

 

[larkin31]

Others on this thread,indeed have given you their personal details,I for one have not–even in my personal details on myself when I joined Catholic Answers.The reason being is that there are sexual perverts on the internet,so why should I give my personal details and that of my family to these sick people##.Even in this thread,people like yourself would be the type that I refer to here.**Cradle Catholic **gave us a beautiful witness on what a Catholic Marriage is like–and your grubby,filthy friend attacks her for it,shame!!( ##I do this on Skype,Facebook etc-against identity theft and sick persons)

I never invited you “to get on board with catholicism” what I said is that I am praying for you and your same sex attraction SSA friends who promote a “gay lifestyle” to be converted from their evil ways–repent of their sins and to accept The Son Of God,Jesus;into your lives.This needs the gift of grace,hence the prayers of the Rosary.

You Larkin,said that you are “married” in your posting to John-is that to a man or a woman?I personally do not give any belief what ever of personal “details” that you give of yourself ;except when some of your SSA supporters say they are “gay” and practise Sodomy!!Jesus told us to judge people–not------
--------------------------------------------------------------on what they say;but on what they do!!According to you,you practise sodomy!

As to your remarks that since I am single according to you ;then I know nothing about marriage.That statement just proves again what John has been saying about your lack of intellect and your weak character.A doctor does not need to have HIV,Herpes,Papaloma virus,Clamedia and all the common sexually illnesses that “gay lifestyle” spreads;in order to treat it or in fact know about it.

You still persist in making outlandish statements of what The Catholic Church teaches as regards what is allowed in a sexual act between A MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN.You said a little while back that it allows a man to sodomize his wife,then into oral sex ;as long as it ends with a discharge of seed into a womans reproductive tract.You are so far off the mark–are you for real?(I would say no.)

AND YOUR GREAT CONCLUSION-

-using your twisted and false statement of course–to back it up–you say it so it must be true—as I said in your great victory using your wicked and depraved facts–

therefore–YOUR WONDERFULLY SILLY CONCLUSION was----

It will not be long before “gay” sex will be accepted as well!!-

-What you do not understand is that The Church even cannot change Gods’Laws as regards morality.The Catholic Church is founded on Christ;It teaches in His Name–The Holy Name of Jesus .That same Jesus firstly offers you Larkin His Mercy ;before He will Judge you.According to St.Paul men who do and promote evil like you do, will never get to Heaven–unless you repent!

O my Jesus,Save us from the **fires of Hell,**lead all souls to Heaven,especially those most in need of your Mercy.Amen

I feel like this rant has been posted before. You copying and pasting?

 

[John21652]

john

*Frowned upon down through the ages, Seeker, and now embraced by the morally bankrupt, which probably means nothing much has changed. *

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Plato in his Laws, on homosexuality:

"Now then, suppose in the present case we agreed to pass a law that such practices are desirable, or not at all undesirable - what contribution would they make to virtue? Will the spirit of courage spring to life in the soul of the seduced person? Will the soul of the seducer learn habits of self-control? No one is going to be led astray by that sort of argument - quite the contrary. Everyone will censure the weakling who yields to temptation, and condemn his all-too-effeminate partner who plays the role of the woman. So who on earth will pass a law like that? Hardly anyone, at any rate if he knows what a genuine law really is… And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”