Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

David Quinn and Gay Marriage

13567…51

Comments

  • #62
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    philologos wrote: »
    wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

    Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

    I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

    In other words, I don't buy it because it doesn't make much sense to me.

    When I get a bit more time I might do a fresh search on the subject.

    But you seem to be prioritising gender roles over an actual happy home life.

    Think of it this way: Thousands and thousands of children either in State care or going from foster home to foster home because there aren't enough people who wish to adopt. A homosexual couple wish to adopt, so after background checks by the State into how good a home life they could give to a child, that child can then be raised in a loving environment as decided by the adoption agency as they would for any couple. Sure, gender roles do play a factor, but surely you'd agree that growing up with same-sex parents is better than growing up in State care with no parents, or even growing up with your own bad parents. Normal parents aren't really checked to see if they're raising their child right. Couples who want to adopt are.


  • #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm not saying that at all though Barrington.

    What I am saying is on average that it is better for a child to have a mother and a father. There might be cases where the mother and father are awful and other parents (preferably other father and mother situations) should be considered.


  • #64
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,024 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not saying that at all though Barrington.

    What I am saying is on average that it is better for a child to have a mother and a father. There might be cases where the mother and father are awful and other parents (preferably other father and mother situations) should be considered.

    Right, so it's not black and white.

    So if a same-sex couple and a hetero couple both want to adopt a child and the adoption agency determines that the same-sex couple could provide better for the child but the hetero couple can provide the gender roles, but each in a stable, loving environment, which couple do you think should be allowed to adopt the child?


  • #65
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    PDN: Yes, fair enough, I probably did forget where I was for a moment. I do stand over the points I made but the way they were phrased was excessive and snide. I apologise for that.

    philologos wrote: »
    wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

    You're not off to a great start here philologos. The first citation you make in support of your argument, The Role of the Father in Child Development by Michael E. Lamb actually says the opposite of what you're arguing. From his summary:
    First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

    Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

    Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

    Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment.

    The conclusions drawn by the author again and again, suggest that the optimal environment for a child is a happy home where there is harmony between parents and a stable loving relationship between parent and child. The gender-specific characteristics that a father may have are not as important. It also makes no mention of a comparison between heterosexual and homosexual parents and so you're not really comparing like with like by referencing this study.

    When I get a chance I will look through your other citations as well.

    philologos wrote: »
    Your position if true, refutes the idea that gender is significant in child rearing. Other studies on the other hand say that gender roles are significant in child rearing. Someones wrong, no?

    There may be studies which have conflicting conclusions, philologos, which is why we have scientific consensus. The consensus position of the relevant medical organisations, which a-ha has already posted, supports the idea that the gender of the parents plays no significant role in the outcome of the child.
    philologos wrote: »
    I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

    You may be skeptical but the evidence is there. Now if you have analysed the studies conducted comparing homosexual and heterosexual parenting and found flaws then post them. Even the author of the study you cited, however, doesn't agree with your intuition.


  • #66
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    philologos wrote: »
    wonderfulname: This is from a few years ago with some quotations from a text on the influence of gender roles on children. In this case it was particularly in the case of fathers. More citations here.

    These are useless. You are just saying that having the child raised in a dual relationship with a father role model and mother role model is optimal. D'uh! Then you make the bizarre leap that this is evidence against the notion that dual homosexuals couples are the less adequate choice.This is akin to going it's obvious apples are good for you, but here is some of the research that supports apples being good for you. Ergo, apples are better than oranges. How about comparing the apples with the oranges?

    I am highly skeptical of the claim that a woman can fully replace a father's role in a childs life, likewise I'm highly skeptical that a man can replace a mother. Men give different things to children than women do. If you take a look on google scholar for studies on gender roles in child rearing you'll see a whole lot more as well. Men and women are different and as such they complement eachother in child rearing. Each encourage their child differently, each deal with their child differently, and children can learn a lot from how each deal with others too.

    Pseudo skeptical more like. Have you any research that compares the hetero couple to homo couple that shows that the role of the father or mother can only be carried out by the traditional sex? Like it or not, there is no suggestion that the roles a parent plays in his/her child's development is anyway dependent upon their sex. It's like two parents being killed in a car crash, and two older brothers or sisters in their 20s raise the youngest sibling who is just a few months old. Can you suggest any plausible reason ,or point to research that shows, why these two brothers/sisters wouldn't be appropriate for raising their sibling? Finally, to put this myth to bed are you really going to suggest to me that a brother and sister raising a child together would be more preferable than either two brothers and two sisters?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Malty T: If you assume as you have done already in the thread that a woman can be a "father" and a man can be a "mother" then I'm sure you could conclude that. I don't see any valid or proper reason to believe that though.


  • #68
    andre2010
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 237 ✭✭andre2010


    Firstly as a gay man id like to add something.. I currently have no plans or think I will ever have plans to adopt a child. Im not the brooding type. But I am only 30, so this may change in the future. I think that it has been scientifically proven numerous times that same sex parents have no detrimental effect on the development of a child. Links have been provided, but there is no point in trying to change someones view by forcing your own on them, regardless of how true you think it is

    Secondly, while I find it hurtful to hear some of the comments made on this post, especially from Monty, you have to remember that this is a Christianity forum. You really have to know your audience. We cannot really get annoyed with what seems to be a devout religious person speaking his mind in a religious forum. I personally think that what he is saying is ridiculous and id rather base my fact on studies carried out by the scientific community than take the word of a book written thousands of years ago by guys clearly out of their faces on drugs talking to burning bushes and snakes. But everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of if you feel its correct or not. But I say to Monty, if you are going to follow the bible, then you cannot pick and choose which parts you believe and choose to follow. You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also. You do realize that more than likely if you are to believe everything you read, then youre on your way to meet satan also. See you there my friend, the only difference is, im going to enjoy my journey there, you can enter hell through the front door, i will happy enter through the back :P


  • #69
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    andre2010 wrote: »
    You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also.
    While I'm not interested in defending Monty, it might be best if you actually understood the thing you reject first. What you wrote above is nonsensical.


  • #70
    andre2010
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 237 ✭✭andre2010


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    While I'm not interested in defending Monty, it might be best if you actually understood the thing you reject first. What you wrote above is nonsensical.

    Im sorry but i dont agree with you. Its not Nonsensical, yes maybe a little sensationalized i agree and i dont mean to cause offence, but if Monty wants to be as draconian about this, then he must be following what the bible is telling him. My point i was making is, you cannot just pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, you must follow it all, otherwise, you go to hell. Im almost certain ( and i say ALMOST) as i do not know the guy personally, but i feel that from what ive read of the bible, there is no way that the majority of catholics follow every single thing it says. Yet victimize others who live their lives differently, its hypocrytical in my opinion. Sorry, i may not be making my point properly here, but i hope you get the gyst


  • #71
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    andre2010 wrote: »
    Im sorry but i dont agree with you. Its not Nonsensical, yes maybe a little sensationalized i agree and i dont mean to cause offence, but if Monty wants to be as draconian about this, then he must be following what the bible is telling him. My point i was making is, you cannot just pick and choose which parts of the bible to follow, you must follow it all, otherwise, you go to hell. Im almost certain ( and i say ALMOST) as i do not know the guy personally, but i feel that from what ive read of the bible, there is no way that the majority of catholics follow every single thing it says. Yet victimize others who live their lives differently, its hypocrytical in my opinion. Sorry, i may not be making my point properly here, but i hope you get the gyst

    O.K. - how about this. You start a thread about the probation against eating meat on Friday and the absolute compulsion Christians have to accept slavery and allow this thread to stay on topic.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    It'd be great if you could answer why not, particularly if you can do it without reference to your holy book.

    Yes, I know it's your goal to try and exclude God and his word.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    First off, this isn't a few confused animals. Homosexual behaviour has been recorded in over 1500 species and well-studied in over 500 species. Bruce Bagemihl presents a review of the literature on homosexual behaviour in animals in his book Biological Exuberance. This of course has already pointed out to you.

    If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural because it's obviously one that I wasn't previously aware of and certainly not this one.

    Identified abnormalities out of 1.74 million species identified to date.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    So unless you can demonstrate that a being called Satan actually exists or that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah actually happened can we stick to real points.

    Unless you can demonstrate Satan does not exist or Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen . . . .


  • #73
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Does that include anal sex between married heterosexual couples?

    Yes, of course. There are sins that "cry out to heaven"

    Voluntary murder (Genesis 4:10)
    The sin of impurity against nature –Sodomy and homosexual relations (Genesis 18:20)
    Taking advantage of the poor (Exodus 2:23)
    Defrauding the workingman of his wages (James 5:4)
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Is it the actual act that you object to, or homosexual relationships?

    Sex outside sex in heterosexual marriage for the pro-creation of life, and that's a bigger separate topic. This thread is essentially about the current attempt of trying to build "gay" "marriage" and child adoption around Sodomy in an attempt to normalise it.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why, what happens if sodomy becomes acceptable?

    God will turn the vast majority of the human race over to their passions and Satan.


  • #74
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I gather you believe oral sex is a sin too?


  • #75
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    That's not really a stone you should be throwing in this particular glasshouse, don't you agree?

    Besides which, the old "homosexuality = paedophilia" argument is beyond old at this stage, and even you should know the difference between the two.

    Who's claiming "homosexuality = paedophilia" ?
    Your failed attempt to drag and distract the discussion off topic is noted.


  • #76
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Monty. wrote: »
    Yes, I know it's your goal to try and exclude God and his word.

    I don't have a goal to exclude God or his word. It is important to me, however, to establish what is true. As Bertrand Russell once said: "When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out." Now if you care to demonstrate that the Bible is true and authoritative then fine, but until then I don't think it's pertinent to a factual discussion on gay marriage.


    Monty. wrote: »
    Identified abnormalities out of 1.74 billion species identified to date.

    OK, let's back up for a second. My first post in this thread was in response to gimmebroadband's comment about homosexuality being unnatural, where I posted several links to studies of homosexual animal species, since anything occurring in nature cannot by definition unnatural. Following this you made a comment about this being just "a few dysfunctional animals". I pointed out that it has been observed so far in over 1500 species.

    Now, first off, your species estimate is off by about a factor of 1000, which is impressive. You opened your post by talking about animals, as was I in my post. The current best estimate for the total number of animal species is 1.37 million. BTW, the widest estimate for the total number of species today is still no larger than 100 million so I don't know where your figure comes from.

    Secondly, the figure of 1500 species is by no means an upper limit and is only currently limited by our knowledge of the behaviour of studied species.

    Third, maybe you'd like to provide evidence why homosexuality is an abnormality or dysfunction, and I mean characteristically not statistically. You're making a bad is-ought argument here. Just because a particular behaviour is more common does not mean that it ought to be the behaviour across all members of the population.


    Monty. wrote: »
    Unless you can demonstrate Satan does not exist or Sodom and Gomorrah did not happen . . . .

    I'm not the one claiming that they do exist, you are. The burden of proof is yours.


  • #77
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    Who's claiming "homosexuality = paedophilia" ? Your failed attempt to drag and distract the discussion off topic is noted.

    You made the claim, when you compared the campaign for same-sex marriage right with the "right" to have sex with a minor. But I'm happy to see that you accept that the two issues are completely unconnected, and you're correct that this thread should focus solely on marriage equality for same sex couples.


  • #78
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    There is complaining about homosexuality and then there is hysterically invoking Satan at the mere mention of it.

    There are other Christians on this forum how manage to object to homosexuality in some what of a less flaming manner ;)


    For most Christians, Satan and his methods of temptation and trickery is accepted fact, not hysteria, and attempting to portray it as so will not work I'm afraid.


  • #79
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    mikeyboy wrote: »
    Your condemnation of homosexuals must at least in part be based on Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Since that refers only to male homosexuality does that mean you find lesbianism acceptable?
    Do you also refrain from eating pork, Leviticus 11:7-8? Wearing clothes made of more than one kind of cloth or planting more than one kind of seed in a field, Leviticus 19:19? Cutting your hair or shaving, Leviticus 19:27? Eating shellfish, Deuteronomy 14:9? Forbid a woman to speak in church, 1st Corinthians 14:34?

    A TV trick from West Wing as I recall. As any Christian knows, the bible must be understood and interpreted in its entirety.

    Romans 1:26-27, First Corinthians 6:9, First Corinthians 7:2-16, Genesis 2:24, Ephesians 5:23-33, and others are all relevant to this thread.


  • #80
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If David Norris is the only thing that comes to mind when you talk about sex with minors, then I suggest do a little bit more research. Others, who are theoretically far more ardent followers of the Bible, have actually carried out the act. I think it's very clear who is more deserving of your scorn and stone throwing.

    Norris had two agendas
    1) Normalisation and acceptance of male sodomy by promoting "gay" "marriage"
    2) Lowering the age of consent for people like himself


  • #81
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    andre2010 wrote: »
    But I say to Monty, if you are going to follow the bible, then you cannot pick and choose which parts you believe and choose to follow. You MUST and I mean MUST follow it to the t if you want to avoid hell and Satan. You must accept slavery also and never eat meat on a Friday also.

    Can you provide us with a basis for that claim ?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Now if you care to demonstrate that the Bible is true and authoritative then fine, but until then I don't think it's pertinent to a factual discussion on gay marriage.

    Now if you can prove the bible is not pertinent to a factual discussion on this forum, work away . . .
    oldrnwisr wrote: »

    OK, let's back up for a second. My first post in this thread was in response to gimmebroadband's comment about homosexuality being unnatural, where I posted several links to studies of homosexual animal species, since anything occurring in nature cannot by definition unnatural. Following this you made a comment about this being just "a few dysfunctional animals". I pointed out that it has been observed so far in over 1500 species.

    Now, first off, your species estimate is off by about a factor of 1000, which is impressive. You opened your post by talking about animals, as was I in my post. The current best estimate for the total number of animal species is 1.37 million. BTW, the widest estimate for the total number of species today is still no larger than 100 million so I don't know where your figure comes from.

    Secondly, the figure of 1500 species is by no means an upper limit and is only currently limited by our knowledge of the behaviour of studied species.

    Before you get too excited, I meant to write 1.74 million. Since when did 1500 out of 1.74 million make something statistically normal ?
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Third, maybe you'd like to provide evidence why homosexuality is an abnormality or dysfunction, and I mean characteristically not statistically.

    Maybe you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were homosexual ?
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    You're making a bad is-ought argument here. Just because a particular behaviour is more common does not mean that it ought to be the behaviour across all members of the population.

    From the same guy that said ;
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    If 1500+ species of animal which practice homosexual behaviour is not natural then I'd love to know what your definition of natural
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The burden of proof is yours

    Firstly, perhaps you can prove that for us.
    Secondly as you're the one wishing to change the status quo, the burden of proof is actually on you.


  • #83
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Monty. wrote: »
    Can you provide us with a basis for that claim ?

    Don't feed the troll please.


  • #84
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Monty. wrote: »
    Now if you can prove the bible is not pertinent to a factual discussion on this forum, work away . . .

    I don't like repeating myself but the burden of proof is yours. You are the one proposing the Bible as a fact in support of your argument, so perhaps you can tell me why anyone should consider it to be true or authoritative?

    Monty. wrote: »
    Before you get too excited, I meant to write 1.74 million. Since when did 1500 out of 1.74 million make something statistically normal ?

    OK, you meant million, but I'd love to know where you're still getting 1.74 million from. That's still 370,000 species to account for.

    I never suggested, that 1500 out of 1.74 million is statistically normal. However, it is a far cry from " a few dysfunctional animals". I have asked you, though, what basis you have for characterising homosexuality as abnormal or dysfunctional, apart from statistics, so whenever you feel like answering that one...

    Monty. wrote: »
    Maybe you could tell us how you, or any animal would be here at this stage if all it's ancestors were homosexual ?

    Nice strawman argument. I haven't said nor has anything I posted suggested that the observed homosexual behaviour in animal species is either a) all animals within a species nor b) exclusively homosexual. Yes, no animal whose ancestors were exclusively homosexual would be here today, but no one is claiming that.


    Monty. wrote: »
    From the same guy that said ;

    Ok, I'll explain this again, as simply as I can. Anything which occurs in nature is by definition, natural. So if there are homosexual animals observed in nature then homosexuality is natural. Simples.

    Monty. wrote: »
    Firstly, perhaps you can prove that for us.

    Certainly. Here you go.

    Philosophic burden of proof

    Legal burden of proof

    In both cases above, the burden is on the person making the claim, which is most elegantly termed semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

    Monty. wrote: »
    Secondly as you're the one wishing to change the status quo, the burden of proof is actually on you.

    I must have missed the memo where you proved that Satan exists. Satan is: "the title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible". If, contrary to Wikipedia, you have evidence to demonstrate the existence of Satan then it should be relatively easy to provide it. Then I can respond to the "status quo".


  • #85
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    PDN wrote: »
    Don't feed the troll please.

    You're right. That's all he seems to have left.
    I'm glad to see you issue that reminder, I'll leave you to deal with him.


  • #86
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    Norris had two agendas
    1) Normalisation and acceptance of male sodomy by promoting "gay" "marriage"
    2) Lowering the age of consent for people like himself

    I think you'll find that Senator Norris' agenda on the first point is to afford equal civil-marriage rights to same sex couples. Same-sex sexual activity has been already largely accepted and normalised for nearly 20 years, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland's then-current laws criminalising same-sex sexual activity breached the European Convention of Human Rights.

    I understand and respect that you have a different point of view, but the majority of people in Ireland accept that couples (be they same sex or opposite sex) have sex.

    As for your second point, Senator Norris is already well past the age of consent. I don't think he needs to worry about getting it lowered for him or people in his age bracket. Nor does he have to worry about it being lowered for gay men or women. That was also done nearly 20 years ago when the State equalised the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity.


  • #87
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I think you'll find that Senator Norris' agenda on the first point is to afford equal civil-marriage rights to same sex couples. Same-sex sexual activity has been already largely accepted and normalised for nearly 20 years, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Ireland's then-current laws criminalising same-sex sexual activity breached the European Convention of Human Rights.

    Because something is tolerated by the legal system, does mean it has to be accepted as normal or moral.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I understand and respect that you have a different point of view, but the majority of people in Ireland accept that couples (be they same sex or opposite sex) have sex.

    This does not in any way justify sodomy, or partnerships, "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    As for your second point, Senator Norris is already well past the age of consent. I don't think he needs to worry about getting it lowered for him or people in his age bracket. Nor does he have to worry about it being lowered for gay men or women. That was also done nearly 20 years ago when the State equalised the age of consent for both homosexual and heterosexual sexual activity.

    Norris's admiration for man-boy sodomy, and his desire for a lower age of consent has been well documented in the press.


  • #88
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Is oral sex immoral too?


  • #89
    Monty.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭Monty.


    Dave! wrote: »
    Is oral sex immoral too?

    This is off topic for this thread, but the short answer is that it depends on if it is open to creating life inside marriage.


  • #90
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Monty. wrote: »
    Because something is tolerated by the legal system, does mean it has to be accepted as normal or moral.

    It's not just tolerated by the legal system though. It was changed by the political system. As far as I'm aware, few if any politicians voted against the law decriminalising same-sex sexual activity, and I'm certainly not aware of any politician losing their seat at the next general election for voting the measure through.

    Perhaps that's not conclusive proof, but it's certainly indicative of the general population's acceptance.
    Monty. wrote: »
    This does not in any way justify sodomy, or partnerships, "marriage" and child adoption based on sodomy.

    Leaving aside your apparent assumption that ALL gay men in a relationship engage in anal sex, you presumably have no objection to at least lesbian couples being allowed to marry and adopt? Their relationship isn't "based on sodomy".


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Monty. wrote: »
    For most Christians, Satan and his methods of temptation and trickery is accepted fact, not hysteria, and attempting to portray it as so will not work I'm afraid.

    Which again raises the question of why you cannot discuss this subject in a less hysterical fashion when other Christians who believe homosexual acts are a sin seem perfectly able to.

    For example, why mention Satan at all. Sin is discussed all the time on this forum, very really requiring that Satan be brought into the topic. In the Bible homosexual acts are described as a sin. So is pre-marital sex. So is being disrespectful to your parents. So is using prostitutes. In fact quite a lot of things in the Bible are a sin.

    Yet these subjects can be discussed without bringing Satan into it? It is a sin, one of many. You seem to be promoting it as a particularly bad one, and then bringing Satan into the mix and I'm not sure why but I hope you can understand why people got the impression that to you this is a particularly prickly subject.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement