If by equivalent you mean compatible, i don't think it's obvious. I think the biblical jesus never mentioned the subject, was supposedly a virgin, and had 12 dudes follow him around everywhere. Draw from that what you will. And man, you realize sodomy refers to oral sex too? You want to lock up like 98% of the country? You may as well say sodomy isn't inherent in gay marriage either.
You're right. It's that plus arguing for the gestapo to barge into bedrooms in the middle of sex act and drag someone away in handcuffs. What would be your proposed punishment, send them off to concentration camp? You really should learn this concept called "live and let live."
That's ridiculous. Yes, I realize that. I've never called for retroactive application of the law, and even so I think that's exaggerated. Except that it is.
I've never mentioned anything about a Gestapo, private acts do not from the law exempt. Imprisonment and fines, as with other crimes.
Any arrest where there's no victim is gestapo tactics far as i'm concerned, and considering your motive, a theocracy. But hey, as long as you don't mind if i send armed officers into your bedroom to haul you away when you're on the verge of climax...
Unless you pop out a kid every 9 months, i suspect you're not following your own principles. From your precious bible, nonprocreative sex is all the same so.
Then you show only that you lack an understanding of what the Gestapo was, and of what the word "theocracy" means. For what exactly...
Not every natural sex act will lead to conception, even you know that.
You want to enshrine your religion in law and impose your beliefs on others. Sounds like theocracy.
Sodomy occurs in nature, so you might want to look up "natural." And no, but if you are "fruitful and multiply," she better get pregnant every 9-10 months on average. If not, you should be arrested. And no sex outside that brief window, or masturbating.
Theocracy means rule by clerics. I am not proposing that.
By natural I mean "in accordance with human nature". That sometimes just doesn't happen. No, there is no reason to arrest in such a case. Which window at you referring to. I don't think that unnatural acts involving only one person should be criminalized.
Well then you're arbitrarily applying your belief system, which isn't surprising, since your belief system is arbitrary.
The window between when she delivers a baby and should expect to become pregnant again, if you're following the biblical mandate to multiply like jack rabbits. You could even get your own reality show once you reach kid #15
Also, sodomy is natural for humans as well.
No it isn't. My beliefs are backed up by nearly two thousand years of sound philosophy. Whereas yours are backed up by little more than baseless assertions by modern "philosophers".
There is nothing wrong with natural infertility. I think you're problem is that you're extrapolating from Catholic teaching in the absurd manner that materialist philosophers extrapolate philosophical conclusions, and not according to sound scholastic methods that are fundemental to Catholic philosophy. Obviously if you attempt to use one philosophical method on a philosophical system that is at odds with it, then you will reach absurd conclusions.
Sodomy is contrary to human nature, as it separates an element of human nature from its natural end.
I didn't mention infertility. I said that to *choose* to not reproduce, even temporarily, is as sinful according to bible literalism as taking it up the ass. Both have the same outcome: no kids. You and the ignorant sheep herder who wrote leviticus, and that self-hating flamer Paul, simply find sodomy icky, so you want to criminalize it. That's all your beliefs are backed up by, *your* interpretation of 6 verses written by goat lovers from the bronze age.
I don't need "philosophers" to conclude that consensual sex is totally harmless and that only a depraved busybody cares what others do in their bedroom.
Not having sex doesn't separate procreation from sex, and as such is not to be summarily condemned. And I'm not a biblical literalist, I oppose all of the modern philosophies which insist on refusing to consider matters through rational thinking. I won't attempt to refute your ad hominems, since they are fallacious and need not be refuted, but my views are based on sound reasoning, and can be supported without an appeal to divine revelation.
And I'm supposedly ignorant and anti-intellectual.
Haha right, now all sudden you want to claim that you're obsessed with others' sexual activity independent of any scripture. Please tell what "2000 years of philosophy" that doesn't depend on revelation condemns blowjobs. Since it's possible to orgasm hundreds of times during that month-long window, and only once will lead to pregnancy, and it's even possible to have nonprocreative sex during pregnancy, your "separates procreation from sex" is as arbitrary as it gets. It makes no difference! One pregnancy either way. Your argument is like flashback to Hippocrates-era belief that we have limited "seed" and to waste it means she can't get pregnant.
So your real issue is with gays, and being gay, they won't reproduce either way. Your proposed draconic law would have 0 effect on that. Again, that's totally arbitrary and capricious. Russia is ----> (that way)
I'm not obsessed. I didn't say that my beliefs are not guided by revelation, only that the conclusions can be reached based on natural reason alone. While the Christian philosophical tradition exists only because of the Christian revelation, that does not mean that it's conclusions regarding sodomy require revelation, rather they can be reached using a sound anthropology (in the philosophical sense of the word). Distinguishing based on what happens naturally as opposed to deliberate human actions is not in any way arbitrary.
So what you're saying is that you don't know what the word "draconian" means either?
Any law is based on human actions and not "what happens naturally," unless you're talking about "black codes" and such. Procreative sex is also, yeah, human action. So what i said about one pregnancy despite any other actions still applies. I suppose since artificial insemination is unnatural, you want to arrest them too, even though it leads to procreation.
Yes i would say you're obsessed. It's really creepy as hell and pointlessly oppressive. You're right, i should not have said draconian. That would imply a crime was committed. What you're proposing is more like totalitarianism. Say hi to comrade putin for me.
If you want to argue that you've a constitutional right to to buy booze on sunday i'm all for that (i would argue 1st amendment though). The fact it's not sold in your area currently is no reason to deny equal protection to gays though.
How does one man and one woman discriminate against either any man or any woman? What you seem to want is for a "strong personal desire" to trump the will of the majority. GLBT status is not mentioned in the constitution. If I start a hum while walking club, that does not mean that no one can discriminate against those that hum while walking? This notion that "protected classes" can be formed (based on ideas/desires) and are therefore "just like" races, religions or genders is nonsense.
Sexual orientation is an identity one is born with, exactly like race or gender. It's not "hum walking club." That you even compare it to that is insulting. No, i don't care what bigot voters from 2004 in utah want. That they don't get to oppress only makes me laugh and, well, gay in the pleased sense.
That is totally "unfair" to bisexuals, as they must get to marry one of each to be fair. I suggest that it is unlike race or gender since that characteristic is neither recognizable at birth, immutable nor included on a census form and, more importantly, is not mentioned by the constitution or any amendment. It is entirely a self declared characteristic, therefore no different than membership in a hum while walking club.
Trying to decide whether you're a POE or a RINO
Are you vaccinated? Gotten on an airplane? Using a computer? These are decidedly unnatural. Why is sex unique in the worldvaa being deserving of this "unnatural, therefore wrong and bannable" Status?I'm not obsessed. I didn't say that my beliefs are not guided by revelation, only that the conclusions can be reached based on natural reason alone. While the Christian philosophical tradition exists only because of the Christian revelation, that does not mean that it's conclusions regarding sodomy require revelation, rather they can be reached using a sound anthropology (in the philosophical sense of the word). Distinguishing based on what happens naturally as opposed to deliberate human actions is not in any way arbitrary.
So what you're saying is that you don't know what the word "draconian" means either?
Of course, same sex marriage bans are based on an immutable characteristic. Polygamy bans arent.That is totally "unfair" to bisexuals, as they must get to marry one of each to be fair. I suggest that it is unlike race or gender since that characteristic is neither recognizable at birth, immutable nor included on a census form and, more importantly, is not mentioned by the constitution or any amendment. It is entirely a self declared characteristic, therefore no different than membership in a hum while walking club.
Are you vaccinated? Gotten on an airplane? Using a computer? These are decidedly unnatural. Why is sex unique in the worldvaa being deserving of this "unnatural, therefore wrong and bannable" Status?
That has no constitutional basis
SCOTUS disagrees
Based on what case?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?