• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"They're turning the whales gay!"

maquiscat said:
Paul was the one who started all of that crap. Other disciples didn't necessarily teach that. But Paul's church was the one that became dominant and evolved into the Catholic Church that spread to most of the world.
Click to expand...
Here is what Paul stated, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” I Corinthians 7:8-9. This is a specific circumstance. Paul also stated, "“Marriage is honorable in all,” (Hebrews 13:4) Paul wrote, and “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:11). Priesthood leaders, Paul counseled, such as bishops, were to be married. In his instructions to Timothy, Paul wrote: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2). Similar counsel was given to Titus (see Titus 1:6). Prophesying of the apostasy of the last days, Paul warned, “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, . . . forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4:1, 3). It would be inconsistent for Paul to characterize those who would forbid or counsel against marriage as having departed from the faith if he were himself antimarriage. So these teachings, as well as others Paul gave during his apostolic ministry, are testaments to the favorable feelings he had toward marriage.

So, I hardly think one can blame Paul for the celibacy of the Roman Catholic church.
 
CLAX1911 said:
And they can seek him out themselves they don't need you interpreting God's intent.
Click to expand...
Romans 10:13-17
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
[15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
[16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
 
maquiscat said:
While there is the possibility of you being the exception, most of your fellow Christians will take any act that they feel is sexual to be sexual instead of platonic. For example, in many Asian cultures, men will lay their heads on other men's laps, or they will be cuddled up together, or even holding hands, and no one there thinks of it as sexual, because those are also platonic acts in those cultures. But here, you and yours (again noting your possible exception) will almost always immediately jump to the conclusion that any two men doing such are gay. You make the claim, but I really have to wonder whether you really apply the words.
Click to expand...
So, you feel comfortable with a guy doing that with your kids? I mean it's all platonic ---- right? Maybe it depends on the culture and the circumstances, but I believe most people know the difference...
 
LittleNipper said:
So, you feel comfortable with a guy doing that with your kids? I mean it's all platonic ---- right? Maybe it depends on the culture and the circumstances, but I believe most people know the difference...
Click to expand...

If you can't understand the difference between pedophilia and consensual gay sex, then you should bow out of this conversation and start listening to people who know what the hell they're talking about so that you don't keep embarrassing yourself.
 
LittleNipper said:
BUT GOD IS the answer. And why should an ATHEIST be able to always fall back on his Marco-Evolution and Scientific interpretations of data. Isn't that essentially the very same thing. Are they not "stuck up."
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense that has nothing to do with gay sex.
 
LittleNipper said:
It's the latter. However, the pill is more prevalent than you might think.
Click to expand...
I am aware of the prevalence of the pill. And while the pill is used by 21.4% of women for BC purposes, second only to permanent sterilization (27.7%), overall hormone based birth control (pill, patch, injection, implant, etc) comprises only 28% itself total. Non-hormonal methods total 44.2%. If you include female sterilization, that brings non-hormonal to about 71.9%. So the methods that affect hormones is less than half that of non-hormonal. And no abortion is not among the methods counted for birth control. Those numbers are for BC users, and not women in general. 34.7 of all women use no birth control methods at all. Link

So really, we're talking less than a third of women who use BC having their hormones affected, at least by their BC choice.
 
LittleNipper said:
Here is what Paul stated, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am.
Click to expand...

Right there. The preference is to not ever marry or even remarry. He started it all. Others later may have taken it further, but he started it.
 
LittleNipper said:
So, you feel comfortable with a guy doing that with your kids? I mean it's all platonic ---- right? Maybe it depends on the culture and the circumstances, but I believe most people know the difference...
Click to expand...
Another guy my son's or grandsons' age? Sure, unless I see signs of sexual activity while they are still underage that I would halt whether the other is a boy or a girl. You have to understand that not only was I exposed to all kinds of cultural differences from my time in the Navy, but I also grew up old fashioned enough that a kiss on the lip (and not the deep romantic kind) was not considered sexual. I kissed both my parents, and some cousins who were the same that way. That's the way it used to be here, and still is in many cultures.
 
LittleNipper said:
Romans 10:13-17
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
[14] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
[15] And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
[16] But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
[17] So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Click to expand...
Quoting Scripture is beginner stuff.
 
LittleNipper said:
Instincts are for animals and are not unflawed because sin is prevalent. Sex between two of the same sex is illogical as it doesn't contribute to procreation...
Click to expand...
Sex between two 80 years in a straight relationship doesn't produce children either. The point of sex among humans is intimacy and pleasure with reproduction being a byproduct. Otherwise, we would only "mate" when the female is in heat like other animals.
 
Maccabee said:
Sex between two 80 years in a straight relationship doesn't produce children either. The point of sex among humans is intimacy and pleasure with reproduction being a byproduct. Otherwise, we would only "mate" when the female is in heat like other animals.
Click to expand...
I am going to disagree with this slightly. The point of sex is indeed reproduction. The point of sex is also intimacy and pleasure. The two are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Our bodies contain many parts and organs that each individually provide multiple functions. Our tongues are used for both tasting and communicating. Pleasure is not a byproduct of sex for reproduction, and reproduction is not a byproduct of sex for pleasure/intimacy. Both are full out functions of sexual intercourse which can occur either separately or together.
 
LittleNipper said:
Making things up is beginner stuff.
Click to expand...
This is highly ironic. :ROFLMAO:

Says the person who prays to an imaginary god. If your god exists then why cant you prove it in a way that doesn't need faith or belief, both of which are subjective?

Phys251 said:
Absolute nonsense that has nothing to do with gay sex.
Click to expand...
If his supposed omnipotent and omniscient god doesn't like gay people or LGBTQ people then why does she keep making so many of them? Unless his god doesn't exist............ Oh wait.
 
Real blank said:
Well if they are committing sodomy what else are they up to I never trusted whales
Click to expand...
They are Lindsey Graham and George Santos.
Not sure who’s on top.
 
SMTA said:
They are Lindsey Graham and George Santos.
Not sure who’s on top.
Click to expand...

They're both on the bottom. Of donald trump.

Now here's some brain bleach for the mental image I just created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom