ACW Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I would guess because society has deemed it deviant.Seems simple enough. btw...Waffles Define "society." And "society" once defined interracial marriage immoral...nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Define "society." And "society" once defined interracial marriage immoral...nuff said. Find a dictionary...your online Interracial marriage was illegal at that time as well. Unless society changes its mind or the courts rule it is a right it will remain illegal. Personally I reject gay marriage on religious principles, but truly don't care what society or the courts decide....yea or nay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What a ****ing hilarious thread. ES needs a "classic thread" archive for stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What a ****ing hilarious thread. ES needs a "classic thread" archive for stuff like this. Start your HoF if you want. But me, I still claim that the best post in the history of Tailgate is this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeSkin Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 simple nature. Penis - vagina not penis - anus Everything else is meant for those that want to morally equate something unnatural with something natural. What about penis-mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Start your HoF if you want. But me, I still claim that the best post in the history of Tailgate is this one. Short and to the point :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Is it immoral when it's- penis-vagina-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina? Sounds like a way to get someone a disease. Why didn't you include the ear and the belly button while you are at it? And what you are referencing is unnatural. In your world I suppose it is not immoral. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I found this thread ammusing. It's obvioulsy tounge in Cheak and written to point out how poorly the arguement against allowing Gays to married really is. Because they can't have kids has been a main arguement for not allowing gays to marry.I laughed.... I also think it's a very good thing Jonathan Swift was not a Redskin Fan who wrote here. Exactly. Like Predicto, I can't believe so many of you didn't pick up on it. He really did bend over backwards to telegraph his real intentions/meaning. Even so, the hilarity that followed made it all worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Exactly. Like Predicto, I can't believe so many of you didn't pick up on it. He really did bend over backwards to telegraph his real intentions/meaning.Even so, the hilarity that followed made it all worth it. It is not nearly as funny considering the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred priviledge. If it were not so then why not allow marriage between a man and a parakeet? There is no difference from a natural standpoint. This moral mumbo-jumbo being played is about one thing. Equating something that can not be equated. Allow "civil unions" for taxation purposes if it helps you feel better. But do not disrespect what marriage really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What about penis-mouth? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Is it immoral when it's- penis-vagina-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina-vagina-ass-vagina? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :applause: :applause: :applause: This thread ROCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :applause: :applause: :applause: This thread ROCKS! ...like Hudson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 What about penis-mouth? Short and to the point :applause: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Sounds like a way to get someone a disease. Why didn't you include the ear and the belly button while you are at it? And what you are referencing is unnatural. In your world I suppose it is not immoral. But whatever helps you sleep at night. Or a really bad yeast infection.. I don't think it is immoral if you are a male/female married couple and doing that stuff. Hell, the Song of Solomon in the Bible makes reference to oral sex. Here are some examples.. Some guy getting his wood smoked. Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (Song of Solomon 2:3) Fur Burgers Awake, O north wind, and come, wind of the south; make my garden breathe out fragrance, let its spices be wafted abroad. May my beloved come into his garden and eat its choice fruits! (Song of Solomon 4:16) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin11 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Honestly, no disrespect but religion is a crock of bull ****. I dont understand why some people follow that book like its a life and death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Honestly, no disrespect but religion is a crock of bull ****. I dont understand why some people follow that book like its a life and death. No. I think you do mean disrespect. If you didn't you would have never compaired religion (Christianity) to a crock of bull crap. The reason why you don't understand is because you don't believe. You have no faith. When you read the Bible it doesn't make sense to you does it? You need to have faith in God first before you are spoken to. Why? I dunno. For some reason that is a big stickler with God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins24 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I dont understand why some people follow that book like its a life and death. By "some people" I'm assuming you're talking about Dumbsheet And by "that book" I'm assuming you're talking about Dumbsheet's book (whatever that may be). I know he mentioned the bible a couple of times but absolutely nothing he said is in what the world knows to be the bible. Not sure what "bible" he's talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbsheet Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Dang, right after I started this thread, my internets went down. It was probably some Jew. But I got it back up. I've got a question (or two) on a related point....What about people like me, who are fertile but who have absolutely no interest in having children of their own? This would apply to my roommates as well. They KNOW they're fertile (she had a miscarriage a number of years ago) but have no interest in actually having a child of their own. Would you allow such a couple to marry, if your Holy Book indicates that the ONLY reason for marriage is procreation? Well, my friend from the great republic of Ted Kennedy, you are a heathen. What you are practicing is a combination of one or more of the following hedonistic acts: contraceptive sex (sinful whether it be in the bounds of matrimony or not), abstinence during marriage (not having sex with your married partner is against God's purpose and annulls the marriage), masturbation, or beastiality. In other words, you're a bad boy. Additionally, what would you do about marriages like the one my cousin Craig is in.... where they've been trying to have a baby for a number of years unsuccessfully. They've been to the doctors and been told they're both fertile, just very unlucky. Would you have their marriage annulled because they haven't had children? If so, how long does a couple get to start pumping out kids before their marriage gets decertified? Well this isn't sinful because they are at least trying to fullfill the holy purpose intended of their matrimonial union. However, Craig may need to be 'enlightened' as to which orifice to use for successful intercourse. Anus - bad. Mouth - bad. Bellybutton - bad. Vagina - good. Is this really that hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 ISo, let me sumup. In the eyes of God, any form of sex an infertile person has is just as hedonistic and blasphamous in the eyes of God as homosexual sex. But the bible also says sex for pleasure alone is fornication, a sin of the worst kind. I realize you're probably being facetious and just trying to stir up controversy, but fornication is as far as I know defined in the Bible as pre-marital sex. There is no biblical prohibition against sex for pleasure within marriage, regardless of fertility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbsheet Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 I realize you're probably being facetious and just trying to stir up controversy, but fornication is as far as I know defined in the Bible as pre-marital sex. There is no biblical prohibition against sex for pleasure within marriage, regardless of fertility. The word fornication comes from three separate words in the Bible, two from the Hebrew and one from the Greek. These words all share similar connotations. Each can mean literal fornication between two unmarried persons in a marriage contract; however, it can also signify adultery, whoredom, or an act of unfaithfulness on the part of Yahweh’s people. To clarify, an "act of unfatihfulness" is a catchall for just having sex to have sex and not for any other higher purpose. yip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 however, it can also signify adultery, whoredom, or an act of unfaithfulness on the part of Yahweh’s people. To clarify, an "act of unfatihfulness" is a catchall for just having sex to have sex and not for any other higher purpose. Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion. You have still not provided evidence that marital sex is inherently sinful unless its sole purpose is procreation, simply that any non-marital sex is sinful. I suppose that pregnant couples who continue to have sex are sinning as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macnoke03 Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion. You have still not provided evidence that marital sex is inherently sinful unless its sole purpose is procreation, simply that any non-marital sex is sinful. I suppose that pregnant couples who continue to have sex are sinning as well. Honestly Riggo, I think you are wasting your time and keystrokes. The guy is obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumbsheet Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Sorry, but that is not a logical conclusion. You have still not provided evidence that marital sex is inherently sinful unless its sole purpose is procreation, simply that any non-marital sex is sinful. I suppose that pregnant couples who continue to have sex are sinning as well. *Sigh* Read this then. It explains it all. http://www.trosch.org/the/sex_n-v-un.html Natural and Unnatural Sex Acts: Natural sexual activity are those acts between an adult male (preferably 25 years of age or older with reasonable financial stability and maturity) and a female who has reached an age of sufficient maturity to responsibly bear children as God wills (husband and his wife). Procreation may not by intent be excluded whether by natural means or artificial means. Scriptural limits are set upon the days of a woman's cycle when sexual intercourse is permissible. Probable fertility occurs at the beginning of the permissible duration for moral intercourse as shown in the story of Bathsheba's pregnancy. All focused ejaculations of a human male must be deposited within the vagina of a mature human female. The activity may not have been intentionally rendered infertile either by the male or the female. A woman may only receive sperm from a human male in the approved natural manner. All other two party (human or lower animal) sexual activity wherein one or both participants are human is condemned as unnatural. All sexual activity between near relatives or where one is a minor is condemned even if otherwise considered as natural. So there it is. Yo-diggity-diggity-diggity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 No. I think you do mean disrespect. If you didn't you would have never compaired religion (Christianity) to a crock of bull crap.The reason why you don't understand is because you don't believe. You have no faith. When you read the Bible it doesn't make sense to you does it? You need to have faith in God first before you are spoken to. Why? I dunno. For some reason that is a big stickler with God. Personally I feel like you're not being very fair here. I am catholic personally. I believe in god, I have my children baptised as my wife and I are. We have palms and pictures in our house even. But you act as though everyone should have faith simply because a book tells them to. You can't sit there and tell me that it should be so easy for everyone to have faith in a god and or religion that they have never seen nor spoken to. Some have that ability to have faith simply because it makes life easier for them if they beleive. Others have a hard time believing in something that has only been "proven" in books of scripture. I see absolutely no fault on the part of anyone that doesn't believe in faith, because their argument against it is just as potent as the argument of those that are for faith. The problem I have with "hardcore religious people", is that they are very narrow-minded. Each individual is allowed to make their own decision, but should ultimately be able to atleast accept that others may or may not believe in the same things they do. For you to act as though your religion is the one and only way to go is absolutely ignorant in my mind, as you have no proof of your religion other than a book. This leading back to the faith argument...you have every right to believe in what you do. But you need to realize there is no right/wrong with religion. You should accept others' opinions, whether you like them or not. Now I do think that saying religion is a crock of bullcrap was wrong. To criticize a religion is simply harsh in my mind. But I think you're both approaching this the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.