Discussion in 'Community' started by DarthTunick, Feb 11, 2013.
Well, of course he was. Have you met Jesus? He's pretty ****ing metal.
lets all welcome our new filipino pope
"Filipino Pope" sounds like some sort of horribly degrading sex act involving a hat.
It actually involves a condom, sliced kumquats, two hats, and a Puerto Rican transvestite.
If I actually were on Twitter, I'd definitely follow that. Brilliant.
If what you say about being against any sex or sexual act that doesn't have the potential to create children is true, then why do your churches happily marry infertile heterosexuals? Given that the function of marriage is to socially sanction a sexual union, that's some serious hypocrisy, which I'm sure you'd agree with (given that you're pro gay marriage).
I'm also calling BS based on the fact that the Catholic church has promoted 'natural contraception' like the rhythm method. That's incongruous with the assertion that you're totally opposed to recreational sex and lovemaking.
Also, as you're a medical student I'm sure that you're aware that it is possible for a woman to get pregnant having only indulged in mutual masturbation, or oral or anal sex. It's just more improbable, but certainly not impossible. If God can theoretically bless infertile couples with children, he can far more easily bless kinky couples with children.
Claiming the catholic church is not anti-gay is ridiculous. Their position ranges from mild bigotry, through tragic hypocrisy, backed up by sinister 'Adam and Steve' style arguments from the pope himself.
The opinion of the Catholic Church is that marriage was instituted by God. It's between a man and a woman. Period.
Man-made rationalizations for God's command are beside the point.
Edit: The opinion of the Catholic Church is that contraception (outside of scheduling) and "non-standard" sex are bad because the bible says something about not spilling your seed on the land, or something...
Because infertile heterosexual couples would otherwise have the capability to create life through natural intercourse were it not for medical problems. Being born a male or a female is not a medical problem. Homosexual couples are infertile as a result of natural biological sex, not as a result of a defect in their reproductive tract. Hence, their intercourse is in principle open to life.
And the only way that those other acts can result in pregnancy is if semen gets in the vagina. The natural result of manual sex is not semen in the vagina. Same thing with oral or anal sex.
so i can have anal as long as i *** in her ***** is what you're saying. im really glad we have theologists to figure this stuff out
Genius use of 'Period' and 'Edit'!
God's command is man-made, and the arbitrary commandments and random things it 'says something about' have always been cherry picked. We've ditched so much in favour of progress already, such as slavery, kidnapping and raping the virgin daughters of your enemy, sending people with hairy moles to the desert, sending women on their periods to the desert, burying your poo, ban on mixing fabrics, ban on hairstyles, ban on pig products, banning eunuchs and unfortunate penis-less people from church, banning divorce, the whole shellfish, fish and ducks thing... We all agree we are better off without these archaic and ultimately mad as a hatstand aspects of the word of God.
The natural result of manual sex is sperm shooting everywhere. You bet a natural consequence is some entering the vagina, especially if he comes first.
The natural result of anal sex includes a certain amount of loosening and seepage. The two holes are awfully close together, so according to such natural laws as gravity and Sod's law, you can expect some communication between the two.
I honestly didn't think I'd need to explain that to a medical student, especially given my experience of them at uni....
Why is the church happy to marry infertile people? Why is the church happy to marry pensioners? As I see it, they either have a naïve faith that God can intervene and make any woman pregnant, (even if she's in her 80s or 90s and/or had her uterus removed), or they think there's more to marriage than just sex and/or procreation.
I don't see how that invalidates or even addresses anything I said.
Better with bold?
Disappointed, Yoda is...
The Bible and other official Church traditions are full of couples who were thought to be infertile or too old, but still got pregnant... such as Abraham and Sarah, as well as the Virgin Mary's parents.
I don't agree with their final stance, but I can understand how they came to it. It's logical, even if I think they're starting assumptions are wrong/misguided.
And actually, in religion class at my Catholic high school, they promoted learning the biological cycles of a woman (for when your married) as natural and unsinful birth control, since it's still technically open to life. You don't need to be intending to procreate, just open to it if that's what God wants.
They're anti-gay-sex, but not anti-gay-people. Are there some who are actually anti-gay-people? Yes, but they're committing a sin, according to the Church.
As for the non-vaginal sex, that's a good point. They honestly probably don't know that. Even regardless of that, I don't think that teaching is going to stay official for that much longer anyways.
Well, in fairness, on the first suggestion that God can intervene to make any woman pregnant even if past childbearing age, they do have a Biblical precedent on that. The naivete of that faith is not relevant. On the second point, the Church does think there's more to marriage than simply procreation.
The opinion of the Catholic Church is that the command comes from God.
Your opinion that God's command is man-made is beside the point. That they cherry-pick, in your opinion, is also beside the point.
You wanted to know why the Catholic church does something. I gave my explanation (it's because God says so).
I don't why you seem angry with me. I was only trying to help.
@Obi-Zahn Kenobi what if ive got a dudes butt, [Kate edit]kosher or not kosher?
Kate edit: This just moves over the line for me, sorry.
No sex outside marriage
If the Catholic church endorses gay polygamy, you'll be all set
i saw the pap come to the balcony and i thought to myself that is not a very impressive-looking pap. this must be a low-point in suitable candidates for pap. just like it is for presidents of the united states of america.
If you feel personally insulted or harassed, I apologise; I've aimed to attack your argument not your person. I'm sure you're a splendid chap.
They certainly think the Bible is the word of God, but every priest, nun, monk and clergy I've talked to accepts that it was received, written, translated, edited and compiled by fallible men. The fact that the Bible is cherry picked isn't just crucial to the point, it's crucial to Catholicism; the content of the Bible itself was cherry picked. It's not a controversial position.
Biblical literalism is a sin in Judaism and it's frowned on in Catholicism too, but they still support the more sinister/bat**** passages when they confirm their prejudices, that's my point. My list of abandoned dogma was an attempt to demonstrate how happy the church is to ditch ridiculous Bronze Age specific commands, proving that they could just as easily tweak their archaic bigoted positions on marriage, sex and sexual health, etc.
I think the key is getting married and female priests.
I honestly think they don't understand these sex issues at all. They are a bunch of celibate men (or at least should be...).
While Pope Francis will probably keep most of the orthodox positions, at least it looks like he'll shift emphasis away from them and more to social justice and social outreach.
ok, but I didn't make an argument. I just offered the Catholic Church's true rationalization for its stances on certain issues.