ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why two?
biology, not your subjective "feelings"
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
why two?
glassjester
Well-known member
Well, I probably won't be viewing it. But if it promotes any type of sexual relationship other than one between a man and a woman in a lifelong commitment, that is ordered toward the creation of new life - then I'm against it.
glassjester
Well-known member
Marriage is lifelong, two people, procreative... Quip really is a puritan at heart.
Lon
Well-known member
Perhaps a similar questioning of smoking related to cancer would give some pause for confusion, but there is no denying whatsoever that smoking is a dangerous behavior. When the numbers are exponential to the degree we are talking about, we are only talking about fractions of errors in the wiggle room. There is no way to ever refute numbers. They are what they are just like all math. It can't be fudged or faked. Sometimes reporting can do that, but we have government stats here. They are 'trying' to report accurate findings. -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
Hogwash. The only egocentric here is you. Admit this (I'm serious). You do NOT have my best intention in sight. You really are egocentric.
:nono: Look above. That man is you. You are an incredibly self-centered putz. Is that mean? :nono: You know you are. You have to know you are. Me? I'd like you to stop being one and actually enter the human race.
Well, having no interest in the divine, you wouldn't know or ever likely to, are you?
You really are this thin. It is sad, and I'd like you to be pushed beyond yourself. You have NO empathy ability.
:think: When did you become the actuator of the universe? Remember that arrogance/humility accusation? You might want to look in a mirror.
You have an empty husked soul. It is dried like a raisin and incredibly self-serving (means not very humble). Learn what humility actually is before you try to accuse someone of not having it again. At present, you should make it a habit to never bring the topic up, being your arrogant self. -Lon
glassjester
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
No, of course that is correct. I think we can approach this from both perspectives. Both physical and spiritual reasons can be the first approach to the conversation. On a political scale, it has to be the former. Maybe one day, the separation clause will not be out of balance on the pendulum we've allowed courts to make it. Imho, they are wrong and out of balance because they are pushing against spirituality (the exact reason the law was written). Secularism is an attack on ALL religions.
We can debate the merits or lack thereof of each, in turn when or if such is being proposed....that is if you're not being rhetorical.
A more pertinent question would be by what practical necessity does one preclude same-sex marriage?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It's a guide to exotic (hetero) sexual positions. I'm not sure of its stance regarding your other criteria
Anyway....is this normal or perverse sexual behaviour?
You're correct we have....and concluded that heterosexuality can be as perverse as homosexuality. Are you implying that perverse heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Then you need to define what "normal" sexual activity is.
Does BDSM count as normal? I certainly don't think it does. You?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So a pair must be christian before legal marriage can be sought.
That's an ideal fraught with problems! Anything else?
Or are you claiming that BDSM sex by christians is not perverse? Is BDSM hetero sex by non-christians perverted though?
You're not being clear.
How about a 3-way within a heterosexual christian marriage.
Now that must be considered "normal"....right? :banana:
You ok doser?
Need some time alone....all this sex talk...would only be normal.
I'll go take the dog out..
See you soon