burnsspivey Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 30 2004, 08:00 PM'] Just to clarify, even the United States had laws forbidding [color=red][Edited by dUSt: homosexuals] [/color]to practice their sodomy with each other (laws also forbade unnatural acts between men and women--forms of sex that are not procreative--apparently there were some laws also forbidding, pardon the bluntness, women from being on top). These laws were supposedly struck down by the Supreme Court (I believe) in 2001. That is what led to the gay "marriage" debate to begin with. In any event, these laws had (wrongly) not been enforced for some time. [/quote] Ahahaha! The issue has been around for far, far longer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 6 2004, 02:10 PM'] I would prefer that marriage be removed completely from the legal sphere. However, if marriage is to remain a legal institiution it should be available to everyone. [/quote] wow. I agree with you on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 30 2004, 10:50 PM'] what's wrong with a woman being on top? [/quote] It has, in the past, been considered sodomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted December 6, 2004 Share Posted December 6, 2004 I know it has been associated with sodomy if the action is "in tergo", as in a case where the woman and man are not facing each other, but I wasn't sure about this case. The person who would have answered is gone now, so it's probably futile to continue debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artemisjade Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Dec 6 2004, 03:10 PM'] I know it has been associated with sodomy if the action is "in tergo", as in a case where the woman and man are not facing each other, but I wasn't sure about this case. The person who would have answered is gone now, so it's probably futile to continue debate. [/quote] Eh, it's only a 3 day suspension. [quote] Five different sexual acts are species of sodomy because each of them prevents procreation in a particular way. The five are: solitary masturbation; bestiality, which violates the human species; same-sex copulation, male-male and female-female; cross-sex anal intercourse; and intercourse with the woman on top, because this hinders conception. [/quote] That's from [i]De justitia et jure[/i], published in 1605 by the Flemish Jesuit Leonard Lessius, professor of law and theology at the University of Louvain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted December 7, 2004 Share Posted December 7, 2004 interesting. I suppose there is a practical consideration about it hindering conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 But is there any empirical evidence that it is more difficult to concieve in that way? And if there were none, would that change the teaching, especially if for some reason it might improve intimacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 [quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 7 2004, 02:37 PM'] Eh, it's only a 3 day suspension. That's from [i]De justitia et jure[/i], published in 1605 by the Flemish Jesuit Leonard Lessius, professor of law and theology at the University of Louvain. [/quote] 3 day suspension? THe Jesuit stuff is based on faulty science, you can pregnant in any position normal intercourse comes up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artemisjade Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 7 2004, 08:02 PM'] THe Jesuit stuff is based on faulty science, you can pregnant in any position normal intercourse comes up with. [/quote] Obviously, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted December 8, 2004 Share Posted December 8, 2004 [quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 8 2004, 11:17 AM'] Obviously, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand... [/quote] not much. tangents are fun though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 So, do I get to declare myself the winner since the debate seems to have stopped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirMyztiq Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Quietfire' date='Nov 20 2004, 09:38 PM'] You know, there is a much better form of contraceptive that NEVER fails when implemented properly. To date, when used in the proper manner, the success rate is 100%. The pill cant even boast that kind of record. Plus, it is a proven fact that by using it, you will not contract any STD through intercourse. There are no messy creams. No latex. It's amazing. Its been around a long time, yet so few people use it any more. Its called ABSTINENCE. [/quote] LOL. I'm too sexy for abstinence. Sorry, I can't help it! And Burns you OWN. Abstinence isn't 100% for the reasons Pivey has said. In fact, Pivey has pretty much settled this. Although, my new bumper sticker is the TRUE solution to this problem: Get YOUR religion out of MY Government. Also, I read through much of the stuff debated. And Pivey has pretty much won this without my rhetoric and "SirMyztaken" ways! Good job! Back on topic though. The original post said that we should start with contraceptives... Hmm, so if people like Socrates and Luigi were in power they would probably ban contraceptives right? Or at least they support the idea. Are people really that blind? Obviously sex isn't something religious. Only those who choose to believe in that religion see it that way. Thank God you aren't in power. Marriage has always been symbolic. Then people added sex into it. Then they added man vs. woman. Then along came money and it became the prime concern. It happens. It's called NOW, FUTURE, PROGRESS and adaption. Live with it. Edited December 10, 2004 by SirMyztiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Dec 9 2004, 08:31 PM'] LOL. I'm too sexy for abstinence. Sorry, I can't help it! And Burns you OWN. Abstinence isn't 100% for the reasons Pivey has said. In fact, Pivey has pretty much settled this. Although, my new bumper sticker is the TRUE solution to this problem: Get YOUR religion out of MY Government. Also, I read through much of the stuff debated. And Pivey has pretty much won this without my rhetoric and "SirMyztaken" ways! Good job! Back on topic though. The original post said that we should start with contraceptives... Hmm, so if people like Socrates and Luigi were in power they would probably ban contraceptives right? Or at least they support the idea. Are people really that blind? Obviously sex isn't something religious. Only those who choose to believe in that religion see it that way. Thank God you aren't in power. Marriage has always been symbolic. Then people added sex into it. Then they added man vs. woman. Then along came money and it became the prime concern. It happens. It's called NOW, FUTURE, PROGRESS and adaption. Live with it. [/quote] Heh. Danke Shoen. Does Pivey refer to me? If so it should be Spivey, just so you know. I have a catholic friend who wants to outlaw birth control -- except in cases where it's used for medical purposes and not as birth control. She also says that she doesn't want catholicism to be the supreme religion making the laws. I have a lot of trouble understanding that cognitive dissonance. It's one of those issues that bothers me to my core. How does one person dare to tell another how, when and why he/she can have sex? Even if you see it as a command from god, how is it any of your business -- shouldn't you let god take care of it? /threadjack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Dec 9 2004, 06:10 PM'] not a chance. [/quote] Then bring it on! I'm trying to hone my skills here and nobody is arguing any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now