Sodogamy vs. homosexual

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
Ionnis said:
Do you call Black people coloreds and negroes too?  How about people with down syndrome?  Are they mongoloids?  What about those yellow people?  I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive for some.  Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 
Better I don't answer your question.

Ah, but yes, the political correctness of the day.  It's wrong, racist in fact if I'm not mistaken,  today, to refer to Black people as "colored people," but it's ok to to refer to Black people as "people of color;" yes, very logical.  The term
"African-American" is absurd, because it describes people from a continent, not a nation, a continent composed of Caucasians and Blacks, eg. Egyptians are Africans, and Egyptians who have immigrated to America, you guessed it, are "African-Americans," but Egyptians are Caucasian.  But, no, politically correct America has assigned the term "African-American," to people of the Black race.  What ever was wrong with the proper name for this race, "Negroe," from the Spanish for "black?"


 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
ialmisry said:
biro said:
podkarpatska said:
We speak of the 'great heresy' of phyletism all of the time - but one sin that is prominently mentioned in the New Testament - that of judging not your brothers and the casting of the first sin - not so much. Do you people think you are being 'cute' or 'funny?' I am NOT defending by any means the so-called 'gay agenda' - far from it, but this is bordering on the absurd, not to mention distasteful.
But it's okay to hate some people!  ::)
That's what we are told about the likes of Cardinal Dolan.
Huh?  Stupid comments on blogs are telling us things? (If that's the case folks reading any of our Ortho blogs could pick up some warped ideas about our faith!)  Statements by extremists among advocacy groups? Like the ones that tell their minions to 'hate' the President? Enough with hate and hatred - they are the tools of the Evil One.
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
Ionnis said:
Do you call Black people coloreds and negroes too? 
Yes.  Much nicer than what most people around here call them.
How about people with down syndrome?  Are they mongoloids? 
No.  I have not heard that term since DEVO sang about them. 
What about those yellow people? 
Oriental works for me.  I have never really seen one that is really yellow.  In any case, most of my "yellow" friends prefer Oriental.
I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive bleeding heart liberal (FTFY) for some.  Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 
Well, he would certainly NOT be a fudge packer.  I would probably call one as you describe a person.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ionnis said:
Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 
Celibate.
 

Seth84

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Punch said:
Ionnis said:
Do you call Black people coloreds and negroes too? 
Yes.  Much nicer than what most people around here call them.
How about people with down syndrome?  Are they mongoloids? 
No.  I have not heard that term since DEVO sang about them. 
What about those yellow people? 
Oriental works for me.  I have never really seen one that is really yellow.  In any case, most of my "yellow" friends prefer Oriental.
I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive bleeding heart liberal (FTFY) for some.  Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 
Well, he would certainly NOT be a fudge packer.  I would probably call one as you describe a person.
Good grief, Punch.  I can't tell if you are being serious or not.   And what is a "bleeding heart liberal"?
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
We Orthodox are often accused (justly in many cases) of not being as literate with Scripture as say, our Protestant friends. Some of what is being posted on this thread confirms that - even in the case of converts who must have abjured memory of the same on conversion.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28 Enough with the name calling and judging of others already.

(This goes for the nonsense being put out on the 'Brother Natanael' thread as well.)
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,295
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
Exactly. We've all seen people post here in florid encouragement that straight people should be able to do X, Y and Z in a marriage. Yet gay people are supposed to be going to hell for doing the same physical deeds.

Why is it okay for one and not another?

And what do we do about gay animals? You know, the ones in the zoo, the ones in the woods, the ones in lots of different species?

If the goats aren't going to hell, why are the people?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
biro said:
Exactly. We've all seen people post here in florid encouragement that straight people should be able to do X, Y and Z in a marriage. Yet gay people are supposed to be going to hell for doing the same physical deeds.

Why is it okay for one and not another?
Yep. Like any adultery or fornication.

biro said:
And what do we do about gay animals? You know, the ones in the zoo, the ones in the woods, the ones in lots of different species?

If the goats aren't going to hell, why are the people?
and they keep on telling us that the homosexual agenda doesn't lead to legitimation of bestiality.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
I'm not familiar with that one.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,295
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
I'm not familiar with that one.
That's because it doesn't exist.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision.  ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ).  Sodomite and catamite.  It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity.  It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade.  I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage."  Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
biro said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
I'm not familiar with that one.
That's because it doesn't exist.
Asking you to take your eyes out and tell me their color I see.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Green_Umbrella said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.
I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,295
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
ialmisry said:
biro said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
I'm not familiar with that one.
That's because it doesn't exist.
Asking you to take your eyes out and tell me their color I see.
What the hell are you talking about?

Another snotty comeback instead of accepting that some people don't accept the bull#### you shovel. How tiresome. In all the years you've been here, haven't you had any other ideas?
 

stavros_388

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 5, 2010
Messages
1,325
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Canada
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision.  ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ).  Sodomite and catamite.  It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity.  It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade.  I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage."  Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.
Well, get to work and brainstorm some more. Because, you know, coming up with names and titles to single out certain kinds of sinners is definitely what Christ called us to.  :p
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
Green_Umbrella said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.
I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.
I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not  penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all.  
Sodomy is sodomy. No matter if homosexual or heterosexual practices it.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
biro said:
ialmisry said:
biro said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
Schultz said:
yeshuaisiam said:
We call the "sodomites" in our home.   We read a lot of older pioneer books to the children that talk about people being "gay" (meaning happy of course).  We didn't want to confuse the young ones.
You talk about sodomites in front of your kids?

I didn't even know what homosexuality was until I was well into my teens and my family certainly wasn't the type that held things back for the sake of child's ears.
You didn't grow up in today's (re)education system.
Ah, you mean the education system where we teach young people that they don't need to hate themselves? That one?
No, that one that teaches self loathing to boys, whites (especially Europeans, and worse yet Northern Europeans), heterosexuals, Christians-basically anyone not fitting in pet minority favored status.
I'm not familiar with that one.
That's because it doesn't exist.
Asking you to take your eyes out and tell me their color I see.
What the hell are you talking about?

Another snotty comeback instead of accepting that some people don't accept the bull#### you shovel. How tiresome. In all the years you've been here, haven't you had any other ideas?
Quite a projecting echo you have there.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Green_Umbrella said:
ialmisry said:
Green_Umbrella said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.
A person who practices sodomy
Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
I have no information on the percentage of heterosexual people who engage in sodomy . But still, a spade is a spade. A sodomite is a sodomite.
I do, depending on your definition of Sodomy (which should be narrowed down to homosexual activity): IIRC half for oral sex, a quarter for anal sex.
I do not think sodomy is just a term for homosexual activity. Look at Romans 1:27...

And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

When St Paul writes the men left ¨normal sexual relations with women¨ I am thinking penile/vaginal copulation. Not  penile/anal copulation. The penile/anal copulation is just as abnormal no matter if the receiver is male or female. The organs are not made to go together...at all. 
Not much on kissing I guess.

We have a thread on that, which I linked above, and several others which I think are now in the private forum, e.g.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38152.0.html

We have several threads on contraception which go on into this, e.g.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21230.msg674054/topicseen.html#msg674054
another example:
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
ialmisry said:
Papist said:
Irish Hermit said:
Papist said:
elijahmaria said:
ialmisry said:
Azurestone said:
ialmisry said:
Ronald L. Conte, Jr. "Roman Catholic Theologian" has some interesting thoughts on this matter (esp. section 10)
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05
His logic is flawed because he doesn't prove that oral sex, for example, is evil in it's own right. Rape is evil in it's own right, therefore, any form or amount of rape is evil. He doesn't prove this with oral sex, but assumes it, then claiming any amount of oral sex is evil. But what would make oral sex evil? Catholic teaching is because the sexual act is finished in a way that doesn't allow for life. So it's not the act of oral sex that's evil, it's the openness to life that is evil due to the reduction of the sex act for pure sexual gratification.
I think he dissects it nicely to prove his point. What he doesn't prove, is the action theory of natural law that he shares with the Vatican, gotten from Aquinas.  Which of course, is the problem.
Which is of course some twisted figment of your imagination. 

M.
Amen!
The "Natural Law" is a tricky thing.  We had a dairy farm and while I never saw either bulls or cows giving one another oral size, it was not uncommon to see bulls enjoying anal sex with one another.  It seems to be part of the Natural Law and certainly I cannot see any way to lecture them on morality and perusade them to see it as evil and contrary to the Natural Law.
Now that is just stupid, as bulls don't have a rational nature, and so there is no issue of morality with regard to how they use their bodies. Wow Fr. A. I expected better from you.... Oh wait. No I didn't.
Did you expect more of St. Gregory?  The quote trawls for Humanae Vitae always quote him, but I haven't seen them with this quote from him "Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor." (The Instructor 2.10).
What's your point? St. Gregory had a mistaken view about a matter that pertains to emperical science.
You mean this matter
Clement of Alexandria



"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]).

"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

Where he was not mistaken in is that it is not proper to human nature (again, not the law of the junle) to engage in homosexual acts. Another swing and a miss for you isa.
Another misread for you Papist.

I didn't quote St. Clement on homosexual acts. Unless you are calling a man ejaculating into a woman during her unfertile period a homosexual act.
What is your point? To waste semen, is not to ejaculate it into a woman at wrong time of the month.
SS. Clement, Lactantius, Augustine and Jerome, according to the Vatican's apologists, disagree.
Clement of Alexandria
"To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (The Instructor of Children , 2:10:95:3).

Lactantius
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]).

"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (ibid., 6:23:18).
I guess Lactantius never urinated (although I suspect he never ejaculated either, at least in a woman. So his member served no purpose, except for entrance into the male ruling club. On him and this work here quoted by the HV apologists, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" says
The Divine Institutions" (Divinarum Institutionum Libri VII), written between 303 and 311. This the most important of all the writings of Lactantius is systematic as well as apologetic and was intended to point out the futility of pagan beliefs and to establish the reasonableness and truth of Christianity. It was the first attempt at a systematic exposition of Christian theology in Latin, and though aimed at certain pamphleteers who were aiding the persecutors by literary assaults on the Church, the work was planned on a scale sufficiently broad enough to silence all opponents. The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author's lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
To which can be added Copernicus' assessment on his astronomy, which can be said of his biology and family counseling as well
Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius#Copernican_criticism
So too marriage for the married.

Augustine

"You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]).

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage . . . to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]. . . . [T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God . . . by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman" (The Good of Marriage 11–12 [A.D. 401]).

Jerome

"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (Against Jovinian 1:19 [A.D. 393]).


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Semen exists to be ejaculated into a woman.
Then why the opposition of the Vatican to artificial insemenation?

That is its nature.
Then it wouldn't come out in nocturnal emissions, nor be broken down and absorbed if not ejaculate (into a woman or otherwise).

Vainly ejaculating would be to masterbate or use a condom,
or a infertile/barren woman. In fact, since 16 million -1 are expended in a conception, even there most are vainly ejaculated, no matter how much they contribute to the success of the one.

or to have sexual relations without ejaculating in the woman. Of course, I am sure you know this.
I know that there is more to a relationship than treating the man like a sperm donor with an insemenination catheter.

]The problem is that you are so attached your selfish expressions of sexuality.
Rather presumptious of you to assUme my private life.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stavros_388 said:
ialmisry said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
No, as the homosexual only has the oral and/or anal sex option.

I don't like the term sodomite because it lacks such precision.  ἀρσενοκοιτία, the biblical term is too specific for active male homosexual behavior, μαλακοία the biblical term is too specific for passive homosexual behavior (thought it has not come to mean masturbation, male perhaps exclusively, as I dont' recall it being used of a woman), neither explicitely including lesbianism (which is also condemned, Romans ).  Sodomite and catamite.  It is also a term the Church picked up only during the Western Captivity.  It also includes, as biro's post is going, bestiality.

There is perhaps a need for a better term, but I haven't the interest to lead that Crusade.  I like "arsenocracy" for "same sex marriage."  Sodogamy has a ring to it, but I'm not sure it doesn't need tweeking.
Well, get to work and brainstorm some more. Because, you know, coming up with names and titles to single out certain kinds of sinners is definitely what Christ called us to.  :p
He certainly didn't call us to give His stamp of approval.

St. Paul doesn't talk of hell. Gentle Jesus talks about it quite a bit, even on the Mount.

Btw, what part of "I haven't the interest" did you miss?
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
I would hope we could all temper our hostility in this matter.

Assume 'arguendo' that at some point in the future, the world's scientific consensus is solidified that our genetics predetermine our sexuality. Again - assume 'arguendo' - I am NOT advocating anything here - just positing an argument.

If such a hypothesis is ultimately generally accepted by the test of time and the scientific method to be the case - how should we react?

After all, regardless of whether one is a literalist in terms of creation, a creationist or one who is able to view evolution and natural selection as being within the wisdom of God's knowledge, we all believe that humans are created in God's image -necessarily including our DNA. After all - and again I am positing a hypothetical here friends - throughout the history of the Church many beliefs existed about the natural world and the universe which were once fervently held as revealed truth and are no longer viewed as such - for example, heliocentrism, disease as a 'payback' for the sins of the suffering, children born with birth defects on account of their parent's sinful actions, the divine rule of Kings and Princes and so on.... ( I know, some of you still believe this stuff.....) How will we react if we learn that as part of God's plan of creation, he did 'pre-program' the sexual preferences of some of His children in a manner not consistent with the rules and teachings of the Old Testament and certainly not within the New Testament's definition and teaching on marriage as being between a man a woman?  

I am not questioning the Church's moral teaching here, but rather the attitudes that many exhude regarding the nature of homosexual human beings. No one questions that a man born with a high libido is bound by the same moral constraints as man with a lower sex drive - I suspect that DNA may determine that as well and I understand that those born with a predisposition to sexual attraction to members of the same sex are bound by those same constraints. It is the constant obsession with this topic that many have and the hostility and snarkiness which is displayed that is troubling.

Christ rebuked those who questioned his association with the much married Samaritan woman. Likewise he rebuked those who questioned the use of precious oil on His feet by the hand of woman, Mary Magdalene. He reserved his greatest anger for those who were hypocrites and those who exhalted themselves at the expense of others. It seems to me that calming down and taking a deep breath is in order.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
Ionnis said:
Punch said:
Ionnis said:
Do you call Black people coloreds and negroes too? 
Yes.  Much nicer than what most people around here call them.
How about people with down syndrome?  Are they mongoloids? 
No.  I have not heard that term since DEVO sang about them. 
What about those yellow people? 
Oriental works for me.  I have never really seen one that is really yellow.  In any case, most of my "yellow" friends prefer Oriental.
I personally call "sodomites" human beings, but I can understand how that would be too progressive bleeding heart liberal (FTFY) for some.  Now for a serious question: what do you call a homosexual who doesn't engage in sodomy or any sexual activity whatsoever? 
Well, he would certainly NOT be a fudge packer.  I would probably call one as you describe a person.
Good grief, Punch.  I can't tell if you are being serious or not.   And what is a "bleeding heart liberal"?
Only half.  A bleeding heart liberal is what is not called a progressive.  Just like a conservative is now hateful.  You know, definition of the day.
 

Green_Umbrella

Sr. Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
Me too.
 

Punch

Taxiarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
5,799
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Omaha, Nebraska
Green_Umbrella said:
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
Me too.
Yes.  Anal does not exite me.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
Punch said:
Green_Umbrella said:
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
Me too.
Yes.  Anal does not exite me.
I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.
 

Seth84

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
1,077
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
The caustic comments, whether in jest or serious, hurt a lot of people.  People feel justified in their comments because somehow some sinners are less worthy of compassion and understanding.  It seems to me that some people think that compassion and understanding are somehow passions to be overcome.  Some people act as if compassion and understanding means that one is liberal and is willing to excuse/justify sinful behavior.  I just don't understand that.  Our Lord in the midst of His brutal, but saving, Passion sought to pardon the transgressions of those who murdered Him.  He was nothing but compassionate.

There are many in the Church who struggle with homosexuality.  They often feel alone.  They struggle to remain celibate, something that verges on an impossibility in this day and age, but is even more difficult when all they hear is caustic, mean-spirited comments from people in the Church, those very people who are essential in ensuring their salvation.  The celibate person cannot endure this yoke without his or her brothers and sisters in the Faith and most do not endure.  They feel isolated, completely alone.  Some here will say that they aren't speaking about celibate homosexuals, but only sexually active ones, but for those who struggle, that doesn't mean much.  The memories of teasing and taunting they endured from their peers and adults growing up comes  whirling back and hits like a fist.  For many, it is a reminder of how different they are and alone and a reminder to not hold out hope for a community that will support them. 

Many of your brothers and sisters who struggle with this issue have little support from anyone.  The gay community pities them and tries to "enlighten" them and/or holds them in absolute contempt and the Christian community doesn't seem to know how/is uncomfortable with/doesn't want to support those who struggle and/or holds them in absolute contempt. 

It is moments like these when the world seems most dark.  When those evil thoughts that the devil tries to put into the minds of those who struggle, those thoughts they constantly battle against, find their voice in the servants of Christ. 

I won't be returning to this thread and not even sure if I can return to this forum.  I'm not sure I could bear any of the responses I might get.

Lord, have mercy on your servants.

 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Comm'on Ionnis, just ignore idiots like the one's that come with stupid puns ("sodogamy")  and the idiots that think the idiotic pun is worth sharing .
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
augustin717 said:
Comm'on Ionnis, just ignore idiots like the one's that come with stupid puns ("sodogamy")  and the idiots that think the idiotic pun is worth sharing .
And some idiots want to contribute 2 cents of whining.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex.
And you verified this how?

Maria said:
They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
I hope they are happy together.  Like I said, its 50%/25%, so that leaves at least 25% (I could assume that the 50% for oral would include 25% for anal, but I don't assUme) for you to know quite a few heterosexual married (redundant) couples, although their disgust should be of interest only to each other.

As for SINFUL, that's another issue.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Maria said:
Punch said:
Green_Umbrella said:
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
Me too.
Yes.  Anal does not exite me.
I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.
I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.
 

augustin717

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
6,850
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As for SINFUL, that's another issue.
There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.
 

SolEX01

Toumarches
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
13,797
Reaction score
11
Points
38
Location
Central Maryland
Website
www.goarch.org
ialmisry said:
Maria said:
Punch said:
Green_Umbrella said:
Maria said:
stavros_388 said:
Green_Umbrella said:
NicholasMyra said:
Green_Umbrella said:
We call them ¨sodomites¨ too.
Who's "we"? You and Satan?
¨We¨ being the definition of a sodomite.

A person who practices sodomy

Sodomy (/ˈsɒdəmi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well...
I guess we could call just about anyone a "sodomite", then. Because a heterosexual is probably just as likely to engage in oral and/or anal sex as anyone else.
Really? I know quite a few heterosexuals, happily married, who would never engage in oral and/or anal sex. They consider that disgusting and SINFUL.
Me too.
Yes.  Anal does not exite me.
I agree. Wallowing in filth is the behavior of pigs and sodomites, not decent human beings created in the image and likeness of God.
I have heard man on top, husband's penis entering wife's vagina during fertile period, eyes shut, no kissing, lights out, get it over with as quickly as posssible sex so described.
But for some people, that is good enough.  We can't (or realistically, shouldn't) exalt our own sex lives above our neighbor's.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
augustin717 said:
As for SINFUL, that's another issue.
There is no discussion that traditionally, it was considered sinful but of course, that there are some touchstonistas out there that wanna be  both in good standing in the church and also do their wives in the anus it becomes a sacred rite now. hopefully the great panorthodox council will revise the marriage rite including a blessing for anal play among pious neocoin couples.
Care to back up your nonsense with a quote from someone in Touchstone?  Or are you just prattling on out of ignorance as usual.
 
Top