Evangelical extremist?

[Spud]

Your "ideal" may well be yours, but your unfounded opinions - again - do not dictate the life choices of anyone else.

This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.

[wigginhall]

FFS, Spud, those are not facts, they are opinions.   

[BeRational]

This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.

I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.

Do you?

So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!

[Spud]

I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.

Do you?

So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!

What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.

[Nearly Sane]

And of course Spud us now calling every woman having sex past the menopause who has sex a pervert. But it's on, because it's a fact because he says it is and he has tiny hands

And since the 'function' of drinking is to keep you from dying of thirst, them having a nice cuppa just for the fun of it is a dirty dirty filthy perversion

[Nearly Sane]

What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.

er yes, it points out it has more than one function.

[Brownie]

Quite right BeR.

I was taught the purpose of sex is to glorify God, bring forth children, express intimacy, provide comfort, and bless the spouse.  No one aspect is more important than another.

Obviously we are biologically programmed to procreate - if we can, if the time is right and if we want to - but intimate love is equally important;  were that not the case, people who can no longer conceive children or are infertile would not make love.   For homo sapiens, sex is far more complex and more pleasurable than just for the purpose of producing children.  The desire for intimacy comes first. 

The way you describe it, Spud, reduces sex to a mere function.  I've no doubt there were, and maybe still are, some who do view it that way but God wants us to be happy and enjoy life.

[BeRational]

What you want or don't want doesn't change its function.

It's one possible outcome.

Do you always want to procreate when you have sex?

[Dicky Underpants]

This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.

To only have sex when the woman is capable of childbirth, making sure the act is only performed at the right part of the menstrual cycle, and strictly no fellatio, let alone 69s or... (insert other sexual acts possible between man and wife here, ad libitum).
I recently visited a little home business making various kinds of 'restraining beds' used for sado-masochistic purposes (for hetero, homo couples, and any other variants . There are so many ways of being alive!

P.S.
I have to say that I find sado-masochistic practices a little hard to understand, and have no leanings in this direction of which I'm particularly aware. The business in question is run by a friend of a friend (who as far as I know is not into sado-masochism - but then how much we really know of the secret lives of our friends?)

[Dicky Underpants]

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.

[Nearly Sane]

By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.

only if he has checked if she is ovulating.

[Dicky Underpants]

only if he has checked if she is ovulating.

That is mandatory!

[ProfessorDavey]

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

Firstly - no it doesn't.

But for the sake of argument lets follow through with your view that 'sex has one purpose which is procreation' - in what way is that consistent with 'any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function'? It isn't - whether a couple are married is completely irrelevant to procreation - marriage is a social construct, procreation a biological function that exists across species, all but one of which don't engage in marriage.

Actually if your view that 'sex has one purpose which is procreation' is taken then sex between an unmarried couple at the peak of their fertility is far preferable to sex between a married couple whose fertility has dwindled, or even ceased.

[Gordon]

This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.

I don't think so - they are either in the registrar business without discrimination, or they aren't!

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

In your opinion, Spud.

People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.

Sort of like a private club?

Even private clubs need to be aware of the importance of equality and respect if they are to survive. If not then they are no great loss (aside from the inconvenience to homophobic bigots), and since here in the UK the Christian church is in decline I'm wondering if perhaps social evolution is passing you guys by, so in failing to adapt you're risking extinction.

Fortunately though there are some thoughtful Christians out there (there are some here too), so perhaps all is not lost on the SSM front unless lemmingitis prevails.

[floo]

This debate has moved beyond what society decides marriage is, to the ethics of allowing the church and other religious organisations, which define it differently, exemption from equality law with regard to ssm.

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

People who become members of the Christian church sign up to its principles.

That is not a FACT. Many married couples don't want kids, my sister who is a part-time curate, never wanted any, nor did her husband.

[Brownie]

By the way, according to this definition, the rape of the wife by the "Christian" husband is permissible.

Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.

[floo]

Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.

Of course it is an outrage, but some nasty turds will find an excuse for anything, especially the Bible, which is open to a myriad interpretations.

[Brownie]

Also, in days gone by, many people had little idea about what constituted rape, it was beyond their imagination.  It was the sort of thing that happened in dark alleys by strangers and reported in the paper but not by people they knew and marital rape was unheard of.  There is awareness now that rape is a violent act which causes terror and pain regardless of circumstances.

[floo]

Also, in days gone by, many people had little idea about what constituted rape, it was beyond their imagination.  It was the sort of thing that happened in dark alleys by strangers and reported in the paper but not by people they knew and marital rape was unheard of.  There is awareness now that rape is a violent act which causes terror and pain regardless of circumstances.

Sadly it would appear marital rape is more common than any other.

[Brownie]

Do you have data to support that, floo?  I'm not disputing it, I honestly don't know.
I'd have thought 'date rape' was more common and rape involving people who had previously been in a relationship.

[jeremyp]

The facts are that sex has one purpose which is procreation, and any arrangement other than one man and his wife perverts this function.

So my mother is a pervert according to you.

You Christians need to get some better arguments than this tired old offensive nonsense.

[floo]

So my mother is a pervert according to you.

You Christians need to get some better arguments than this tired old offensive nonsense.

To be fair not all Christians see it that way, only a minority, imo.

[Dicky Underpants]

Bol-lox!
That is an outrage.

Indeed, Brownie, it would be an outrage, but such an inference can logically be drawn from Spud's rather narrow parameters concerning the aim of sexual intercourse. If he wishes to broaden his definition to include a few provisos, all well and good. I don't think he's done so, so far.

[Brownie]

He hasn't really thought about it, can't connect with the subject on an emotional level.

[Sassy]

I do not want to procreate every time I have sex.

Do you?

So it does not have just one purpose at all, and you are wrong!

It is a means to and end...pregnancy.
In that it is the only natural way of procreating.
If you abstain you don't get pregnant.

The mouth is for speaking and it is the means for getting food to the stomach.
Because you use your mouth for other things does not mean it was designed for those things.
Somethings were created/designed to be used by the mouth.

However the natural functions are speech, eating and breathing.