|
|
Post by visitor on Jun 1, 2012 18:00:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 1, 2012 18:28:48 GMT
I have no idea what is the matter with them, visitor.
They are a very strange bunch of people indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Jun 1, 2012 18:53:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 1, 2012 20:08:59 GMT
|
|
aubrey
WH Member
Seeker for Truth and Penitence
Posts: 665
|
Post by aubrey on Jun 2, 2012 14:27:21 GMT
I thought she looked fine. He is a sour old git, Nay. The old line: I'd rather sleep with her with no clothes on than him in his best suit.How is it that the people who are supposedly obsessed with homosexuality - the homosexuals themselves - who want to brainwash everyone else into accepting their way of life and odd sexual practices are almost never the people who bring these things up on messageboards? Those who do must be very attracted to something about homosexuality.  |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 20:47:59 GMT
Are you suggesting gay couples are equivalent to disabled heterosexuals, visitor?
Consummation is not OBLIGATORY for married folk, visitor. But it is grounds for annulment or divorce if one of the parties choses to cite it as an example of unreasonable or unexpected behaviour.
You people do scrape the barrel of peculiar arguments to try to justify gay "marriage", don't you?
We all know many married folk do not procreate and many may also forgo sex - but nobody's perfect, are they? This does not invalidate their marriages nor does it justify the inclusion of gay couples within the category of acceptable marriage partners.
Close relatives are also forbidden from marrying. Should we demand "marriage" for them, too, on the grounds of unfair discrimination? How about forming an "Incest Liberation Front"? No, visitor, that was a joke! Oh, you think it's a good idea? I expect some "Diversity" militant will come along and DEMAND it before long. See Aubrey about it, perhaps?
The Church and the State has drawn the line re marriage and it is acceptable to the vast majority of citizens. I see no reason to change it just because a vocal organised minority of a minority demands it.
p.s. I think Curate Jude/Judith is splendid and will probably get to be Archbishop of Canterbury! She obviously sees herself as a high achiever and there is absolutely nothing in her way. Let's just not pretend that gender politics has played no part in her career change.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 22:09:13 GMT
Consummation is not OBLIGATORY for married folk, visitor. But it is grounds for annulment or divorce if one of the parties choses to cite it as an example of unreasonable or unexpected behaviour. And how often does that happen? It's a pretty curious idea anyway. While consummation as traditionally defined is a useful way of producing children, heterosexual couples aren't forbidden to marry if they know that any sort of sex they practise won't result in conception. And even among the most fecund, the majority of sexual encounters won't be intended to result in conception. More interesting, and less commented upon, is that a woman may experience many accts of consummation without any sexual pleasure at all. You can see that it was men who wrote the rules. I'd have preferred a definition that recognised the importance to marriage of orgasm, however achieved. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 22:12:30 GMT
p.s. I think Curate Jude/Judith is splendid and will probably get to be Archbishop of Canterbury! She obviously sees herself as a high achiever and there is absolutely nothing in her way. Let's just not pretend that gender politics has played no part in her career change. I think you're getting a bit nervous that I really am going to find her, and talk to her about the insinuations you've been so free with. I note that, here, she isn't a lesbian any more. [Edit: I found her! It was easier than I thought. www.stmarysbeeston.org.uk/cottingley_contact ] |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 22:30:25 GMT
She won't take much finding, jean. Carry on by all means. We know how you lurve to stir. But remember the C of E expects its gay clergy to be celibate and she may not wish to discuss her sex life with you!
(Unless you give her the secret handshake, of course (just funning - wouldn't want to imply a gay freemasonry!)
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 22:52:44 GMT
Well, you would, wouldn't you, then you could marry yourself or a goat! Jean, you really do scrape the bottom of the barrel sometimes. Is this what the gay marriage lobby is suggesting? I bet it is! Divorce on the grounds of failure to achieve orgasm which then prepares the ground for arguing gay marriage is valid on the grounds of achievement of orgasm? Softlee softlee catchee monkey! You really are SCUM in disguise. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 22:56:14 GMT
Do you not think sexual pleasure for a woman is important in marriage then, marchesa? You are surely not of the lie back and think of England tendency! Jean, you really do scrape the bottom of the barrel sometimes. No, I never do that. It is not sexually satisfying in the least. Cutting up men isn't especially satisfying either. But I'm puzzled that you think sexual satisfaction for women someohow excludes it for men. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 23:00:51 GMT
Is this what the gay marriage lobby is suggesting? I bet it is! Divorce on the grounds of failure to achieve orgasm which makes it easier to argue gay marriage is valid on the grounds of achievement of orgasm? I don't suppose they've given it a moment's thought. It's just that nay/joe is obsessed - he goes on and on and on about it, on thread after thread. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 23:04:50 GMT
Don't ask stupid questions or try to put words into my mouth, jean.
Nay is not on this thread, jean, I am. So don't confuse his arguments with mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jun 3, 2012 23:08:30 GMT
Try not giving stupid answers then, marchesa.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 3, 2012 23:18:48 GMT
You're not having a conversation with nay, you're talking to me, jean.
Why are you so obsessed with nay's opinions, anyway? You'd be much better honing your own arguments which are, quite candidly, pathetic Why do you and your clique keep dragging HIM into conversations with ME? I can't answer for him. We're not joined at the hip, you know.
It makes you all seem very needy, jean, if I may say so. A bit lacking in spunk, actually.
|
|
