UK Politics Thread IX: The Masses Against the Classes

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Don't you think that telling a large proportion of the population that their sexual inclinations, over which you realise they have no control, should not be encouraged or normalised might be somewhat detrimental to physical and mental health? Actually what is your evidence that gay sexual behaviour is linked to health risks? Are you sure it doesn't actually show that being stigmatised and discriminated against is bad for your health?

Being stigmatised probably does play a certain part aye. Homosexual sex lead to the AIDS pandemic and all sorts of other nasty things like that not to mention certain conditions up a certain back passage since large objects aren't really supposed to go in that way. Not that such behaviour is limited to homosexual relationships but ho hum. But you can find all sorts of studies, even on progressive publications like the guardian that don't just chalk the mental health issues down to social stigma.

Compulsory lesbianism when?

[Greater Loegria]

I didn't say it was fine. It's still a sin.
Because one is normal sexual behaviour just without intention to procreate, which is wrong still, but the other is not normal sexual behaviour with no chance of procreation and therefore is just lust. They're both pretty bad but doing a quick jolly roger is one of those accidents that can happen and there are rarely deeper consequences.

Sex without the purpose of recreation is not wrong though. There is nothing supporting that abursrd suggestion aside I guess from some outdated religious bullshit

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment, but procreation is the purpose and God is not pleased when such things are abused.

Gay bad.

Probably watches lesbian porn every friday night.

Hmm, nah, doesn't quite butter my crumpets. Anyways, I have a girlfriend so I don't need to watch porn.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Gay bad.

Well yes.

[Andsed]

Sex without the purpose of recreation is not wrong though. There is nothing supporting that abursrd suggestion aside I guess from some outdated religious bullshit

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment, but procreation is the purpose and God is not pleased when such things are abused.

Probably watches lesbian porn every friday night.

Hmm, nah, doesn't quite butter my crumpets. Anyways, I have a girlfriend so I don't need to watch porn.

Gay bad.

Well yes.

Than god should piss right off. He has no more right than any of us to tell us what is right or wrong. Sex without intent to have kids harms no one and thus is not wrong.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So all gay sex is bad because it is non-reproductive and supposedly has mental and physical health risks according to you, but you can go casually fuck a random girl on the side if it suits you? There is some really fucked up morality at work here, and blatant hypocrisy. You have completely lost any supposed moral high ground that you may have had.

I didn't say it was fine. It's still a sin.

???

Your argument was 'gay sex is bad because it's not about procreation'

Followed by

'Casual sex without view towards procreation is okay because it isn't gay'

What even is your argument?

Because one is normal sexual behaviour just without intention to procreate, which is wrong still, but the other is not normal sexual behaviour with no chance of procreation and therefore is just lust. They're both pretty bad but doing a quick jolly roger is one of those accidents that can happen and there are rarely deeper consequences.

Sex without procreation is not wrong.

But with that reasoning, your argument is basically just 'gay sex is bad'. If you don't have arguments, don't pretend you have any.

[Greater Loegria]

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment, but procreation is the purpose and God is not pleased when such things are abused.

Hmm, nah, doesn't quite butter my crumpets. Anyways, I have a girlfriend so I don't need to watch porn.
Well yes.

Than god should piss right off. He has no more right than any of us to tell us what is right or wrong. Sex without intent to have kids harms no one and thus is not wrong.

Ok, well fair enough. But God aside I think that constant casual sex especially outside the realms of a relationship with children or children otherwise incoming cheapens such relationships and leads to excessive hedonism.

I didn't say it was fine. It's still a sin.
Because one is normal sexual behaviour just without intention to procreate, which is wrong still, but the other is not normal sexual behaviour with no chance of procreation and therefore is just lust. They're both pretty bad but doing a quick jolly roger is one of those accidents that can happen and there are rarely deeper consequences.

Sex without procreation is not wrong.

But with that reasoning, your argument is basically just 'gay sex is bad'. If you don't have arguments, don't pretend you have any.

Sex without procreation as far as my faith is concerned is wrong.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Sex without the purpose of recreation is not wrong though. There is nothing supporting that abursrd suggestion aside I guess from some outdated religious bullshit

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment, but procreation is the purpose and God is not pleased when such things are abused.

Well god can suck a dick. There is nothing wrong with having sex with no intent to reproduce, none what so ever as it harms no one whatsoever.

[Uan aa Boa]

Anyways, I have a girlfriend so I don't need to watch porn.

That wouldn't be sex outside of marriage would it? And if so, you're obviously trying for a baby, right? Or do you just criticise the sins you don't personally fancy?

[Bombadil]

I guess with zero moving forward on the Brexit front this is where the conversation goes..

[Greater Loegria]

Anyways, I have a girlfriend so I don't need to watch porn.

That wouldn't be sex outside of marriage would it? And if so, you're obviously trying for a baby, right? Or do you just criticise the sins you don't personally fancy?

As I said, we are all sinners.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

Sex without procreation as far as my faith is concerned is wrong.

That's not true. Clearly you follow a different strand of Humanae Vitae.

Unless you're referring to "sex without procreation" as synonymous with "sex with protection"

[Greater Loegria]

Sex without procreation as far as my faith is concerned is wrong.

That's not true. Clearly you follow a different strand of Humanae Vitae.

Unless you're referring to "sex without procreation" as synonymous with "sex with protection"

Sex without intention to procreate then.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

That's not true. Clearly you follow a different strand of Humanae Vitae.

Unless you're referring to "sex without procreation" as synonymous with "sex with protection"

Sex without intention to procreate then.

As far as the Pontificate has been concerned since at least 1968, that's fine.

Reinforced by JPII's speech in Africa against protection, whenever that was.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment, but procreation is the purpose and God is not pleased when such things are abused.

Well god can suck a dick. There is nothing wrong with having sex with no intent to reproduce, none what so ever as it harms no one whatsoever.

If God could suck a dick, and sucking a dick is a sin, then he wouldn't be omnibenevolent.
If he can't suck a dick, he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, sucking dick must be okay.

QED.

[Greater Loegria]

Sex without intention to procreate then.

As far as the Pontificate has been concerned since at least 1968, that's fine.

Reinforced by JPII's speech in Africa against protection, whenever that was.

11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Hmm. Fair enough, you are right.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I wonder what cosmetic changes Theresa will use to claim she has changed what she wants parliament to vote on. Maybe rewrite it in Jamaican patois, calling the EU 'Babylon'.

[Uan aa Boa]

That wouldn't be sex outside of marriage would it? And if so, you're obviously trying for a baby, right? Or do you just criticise the sins you don't personally fancy?

As I said, we are all sinners.

Then you I don't see how you have any basis on which to pick out homosexuality for criticism. I think somebody said something about motes and beams, but I may be misremembering.

And as far as this "we're all sinners" line goes, yes I'm aware that this is the doctrinal position. However hard you try to avoid sinful behaviour it's impossible to do so completely, and that's before we get to any consideration of original sin. I don't think the traditional reading of this doctrine means that it's fine for you to be fornicating without intention to procreate, because you could stop doing that by the simple step of... well, of stopping. And while your sex life is none of our business, for you to go on and tell anyone else that "sex without procreation is wrong" is monumental hypocrisy. Why can't everyone else just ignore that particular stricture in the same way you evidently do?

[Ifreann]

Than god should piss right off. He has no more right than any of us to tell us what is right or wrong. Sex without intent to have kids harms no one and thus is not wrong.

Ok, well fair enough. But God aside I think that constant casual sex especially outside the realms of a relationship with children or children otherwise incoming cheapens such relationships and leads to excessive hedonism.

Sex without procreation is not wrong.

But with that reasoning, your argument is basically just 'gay sex is bad'. If you don't have arguments, don't pretend you have any.

Sex without procreation as far as my faith is concerned is wrong.

And we can tell how seriously you take that particular tenet of the Catholic faith by the litany of excuses you recite at the slightest prompting. "We're all sinners", "It just happens by accident", "At least it's heteronormative".

It really shouldn't be difficult for you to extend this moral flexibility to men who have sex with men.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

I wonder what cosmetic changes Theresa will use to claim she has changed what she wants parliament to vote on. Maybe rewrite it in Jamaican patois, calling the EU 'Babylon'.

How progressive - letting Abbott understand.

[Ifreann]

I wonder what cosmetic changes Theresa will use to claim she has changed what she wants parliament to vote on. Maybe rewrite it in Jamaican patois, calling the EU 'Babylon'.

May doing a Jamaican accent while addressing Parliament would, if nothing else, be a novel sort of farce.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Sounds like we are getting a bill to change the law to rule out no deal Brexit.

[Uan aa Boa]

I wonder what cosmetic changes Theresa will use to claim she has changed what she wants parliament to vote on. Maybe rewrite it in Jamaican patois, calling the EU 'Babylon'.

How progressive - letting Abbott understand.

Oof. You've just quite impressively rendered Greater Loegria the second most bigoted person on this page.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Sounds like we are getting a bill to change the law to rule out no deal Brexit.

They can do that, but EU law will take its course regardless. Even if such a bill was accepted, the UK will leave the EU on the 12th of April if no action is taken.

[Ifreann]

Sounds like we are getting a bill to change the law to rule out no deal Brexit.

Exactly what would such a law do? Halt the progression of linear time? Because there doesn't seem like there'd be any other way to prevent no deal with Parliament refusing to agree to any deal.

[Definitely Not Trumptonium]

How progressive - letting Abbott understand.

Oof. You've just quite impressively rendered Greater Loegria the second most bigoted person on this page.

It was an honour, thank you sire.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Sounds like we are getting a bill to change the law to rule out no deal Brexit.

Exactly what would such a law do? Halt the progression of linear time? Because there doesn't seem like there'd be any other way to prevent no deal with Parliament refusing to agree to any deal.

Just guessing but I suppose it will say that if no deal is reached before April 12th Article 50 is revoked.