Indiana's Religious Freedom law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

[Anonymous]

PP, how does your husband "predominately show you affection"-- on all fours, or while you're on your back?

I'm pretty sure he "predominately shows affection" to her through a hole in the sheet.

For the PP who asked about the reference to priests and nuns, I'm not that PP but I got her thinking. According to the other PP's thinking, they are unnatural and don't produce children so they are useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

Wow, he never gets a blowjob? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

1) Would you be fine with two men getting married if they don't show affection thru anal or oral sex?

Should hetero couples be denied the right to be married if-
2) the woman cannot conceive
3) the man is sterile
4) their primary method of showing affection is anal sex and blowjobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

There are two possibilities here -

1) he's had a blowjob and in the past and isn't telling you because you're so hung up on "unnatural" sex or

2) he's truly never had a blowjob, in which case you're asking me not to feel sorry for the person who says "ice cream is vile!" but who has never actually tasted ice cream.

In the former case, I pity your DH because he knows what he's missing, and in the latter case I pity him because he's rejected something pleasurable that is absolutely harmless just because someone else told him to.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the people involved in this debate can understand one another better if you shift the discussion about religious freedom away from homosexuality. I read this news article about orthodox airline passengers trying to avoid sitting next to women for fear of accidentally touching them (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/aboard-flights-conflicts-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html?_r=0), and it provides an interesting parallel to the bakery scenarios we've all been discussing. So here's my hypothetical ....

Let's say a regular old bakery (not some specialized religious bakery) is run by some guy who happens to be ultra-orthodox, and so he refuses to sell to women or let them enter his store, because it's against his sincere religious beliefs to have contact. Is that defensible because he's just practicing his religion, which prohibits contact with the opposite sex? Or is it discrimination?

To me, that's unlawful discrimination. He's free to practice his religion, but his religion does not require him to run a bakery. If he chooses to run a bakery and sell bread, then he needs to comply with the various laws of the community, including the anti-discrimination laws.

I suppose (changing the hypothetical substantially) that if his store was a specialized religious bakery which provides bread only for particular ultra-orthodox ceremonies, and thus his bakery be shunned by rest of the community if he ever sold to a woman, then I could possibly agree that the ultra-orthodox principles are a core element of the business. But even that's a stretch, because it's so fact specific.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's say a regular old bakery (not some specialized religious bakery) is run by some guy who happens to be ultra-orthodox, and so he refuses to sell to women or let them enter his store, because it's against his sincere religious beliefs to have contact. Is that defensible because he's just practicing his religion, which prohibits contact with the opposite sex? Or is it discrimination?

IMO- it is unlawful discrimination. He can practice his religion at his church/temple and home but not at his business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

There are two possibilities here -

1) he's had a blowjob and in the past and isn't telling you because you're so hung up on "unnatural" sex or

2) he's truly never had a blowjob, in which case you're asking me not to feel sorry for the person who says "ice cream is vile!" but who has never actually tasted ice cream.

In the former case, I pity your DH because he knows what he's missing, and in the latter case I pity him because he's rejected something pleasurable that is absolutely harmless just because someone else told him to.

I can guarantee her husband does not feel the same way she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can guarantee her husband does not feel the same way she does.

He's probably tapped his toe under the bathroom stall on more than one occasion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

Exactly, so if another couple wishes to engage in that, why should that fact be mentioned in an argument against allowing that couple to marry?

"Gay marriage shouldn't be legal because gays have unnatural sex" contradicts your own stated stance of "It's not something I want, and I find it unnatural, but others can do as they wish". Your stance is actually perfectly reasonable, and no one should ever pressure you to personally engage in any sexual act you're uncomfortable with. Legalizing gay marriage means other people can get married to the person they love, regardless of the way in which they happen to prefer sex, but in no way impacts whatever kind of sex you and your husband mutually choose to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, go look at Romans 1:26. If I'm not mistaken that's the verse in the NT that says homosexuality is a shameful lust. That's not condoning homosexuality. That's not staying silent on it either. That's an outright rejection of it. Stop trying to twist Christianity to make it what you want it to be for today's times. Accept it for what it is or reject it, but don't lie about what it says.

If the Bible doesn't move you, common sense should. I'll say what a lot of anti-homosexuality ppl think - what in the world is natural, wholesome, or pure about men having sex in the area which other men defecate from? In my opinion, it's pretty disgusting and if love has to be expressed by getting excrement on oneself, something is amiss.

So if a heterosexual couple happens to prefer any number of potential sexual positions that you do not like, or find unpleasant or even disgusting, are they allowed to engage in their intimate activities the way they would prefer or must they defer to your standards?

Are couples only allowed to marry if they are going to have sex in some 'approved' way? Who has the list? Quick I need to check it before DH gets home! See, that doesn't make much sense, does it?

Any kind of consensual sex between adults is perfectly fine... it's only the business of the people engaging in it. No one is/should be/has any right to be asking you to see or experience anal sex, or any other kind of sex you don't want, so why would you get to decide what kind of sex other people can have?

The only thing that society as a whole should get to judge as objectively wrong is something that harms another person or violates their consent and rights. Everything else should be a matter of personal freedom -- especially in America of all places!

Using your body in any way that feels good seems pretty natural to me, and as long as it's not hurting someone else I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be 'impure' or 'unwholesome'.

Let's say hypothetically you are in a heterosexual marriage, and I find your and your partner's favorite sexual act disgusting or awful in some way. Would you want me telling you you can't do that and it invalidates your relationship? Probably not, and unless you're forcing me to participate in it I would have no right to do so and would never think to attempt it.

(FWIW, I am personally also a bit grossed out by the idea of anal sex, but that doesn't mean others don't have the right to engage in it with the consent of their partners. I don't enjoy tennis either, but someone does and there's nothing wrong with that.)

We are talking about whether Christianity as a religion rejects homosexuality, and it does. Clearly. Its not even ambiguous. Some people simply want to twist Christianity to fit their lifestyle choices today.

I happened to express my own opinion of how utterly disgusting and unnatural it is for homosexuals to be expressing love via anal sex. Anal sex is unnatural, period. But its the predominant way homosexuals show affection. What my opinion is shouldn't affect what you do with your DH. If you change your habits every time you read an opinion on a blog, maybe you're too sensirive and should stay clear of blogs?

This is sad. Some of you folks are so fixated on other peoples' sex lives!

PP, how does your husband "predominately show you affection"-- on all fours, or while you're on your back? Does that question sound a little intrusive? If so, ask yourself how do you feel when your relationship is denigrated and your love for another person is described as no more than a sex act? You need to butt out and mind your own business. Jesus doesn't like people who think about sex all the time, just as He despises those who judge their fellow men.

My money's on that PP comes back and gives the ol' line about how she's actually "judging the sin not the sinner" and piles on some more anal chat...just to get the point across.

Pp here. He sure as hell doesn't need to do an excrement check on his private area to make sure he didn't get any on him. And DH & I can have children, another indication how we do it is natural and intended.

When you put it that way, how's life as a pilgrim?

If I'm a pilgrim, then I guess I should ask you -- what was the last animal you had sex with? What a ridiculous assumption that because I oppose homosexuality and unnatural acts, that I'm 'a pilgrim.'

Opposing it for yourself is fine and completely your right, but why do you get to dictate what others can do in their own private intimate encounters as long as it doesn't violate consent?

Also, the animal thing is massively offensive. Animals cannot communicate their competent, aware, informed, adult consent to any sex act -- so engaging in ANY sex with an animal is the highest level of immoral. Two consenting adults having whatever sex they both enjoy is completely different. Everyone who has ever had either anal or oral sex is in no way morally equivalent to anyone who would violate an animal. In fact, I would think someone who exhibits that little care for morality and consent is pretty rare. But good job most likely insulting a majority of the readers of this thread -- those acts aren't exactly rare among couples comprised of any gender combination.

[Anonymous]

^12:12 returning to clarify, I was not the "pilgrim" poster, and I disapprove of what that poster said by insulting your personal preferences regarding sex for yourself. Anything consensual that you find enjoyable is obviously fine, and you shouldn't face pressure to like something you don't or ridicule for not liking something you don't.

That said, I do think you are in the wrong for basically doing the exact converse of what PP did to you to gay couples and anyone else who enjoys sex in a way other than your preferred way -- it's not OK to claim anyone else's consensual sexual preferences are wrong, because that is each couple's own decision. All people deserve the right to decide if, with whom, and how, they have sex -- without pressure or condemnation. Believing otherwise is really rather scary... think about if you had to let someone else make that kind of decision for you and they disagreed with whatever your preferences were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

1) Would you be fine with two men getting married if they don't show affection thru anal or oral sex?

Should hetero couples be denied the right to be married if-
2) the woman cannot conceive
3) the man is sterile
4) their primary method of showing affection is anal sex and blowjobs?

Its not what I find objectionable. Its what Christianity and many other great faiths say. Homosexuality is a sin in all monotheistic faiths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Human, thanks. A blowjob is an unnatural act.

Depending on your gender I either pity you or pity your husband.

Uh, I didn't say that I am against them. I was pointing out that they are no more "natural" than anal sex. As for the pilgrim lady, you can feel sorry for her husband.

Uh, don't feel sorry for him, he feels the same way as I do about these unnatural acts. Leave those acts to animals and who ever else wishes to engage in them.

1) Would you be fine with two men getting married if they don't show affection thru anal or oral sex?

Should hetero couples be denied the right to be married if-
2) the woman cannot conceive
3) the man is sterile
4) their primary method of showing affection is anal sex and blowjobs?

Its not what I find objectionable. Its what Christianity and many other great faiths say. Homosexuality is a sin in all monotheistic faiths.

But I'm asking for YOUR opinion. Are you capable of forming an opinion without consulting the Bible?