NationStates Jolt Archive

How far can you go with a chick before you marry her?

So yeah that's the question I have. Note I am not using "puritan" in a derogoratory sense; I just thought it was an appropriate term to cover all the denominations that insist upon marriage before sex.

That means I don't want any anti-Christian flaming or any other kind of flaming!

If you are a Christian, then you should go no further than where the holy spirit and your conscience will let you.

So, are you asking up to what point it's not considered sex? (And which would thus be allowed.)
Let's ask former president Bill Clinton about what he thinks doesn't constitute sex ;)

I don't think they are allowed to touch women...

:D

I don't think they are allowed to touch women...

:D

Then how would they exist?

Fornication and sex outside marriage is condemned 30+ times in the Bible.Homosexualityis supposedly condemned 3 times in the Bible or less

Then how would they exist?
How do you know they exist...?

Why would they marry chickens?

Why would they marry chickens?
:D
Good one, bro.

or sis...

:D
Good one, bro.

or sis...

Bro. :p

Fornication and sex outside marriage is condemned 30+ times in the Bible.Homosexualityis supposedly condemned 3 times in the Bible or less

About that, some raving fundi I met says the King James Bible we get is a watered down version of a "True Bible" that attacks gays like 5 times a page. >.>

Though, I always did think the guy was retarded :/.

About that, some raving fundi I met says the King James Bible we get is a watered down version of a "True Bible" that attacks gays like 5 times a page. >.>

Though, I always did think the guy was retarded :/.

Well that person is being idiotic, then.

Almost every Christian denomination acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible as the official version, and it is the basis of Protestant faith.

The Catholic Bible is not very much different, and probably has very few other condemntations.

All the way with prostitutes, no sex with the person you intend to marry. Right?

All the way with prostitutes, no sex with the person you intend to marry. Right?Only if you're a guy

One christian youth worker apparently advises "if it's something you don't have yourself, then you shouldn't touch it"

One christian youth worker apparently advises "if it's something you don't have yourself, then you shouldn't touch it"

Good way to put it.

Fornication and sex outside marriage is condemned 30+ times in the Bible.Homosexualityis supposedly condemned 3 times in the Bible or less

Since marrigae defined by the Bible is between a man and a woman, homosexual sex is logically sex outside marriage

If you are a Christian, then you should go no further than where the holy spirit and your conscience will let you.

What if they both allow sex?


About that, some raving fundi I met says the King James Bible we get is a watered down version of a "True Bible" that attacks gays like 5 times a page.

The KJV is pretty watered down, but not on the question of homosexuality. The things that are removed are more like passages which instruct you on when to rise up against a corrupt king (you think James wanted that in his Bible?) and to disobey other authorities. There's also the fact that most of it is a translation of a translation of a translation with lots of copies (hand copies, of course) between each translation.

Well that person is being idiotic, then.

Yes, they are, but not for the reason you state.

Almost every Christian denomination acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible as the official version, and it is the basis of Protestant faith.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Only extreme members of any denomination would call the King James Version (arguably the worst and most corrupted version of the Bible) an "official version". It is a translation of a translation of a translation, created under a king that would behead a translator that left in any verses he didn't like. Entire verses are removed or mistranslated, even from the Latin version it was translated from.

Most Biblical scholars and serious Christians wanting to study Scripture wouldn't touch the King James Version for any type of serious study. There are all sorts of English versions now that have been translated directly to English from the oldest available texts.

Most Biblical scholars and serious Christians wanting to study Scripture wouldn't touch the King James Version for any type of serious study. There are all sorts of English versions now that have been translated directly to English from the oldest available texts.

Nah. The C. of E. gave it the stamp of approval a while back. So it's official.

Well that person is being idiotic, then.

Almost every Christian denomination acknowledges the King James Version of the Bible as the official version, and it is the basis of Protestant faith.

The Catholic Bible is not very much different, and probably has very few other condemntations.

hmmmm

1) if you go by total number of christians, i think youll find that the "official" bible is that of the catholic church

2) if you count each denomination as equal i still dont think its true due to the enormous number of errors in the KJV that are recognized by all but the most stupid fundamentalists.

Nah. The C. of E. gave it the stamp of approval a while back. So it's official.

Well, the C. of E. is rather partial to the Kings they serve under, so is it really that much of a surprise that they did?

Since marrigae defined by the Bible is between a man and a woman, homosexual sex is logically sex outside marriage
It never actually specifies that. When it mentions marriage it uses "he" and "she", but it doesn't actually ban gay marriage anywhere. I suppose since they had the prohibition on gay sex, no gay marriage was obvious, but it definitally doesn't specifically ban gay marriage anywhere.

Well, the C. of E. is rather partial to the Kings they serve under, so is it really that much of a surprise that they did?

Yes, but the bishops also speak with the authority of god when in synod because they have apostolic sucession - or something. Are you saying that god is wrong?

Yes, but the bishops also speak with the authority of god when in synod because they have apostolic sucession - or something. Are you saying that god is wrong?

King James I was wrong. Should have known better then to change Bible passages to ones he liked better.

One christian youth worker apparently advises "if it's something you don't have yourself, then you shouldn't touch it"

Nipples are allowed?:fluffle:

King James I was wrong. Should have known better then to change Bible passages to ones he liked better.

Well given that it was done under the imprimatur of god, and god didn't smite him for it, it's very difficult to gainsay his actions.

The only reasonable conculsion is, therefore, that these changes were officially sanctioned by god.

Nipples are allowed?:fluffle:

Nipples are the devil's buttons. :mad:

Nipples are the devil's buttons. :mad:

But the youth worker said they were allowed.:(

*wanders off to find more promiscous religion*

Nah. The C. of E. gave it the stamp of approval a while back. So it's official.

The Church of England, I presume? Well, I suppose that makes sense from a "We made it, so it's ours" point of view, although not from a practical point of view. But they are hardly "most protestant denominations."

hmmmm

1) if you go by total number of christians, i think youll find that the "official" bible is that of the catholic church

2) if you count each denomination as equal i still dont think its true due to the enormous number of errors in the KJV that are recognized by all but the most stupid fundamentalists.

In exemplum, during the story of Jesus and Lazarus,

When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, And said, 'Where have ye laid him?' They said unto him, 'Lord, come and see.' Jesus wept. Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! And some of them said, 'Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?' Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave.

Now isn't that a cute scene? Jesus is sad that his pal Lazarus died, so he weeps. *gushsobpitygush*

The bolded are major understatements taken by the Puritan (denomination) translators at the time to water down, so as to keep Jesus from displaying "rash" emotion for a Son of God.

When Jesus 'groaned in the spirit' and was 'troubled', in the ancient Greek, this literally means "to snort like a horse," implying great anger and indignation. To put it another way, Jesus was pissed, not sad. But why is he angry? Certainly not because Lazarus, one of his friends, inconvenienced him and made him come out of his way to bring him back. No, Jesus is angry and troubled at the ravages of the great enemy of man: death. He won’t settle for this domination of death much longer, as we see a few chapters later with his own death and resurrection.

To quote Calvin, "Christ does not come to the sepulchre as an idle spectator, but like a wrestler preparing for the contest. Therefore no wonder that He groans again, for the violent tyranny of death which He had to overcome stands before His eyes."

Puts a bit of a twist on the Lazarus story, now doesn't it? And, truthfully, makes a bit more sense now, taking into context the surrounding stories of Jesus and what he's about to do for the remainder of the world.

KJV likes to water things down so as to keep their Lord from appearing too 'human'. After all, isn't he supposed to be mellow and lucid? King James apparently thought so.

This is why I don't read KJV. Crap like this is found throughout its scripture.

Well given that it was done under the imprimatur of god, and god didn't smite him for it, it's very difficult to gainsay his actions.

The only reasonable conculsion is, therefore, that these changes were officially sanctioned by god.

Since when has God smited anyone past the time of Paul? Afterwards man has been on his own without God giving signs and smiting. Changing the Bible is clearly wrong for it is changing his teachings.

The Church of England, I presume? Well, I suppose that makes sense from a "We made it, so it's ours" point of view, although not from a practical point of view. But they are hardly "most protestant denominations."

You can't just dismiss the KJV as something 'serious christians' wouldn't study though, unless you want to say that the C of E is not a serious church.

(Technically it is a catholic church though).

Since marrigae defined by the Bible is between a man and a woman, homosexual sex is logically sex outside marriage

But homosexuality =/= homosexual sex.

Your qualities =/= your actions.

etre =/= faire

And so on.

(Technically it is a catholic church though).

It is?

Let's not get off topic here people. I like what I am hearing about being allowed to feel nipples, since both sexes have them.

Since when has God smited anyone past the time of Paul? Afterwards man has been on his own without God giving signs and smiting. Changing the Bible is clearly wrong for it is changing his teachings.

The curse of St. Edmund for one. God saw to it that Hinguar was well and truly smote for trying to get St. Edmund to renounce his faith.

There are lots of others.

And changing the bible is perfectly fine because the episcopacy can govern the church as they see fit. God said they could. The early church didn't even have a bible, so obviously god is cool with an open ended arrangement for holy texts.

Let's not get off topic here people. I like what I am hearing about being allowed to feel nipples, since both sexes have them.

Ah but both have different purposes. One set is to feed a child where the other is deemed rather useless. So technically, they're not the same, and therefore, you can't touch the other set. Sorry. :p

It is?

Yes. It's actual name is the Established Catholic Church in England, or somesuch.

The curse of St. Edmund for one. God saw to it that Hinguar was well and truly smote for trying to get St. Edmund to renounce his faith.

There are lots of others.

And changing the bible is perfectly fine because the episcopacy can govern the church as they see fit. God said they could. The early church didn't even have a bible, so obviously god is cool with an open ended arrangement for holy texts.

God said they could? Really? So God said that they could omit the "You shall not steal" commandment because the episcopacy thought it irrelevant? They could rewrite that it was Johnny Cash that led the Hebrews into the Promised Land of Tennessee because they thought it would draw more crowds to their faith and their collection plates?

Tell me. Where did God give such an authority?

weeeeeeeeeelllll, back on topic.......

as for no nos before marriage:

I think that touching any where which is coverered in an undergarment of somesort is off limits. pretty easy rule. (for you guys looking for loopholes, this doesn't mean that if you both get naked then everything is fair game)

Kissing is ok. To a point. Making out is pushing it. French kissing is pushing it.

Kissing Below the neck and above the elbows is basically not good (yeah, kissing a shoulder is not bad but if you set wide enough bounds you won't find you've fallen into premarital sex by "accident".

No necking. No Petting. No Viewing of anything that should be covered by undergarments. No Showering together!

You should not only NOT have sex before marriage, but you should NOT see your betrothed in their birthday suit.

Any thing oral besides kissing is out of the question.

Holding hands is good. Hugs are good. Dancing is good. Chaste kissing is good.
Love is good. :)

Ah but both have different purposes. One set is to feed a child where the other is deemed rather useless. So technically, they're not the same, and therefore, you can't touch the other set. Sorry. :p
Errr, no technically they're both nipples. End of story.

-snip-

Holding hands is good. Hugs are good. Dancing is good. Chaste kissing is good.
Love is good. :)
And Slick Willy is guilty! Thanks for answering the original question. Love is good indeed. Though I don't need loopholes because I am not a Puritan.

God said they could? Really? So God said that they could omit the "You shall not steal" commandment because the episcopacy thought it irrelevant? They could rewrite that it was Johnny Cash that led the Hebrews into the Promised Land of Tennessee because they thought it would draw more crowds to their faith and their collection plates?

Tell me. Where did God give such an authority?

They could, but they wouldn't. So it's irrelevant. Obviously, as this is a divinely inspired process, they are only going to make the changes that god wants. Like women bishops, gay marriages and roman catholic MPs.

However god wanted the KJV. And it's not really our place to question, is it?

The authority is in the articles of religion - divinely inspired by god - and supported by text from the KJV.

I like what I am hearing about being allowed to feel nipples, since both sexes have them.And buttocks. Breasts if you drink a lot ;) Or aren't to fussy about definition.
In fact, both sexes have genitalia, so what's the whole problem anyway.. Just a word puzzle this.

How far can you go with a chick before you marry her?

So yeah that's the question I have. Note I am not using "puritan" in a derogoratory sense; I just thought it was an appropriate term to cover all the denominations that insist upon marriage before sex.

That means I don't want any anti-Christian flaming or any other kind of flaming!

Stupid question. I mean, like, REALLY stupid! Insiduously so. Go back to school, or ... something! Sheesh!

No Showering together!What, why not? I'd have thought that was good clean fun ;)

You should not only NOT have sex before marriage, but you should NOT see your betrothed in their birthday suit.Hey, clothes are just a reminder of the fall from paradise. It was perfectly all right being naked there, until they ate the fruit and felt ashamed, wanting to hide themselves.

Hey, clothes are just a reminder of the fall from paradise. It was perfectly all right being naked there, until they ate the fruit and felt ashamed, wanting to hide themselves.

Fruit does that to me too.

ah yes, but before the fall they didn't even know they were naked let alone what sex was. So clothing was not quite as necessary. Its just like a baby doesn't even know it is naked until it learns what naked is :)

Its just like a baby doesn't even know it is naked until it learns what naked is :)

We should stop teaching it then. That would solve a lot of these problems.

(And there would be less fat people).

One christian youth worker apparently advises "if it's something you don't have yourself, then you shouldn't touch it"

Yay! Anal is in!

Since marrigae defined by the Bible is between a man and a woman, homosexual sex is logically sex outside marriage

Where is marriage 'defined' as being between a man and a woman?

One hopes you are not referring to Genesis... since, if you'd read it in the NATIVE language, you would know that the 'wedding' in Eden, is the 'Creation of human life' story, retold.

In Hebrew, there is no Adam and no Eve... there is Adamah (the red clay, basically) and Chavvah (the spirit, the breath of life).

Thus - the 'marriage' in Genesis is just the same 'god created man from clay, and breathed life into him' story, retold.


Also - even if you were to take the story as literal (for some reason?)... the story says that a man shall take a wife... etc. But, it doesn't rule out a man taking another man, or a woman taking another woman...

men technically have some breast tissue right under the nipple as well. A very small amount but they still have it, so I assume breasts and nipples are in. Men and women both have anus, so Anal play is in, the clitoris is made of the same kind of tissue has the penis/glans so oral sex is in, stopping short of ejacutlation? *since men dont have a cervix or cervixal tissue and that is somtimes touched during intercourse if one thrusts deeply and women dont have sperm so that would be somthing they dont have touching them.

You can't just dismiss the KJV as something 'serious christians' wouldn't study though, unless you want to say that the C of E is not a serious church.

If it is the only version they use, they obviously aren't serious about finding out what was originally in Scripture. *shrug*

ah yes, but before the fall they didn't even know they were naked let alone what sex was. So clothing was not quite as necessary. Well God didn't insist they wear clothing anyway, so obviously he didn't mind and consequently it wasn't wrong. ;)

Ah but both have different purposes. One set is to feed a child where the other is deemed rather useless. So technically, they're not the same, and therefore, you can't touch the other set. Sorry. :p
Guys can lactate

Even so you HAVE them ... they may not always function the same but they are the same object.

The youth worker said nothing about function only existance

Before marriage...

Sex? No.

Kissing? Okay

After marriage:

Hard core-drunken-monkey-grab-my-ass sex? Yep.

Before marriage...

Sex? No.

Kissing? Okay

After marriage:

Hard core-drunken-monkey-grab-my-ass sex? Yep.
But is not things considered "sodomy" if you are taking it from a religious standpoint still a no no?

ah yes, but before the fall they didn't even know they were naked let alone what sex was. So clothing was not quite as necessary.
Yeah sure they didn't know what sex was! ;) They would need to have sex eventually; surely God didn't intend the human race to die out as soon as the lives of the first two were up?

They didn't know naked, because you have to have clothes in the first place to become naked.

weeeeeeeeeelllll, back on topic.......

as for no nos before marriage:

I think that touching any where which is coverered in an undergarment of somesort is off limits. pretty easy rule. (for you guys looking for loopholes, this doesn't mean that if you both get naked then everything is fair game)

Kissing is ok. To a point. Making out is pushing it. French kissing is pushing it.

Kissing Below the neck and above the elbows is basically not good (yeah, kissing a shoulder is not bad but if you set wide enough bounds you won't find you've fallen into premarital sex by "accident".

No necking. No Petting. No Viewing of anything that should be covered by undergarments. No Showering together!

You should not only NOT have sex before marriage, but you should NOT see your betrothed in their birthday suit.

Any thing oral besides kissing is out of the question.

Holding hands is good. Hugs are good. Dancing is good. Chaste kissing is good.
Love is good. :)

*is grateful for lack of religous convictions*

But is not things considered "sodomy" if you are taking it from a religious standpoint still a no no?

It's probably A-OK if you use a foreign object. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about that.

*is grateful for lack of religous convictions*
Agreed ... let thoes with said religious convictions do as they please

Ill be there behind the scenes pleasuring their sexualy frustrated gf/bf ;)

It's probably A-OK if you use a foreign object. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about that.
Yup I have read it a few times ... no where did I see "no dildo's" :p

Well, if we are looking at this from a Puritan or Biblical standpoint then the answer is found in Matthew 5:27-28

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultry. But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

If we then apply this to dating it means that whatever causes us to lust is too far. So then, the boundry is different for each individual.

Yup I have read it a few times ... no where did I see "no dildo's" :p

:D

Here's the question that needs to be asked, though...

The Bible forbids a male wasting his "seed" through masturbating.

Is female masturbation therefore okay? What about oral sex? Ooh, what about lesbian oral sex?

Before marriage...

Sex? No.

Kissing? Okay

After marriage:

Hard core-drunken-monkey-grab-my-ass sex? Yep.
What's the definition of sex? Is it just penetrative sex that counts? Is seeing your partner naked OK? Is oral sex of any kind OK? Is it ok to touch them anywhere?

The Bible forbids a male wasting his "seed" through masturbating.I don't think it does. It does forbid pulling out and spilling your seed when you're honour bound to fertilize your dead brothers widow though (to continue his lineage).

:D

Here's the question that needs to be asked, though...

The Bible forbids a male wasting his "seed" through masturbating.

Is female masturbation therefore okay? What about oral sex? Ooh, what about lesbian oral sex?
As far as I know lesbian oral sex has the go-ahead

Yay! Anal is in!

Nope that would involve the girl touching the guy's penis with her anus

Nope that would involve the girl touching the guy's penis with her anus
What if I am a transexual? or a hermaphrodite?

What about lesbians?

Nope that would involve the girl touching the guy's penis with her anus

Aha, you assumed I mean boy and girl, yes?

But, even were that the case, if I am responsible for my own 'sins', so to speak... not for those of my partner. If a young lady wishes me to pleasure her in that fashion, I would (theoretically) be touching nothing I don't have...

So, my 'karma' is in the clear.

Nope that would involve the girl touching the guy's penis with her anus
Come to think about it what if she was born without a right hand ... is it alright for her to touch your right hand?

What if I am a transexual? or a hermaphrodite?

What about lesbians?

Indeed. What about lesbian anal?

Erm... I'll be back.... ;)

Indeed. What about lesbian anal?

Erm... I'll be back.... ;)
Me too :fluffle: :fluffle:

I don't think it does. It does forbid pulling out and spilling your seed when you're honour bound to fertilize your dead brothers widow though (to continue his lineage).

That's about the size of it.

Onan didn't sin by ejaculating, he sinned by not fathering children on his dead-brother's widow, after he was instructed to.

His sin was disobedience... not bopping the bishop.

But homosexuality =/= homosexual sex.

Your qualities =/= your actions.

etre =/= faire

And so on.

Homosexuality (IE being attracted to the same sex) is not in itself a sin. Its a temptation to sin

Lust for the same sex is a sin, but lust for the opposite sex is also a sin (what is lust and what is attraction differs from person to person, I believe)

Homosexual sex IS a sin.

What if I am a transexual? or a hermaphrodite?

What about lesbians?

In those cases it's entirely possible that you don't give a toss what puritans think, but if you do you've probably got other worries on your mind...

Me too :fluffle: :fluffle:

Is it just me, or did you think that the 'youth counsellor fellow' totally endorsed gay sex? ;)

Homosexuality (IE being attracted to the same sex) is not in itself a sin. Its a temptation to sin

Lust for the same sex is a sin, but lust for the opposite sex is also a sin (what is lust and what is attraction differs from person to person, I believe)

Homosexual sex IS a sin.
Do I dare say prove that

Hehe specially with me and gravy_baby around. (actually don't ... we should start another thread for it so we don't pollute this one)

In those cases it's entirely possible that you don't give a toss what puritans think, but if you do you've probably got other worries on your mind...
Being bisexual atheist/agnostic I dont give a toss what they think anyways ;) but ya are right

Homosexuality (IE being attracted to the same sex) is not in itself a sin. Its a temptation to sin

Lust for the same sex is a sin, but lust for the opposite sex is also a sin (what is lust and what is attraction differs from person to person, I believe)

Homosexual sex IS a sin.

Homosexual sex is a sin because it is lust outside of marriage, and Paul says it is 'better to marry, than to burn'.

Thus, it is only logical: God intended homosexuals to marry.

Is it just me, or did you think that the 'youth counsellor fellow' totally endorsed gay sex? ;)
I think so too ... I think he wanted some hot girl on girl action specialy (me too)

Do I dare say prove that

Hehe specially with me and gravy_baby around. (actually don't ... we should start another thread for it so we don't pollute this one)

Ha ha! You are honestly worried that we are going to 'pollute' a thread entitled: "How far can you go with a chick before you marry her?"

:D

Homosexual sex is a sin because it is lust outside of marriage, and Paul says it is 'better to marry, than to burn'.

Thus, it is only logical: God intended homosexuals to marry.
Brilliant! Endorsement for homosexual marrage from Paul himself (well probably not himself but someone using his name to write the biblical passage)

Ehh what muddy waters

Ha ha! You are honestly worried that we are going to 'pollute' a thread entitled: "How far can you go with a chick before you marry her?"

:D
Ok I retract that statement :p

Is it just me, or did you think that the 'youth counsellor fellow' totally endorsed gay sex? ;)

:eek:

One can only assume that he/she dealt with that in another session.

Ha ha! You are honestly worried that we are going to 'pollute' a thread entitled: "How far can you go with a chick before you marry her?"

:D

You think its not polluted already? ay ay ay de mi :(

I think so too ... I think he wanted some hot girl on girl action specialy (me too)

Whereas, I think that just sounds gross. I mean, what is there to like about two naked, hot, females doing........

erm.....

Brilliant! Endorsement for homosexual marrage from Paul himself (well probably not himself but someone using his name to write the biblical passage)

Ehh what muddy waters

Well, Paul was pretty anti-female.... it does 'fit the profile'....

:eek:

One can only assume that he/she dealt with that in another session.

Oh yeah... I just bet..... :D

I don't believe in marriage so this question mute to me.

Whereas, I think that just sounds gross. I mean, what is there to like about two naked, hot, females doing........

erm.....
Would it help if we gave one a strapon?

Would it help if we gave one a strapon?

Actually, no... I'm more of an 'art' lover, so I prefer as little 'additional' material as possible...

Of course, if one of them wants a strap-on, I'm not going to tell her no.... :D

But is not things considered "sodomy" if you are taking it from a religious standpoint still a no no?

?

?
Well the wild monkey sex part ... if we are going by strict inerpretation things besides vaginal penitration can be considered a no-no even to married couples

Come to think about it what if she was born without a right hand ... is it alright for her to touch your right hand?

answers, please. this is important.

They [adam and eve] would need to have sex eventually; surely God didn't intend the human race to die out as soon as the lives of the first two were up?

actually, he did. and didn't have no plan B, either. that's why things turned out this shitty once the humans thing got out of hand.

and to answer the OQ: you can go as far as you please, as long as both you and the lady keep your mouths shut and the curtains drawn.

Someone say 'anal sex'?

Someone say 'anal sex'?
Yeah I think G_N_I did

Well given that it was done under the imprimatur of god, and god didn't smite him for it, it's very difficult to gainsay his actions.

The only reasonable conculsion is, therefore, that these changes were officially sanctioned by god.


God has just now, informed me that this post, is quite stupid, and the poster should be ashamed.
As God has not smited me for this, the only reasonable conclusion is that my post is officially sanctioned by God.

Yeah I think G_N_I did

Yeah. Just thought I'd pop it in there.

(Erm... so to speak).

answers, please. this is important.



actually, he did. and didn't have no plan B, either. that's why things turned out this shitty once the humans thing got out of hand.

and to answer the OQ: you can go as far as you please, as long as both you and the lady keep your mouths shut and the curtains drawn.

You mean, mouths shut AFTERWARDS, yes?

did someone say anl sex? Yeah I think G_N_I did

i could comment here but i better not.

did someone say anl sex?

i could comment here but i better not.

Oooh, you little tease, you. :)

did someone say anl sex?

i could comment here but i better not.
PEECH!!!!! OMG !11!!!!

I have not seen you in forever!!111!!! take me now you little minx you:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

PEECH!!!!! OMG !11!!!!

I have not seen you in forever!!111!!! take me now you little minx you:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ha Ha!

I just TOTALLY predicted this, in another thread.... :D

God has just now, informed me that this post, is quite stupid, and the poster should be ashamed.
As God has not smited me for this, the only reasonable conclusion is that my post is officially sanctioned by God.
Homer: "Dear Lord: The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. In gratitude, I present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign. Thy will be done."

:)

Ha Ha!

I just TOTALLY predicted this, in another thread.... :D
I bet you did :) ... I guess you will just have to share me

PEECH!!!!! OMG !11!!!!

I have not seen you in forever!!111!!! take me now you little minx you:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:


lol.....hi there sugar!:fluffle:

its nice to be missed. *takes UT to the closest Puritan church to make out on a pew*

lol.....hi there sugar!:fluffle:

its nice to be missed. *takes UT to the closest Puritan church to make out on a pew*
I would do it!

I hear god is a voyer anyways :p

I bet you did :) ... I guess you will just have to share me

*sigh* I'm already sharing you with your 'other woman'.....

But, since we are talking Peech, I guess it's okay. :fluffle:

You people are all too liberal.

You have heard that it was said,'You shall not commit adultery; but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Thus, since looking to lust is equivalent to sex, everything involving seeing one's partner is out.

Unless, of course, the partner in question is male.

You people are all too liberal.



Thus, since looking to lust is equivalent to sex, everything involving seeing one's partner is out.

Unless, of course, the partner in question is male.
Don't you have to be married to commit adultry?

*sigh* I'm already sharing you with your 'other woman'.....

But, since we are talking Peech, I guess it's okay. :fluffle:
Good :)

You mean, mouths shut AFTERWARDS, yes?

well..that depends. no objections to opening your mouth in order to get it stuffed, but please no yapping during sex. completely independent of maritual status.

So, are you asking up to what point it's not considered sex? (And which would thus be allowed.)
Let's ask former president Bill Clinton about what he thinks doesn't constitute sex ;)
Let's not. He's probably done Bush's daughters.

Homosexual sex is a sin because it is lust outside of marriage, and Paul says it is 'better to marry, than to burn'.

Thus, it is only logical: God intended homosexuals to marry.

Flaw. The Biblical definition of marriage is man to woman. There is no suggestion of anything otherwise anywhere in the Bible. Therefore homosexual sex is a sin still

well..that depends. no objections to opening your mouth in order to get it stuffed, but please no yapping during sex. completely independent of maritual status.

Just got to check. :)

Mouths closed means missing out on half.... a third.... well, SOME of the fun. :)

Flaw. The Biblical definition of marriage is man to woman. There is no suggestion of anything otherwise anywhere in the Bible. Therefore homosexual sex is a sin still
The bible says it is a sin to eat shellfish as well ... no where is it directly contradicted

So eating shellfish is still a sin

Mouths closed means missing out on half.... a third.... well, SOME of the fun. :)

*gives you the, er, thumbs, up*

correct.

Flaw. The Biblical definition of marriage is man to woman. There is no suggestion of anything otherwise anywhere in the Bible. Therefore homosexual sex is a sin still

Rubbish. There is nothing that states ALL marriages MUST be man/woman.

The only thing that comes close, is the Genesis account, and, as I pointed out alredy, in THIS very thread, it is actually an account of the 'creation', if you read it in Hebrew.

*gives you the, er, thumbs, up*

correct.

I think we need a 'rating' scheme for this thread.... "PG-13: May contain scenes of gratuitous innuendo"... :)

The bible says it is a sin to eat shellfish as well ... no where is it directly contradicted

So eating shellfish is still a sin

Flaw. Thats an example of an old covenant cultural law. The New Testement clearly states we can eat whatever we like, with the sheat of meat example. Also, we know that Jesus fufilled the law of the Old testement, and spoke out against the old law slavish obedient commandments, but spoke supporting the moral codes (of which homosexuality is a part)

See here for more infomation

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

i could never figure out why homosexuality was wrong in the Bible, but having 5 wives or sleeping with your father was ok.

Don't you have to be married to commit adultry?

If a married person lusting after a female is equivalent to adultery, that is, extra-marital sex, then an unmarried person lusting after a female is equivalent to pre-marital sex.

And the verse says "everyone," not "everyone married."

i could never figure out why homosexuality was wrong in the Bible, but having 5 wives or sleeping with your father was ok.
:fluffle: :fluffle: Dont think about it just fluffle :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Flaw. Thats an example of an old covenant cultural law. The New Testement clearly states we can eat whatever we like, with the sheat of meat example. Also, we know that Jesus fufilled the law of the Old testement, and spoke out against the old law slavish obedient commandments, but spoke supporting the moral codes (of which homosexuality is a part)

See here for more infomation

http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homozenitharticlerevised.pdf

Didn't he say he came to 'fulfill' the law... rather than 'replace' it?

So - if Jesus doesn't EXPRESSLY contradict something in the Old Testament, it still stands.

i could never figure out why homosexuality was wrong in the Bible, but having 5 wives or sleeping with your father was ok.

Indeed. And, as it happens, 'dashing babies heads on rocks' is not frowned upon too harshly.... neither is ploughing people.

But, aside from all the good wholesome incest, rape, murder and polygamy, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong to let two girls kiss......

Rubbish. There is nothing that states ALL marriages MUST be man/woman.

The only thing that comes close, is the Genesis account, and, as I pointed out alredy, in THIS very thread, it is actually an account of the 'creation', if you read it in Hebrew.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports anything other than a man and a women being married, and given the condeming of homosexual relationships, the logical course is to assume that they are not permitted. And Genesis quite clearly says "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and unite with his wife and the two will become one flesh". It is that way because that is the way it was in the garden. The Garden of Eden provided them with all their needs. If they had needed more than one partner each they would have recieved it. The marriage is described that way in Genesis basicly saying "The reason marriages are like this is because thats how it was in Eden. It was perfect there and it is perfect here. It supplied their needs there, it will supply our needs here".

Indeed. And, as it happens, 'dashing babies heads on rocks' is not frowned upon too harshly.... neither is ploughing people.

But, aside from all the good wholesome incest, rape, murder and polygamy, it is OBVIOUSLY wrong to let two girls kiss......

well there goes "things to try on my 32nd birthday":(

Flaw. Thats an example of an old covenant cultural law. The New Testement clearly states we can eat whatever we like, with the sheat of meat example. Also, we know that Jesus fufilled the law of the Old testement, and spoke out against the old law slavish obedient commandments, but spoke supporting the moral codes (of which homosexuality is a part)

So homosexual sex is "moral" and shellfish is "cultural," despite the fact that the phrasing in the original Hebrew is the same?

There is nothing in the Bible that supports anything other than a man and a women being married, and given the condeming of homosexual relationships, the logical course is to assume that they are not permitted. And Genesis quite clearly says "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and unite with his wife and the two will become one flesh". It is that way because that is the way it was in the garden. The Garden of Eden provided them with all their needs. If they had needed more than one partner each they would have recieved it. The marriage is described that way in Genesis basicly saying "The reason marriages are like this is because thats how it was in Eden. It was perfect there and it is perfect here. It supplied their needs there, it will supply our needs here".
Would you be welcome at a wife swapping party if you were married to somebody of the same sex, though?

"PG-13: May contain scenes of gratuitous innuendo"

as in "unwarranted" or as in "free"? not that it would matter, as it was neither, but..i like things to be set straight.

There is nothing in the Bible that supports anything other than a man and a women being married, and given the condeming of homosexual relationships, the logical course is to assume that they are not permitted. And Genesis quite clearly says "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and unite with his wife and the two will become one flesh". It is that way because that is the way it was in the garden. The Garden of Eden provided them with all their needs. If they had needed more than one partner each they would have recieved it. The marriage is described that way in Genesis basicly saying "The reason marriages are like this is because thats how it was in Eden. It was perfect there and it is perfect here. It supplied their needs there, it will supply our needs here".

As I pointed out, you are commiting several 'crimes' here:

One: You are reading a translation (and a flawed one at that). In Hebrew, as I've pointed out, there is no 'Adam' or 'Eve'. The marriage of Adamah and Chavvah is the 'breath of life' being united with the 'red clay'.... a retelling of the creation story.

Two: You are not spotting the simple fact that Adam married every single other person on the planet. Which was one person. Who just happened to be a girl.

Three: Eve was 'meet for Adam'.... that doesn't mean an 'Eve' MUST logically be 'meet' for EVERY 'Adam'.

Four: Do you not see that you are looking at a latter addition, anyway? There is no way that the clause you post CAN have said what it says now, in it's ORIGINAL format. Simple reason - Look at the following line: "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father", and explain WHY it cannot have been something actually said at the marriage in Eden?

Five: In Eden, humans wore no clothes. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must now go naked. They also failed to have sex, at all. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must abstain from sex. ANY sex.

well there goes "things to try on my 32nd birthday":

Good idea. I tried to avoid rape, murder, polygamy and incest at my 32nd, too. :)

On the girl thing... we won't believe you, unless there are pictures.... :P

as in "unwarranted" or as in "free"? not that it would matter, as it was neither, but..i like things to be set straight.

I was heading for unwarranted... as in excessive.... but then, I only said "MAY".... :)

And Genesis quite clearly says "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and unite with his wife and the two will become one flesh". It is that way because that is the way it was in the garden.

No, it is that way because humans should not be alone.

And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'

All the rest is just elaboration on this point. Humans marry and have sex because they are not supposed to be alone; they need suitable partners. It has nothing to do with children, or even with the "family unit".

It is wrong, therefore, to force gays to discard this natural, God-given inclination and be celibate.

One: You are reading a translation (and a flawed one at that). In Hebrew, as I've pointed out, there is no 'Adam' or 'Eve'. The marriage of Adamah and Chavvah is the 'breath of life' being united with the 'red clay'.... a retelling of the creation story.

The people at the English Standard revised edition translated the Bible from all the oldest records available. They found the Adam and Eve story. I think I trust them over you.


Two: You are not spotting the simple fact that Adam married every single other person on the planet. Which was one person. Who just happened to be a girl.

The practise continued after Eden, meaning that they must have understood it to be what God wanted. Also if Adam had needed more people, he would have had more people. He didn't, he hadn't. Eden was perfect, and supplied all of both Adam and Eve's needs. If either Adam or Eve had needed more partners, they would have had them.


Three: Eve was 'meet for Adam'.... that doesn't mean an 'Eve' MUST logically be 'meet' for EVERY 'Adam'.

Well actually it does. You see it was paradise. Paradise means you need nothing. You have everything that you need.


Four: Do you not see that you are looking at a latter addition, anyway? There is no way that the clause you post CAN have said what it says now, in it's ORIGINAL format. Simple reason - Look at the following line: "For this reason a man will leave his mother and father", and explain WHY it cannot have been something actually said at the marriage in Eden?

Basicly "For this reason" is "This is why" so the verse could easily be translated to say "And that is why now a man will leave his parents and marry his wife and they will make love"

Five: In Eden, humans wore no clothes. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must now go naked. They also failed to have sex, at all. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must abstain from sex. ANY sex.

Wrong and wrong. Friend, I have a suspicion you are deliberately misinterpreting things. We call that playing devils advocate which is fine, but have the good curtosey to say that. Being naked is fine if you have no sense of morality which they didnt. However the correct response to being naked if you have a sense of morality is shame. Which is how they responded when they got one. As for sex, God did say "be fruitful and increase in number".

Two: You are not spotting the simple fact that Adam married every single other person on the planet. Which was one person. Who just happened to be a girl.

melikes your thinking

Three: Eve was 'meet for Adam'.... that doesn't mean an 'Eve' MUST logically be 'meet' for EVERY 'Adam'.

carnivorous, this is where you and your fave line come in. don't miss it.

Five: In Eden, humans wore no clothes. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must now go naked. They also failed to have sex, at all. Thus - by your logic, all Christians must abstain from sex. ANY sex.
exactly. though i'm okay with non-procreative christian sex.

No, it is that way because humans should not be alone

If God wanted the man not to be alone and gave him a woman, not a man, what do you think that tells you? Also you miss a verse

"Be fruitful and increase in number" Genesis 1:22


All the rest is just elaboration on this point. Humans marry and have sex because they are not supposed to be alone; they need suitable partners. It has nothing to do with children, or even with the "family unit".

It is wrong, therefore, to force gays to discard this natural, God-given inclination and be celibate.

The Bible makes it clear that homosexual sex is a sin. There is no where in the Bible that it is given anything like the same postive refernce that hetrosexual sex is given

One: You are reading a translation (and a flawed one at that). In Hebrew, as I've pointed out, there is no 'Adam' or 'Eve'. The marriage of Adamah and Chavvah is the 'breath of life' being united with the 'red clay'.... a retelling of the creation story.

In Genesis Chapter Two there is no mention of "chavvah" at all, merely of "isha" (woman).

The association of "Adam" (human) with "Addamah" (earth, clay) comes from verse seven: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground."

If God wanted the man not to be alone and gave him a woman, not a man, what do you think that tells you?

that adam was straight? and god knew that and therefore didn't bother supplying anything else that other men might need?

that adam was straight? and god knew that and therefore didn't bother supplying anything else that other men might need?
That God has an unpleasant sense of humour, would be my guess.

If God wanted the man not to be alone and gave him a woman, not a man, what do you think that tells you?

That God's audience was predominantly heterosexual or that God's revelation was interpreted predominantly by heterosexuals.

Also you miss a verse

"Be fruitful and increase in number" Genesis 1:22

But we do not love in order to reproduce. Reproduction is almost a secondary element; we love because we should not be alone, we are meant to be complemented.

Lesbian couples are, in the current day, perfectly capable of fulfilling this commandment; gay male couples can adopt.

The Bible makes it clear that homosexual sex is a sin.

A code of law attributed to God, written thousands of years ago, asserts that homosexual sex is a sin, in connection with asserting Hebrew identity as independent from the sinful surrounding nations. Considering that the verse is likely referring to ritualized, exploitative pagan practices and not to egalitarian, consensual, and loving same-sex relationships, there is no reason to apply it to the modern day.

That God has an unpleasant sense of humour, would be my guess.
oh, i must have missed the memo that he had any at all.

oh, i must have missed the memo that he had any at all.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Do you think a perfect being would be serious?

However the correct response to being naked if you have a sense of morality is shame.

Why? Are the bodies God gave us not perfect? Why should we be ashamed of them?


If God wanted the man not to be alone and gave him a woman, not a man, what do you think that tells you? Also you miss a verse

That Adam wasn't gay?


The Bible makes it clear that homosexual sex is a sin.

Not really. Depending on translation, study within the context of the times, etc., it isn't clear at all.

There is no where in the Bible that it is given anything like the same postive refernce that hetrosexual sex is given

Other than one line, "Be fruitful and multiply," heterosexual sex is not given much positive reference at all. In fact, nearly ever reference to sex of any kind in the Bible is negative.

oh, i must have missed the memo that he had any at all.
A good point, well made.

A good point, well made.

"God is a comedien, playing to an audience who are afraid to laugh."

Basicly "For this reason" is "This is why" so the verse could easily be translated to say "And that is why now a man will leave his parents and marry his wife and they will make love"


No more time today, I'm afraid... I'll have to come back and address the rest of this tomorrow.

The point you missed was, it says that a man must leave his mother and father.

Think about it for a second... you SHOULD see why that MUST have been added later.

Of course God has a sense of humor. Do you think a perfect being would be serious?
yes, being Earnest is Important, after all.

Other than one line, "Be fruitful and multiply," heterosexual sex is not given much positive reference at all.

[insert standard comment about how the "be fruitful und multiply" does not inherently endorse all hetero sex and would also condemn the infertile etc. as not sex-able, therewith rendering that "pro-hetero anti-homo sex" argument rather crippled]

If God wanted the man not to be alone and gave him a woman, not a man, what do you think that tells you? Also you miss a verse

"Be fruitful and increase in number" Genesis 1:22


In Hebrew culture, an adopted son/daughter was the same as a 'natural' son/daughter.

Being fruitful and multiplying need not imply anything to do with orientation.


The Bible makes it clear that homosexual sex is a sin. There is no where in the Bible that it is given anything like the same postive refernce that hetrosexual sex is given

Actually - in most of the cases where homosexuality is suggested as being a sin, the basis of the material is actually FAR different from what it is translated as.

My favourite example of this being the Levitical laws:

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".

It doesn't take much in the way of study of the native tongue, to see that this English translation is NOTHING LIKE the Hebrew content of the verse.

Indeed, a more accurate translation makes this a verse about a man sharing a bed with a menstruating woman, and how it makes him ritually unclean.

The people at the English Standard revised edition translated the Bible from all the oldest records available. They found the Adam and Eve story. I think I trust them over you.


Why don't you look into it YOURSELF, rather than taking ANYONES word for it?

To choose to rubbish one opinion, because you are too lazy to see if it can be corroborated? That's just beyond my capacity to understand.

The English Standard bible is a translation. Traslations usually follow a set of protocols... they accept 'canonical' translations UNLESS they specifically find reason (sufficient reason) to question the meaning. This can be political.

So - if bibles have been translated as saying 'Adam' and 'Eve' for hundreds of years, the English Standard will CONTINUE to translate that 'accepted version'... UNLESS they can overcome the political/religious opposition to exploring DIFFERENT translation attempts.


The practise continued after Eden, meaning that they must have understood it to be what God wanted. Also if Adam had needed more people, he would have had more people. He didn't, he hadn't. Eden was perfect, and supplied all of both Adam and Eve's needs. If either Adam or Eve had needed more partners, they would have had them.


This may be true. (Ignoring for a second, the fact that the Genesis 'creation' account is probably just a metaphor, in it's entirety).

However, the fact that 'Adam' and 'Eve' are NO LONGER the ONLY human beings, obviously means that two people was not enough.

And, any MORE people cannot AUTOMATICALLY be assumed to match the 'profile' we connect with the first two naked dimwits.


Well actually it does. You see it was paradise. Paradise means you need nothing. You have everything that you need.


Which is irrelevent... since we no longer live in paradise, my friend.

Since the 'fall', people have needed different things.

Some Eves might NEED Eve.


Wrong and wrong. Friend, I have a suspicion you are deliberately misinterpreting things. We call that playing devils advocate which is fine, but have the good curtosey to say that. Being naked is fine if you have no sense of morality which they didnt. However the correct response to being naked if you have a sense of morality is shame. Which is how they responded when they got one. As for sex, God did say "be fruitful and increase in number".

Nakedness has nothing to do with morality.

Do not automatically assume that 'victorian' attitudes are somehow universally relevent.

I fel no shame when I am naked... and I pity anyone who really does feel shame... especially those who are ashamed of what they believe their 'God' gave them.

Why? Are the bodies God gave us not perfect? Why should we be ashamed of them?

Why not be selfish. Thats actually a circular question because almost all answers to it go something along the lines of "Because being selfless benefits everyone else" but benefiting everyone else is not being selfish. So the arguement is that we sholdnt be selfish because we shouldnt be selfish



That Adam wasn't gay?

Yes, but then look at how God created them. He created them Man and Woman. Not Hetrosexual man, homosexual man, hetrosexual woman, homosexual woman etc.


Other than one line, "Be fruitful and multiply," heterosexual sex is not given much positive reference at all. In fact, nearly ever reference to sex of any kind in the Bible is negative.

If you look at the refernces to sex in the Bible, you will see that it is celebrated when its in its propper place (IE a marriage between a man and a woman). Sex should be part of the entity that is marriage. Instead it has become seperated and diffrent, wrongly so.

Why don't you look into it YOURSELF, rather than taking ANYONES word for it?

To choose to rubbish one opinion, because you are too lazy to see if it can be corroborated? That's just beyond my capacity to understand.

The English Standard bible is a translation. Traslations usually follow a set of protocols... they accept 'canonical' translations UNLESS they specifically find reason (sufficient reason) to question the meaning. This can be political.

So - if bibles have been translated as saying 'Adam' and 'Eve' for hundreds of years, the English Standard will CONTINUE to translate that 'accepted version'... UNLESS they can overcome the political/religious opposition to exploring DIFFERENT translation attempts.

I see your doubt and for you to support this I'd like to see evidence. The English standard translation wasnt made by just one person, but by many people. And other translations of the Bible which still say basicly the same thing (Like the NIV for example) had homosexuals on the team of translators.


This may be true. (Ignoring for a second, the fact that the Genesis 'creation' account is probably just a metaphor, in it's entirety).

However, the fact that 'Adam' and 'Eve' are NO LONGER the ONLY human beings, obviously means that two people was not enough.

And, any MORE people cannot AUTOMATICALLY be assumed to match the 'profile' we connect with the first two naked dimwits.

In terms of Gods command they can be. And further more, the Bible does not say that God created homosexual atraction, but it does say he created hetrosexaul attraction


Which is irrelevent... since we no longer live in paradise, my friend.

Since the 'fall', people have needed different things.

Some Eves might NEED Eve.

See above. God did not create the kind of attraction you speek of. In terms of needing diffrent things, we need diffrent things in so far as physical objects and processes because the world has changed nature and we need things to survive/thrive etc. But in terms of sexuality, I cant see how the fall would have changed our needs in anything other than a negative fashion


Nakedness has nothing to do with morality.

Do not automatically assume that 'victorian' attitudes are somehow universally relevent.

I fel no shame when I am naked... and I pity anyone who really does feel shame... especially those who are ashamed of what they believe their 'God' gave them.

I dont feel shame when I'm naked either, but I would feel embarrased and in part of that shamed if I was naked in front of strangers or somewhere in public

Why not be selfish.

Because caring for others is a good in and of itself.

What harm does nudity cause?

Yes, but then look at how God created them. He created them Man and Woman.

Actually, in the first Creation account in Genesis, he created them male and female. Sexuality, in that case, isn't even mentioned.

Not Hetrosexual man, homosexual man, hetrosexual woman, homosexual woman etc.

Maybe this is because sexuality doesn't matter in the fact that human beings are predominately male or female? Being homosexual doesn't make you any less male or female, now does it?

Sex should be part of the entity that is marriage.

I agree. I just don't place the restrictions on marriage that you do.

And further more, the Bible does not say that God created homosexual atraction, but it does say he created hetrosexaul attraction

This is a truly idiotic statement. If God created all of the world, and all the creatures in it, then God created homosexual attraction. Meanwhile, where does it explicitly state that God created heterosexual attraction?


I dont feel shame when I'm naked either, but I would feel embarrased and in part of that shamed if I was naked in front of strangers or somewhere in public

Would you find it interesting to know that in ancient Hebrew society - and even up until the time of Christ - the naked were not shamed, but those who saw them were? Elijah, IIRC, walked around naked for just this purpose - to shame the citizens of Jerusalem. Christ himself told his followers that, if someone were to sue them for their outer garment, they should give the inner as well - which would leave them standing basically naked before all of the court. Why? Because it would shame them for what they are doing - the entire process. The nude person should feel no shame at all.

Yes. It's actual name is the Established Catholic Church in England, or somesuch.

I always thought that the Church of England was which created by king henry VIII to get away from the catholic church and the since the non catholic massacre during queen marys reign England has never had a catholic monarch and thus the C of E has never been catholic since then. at the moment its Anglican. if it was catholic then there would have been a lot less blood spilled in Ireland.

Ah but both have different purposes. One set is to feed a child where the other is deemed rather useless. So technically, they're not the same, and therefore, you can't touch the other set. Sorry. :p
Not true, with the right hormone treatments guys can lactate. Hell, a very few can do it w/o hormone treatments.

I always thought that the Church of England was which created by king henry VIII to get away from the catholic church and the since the non catholic massacre during queen marys reign England has never had a catholic monarch and thus the C of E has never been catholic since then. at the moment its Anglican. if it was catholic then there would have been a lot less blood spilled in Ireland. Charles was Catholic.
Not true, with the right hormone treatments guys can lactate. Hell, a very few can do it w/o hormone treatments. True, true, like Salad Fingers (www.fat-pie.com/salad3.htm).